New anti-trans legislation in North Carolina

[SlowFJH]

Of course it's been driven by the religious right wing. But it does aim to achieve what many posters here appear to advocate - namely that biological males can only use men's toilets and changing rooms etc. Biological females must only use women's toilets and changing rooms. Will it gain wider support?

A man who looks like a man can use women's toilets if he says he is female. Because who is going to check his birth cert or genitals before he goes in?

A lot of states don't allow trans people to alter the sex on their birth certificate. The North Carolina legislation makes it law that you have to use the restroom corresponding with the sex stated on your birth certificate. These laws mean that some trans women who have had full SRS and maybe have lived for 40 or 50 years as a woman, and nobody in the area knows their history, will have to use the men's restroom, outing themselves and putting themselves in danger.

If a msn has lived 40 or 50 years as a woman and nobody has ever realised or knows their history they would be able to use womans toilets without anyone noticing. Still be breaking the law though.

It is four states, none of which are North Carolina.

Tiggy, that is certainly problematic. I would think that states that have that rule are obliged to provide unisex facilities. At the end of the day hormonal and surgical transition are surely not to be encouraged (it's in effect making a physically healthy person into a patient for the rest of their life' plus encouraging unnecessary surgery (unnecessary from the perspective of physical health)) but long-term TG people must be treated properly. It still comes down to society, in the 21st century ffs, still being unable to deal with masculine women and feminine men. I have no doubt that the rise in TGism is tied into how hyper-gender used society has become. It's such a regressive thing, especially as so many TAs and their allies (young women in the main) think they're being desperately liberal when all they are doing is reinforcing those same stereotypes.

Genderised, not gender used ffs.

It has me worried. I've known 'biological women' who have been assaulted and attacked because someone else viewed them as too masculine to be women going into a women' toilet, this type of law seems like it would just encourage more violence by the general public and the police against anyone not toeing public perceptions of binary gender.

Sadly as much as I'd like to say otherwise, I think it will gain wider support purely because of where the US is at at the moment. As much as I would love this to encourage more gender neutral single person restrooms cubicles, I think the mentality is going the other way in a lot of places.

And that's before we get into the issues with that portion of the law that are more complicated than keeping those who haven't legally changed their gender marker on their paperwork -- mainly because it is the US and the laws between states vary so much and it has a big impact.

For starters, there are some state where it is never legal to change ones gender markers no matter the hormones, surgery, medical paperwork, and so on. I was born in one of them. In fact, some people born and raised in those states and moved to others have had roadblocks put in the way of doing so because not being able to change the markers on paperwork in one state can make things applied for in other states invalid because they do not match up. Things like medical insurance. This pretty much stops people getting legal changes because it is putting their health at risk - especially if they have any kind of disability or need for long term treatments or care. And then there is the financial roadblocks in states that do allow it but require a court order to do so - it's quite expensive, especially if you have to travel back to that state to get things lined up when you now live in another and/or have to do it in multiple states. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of barriers.

Getting a gender marker legally changed in the States, especially if one has moved around at all, is far more complicated than it is in the UK. So this isn't just a matter that people will be okay because all the real ones will have gotten their paperwork dealt with, literally if they were born in the wrong state they could now have serious issues as will those who are cis/'biological' who someone else decides isn't enough of their gender to not be challenged on it which, in my experience and the research I've seen, is more likely to be people in groups that already facing more public and police violence.

"Would you be happy for James to share the same toilets / changing room as you?"

Yeah, sure. They look about as manly as my DD (10). If I saw James at the ladies' I'd probably think "Oh goodie, a woman wearing men's suit - good for her". James doesn't have a man's penis, sexual urges, or entitlement so I see them as about zero-level threat in female spaces.

HTH.

"some state where it is never legal to change ones gender markers"

What are those? Are you taking about penis & balls or shirts & long hair?

What would think if you met Buck Angel in the ladies' loo ?

www.google.co.uk/search?q=buck+angel&client=ms-android-samsung&source=lnms&prmd=ivn&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxg-_L7NvLAhVMOhQKHVRNAUoQ_AUIBygB&biw=360&bih=615

I'd be surprised. If I felt confident enough I'd challenge them. When they said they were a trans man I'd say 'ok carry on then'
Buck Angel is unusual in as much as they pass convincingly as a man and therefore will be unlikely to ever have to use the women's loos. It's a circular argument. Non passing trans people will not get challenged in the toilet for their appropriate sex because it will be obvious that they are in the correct toilet. Passing trans people will not get challenged in the toilets that don't match their sex because nobody will notice

And to be clear there's nothing whatsoever in Buck Angel's history to suggest he would cause any problems in ladies' loos although he doesn't use them.

He meets the criteria of having a vagina but I don't think other than if you saw it you would think he is a woman.

I'm confused by some of the logic - it's irrational and wrong and bigoted for women to be concerned about sharing toilets with trans women, who would never ever in a million years pose even the teeniest threat to them, and it's all just 'bathroom panic' etc. Yet it's perfectly ok to make these weirdly threatening statements like 'well would you want to share a bathroom with this trans person' about trans men (and I remember another campaign that had a feminine trans woman with the slogan 'do you really want me to share a bathroom with your husband', or something similar).

So we're simultaneously supposed to be scared of trans people in bathrooms, and be 100% accepting? It doesn't make sense.

Vince is right, Buck and his vagina would pass as male in mens toilets, as long as they went into a cubicle to sit to pee.

There isn't going to be security on every toilet where you need to prove whether you sit or stand to pee.

Men, anyone you has a penis, should not be going into womans toilet to protect women and girls. Not every man is a danger, we know that. But we need to know that we will be safe.

Why is it that Transwhatever rights are more important than womens?

Yet it's perfectly ok to make these weirdly threatening statements like 'well would you want to share a bathroom with this trans person' about trans men (and I remember another campaign that had a feminine trans woman with the slogan 'do you really want me to share a bathroom with your husband', or something similar)

That statement is odd . To be honest it wouldn't bother me at all if I had to share a public lavatory with persons who are or look like men.

Someone posted "we've all been raised to understand that men are potentially predatory, and it's up to us to protect ourselves against that" and I read it and thought, no actually, don't count me as part of your "we.

But that comment is threatening isn't it? It is saying "hey women, be afraid". It's pretty insulting to the majority of men who don't actually rape or assault women.

Cote, in the photos that I have seen of James Parker Sheffield, he looks very much like a man with a beard. I would no more think "a woman in a suit" about him than I would about any born male.

Ahhhh I see the thread is trans centric, who gives a shit about women anyway?

I'm a feminist who cares about women and girls. Let's not give up the small pockets of safety we have to accommodate transgender people.

Depressing.

Posie I think one person, the OP is "trans centric" as you call it. My posts, and Dione's I think as well, were pointing out that absence of a penis/ presence of a vagina is not instantly determinable. So the issue is not quite as simple as some are making out. Nor as far as I'm concerned does the presence of a penis mean I must immediately be on guard.

Dione - re "Cote, in the photos that I have seen of James Parker Sheffield, he looks very much like a man with a beard. I would no more think "a woman in a suit" about him than I would about any born male "

This person? (see photo) I'm sorry you are confused. I wouldn't be. They look about as manly as my 10-yr-old DD.

That's not the photo he used in his tweet. If you're not on twitter, the Huffington post has reproduced it.

"absence of a penis/ presence of a vagina is not instantly determinable"

I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

What people are saying is:

(1) Toilets, changing rooms at swimming pools, sports competitions etc are separated/segregated according to sex (male/female) and not according to gender, which is a nebulous, subjective, and often ephemeral designation.

(2) It is not possible to change sex. If you are born male, no amount of artificial hormone, plastic surgery, or amputation that will make you "of the sex that can bear young or make eggs".

(3) There are some (few) individuals who want to be known as the opposite sex that can pass convincingly. These are rare exceptions. Policy is not made on the basis of rare exceptions.

OK, so what is threatening about having someone with a penis in the ladies loos?

I really don't get it. Every single ladies loos I've been in has been a row of cubicles which you actually go in to piss etc, and then a row of sinks to wash your hands.

I've heard the argument that women could be assaulted in the loos, and I argued that if someone wants to assault a woman, I very much doubt they would stop because technically they shouldn't be in those toilets. Then someone else said that single sex toilets weren't about fear of assault at all, it was about privacy and dignity. I don't get what is so undignified about washing your hands next to someone else who might, theoretically, have a penis. I genuinely don't.

I can understand the arguments about trans women in women's refuges, or hospital wards. That is something I have a lot more sympathy for. But toilets confuse me.

Re: the image of big beardy trans men - I think it's actually a question of what you're afraid of. If you're not afraid of a big beardy trans man and that would be fine, what are you afraid of re: mixed sex toilets?

My feminism is about women and women's rights.

I'm happy to support transrights. They'd better get on with agitating for some that I can support which don't shit on women's rights.

AskBasil - and the right to go to the bathroom without getting beaten up because they don't look right for that bathroom is totally not one of them?

I'd also note that the legislation in South Carolina also gives employers the right to fire someone from their job, solely for being trans, evict them from their home, solely for being trans, turn them away from a store, solely for being trans, and potentially deny them medication because they are trans.

The same thing goes for LGB people. It's a horrific piece of legislation, on so many levels.

I agree Tabsicle I can see the argument in relation to refuges etc.