State laws that affect transgender adults and how does this play out?

[Ginevra]

I’m asking because I have heard of many hypothetical scenarios but what I’m curious about are actual laws in some states that affect transgender adults. 
 

So the first part of my question is: are there any states that have a ratified law in place right now that stipulates bathroom/locker room use for trans adults? And if yes, what is the wording? And if yes, what actually happens if someone is presumed to be breaking this law? I’m wondering who polices the bathroom and would accost a person going in/out based on a presumption of that person’s gender. Is that happening in any state; I.e, in Texas? In Florida?

I am wondering what the true risk level is for trans adults if they go to a state that has a reputation for being “anti-trans.” Defining risk level as likelihood of being arrested and having to obtain defense counsel. 

****My intentions in asking this are pure. I had a debate/intense discussion today with an attorney and I don’t have enough information to know if points he made are valid or not. The individual who brought this issue to the fore is fearful of going certain places and I’m trying to understand the true risk. I live in a liberal state and have never lived in the states where this sentiment is at issue; I don’t know what it is like. As a simple example, I have no factual knowledge of how frequently all-gender bathrooms are available, so I don’t know how often a trans person must choose between the male or female bathroom.****
 

***I am intentionally trying to stay out of the weeds of laws affecting trans minors. I have mixed feelings about those and it wasn’t part of the discussion prompting this post. The individual is an adult. So I am wondering what the threat of legal repercussions is in an adult transgender person.***

[prairiewindmomma]

This website has a state by state map color coded re: bathroom laws: https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/nondiscrimination/bathroom_bans

That said, I think there is nuance between what laws are on the books and whether, culturally, one is likely to be harassed for appearing gay or trans. That's a wholly different topic, one I think we've covered fairly extensively here, including on threads you've posted in, IIRC.  It is a topic I have no desire to personally rehash on the boards, for the sake of my own peace and sanity. 

[KSera]

3 hours ago, Ginevra said:

I am wondering what the true risk level is for trans adults if they go to a state that has a reputation for being “anti-trans.” Defining risk level as likelihood of being arrested and having to obtain defense counsel. 

 

1 hour ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I think there is nuance between what laws are on the books and whether, culturally, one is likely to be harassed for appearing gay or trans

I think the latter is what the people I know are more concerned about. I don’t think the primary concern is being arrested. 

[Ginevra]

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

 

I think the latter is what the people I know are more concerned about. I don’t think the primary concern is being arrested. 

Well then, good! The things I said to the person asking make sense in that light. I’m happy to hear it. 

[Terabith]

27 minutes ago, KSera said:

 

I think the latter is what the people I know are more concerned about. I don’t think the primary concern is being arrested. 

Oh, I am VERY concerned about my very cis appearing nonbinary adult who has had top surgery being prosecuted in states like TN, Florida, and Texas.  The bathroom laws absolutely could be enforced, and with an X on their identification documents, there genuinely isn't a safe choice.  My parents live in Tennessee, and they haven't been in years, and a big part of that is the anxiety about the legal limbo.  People saying mean things we can live with, even if super unpleasant.  Prosecution is a whole different ball of wax.  

[KSera]

10 minutes ago, Terabith said:

The bathroom laws absolutely could be enforced, and with an X on their identification documents, there genuinely isn't a safe choice.

Since those laws aren’t going by changed gender indentifiers anyway, wouldn’t the women’s bathroom be no issue for a cis-female appearing non binary person? That doesn’t address the issue if the person in question prefers to use the men’s room, of course, I’m just not seeing in that particular situation how there isn’t a legally safe choice. The top surgery has no bearing on that—many women are relatively flat or have had surgical removal due to cancer, so I can’t see how top surgery would be relevant to what bathroom those states are requiring. I think the main issue is for trans women or trans men because they are kind of in a no-win situation. They are at risk whether they use the one they prefer (which puts them in violation of the law) or the one the state says they should use but they don’t visually align with (which may cause others to accuse them of being in violation of the law).

The people I know aren’t concerned primarily with people “saying mean things“ I believe they’re more concerned with being physically assaulted.

[Dmmetler]

The other thing to keep in mind is that being arrested doesn't preclude physical assault. In many places, the fear isn't either/or. It's both. 

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Since those laws aren’t going by changed gender indentifiers anyway, wouldn’t the women’s bathroom be no issue for a cis-female appearing non binary person? That doesn’t address the issue if the person in question prefers to use the men’s room, of course, I’m just not seeing in that particular situation how there isn’t a legally safe choice. The top surgery has no bearing on that—many women are relatively flat or have had surgical removal due to cancer, so I can’t see how top surgery would be relevant to what bathroom those states are requiring. I think the main issue is for trans women or trans men because they are kind of in a no-win situation. They are at risk whether they use the one they prefer (which puts them in violation of the law) or the one the state says they should use but they don’t visually align with (which may cause others to accuse them of being in violation of the law).

The people I know aren’t concerned primarily with people “saying mean things“ I believe they’re more concerned with being physically assaulted.

Because while the chances that they will be challenged are low, they are not nonexistent.  They have a butch haircut and no boobs, and small chested cis women with short hair have been harassed.  I have friends here in Virginia who are completely cis who have been harassed and threatened and had to show documentation, and Virginia doesn't have these kinds of laws.  Yet.  They have at least the legal protection, if the harasser calls the police, of having identity documents that proclaim them as female.  My kid doesn't have those.  PROBABLY it wouldn't be an issue (and they do use the women's restroom generally, because it's usually cleaner and because they feel safer).  But probably is a gamble, even if using the restroom of the gender assigned at birth.  These states are not passing these laws because they want people to use the restroom of the gender they were assigned at birth.  They want to make it so that it is unsafe to exist in public as a trans person, both physically and legally, with absolutely no safe options and it is working.  

Also, bathroom bills don't address the issue of first responders and health care professionals refusing to treat trans and non binary people, which has happened MANY MANY MANY times, to personal friends of mine who are trans and nonbinary.  My college roommate, who is trans masc, has been unable to get healthcare for things like a thyroid disorder, because medical professional have said point blank, "I don't treat people like you."  (Not just once.  Dozens of times.)  So emergency health care in unfriendly states is a huge worry, too.  

[KSera]

40 minutes ago, Terabith said:

So emergency health care in unfriendly states is a huge worry, too.  

Yes, definitely this. My kid will not be visiting any such states for sure (and by extension, neither will we).

[Dmmetler]

10 hours ago, KSera said:

Yes, definitely this. My kid will not be visiting any such states for sure (and by extension, neither will we).

The problem is that it's very difficult to avoid visiting states when they contain a hub airport. And, of course, if you already live there, it's hard to leave.

 

I have a nephew who is a senior in a Florida high school this year. He transitioned in middle school, never went through a female puberty, and both visually looks like a short guy and is not known by most of his classmates as being trans. Going in the girl's bathroom, at this point, would cause a fuss, but since the SCHOOL knows he's trans, he risks disciplinary sanctions up to and including explusion and arrest for using the boys. Fortunately, he doesn't have to take any more PE. There is ONE single stall bathroom in the school, off the nurse's office, and if she's not there or has a student with her, it's not accessible. 

 

For this last year, he has literally taken his mom's van to school with a camp toilet in the back, just in case he needs a bathroom. As a senior he can leave campus for lunch, so literally drives home or to Starbucks (which, again, has a single stall bathroom) in order to pee. 

 

He has tuition pre-paid at any Florida state school because his parents bought Credits for their kids years ago. He won't be using them-which means that he will go from being able to graduate with no debt to almost certainly having debt because the states with the best scholarships are, for the most part, not much more trans friendly than FL. 

 

I am sympathetic to women who don't want penises in their bathrooms, but it's simply not tenable to force people like my nephew to go by their birth certificate gender because that puts a MAN, with facial hair and the muscles and physical development of a man in the women's.  And most places HAVE no third option, or you have to get someone to let you into it, when the men's and women's are open. 

 

I live in a state with bathroom laws, and I have one co-worker-a tall, Black woman who has had breast cancer and had a double mastectomy, who comes down to use the restrooms beside my room (which are both single stall and unlabeled-we didn't see the point in having 9 girls in line for one and the other empty) because she has literally had people go to the office and say "there's a man in the women's restroom"-only for her to walk in while the manager on duty was trying to explain "no, SHE works here". She says the same thing happens out in public, a lot, and she has had to pull out her driver's licence for security more than a few times. She has said that she'd rather have a drag queen in the bathroom with her than a nosy (word for female dog). I can't blame her. She shouldn't have to move away from her community and grown children so that she doesn't get asked to show ID in the restroom at Kroger! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Scarlett]

I have on purpose and accidentally used the mens restroom several times.  Once at the Grand Canyon the women’s line was about 25 women long and no line for the men.  I just could not wait and I ducked into the first stall and quickly went. I am glad no one called the police on me. 

I have never understood this obsession with who is using what bathroom.  The argument about our children aren’t safe doesn’t fly either because when have our children ever been safe alone in a public bathroom?  Not in my lifetime.  You have to be responsible for your children because you don’t know who is in there at any given time that may or may not be a danger to them. And the way people look is not a reliable indicator.  
 

If they would take out the urinals and make real stalls I would have zero problem using the bathroom regardless of who was in there.  I can definitely stand next to a man and wash my hands.  

[TheReader]

I just want to thank you, @Ginevra, for starting this thread.  And everyone for contributing such honest answers. 

Our national fencing governing body recently decided to limit tournaments (on the national level, not regional/local ones) in states w/unfriendly laws. As I live in one of those states, I was a little annoyed by that - I felt that cost, access, etc. (the list they came out with pretty much is far upper East coast or far west coast) would become prohibitive to many of us in the middle states, and the fencing community is a pretty inclusive place, so I didn't really grasp the risk inherent in coming to our states. 

This thread helps me understand that better; thank you. 

As far as the question - I haven't heard too many instances of bathroom laws being enforced in places like the grocery store, but have heard of cases being enforced at places like the YMCA, which is more problematic even b/c that's a place a person has paid to join, but now can't use....not so much arrests being made (that I've heard of, at least), but being forced out of the YMCA by default b/c now they can't use the locker room, etc. 

On the other hand, I had a 2nd grader in my co-op class yesterday ask if anyone shops at Target, or watches Disney. The 2nd grader then informed the class that either of those is very bad, you should not do it at all, b/c both are full of people who are confused and think they are a boy when really they are a girl, or vice versa, and it's really sinful and awful and no one should shop there/watch them because they (Target/Disney) think it's okay to be like that.   Prevalent attitude down here. :sigh:  (kid is spouting what mom/dad say, clearly)

 

[Faith-manor]

NM

Edited January 26 by Faith-manor

[TheReader]

3 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

Our son's spouse is non binary, and not particularly feminine by choice. They have experienced some scary things at a rest area in Tennessee on their way to our Alabama house that Dd  and family live in, and now will not travel through the south. Bathroom laws are dangerous.

As a result, they will never again go to see their sister and nephews. Dd is already wondering if we shouldn't just sell the home. Her dh is putting feelers out for jobs back here. Our grandson, a boy who likes longer hair, and whose favorite colors are purple and magenta, favorite things are rainbows and horses, has already experienced harassment at the tender age of 8. 

We had such high hopes for our Shan Gri La, my dream house, a place to escape Michigan winters when we retire. Unless things change before dh calls it quits at work, I think we will be parting with it.

We also want to be able to travel safely with our son and in law, our grandsons, our lesbian honorary daughters one of whom though not trans, is not remotely feminine. At present that means for the most part staying out of the American Southwest, the deep South, the southern Atlantic coast, and making our trips through sketchy territory like northern Indiana very direct without stops, on the way to safer places. Lots of bucket list visit items have come off the list. Grad school options for ds and partner were carefully considered from a safety point of view. Some parts of this country are very disturbing places for about 20 million folks in this country, not to mention the many millions more who love them and want to keep them safe. As long as Florida is the way it is, the visit to Harry Potter world in FL for our grandsons is off. While Universal/Disney, these types of entertainment venues remain friendly to LGBTQ, traveling through that state would scare me to death for N.

I have to wonder if eventually, states with these laws and general cultural attitudes will lose significant money within the hospitality and entertainment industry. It might be the only thing that makes their leadership pause to consider their stance. Money. It is the only thing that moves the needle, not human kindness.

This is certainly already starting to happen. Hopefully, yes, it has the intended effect. 

Also, re: kiddos being bullied.....the same kiddo in my class who was spouting the anti-Target, anti-Disney stuff is a little boy whose absolute favorite color EVER in the WORLD (his words), is pink. 

But yesterday was Show & Tell --- "favorite color" --- Mom made him use blue, instead, which he also likes, but not as much as pink. 😞 

In other states (I think OK?)(maybe not, maybe the kiddo lives in a different state than where my friend lived), a friend's grandson was cast as Annie in the youth/community production of Annie, Jr. Oh my word, most adorable thing ever.  He was celebrated there. Here, schools are cancelling field trips to plays that cast such daring things as a male playing a female insect in James & the Giant Peach.  

[Heartstrings]

7 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I have on purpose and accidentally used the mens restroom several times.  Once at the Grand Canyon the women’s line was about 25 women long and no line for the men.  I just could not wait and I ducked into the first stall and quickly went. I am glad no one called the police on me. 

I have never understood this obsession with who is using what bathroom.  The argument about our children aren’t safe doesn’t fly either because when have our children ever been safe alone in a public bathroom?  Not in my lifetime.  You have to be responsible for your children because you don’t know who is in there at any given time that may or may not be a danger to them. And the way people look is not a reliable indicator.  
 

If they would take out the urinals and make real stalls I would have zero problem using the bathroom regardless of who was in there.  I can definitely stand next to a man and wash my hands.  

I’ve used the mens room too, usually when solo traveling with little kids who can’t always hold it long enough to wait through a long line and often don’t give enough notice.  It’s either we duck into the empty mens room or the kid has an accident.  
 

I honestly don’t understand why we treat men like animals, with urinals just out in the open.  It’s just absurd.  Many men don’t want to flap their parts out in semi-public in front of other men. Urinals could go in a closed stall, just as easily as a toilet.   Very few people have urinals at home, so it’s not like dealing with a toilet is a foreign concept.  There is no real reason men can’t use stalls too and honestly a good portion of them would prefer it. 

[thatfirstsip]

The thing I really don't understand is single stall restrooms labeled men's or women's.

I use the men's single stall if the women's is in use; there aren't any men in there! It's empty! Why in the world is a single stall with a locking door restricted to half the population?

[PronghornD]

21 hours ago, Terabith said:

Also, bathroom bills don't address the issue of first responders and health care professionals refusing to treat trans and non binary people, which has happened MANY MANY MANY times, to personal friends of mine who are trans and nonbinary.  My college roommate, who is trans masc, has been unable to get healthcare for things like a thyroid disorder, because medical professional have said point blank, "I don't treat people like you."  (Not just once.  Dozens of times.)  So emergency health care in unfriendly states is a huge worry, too.  

Is it currently legal in some states (or in the whole country) to refuse health care to people on account of gender?

[Sneezyone]

43 minutes ago, PronghornD said:

Is it currently legal in some states (or in the whole country) to refuse health care to people on account of gender?

Well, there's this. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/veterans-group-sues-government-to-cover-gender-affirming-surgery-for-veterans_n_65b29d0fe4b074981637280f

[Heartstrings]

47 minutes ago, PronghornD said:

Is it currently legal in some states (or in the whole country) to refuse health care to people on account of gender?

This article is from 2022 so there may be more.   If any have been overturned or repealed I’m not aware of it.  

“South Carolina became the seventh state last month to permit health care providers to decline to serve people if they feel doing so would violate their religious beliefs. 

As a result, more than 1 in 8 LGBTQ people now live in states where doctors, nurses and other health care professionals can legally refuse to treat them, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ think tank. In addition to South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Ohio and Illinois have similar measures in effect.”

 

 

Also  This

“Ambulance workers jeered at and refused to treat Tyra Hunter, a transgender woman seriously injured in a car accident outside Washington, DC who later died from her wounds. The same kind of hate-fueled medical negligence killed Robert Eads, a transgender man with ovarian cancer whom 20 separate doctors wouldn’t treat; one said the diagnosis should make Eads “deal with the fact that he is not a real man.””

Edited January 26 by Heartstrings

[Terabith]

26 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

This article is from 2022 so there may be more.   If any have been overturned or repealed I’m not aware of it.  

“South Carolina became the seventh state last month to permit health care providers to decline to serve people if they feel doing so would violate their religious beliefs. 

As a result, more than 1 in 8 LGBTQ people now live in states where doctors, nurses and other health care professionals can legally refuse to treat them, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ think tank. In addition to South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Ohio and Illinois have similar measures in effect.”

 

 

Also  This

“Ambulance workers jeered at and refused to treat Tyra Hunter, a transgender woman seriously injured in a car accident outside Washington, DC who later died from her wounds. The same kind of hate-fueled medical negligence killed Robert Eads, a transgender man with ovarian cancer whom 20 separate doctors wouldn’t treat; one said the diagnosis should make Eads “deal with the fact that he is not a real man.””

This.  It's not because of gender.  It's because their identity or lifestyle conflicts with the providers personal or religious beliefs.  But honestly, I get the impression that doctors and even first responders can choose to refuse service to almost anyone for almost any reason, as long as it's before they establish a patient caregiver relationship.  

Also note that in Tyra Hunter's case, it was outside very liberal DC.  Imagine what it's like to be trans in Biloxi, Mississippi.  

[Faith-manor]

NM

 

Edited January 26 by Faith-manor

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Terabith said:

Also note that in Tyra Hunter's case, it was outside very liberal DC. 

This is a horrific case. It was 1995 though, and a lot has changed. I think her case was rife with all kinds of -isms leading to the tragic outcome (one of which being her transgender status, but also very definitely her race (n-word was used by medic) and perception of her as a homeless drug user). She was devalued all the way around.

 

I think these conversations are more valuable when they avoid over the top hyperbole. I disagree with the laws, but health care workers aren’t leaving children to die because they’re wearing rainbow clothing, nor has any legislation been passed that would make that legal. 

[Terabith]

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

This is a horrific case. It was 1995 though, and a lot has changed. I think her case was rife with all kinds of -isms leading to the tragic outcome (one of which being her transgender status, but also very definitely her race (n-word was used by medic) and perception of her as a homeless drug user). She was devalued all the way around.

 

I think these conversations are more valuable when they avoid over the top hyperbole. I disagree with the laws, but health care workers aren’t leaving children to die because they’re wearing rainbow clothing, nor has any legislation been passed that would make that legal. 

I don't think a health care worker would leave a child to die because they are wearing rainbow clothing.  But I know for a fact, from several trans friends my own age, that they have been refused needed (but not emergency) health care for non gender transition related issues over and over again, and they have been told by the doctors that the reason is "I don't treat people like you."  

It's not hyperbole.  It's lived experience.  

[livetoread]

To be fair, my relative is a nurse practictioner specializing in endocrinology, and she refers trans patients who have hormonally transitioned or who want to. It's not bigotry, it's lacking the specialized knowledge that is needed to treat bodies that have been altered hormonally to the point that they exhibit different sex characteristics. I have no doubt there are medical professionals who refuse to treat because of bigotry, and I have no doubt there are many, many others who would rather not educate themselves even minimally to treat simple trans cases. If they are practicing in an area without specialists, then I think they should educate themselves and not refuse treatment. But treating say a trans man with ovarian cancer would be complicated, and the fact that someone had difficulty finding a doctor doesn't surprise me. 

[KSera]

57 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I know for a fact, from several trans friends my own age, that they have been refused needed (but not emergency) health care for non gender transition related issues over and over again, and they have been told by the doctors that the reason is "I don't treat people like you."  

I believe this, unfortunately, and this sucks :(.

Edited January 26 by KSera

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

 

NM

Edited January 26 by Faith-manor

[KSera]

These conversations matter to me a lot. They affect me a lot. I'm someone who has personally had many occasions to advocate hard for a transgender loved one receiving health care to make sure they are being respected as they should, called the way they prefer, getting the care they need, and all things. But I consistently find the lack of nuance more often than not prevents productive conversations. This isn't the only issue like that, but it's a HUGE issue with this topic. It's like the people saying that if kids can identify how they want, then the schools are going to have to put litter boxes in the bathrooms for those who identify as cats. No, that's not a reasonable discussion point. I should probably stay out of these discussions on the public side of the board for that reason, but I find it hard to. That's on me though.

[maize]

14 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

 

I am sympathetic to women who don't want penises in their bathrooms, but it's simply not tenable to force people like my nephew to go by their birth certificate gender because that puts a MAN, with facial hair and the muscles and physical development of a man in the women's.  And most places HAVE no third option, or you have to get someone to let you into it, when the men's and women's are open.  

I've said it before: the simplest,  least expensive, easiest to implement resolution to bathroom concerns that both allows females a reserved space where they can feel safe and ensures bathroom availability for everyone (while simultaneously mitigating the perennial problem of long lines for women's restrooms) is to have designated female bathrooms and unisex bathrooms. Anyone and everyone can use the unisex restrooms without raising eyebrows, and women who need a female-only space to feel safe and comfortable have access to one. Doesn't require significant new infrastructure. 

Edited January 26 by maize

[thatfirstsip]

1 hour ago, maize said:

I've said it before: the simplest,  least expensive, easiest to implement resolution to bathroom concerns that both allows females a reserved space where they can feel safe and ensures bathroom availability for everyone (while simultaneously mitigating the perennial problem of long lines for women's restrooms) is to have designated female bathrooms and unisex bathrooms. Anyone and everyone can use the unisex restrooms without raising eyebrows, and women who need a female-only space to feel safe and comfortable have access to one. Doesn't require significant new infrastructure. 

But it does require a very big thing, which is deciding societally whether sex is a mutable characteristic, and whether sex or gender is protected in various contexts.

It only sounds simple, unfortunately. Currently, until we sort out sex vs gender, it is not simple.

[MercyA]

10 hours ago, maize said:

I've said it before: the simplest,  least expensive, easiest to implement resolution to bathroom concerns that both allows females a reserved space where they can feel safe and ensures bathroom availability for everyone (while simultaneously mitigating the perennial problem of long lines for women's restrooms) is to have designated female bathrooms and unisex bathrooms. Anyone and everyone can use the unisex restrooms without raising eyebrows, and women who need a female-only space to feel safe and comfortable have access to one. Doesn't require significant new infrastructure. 

I understand and appreciate your desire for a workable solution. However, some men need a male-only space to feel comfortable, and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think they should have that taken away from them.

Edited January 26 by MercyA

[Terabith]

The issue is that the goal is in no way to give women a safe, female only space.  The goal of these laws isn’t to protect anyone, even if it’s couched in that language. The goal of these laws is to make it illegal and unsafe for trans people to exist in public.  No amount of good faith efforts to solve it will work, although @Dmmetler’s approach of advocating for family bathrooms for families, with no obvious connection to trans people, has a decent shot of working so long as nobody in power realizes that this benefits trans people.  

[Drama Llama]

Just now, Terabith said:

The issue is that the goal is in no way to give women a safe, female only space.  The goal of these laws isn’t to protect anyone, even if it’s couched in that language. The goal of these laws is to make it illegal and unsafe for trans people to exist in public.  No amount of good faith efforts to solve it will work, although @Dmmetler’s approach of advocating for family bathrooms for families, with no obvious connection to trans people, has a decent shot of working so long as nobody in power realizes that this benefits trans people.  

During the pandemic, the people who don’t want trans people to exist in public made It crystal clear that they don’t want children with disabilities to exist in public either.

 

[maize]

Demonizing half the population of the country-- regardless of which half it is in our polarized system--is never helpful.

People are complex.

Demonization is often an effective way of rallying people for a cause, but it ultimately undermines community--locally and nationally.

I'll always argue against such.

[PronghornD]

2 hours ago, maize said:

Demonizing half the population of the country-- regardless of which half it is in our polarized system--is never helpful.

People are complex.

Demonization is often an effective way of rallying people for a cause, but it ultimately undermines community--locally and nationally.

I'll always argue against such.

I don't agree with demonizing half the population of the country (although I'm not sure who is really doing that). I do think, however, that some people really do demonize themselves by their behavior. In the above conversation, we talked about doctors who, in a dismissive way, refuse to treat certain people. Clearly, they have just demonized themselves if they can't act in a caring way toward the patient and give them a referral or a suggestion for where they can get the medical care they need.

It might be easy to tolerate these attitudes in a substantial part of the population if they don't impact someone you know and love. Listening to those of us who DO know and love a trans person may help build more understanding and less polarization.

[Dmmetler]

4 hours ago, Terabith said:

The issue is that the goal is in no way to give women a safe, female only space.  The goal of these laws isn’t to protect anyone, even if it’s couched in that language. The goal of these laws is to make it illegal and unsafe for trans people to exist in public.  No amount of good faith efforts to solve it will work, although @Dmmetler’s approach of advocating for family bathrooms for families, with no obvious connection to trans people, has a decent shot of working so long as nobody in power realizes that this benefits trans people.  

Honestly, this is what has worked here so far-pointing out that dads need to be able to assist daughters in the bathroom, and that we don't want those little girls in the men's room seems to have worked well. So has pointing out that making single stall bathrooms unlabeled spreads out load-particularly when we have a ton of little dancers after school who need to change out of school clothes and refuse to use something with "mens" or "boys" on the door, even if it's a single, locking door and there's no reason why they can't, or when we have an art class of 9 girls and three boys who all need to wash paint off their hands. 

I'm also advocating for adult-sized changing tables, and pointing out that there are grants to provide same and that if we're going to do things like put in accessible playground equipment for older kids with disabilities, we also need to provide appropriate bathroom facilities. 

 

Having three bathrooms-mens, women's, unisex, with the latter being set up for families and people who need assistance would solve many more problems. And while you're at it, get doors that fit in the men's and women's rooms, and maybe put the urinals in stalls, too!!!

 

Criminalizing being trans-or, more often, being suspected of being trans, solves nothing. 

But at the same time recognizing that some people prefer what they're used to-which is women in the women's room and men in the men's room, and are uncomfortable with people that they don't see as women in a women's space or men in a men's space needs to happen, too.  Because right now, there are people who do not see trans women as women and trans men as men, and that can't be forced-and non-binary people who would generally prefer not to have to identify with either. I've seen enough changes in acceptance for gay people in my lifetime to realize that it will happen over time, but for now, we just need to find ways that let ALL people be comfortable.  And that's an architectural and plumbing problem, not a legal one.

 

Frankly, I'm not thrilled with having someone's 4 yr old crawling under the stall doors, either, and would prefer enough privacy in the bathroom to make sure that doesn't happen.  I want changing rooms with doors that close and lock if I'm changing clothes, I want single showers behind curtains-ideally off  that changing room, unless they're ones designed to do a quick rinse with bathing suits on.  I don't think any school kid should be forced to change in front of other people, regardless of what anatomy they have.  I see nothing but benefits in designing public bathrooms in ways that give people privacy. 

[Drama Llama]

6 hours ago, maize said:

Demonizing half the population of the country-- regardless of which half it is in our polarized system--is never helpful.

People are complex.

Demonization is often an effective way of rallying people for a cause, but it ultimately undermines community--locally and nationally.

I'll always argue against such.

I assume you were replying to me? 

I don't think that half of the country wants trans people to stop existing, or to stop existing in public.  I think that there is a small but very vocal minority who would like that, and that minority has an outsized amount of political control.

I think there's a real difference between someone who is concerned about trans people's bathroom access, but even more concerned about women's privacy, and who would be happy to problem solve, and someone whose goal is to exclude.  I might not always agree with the solutions that people in the first group might suggest, but the fact that someone is able to offer ideas and engage in a conversation is a sign that they aren't motivated by a desire to erase people.  

[maize]

16 minutes ago, Drama Llama said:

I assume you were replying to me? 

I don't think that half of the country wants trans people to stop existing, or to stop existing in public.  I think that there is a small but very vocal minority who would like that, and that minority has an outsized amount of political control.

I think there's a real difference between someone who is concerned about trans people's bathroom access, but even more concerned about women's privacy, and who would be happy to problem solve, and someone whose goal is to exclude.  I might not always agree with the solutions that people in the first group might suggest, but the fact that someone is able to offer ideas and engage in a conversation is a sign that they aren't motivated by a desire to erase people.  

My post was actually sparked by the post before yours that claimed that bathroom laws aren't really about wanting safe spaces for women but about wanting "to make it illegal and unsafe for trans people to exist in public."

There's something that happens on both sides of the political aisle in the US: demonize the opposition, claim they don't really care about the things THEY say they care about, make them out to be fundamentally ill-intentioned people who want to hurt their countrymen.

Turn them into bogeymen to fight against. It's an effective way to leverage fear and create momentum for one's chosen side.

And it's absolutely toxic to the overall culture and any hope of productive political dialog and compromise. 

Neither the half of the population that might vote conservative nor the half that might vote progressive (nor of course the overlapping parts in the middle) is evil. Painting them and their intentions as such is never helpful. 

Is there an occasional genuinely bad apple in the lot? Sure.  Are there lots of folks who don't often think deeply about stuff and are primed and ready for manipulation (such as the afore-mentioned fear-mongering...)? Sure. Are there politicians pragmatically manipulating and pandering and eagerly pointing the finger of blame at the other side? Sure.

Most people, however, are truly not motivated primarily by desire to hurt someone. Fear of BEING hurt or of their loved ones being hurt...yes, that's a big factor on all sides. 

If we ever want someone to listen to our perspective, we have to start by listening to theirs. Not by telling them "you don't actually believe what you say you believe." And if we want compromise--and yes, we should almost always be seeking compromise, not my-way-or-the-highway--we need to start with the assumption that they are coming to the table in good faith. 

Someone has to start.

[Ginevra]

21 hours ago, thatfirstsip said:

The thing I really don't understand is single stall restrooms labeled men's or women's.

I use the men's single stall if the women's is in use; there aren't any men in there! It's empty! Why in the world is a single stall with a locking door restricted to half the population?

In some parts of the US (ie, where I am), this is mostly gone. Cafes or restaurants that have single-stall bathrooms are not gendered. They are typically also ADA-compliant so, if you need the toilet or the sink, that’s where you go. 
 

I wonder about other parts of the country though. Do they resolutely stick to one men’s bathroom and one women’s, even if it is single stall? 

[MercyA]

5 minutes ago, Ginevra said:

I wonder about other parts of the country though. Do they resolutely stick to one men’s bathroom and one women’s, even if it is single stall? 

In small town Northern Indiana, yes. Except at the public library. 

[Terabith]

6 minutes ago, Ginevra said:

In some parts of the US (ie, where I am), this is mostly gone. Cafes or restaurants that have single-stall bathrooms are not gendered. They are typically also ADA-compliant so, if you need the toilet or the sink, that’s where you go. 
 

I wonder about other parts of the country though. Do they resolutely stick to one men’s bathroom and one women’s, even if it is single stall? 

Southwestern VA, blue city in the middle of a sea of red - yes, except for a handful of small businesses in the most progressive part of town.  

[prairiewindmomma]

It appears Utah may be next on the map I posted. Utah legislature has passed a bathroom access bill, set to go to the governor's desk for signature: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/utah-latest-state-regulate-bathroom-access-transgender-people-106720746

[Drama Llama]

22 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

It appears Utah may be next on the map I posted. Utah legislature has passed a bathroom access bill, set to go to the governor's desk for signature: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/utah-latest-state-regulate-bathroom-access-transgender-people-106720746

I thought that the Republicans were up in arms about medical transition.  So, why would they draft legislation that gives different privileges to people who have undergone the most invasive form of medical transition?  

[KSera]

35 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

It appears Utah may be next on the map I posted. Utah legislature has passed a bathroom access bill, set to go to the governor's desk for signature: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/utah-latest-state-regulate-bathroom-access-transgender-people-106720746

Given this part of the proposed legislation: 

“The legislation also requires schools to create “privacy plans” for trans students and others that may not be comfortable using group bathrooms, for instance by allowing them to use a faculty bathroom — something opponents say may “out” transgender children.”

An effective grass roots response could be for all students to ask for a privacy plan. That would out no one, if students decide to do so en masse, and it may force better bathroom solutions since obviously this idea isn’t currently workable at large scale.

11 minutes ago, Drama Llama said:

I thought that the Republicans were up in arms about medical transition.  So, why would they draft legislation that gives different privileges to people who have undergone the most invasive form of medical transition?  

I found that bizarre as well. Bottom surgery is particularly not great and is often not wanted by trans men, so to make laws that require it is kind of awful and makes no sense. 

[fairfarmhand]

6 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

 

 

.  I want changing rooms with doors that close and lock if I'm changing clothes, I want single showers behind curtains-ideally off  that changing room, unless they're ones designed to do a quick rinse with bathing suits on.  I don't think any school kid should be forced to change in front of other people, regardless of what anatomy they have.  I see nothing but benefits in designing public bathrooms in ways that give people privacy. 

My YMCA locker room has this set up and I'm super grateful. Changing rooms with locking doors. Private bathroom stalls. Showers in a separate area with opaque locking shower doors.  And signs that say "Please for the comfort of everyone, when in the public areas of the locker room please keep yourself covered with a towel, robe or clothing." So there's no naked people walking around. Everyone can change and clean up but the idea is to be respectful of everyone else in the locker room. (the locker area with benches and such is open and the changing areas/bathrooms/showers are off in little "legs" off of the main area. ) There are plenty of stalls, changing areas, and showers, so you don't have to wait long to get access to dress or shower.

There's also a men's locker room, but also several unisex bathrooms that are toilet, sink and shower with curtain all in a room with a locking door. 

 

Edited January 26 by fairfarmhand

[maize]

My guess as to what could be driving the bottom surgery thing is not wanting penises in the women's restrooms. Remove that and you can come in.

Add one and you have to go elsewhere.

[ScoutTN]

42 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

My YMCA locker room has this set up and I'm super grateful. Changing rooms with locking doors. Private bathroom stalls. Showers in a separate area with opaque locking shower doors.  And signs that say "Please for the comfort of everyone, when in the public areas of the locker room please keep yourself covered with a towel, robe or clothing." So there's no naked people walking around. Everyone can change and clean up but the idea is to be respectful of everyone else in the locker room. (the locker area with benches and such is open and the changing areas/bathrooms/showers are off in little "legs" off of the main area. ) There are plenty of stalls, changing areas, and showers, so you don't have to wait long to get access to dress or shower.

There's also a men's locker room, but also several unisex bathrooms that are toilet, sink and shower with curtain all in a room with a locking door. 

 

Same here.

[ScoutTN]

16 hours ago, Ginevra said:

In some parts of the US (ie, where I am), this is mostly gone. Cafes or restaurants that have single-stall bathrooms are not gendered. They are typically also ADA-compliant so, if you need the toilet or the sink, that’s where you go. 
 

I wonder about other parts of the country though. Do they resolutely stick to one men’s bathroom and one women’s, even if it is single stall? 

Yes, this is typical in my blue city in a red state. Even in several surrounding counties which are very politically conservative. It’s just a sensible set up for a business with public restrooms.

Sometimes it’s as easy as changing signage. Sometimes it depends on the age of the building and cost for renovation. Several chains here have gradually overhauled and updated their buildings, but it takes a while and some older buildings have a less ideal configuration. Small businesses don’t always have the have the money to update and some businesses rent their buildings and have no control over such things.

Edited January 27 by ScoutTN

[Scarlett]

Another thought I have had is that men who share bathrooms with women are cleaner than men who use mens only bathrooms. I mentioned this theory/ observation to a male co worker one time and he was like, um of course.  
 

I think this is probably accurate.  

Edited January 27 by Scarlett

[Ginevra]

On 1/25/2024 at 11:40 PM, KSera said:

These conversations matter to me a lot. They affect me a lot. I'm someone who has personally had many occasions to advocate hard for a transgender loved one receiving health care to make sure they are being respected as they should, called the way they prefer, getting the care they need, and all things. But I consistently find the lack of nuance more often than not prevents productive conversations. This isn't the only issue like that, but it's a HUGE issue with this topic. It's like the people saying that if kids can identify how they want, then the schools are going to have to put litter boxes in the bathrooms for those who identify as cats. No, that's not a reasonable discussion point. I should probably stay out of these discussions on the public side of the board for that reason, but I find it hard to. That's on me though.

I feel that!

[Ginevra]

I have a tangential question. I know that, in my state, one can go to court and have the sex of one’s birth certificate officially, legally changed. It is the very same form that is used for a name change. 
 

Is this true in states that have bathroom laws?