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

[Pam in CT]

re concern about "the legal element"

14 minutes ago, Ginevra said:

I understand that and am in sympathy to it. Is that not why it’s important to discuss these things? So we can understand better. That’s why I have stayed in this thread, though it has morphed beyond discussing the legal element, which does not to be much of a concern for most people.  

The legal element is very much a concern. The issue (which has been expressed throughout this thread) is that the legal element is bigger than bathrooms.

 

We've seen very-small-variants of this movie before, and sometimes the contours of such issues are easier to see at a bit of distance. When (forex) Jim Crow legislation precluded black Americans from availing of municipal swimming pools, and poll tax legislation fused to grandfather clauses precluded black Americans from registration....

...that created an environment that extended far beyond the letter of such laws on the books, an environment in which private businesses could be confident that could preclude black Americans from using the front door/ sitting at the counter/ using the bathroom without any fear of legal reprisal. Hospitals could refuse service without fear of legal reprisal.  Men in hoods bearing burning crosses could be confident that their vigilante violence would not be prosecuted. The "legal element" did not end where the legislation ended, and the dangers to black Americans did not (still does not) end at fear of arrest and the cost of defense. The "legal element" undergirded a much-wider extralegal social system where black Americans could be and were legally defenseless to countless -- essentially limitless -- OTHER degradations and outright violence.

Because protection under the law was not available to them.

 

(There's a similar very-small-variant movie that we've also seen before about women's legal and physical autonomy; and another about homosexuals' ability to Walk While Uncloseted.  But the principle is the same: Law for Me, Not for Thee.)

 

I do think it's important to discuss such issues and I'm glad you started and are hanging in with this thread.

[Clemsondana]

9 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have never seen these in TN, KY, or the Carolinas - I think I've stopped in all 4 of those states in the past year.  I've actually never seen one anywhere, but those states are all recent.  

 

Edited January 28 by Clemsondana

[KSera]

2 hours ago, Farrar said:

I also get that the thread has evolved and some people are trying to learn, but honestly, the discussion by cis folk of peoples medical choices around surgery, genitals, etc. etc. just feels invasively ick in the context of deciding what they "should" and "should not" do.

I think given that the original topic has to do with laws that are written to require such surgeries, it’s relevant (and helpful) for more people to gain understanding that such surgeries are not necessarily part of transitioning. What would be grossly inappropriate would be discussing any such things in relation to *specific* people. But since at this point people are actually voting on legislation like this in some states, they should at least know that’s not a thing to use as a litmus test of who is and isn’t transgender. It’s clear that a lot of people are unaware of that. It reminds me of some of the recent abortion legislation passed by people who didn’t have fundamental understanding of that which they were passing laws about (which, again, is why this doesn’t belong in the realm of politicians). A lot of education happened surrounding that issue as well, and I think people found that necessary rather than inappropriate.
 

[Heartstrings]

49 minutes ago, Clemsondana said:

I have never seen these in TN, KY, or the Carolinas - I think I've stopped in all 4 of those states in the past year.  I've actually never seen one anywhere, but those states are all recent. 

Well they exist in places.  🤷‍♀️ I’ve seen them.  Maybe they only exist in the state of Arkansas.  

[maize]

6 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Well they exist in places.  🤷‍♀️ I’ve seen them.  Maybe they only exist in the state of Arkansas.  

I've encountered them at rest stops along freeways. Can't say exactly where--my roadtripping experience has criss-crossed the country,  but definitely a few times.

Cold but far easier to clean than a standard toilet. 

[KSera]

15 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Well they exist in places.  🤷‍♀️ I’ve seen them.  Maybe they only exist in the state of Arkansas.  

I've seen them with some frequency in parks. And I'm nowhere near Arkansas.

[goldberry]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

re concern about "the legal element"

The legal element is very much a concern. The issue (which has been expressed throughout this thread) is that the legal element is bigger than bathrooms.

 

We've seen very-small-variants of this movie before, and sometimes the contours of such issues are easier to see at a bit of distance. When (forex) Jim Crow legislation precluded black Americans from availing of municipal swimming pools, and poll tax legislation fused to grandfather clauses precluded black Americans from registration....

...that created an environment that extended far beyond the letter of such laws on the books, an environment in which private businesses could be confident that could preclude black Americans from using the front door/ sitting at the counter/ using the bathroom without any fear of legal reprisal. Hospitals could refuse service without fear of legal reprisal.  Men in hoods bearing burning crosses could be confident that their vigilante violence would not be prosecuted. 

 

This is absolutely real. In 1940 SCOTUS ruled that schools had the right to expel Jehovah's Witness children (or any others) who would not say the pledge of allegiance due to religious beliefs. The ruling was overturned three years later.

But after the initial ruling, violence against Jehovah's Witnesses and extreme behavior from teachers towards those school children escalated. The message was "my feelings of anger towards them are justified". It gave a veneer of acceptability to hatred. I'm sure hatred and anger continued after the ruling was reversed, but it was not given the seal of approval by society. And if someone experienced it, they knew they could get support from the legal system.

So while it's easy to say "it shouldn't work like that", the truth is that it does.

[Drama Llama]

I'm not sure I understand your logic.  

Concerns about medical transition would only be relevant if bathroom laws made medical transition less common.  I don't see anything in this that supports that idea.

7 hours ago, Ginevra said:

My perspective on this is different; permit me to illustrate why. 
 

If a minor transitions only socially, this will not erase the disadvantages of not hormonally and medically transitioning. Let’s say a biological  female of 14 yo presents as male and socially transitions. The school will call them whatever they want; mom and dad, aunts and uncles will say “he” and use the preferred name. But. This person still has a uterus, a period, breasts. Lacks facial hair, has no penis. The longer they do not have medical intervention, the more they will look like a female and the harder it becomes to stick with social-only transition. 

But if we accept people's right to tell us who they are, including how they want to be referred to, we make that social transition easier.  I see kids in my are who don't make an effort to hide the fact that they are trans.  If they aren't trying to hide, then there will be less motivation to transition. 

But again, even if being called "he" or by a preferred name doesn't impact the desire to medically transition, it still doesn't make a sense to use medical transition as an excuse to criminalize bathroom use.  

7 hours ago, Ginevra said:

If they have their period, it’s complicated to deal with the bathroom at all, even if the state is progressive. For their optimum privacy and safety, it’s best if they are in a single-stall, unisex, locking private space. 

I agree, it is best to have a single stall unisex option.   But it doesn't sound as though single stall unisex locking bathrooms are becoming more common in states that have bathroom laws.  If anything, it seems like they are more common in more liberal areas.  So, bathroom laws aren't solving this problem either. 

7 hours ago, Ginevra said:

If they are interested in another person romantically, this is also an issue. The safest bet is to stick to the queer people in your social circle, people who are out as not-hereto and/or non-binary. These people, you can assume, won’t flip out to learn that, although they thought you were a guy since they met you, you don’t have male body parts down below. 

Again, this is a problem that is created when we do things that force people to hide the fact that they are trans.  Bathroom laws are part of that push to force people to hide.  

7 hours ago, Ginevra said:

I think these issues are much more likely to make a person yearn for medical transition. Because don’t we know that simply being in a state that does not regulate against trans people does not mean you won’t encounter rejection or even assault for not being “really” a man or “really” a woman? 

I think that @Pam in CT 's point where she compares this to Jim Crow is a good one.  When we legalize and thereby some forms of segregation or violence or hate, whether that's bathroom laws, or removing books from libraries, or denying people medical care or whatever, we embolden people who are inclined to go outside the law and reject or assault others.  Is it 100%?  Do all gender bathrooms eliminate violence against trans people? No, unfortunately not.  But they may reduce it. Or not, but I don't see the evidence that they increase it, which is what would be needed for "but medical transitions" to be a logical argument for bathroom laws.

7 hours ago, Ginevra said:

I read an article written by a fully-transitioned trans man. There was very detailed information about phalloplasty. The author stated that part of the goal for him was to pee standing up like a natal male. Even made a joke about how, when he got looked at askance in a men’s bathroom, he said, “I’m a guy; wanna see my d*ck?” I mean, it was a joke and I’m not sure they literally said that, but my point is that this is a motivation. It’s not necessarily that, without a d*ck that can be shown, there’s a fear of arrest. It’s that there is a motivation to be “completely” the transitioned gender. 
 

In my very small sample size of people I know well IRL, being permitted 100% to socially transition did not stave off medical intervention for very long. It had nothing to do with legislative concerns; it was because social ramifications exist even if legislative concerns are not a factor. 
 

Of course there are people in both kinds of communities, those that are welcoming and those that aren't, who choose medical transition.  But again, unless medical transition is more likely in welcoming communities, it's irrelevant.  You can't argue that bathroom laws have nothing to do with whether one wants to transition, and also argue that we should have bathroom laws because of medical transition.  

7 hours ago, Ginevra said:

 

Last little point, then I swear I’ll be quiet for a while: human nature is consistency bias. Teens are more likely to change things about themselves without concern for consistency than older adults are but there is still a human tendency towards consistency. I can’t imagine there are many people eager to detransition, because it goes against consistency bias and it feels a bit humiliating. I think one reason for not letting kids socially transition only at school is because it’s building a house of cards that’s going to really suck when it inevitably crashes down. This is going to be true whether the parents are nice people or total nut jobs. There’s nothing new about kids thinking their parents “just don’t understand” and this has less to do with how reasonable the parents actually are and more to do with the immature communication skills involved. 

That isn't my experience of teens, as either a parent or a high school teacher.  My experience is that teens who are allowed to experiment, will do so, and some will stick with it and some won't.  On the other hand, my experience is that if you power struggle with them, they will dig in, and that's not usually a good thing.  

[Terabith]

2 hours ago, Ginevra said:

I understand that and am in sympathy to it. Is that not why it’s important to discuss these things? So we can understand better. That’s why I have stayed in this thread, though it has morphed beyond discussing the legal element, which does not to be much of a concern for most people.  

I’m concerned that that was your take away since many of us said explicitly that that IS a real danger and something we are concerned about.  

[Pam in CT]

I think it's hard to overstate the "emboldening hate-driven conduct" dynamic. 

13 minutes ago, Drama Llama said:

...When we legalize and thereby [condone] some forms of segregation or violence or hate, whether that's bathroom laws, or removing books from libraries, or denying people medical care or whatever, we embolden people who are inclined to go outside the law and reject or assault others.  ...

When a POTUS or state governor signals it's open season on folks in a particular already-marginal category, and state legislation ratifies restrictions or requirements targeted to that same already-marginalized population segment, it is predictable that folks inclined to degradation and violence against that segment will be emboldened and it is predictable that people within that segment will understand that the purpose of law is not to protect them but rather to discourage and deter them.

 

The details vary (slightly) according to the specific circumstances of different population segments but the overall emboldening arc is the same.

[fairfarmhand]

23 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

That sounds like how most road side rest areas are in the states.  So cold, stainless steel and no real seat.  
 

They aren’t the only uni sex option though.   Unisex can be done well or poorly but the fact that it’s unisex does not require that it be done poorly or that it not be cleaned properly or regularly.  
 

I can see people of either gender treating it poorly if they disagree with the concept.  People in general have no end of disrespect.  
 

I refuse to accept that men just can’t help acting like animals.  

 

11 hours ago, QueenCat said:

I've never seen this type of thing in any rest area in the U.S. I've seen real toilets. Mostly in the south, mid-Atlantic, Ohio, and Texas. 

Same. I’ve travelled all through the south, Florida Tennessee Georgia Alabama North Carolina. Last summer we drive from tn to glacier national park in Montana and never saw a rest area with anything but real toilets. ( tho there were pit latrines in Montana and South Dakota, but they had real toilet seats)

[ArtHaus]

4 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re concern about "the legal element"

The legal element is very much a concern. The issue (which has been expressed throughout this thread) is that the legal element is bigger than bathrooms.

 

We've seen very-small-variants of this movie before, and sometimes the contours of such issues are easier to see at a bit of distance. When (forex) Jim Crow legislation precluded black Americans from availing of municipal swimming pools, and poll tax legislation fused to grandfather clauses precluded black Americans from registration....

...that created an environment that extended far beyond the letter of such laws on the books, an environment in which private businesses could be confident that could preclude black Americans from using the front door/ sitting at the counter/ using the bathroom without any fear of legal reprisal. Hospitals could refuse service without fear of legal reprisal.  Men in hoods bearing burning crosses could be confident that their vigilante violence would not be prosecuted. The "legal element" did not end where the legislation ended, and the dangers to black Americans did not (still does not) end at fear of arrest and the cost of defense. The "legal element" undergirded a much-wider extralegal social system where black Americans could be and were legally defenseless to countless -- essentially limitless -- OTHER degradations and outright violence.

Because protection under the law was not available to them.

 

(There's a similar very-small-variant movie that we've also seen before about women's legal and physical autonomy; and another about homosexuals' ability to Walk While Uncloseted.  But the principle is the same: Law for Me, Not for Thee.)

 

I do think it's important to discuss such issues and I'm glad you started and are hanging in with this thread.

Conflating Jim Crow and the Black Experience to the legal woes of Trans folks is an analogous fallacy.

One is racial prejudice. The other is a question of morality. The legal system is grappling with the issue philosophically, but trans issues are in no way similar to the Black Experience. To parallel the two, belittles half a millennia of slavery and violence. That is different from gender confusion, or whether or not there are legal grounds to allow men into women’s restrooms (of course, vice versa), or if little children can determine their gender or not, or any of the many layers of legal questions/issues.

Skin color and gender preference are unrelated. The correlation is extraneous at best, usually made to validate or encourage legislation on behalf of Transgendered individuals, for example.

Apples to Oranges.

[Pam in CT]

re analogies

13 hours ago, ArtHaus said:

...Apples to Oranges.

The way analogies work is through a comparison between two *different* things that despite being different have some common element or dynamic.

An arborist, for example, might take an insight from her experience grafting apple trees, and apply it to understanding how grafting orange trees might make them more weather-hardy.  A food scientist might take results from enzyme research with apples and apply the learnings to work with oranges. A barista might consider how a smoothie with an orange juice base might be tweaked with apple juice. And etc.

Skin color and gender identification ARE different -- you're right!

The common referent in the Jim Crow / bathroom legislation isn't skin color or gender identity. The common referent is emboldenment - the effect that certain restrictive legislation has that extends well beyond the letter of such legislation.

The early Nuremberg laws restricted adult Jews from public office, then other from other means of employment and holding real estate. Then from universities and children's schools. The LAW did not empower ordinary Germans to beat Jews on the street, or destroy their property. Yet by the time Kristallnacht came, Jews understood perfectly well that there would be no recourse. The law was not there to protect them. 

 

Analogies don't land with everyone. For dreamy head-in-the-clouds folks like me, analogies are very often extremely helpful in discerning patterns. I think metaphorically in all aspects of my life. Other people are more concrete and reason more linearly. That's great. We process information differently.

 

 

 

And your prior post history suggests that you understand the emboldenment dynamic just.fine.

 

Edited January 29 by Pam in CT
typo

[Paige]

I think for many people in the pre-Civil Rights Era, segregation was absolutely a moral issue and tied to deeply held religious beliefs. 

[SKL]

Who's responsible for policing these laws?  Are the property owners / managers responsible to make sure people with penises don't enter the ladies' room?  That would be one way to encourage such owners / managers to provide a workable option (such as expanded family restroom concepts).

While it will take time for properties to modernize to include options that work for all, hopefully the trans community can put together a list of travel stops (gas & convenience stores etc.) that have workable bathrooms.  I'd think this would be helpful not only in states with laws that aren't trans-friendly, but in other states as well.  Because let's be honest - anti-trans violence / harassment can and does happen in every state.

[KSera]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

hopefully the trans community can put together a list of travel stops (gas & convenience stores etc.) that have workable bathrooms.

This has been done already. Though clearly that’s not really fair or ideal. 

[Pam in CT]

Re Green Book for LGBT travelers

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

...While it will take time for properties to modernize to include options that work for all, hopefully the trans community can put together a list of travel stops (gas & convenience stores etc.) that have workable bathrooms.  I'd think this would be helpful not only in states with laws that aren't trans-friendly, but in other states as well.  Because let's be honest - anti-trans violence / harassment can and does happen in every state.

Yes, such a thing already exists.

And,

the concepts of Toward a More Perfect Union, and Equal Protection Under the Law, and All Are Equal in the Eyes of God, all teach us that such a thing should not HAVE to exist. And that people of good faith -- people of morality -- should strive toward a society in which already-marginalized people don't have to fear legal OR physical harm based on having to use the bathroom.

Edited January 29 by Pam in CT
shortened quotation

[SKL]

12 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

...

And,

the concepts of Toward a More Perfect Union, and Equal Protection Under the Law, and All Are Equal in the Eyes of God, all teach us that such a thing should not HAVE to exist. And that people of good faith -- people of morality -- should strive toward a society in which already-marginalized people don't have to fear legal OR physical harm based on having to use the bathroom.

Well there's the world we'd like to see, and there's the world we live in.

Obviously nobody should ever harass or strike another person outside of actual self-defense.  I never would.  I hope my kids never would.  But I have to acknowledge that things happen.  I've been harassed and abused physically and otherwise by people with penises and by people without ... but far more by people with penises.  "Not all males," but they don't need easy access either.

I've long advocated for separate, gender-neutral bathrooms for everyone, but I can't control the world.

Edited January 29 by SKL

[Heartstrings]

59 minutes ago, SKL said:

Who's responsible for policing these laws?  Are the property owners / managers responsible to make sure people with penises don't enter the ladies' room?  That would be one way to encourage such owners / managers to provide a workable option (such as expanded family restroom concepts).

While it will take time for properties to modernize to include options that work for all, hopefully the trans community can put together a list of travel stops (gas & convenience stores etc.) that have workable bathrooms.  I'd think this would be helpful not only in states with laws that aren't trans-friendly, but in other states as well.  Because let's be honest - anti-trans violence / harassment can and does happen in every state.

A Green Book for trans people, just like black people used during segregation.  Furthering that analogy. 

Edited January 29 by Heartstrings

[Ginevra]

19 hours ago, Terabith said:

I’m concerned that that was your take away since many of us said explicitly that that IS a real danger and something we are concerned about.  

I only have a couple of minutes, but I wanted to clarify this. 
 

I am NOT saying bathroom laws are inconsequential. I am NOT personally in favor of them. My initial question had entirely to do with the question an employee posed to the legal department. If the employer sends a trans person such as themselves to perform their job in a place with actual laws against trans people, AND if the employee was arrested/detained/criminally charged for breaking that law, what are the consequences in re: their JOB. Are they immediately terminated? Do we provide an attorney in their defense? I didnt know the answer, so I discussed it with an attorney. The attorney thought being arrested/detained/criminally charged was extremely unlikely to happen anywhere in the US, whatever the laws are locally. (Even if it did, the person would not immediately lose their job.) 

 

What I meant as applied to this thread: there was almost no interest in the legal question I posed. The first response was a curt dismissal for even bothering to ask when other trans issues have been discussed here many times and I have been in those threads. This thread sat for a couple of days with very little response until the conversation moved to something people want to talk about much more than the likelihood of being criminally charged. Nobody has said in this thread - if they have, I missed it - that criminal charges are one of the things to fear. 

[Terabith]

On 1/24/2024 at 9:29 PM, Terabith said:

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.  

I posted this the same day that you started the thread.  I think it was within an hour of you starting the thread.  I, and many other people, are VERY concerned about our loved ones being prosecuted for using the bathroom.  

The legal prosecution of trans people for using the bathroom is something a ton of people fear.  

[Ginevra]

4 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I posted this the same day that you started the thread.  I think it was within an hour of you starting the thread.  I, and many other people, are VERY concerned about our loved ones being prosecuted for using the bathroom.  

The legal prosecution of trans people for using the bathroom is something a ton of people fear.  

I am sorry I did not realize you said this. I only saw the focus shift almost immediately from legal to threat of assault or other non-job-related thing like access to medical cares 
 

I still would like to know who polices the bathrooms in that manner. I still wonder if it actually happens at all. I haven’t heard of it, but I don’t live where that’s a thing. Around here, I can hardly imagine a judge who wants “used a men’s room but peed sitting down” on their docket. Seems like something that would be dismissed with scorn to the prosecutor for wasting court resources. 

[Heartstrings]

30 minutes ago, Ginevra said:

I only have a couple of minutes, but I wanted to clarify this. 
 

I am NOT saying bathroom laws are inconsequential. I am NOT personally in favor of them. My initial question had entirely to do with the question an employee posed to the legal department. If the employer sends a trans person such as themselves to perform their job in a place with actual laws against trans people, AND if the employee was arrested/detained/criminally charged for breaking that law, what are the consequences in re: their JOB. Are they immediately terminated? Do we provide an attorney in their defense? I didnt know the answer, so I discussed it with an attorney. The attorney thought being arrested/detained/criminally charged was extremely unlikely to happen anywhere in the US, whatever the laws are locally. (Even if it did, the person would not immediately lose their job.) 

 

What I meant as applied to this thread: there was almost no interest in the legal question I posed. The first response was a curt dismissal for even bothering to ask when other trans issues have been discussed here many times and I have been in those threads. This thread sat for a couple of days with very little response until the conversation moved to something people want to talk about much more than the likelihood of being criminally charged. Nobody has said in this thread - if they have, I missed it - that criminal charges are one of the things to fear. 

I think the framing of the laws with regard to employment made it a bit complicated to answer.  I’m not sure what happens if the trans person is working out of town, in a place chosen by the employer, and is arrested for using the bathroom.  That’s very specific and I honestly have no idea.  I don’t think there is any in size fits all answer there as far as will the trans person be fired.  I guess some companies immediately fire people for an arrest, probably some don’t.  If the arrest turns into a conviction is it considered a sex crime?  That would be a fire able offense in some industries, educators for example. 

 

As to bathroom bills in general, I think it’s crazy that some just dismiss the risk that a law that is on the book will be enforced. Hoping or assuming a law won’t be enforced isn’t a good idea, because it could be enforced at anytime.  I’m guessing it would be enforced like a ship lifting charge.  The store detains the individual while waiting for police, then police make an arrest.
 

It seems like speeding to me.  You can speed a hundred times and never have a consequence,  but if you get caught you’ll get a ticket.  Telling a judge that you’ve done it a hundred other times without penalty, or that others do it without penalty, isn’t a way to get out of it.  A law is a law and can be enforced whenever and however.  

[Ginevra]

41 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I think the framing of the laws with regard to employment made it a bit complicated to answer

Yes but I was interested to hear if anyone would confirm that something like that was happening in their trans-hostile state. 

[Dmmetler]

i would HOPE that most affirming, supportive companies would keep the threats to their trans employees in mind when making such assignments (like I can't imagine a US company who needs to do business in Saudi Arabia sending a woman because it would be difficult to impossible for her to do her job due to the cultural expectations). It's not the fault of the employee that the state is making it difficult for them to live. The last JMIH L and I went to included symposia on how to support students doing field work in places that may be hostile to them due to race or gender, and one of the big ones is, simply, don't put people in situations that may put them at risk without ascertaining just how risky it is for them so they can make an educated decision. In some states, and some areas within states, the risk may be low enough that a trans employee would feel OK going. In others, not so much. As more is added to things like the Lavender Book site above, it will be easier to ascertain the risks-for example, if an airport HAS family bathrooms in every terminal, changing planes in that airport probably isn't a problem.

 

Many of the larger science orgs are moving away from having meetings in places with such laws (some have contracts signed for a few years in advance, so can't turn on a dime, but are not signing NEW contracts in those states) due to concerns for the safety of their members. I suspect that at least some companies will also keep this in mind when choosing where to locate new facilities.  

 

 

 

[KSera]

30 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

Many of the larger science orgs are moving away from having meetings in places with such laws (some have contracts signed for a few years in advance, so can't turn on a dime, but are not signing NEW contracts in those states) due to concerns for the safety of their members.

This makes a lot more sense to me than companies just choosing not to send the people who would be at risk. People shouldn't be denied opportunities their coworkers have due to the laws in other states or countries. It doesn't feel right to me to have a company only send men to Saudi Arabia, for example--that feels complicit.

[Dmmetler]

2 hours ago, KSera said:

This makes a lot more sense to me than companies just choosing not to send the people who would be at risk. People shouldn't be denied opportunities their coworkers have due to the laws in other states or countries. It doesn't feel right to me to have a company only send men to Saudi Arabia, for example--that feels complicit.

At very least, the workers who are placed at risk should have the right to refuse without repercussions.  But the fact is, if you need to send one employee to Orlando and one to Las Vegas, there are really, really good reasons right now to send the trans one to Las Vegas and the completely gender conforming one to Orlando. 

 

And a company that sends a trans employee to a place where they risk arrest for being trans and then penalizes them for getting arrested for being trans isn't a place ANYONE should work, IMO. 

 

In a perfect world, that would not be an issue. Right now, we don't have that world. 

 

The fact is, moving even a conference is hard and expensive-one of my friends is on the executive board for one of the orgs that we go to regularly, and they have contracts signed 5 years in advance-so while they will no longer book a venue in an ever growing list of states, there are a few years where people will have to make a choice about whether they're willing to spend money in said state or not. Moving a company is even harder.  If enough events get cancelled, movie and TV studios refuse to film, people don't vacation there, and companies refuse to relocate, money will talk-but it's likely to take years to get to the point that it's a big impact.

Edited January 30 by Dmmetler

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

i would HOPE that most affirming, supportive companies would keep the threats to their trans employees in mind when making such assignments (like I can't imagine a US company who needs to do business in Saudi Arabia sending a woman because it would be difficult to impossible for her to do her job due to the cultural expectations). It's not the fault of the employee that the state is making it difficult for them to live. The last JMIH L and I went to included symposia on how to support students doing field work in places that may be hostile to them due to race or gender, and one of the big ones is, simply, don't put people in situations that may put them at risk without ascertaining just how risky it is for them so they can make an educated decision. In some states, and some areas within states, the risk may be low enough that a trans employee would feel OK going. In others, not so much. As more is added to things like the Lavender Book site above, it will be easier to ascertain the risks-for example, if an airport HAS family bathrooms in every terminal, changing planes in that airport probably isn't a problem.

 

Many of the larger science orgs are moving away from having meetings in places with such laws (some have contracts signed for a few years in advance, so can't turn on a dime, but are not signing NEW contracts in those states) due to concerns for the safety of their members. I suspect that at least some companies will also keep this in mind when choosing where to locate new facilities.  

 

 

 

Major corporate conferences are making the same choices. All of the ones for my calendar this year are in friendly locales, for gender minorities as well as ability ones. Our locale is actually looking to pivot to provide another, more affordable and welcoming option for conferences.

Edited January 30 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

@DmmetlerDefinitely agree with all your points in your post

1 hour ago, Dmmetler said:

And a company that sends a trans employee to a place where they risk arrest for being trans and then penalizes them for getting arrested for being trans isn't a place ANYONE should work, IMO. 

And this part was mind bending to me. I can't understand why it would even be a question. i had no idea at the outset of this thread that that was the scenario being wondered about. If anything, it seems like the trans employee might have a leg to stand on in suing their employer for sending them there, particularly if they were required to go in order to keep their job (or risk losing advancement opportunities).

[prairiewindmomma]

5 hours ago, Ginevra said:

 

What I meant as applied to this thread: there was almost no interest in the legal question I posed. The first response was a curt dismissal for even bothering to ask when other trans issues have been discussed here many times and I have been in those threads. 

This take on my reply is deeply hurtful to me and frankly angers me greatly. In the past I have deeply engaged on threads re: gender and sexuality issues.  After the last thread, I decided for my own peace and sanity that I would not deeply engage on similar threads so that my heart isnt broken repeatedly by some of the callous and thoughtless comments I often see on them. 

I gave you a reply to your specific legal question via a link. I then chose not to engage much further in the thread, only adding another news link about yet another state passing legislation, and now you are snarking even on that.

 

 

[Dmmetler]

[prairiewindmomma]

On 1/24/2024 at 4:21 PM, prairiewindmomma said:

 It is a topic I have no desire to personally rehash on the boards, for the sake of my own peace and sanity. 

Literally, this is what I said.

 

[Ginevra]

7 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

This take on my reply is deeply hurtful to me and frankly angers me greatly. In the past I have deeply engaged on threads re: gender and sexuality issues.  After the last thread, I decided for my own peace and sanity that I would not deeply engage on similar threads so that my heart isnt broken repeatedly by some of the callous and thoughtless comments I often see on them. 

I gave you a reply to your specific legal question via a link. I then chose not to engage much further in the thread, only adding another news link about yet another state passing legislation, and now you are snarking even on that.

 

 

Your reply to me, as the very first reply, was hurtful to me too and angered me greatly. It seemed to me that due to the fact that I have participated in threads on this topic, you were signaling to me and the board that my topic was unwelcome. It was a curt dismissal. 
 

You have every right to not discuss this subject because it’s deeply painful to you. But what purpose does it serve to announce that in the first reply? There are topics here I never even open because I find the subject deeply painful. So I never open them at all. Your reply seemed framed to reprimand me for daring to open a discussion about a topic you find painful. That was how I read it. My intentions have never been to hurt or cause pain for anyone here. 

[Terabith]

So, I guess these states and posters are a-okay with my friends who are bald, bearded, muscular, and have deep booming voice using the women’s bathroom?  Completely comfortable with them there.  And men should be totally fine with my friend who has had facial feminization surgery, has a vagina that even a gynecologist can’t tell didn’t come from God, and looks totally feminine using the men’s room?  And cis people who just don’t conform enough because of biology should carry identification and be prepared to be strip searched every time they have to pee?  Like if you’re afraid of men in the women’s bathroom, this really seems like it would make it far easier for them to enter.  

[historically accurate]

9 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

I'm not going to comment on the letter because I have nothing good to say about it. I find it ironic that if you click on the link, a huge honking X flashes across your screen. (RIP, Twitter). 

[SKL]

I would just note that the bathroom rules were always in place as long as there've been sex-specific bathrooms.  Whether they've been formally legislated in any location before, I wouldn't know.  But it's not like the US or any other country always used to welcome every sex into every bathroom until 2023.

As for the employment bent of it, there definitely are jobs that you can't get if you have a "record" of being convicted of certain levels of crime.  It also affects background checks for things like becoming a lawyer or adopting a child.  If this is an automatic kick-out, it could cause problems regardless of how the bosses personally feel about the laws (or if they even know they exist).

And ftr I agree that Ginerva was not-so-gently reprimanded for starting this thread and essentially warned against starting any further ones or even commenting on this topic ever again here.  This may also be one of the reasons a lot of people held off on commenting.

[Drama Llama]

27 minutes ago, SKL said:

I would just note that the bathroom rules were always in place as long as there've been sex-specific bathrooms.  Whether they've been formally legislated in any location before, I wouldn't know.  But it's not like the US or any other country always used to welcome every sex into every bathroom until 2023.

Because of what I do for a living, and because of one of my kids, I've both been in men's bathrooms, and taken older boys and adult men into women's bathrooms many times, both before these laws went into effect, and since then in states where there isn't a law, since that's where I live.  I have never feared arrest before, because previously it wasn't a crime.  

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Drama Llama said:

Because of what I do for a living, and because of one of my kids, I've both been in men's bathrooms, and taken older boys and adult men into women's bathrooms many times, both before these laws went into effect, and since then in states where there isn't a law, since that's where I live.  I have never feared arrest before, because previously it wasn't a crime.  

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find there have been arrests prior to 2023 for people being in the bathroom of the other sex.  Particularly, men being in the women's.  I could totally see women calling the cops about that.  I'm no expert, but I would avoid sweeping statements, because it may well have been "a crime" in many places, even if there wasn't a highly publicized enactment or a specific code section.  I could see people considering the recent laws to be more clarifications than new rules.

[Dmmetler]

46 minutes ago, SKL said:

I would just note that the bathroom rules were always in place as long as there've been sex-specific bathrooms.  Whether they've been formally legislated in any location before, I wouldn't know.  But it's not like the US or any other country always used to welcome every sex into every bathroom until 2023.

As for the employment bent of it, there definitely are jobs that you can't get if you have a "record" of being convicted of certain levels of crime.  It also affects background checks for things like becoming a lawyer or adopting a child.  If this is an automatic kick-out, it could cause problems regardless of how the bosses personally feel about the laws (or if they even know they exist).

And ftr I agree that Ginerva was not-so-gently reprimanded for starting this thread and essentially warned against starting any further ones or even commenting on this topic ever again here.  This may also be one of the reasons a lot of people held off on commenting.

All the more reason why these laws are a big freaking deal. Because yes, there might have been ways a person could be arrested for using the wrong bathroom, but I never heard about tall cancer survivors who now have short hair and a flat chest having store security called when they're seen washing their hands in the ladies room until quite recently.  You generally had to DO something, not just be in that space. I've darted into the men's room when there was no line before, too. I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that now. One of my friends has a son with ID and she has either gone in the men's room with him or taken him into the women's room in absense of a family restroom for years. These laws being explicitly written as stated endanger her and her son-because at this point, he's no longer a small child who gets a social pass. 

 

And it's why, in the hypothetical, a good boss wouldn't put a trans employee into a situation where they risk arrest for existing. It's why companies SHOULD be the ones pushing back against these laws-because they are an impediment to them being to do business. If you are located in an increasingly large number of places, it is highly unlikely anyone who is trans, has a trans family member, or is a trans ally and has trans friends  will apply for said job. 

[Heartstrings]

2 hours ago, Terabith said:

So, I guess these states and posters are a-okay with my friends who are bald, bearded, muscular, and have deep booming voice using the women’s bathroom?  Completely comfortable with them there.  And men should be totally fine with my friend who has had facial feminization surgery, has a vagina that even a gynecologist can’t tell didn’t come from God, and looks totally feminine using the men’s room?  And cis people who just don’t conform enough because of biology should carry identification and be prepared to be strip searched every time they have to pee?  Like if you’re afraid of men in the women’s bathroom, this really seems like it would make it far easier for them to enter.  

I know it wouldn’t necessarily be safe, but I’d love to see some form of trolling/protest where trans men with their full beards just occupy the ladies restroom, maybe in court houses or Capitol buildings in states that pass these laws.  Maybe they can wear shirts saying something like “ask me about my birth certificate”.  It is a bit of an absurdity that in an effort to keep men out of the ladies room we are requiring people who *look* very male to use the ladies room instead. It sort of illustrates “gender as a social construct” thing.  

[KSera]

23 minutes ago, SKL said:

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find there have been arrests prior to 2023 for people being in the bathroom of the other sex.  Particularly, men being in the women's.  I could totally see women calling the cops about that.

But as multiple people now have asked above, how does that work with the way these laws are written when it means a lot of people who look like men are now forced to use the women’s room? Won’t that suddenly mean a whole lot more calls to police? I just don’t understand how it’s supposed to work.

[Heartstrings]

Just now, KSera said:

But as multiple people now have asked above, how does that work with the way these laws are written when it means a lot of people who look like men are now forced to use the women’s room? Won’t that suddenly mean a whole lot more calls to police? I just don’t understand how it’s supposed to work.

Which is why it’s not so far fetched to feel like these laws are really written to keep trans people from existing in public, because there is no real right answer is there?   It’s hard not to feel like the real intended purpose is to make life so cumbersome that they just stop being trans and just go back to upholding traditional gender roles so everyone else can feel comfortable.  I know people will argue that that’s not the reason, but it’s still there.  

[Pam in CT]

I just re-read the first page of this thread, and I still don't understand what the specific employment-related question is / was.

Even at the OP outset we were (implicitly) mashing up newly arrest-able conduct (folks maybe using a bathroom they weren't entitled under the law to use)  with practical enforcement issues (who's standing at the door checking? Once the possibly self-appointed checker has doubts about whether the person using the bathroom maybe under the new law is arrestable, how does that checker confirm the bathroom user's birtth certificate or genitals? Supposing the bathroom user DOES have the wrong genitals, or isn't carrying a birth certificate... then what? citizens' arrest until law enforcement arrives?) 

Quote

...[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. 

Right from the OP outset we were kinda-sorta dimly recognizing such practical difficulties in the practical implementation of bathroom laws.

 

It occurred to me yesterday afternoon while walking (when many of the most dreamy musing apples-to-oranges analogies pop unbidden into my head) that this is another aspect of a film we've seen before.

When legislation prohibits "vagrancy" -- how is such conduct enforced? It's not feasible to post a law enforcement officer on every corner, in every saloon, inspecting every porch. The solution then was to outsource enforcement to extra-legal, emboldened, citizens' groups. 

When legislation criminalizes sodomy or miscegenation -- how is such conduct enforced? It's not feasible to post LE at every hotel, to tail every apparent couple from watering hole to ultimate destination, to monitor every bedroom. The solution then was to outsource enforcement to extra-legal, emboldened, citizens.

(Who often wore hoods, who often meted out "punishment" vastly greater than the penalties named in the letter of the law, and whose prosecution for such over-zealousness was vanishingly rare.)

A much more current practical enforcement quandary: When county ordinance prohibits women to cross state lines to obtain an abortion, or others from assisting them in doing so -- how is such conduct enforced? It's not feasible to check every woman of childbearing age to confirm they are not pregnant prior to travel, or to install border crossings where such confirmation could be demanded by law enforcement.

 

 

We KNOW what happens when vigilantes are emboldened.

And it's very hard to believe that that isn't the point of such bathroom legislation.  It's not merely that the rare actual prosecution is selective (though it is). It's that leaving de facto enforcement to vigilantes will.predictably.result not just to the fines or jail sentences outlined in the legislation but in widespread legally sanctioned harassment, and torture and death when the zealous righteous go overboard.

Open season.

 

 

Edited January 30 by Pam in CT
greater specificity

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

And it's why, in the hypothetical, a good boss wouldn't put a trans employee into a situation where they risk arrest for existing.

This ignores the fact that employers aren't supposed to discriminate in assigning employees to jobs, based on protected classes.  I don't know the status of whether trans falls into a protected class in any given place in the USA or worldwide (it's probably in flux), but whether it does or not, are we really pushing for employers to (1) need to know everyone's trans status and (2) discriminate on that basis in job assignments?  I could see honoring a request to NOT be sent there, but not giving the person the option feels absolutely wrong.

Edited January 30 by SKL

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

just stop being trans and just go back to upholding traditional gender roles

What do traditional gender roles have to do with this discussion?

Screw traditional gender roles.  The recently increased focus on outdated gender roles (by the pro-trans community) is largely what got us here in the first place.

I've always bucked traditional gender roles and it never had anything to do with what bathroom I wanted to use.

[KSera]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

What do traditional gender roles have to do with this discussion?

I acknowledge gender roles currently seem to be more codified rather than less in some of the current gender ideology. That’s back to my drum beat of “nuance.” Few people are 100% right or 100% wrong in most of these discussions.

[prairiewindmomma]

Bless your heart, I'm sorry that my answer was the first reply? Perhaps I should have waited to be the third or fourth reply? You haven't gotten a lot of legal answers because though there are a few attorneys on the board, it's out of the scope of my practice to answer that and I'm not going to give formal legal answers to legal questions. I'm not going to practice law here. So, you are going to get cultural/moral answers or answers of the sort that any person with a bit of googling could give. 

OP asked 1. are there states that have laws and  2. if yes, what is the wording, which I answered with the link. I did not answer subpart 3--what actually happens/what is the true risk for a few reasons:

a. It should be obvious to someone who works in the legal field, as you do, that a DA in any of the states with laws could bring charges against an individual for breaking a law/ordinance

b. that penalties would vary among the states with such laws because the laws are not uniform

c. we don't know who your employer is, but odds are they are subject to Title VII and contrary state laws are not a defense to Title VII claims (42 USC 2000 e-7).  Additionally there is a wide body of both cases (Lusardi v. Department of the Army, Macy v. Department of Justice, G. ex rel. Grimm) and guidance (OSHA, US Office of Personnel Management for federal employees) for those situations. Regardless of a state's action against an employee traveling on work business, your employer's response could be opening them up to a Title VII countersuit.

and 

d. this issue is still very much working its way through the court system. Noting that there haven't yet been a wide upswell of prosecutions to very new legislation (most of it has passed in the last year) cannot be predictive of excluding future prosecutions. 

Because you asked this question on a homeschooling board----as is your right---anyone can ask anything-- you got more answers more appropriate to such a venue, those discussing the cultural/moral aspects of whether an individual should have the right to use a bathroom in a public space. Most people here aren't legal professionals or won't answer legal questions.  I chose to bow out of that part of the cultural/moral aspect of the question, as you already know my opinion on such matters from previous threads. I think a number of other people have chosen to ignore similar topics as well because I find listening to people dehumanize others appalling. 

Note the wide gap of empathy between the following two positions:

"Don't worry, I don't think you're likely to get arrested for using a bathroom while traveling in the scope of your employment, and if you do, we won't fire you right away, we'll make an investigation." and

"We would never send you to a state where you could potentially be arrested for something like simply using the bathroom in between conference sessions."

Like, stop and engage your brain AND your heart. The employee is asking a few things:
1. Are you putting me into danger?
2. Is my job or future at risk if I refuse this assignment (unspoken)?
3. If I do go, because my job requires it, and I am arrested, will I go to jail? How will I get out? Who is going to cover my legal fees? Is my security check at risk? Will I be subject to employer review?

This is more than a legal question. It's an ethical one. It's a humanity one. Is this an employee worthy of basic human dignity to you? Do they have the right to exist? 

If people want to talk about the ethics of whether all people have the right to exist, go for it. My personal position is that we should all have the right to exist in public spaces and if this basic tenet is the starting point of a conversation, I'm going to bow out for my peace and sanity. 

 

 

 

 

[Pam in CT]

re what's gender roles got to do with this

27 minutes ago, SKL said:

What do traditional gender roles have to do with this discussion?...

...I've always bucked traditional gender roles and it never had anything to do with what bathroom I wanted to use.

The increasing number of people who present as visibly non-binary are very relevant to this discussion.  Even if you don't know such people personally, you likely have SEEN folks walking around with facial hair and flowing dresses (Jonathan van Ness), or tall/ flat-chested/ muscular with makeup and scarves, or tiny and buff wearing a suit, or whatever. Visibly non-conforming to traditional dress and makeup roles.

Where do the state governors heralding bathroom bills even WANT such people to go to?

 

Given the simultaneous desire by the same state governors to remove books that depict such non-binary choices from library bookshelves, who in their own words affirm that clearly defined traditional gender presentations are the the only legitimate ones, it really does **appear** that they really would prefer that anyone who isn't willing to stick to the old binary buckets just disappear from public view.  It's not just body bits, it's not just bathrooms.

Every single letter of LGBTQ is threatening.

 

[Dmmetler]

50 minutes ago, SKL said:

This ignores the fact that employers aren't supposed to discriminate in assigning employees to jobs, based on protected classes.  I don't know the status of whether trans falls into a protected class in any given place in the USA or worldwide (it's probably in flux), but whether it does or not, are we really pushing for employers to (1) need to know everyone's trans status and (2) discriminate on that basis in job assignments?  I could see honoring a request to NOT be sent there, but not giving the person the option feels absolutely wrong.

 The idea that a trans employee (who has chosen to disclose that they are trans) should be assigned to go to a place that puts them at legal  AND physical risk to avoid discriminating against them totally ignores that trans people ARE discriminated against, legally, in many states. At minimum, the employee should be given the option to refuse such assignments without any penalty. Ideally, the COMPANY would refuse such assignments across the board and relocate any programs in such states outside of them.

[PronghornD]

57 minutes ago, SKL said:

What do traditional gender roles have to do with this discussion?

Screw traditional gender roles.  The recently increased focus on outdated gender roles (by the pro-trans community) is largely what got us here in the first place.

I've always bucked traditional gender roles and it never had anything to do with what bathroom I wanted to use.

What exactly is the pro-trans community? Are you talking about an ordinary mom who loves her kid? An ordinary kid who wants to be themself without worrying about gender roles? An activist who is working for trans rights? An ordinary citizen who wants all people to be free?

I don't think that pro-trans people overall have an increased focus on outdated gender roles. Some do; some don't. And non-pro-trans people are the ones doing big gender reveals and such. That certainly doesn't come from the trans community.

I think non-binary people in particular are not generally focused on outdated gender roles. My kid tells me, for example, that clothing does not have gender.