Man cites 'gender identity' rule after stripping in women's washroom

[OMG!WTF!]

We're back to this not being a real problem. The scenario of someone using an opposite sex bathroom to commit crimes under the protection of non discrimination laws isn't a concern as by all accounts it has happened only once in 35 years.

But let's say it becomes an issue and lots of people start doing this. I'm speculating here but this is what I think would happen. The truth usually emerges in court and it is still illegal for a man to use a woman's bathroom. I suspect it would be easy to prove someone is not transgendered by calling the person's family, friends, coworkers and neighbors to testify as to the person's status. Nevermind the private investigation that would without question show the person living as their assigned sex.

But even further, let's say this person convinces the court that he actually is transgendered, and he actually dresses and lives as a woman long enough just to prove his point. The only thing the person would be allowed legally to do is use the bathroom or change room. It's still illegal to peep, lurk, be lewd, loiter, take pictures etc. So it's kind of a lot of work to accomplish what amounts to a normal thing. I suppose you could dress up as a woman and spend five minutes minding your own business in every bathroom around town if that is your ultimate goal.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

My point is that you're answering your own question.

In theory, no.

You don't just take someone's word for it. The law is designed to protect people from having to use bathrooms they would otherwise be subject to abuse it. It's not meant to protect a person who appears to be a man's right to use a female washroom. It protects a transgender person who appears female's right to use a female washroom.

It's not a free for all. When the law is in play, you will likely never notice anything out of the ordinary. That's the point.

Gender expression != gender identity.

If what you say is their goal, they should update the law to refer to gender expression instead of gender identity.

If the law is really about gender identity, then you really can't say much to man who says he identifies as a woman but nevertheless chooses to present himself as a man for other reasons. Gender identity based laws are precisely the kind of poorly written laws that are open for abuse.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Gender expression != gender identity.

If what you say is their goal, they should update the law to refer to gender expression instead of gender identity.

If the law is really about gender identity, then you really can't say much to man who says he identifies as a woman but nevertheless chooses to present himself as a man for other reasons. Gender identity based laws are precisely the kind of poorly written laws that are open for abuse.

True.

And perhaps my inability to defend it is two-fold, on one hand in defending a law that isn't perfect, and on the other I'm defending it from an argument that is based on something that statistically doesn't happen. The likelihood of this Seattle guy being a anti-transgender troll is probably higher than him being a pervert.

It's like spraying fire ######ant on water, because other people are worried about your water catching on fire. It just seems sort of fruitless and illogical to have to do.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

We're back to this not being a real problem. The scenario of someone using an opposite sex bathroom to commit crimes under the protection of non discrimination laws isn't a concern as by all accounts it has happened only once in 35 years.

But let's say it becomes an issue and lots of people start doing this. I'm speculating here but this is what I think would happen. The truth usually emerges in court and it is still illegal for a man to use a woman's bathroom. I suspect it would be easy to prove someone is not transgendered by calling the person's family, friends, coworkers and neighbors to testify as to the person's status. Nevermind the private investigation that would without question show the person living as their assigned sex.

But even further, let's say this person convinces the court that he actually is transgendered, and he actually dresses and lives as a woman long enough just to prove his point. The only thing the person would be allowed legally to do is use the bathroom or change room. It's still illegal to peep, lurk, be lewd, loiter, take pictures etc. So it's kind of a lot of work to accomplish what amounts to a normal thing. I suppose you could dress up as a woman and spend five minutes minding your own business in every bathroom around town if that is your ultimate goal.

Alright, so your position on this occurrence in the OP is that there is nothing see here, and its just something that people might have to live with from time to time? I'm not all up in arms about this, but pretty clearly there is a loophole that ought to be closed if a guy can roll into the ladies change room a couple of times and undress "to make a statement". I have no idea how you can't see the issue here. I have a feeling its because you don't want to admit there is one, and I can't possibly make you see it I guess.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Slava

Alright, so your position on this occurrence in the OP is that there is nothing see here, and its just something that people might have to live with from time to time? I'm not all up in arms about this, but pretty clearly there is a loophole that ought to be closed if a guy can roll into the ladies change room a couple of times and undress "to make a statement". I have no idea how you can't see the issue here. I have a feeling its because you don't want to admit there is one, and I can't possibly make you see it I guess.

Not at all. My position I that the guy committed a crime and should have been arrested. Until that happens we wont know how the law works. My position that this doesn't happen is exactly that. People abusing gender non discrimination laws for criminal purposes, not political purposes, doesn't happen. At least according to police stats in jurisdictions that have these laws. So no you can't make me see what doesn't exist.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm pretty sure he didn't commit a crime. I'm not entirely sure what crime is committed by wandering into the wrong washroom / changing room.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm pretty sure he didn't commit a crime. I'm not entirely sure what crime is committed by wandering into the wrong washroom / changing room.

Once more my question then would be why is there a law specifically allowing transgender people to do exactly that if it was not illegal to do so? It's hard to pin down exactly what the law is because it is different in every state. But there are lots of states that have arrested people for this exact thing.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm pretty sure he didn't commit a crime. I'm not entirely sure what crime is committed by wandering into the wrong washroom / changing room.

Really?

Generally speaking one can only ogle naked women with their consent.

Once you make their ages and ability to consent a random variable its a whole other thing.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Not at all. My position I that the guy committed a crime and should have been arrested. Until that happens we wont know how the law works. My position that this doesn't happen is exactly that. People abusing gender non discrimination laws for criminal purposes, not political purposes, doesn't happen. At least according to police stats in jurisdictions that have these laws. So no you can't make me see what doesn't exist.

So what happens when a legit transgendered person gets arrested wrongly, because they aren't trans enough. Maybe a their idea of being a trans woman is to be one of those flannel shirt wearing, Pete Rose looking lesbians. So it's a man who's idealized version of a woman, is a woman that looks like a man? So you hold them in custody for six months awaiting trial on your 'not a real trans' law, and they are found innocent. Who's responsible now?

In a perfect world this can be allowed, but it isn't. Again, one gender neutral washroom for all to use, including non-trans people solves the whole problem. No matter what your brain identifies with, if you have a penis, and the corresponding set of chromosomes, science dictates you are a man, period. There is no definitive test to prove if you identify with the opposite gender. Although I don't deny that people may be born feeling as if they weren't the right sex, and I believe it is possible, there is actually no scientific proof this is actually possible. It is based entirely on anecdotal claims, and by trusting the word of the one claiming it. It's basically an honor system.

Honor systems are ok when there isn't the potential for people to be harmed. Like bs'ing on a credit application, or lying it's your Birthday to get a free dessert... Whatever. It's crappy to lie about those things, but the potential harm is negligible. But here you have an honor system that sets up to be exploited by very bad people, and cause very grievous harm.

[PepsiFree]

I'm curious at the response to this question:

What issue is there with mix-gender washrooms/change rooms IF laws against leering, touching, general indecency (peeping, masturbating, etc), are upheld?

As in, so long as the perverse and the criminals are still dealt with, IS there an issue with men and women sharing the same changing space?

Or is the concern strictly revolving around deviant activity?

[Patek23]

It seems to me like my opinion has gotten a lot of opposition from the super politically correct crowd (who funnily enough I've been more often in agreement with than anything else in other threads and on other issues) and that what I have received is people arguing from the stand point of simply because I have issues/questions on the law that I must be wrong, that Im afraid of the "boogeyman" and ignoring the risks of transgenders. And to be honest I think for a lot of people who sit on the fence or haven't formed an opinion on the issue, it makes your side less agreeable. Life is not in absolutes. It is possible to have laws that enable the proper people who need access in and the people who shouldn't out. And questioning the current wording wether it be area specific to one small state or if it where countrywide here in Canada does not make someone opposed to protecting transgenders rights and safety.

To be honest I had no idea laws like this had been in place for a long time to allow you to chose washrooms/change rooms on gender identity. All it takes is one idiot like the one from the article in the OP and a lot of people can now push boundaries they never knew existed if there isn't the proper wording in place. I have not seen one person in here state that people who legitimately are transgendered shouldn't be allowed access, but just like anything in life there needs to be limitations. I will admit that my previous comments of if you have a penis you should only be in the men's change room may of been off or a little too harsh on the scale as my main argument has been to prevent men who otherwise are completely men on the outside including their attire (which is funny as how you dress shouldn't really have any bearing on who you are) from being able to on the basis of claiming being transgendered have the ability to access women's change rooms and washrooms. I'd imagine a man dressed as a women but otherwise completely a man would receive both positive and negative attitudes in either change room regardless, so which ever one they would feel more comfortable in, who am I too say really. But there has to be some sort of requirement for it too not be something that can be exploited.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'm curious at the response to this question:

What issue is there with mix-gender washrooms/change rooms IF laws against leering, touching, general indecency (peeping, masturbating, etc), are upheld?

As in, so long as the perverse and the criminals are still dealt with, IS there an issue with men and women sharing the same changing space?

Or is the concern strictly revolving around deviant activity?

I see no issue with it. A pervert is a pervert, and a crime is still a crime. You are basically entering the washroom at your own risk anyway. I'm sure there are trans-gendered individuals that are sexual predators and perverts as well. So I don't think the risk is any more or less. Plus if the facility is open to everyone, trans or non-trans, you aren't forcing anyone to reveal their condition by simply entering it. It's no a transgendered washroom, it's just a washroom for all to use.

Personally, I'd have no issue using such a washroom/change room. And if someone decided to judge me based on using it, I wouldn't care. However I still feel though that people that aren't comfortable with such a scenario should be allowed to have a traditional facility to use. I still give my girlfriend space and respect when she's using the washroom and don't barge in when she's changing or doing whatever it is she's doing in there even though I know exactly what she looks like naked. Sometimes people want privacy for whatever reason. I think it's a big problem if a male stranger is granted access to do exactly that and just barge in.

[Patek23]

On a side note it seems to be a lot of men commenting on who should and shouldn't be allowed into the women's change room. I'd really be interested to hear more of a female perspective.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'm curious at the response to this question:

What issue is there with mix-gender washrooms/change rooms IF laws against leering, touching, general indecency (peeping, masturbating, etc), are upheld?

As in, so long as the perverse and the criminals are still dealt with, IS there an issue with men and women sharing the same changing space?

Or is the concern strictly revolving around deviant activity?

I dont even know how to respond to this.

"If everything is perfect does anyone have a problem?"

Um. No. Of course not.

Unfortunately that minor inconvenience of mere 'perfection without effort' is trivial.

[pylon]

Oh god. I think of the dude-bros. that work out at my gym. If a fit, attractive woman came into the men's change room and changed, you'd be able to shoot a "Calgary Tent and Awning" commercial in there, and you'd probably need to close it for a week to handle the bio-hazard clean up.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont even know how to respond to this.



"If everything is perfect does anyone have a problem?"



Um. No. Of course not.



Unfortunately that minor inconvenience of mere 'perfection without effort' is trivial.

I'm not talking about perfection. I'm talking about the current laws being as they are, applied on a mix-gender scale.

As in, everything is the same as now, with a mix-gender option.
Are laws perfect now to you?

[PepsiFree]

Btw I think (in response to the "PC crowd" defending this) that there is such a high defence of imperfect laws like this because it's kind of a glimmer of hope to grab on to.

You see it, and you're worried it's all you'll get, so you defend it like its the greatest thing out there.

When you've had a hard go of things and a law changes in your favour, it's hard not to desperately love it even if it's not perfect.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Btw I think (in response to the "PC crowd" defending this) that there is such a high defence of imperfect laws like this because it's kind of a glimmer of hope to grab on to.

You see it, and you're worried it's all you'll get, so you defend it like its the greatest thing out there.

When you've had a hard go of things and a law changes in your favour, it's hard not to desperately love it even if it's not perfect.

Understandable. I agree it's a hard uphill battle and it's one I support. But not at the expense of someone else's rights and safety either. I don't know if it is even something that is exploitable but someone has found the "loop hole" somewhere and I'd hope it's not something that can be done anywhere else.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'm not talking about perfection. I'm talking about the current laws being as they are, applied on a mix-gender scale.

As in, everything is the same as now, with a mix-gender option.
Are laws perfect now to you?

Are any laws perfect?

"Everything is the same as now except with a mix-gender option but without criminals or perverts."

What are you even asking? Take criminals and perverts out of the equation and I dont think anyone has a problem. Those are the problem.

Are you talking about a third bathroom? That is mixed? Also I think thats no problem. Assuming that criminals and perverts are no longer part of the equation.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

Are any laws perfect?



"Everything is the same as now except with a mix-gender option but without criminals or perverts."



What are you even asking? Take criminals and perverts out of the equation and I dont think anyone has a problem. Those are the problem.



Are you talking about a third bathroom? That is mixed? Also I think thats no problem. Assuming that criminals and perverts are no longer part of the equation.

Sorry, I don't know if you're purposely not getting it, pylon got it.

It's not about taking criminals/perverts out of the equation, it's about mix-gender rooms where the laws are the same as now. No peeping, leering, masturbating, taking pictures, etc. but men and women are in the same washroom.

Not a third washroom. Not even two. One. Maybe better privacy options within for individuals who want it (like there are now sometimes with stalls in change-rooms).