@bbb: Earlier in this thread there's a video of two cops harassing a woman in a public restroom because they think she's transgender.
Also, "roughly 70% of trans people have reported being denied entrance, assaulted or harassed while trying to use a restroom". [link]
There are studies on pretty much everything you said and the basic summary is however bad a social situation is, transgender people get it worse.
Without question, transgender and gender non-conforming individuals experience
violence, stigmatization, and discrimination (see, for example, Grant et al. 2011; Stotzer
2009, and Lombardi et al. 2001). In the largest survey of trans people to date, transgender
and gender non-conforming people reported being fired due to anti-transgender bias (26%),
being harassed (78%) and physically assaulted (35%) at school, suffering double the rate of
unemployment, and attempting suicide at alarming rates (41%) (Grant et al. 2011).
I've been exposed to transgender folks for awhile now...
Then ask them about this. Don't take my word for it, take theirs: it's a major problem.
It is completely natural that human beings worst experiences significantly impact our perception and understanding of issues which lead to faulty conclusions, especially when it comes to frequency. I can and have asked them, the conversation resulted in the person speaking about one or two specific instances. I ask her how often she uses a public bathroom (they use them at work). The answer? 2-3 times a day, been working at this location for 3 years, and has been transsexual for five, both of her bad experiences have been in this bathroom. That is not a "major" problem in my mind. It's unfortunate she has to experience this, but we all have bad experiences for one reason or another. With that said, if you can find some empirical data with relevant and objective analysis, I can be convinced, otherwise, I'm going to remain skeptical of extent of this issue.
@bbb: Earlier in this thread there's a video of two cops harassing a woman in a public restroom because they think she's transgender.
Also, "roughly 70% of trans people have reported being denied entrance, assaulted or harassed while trying to use a restroom". [link]
There are studies on pretty much everything you said and the basic summary is however bad a social situation is, transgender people get it worse.
Without question, transgender and gender non-conforming individuals experience
violence, stigmatization, and discrimination (see, for example, Grant et al. 2011; Stotzer
2009, and Lombardi et al. 2001). In the largest survey of trans people to date, transgender
and gender non-conforming people reported being fired due to anti-transgender bias (26%),
being harassed (78%) and physically assaulted (35%) at school, suffering double the rate of
unemployment, and attempting suicide at alarming rates (41%) (Grant et al. 2011).
You can look up the "trans panic defense" if you want to get really upset.
Just as an example:
35% reported being physically assaulted at school.
I do not know of too many people who have not been physically assaulted at school at some point. If you do not belong to the "in" crowd, you are going to be persecuted at school. This is not unique to transgender folks. The data you present is not compelling.
EDIT: It's important to understand that I'm not disputing that it occurs, I'm disputing the frequency.
It's important to understand that I'm not disputing that it occurs, I'm disputing the frequency.
If I go to a restaurant and get food poisoning with some frequency, at what exact frequency do you think it's reasonable for me to show an aversion to that restaurant?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's important to understand that I'm not disputing that it occurs, I'm disputing the frequency.
If I go to a restaurant and get food poisoning with some frequency, at what exact frequency do you think it's reasonable for me to show an aversion to that restaurant?
Completely up to you. I'm not going to stop eating at Taco Bell if I get food poisoning, I may stop eating at that one. If you've only ate at that restaurant once, but have eaten at others with out an issue, would you think food poisoning was a "major" issue at all restaurants? Say you ate there 100 times in the past year, got food poisoning once, would you stop eating there completely? I would not.
EDIT: The more relevant question is, do you need special protection to prevent you from getting food poisoning from random restaurants, protection not afforded any other class.
EDIT: The more relevant question is, do you need special protection to prevent you from getting food poisoning from random restaurants, protection not afforded any other class.
If people are going out of their way to poison you, sure. Which is why anti-discrimination laws make more sense than anti-transgender laws.
I'm confused - what is the special protection analogy here?
bbb is upset that people are treated differently in society, so he's complaining about people complaining that trans people are on average treated significantly worse.
I think.
It's like "if people stop mentioning racism, racism will stop happening" which is a thing I was told once and didn't agree with then either.
EDIT: The more relevant question is, do you need special protection to prevent you from getting food poisoning from random restaurants, protection not afforded any other class.
Okay, two things. (1) This is not exactly George Costanza claiming everybody's out to get him. Is it really so hard for you to believe that trans people, who are treated as weird and freaky compared to other people just about everywhere they go, are also treated as weird and freaky compared to other people when they walk into the bathroom? Do you honestly think that somebody who is dressed like a woman but looks kinda like a man is getting exactly the same treatment as somebody who is dressed like a woman and looks like a woman?
(2) They're not asking for special protection here. They're asking that the state not enact a law that amounts to special discrimination.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Okay, what data do you have that trans people run into trouble only one in a hundred times they enter a public restroom?
I'm not asserting this. It's completely arbitrary, as is the claims that it's a "major" problem. I'm challenging you to provide empirical data that shows the frequency to which it occurs, warrants it as a "major problem". I can be convinced it's a major problem, but until someone shows me a figure that demonstrates such a problem, I'm skeptical as to the extent.
Is it really so hard for you to believe that trans people, who are treated as weird and freaky compared to other people just about everywhere they go, are also treated as weird and freaky compared to other people when they walk into the bathroom? Do you honestly think that somebody who is dressed like a woman but looks kinda like a man is getting exactly the same treatment as somebody who is dressed like a woman and looks like a woman?
It's important to understand that I'm not disputing that it occurs, I'm disputing the frequency it occurs in the bathroom. I have not denied trans people are victim of bigotry.
bbb is upset that people are treated differently in society, so he's complaining about people complaining that trans people are on average treated significantly worse.
This is what one would call SJW rhetoric. I'm not upset. I'm not complaining. I was merely baiting the hook to make a point. The truth is, we do not know the extent of the problem when it comes to transgender bathroom issues. It's undoubtedly they face some, but is it enough to warrant regulation? I think its important we have some sort of empirical data that shows that transgender people have "significant issues" using the bathroom on regular basis before we start regulating. It's a relatively new issue so there is not much data on it. I'm some how wrong (or complaining, or upset) when I challenge the position to provide relevant data to support the contention.
There is a talk radio host who says she would be uncomfortable with using the bathroom with a transgendered person. She has just as much right to be comfortable in the bathroom as a transgender person, but and this is a big but, how often is she asked to share a bathroom with a transgender person? I would venture to guess that it's not very often and consequently I see no need to regulate the use of bathrooms for trans folks based on the uncommon occurrence that it makes people uncomfortable. I do not believe she deserves any special protection until she can show her bathroom activities are impacted a significant amount of time.
Okay, what data do you have that trans people run into trouble only one in a hundred times they enter a public restroom?
I'm not asserting this. It's completely arbitrary, as is the claims that it's a "major" problem. I'm challenging you to provide empirical data that shows the frequency to which it occurs, warrants it as a "major problem". I can be convinced it's a major problem, but until someone shows me a figure that demonstrates such a problem, I'm skeptical as to the extent.
Is it really so hard for you to believe that trans people, who are treated as weird and freaky compared to other people just about everywhere they go, are also treated as weird and freaky compared to other people when they walk into the bathroom? Do you honestly think that somebody who is dressed like a woman but looks kinda like a man is getting exactly the same treatment as somebody who is dressed like a woman and looks like a woman?
It's important to understand that I'm not disputing that it occurs, I'm disputing the frequency. I have not denied trans people are victim of bigotry.
That data was provided earlier on this page by Hackworth. I feel as though 70% is well past the threshold for it being a major problem.
Hack bbb is upset that people are treated differently in society, so he's complaining about people complaining that trans people are on average treated significantly worse.
I think.
This is the second time I'm posting this.
This is an example of SJW rhetoric. I'm not upset, nor am I complaining. I'm simply asking you to provide relevant data to support the contention that it occurs a significant amount of time.
There is a talk radio host who is uncomfortable with using the bathroom with trans folks. She has just as much right to be comfortable in a bathroom as a trans person. The problem with accommodating her with regulation is, is the extent to which she is faced with being uncomfortable. I would venture to guess that she rarely, if ever has to use the bathroom with a trans-gendered person. I would need to be shown that her bathroom activities are impacted a significant amount of time before I would consider protecting her use of the bathroom.
It's like "if people stop mentioning racism, racism will stop happening" which is a thing I was told once and didn't agree with then either.
No, it's like when people ask the SJW to support their claims of racism, they immediately attack the questioner as denying racism or portray them as "upset". In this case, I've not denied the bigotry, I've questioned the extent, narrowly confined to how often they are persecuted in the bathroom. Your analogy is wholly incorrect and out of place.
Okay, what data do you have that trans people run into trouble only one in a hundred times they enter a public restroom?
I'm not asserting this. It's completely arbitrary, as is the claims that it's a "major" problem. I'm challenging you to provide empirical data that shows the frequency to which it occurs, warrants it as a "major problem". I can be convinced it's a major problem, but until someone shows me a figure that demonstrates such a problem, I'm skeptical as to the extent.
Is it really so hard for you to believe that trans people, who are treated as weird and freaky compared to other people just about everywhere they go, are also treated as weird and freaky compared to other people when they walk into the bathroom? Do you honestly think that somebody who is dressed like a woman but looks kinda like a man is getting exactly the same treatment as somebody who is dressed like a woman and looks like a woman?
It's important to understand that I'm not disputing that it occurs, I'm disputing the frequency. I have not denied trans people are victim of bigotry.
That data was provided earlier on this page by Hackworth. I feel as though 70% is well past the threshold for it being a major problem.
If I told you 100% of the people have been the victim of bad bathroom experiences, do you think something needs to be done? What if I told you 100% of the people had a bad experience less than 1% percent of the time? Would the opinion change? The data Hackworth provided is not compelling evidence of frequency. I'm not denying it occurs and that is the only thing the data demonstrates.
If I told you 100% of the people have been the victim of bad bathroom experiences, do you think something needs to be done? What if I told you 100% of the people had a bad experience less than 1% percent of the time? Would the opinion change? The data Hackworth provided is not compelling evidence of frequency. I'm not denying it occurs and that is the only thing the data demonstrates.
Okay so you just ignore evidence that refutes your argument then? Are you really saying that it is okay that anyone gets sexually assaulted 1% of the time. That isn't unacceptable to you? Even thought the actual rate is much higher as evidence proved.
Is asking for relevant data to substantiate claims considered "complaining" on this forum? Is it considered being upset? Since my response to such claims have been deleted twice, with no explanation, I'm going to consider SJW activities are both defended and protected here and it now makes sense why people do not want to the word used on this forum.
Your posts weren't deleted, they were accidentally marked as spam by our automated spam filter.
I've unmarked them. Apologies for the confusion and trouble.
-Feyd
If I told you 100% of the people have been the victim of bad bathroom experiences, do you think something needs to be done? What if I told you 100% of the people had a bad experience less than 1% percent of the time? Would the opinion change? The data Hackworth provided is not compelling evidence of frequency. I'm not denying it occurs and that is the only thing the data demonstrates.
Okay so you just ignore evidence that refutes your argument then? Are you really saying that it is okay that anyone gets sexually assaulted 1% of the time. That isn't unacceptable to you? Even thought the actual rate is much higher as evidence proved.
No, I'm not ignoring the evidence and it does not refute my argument. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand. It's acceptable 0% of the time. So is trans bigotry. I'm not arguing whether or not it's acceptable. Can you answer my question now?
No, I'm not ignoring the evidence and it does not refute my argument. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand. It's acceptable 0% of the time. So is trans bigotry. I'm not arguing whether or not it's acceptable. Can you answer my question now?
No, I'm not ignoring the evidence and it does not refute my argument. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand. It's acceptable 0% of the time. So is trans bigotry. I'm not arguing whether or not it's acceptable. Can you answer my question now?
Its been answered, you ignored the evidence...
I see. Well played. You conflated 70% of trans being the victim of some sort of bigotry as a high frequency, yet that number does not show the frequency to which those 70% have been the victim of bathroom bigotry. And you say I'm the one ignoring evidence? You are not even comprehending my argument or the data. Do you understand that figure you cited has no indication of frequency? And no, you did not answer my question.
How about this:
At what point do you stop passing laws protecting a group of people?
Please answer this question as well:
If I told you 100% of the people have been the victim of bad bathroom experiences, do you think something needs to be done? What if I told you 100% of the people had a bad experience less than 1% percent of the time? Would the opinion change?
The point is, there is no standard or threshold to which people want to incorporate laws and such. It's completely arbitrary, so you get a stream of completely useless and arbitrary laws that does not stop bigotry and they are never ending. This applies to gun control, drugs, abortion, etc etc. It's politically contrived. They show you that 70% number and it wins your vote, but that number is almost meaningless in respect to the issue you are outraged about.
Charlotte City Council approves LGBT protections in 7-4 vote
To be frank, you've posted nothing to indicate you grasp anything about this issue, or you are being intellectually dishonest and you've yet to even try to understand my argument. I'm the one being accused of "complaining", being "upset", or ignoring empirical data?
It's also not coincidence this occurred in an election year. The left and right are being played for votes over an issue many do not not grasp.
Just look at the reasoning expressed at the passage of the ordinance:
Supporters said those fears were overblown, and that transgender people are at risk of violence in the bathroom.
Violence against people in bathrooms is already illegal, but somehow this law will make them safer, or prevent that violence? No way you slice it, that is horrible argument to pass a law. On the other side, almost any law that discriminates on the basis of sex is illegal.
To be frank, you've posted nothing to indicate you grasp anything about this issue, or you are being intellectually dishonest and you've yet to even try to understand my argument. I'm the one being accused of "complaining", being "upset", or ignoring empirical data?
I understand your argument perfectly, you assert that trans discrimination does not happen at a statistically relevant rate, but it does and that has already been proven (and ignored by you) earlier in the thread. Its not my fault you refuse to see that this is real problem. If anyone is being intellectually dishonest it is you for ignoring provided evidence against your claim that these assaults happen at a serious rate.
I understand your argument perfectly, you assert that trans discrimination does not happen at a statistically relevant rate, but it does and that has already been proven (and ignored by you) earlier in the thread.
Once again, you've demonstrated that you do not understand my argument. My argument is, until data is provided indicating to what extent trans are subjected to bigotry in the bathroom, I will remain skeptical as to the extent of the problem. We do not know the extent of the problem.
Its not my fault you refuse to see that this is real problem. If anyone is being intellectually dishonest it is you for ignoring provided evidence against your claim that these assaults happen at a serious rate.
This is incredibly frustrating. Assault is illegal. Passing a law making it illegal to assault a transgender person is redundant and will accomplish nothing. Further, the discussion is not about assault.
The figure you cited, the 70%, was the total number of people reporting an instance of harassment in the bathroom (or was it just in general?). It does not specify or indicate to how often those 70% of people experienced such issues. There is no data indicating this. Is it 1 out of 100 times they use the bathroom? Is it 50 out of 100? The point is, you do not know, and think there is a some huge problem that needs addressing. Stop saying I'm ignoring the data, and start understanding why the data Hack presented and you keep citing is not an effective counter to my argument. Hint: responding to the data is not ignoring it. You are ignoring my response to the data.
Passing a law making it illegal to assault a transgender person is redundant and will accomplish nothing. Further, the discussion is not about assault.
Then why are you talking about passing a law making it illegal to assault a transgender person? You're the only one who's talking about that. The law in question in this thread does something very different.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Passing a law making it illegal to assault a transgender person is redundant and will accomplish nothing. Further, the discussion is not about assault.
Then why are you talking about passing a law making it illegal to assault a transgender person? You're the only one who's talking about that. The law in question in this thread does something very different.
Do you know what prompted that law and one of the reasons used to implement the ordinance?
. If anyone is being intellectually dishonest it is you for ignoring provided evidence against your claim that these assaults happen at a serious rate.
EDIT:
I'm not the one who is interjecting assaults in this discussion. My argument is, there is not enough empirical data to take action. When someone comes at me with the frequency of assaults, I believe I've assumed the correct context, that someone wants to pass a law regulating assaults on transgender.
Hack bbb is upset that people are treated differently in society, so he's complaining about people complaining that trans people are on average treated significantly worse.
I think.
This is the second time I'm posting this.
This is an example of SJW rhetoric. I'm not upset, nor am I complaining. I'm simply asking you to provide relevant data to support the contention that it occurs a significant amount of time.
There is a talk radio host who is uncomfortable with using the bathroom with trans folks. She has just as much right to be comfortable in a bathroom as a trans person. The problem with accommodating her with regulation is, is the extent to which she is faced with being uncomfortable. I would venture to guess that she rarely, if ever has to use the bathroom with a trans-gendered person. I would need to be shown that her bathroom activities are impacted a significant amount of time before I would consider protecting her use of the bathroom.
I have often used bathrooms that are for all genders - a room with a series of stalls, and a shared space for washing one's hands afterwards. Would your talk radio host be uncomfortable using these bathrooms as well? It's not clear to me whether her discomfort is due to having men or transgendered women in the bathroom with her.
Quote from bravesbaseball »
I see. Well played. You conflated 70% of trans being the victim of some sort of bigotry as a high frequency, yet that number does not show the frequency to which those 70% have been the victim of bathroom bigotry. And you say I'm the one ignoring evidence? You are not even comprehending my argument or the data. Do you understand that figure you cited has no indication of frequency?
What frequency of discrimination against transgender people would you consider unacceptable. and requiring of action?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also, "roughly 70% of trans people have reported being denied entrance, assaulted or harassed while trying to use a restroom". [link]
There are studies on pretty much everything you said and the basic summary is however bad a social situation is, transgender people get it worse.
[link]
You can look up the "trans panic defense" if you want to get really upset.
Art is life itself.
It is completely natural that human beings worst experiences significantly impact our perception and understanding of issues which lead to faulty conclusions, especially when it comes to frequency. I can and have asked them, the conversation resulted in the person speaking about one or two specific instances. I ask her how often she uses a public bathroom (they use them at work). The answer? 2-3 times a day, been working at this location for 3 years, and has been transsexual for five, both of her bad experiences have been in this bathroom. That is not a "major" problem in my mind. It's unfortunate she has to experience this, but we all have bad experiences for one reason or another. With that said, if you can find some empirical data with relevant and objective analysis, I can be convinced, otherwise, I'm going to remain skeptical of extent of this issue.
Just as an example:
35% reported being physically assaulted at school.
I do not know of too many people who have not been physically assaulted at school at some point. If you do not belong to the "in" crowd, you are going to be persecuted at school. This is not unique to transgender folks. The data you present is not compelling.
EDIT: It's important to understand that I'm not disputing that it occurs, I'm disputing the frequency.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Completely up to you. I'm not going to stop eating at Taco Bell if I get food poisoning, I may stop eating at that one. If you've only ate at that restaurant once, but have eaten at others with out an issue, would you think food poisoning was a "major" issue at all restaurants? Say you ate there 100 times in the past year, got food poisoning once, would you stop eating there completely? I would not.
EDIT: The more relevant question is, do you need special protection to prevent you from getting food poisoning from random restaurants, protection not afforded any other class.
bbb is upset that people are treated differently in society, so he's complaining about people complaining that trans people are on average treated significantly worse.
I think.
It's like "if people stop mentioning racism, racism will stop happening" which is a thing I was told once and didn't agree with then either.
Art is life itself.
Okay, two things. (1) This is not exactly George Costanza claiming everybody's out to get him. Is it really so hard for you to believe that trans people, who are treated as weird and freaky compared to other people just about everywhere they go, are also treated as weird and freaky compared to other people when they walk into the bathroom? Do you honestly think that somebody who is dressed like a woman but looks kinda like a man is getting exactly the same treatment as somebody who is dressed like a woman and looks like a woman?
(2) They're not asking for special protection here. They're asking that the state not enact a law that amounts to special discrimination.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm not asserting this. It's completely arbitrary, as is the claims that it's a "major" problem. I'm challenging you to provide empirical data that shows the frequency to which it occurs, warrants it as a "major problem". I can be convinced it's a major problem, but until someone shows me a figure that demonstrates such a problem, I'm skeptical as to the extent.
It's important to understand that I'm not disputing that it occurs, I'm disputing the frequency it occurs in the bathroom. I have not denied trans people are victim of bigotry.
This is what one would call SJW rhetoric. I'm not upset. I'm not complaining. I was merely baiting the hook to make a point. The truth is, we do not know the extent of the problem when it comes to transgender bathroom issues. It's undoubtedly they face some, but is it enough to warrant regulation? I think its important we have some sort of empirical data that shows that transgender people have "significant issues" using the bathroom on regular basis before we start regulating. It's a relatively new issue so there is not much data on it. I'm some how wrong (or complaining, or upset) when I challenge the position to provide relevant data to support the contention.
There is a talk radio host who says she would be uncomfortable with using the bathroom with a transgendered person. She has just as much right to be comfortable in the bathroom as a transgender person, but and this is a big but, how often is she asked to share a bathroom with a transgender person? I would venture to guess that it's not very often and consequently I see no need to regulate the use of bathrooms for trans folks based on the uncommon occurrence that it makes people uncomfortable. I do not believe she deserves any special protection until she can show her bathroom activities are impacted a significant amount of time.
This is the second time I'm posting this.
This is an example of SJW rhetoric. I'm not upset, nor am I complaining. I'm simply asking you to provide relevant data to support the contention that it occurs a significant amount of time.
There is a talk radio host who is uncomfortable with using the bathroom with trans folks. She has just as much right to be comfortable in a bathroom as a trans person. The problem with accommodating her with regulation is, is the extent to which she is faced with being uncomfortable. I would venture to guess that she rarely, if ever has to use the bathroom with a trans-gendered person. I would need to be shown that her bathroom activities are impacted a significant amount of time before I would consider protecting her use of the bathroom.
No, it's like when people ask the SJW to support their claims of racism, they immediately attack the questioner as denying racism or portray them as "upset". In this case, I've not denied the bigotry, I've questioned the extent, narrowly confined to how often they are persecuted in the bathroom. Your analogy is wholly incorrect and out of place.
If I told you 100% of the people have been the victim of bad bathroom experiences, do you think something needs to be done? What if I told you 100% of the people had a bad experience less than 1% percent of the time? Would the opinion change? The data Hackworth provided is not compelling evidence of frequency. I'm not denying it occurs and that is the only thing the data demonstrates.
Your posts weren't deleted, they were accidentally marked as spam by our automated spam filter.
I've unmarked them. Apologies for the confusion and trouble.
-Feyd
No, I'm not ignoring the evidence and it does not refute my argument. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand. It's acceptable 0% of the time. So is trans bigotry. I'm not arguing whether or not it's acceptable. Can you answer my question now?
I see. Well played. You conflated 70% of trans being the victim of some sort of bigotry as a high frequency, yet that number does not show the frequency to which those 70% have been the victim of bathroom bigotry. And you say I'm the one ignoring evidence? You are not even comprehending my argument or the data. Do you understand that figure you cited has no indication of frequency? And no, you did not answer my question.
How about this:
At what point do you stop passing laws protecting a group of people?
Please answer this question as well:
The point is, there is no standard or threshold to which people want to incorporate laws and such. It's completely arbitrary, so you get a stream of completely useless and arbitrary laws that does not stop bigotry and they are never ending. This applies to gun control, drugs, abortion, etc etc. It's politically contrived. They show you that 70% number and it wins your vote, but that number is almost meaningless in respect to the issue you are outraged about.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects them on the basis of sex.
To be frank, you've posted nothing to indicate you grasp anything about this issue, or you are being intellectually dishonest and you've yet to even try to understand my argument. I'm the one being accused of "complaining", being "upset", or ignoring empirical data?
It's also not coincidence this occurred in an election year. The left and right are being played for votes over an issue many do not not grasp.
Just look at the reasoning expressed at the passage of the ordinance:
Violence against people in bathrooms is already illegal, but somehow this law will make them safer, or prevent that violence? No way you slice it, that is horrible argument to pass a law. On the other side, almost any law that discriminates on the basis of sex is illegal.
Once again, you've demonstrated that you do not understand my argument. My argument is, until data is provided indicating to what extent trans are subjected to bigotry in the bathroom, I will remain skeptical as to the extent of the problem. We do not know the extent of the problem.
This is incredibly frustrating. Assault is illegal. Passing a law making it illegal to assault a transgender person is redundant and will accomplish nothing. Further, the discussion is not about assault.
The figure you cited, the 70%, was the total number of people reporting an instance of harassment in the bathroom (or was it just in general?). It does not specify or indicate to how often those 70% of people experienced such issues. There is no data indicating this. Is it 1 out of 100 times they use the bathroom? Is it 50 out of 100? The point is, you do not know, and think there is a some huge problem that needs addressing. Stop saying I'm ignoring the data, and start understanding why the data Hack presented and you keep citing is not an effective counter to my argument. Hint: responding to the data is not ignoring it. You are ignoring my response to the data.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Do you know what prompted that law and one of the reasons used to implement the ordinance?
EDIT:
I'm not the one who is interjecting assaults in this discussion. My argument is, there is not enough empirical data to take action. When someone comes at me with the frequency of assaults, I believe I've assumed the correct context, that someone wants to pass a law regulating assaults on transgender.
What frequency of discrimination against transgender people would you consider unacceptable. and requiring of action?