I tend to read and think about random stuff on the weekends and I got to reading about the N.C. law that "restricts" people to using bathrooms that match their biological gender.
I read a bunch of other related stuff and eventually got to-
Basically, some politician guy in CA has started a bill that would turn all single-occupancy bathrooms into one that all genders can use.
But why just single-occupancy? Why not all bathrooms?
Heck, why even have gender-separated bathrooms? Even going beyond the whole thing with transgendered people, why shouldn't a man be allowed to use the women's bathroom?
And if we allow transgendered people to use bathrooms that match their perceived gender identity, then how exactly do we ensure that only transgendered individuals are doing this? What prevents me from choosing to use the women's bathroom if all the toilets in the men's are occupied?
But why just single-occupancy? Why not all bathrooms?
Because when it gets beyond single-occupancy, it becomes more of an issue because it's a bathroom multiple people are using at once.
Basically, it makes perfect sense to have gender-separated bathrooms (seriously, have you ever been to a theater during intermission? I object to gender neutral bathrooms for that reason alone). The problem is transsexuals don't fit within the gender binary, and the important thing is that they're not just some political issue or abstract philosophical question, they're people, and it's important to find a way to include them into society on basic issues such as where the hell to relieve themselves, that's how an inclusive society works.
The other thing to remember is that this is about more than just bathrooms, but a broader controversy, which is about whether or not society should regard transsexuality as a legitimate thing. So when you ask, "What's wrong with letting a man use a woman's bathroom," I believe that's the entire point of debate. When a transsexual person is using a bathroom, is it the same thing as a man using a woman's bathroom or a woman using a man's bathroom, or is something else going on that is different?
Wait, what is "in an opposite direction"? Their stance is that they have no idea how they would enforce their law, so they're currently not doing anything different, because they have no idea what they should be doing in this circumstance. What is your opposite stance from this?
I don't think the government has any business legislating who can use which restroom. It's wildly intrusive. The ostensible goal here is to stop men from going into women's restrooms and perving out, right? Okay, that does happen, unfortunately. But when it happens, why not just bring the hammer down on the creep with the normal laws for sexual harassment and invasion of privacy? And as an added bonus, you can even do this when somebody goes into their own gender's bathroom and pervs out there, which happens too, and goes completely unaddressed by these gender-restriction bills. But most importantly of all, it lets you keep your nose out of the business of all the people who just want to pee.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I could say it would be because men needing to use stalls in a unisex bathroom would feel emasculated or be emasculated by their peers. There is a much more serious reason, however:
Rape.
It is because of rape. Men are much more likely to rape women then men on men or women on women. Look up the statistics if you don't believe this.
Bathrooms are one of the few places people have in public away from cameras. In order to enforce things in bathrooms, you would either need an attendant/guard (that you can trust not to rape and/or be raped) or have cameras.
I for one would prefer separate bathrooms as supposed to a camera in the stalls.
So as far as single toilet restrooms being unisex, sure. I am just fine with that. It takes at least two people for a rape to occur: at least one assailant and a victim. If there is only one person in the bathroom, rape is not possible.
@Tiax : Typically I keep my underwear on in an elevator, my typical elevator ride is well below five minutes, and there are cameras in the elevators I use.
Also, moving to general fornication: would you really trust having unisex bathrooms in middle school and highschool, with that whole puberty thing? Teen pregnancies would skyrocket!
Also, moving to general fornication: would you really trust having unisex bathrooms in middle school and highschool, with that whole puberty thing? Teen pregnancies would skyrocket!
I doubt that statistic would change much, if at all. Teens are already perfectly capable of (and do) bang each other outside of school, and there are plenty of schools with people that keep an eye on the bathrooms for things like smoking already.
@Lithi A smoke detector can detect smoking, not sex. Considering the amount of smoking that occurred in my highschool bathrooms, the current supervision is not enough. One time at my school someone light toilet paper on fire and it was kids in the upstairs hallway SMELLING it that alerted supervisors, not the smoke detectors or the supervisors themselves.
Also there is a difference between people having to find a space for an act and allowing them access one. To simplify this to just cheating on tests, the colleges I attended wouldn't even let me use the bathroom until I was done with a quiz, test, or exam. This was due to the POSSIBILITY of going to look up the answers. (Something I would be able to do real life on the job and it would be perfectly acceptable... but I digress).
So I ask you what is worse if you are an administrator: a student cheating on a quiz in your school's bathroom, or a 12 year old middleschooler getting pregnant in your school's bathroom?
@Tiax : Typically I keep my underwear on in an elevator, my typical elevator ride is well below five minutes, and there are cameras in the elevators I use.
Also, moving to general fornication: would you really trust having unisex bathrooms in middle school and highschool, with that whole puberty thing? Teen pregnancies would skyrocket!
And what about parking garages? A great many rapes take place in parking garages - far more than in restrooms. If we're going to make special men and women's bathrooms to prevent rape, shouldn't we do the same for parking garages?
The answer is that that would be silly. If I were looking to rape someone in a bathroom, the little silhouette of a skirt on the door isn't going to stop me from walking in. No more than it'd stop me from wandering into the women's parking garage.
If everyone's in their own stall anyway, I don't see what difference it makes. If I'm willing to bust through a stall door to assault someone, I'm surely just as willing to walk through a door with the wrong icon on it.
The notion that gender signs in school bathrooms are stopping teen pregnancy from "skyrocketing" is the most absurd thing I've heard in a long time. I don't even know where to begin.
One problem with the proposition of a single gender-neutral bathroom I haven't seen mentioned is that when they close the bathroom for cleaning or maintenance, then everybody is SOL. With two separate bathrooms you can just use the other one (but only if the law doesn't make you a criminal by doing so).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
@Lithi A smoke detector can detect smoking, not sex. Considering the amount of smoking that occurred in my highschool bathrooms, the current supervision is not enough. One time at my school someone light toilet paper on fire and it was kids in the upstairs hallway SMELLING it that alerted supervisors, not the smoke detectors or the supervisors themselves.
So you're saying the smoke detector in your school bathroom didn't detect the smoke, then? The smoke detectors you claim would detect the smoking in the bathroom?
Of particular note: smoke detectors are designed to detect the amount of smoke generated by a dangerous fire. Cigarettes (and their illegal counterparts) do not generally set off a smoke detector unless you're puffing like a chimney and blowing your smoke right up into the detector.
The other thing to remember is that this is about more than just bathrooms, but a broader controversy, which is about whether or not society should regard transsexuality as a legitimate thing. So when you ask, "What's wrong with letting a man use a woman's bathroom," I believe that's the entire point of debate. When a transsexual person is using a bathroom, is it the same thing as a man using a woman's bathroom or a woman using a man's bathroom, or is something else going on that is different?
I agree, and I was tempted to make this thread about transgenderism and implications in society in general, along with whether transgender-rights really is a like-issue with LGBT rights as many activists try to frame it as (I personally disagree with that notion)
But I felt that would lead to too broad of a topic- I think this whole bathroom thing is an excellent way to focus on practical implications.
Namely, how exactly do you determine that the person who looks like a man who just walked into the women's bathroom is actually a transgender woman?
This is what I found maddening. I actually spent a good 10 minutes yesterday just thinking on this when I really should have gone to sleep. Because I can't get my head around it. I really can't.
This is what I meant with the "opposite direction". Some N.C. police are finding it difficult to actually enforce their law, and with good reason. But consider the opposite- Suppose that your state did pass a law that states transgenders can use the bathroom that matches their gender identity without having to fully transition or do anything of the sort that would "physically identify" you as belonging to some other gender.
How do you enforce such a law while making sure that it's only transgenders who using the women's room and vice versa? How is a woman supposed to know that the person who looks like a man is actually a transgender woman?
See, the conclusion I came to is that you cannot. Not without actually asking the transgender woman whether she's actually a transgender or just some random guy who wanted to use the women's bathroom. But that kind of question is not only deeply personal, but can also be considered a violation of privacy.
And you cannot very well have women calling the police whenever a transgender woman decides to walk into a women's bathroom to ensure that she's not some pervert or some such.
Ergo, there's nothing that's actually stopping me from using the women's bathroom if CA chooses to pass a law that states that all businesses must allow transgenders to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.
Ergo, that leads to the removal of all gender separated bathrooms in general.
And then I get to public gyms and changing rooms and I really have no idea whether anyone can approach this topic while maintaining even a degree of objectivity.
(I focus entirely on transgender women simply because, afaik, mtf apparently is the great majority of transgenders by far).
(I focus entirely on transgender women simply because, afaik, mtf apparently is the great majority of transgenders by far).
There's not really great data on that, but what we do have doesn't suggest that male-to-female is a "great majority". More like 2:1 or 3:1, but I think experts suspect those numbers are skewed, partly because testosterone treatment is very effective at generating male secondary sex characteristics, and so female-to-male people pass more easily than male-to-female.
The ostensible goal here is to stop men from going into women's restrooms and perving out, right? Okay, that does happen, unfortunately. But when it happens, why not just bring the hammer down on the creep with the normal laws for sexual harassment and invasion of privacy? And as an added bonus, you can even do this when somebody goes into their own gender's bathroom and pervs out there, which happens too, and goes completely unaddressed by these gender-restriction bills. But most importantly of all, it lets you keep your nose out of the business of all the people who just want to pee.
I feel like this ignores the problem with crimes of opportunity and passion.
Ergo, there's nothing that's actually stopping me from using the women's bathroom if CA chooses to pass a law that states that all businesses must allow transgenders to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.
Ergo, that leads to the removal of all gender separated bathrooms in general.
There's nothing stopping you from using the women's bathroom right now, except for the social convention that men go in the men's bathroom. You don't need a law making it a crime to go into the wrong bathroom in order to have gender-separated bathrooms.
There's nothing stopping you from using the women's bathroom right now, except for the social convention that men go in the men's bathroom. You don't need a law making it a crime to go into the wrong bathroom in order to have gender-separated bathrooms.
No direct laws, but the social convention around it is so strong that I could get in very serious trouble if I chose to go to the women's bathroom at my local gym because the men's is frequently full/closed for repairs.
The same is probably true of any public bathrooms wherein there are staffs/employees nearby that people can turn to.
Such social convention cannot reasonably exist if CA passed a law stating that transgender people can use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.
That crimes of passion and opportunity are just that- crimes of passion and opportunity.
My gut feeling just tells me that there will be an uptick on incidences of voyeurism and such if things change to a gender neutral bathroom, and these crimes will be easier to commit simply on the basis that men can go into a women's bathroom without any possible consequences.
Such social convention cannot reasonably exist if CA passed a law stating that transgender people can use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.
And how can that social convention exist under NC's law? If I see an apparent male in the women's room, how do I know whether they're post-transition female-to-male who has to use the bathroom of the gender they were born as, or just a random dude traipsing into the wrong bathroom?
It doesn't seem like any version of the law makes that convention work out seamlessly. It's a convention that's fundamentally at odds with the nature of human gender.
There's nothing stopping you from using the women's bathroom right now, except for the social convention that men go in the men's bathroom. You don't need a law making it a crime to go into the wrong bathroom in order to have gender-separated bathrooms.
No direct laws, but the social convention around it is so strong that I could get in very serious trouble if I chose to go to the women's bathroom at my local gym because the men's is frequently full/closed for repairs.
The same is probably true of any public bathrooms wherein there are staffs/employees nearby that people can turn to.
Such social convention cannot reasonably exist if CA passed a law stating that transgender people can use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.
That crimes of passion and opportunity are just that- crimes of passion and opportunity.
My gut feeling just tells me that there will be an uptick on incidences of voyeurism and such if things change to a gender neutral bathroom, and these crimes will be easier to commit simply on the basis that men can go into a women's bathroom without any possible consequences.
Voyeurism and such doesn't seem like a huge problem for the gays, why should it be a problem for the straights? Or at least, I don't see a plethora of stories floating around of one or the other group committing such acts.
And how can that social convention exist under NC's law? If I see an apparent male in the women's room, how do I know whether they're post-transition female-to-male who has to use the bathroom of the gender they were born as, or just a random dude traipsing into the wrong bathroom?
Indeed. I wonder if the N.C. politicians ever considered that.
It doesn't seem like any version of the law makes that convention work out seamlessly. It's a convention that's fundamentally at odds with the nature of human gender.
Voyeurism and such doesn't seem like a huge problem for the gays, why should it be a problem for the straights? Or at least, I don't see a plethora of stories floating around of one or the other group committing such acts.
Why would it be a problem for gay people?
It's not like gay men decide to go use the women's bathroom or vice versa...
Voyeurism and such doesn't seem like a huge problem for the gays, why should it be a problem for the straights? Or at least, I don't see a plethora of stories floating around of one or the other group committing such acts.
Why would it be a problem for gay people?
It's not like gay men decide to go use the women's bathroom or vice versa...
Gay people use the same bathroom as those they are sexually attracted to, which is basically the only motivation behind voyeurism. What I'm saying is that there is a group of people in the world that seems to manage to use a public bathroom with the same people they want to see naked without a significant increase in incidents.
@Lallo Non-hermaphrodite homosexual encounters are never to result in pregnancy. That is how it works.
I have been watched using a urinal by a coworker before, it was really uncomfortable. The point of bringing this up is not to bash homosexuality, but to show that yes, pervy men exist. Going off the reported sexual assaults and peeping tom (notice the male name there) incidents, the vast majority of them are male -> female.
@Tiax : Typically I keep my underwear on in an elevator, my typical elevator ride is well below five minutes, and there are cameras in the elevators I use.
Also, moving to general fornication: would you really trust having unisex bathrooms in middle school and highschool, with that whole puberty thing? Teen pregnancies would skyrocket!
And what about parking garages? A great many rapes take place in parking garages - far more than in restrooms. If we're going to make special men and women's bathrooms to prevent rape, shouldn't we do the same for parking garages?
The answer is that that would be silly. If I were looking to rape someone in a bathroom, the little silhouette of a skirt on the door isn't going to stop me from walking in. No more than it'd stop me from wandering into the women's parking garage.
Parking garages on some campuses and now shopping centers have call boxes. Those blue boxes with phones are mainly there to stop and scare off sexual assault.
So you don't believe in signs? Most people stop at "STOP" signs. Most people avoid stepping on the grounds of "Private Property". Many burglars steer clear of houses that have signs with a security system's name. Nearly everyone, including their grandmothers, look to the proper bathroom sign to decide which way to go to sit upon the porcelain throne. Most people, if food poisoned and about to churn out a gallon of "Chunky Nesquik", would still take the extra twenty steps to enter the "proper" bathroom if it was further away. Posted signs actually serve as an authoritative reminder. If they didn't work, they wouldn't basically be everywhere. Just think of all the unlocked doors marked "Employees Only" that haven't been opened by each and every shopper. I mean DOORS even when unlocked are a deterent to many. Think about a museum. A place full of hallways and a door on the side? If it clearly isn't marked, clearly you aren't supposed to go in there because clearly it isn't a place you, a member of the public, should be!
Yes, I admit that not everyone obeys everything all the time. I want you to look at The Marshmellow Test Video. The kids eat the marshmellows. Some struggle with going through with it, but really the net result is marshmallow eaten.
Now take this experiment and the results, age the kids up to the height of puberty and stick them in a coed bathroom. What results do you think you will get?
I for one would rather not tempt fate. Nor would I tempt the installation of bathroom "security" cameras.
Parking garages on some campuses and now shopping centers have call boxes. Those blue boxes with phones are mainly there to stop and scare off sexual assault.
And? By your reasoning, wouldn't putting up a "no boys allowed" sign on half of the parking lot and a "no girls allowed" sign on the other half solve the problem?
So you don't believe in signs? Most people stop at "STOP" signs. Most people avoid stepping on the grounds of "Private Property". Many burglars steer clear of houses that have signs with a security system's name. Nearly everyone, including their grandmothers, look to the proper bathroom sign to decide which way to go to sit upon the porcelain throne. Most people, if food poisoned and about to churn out a gallon of "Chunky Nesquik", would still take the extra twenty steps to enter the "proper" bathroom if it was further away. Posted signs actually serve as an authoritative reminder. If they didn't work, they wouldn't basically be everywhere. Just think of all the unlocked doors marked "Employees Only" that haven't been opened by each and every shopper. I mean DOORS even when unlocked are a deterent to many. Think about a museum. A place full of hallways and a door on the side? If it clearly isn't marked, clearly you aren't supposed to go in there because clearly it isn't a place you, a member of the public, should be!
Yes, most people obey signs. Those people are also not going to rape someone in a unisex bathroom. On the other hand, a rapist is going to rape you even if they see an icon with a silhouette that doesn't indicate their gender. Otherwise, we'd all just wear a little "please don't rape me" sign on our underwear, and rape would be a thing of the past.
Yes, I admit that not everyone obeys everything all the time. I want you to look at The Marshmellow Test Video. The kids eat the marshmellows. Some struggle with going through with it, but really the net result is marshmallow eaten.
Now take this experiment and the results, age the kids up to the height of puberty and stick them in a coed bathroom. What results do you think you will get?
I for one would rather not tempt fate. Nor would I tempt the installation of bathroom "security" cameras.
@Lallo Non-hermaphrodite homosexual encounters are never to result in pregnancy. That is how it works.
I have been watched using a urinal by a coworker before, it was really uncomfortable. The point of bringing this up is not to bash homosexuality, but to show that yes, pervy men exist. Going off the reported sexual assaults and peeping tom (notice the male name there) incidents, the vast majority of them are male -> female.
Gay people use the same bathroom as those they are sexually attracted to, which is basically the only motivation behind voyeurism. What I'm saying is that there is a group of people in the world that seems to manage to use a public bathroom with the same people they want to see naked without a significant increase in incidents.
1- You don't actually know this. On sheer principle alone, the fact that you rarely hear of an incident doesn't mean that it's rare. This is a large part of the case against rape culture that's going on in the U.S. right now, for example.
2- The total population of gay people in the U.S. is estimated to be somewhere between 3-4%. I find it a bit silly to compare that population size to the total male population in the U.S. in terms of any impact.
I'm guessing you think this high school has now been overrun by teen pregnancy?
Give it a generation or two with everyone using unisex bathrooms =P
But, in all seriousness, the societal implications of most large-scale policy actions need to be seen in terms of DECADES, not months or years.
Like the War on Drugs. Complete and epic failure. Most likely led to a huge increase in drug trafficking and mass incarceration of minorities for a lengthy time, leading to destabilized communities and people with a permanent red mark on their public profile that just makes it easier to fall into a life of crime, etc.
But at the time it probably sounded like a good idea.
I read a bunch of other related stuff and eventually got to-
http://time.com/4200223/california-all-gender-restrooms-law/
Basically, some politician guy in CA has started a bill that would turn all single-occupancy bathrooms into one that all genders can use.
But why just single-occupancy? Why not all bathrooms?
Heck, why even have gender-separated bathrooms? Even going beyond the whole thing with transgendered people, why shouldn't a man be allowed to use the women's bathroom?
And if we allow transgendered people to use bathrooms that match their perceived gender identity, then how exactly do we ensure that only transgendered individuals are doing this? What prevents me from choosing to use the women's bathroom if all the toilets in the men's are occupied?
I find the logistics of this maddening. I completely agree with these policemen from N.C. who have no idea how to enforce such their law (http://www.businessinsider.com/nc-police-dont-know-how-to-enforce-hb2-2016-4), but in an opposite direction.
Basically, it makes perfect sense to have gender-separated bathrooms (seriously, have you ever been to a theater during intermission? I object to gender neutral bathrooms for that reason alone). The problem is transsexuals don't fit within the gender binary, and the important thing is that they're not just some political issue or abstract philosophical question, they're people, and it's important to find a way to include them into society on basic issues such as where the hell to relieve themselves, that's how an inclusive society works.
The other thing to remember is that this is about more than just bathrooms, but a broader controversy, which is about whether or not society should regard transsexuality as a legitimate thing. So when you ask, "What's wrong with letting a man use a woman's bathroom," I believe that's the entire point of debate. When a transsexual person is using a bathroom, is it the same thing as a man using a woman's bathroom or a woman using a man's bathroom, or is something else going on that is different?
Wait, what is "in an opposite direction"? Their stance is that they have no idea how they would enforce their law, so they're currently not doing anything different, because they have no idea what they should be doing in this circumstance. What is your opposite stance from this?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Rape.
It is because of rape. Men are much more likely to rape women then men on men or women on women. Look up the statistics if you don't believe this.
Bathrooms are one of the few places people have in public away from cameras. In order to enforce things in bathrooms, you would either need an attendant/guard (that you can trust not to rape and/or be raped) or have cameras.
I for one would prefer separate bathrooms as supposed to a camera in the stalls.
So as far as single toilet restrooms being unisex, sure. I am just fine with that. It takes at least two people for a rape to occur: at least one assailant and a victim. If there is only one person in the bathroom, rape is not possible.
@Tiax : Typically I keep my underwear on in an elevator, my typical elevator ride is well below five minutes, and there are cameras in the elevators I use.
Also, moving to general fornication: would you really trust having unisex bathrooms in middle school and highschool, with that whole puberty thing? Teen pregnancies would skyrocket!
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Also there is a difference between people having to find a space for an act and allowing them access one. To simplify this to just cheating on tests, the colleges I attended wouldn't even let me use the bathroom until I was done with a quiz, test, or exam. This was due to the POSSIBILITY of going to look up the answers. (Something I would be able to do real life on the job and it would be perfectly acceptable... but I digress).
So I ask you what is worse if you are an administrator: a student cheating on a quiz in your school's bathroom, or a 12 year old middleschooler getting pregnant in your school's bathroom?
And what about parking garages? A great many rapes take place in parking garages - far more than in restrooms. If we're going to make special men and women's bathrooms to prevent rape, shouldn't we do the same for parking garages?
The answer is that that would be silly. If I were looking to rape someone in a bathroom, the little silhouette of a skirt on the door isn't going to stop me from walking in. No more than it'd stop me from wandering into the women's parking garage.
If everyone's in their own stall anyway, I don't see what difference it makes. If I'm willing to bust through a stall door to assault someone, I'm surely just as willing to walk through a door with the wrong icon on it.
The notion that gender signs in school bathrooms are stopping teen pregnancy from "skyrocketing" is the most absurd thing I've heard in a long time. I don't even know where to begin.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Of particular note: smoke detectors are designed to detect the amount of smoke generated by a dangerous fire. Cigarettes (and their illegal counterparts) do not generally set off a smoke detector unless you're puffing like a chimney and blowing your smoke right up into the detector.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I agree, and I was tempted to make this thread about transgenderism and implications in society in general, along with whether transgender-rights really is a like-issue with LGBT rights as many activists try to frame it as (I personally disagree with that notion)
But I felt that would lead to too broad of a topic- I think this whole bathroom thing is an excellent way to focus on practical implications.
Namely, how exactly do you determine that the person who looks like a man who just walked into the women's bathroom is actually a transgender woman?
This is what I found maddening. I actually spent a good 10 minutes yesterday just thinking on this when I really should have gone to sleep. Because I can't get my head around it. I really can't.
This is what I meant with the "opposite direction". Some N.C. police are finding it difficult to actually enforce their law, and with good reason. But consider the opposite- Suppose that your state did pass a law that states transgenders can use the bathroom that matches their gender identity without having to fully transition or do anything of the sort that would "physically identify" you as belonging to some other gender.
How do you enforce such a law while making sure that it's only transgenders who using the women's room and vice versa? How is a woman supposed to know that the person who looks like a man is actually a transgender woman?
See, the conclusion I came to is that you cannot. Not without actually asking the transgender woman whether she's actually a transgender or just some random guy who wanted to use the women's bathroom. But that kind of question is not only deeply personal, but can also be considered a violation of privacy.
And you cannot very well have women calling the police whenever a transgender woman decides to walk into a women's bathroom to ensure that she's not some pervert or some such.
Ergo, there's nothing that's actually stopping me from using the women's bathroom if CA chooses to pass a law that states that all businesses must allow transgenders to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.
Ergo, that leads to the removal of all gender separated bathrooms in general.
And then I get to public gyms and changing rooms and I really have no idea whether anyone can approach this topic while maintaining even a degree of objectivity.
(I focus entirely on transgender women simply because, afaik, mtf apparently is the great majority of transgenders by far).
There's not really great data on that, but what we do have doesn't suggest that male-to-female is a "great majority". More like 2:1 or 3:1, but I think experts suspect those numbers are skewed, partly because testosterone treatment is very effective at generating male secondary sex characteristics, and so female-to-male people pass more easily than male-to-female.
I feel like this ignores the problem with crimes of opportunity and passion.
What problem is that?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No direct laws, but the social convention around it is so strong that I could get in very serious trouble if I chose to go to the women's bathroom at my local gym because the men's is frequently full/closed for repairs.
The same is probably true of any public bathrooms wherein there are staffs/employees nearby that people can turn to.
Such social convention cannot reasonably exist if CA passed a law stating that transgender people can use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.
That crimes of passion and opportunity are just that- crimes of passion and opportunity.
My gut feeling just tells me that there will be an uptick on incidences of voyeurism and such if things change to a gender neutral bathroom, and these crimes will be easier to commit simply on the basis that men can go into a women's bathroom without any possible consequences.
And how can that social convention exist under NC's law? If I see an apparent male in the women's room, how do I know whether they're post-transition female-to-male who has to use the bathroom of the gender they were born as, or just a random dude traipsing into the wrong bathroom?
It doesn't seem like any version of the law makes that convention work out seamlessly. It's a convention that's fundamentally at odds with the nature of human gender.
Voyeurism and such doesn't seem like a huge problem for the gays, why should it be a problem for the straights? Or at least, I don't see a plethora of stories floating around of one or the other group committing such acts.
Indeed. I wonder if the N.C. politicians ever considered that.
It's a social convention. They come and go.
Why would it be a problem for gay people?
It's not like gay men decide to go use the women's bathroom or vice versa...
Gay people use the same bathroom as those they are sexually attracted to, which is basically the only motivation behind voyeurism. What I'm saying is that there is a group of people in the world that seems to manage to use a public bathroom with the same people they want to see naked without a significant increase in incidents.
I have been watched using a urinal by a coworker before, it was really uncomfortable. The point of bringing this up is not to bash homosexuality, but to show that yes, pervy men exist. Going off the reported sexual assaults and peeping tom (notice the male name there) incidents, the vast majority of them are male -> female.
Parking garages on some campuses and now shopping centers have call boxes. Those blue boxes with phones are mainly there to stop and scare off sexual assault.
So you don't believe in signs? Most people stop at "STOP" signs. Most people avoid stepping on the grounds of "Private Property". Many burglars steer clear of houses that have signs with a security system's name. Nearly everyone, including their grandmothers, look to the proper bathroom sign to decide which way to go to sit upon the porcelain throne. Most people, if food poisoned and about to churn out a gallon of "Chunky Nesquik", would still take the extra twenty steps to enter the "proper" bathroom if it was further away. Posted signs actually serve as an authoritative reminder. If they didn't work, they wouldn't basically be everywhere. Just think of all the unlocked doors marked "Employees Only" that haven't been opened by each and every shopper. I mean DOORS even when unlocked are a deterent to many. Think about a museum. A place full of hallways and a door on the side? If it clearly isn't marked, clearly you aren't supposed to go in there because clearly it isn't a place you, a member of the public, should be!
Yes, I admit that not everyone obeys everything all the time. I want you to look at The Marshmellow Test Video. The kids eat the marshmellows. Some struggle with going through with it, but really the net result is marshmallow eaten.
Now take this experiment and the results, age the kids up to the height of puberty and stick them in a coed bathroom. What results do you think you will get?
I for one would rather not tempt fate. Nor would I tempt the installation of bathroom "security" cameras.
And? By your reasoning, wouldn't putting up a "no boys allowed" sign on half of the parking lot and a "no girls allowed" sign on the other half solve the problem?
Yes, most people obey signs. Those people are also not going to rape someone in a unisex bathroom. On the other hand, a rapist is going to rape you even if they see an icon with a silhouette that doesn't indicate their gender. Otherwise, we'd all just wear a little "please don't rape me" sign on our underwear, and rape would be a thing of the past.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/ore-high-school-opens-unisex-bathrooms-accommodate-transgender/story?id=18808547
I'm guessing you think this high school has now been overrun by teen pregnancy?
What does pregnancy have to do with the bathroom?
1- You don't actually know this. On sheer principle alone, the fact that you rarely hear of an incident doesn't mean that it's rare. This is a large part of the case against rape culture that's going on in the U.S. right now, for example.
2- The total population of gay people in the U.S. is estimated to be somewhere between 3-4%. I find it a bit silly to compare that population size to the total male population in the U.S. in terms of any impact.
Give it a generation or two with everyone using unisex bathrooms =P
But, in all seriousness, the societal implications of most large-scale policy actions need to be seen in terms of DECADES, not months or years.
Like the War on Drugs. Complete and epic failure. Most likely led to a huge increase in drug trafficking and mass incarceration of minorities for a lengthy time, leading to destabilized communities and people with a permanent red mark on their public profile that just makes it easier to fall into a life of crime, etc.
But at the time it probably sounded like a good idea.