This “normal 10-year-old” can be placed in a charter school, rent an apartment, get a job, use a full-service gas station, order lunch, go to a museum, and relieve herself in the bathroom with no threat of discrimination based on her identity. The “gender-confused” boy could technically be refused all of those things under the law as long as the school, landlord, employer, gas-station owner, restaurateur, curator, or bathroom monitor decided that the reason he should be barred is because of his transgendered identity.
If one reads the bill, they would realize that the bill is 15 pages long, and is a comprehensive update of a number of statutes to include “gender identity or expression” to the list of reasons a person cannot be discriminated against. It's not about bathrooms: there is one mention of a “rest room” on page 12 of the bill. Here is the full context of that mention:
A place of public accommodation, resort or amusement within the meaning hereof shall be defined as and shall be deemed to include any place, whether licensed or unlicensed, which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public and, without limiting the generality of this definition, whether or not it be (1) an inn, tavern, hotel, shelter, roadhouse, motel, trailer camp or resort for transient or permanent guests or patrons seeking housing or lodging, food, drink, entertainment, health, recreation or rest; (2) a carrier, conveyance or elevator for the transportation of persons, whether operated on land, water or in the air, and the stations, terminals and facilities appurtenant thereto; (3) a gas station, garage, retail store or establishment, including those dispensing personal services; (4) a restaurant, bar or eating place, where food, beverages, confections or their derivatives are sold for consumption on or off the premises; (5) a rest room, barber shop, beauty parlor, bathhouse, seashore facilities or swimming pool, except such rest room, bathhouse or seashore facility as may be segregated on the basis of sex; (6) a boardwalk or other public highway; (7) an auditorium, theatre, music hall, meeting place or hall, including the common halls of buildings; (8) a place of public amusement, recreation, sport, exercise or entertainment; (9) a public library, museum or planetarium; or (10) a hospital, dispensary or clinic operating for profit;
This text is currently in section 92A of chapter 272 of the general laws of Massachusetts. This is essentially an anti-Jim Crow law: it outlines a host of places and services where discrimination based on class is illegal. In the other 14 pages of the bill, laws are changed to prohibit discrimination against transgendered individuals in schools, lending, housing, and other areas.
As you can see, the law is not about bathrooms. And to be clear, the opposition is not concerned with bathrooms; they don't want to extend protections to transgendered individuals in any arena. Opponents want to get people all riled up about little girls stuck in bathrooms with predators who cross-dress (not because they are transgendered, but because they are pedophiles exploiting the law). They figure that if people are scared enough about that, they'll oppose the bill without focusing on the other 99.9% of it.
Of course what they don't tell you–because they don't want you to know–is that their mythical gender-confused pedophile is already covered by the law. Here is the definition:
persons of any religious sect, creed, class, race, color, denomination, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, nationality, or because of deafness or blindness, or any physical or mental disability…
Got that? Anyone who goes into a public bathroom to look at little children may be removed or barred today whether they are attracted to boys or girls, regardless of their gender or orientation. Passing this bill will not change that one bit. It will not make it easier to prey on “normal 10-year-old girls.”
What do the opponents really want? They do not want to expand the definition of the protected class. They are the same people who do not believe we should include sexual orientation in the description. Some may not believe we should include gender. Others may not believe we should protect based on race or creed.
While I disagree, this is at least a legitimate point of argument. There is a school of thought that suggests that there should be no protected classes, that folks should be able to choose who they serve and who they do not, and that the government has no stake in those decisions. I strongly disagree with a policy that broad, but at least it is a legitimate point of discussion. But this stuff about bathrooms is ludicrous.
Opponents of the bill should be upfront with their opposition, and get the minds out of the toilet.
I’m an adult male. I identify as male, I dress as male, I’m married to a female, standard hetero adult male stuff.
<
p>If this bill passes, will it be legal for me to simply walk into a woman’s room, enter a stall, do my business, flush, wash, and walk out? If someone tries to stop me or protests, can I simply proclaim that I identify as a women who dresses in khakis and T-shirts (and is married to a woman, yadda yadda)? In my particular case it’s clearly nonsense, but who gets to overrule my own claims?
<
p>Does it change if instead of me being adult hetero male, I’m a 14 year old hetero male with the same request? How about if I’m 6?
<
p>Obviously, a lie. By your own admission, you didn’t put the seat down prior to leaving.
To help my comprehension of the issue. I am hearing that I could enter a female restroom just by stating I’m feeling female today? Being a wheelchair user, I don’t care where I go when I have to go.
wheelchair billxi?
<
p>If we applied the same rules to disabled that transgeneders want I can just say I’m disabled and park in the handicapped space or get a set-aside apartment for the disabled.
<
p>Your wheelchair isn’t proof of your diability. Your medical records are proof of your disability. I bet you don’t argue when you have to show medical records to get a benefit even though the person requesting them sees you in the wheel chair. It still makes sense to request records. you are disabled billxi.
<
p>You earned your disability status billxi. You have sought treatment and done things consistent with a person having your disability.
<
p>Transgenders just want to take people’s word for it. Regardless of the evidence.
It’s not easy. I have a placard issued by the MA RMV. There is a lot of abuse of handicapped parking. By everyone. But that is a topic for another time and place.
You destroyed my arguemnt billxi. I guess only an ahole would need medical records for proof of missing limb.
<
p>Unless of course you’re David Blaine or something.
Even after I send them a picture. They gotta bust my cookies and get it in writing.
When has this happened in the history of ever?
<
p>A friend of mine from college is transgender. He uses the men’s bathroom because he is a man. If he went into the women’s bathroom it would be every bit as absurd and problematic as you going into the women’s bathroom, declaring yourself to be a woman.
because when a person who appears to be a man walks into the ladies room, everybody (rightly so) freaks out. He’s chased out by women throwing shoes at him, and then arrested and possibly becomes a sex offender.*
<
p>But, with this law, that “norm” is no longer a norm from a legal sense. A male could very well just waltz into a woman’s room and declare his female-mindedness, and seem to have protection under the law.
<
p>So, I don’t find your answer very helpful. Edge cases do matter with respect to the law, and this is an edge case I can certainly foresee occurring.
<
p>
<
p> * or, it was an obvious mistake, he’s incredibly embarrassed, says “Sorry!” 1000 times and can’t get out of there soon enough.
<
p>2. If there ever were problems resulting from this bill, it’s nothing you couldn’t fix later. I’ll say to you what i said to downthread. This is already happening right now. If you think my transgender friend, who was ftm, went into the lady’s bathroom… you’re very, very wrong. THAT could have lead to the exact things you described, not the other way around.
<
p>I’m sorry, but the gay/trans panic argument is just not going to fly for me. This is not a problem now, when thousands of people in this state are already doing it. It’s not going to be a problem later, either. The only people being victimized right now are transgender people — who are at considerably greater risk than even gay and lesbian people in this country. This law would finally offer them some basic legal protections.
It’s good to see so many Legislators (106 by my count) doing the right thing as signing on to this bill. I just hope this nonsense about the bathrooms doesn’t stall (no pun intended) the progress of this legislation. This bill is long over do.
Can you define “expression” as it has been used in this debate by the law’s supporters?
A definition please.
<
p>I and many others do not want to discriminate against anyone, regardless of the law. However it is important that our public and private institutions can hire and fire for conduct at the work place which not consistent with widely held societal beliefs and norms which have a negative result both internally with other employees, and externally with ability to effectively perform mission and/or earn a profit.
<
p>If Mary is a woman that believes she is a man. has been taking steps to transition including psychiatric/psychological and medical care and has acted consistently over some time as aa person who is transgender then she should not be discriminated against as she goes through and/or completed this very personal and emotional life decision.
<
p>But if fucking Denis Rodman wants to play games while working as a cashier at Wal Mart or as a collector for the T, and believe me people will be playing games, then this is Bizarro Land
Ernie, if you did drugs…
<
p>how could anyone tell?
I am a woman in a woman’s restroom. Today, if a man entered, that would be reason to sound an alarm. Moreover, those outside the restroom who saw the man enter would know to sound an alarm. Under H. 1728 it no longer sounds so clear.
<
p>IMHO proponents of H. 1728 brought this on themselves. Seriously… go in the room which corresponds to your physical sex. Period.
There’s ambiguity in the spectrum.
<
p>For the sake of argument (completely making up percentages)
49% of adults look male, dress male, behave male
1% of adults look male, dress female, behave female
1% of adults look female, dress male, behave male
49% of adults look female, dress female, behave female
<
p>What do we do with the middle 2%? If a person is “pre-op” and is effectively all female except for the wee-wee, to which room should the person go? This law is designed to get at that so called middle 2%.
<
p>The part many of us are struggling with is what to do about the other 98%. Right now, bathrooms are assumed to be 50/50, as if the middle 2% doesn’t exist at all. That middle 2% are forced to deal with what is, for them, a false dichotomy. If we remove the dichotomy for those individuals, the question is: does it still really exist for the 98%?
If you’re transgender, it would be absurd to go into the other bathroom. THAT would be cause for alarm in many cases. Transgender people transition. If they’re ftm, they don’t look female anymore, because they’re not…. and vice versa. You are completely ignorant on this subject. Stop worrying so much about things that are already happening anyway. And stop trying to persecute people while you’re at it, okay?
you’re far more convincing when you’re cool and not potty-mouthed.
<
p>Look, I understand that transgender people are using the bathroom of their “looks” and not their “bits”. I’m perfectly fine with that.
<
p>My question is: if they’re doing it already, then what problem is this law solving? Because, for me, it’s opening up a whole new can of problems which are currently hypothetical only because the law hasn’t changed yet.
<
p>I haven’t read the bill. I’m sure it addresses an awful lot more than the use of public bathrooms, and I’m sure I like the proposal for most of that other stuff. But that’s the point… why stir controversy with the bathroom stuff? If somebody is dressed like a girl and that person enters the ladies room, nobody bats an eye, even if that girl has a bit of a 5 o’clock shadow and big feet. There’s simply no persecution happening — things just work because the admission requirement of going to the ladies room is to look like a lady with clothes on.
<
p>You’ve ducked my question with ugliness, and it just isn’t helping.
is indicated right there in the post title. Insisting on focusing on the sensationalized bathroom angle instead of the rest of the bill is uglier than any amount of strong language from Ryan in the name of fair treatment.
<
p>Now, other things in your comment — like
— are simply not true. Maybe no such persecution of trans individuals happens, that you know of, where you live, but it certainly does happen. Here’s an example — that case was in Ontario, but it’s just the most recent one I know of and could quickly pull up a link for.
<
p>Everything. This is not a “bathroom bill.” This is a bill that ensures people who are transgender can’t legally be fired for being transgender. It ensures that they can’t legally be denied housing. It ensures that hate crimes directed at them are treated like hate crimes.
<
p>If I’ve been exasperated, I apologize. The level of disinformation on this bill just astounds me. If good lives weren’t at stake, I’d throw my hands up in the air. The transgender community has it incredibly tough — the rates of poverty, homelessness and discrimination directed at them is just astounding. These are people who have to deal with already-difficult problems, just mustering the courage to transition, face their family and friends. At the very least, we can protect them from being fired or thrown out on the streets via housing discrimination. That’s what this bill is about.
<
p>The Mass Family Institue & Company are the ones who try to label this ‘the bathroom bill.’ Because the media doesn’t get transgender issues at all, they go along with it, too — often calling it the bathroom bill, or discussing the bill through that frame. This has little to nothing to do with bathrooms. In fact, as I’ve had it explained to me, there are other, albiet less clear, provisions in our laws that actually protect their rights to use bathrooms of their gender identity. Regardless of whether those explanations are correct or not, it’s only the fringe-right that’s grasped this issue and has had a lot of success in using this framing to mislead the State House and much of the public.
the Middlesex Superior Court decided that firing a transgendered male to female individual creates a prima facie case of sex discrimination, as well as a prima facie case of discrimination based on the handicap of Gender Identity Disorder. If the court read sex discrimination and handicap discrimination to cover discrimination against a transgendered individual for employment purposes then it would seem that transgendered individuals would already be protected for housing purposes, using the correct bathroom purposes, etc. And to answer Ernie’s objection, the court in that case distinguished between a “transgendered individual” and a “man who preferred traditional female attire” based on the fact that the person met the DSM-IV definition of “Gender Identity Disorder” as opposed to being “simply a man or woman who wears clothing normally worn by members of the opposite sex.”
<
p>As long as this case is still good law, and I don’t see why it’s not, then this current law being debated doesn’t seem necessary. But that’s assuming that the case will be upheld (if it’s even been appealed) and that other Superior Courts will follow it. (Maybe too much of an assumption, I don’t know how often Superior Courts split on matters like this in MA).
<
p> I think this approach of this case seems to be right. Distinguish between “transgender” and “simply dressing in the opposite gender’s clothing” using established psychological standards and then apply non-discrimination laws based on sexual and handicap anti-discrimination laws.
First off, there’s a whole lot of facets to this law. There’s no way that case covers all of them. Secondly, there are still tons of people who get fired for being transgender. That means we need a more implicit law, to make these things easier to cover. Thirdly, I’m sorry, but “it would seem that transgender individuals would already be protected for housing purposes” is just not good enough — you brought up a case involving one thing. You can’t apply that one thing to other things. More cases would have to brought to force the issue. Why wait for that? Why force people to be fired or denied housing in the meantime? Lastly, there are experts and thousands of transgender people who all know this law is imperative — why the do you think you know better than them, the very people who have to deal with this? I’m sorry, but you don’t. This is very much like a straight person telling a gay person, “But you can already live together, ipso facto you can already get married. Why keep pushing for marriage equality?”
My understanding is that this law adds gender identity as a category into each existing anti-discrimination law. If that’s the case then the fact that one anti-discrimination law has been interpreted to include transgendered individuals into the sex and handicap categories of one current anti-discrimination law would be good law for any type of discrimination against transgendered individuals.
The Lie v. Sky Publishing case is implicit law. If someone is fired for being transgendered then they should sue and cite that case.
People will be fired or denied housing in the meantime at the same rate either way. (Assuming that case law and statutory law have the same deterrent effect). Its just a matter of when they later sue, they’ll either cite the new law or the Lie v. Sky Publishing case to get money in their impending lawsuit. I included a caveat in my response that this law is unnecessary as long as the Lie case is good law and is followed by other courts in MA. If that’s the case, this law is unnecessary. If that’s not the case then this law is necessary.
I suppose there could be some value if there were additional deterrence from the statute beyond the deterrence already provided by the Lie case, but I don’t categorize making sure that transgendered plaintiffs who are suing for money after being discriminated against have a statute as opposed to just a case to cite as “imperative.”
<
p>Its all well and good to want to codify case law to strengthen future plaintiffs cases and provide additional deterrence. But I think you’re ascribing some additional urgency to this particular statute than it deserves. But whatever, I don’t think this statute does anything new and it certainly doesn’t hurt anything so I don’t have any problem with it passing. (As long as the requirement that a person claiming to be transgendered have to meet the test set out in the Lie case – I think that solves the hypothetical problem of a pervert trying to use this law to sneak into opposite sex bathrooms). But I also don’t think that the sky will fall tomorrow if it doesn’t pass.
<
p>BTW – please let me know if there are additional aspects of this law beyond just extending current anti-discrimination laws to cover transgendered individuals, or if you’re aware of some reason why future courts won’t follow the Lie case. That would change my analysis.
it seems like the bathroom part is an unnecessary poison pill to an otherwise (relatively) noncontroversial issue. As a “disinterested” liberal GLBT issues supporter, I’m confused about the strategy and can also understand the concerns of female restroom users.
would water it down and be a slap on the face against transgender people. We can win with the bill, without confirming the absurd notion held by dweir and the off-balanced, fringe-right that they’re ‘too dangerous’ to be in the bathroom. If they convince a majority in the House of that, what makes you think an amended bill could pass? The fringe-right fear brigade will just latch onto another issue, or repeat the same old lies, ignoring the fact that we gave in. You cannot win by making consessions to bigots; they’ll only grasp for more. You win by passing the bill. A majority in the House and Senate signed on as cosponsors. We can get this done.
from a friend of mine who lurks around here and saw this thread. He explained the whole situation, including a number of examples from the other 13 states with (virtually?) identical laws on the books, and now I’m with it 100%.
<
p>Those explanations still haven’t happened on this thread, and until they do, I think a lot of GLBT friendly folks will scratch their heads over this.
and there’s a long leap from me reading it and me understanding it well enough to post it, especially just before I’m wwwnavailable for a week.
<
p>But the gist of it is that people will continue to behave however they used to w.r.t. bathrooms, at least in the near future. The difference is that a transgendered person who is discriminated against will have a case in court/arbitration/whatever, whereas the male in my example upthread wouldn’t.
<
p>And, in fact, my understanding is that my example did occur in Maine with children, apparently because a little boys’ grandfather put him up to it. It was resolved in an entirely reasonable way (trans child: do your thing. little boy with poor taste granddad — stay out).
But haven’t they been made on this thread, for example by eury13 and MorganSt?
but they hadn’t at the time of my initial post. Also, they’ve been made by people who I don’t know, and interspliced throughout the diary.
<
p>Seeing them from one person who I do know, together and complete, is far more compelling for me. I will post those comments downthread…
Thanks for posting the email, and thanks to your friend for giving permission.
I never claimed to be an expert on this issue, just someone who has some experience and knowledge… and the bathroom trolling has been something I’ve been completely unable to resist, as hard as I’ve tried (and as frustrated as I’ve become).
<
p>I did neglect to talk about important facets of this law until just a few minutes ago, such as the fact that this law is actually important for a great many people in the glbt community, not just people who are transgender, as well as many people who are completely straight. If you’re gender nonconforming, gay, straight, bi or anything else, this law will provide protections from discrimination that you didn’t have before. And there are plenty of “girly” men or “butch” women who have been denied housing or jobs because they were gender nonconforming. In that way, this bill is probably important to hundreds of thousands of people in this state.
<
p>I’d appreciate you sharing the arguments your friend made that so thoroughly convinced you. There are good people on this thread who could certainly use that information 😉
and the need for protection for the transgender, etc., I have to agree with stomv. It is poorly written and opens a new can of worms.
<
p>The bill appears to not only include women’s bathrooms, but also dressing rooms and showers, to be open not only to the transgendered but also those with self indentified gender issues. Does anyone seriously believe these new privileges meant to protect one group will not be abused by those who were not intended to be covered for malicious purposes? What will stop abuse? While this may protect a class that needs protection, it is pushes the safety problem onto women, another group quite familiar with being subjected to violence.
<
p>Understandably the transgender, etc. do not want to shower with violent abusers, neither do women.
or any of the more than 10 states that already have this bill?
<
p>This bill changes nothing, except a stronger protection of rights for transgender people. I’m disappointed so many people are jumping on the fringe-right bandwagon, trying to inspire fear re: the transgender community. I refuse to engage in it. I’m done talking about the bathroom portion of this bill.
<
p>I didn’t write and didn’t mean to convey either of those. I was confused and asked questions, but certainly didn’t mean to imply that I thought that the bathroom bit shouldn’t be in the bill… rather, I asked why it was. World of difference.
<
p>But yes, I do worry about the violence against any/all women angle. I don’t think that this bill will alter that threat in any way though, having just heard from a friend of mine who emailed me and addressed my questions.
Anyone who wants utter privacy for whatever reason for themselves or a child can also use this “oners”. Just saying.
the media called it “the bathroom bill” too.
<
p>Thanks for writing this blog. It frustrates me to no end that the media allows the bill to be framed this way.
What will be the rights of employers and employees under this bill?
<
p>Can Denis Rodman be fired as a cashier at walMart or the T beuase he chooses to express himself as male on somedays and female on others?
<
p>This is an employment bill.
Are you saying he should be fired for that? How do you figure?
The Rodman amendment, the Klinger amendment.
<
p>Broadly, for at will employees, employer can fire someone for good reason, or no reason. Right?
<
p>If someone ‘expresses themself’ as woman one day, and a man the next, does this amendment provide wrongly termination protection if the employer fires the person because of said ‘expression’?
If someone ‘expresses themself’ as woman one day, and a man the next, does this amendment provide WRONGFUL termination protection
The bill would add “gender identity or expression” to the following (Mass GL 151B, Section 4), added language in bold:
<
p>
It also prohibits labor unions from refusing membership to individuals for the same reasons.
Please define. There in lies the employment issue.
SECTION 7. Section 1 of chapter 151B of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after subsection 23 the following subsection:–
<
p>24. The term “gender identity or expression” shall mean a gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of an individual, regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.
<
p>Opens the door to widespread abuse.
If a case came to MCAD they’d look at the evidence. If it supported the complaint of discrimination, they’d likely support it. Otherwise they wouldn’t.
<
p>Remember, Boston already has these rules, as do over a dozen other states. If abuse were a rampant problem, you’d think MFI would have cited an example by now.
This is pure fear-based irrational behavior to think there will be “widespread abuse.” What makes you think people are going to abuse this? It takes oodles of courage to come out as transgender and make a transition. How many people do you really think are going to do it on a whim, knowing they’d be perceived by many who don’t know any better/have irrational fears as a ‘freak’ and be open to extra abuse, potentially being fired or worse, just because? You’re being absurd.
its the open wording in the bill that would allow those not intended to use their unrestricted access to women’s facilities.
<
p>There are creeps out there. Will they just use self restraint? These are some of the same creeps that the transgender are afraid of. Women are victims of creeps also. How will they be protected?
protect people from creeps. I’m sorry, but the legalization of this bill is not going to change how “creeps” feel. People who are sexual predators or who have mental disorders are not going to be bent or swayed by the passage of this law. Women and others will be protected from the creeps with the laws that protect people from creeps. If someone sexually harasses or attacks someone in a bathroom, that’s illegal regardless of this law.
If there are already laws to protect people from predators and abuse in bathrooms, what are the transgendered worried about? Either there is a danger or not.
<
p>Whatever that threat is, women are just as vunerable.
For starters, from my understanding, this just further establishes rights to do what they’re already doing.
<
p>Tangentially related, the bill, I believe, includes provisions for hate crimes protections, which would apply wherever they were.
<
p>But, honestly, this whole notion of ‘bathroom danger’ is an example of Kris Mineau successfully altering the conversation in Massachusetts.
<
p>If there is a problem with women being increasingly attacked in public bathrooms, by all means, let’s create a bill that deals with that. This bill, however, has absolutely nothing to do with that issue.
…that there’s a whole population of male would-be rapists and molesters out there, and the only reason they haven’t raped or molested anyone yet is that they’re worried about getting in trouble for going into the women’s bathroom? Because that just doesn’t seem likely to me.
Ideally, this bill would be about prohibiting discrimination based on someone being a transgendered person. And I think this is something that all of us — or at least most of us — support.
<
p>Pragmatically, however, I am frustrated by the lack of recognition by Rep. Sciortino and others that there just may be a loophole that needs closing, or language that needs some clarification. There is no need for the focus of this well-meaning bill to become hijacked by the “God hates Queers” crowd.
<
p>This bill could be derailed needlessly because of a small gray area (and I think, legally speaking, there is a gray area) that could very easily be closed just by adding a few words here and there.
<
p>I can tell you right now what’s going to happen if this bil passes: the “family-values coalition” is going to start to have men purposely walk into wiomen’s restrooms, get arrested, launch legal appeals in court, and generally make a mockery of the law.
<
p>With all the brilliant legal minds in the State House, I have a hard time believing that someone can’t come up with some language that prohibits these types of mean-spirited shenanigans while preserving the original intent of the bill.
<
p>Politics is often about compromise. We shouldn’t be afraid to make small compromises that leave our underlying values intact.
The God Hates Queer crowd will come up with any excuse to derail this bill. It’s flailing in the wind — and they’re going to lose sooner rather than later. Why weaken this bill when they’re going to lose? It would only serve to continue to put transgender people at risk of abuse and of losing their job based on discrimination.
Go stop 100 people in downtown Boston and I’ll bet you most of them couldnt tell you anything about what this bill does except let “crossdressing perverts into girls bathrooms.”
<
p>Lets break this down Stomv style:
<
p>30% of people are going to hate this bill no matter what
30& are going to support this bill no matter what
40% like the theory of “liberty and justice for all” but dont want pervs in their bathrooms.
<
p>A simple language clarification could draw many of those 40% away from the GHQ crowd and make this is much more popular bill.
they’ll just make shit up. It’s what they do best. We can’t beat them at their game. We can show them to be the bigots they are, though, with the tiniest bit of a spine.
The portion of the law that includes the term “rest room” also includes places of public accommodation like restaurants, gas stations, barber shops, elevators, museums, theaters, sports stadiums, etc. If “gender identity or expression” is not added here, then it is technically legal for a restaurant owner to refuse to serve a transgendered individual if the basis for the refusal is the person’s gender identity.
<
p>But if you take out the words “rest room” from the existing law–which is, at it’s heart, an anti-Jim Crow statute–in order to remove it from the list of accommodations, then it would be technically legal under state law to put up a “Whites Only” sign on a rest room door (obviously there are Federal laws to contend with).
<
p>And I think it would be really problematic to start writing laws that say certain groups are protected when using one list of accommodations but not another.
On the one hand, there is a population that recognizes gender differences so acutely that they undergo radical medical procedures to change their biological gender.
<
p>On the other hand, we have a comment like this, which is seemingly trying to make it seem like there are no gender differences by equating race and gender. There are actually reasons why women don’t want to share restrooms with men, safety being one. Hygiene being another. What’s next? Urinals in the womens restroom?
<
p>My own opposition to the bill — aside from the absurd bathroom provision — is the same as it is for all “protected” populations including women.
<
p>I have no doubt gender dysphoria is a confusing and difficult affliction. I also have no doubt that this is a bad law.
First of all, there’s no such thing as “biological gender.”* There’s chromosomal sex — XX or XY (though even at the chromosomal level it’s not really that simple); what we might call “organic” (in the sense of organs, not molecules) or “genital” sex, i.e. the genital organs and secondary sexual characteristics of the person’s physical body, which is considerably more fluid and variable than chromosomal sex; and there’s gender, which is a system of social roles and behaviors that are assigned, generally based on perceived organic sex, an area much less solid yet than organic sex. I’m chromosomally and physiologically typical and cisgendered: my chromosomes are XY, I have the typical physiological expression of those chromosomes, so between those two things I’m unambiguously male. I also identify reasonably comfortably with the gender role I was assigned at birth, which makes me a cis man. If I identified with the gender role “woman” instead, I’d be a trans woman with a physiologically and chromosomally male body; if I pursued hormonal and/or surgical means of transition I’d be a trans woman with a more-or-less physiologically female body (but obviously I’d still be chromosomally male). (This is the best of my understanding of how these things work, but I may be mistaken about some points, and welcome correction from those who know more.)
<
p>So the first thing to understand is that the common assumption that chromosomal sex, genital sex, and gender are each strictly binary, and all line up precisely with each other in the way we think of as typical.
<
p>*This is not strictly true, as studies have shown differences in the brains of trans- and cisgendered people, and it’s difficult if not impossible to tease out the precise ways in which nature and nurture are intertwined here.
There are also people born intersex. (That’s the PC term for hermaphrodite.)
<
p>Even on the chromosomal level, they don’t fit into the binary definitions of male and female.
I meant that to be included in the section about physiological sex, but you’re right that intersex is actually a broader term, encompassing chromosomal variations as well. Thanks for the catch!
“there are no definite reports on any true hermaphroditism in humans” In other words, no known human has ever had children both with a man and also with a woman.
which is why the term “intersex” is preferred.
where a transgender woman has attacked women in a bathroom just because. Just one.
<
p>
<
p>First off, these aren’t men. These are transgender women. The only way this makes any sense is if you assume transgender people are dangerous. They’re not. Why would you ever think they are? When good people are assumed dangerous for the way they look, civil rights disasters take place – be it Japanese internment camps or lynches against black people in the south (which often happened for just being perceived as looking at a white women the wrong way).
<
p>Additionally, not all transgender people are male-to-female (far from it). How are you going to feel when you force transgender males into the women’s bathroom, complete with facial hair and masculine body? What do you think that’s going to do for the ‘bathroom atmosphere,’ which seems to be your singular concern? How will that make anyone, transgender males most of all, “safer.” It will never happen. It’s unenforceable. It’s complete and utter discrimination. People who are transgender are going to use the bathrooms to which they identify with… and 99.999999999% of the time, you’re not going to no the difference.
<
p>
<
p>This is coming across so bigoted, dweir, you really should think before you type. Like any other women, transgender women will use the stalls. No one knows the difference. The idea for these people is to fit in. Using a urinal doesn’t really accomplish that, does it?? Seriously, you should learn a few things before you decide to comment on a subject in which you are so ignorant and uninformed.
<
p>
<
p>It wouldn’t be nearly as “difficult” if people like you would stop trying to persecute others. These are people who are no different than the rest of us. They deserve better — they deserve our most basic protections.
The concern expressed by me and others on this thread and elsewhere is the poor wording of the bill. I don’t see exclusive reference to transgendered.
<
p>A dissenting opinion working on the drafting of this bill could have lead to better language that more accurately achieved its desired intent and didn’t leave a gaping hole of ambiguity.
<
p>
<
p>This covers more than transgendered, does it not?
<
p>
<
p>True. And so long as I don’t know the difference I don’t care. So pull the wording from the law because it (1) isn’t needed for the case you present, and (2) can be easily abused by those with the intent to do so.
<
p>Let me state plainly who I am referring to in #2 because clearly you still don’t get it — the wording of the law is ambiguous enough that a heterosexual male intending harm to women could pass into a restroom and justify it under this bill. There is no crime that I know of if a man simply enters a womens’ room to do his business — disturbing the peace perhaps. Yet, even you acknowledge that mixed gender bathrooms cause unease (hence the person “in transition” wanting to choose which room to use!!).
<
p>I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just too personally invested in the issue to think rationally and are just being extremely defensive.
That’s the only word I can come up with for the idea you seem to be fixated on – that there are hordes of ill-intentioned, cisgendered, heterosexual men out there who all want to put on women’s clothing in order to go into women’s bathrooms and assault and/or rape women, but somehow the only thing stopping them is the fear that they wouldn’t be able to sue for gender identity discrimination. I mean, really? You can’t possibly take that seriously. And if you do think there are that many would-be rapists out there, maybe you ought to be worried about how to stop them before they get into public restrooms.
Why? Actual women don’t have to put on women’s clothing, why should a man expressing and behaving as a female have to put on women’s clothing? I don’t want to have to buy a whole new wardrobe just to use the ladies room! I don’t want to assault or rape anyone, just gossip in front of the mirror and hear what the other women are talking about, like all women do (that’s what would be womanly about my behavior). Would I be allowed to do that, like all women, or not? Is there a minimum length of time that I would have to express or behave womanly, and what does that mean, anyway?
Which is fine…
<
p>Let’s just stop talking seeing that you can’t comprehend what I’ve written.
<
p>:-)
<
p>Cheers!
You neither understand, nor care to learn, anything about what being transgendered mean, but you nonetheless find the idea uncomfortable, and are willing to grasp at any justification, no matter how flimsy, to keep from having to think about it, and keep from having your comfortable cisgender privilege challenged in any way; and you don’t particularly care whether any harm comes to trans people as a result.
<
p>See? I comprehend just fine.
are what dweir is getting at. He should not have brought up assault, which muddies the issue. The question is, would I be able to use the ladies room, sit in the stall, gossip in front of the mirror, by claiming I was feeling female right then?
<
p>”doing harm,” whether it’s sexual harassment or worse, is illegal. If someone went into the bathroom trying to rape a woman, he or she could be arrested for attempt to rape a woman. If a person is that sick and/or depraved, do you really think this law will change anything? Which sexual predators do you know who are just waiting for this law to be passed before they decide to go rape someone? If someone has that sickness, they’re not rational enough to be bent or swayed by laws; that’s why we have police and various policies put into place to protect people. This bill would change none of that.
<
p>On the definition of “gender identity”
<
p>
<
p>There’s a reason why the bill’s written in this way. Many people who aren’t transgender are effected by gender-based discrimination. If a guy acts particularly effiminate and is gender noncomforming, even if that guy doesn’t consider himself transgender, it’s not particularly clear that laws protecting people for being gay apply. Laws applying to gay people don’t usually have anything written about gender identity or expression. Given that so many gay people are gender nonconforming, this is an extremely important bill for the entire glbt community – not just transgender people.
<
p>Moreover, there are a sizeable number of people who consider themselves “gender queer,” enough that a lot of people are starting to cal it the “glbtq community.” These are people who find that they don’t fit in any gender pigeon hole and don’t like or want to conform to stereotypical gender standards — ie they see it as a societal construction they want to get past as a person. The bill, as written, would protect them. Change it, watering it down, and it may not.
<
p>The definition of “gender identity and expression” applies to the whole bill, not just the bathroom portion you’re completely fixated on. If you strip away the definition, water it down, you’re going to leave entire swaths of the glbtq community at risk. It is imperative that this not be watered down. We have other laws to deal with sexual predators — this law will not protect them in anyway whatsoever.
If there were to be a compromise, what would it be?
<
p>I’m skeptical that opponents would settle for any part of this bill passing, as the legislation validates something they see as fundamentally unnatural and, more often than not, against god.
<
p>But in the interest of discussion, what is the middle ground?
– Exclude bathrooms from the bill?
– Define a level of surgery that must be completed in order to “qualify” for the protections in the bill?
– If so, is that genital surgery? Hormone treatments?
– What about those who are unable to afford such treatments?
<
p>I fear that the result of any so-called compromise would be to exclude some who the legislation aims to protect and would do little to quell opposition.
<
p>I also think that much of the opposition is not due to a fundamental disagreement over the aims of the bill but rather a distinct misunderstanding of the nature of these laws or the nature of transgender individuals.
I’m not sure whether that’s the word you mean. I think you’ve gotten yourself into a corner not of your choosing.
http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm…
<
p>First, aside from the cultural uproar, a person’s gender identity may or may not match the body into which that personality was born.
<
p>For those who want a clear description, removed from the USA’s culture wars, I recommend the above website.
<
p>I have known several individuals whose bodies did not match their personalities and identities. Two of them choose to go through surgeries to become what they “already were” in their own psyches. One person born into a female body became male; one person born into a male body became female. Each made new lives under new names and went on with their lives.
<
p>If I had not known them before they surgically corrected their bodies to match their internal identifies, I would never have known that either of them began as the other gender.
<
p>In such cases, as accepted by medical and psychiatric practitioners, the issue is not “gender confusion” but that the gender of the personality and that of the body do not match.
<
p>Research is discovering physical as well as the harder-to-quantify psychiatric/emotional basis for this cognitive and physical dissonance which can be comprehensively tested using psychological and neuro-psychological testing.
<
p>I understand that this topic makes some so anxious that they “must” deny its reality.
<
p>To me the “Gender Identity Disorder” is a medical condition, no more a moral issue then is diabetes or dyspraxia and I hope to see the day when gender issues of this sort are treated like the medical issues arising from genetic variants which they are – and no longer generate headlines or hysteria.
<
p>
Can a man use a ladies rest room simply because he’s “feeling female today”? One word answer please.
There’s the one-word answer. Now, for the explanation.
<
p>If someone is kicked out of a restroom after this law passes because the management says they don’t belong there, they would have the recourse of filing some kind of legal complaint. The burden of proof would be on them to show that they were discriminated against based on their gender identity or expression. If someone on a lark decided to “feel like a woman” one day, they would have no grounds for that suit.
because entering a woman’s room is expressing and behaving like females do. It is a form of gender expression.
Would have to explain his actions. If you were intending to run afoul of the laws, would you really want to press the issue in court? Just “getting in touch with your feminine side” just doesn’t wash.
<
p>I don’t think so. Taking these folks as experts:
<
p>
<
p>As I read that, all you have to do, is “express” the identity of a man or woman. No explanation reqired.
<
p>
For what it’s worth, I don’t think this is a troll-worthy question. It seems to be a common misunderstanding about the issue, largely brought about by the scare tactic campaign waged by MFI.
Good point.
but it’s completely offensive, intentionally or otherwise. Certainly, even with misinformation, the way it was phrased indicates to me that offense (or at least derision) was meant. His sentence is a slap in the face to a lot of people.
Just what did I say that was offensive? I am getting tired of being bashed by you “people”. I could become pretty much ambivalent about your issues. But you need a target to bash away at. You wanna slam me? I’m slamming back! You’re only 5-6% of the population anyways. You just aren’t that important.
was your persistent repetition of misinformation about transgender people and the nature of the anti-discrimination bill, when plenty of correct information is available on this thread and elsewhere, and if you cared about the facts, you wouldn’t have had any trouble educating yourself.
<
p>What is offensive, now, is your dismissing valid civil rights claims with phrases like “you people” (and in fact, your comment is even worse, because your scare quotes are positioned to question the very humanity of LGBTQI people – who, as a nice little cherry on the shit sundae, you don’t seem to recognize as not all being the same) and your implicit claim that basic human rights are only “important” if they’re for the majority. That is completely unacceptable, as far as I’m concerned.
<
p>Ryan is angry about this topic: sure. Maybe if you bothered to think about his perspective, about the consistent, very often murderously violent, discrimination, oppression and abuse LGBTQI people have faced throughout the history of this country, about how they’ve had to fight tooth and nail, dealing with setback after setback, just to get some of the basic rights that heterosexual, cissexual, cisgendered people take for granted, about how frustrating and grating it must be to constantly hear the people who enjoy the rights LGBTQI folks are denied telling them to slow down, wait a little longer, you’re not that important, be polite, sit down and shut up, oh, and vote Democratic! – maybe you’d understand why he’s fed up with being nicey-nicey about everything to spare the feelings of the privileged.
I had to ask it 3 times, but I finally received an answer. And a short explanation which explained the question. Thank you again eury 13. Don’t tell me about discrimination. Chances are good you can walk into a restroom. Sometimes the damned doors just aren’t wide enough for a wheelchair. ADA and democrats are a lot alike. Sounds good. But putting words into practice is just too much work. I am proud to be celebrating my one month anniversary as a Republican.
Here are some worthwhile reading and viewing links for those interested in learning more:
<
p>- Mass. Transgender Political Coalition’s web site on the bill (with lots of supporting info)
<
p>- Fox 25 segment on the Judiciary committee hearing
<
p>- Text of the bill (PDF)
<
p>- The misleading ad Mass. Family Institute has produced
Here, verbatim, are answers to frequently asked questions from MTPC’s web site:
<
p>What does gender identity and expression mean?
<
p>”Gender identity or expression” is defined as “a gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of an individual, regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.”
<
p>Wouldn’t this create complex new laws?
<
p>Not at all. It merely adds “gender identity or expression” to the list of classes protected by our state’s non-discrimination and hate crimes laws. This list varies across different parts of the law, but generally includes race, religion, creed, color, national origin, and sexual orientation.
<
p>How would this law affect hate crime laws?
<
p>Perpetrators of crimes that specifically target a person because of their gender identity or expression would face the same penalties as those who target people because of their race, religion, ethnicity, disability, or sexual orientation.
<
p>How would this law affect schools?
<
p>Transgender and non-transgender students are often bullied and even assaulted when their gender expressions are different from what’s expected. This law would make clear that it is illegal for public schools to discriminate on the basis of a student’s gender identity or expression, and it would strengthen the school’s ability to protect students from violence.
<
p>Isn’t this already covered under existing laws?
<
p>Transgender people derive some protections from existing statutes dealing with sex and disability derived from various MCAD and court rulings but they are not explicitly protected by our laws. The inclusion of gender identity and expression in our non-discrimination and hate crime laws achieves three important goals:
<
p> * It makes a clear statement of statewide policy.
* It makes clear the scope of coverage to anyone who reads the laws or encounters materials related to them.
* It affirms the Commonwealth’s commitment to fair treatment and freedom from discrimination, crime, and violence for all its citizens.
<
p>Is Massachusetts the first place to explicitly protect people from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression?
No. Nationwide, 13 states, Washington D.C., and 108 counties and cities have passed non-discrimination laws on this basis, including the cities of Boston and Cambridge and the towns of Northampton and Amherst. Approximately 155 employers based or operating in Massachusetts have already adopted non-discrimination policies that include gender identity. These employers include:
<
p> * Bain and Company
* Bank of America
* Best Buy
* Borders Group
* Brandeis University
* Bridgespan Group
* Bright Horizons Family Solutions
* Foley Hoag
* Giant Food
* Gap
* Global Hyatt Corp
* Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
* Harvard University
* Hilton Hotels Corp
* HSBC USA
* John Hancock Financial Services
* Mass. Mutual Life Insurance
* Merck
* Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo
* MIT
* Novartis
* Prudential Financial
* Raytheon
* Staples
* State Street Corp.
* Toys R Us
* Trillium Asset Management
* Tufts University
* United States Postal Service
* Wainwright Bank and Trust
* Walgreens
<
p>Nationwide, at least 446 companies have adopted non-discrimination policies that include transgender people.
How about Cambridge? Northampton? Or venturing outside Massachusetts for a little bit, anyone used a restroom in Iowa? Vermont? New Jersey? California? New Mexico?
<
p>Or any of the other 13 states (plus the District of Columbia) and 93 cities and counties that have non-discrimination policies for gender identity and expression on the books?
<
p>Because in all of those places, the law currently being considered by the legislature is already in place — in some cases for well over a decade. And thus far, NONE of the things that opponents of the bill (or posters on this cite) are saying could or will happen…actually have.
<
p>There has not been a rash of men entering the women’s restrooms, claiming they feel like a woman today. Nor have conservatives started making trouble in bathrooms, taking pictures, filing frivolous lawsuit. (Nor, for that matter, has Dennis Rodman tried to get a job at Walmart, at least as far as I can tell.)
<
p>I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, obviously. But if we’re going to deal in hypotheticals (and what I would call scare tactics, but let me try to be neutral for a moment), at least let’s look at some concrete examples of how this has worked out in other states…or even in our own. (I.e. Boston, where many of us live, and — oh by the way — the State House is located.)
<
p>I understand that this issue is incredibly confusing for most (if not all people), especially those that have had little to no interaction (that you know of), with actual transgender people. It’s messy and confusing, no doubt about it. And there’s no shame in asking honest questions.
<
p>But in the end, there are real people who are being discriminated against for no good reason. A small number, sure, but people none the less. I personally know a few, who have been fired from their jobs, beaten up, or even harassed while trying to use a bathroom, because they don’t fit into some people’s understanding of what it is to be “normal.” This is a good bill that will make an immeasurable difference in some people’s lives, without actually causing harm to anyone else.
are not included for most of these. It the restroom language that was poorly written which makes other bills similar, but not the same. You are misrepresenting the facts here.
As far as I know, most of the other states have public accommodations protections in place along with the rest (employment, housing, etc).
<
p>And in the bill in MA the language for restrooms is the exact same as it is everywhere else in the bill. It inserts “gender identity or expression” into the existing non-discrimination statute for public accommodations. Just like it does in all the other non-discrimination statutes.
I’d suggest you read the MA bill — and then while you’re at it, take a look at some of the other laws in effect in some of these other locations – before accusing me of misrepresenting the facts, or the bill of being poorly written.
<
p>As eury13 notes, protection in public accommodations is part of nearly every – if not every single – other transgender nondiscrimination bill out there.
<
p>Sue, I know you’re active in Massachusetts Democratic/progressive politics. I’m really surprised to see you buying into MFI’s lies and spreading misinformation like this.
Especially in small restaurants, because it saves space and money.
<
p>I can tell you from first hand experience, that there is only one monumental difference between being at the urinal and having someone of the opposite gender walk in as opposed to the same.
<
p>Stage fright. Nothing kills the flow like a cute girl walking in to a room where your lizard is out of its cage.
<
p>Other than that, which you get over after a few trips to the loo, it’s not a big deal.
<
p>You also can’t tell me it’s a hygiene thing. Since I have been working at my current workplace, there have been 3 separate instances of the women’s bathroom being covered (and I mean smeared on the walls and EVERYWHERE) with poop, and none such events in the men’s bathroom. Being a girl doesn’t make you ‘cleaner’ than me.
<
p>Also, Charley, I don’t know where you’re going with this:
<
p>
<
p>A normal (or abnormal) 10-year old can’t get a job, use a full-service gas station or rent an apartment.
I could have been clearer. A better way to write that would have been
<
p>
Lynn Item Story
Notice the person quoted is once again Kris Mineau, who seems to believe:
<
p>1. He knows more than the American Psychiatric Society or the British Medical Society and anyone who wants to transgender is mentally ill.
<
p>2. He should have the right to tell anyone and everyone else what to do.
<
p>Could it be that the one with the “problem” and the one who is a “control player” …. drum roll …. is Kris Mineau?
<
p>Maybe I missed something, but when did Kris Mineau become a psychiatric expert? A diagnostician? Or the “go to guy” as to what constitutes mental health?
Would that Kris Mineau turn his astute clinical eye inward in order to assess his own aggressively virulent brand of mental pathology. That would certainly keep him occupied for a good decade or more and spare the rest of us from his embarrassingly creepy preoccupation with other people’s sexuality.
A few years ago I had a night job working at a movie theater. We were showing Transamerica at the time, which I enjoyed.
<
p>One night this huge fat guy walks in and buys a ticket. I’m not nearly a good enough writer to describe this man to you, but I’ll try. He had long, thin hair pulled back into a ponytail. It wasn’t even a very feminine one, either. More like a stoner circa 1976. He must have been 400 or 450 pounds, and was somehow getting himself around in a pair of heels. The black tshirt was loose around his gerth, but the stretch pants he had on were absolutely not. I assure you, this was not a pretty sight, and that’s no say nothing of the five o’clock shadow he was sporting. He didn’t even try to pretty himself us with some makeup, but it would have taken a Cleopatra-esque effort to do so anyway.
<
p>As soon as he left the box office the my coworker and I just looked at each other and laughed. I don’t know who he was trying to fool, but even a blind person would know this was a man. In any case, halfway through the movie he came out and went straight into the ladies room. I was standing just next to it with a female coworker. She looked at me and asked, “Well, aren’t you going to do something?”
<
p>”Are you kidding me?” I replied. “I don’t need a civil rights lawsuit on my hand.” Fortunately the movies were playing and this being a small theater there were no other patrons in the ladies room. I did agree to stand guard outside the door and prevent anyone else from walking in until he was done. I was the only male working and the female coworkers impressed upon me how uncomfortable they would be seeing him in there. At that point I agreed to stop, if I could, anyone else who was clearly a man from using the ladies room.
<
p>If you’re a dude who wants to put on a dress and walk around in heels, then I’ll say nothing to stop you. Whatever lifts your skirt, as they say. However, for the sake of women who quite understandably don’t want you in the ladies’ room, I’m not going to stand by again and let you prance in unchallenged. With or without this law.
Taking the law into your own hands… should you dress up in black and wear a cape, too? Wanna bring any gadgets? Should this law pass, what do you think your employer would think of you if you brought a lawsuit on their hands? Did this person you mocked and made fun of actually hurt anyone? Or did she just go to the bathroom and mind her own business? I’m sorry if your parents never taught you to try to accept the fact that there are people who are different, that you may not understand in life, but the golden rule still applies… even to them.
…if you acknowledged there are legitimate concerns about this bill, rather than mocking or accusing those who have questions. Personally, I think Kai acted in good faith to try to handle an unfamiliar situation (except for the laughter part). Others have used this thread to educate the rest of us, the copied email below being a prime example. Remember, almost all of us are inclined to SUPPORT the general principle of inclusion and protections, so if even this crowd is expressing some hesitation, there’s probably a reason for it.
Simple as that. If you get in the way of his steamroller, you are branded as anti-gay. Witness our exchange a bit above. I’m not putting up with his crap any longer! No Ryan Your 6% demographic is not that important. I try to be nice to everyone. my only prejudice is against jerks.
He wants free health care and the world to revolve around his personal needs.
<
p>Really Ryan, you need to get out more. What do have to offer society?
<
p>You got a cheep education at Bridgewater and you seem to be a militant gay activist.
<
p>Ryan, why are you aginst a standard requirung medical documentation rather then “expression” to determine this new protected class?
<
p>Unacceptable answers are 1. slippery slope stuff won’t happen; and
2. the courts will deal with it.
3. Penis police in every bathroom would be required with the doctor’s note standard
<
p>Give me a policy reason please.
<
p>That is all I have been asking.
You know shit about me, Ernie Boch. When do I make assumptions about you? When do I attack your personal life? Why do you so frequently go there with mine (this is not the first time)?
<
p>I didn’t even go to Bridgewater. I went to UMASS Dartmouth. My education was not cheap. I have more than $40,000 in students loans from my “cheap” education. Asshole.
<
p>I’m not a “militant gay activist,” but when I see bigotry, I expose it or fight against it. Your little idea is bigoted. I answered why in your thread already; you ignore those facts to which you don’t like. Why should I repeat myself?
<
p>
<
p>If this is all you’ve been asking, maybe you should do a little bit more listening? I’ve provided answers, you’re just not interested in them or don’t like them. It can be so tough to accept others who are different than you.
I’ve never noticed you on the side of disability discrimination. Yes, I’m prejudiced. I can’t stand jerks!
far less knowledgeable, admittedly, but certainly supportive. What reforms could this state make to help those with physical or mental disabilities? Write that diary; I’m interested to know more.
If anybody has the cookies to post them.
a while ago, I am interested in seeing them and I know others are, too.
<
p>You can upload them to Photobucket for free and then you can post them here. If you lack the skills or patience to do all that, I would be happy to upload them to Photobucket and post them here for you. You can find my email address by clicking on my account info.
<
p>I’m not trying to be a jerk (for a change) just trying to be helpful. The subject, I know, is important to you, so if I can help you with it, I’m more than happy to do that.
Thank you. They will be on their way.
I’ll put them up as a diary and copy your comments to correspond with the set.
Wonderful job!
It’s not working.
That enters the realm of the Batman. We don’t encourage people to take the law into their own hands, Christopher. It’s a detriment to our whole society. Moreover, I cannot appreciate someone who would write about how they openly mock and make fun of people simply for being different, or argues for physical abuse and/or detention of them by the civilian population (which is exactly what Kai did).
Not so long ago I remember you advocating for breaking the law, nay, breaking the Constitution, because you didn’t like what might happen if it was followed. Why is it OK for you to advocate to ignore the pending marriage amendment at the Constitutional Convention but not OK for me to try and protect some friends and coworkers who felt uncomfortable? Did you use any whiz bang gadgets when you were denying the thousands of people who signed petitions their Constitutional and civic rights?
<
p>I happen to live in a place where I am a minority, but I don’t know that there is any ethnic majority here anyway. It’s a wonderful place and the diversity is a big part of it. Included in that are the transvestite (and other) prostitutes who work the corners not far from my home and sell their wares to tourists and anyone else who ponys up the cash. I’ve actually gotten to know one of them pretty well just from seeing him around so much, and I enjoy his company while I wait for the bus. We talk, we joke (including about the varying size of balloons in his blouse on any given night) and while I wouldn’t say that he’s a friend I certainly go beyond treating him with the golden rule. That said, after the concerns raised by my coworkers, I wouldn’t let him in the ladies room.
It’s your responsibility to pick out a costume when you take the law into your own hands. I went back and forth during the constitutional convention last time around. I was frustrated by the fact that a great many people said our rights had to be put up for a vote, but who were not so eager to defend the other proposals that were (apparently unlawfully) passed over, such as the health care amendment.
<
p>The reality of our state’s constitutional convention process is that it is designed in such a way that it’s actually impossible to obey the must-vote-on-everything policy, which is why almost every single constitutional convention disobeys that principal. Seriously. If something is unenforceable, is it really law? If a tree falls in the woods and no one’s around, can anybody hear it? What I really advocated for then, since my stance on whether we should vote or not frequently flipped, was that we needed to change our constitutional convention process so that it worked.
<
p>Now, finally, all of this — no matter where I was — is vastly different from what you, above, suggested. I suggested civil disobedience. You suggested harassing someone you did not understand and physically barring them from going to the bathroom. Transgender people are physically assuaulted all the time — but we don’t often read about people willing and eager to attack them online. You did just that. What you suggested is far from civil disobedience, it’s arguing for the abuse and/or detention by the civilian population of a particularly at-risk minority. Thus, you earned my scorn and open mocking.
Your arguments would carry more weight if you would calm down and laden them with less hyperbole, Ryan. I’m not advocating harassing or assaulting anyone. If I happen to see a transgendered individual walk into the wrong room I’d say something to the effect of, ‘Excuse me, I think you have the wrong door. This is the ladies room.’
<
p>Assume he comes back with something like, ‘Thank you for your concern, but this is the right door for me. I identify as a woman.’ I’d respond with ‘I understand that, but I have some female friends who would be uncomfortable with your presence in there. I’d ask you to please respect them and not use the ladies room.’
<
p>That’s far from abuse or detention, and its not someone I don’t understand. Just because I don’t think a man should be in the ladies room doesn’t mean I don’t understand that he thinks he is a woman. Also, why is it ok for you to openly mock me, but I can’t privately chuckle at a 400 lbs man wearing a pair of heels?
<
p>Finally, it’s not impossible to vote on every proposal that comes before the Constitutional Convention. They should have voted on the marriage amendment, the health care amendment, and any other amendment properly before it, just as our Constitution requires them to. If you have a beef with the Constitutional amendment process then that’s a fair, but separate, argument. By all means work to fix it if you think it needs fixing, but you can’t argue that it should be ignored but this law should be enforced.
Because he mocked something foolish you said — not who you are. And your proposed course of action should you see a transgender person going into the correct restroom (and what makes you think you’d always be able to tell?) is, in fact, discrimination and harassment. That you don’t recognize that is a sign of truly woeful — and, given that there’s been a lot of education offered on this very thread, I can only assume willful — ignorance on your part.
I was laughing at the way he looked, not who he was. I was laughing at this guy’s appearance. Not the most mature thing, I’ll grant you, but it was my honest first reaction. Anyone who says they’ve never done the same thing isn’t being truthful. I sure he was perfectly nice enough, and my brief encounter with him was as pleasant as these things can be, but he looked funny. So I laughed. So did everyone else in the lobby.
<
p>You clearly never learned the golden rule. Would you laugh at someone because they looked black? Or because they looked short? Of course not. You shouldn’t laugh at someone because they’re 400 ibs, or transgender, either.
<
p>
<
p>You laughed at who she was. And you still refuse to admit that someone who may have been born with boy parts could become a transgender woman, despite the fact that there are often scientifically explainable reasons, from hormones to chromosomes. You still refuse to give this person the human decency she deserves, by referring to her as a transgender woman.
<
p>
<
p>I’m glad you admit this. I hope you can get from here to understanding that your thoughts on this matter are wrong. Respecting those who we don’t understand is perhaps the pinnacle of social evolution in humanity.
No, of course I wouldn’t laugh at someone simply because they were black or short, or just because they are transgender or fat. It was the combination of things that made this person’s appearance funny, not any single one of them. Its like the chicken. On its own its not very funny – only when it crosses the road does it become a joke.
<
p>You clearly never learned the golden rule. Would you laugh at someone because they looked black? Or because they looked short? Of course not. You shouldn’t laugh at someone because they’re 400 ibs, or transgender, either.
<
p>
<
p>You laughed at who she was. And you still refuse to admit that someone who may have been born with boy parts could become a transgender woman, despite the fact that there are often scientifically explainable reasons, from hormones to chromosomes. You still refuse to give this person the human decency she deserves, by referring to her as a transgender woman.
<
p>
<
p>I’m glad you admit this. I hope you can get from here to understanding that your thoughts on this matter are wrong. Respecting those who we don’t understand is perhaps the pinnacle of social evolution in humanity.
First off, the way you say you’d handle the situation is still offensive. Secondly, this is not a perfect world. You do not know how you’d react, or how your actions would influence those around you. Instead of just allowing someone who has to relieve themselves do so in peace, you openly admit that you’d harass them, without any real knowledge of what would happen because of it. Thankfully, these are just words: I don’t actually think you’d do anything of the sort. It has as much weight as Republicans who speak bravely but refuse to do any of the actual fighting themselves. In this case, that’s a good thing.
<
p>
<
p>No, you just make fun of her and offend her by calling her a him.
<
p>
<
p>Really? How many weeks would you want the ConCons to take? Why do they never get to all the votes? Why are these votes routinely not taken, even on bills that aren’t especially controversial?
<
p>I’m not arguing it should be ignored, I’m arguing that — whether people ever liked it or not — it is ignored. There are practical as well as convenient (for politicians) reasons why this is so. If you have a problem with that, then you should take it up. My only problem with it was the double standard, when gay rights had to be up for the vote, but nothing else does.
<
p>
<
p>You got the John Stewart treatment. The treatment you gave that apparent transgender woman who you call a man is sophomoric at best. It’s making fun of someone for being alive. I don’t find that sort of joke funny.
Back in the days of the ConCom you wrote a diary called Setting the Record Straight in which you said, “To avoid horrible policies is exactly why parliamentary procedures exist.” You were arguing that it should be killed without a vote.
<
p>Later, in the comments, David called you out because the Constitution requires a vote. Your reply:
<
p>
<
p>Later you compare it to slavery and employ an ends justify the means argument:
<
p>
<
p>You argued that it should be ignored. “Sometimes process has to come second to what’s right.”
<
p>For the record, I agree with you that it is too easy to amend our Constitution.
I went back and forth. I’ll find other days in which I wrote something different. I still feel conflicted over the issue. And my point still remains — we were willing to kill, with parliamentary procedures, anything and everything else… just not the gay thing.
<
p>And why does my view there have anything to do with the harassment you claim to be willing to inflict upon someone who simply wants to use the toilet, even if we passed the law guaranteeing that right? If you think my view was wrong then, what could possibly make you think your view is right now? They have a word for that. Hypocrisy.
You know what? I think deweir, et al, have a point. Their arguments have been so strong that I actually don’t even think the policies of the status quo are enough. Therefore, I think it’s time we institute what I’m going to call the LFP test. Basically, either electronically or through hiring additional staff, all public bathrooms should have the LFP test. Not only will this protect the public from a clearly victimized class, but it will create jobs in the process!
<
p>Here’s how the test works. At first, we’d probably have to hire a person to manually do the test, but later we could just have a machine do the work. Basically, before a person would go into the bathroom, either staff or a machine would have to look for penis. If a person has a penis, they gain entry into the male bathroom. If not, then they get to go into the female bathroom. Because this issue is so important, it’s clearly irresponsible to not check people for penises before entry into bathrooms each and every time. In fact, the machines may even be so effective that they could be good for personal, home use! Now, women won’t have to ever worry again about the toilet seat being left up! Just imagine all the possibilities!
It’s really offensive that you don’t consider someone a man unless they have a penis, it shows your biases clearly now.
who works on Beacon Hill and, as such, doesn’t want his name associated with the comments. He did give me permission to post them though, and I do so without editing.
<
p>
gender reassignment in my high school. The student was simply given a key two years ago to a faculty bathroom (singles) for the duration of the student’s attendance. The freshman year was particularly difficulty for the student from a bullying perspective–probably the worst we’ve seen–but with more overt faculty and administration surveillance and the natural maturation of the bullies themselves, the problem has eased significantly with kids becoming more supportive and less frightened. This year the student was supported tremendously by our student Alliance group, which was large and visible (the composition, size, and volume of the group varies tremendously as students enter and exit the school) and comprised largely of lower classmen, so I’m hopeful that the group will be similarly robust this year. We’ll see.
…just require that there be unisex restrooms available in public facilities? There is a member of my church who is transitioning from man to woman who agreed from the outset that he would use the unisex restroom we already had in the building. Otherwise, once you’re inside a stall who’s going to know what anatomy you have anyway?
Apologies if this is covered in one of the 103 other comments, but if you’ve ever used the urinals at Grand Central Station (and had a person of the same gender — and presumably, the same gender identity — lean over to take a peek at you), you realize the whole concept of basing privacy in a public restroom on who can and can’t go in there is ludicrous.