This, my friends, is the worst nightmare of the always controversial conservative group Focus on the Family.
From the email: Men in Women's Bathrooms, Is Your State Next?
March 26, 2009
Dear Friend,The reality of "change" has hit full-force in Washington, D.C., and in many respects, it's a nightmare. But as bad as things are in Washington, for many pro-family Americans the greatest political danger lurks much closer to home.
From Albany to Sacramento, state capitols are the flash points for the most aggressive efforts to redefine family and "re-norm" cultural standards--all the while undermining religious freedom. And changes at the state level often cause the biggest impact in our daily lives . . . and the state of Colorado has served as a testing ground for strategy now being exported across the country.
I told you last summer about a new Colorado law that gave special "public accommodation" protections to people who self-identify as homosexual or "transgender." I shared with you how Focus on the Family Action warned lawmakers that this legislation would reap a whirlwind of social problems. We specifically warned them that their vote for this bill would even allow men to use women's restrooms--right alongside women and even young girls.
Moving beyond the humor in this email, it's true that there is something so fundamental about gender roles and norms that the idea of men in a women's bathroom can cause the knees of any conservative to shake immediately. And it's not just conservatives who care about bathrooms, even if they are the only ones fighting against legislation that protects trans people (and using fear tactics to do it).
Bathrooms are always a huge issue of contention in the war about gender. Trans communities fight for the right to use the appropriate ones, conservative groups scream about young girls safety and male predators in them.
Here's the thing that always gets me about the bathroom debate: The idea that laws governing a space which by nature is unpoliced, unregulated and fundamentally just an unlocked door with a sign on it gets so much airtime. Why is it that people feel a picture of a stick figure in a dress on a door keeps them safe? What does that say about our larger beliefs about gender?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Men in Women's Bathrooms, Is Your State Next?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12826
Maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to see how this is "undermining religious freedom." I don't know what kind of Christianity FotF practices, but my brand is not practiced in public restrooms.
There is a whole lotta ridiculous going on in that statement, apart from the transgender issue. For one, I can't recall a woman's restroom that does not have individual stalls. Why would anyone with half a brain be bothered by a transgender woman peeing next to them in a separate stall? But I could spend all day asking those kinds of questions.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to see how this is "undermining religious freedom."
The underlying reasoning here (if you can call it reasoning) is that FoF's version of "freedom of religion" includes the "right" to force their religious beliefs on society as a whole. If they are prevented from doing so, they believe their freedoms are being denied.
Apparently it's a religious freedom to pee only alongside people who perform gender according to your standards...
Thanks so much for talking about this here, Miriam. What frustrates me to NO end about this conservative tactic is that it plays into a 'little red riding hood' fear wherein a wolf disguised as granny might take advantage of little red. The reality is that IF someone were to be assaulted in the bathroom, the gender sign on the door sure isn't going to keep a perpetrator out. The way groups like Focus on the Family describe it, you'd think that bathrooms were some sort of 'sacred' space that is magically protected and enshrined by that little stick figure.
"The reality is that IF someone were to be assaulted in the bathroom, the gender sign on the door sure isn't going to keep a perpetrator out"
Ueah, but it would seem suspicious to any witnesses, like if it were in a restaurant so that people remember it and can give a description of the person.
I agree with this. I had no problem with all-genders bathrooms at college, where basically everyone knew what everyone else looked like, but in a public place, I rather like knowing that people would notice if a man walked into the women's restroom, because unless all the toilets and urinals in the men's room were clogged, he's probably not going there for innocent reasons.
And I'm not thinking this in terms of man/little girl, but in terms of predator/women in the one room in the building that probably does not have security cameras viewing every angle in the room.
But that ignores a couple of thing. First, men who are interested in spying on/assaulting women feel free to go in women's restrooms already. My aunt let her 8 y/o granddaughter Alex go into the Target restroom alone, and when Alex came back out she told my aunt that a man had looked at her under the little stall-divider half wall. When my aunt told security they simply escorted him from the building. Now she knows to just call the police instead. Also, my partner was in prison for several years when he was younger, and one of the other inmates was a rapist who dressed as a woman and hung out in rest stop bathrooms waiting for a woman to come in alone. He wore a dress and high heels.
Second, Focus on the Family is making the assumption that all transmen/crossdressers, etc are perverts whose goal is to spy on/assault women. To me, this is the deeper problem.
"First, men who are interested in spying on/assaulting women feel free to go in women's restrooms already"
But it still ups the odds that someone could notice. Shit, do I have to carry pepper spray now just to relieve myself?
(sarcasm) How good it is to live in a patriarchy.
I don't get this comment thread at all. This legislation is not about ungendering bathrooms. If you believe it is, then you've swallowed Focus on the Family's hateful rhetoric about transgendered people. Allowing MTFs in women's restrooms does not equate to allowing men in the women's room. It just doesn't. So this whole argument is totally pointless.
And a predatory person who's out to assault you will assault you opportunistically wherever he finds you. Women and girls are not the only victims of this type of person. I clearly remember a young boy being assaulted by a man in a McDonald's bathroom when I was an undergrad, so there's no type of legislation on earth that can prevent predatory people from hurting others.
my opinion always is, if there are people who are going to assault someone in a bathroom, they will find a way to do it, regardless of what the sign on the front of the bathroom door says or what the law states. It's just an excuse for people to use fear to discriminate.
"Why is it that people feel a picture of a stick figure in a dress on a door keeps them safe? What does that say about our larger beliefs about gender?"
I think that people feel safe with a picture of a stick in a dress only because they are conditioned to. The reality is that it probably wouldn't make a difference to them (those opposed), except that it would force them to recognize an otherwise invisible group of people, which may be even scarier to them than worrying about their safety from male predators.
As a barely-post adolescent female, I have no problem with a man in my restroom, as long as he doesn't stink it up. That's why those doors lock, non?
If it wasn't for the date stamp I'd swear this was an April Fool's Day joke.
I was pondering over this just the other day. I was struck by an urgent need to go and happened to be in the military science building which only has one female bathroom on the first floor, I was on the third and class started in 2 mins (its an old corps building at a quasi military school, they had to retrofit the one women's bathroom basically). As I walked out, feeling quite releived, there was a guy at the sink and I about startled him out of his skin.
Anyhoo, as Miriam says in the post, nature is as nature does. Animals don't segreate themselves into female poop bushes and male poop bushes. They either go where they're standing or wander off somewhere. IMO its one of the most blatant signs of just how deeply ingrained gender hierarchies are into our society. Especially the whole males get stalls + urinals and females only get stalls (though not twice as many to compensate, so yay long lines).
" Especially the whole males get stalls + urinals and females only get stalls "
How would you use a urinal? I mean I can pee standing up, but not many women can. And I'm still a neophyte at it, so it's not something I'd do without pulling my pants all the way down.
I think Zee meant that if there are, say, 3 stalls and 3 urinals in a men's bathroom that there are almost always only 3 stalls in a women's bathroom, not 6. So men have 6 places to pee while women only have 3.
I fkkin hate it.
Exactly what I meant. Though I'm sure some brilliant engineer could come up with a 'urinal' for women. It would just take some thinking out side the box of 'men are the only one's who can pee standing up'.
They exist. How shall I put it? the "bowl" of the urinal is smaller/higher (think about the rim of the bowl reaching to knee-height, maybe higher) to facilitate most women's slightly diminished capacity for aiming. They had these at an outdoor festival in Europe somewhere I think, but they were unpopular with the women for some reason.
In spite of possessing a vagina I can pee standing (into a regular urinal, onto a tree, etc) just fine, thank you. Really not as hard as it looks.
Thanks for clarifying entomology girl!
how is it a hierarchy that we separate the genders in the bathroom? and who's on top in this set up? is standing up to pee s superior position in your eyes? could it be that there are not twice as many stalls because urinals take up less space, with men almost touching themselves when they stand together to pee.
Have you ever had to stand in a 35 minute line to use the restroom and miss most of the third quarter of the basketball/football/whatever game you were at? No? I didn't think so.
No offense but what does that have to do with anything or with the questions asked?
Are you trying to say women are inferior because they take longer to pee? I certainly hope not.
I think she/he was trying to reply to Zee's statement that it's unfair for women to have the same number of stalls as men, but yet men get urinals as well.
Most places I've seen have as many urinals + stalls for men as stalls for women, since they take up about the same amount of space. Maybe that's just around here.
The lines, however, are almost universally not due to the number of stalls, but rather due to the difference in how long it takes for women vs. men to pee. It's way too much of a difference to be accountable to just two extra places to pee.
It depends on where you are. On this campus, all of the older buildings, including the one my office is in, most of the main classroom buildings, the football stadium, and the basketball arena, have the unequal number mentioned above. In the bathrooms down the hall from my office there are 3 stalls in the women's bathroom and 2 stalls in the men's plus 3 urinals. In the bathrooms at the arena there are 8 stalls in the women's bathrooms and 5 stalls in the men's plus 5 urinals. They also have those old-fashioned big round sinks with the bar you step on to turn on the water that my stepdaughter loves (she's 5). The bathrooms in the football stadium are similar.
So anytime you go to an event at one of these places there's always a huge line at the women's bathrooms. When Obama was here he spoke in the arena. When we came in my friend went to use the bathroom since we had been standing in line to get in for so long, and she missed about a third of his speech standing in line at the bathroom. It's true that the newer buildings on campus are not like this, but this is a really old campus, and you can see exactly how they used to do it. But many of the buildings are pre-1950, so maybe they assumed more men would be attending college here than women.
Many buildings at UCLA, UC Berkeley, and Stanford are also like this.
and you attribute the long lines to some sexist engineering and not the difference in mechanics between a man's method of peeing and a woman's?
urinals take up less space, so they usually throw in a couple of them, but the fact is the waa men pee is generally faster, which is why the lines are shorter. my school made accomodations for this and added couches to the women's restrooms, but none for the men
I'd rather more stalls than couches, I generally try to spend as little time as possible in bathrooms.
It is curious that in many clubs and bars, the distribution of space is the same in both male and female bathrooms; What I also find really irritating is the use of bathrooms for other purposes aside from their designed functions, particularly if I have to wait for a long time with a very full bladder.
I wasn't attributing anything to sexist engineering. I was clarifying the comment you asked about. In many workplaces and schools, the inequity is due to the outdated assumption that there would be more men than women working/going to school there. This is evidenced by the fact that in the newer portions of campus and in newer office buildings, the inequity has been resolved. But I will say that in the buildings on many campuses from the 40s and 50s, it absolutely was based on the assumption that men were the default and the little female students running around were mere "coeds" that didn't need to be taken seriously.
If you're looking for a great example of this kind of mentality, look at Rosalind Franklin, who was a biophysicist with a PhD who did much of the work of discovering the structure of DNA (in fact, without her work, Crick and Watson would never have figured it out). She had to leave campus to use the bathroom because they didn't have restrooms for women at King's College in the 50s. In fact, she also wasn't allowed to eat in the cafeteria at her workplace. Additionally, even though she surpassed him in both experience and education at the time, Maurice Wilkins was considered to be her superior and received much of the credit for her work until the truth came out long after her death. So excluding women from being taken seriously as scholars and researchers by refusing them accomodations and recognition go hand in hand and have a long rich history.
And if you're designing a building, and you know that having the same number of stall/urinals causes women to waste a lot of time waiting in line because "men and women pee differently," but you fail to change your design to accomodate this, then yes, you are being sexist.
Can you point to something that supports your position that there are less stalls because of the assumption there would be less wmen are schools (which sounds like engineering based on sexist ideas)
i figure folks would simply make the women's bathrooms smaller rather than have less stalls
The building that my office is in was originally built in 1938. This is a super old campus. There were originally no restrooms for women, so the women's restrooms used to be the washroom that was separated by a half wall from the stalls and urinals. In the 60s they built a dividing wall to make two completely separate bathrooms, added the same number of sinks on both sides of this wall, and added three stalls to the new women's bathroom they had created by erecting the wall, and two urinals on the adjacent wall of the men's room. Thus the men now have 5 options while the women have 3. Every floor in this building has the same bathrooms, since all of them originally only had one bathroom which was for men. In the Classroom Building (built in the 50s), they initially had separate bathrooms with 2 stalls for women and 3 stalls/3 urinals for men. They recently remodeled that building, and one of the explanations in the plans for all the changes was that the restrooms had to be redone to account for the current "gender equity" in the student population. The Engineering Building, where most of my classes actually are, also had only men's restrooms originally, but strangely enough had shower rooms attached to the restrooms. It's clear across campus from the gym, so I don't get that. My friend who works in Physical Plant and has access to all this historical info had no explanation for the showers either. The shower rooms were converted into women's bathrooms of equal size/number of stalls in 1971. They all have that depressing mint-green tile in them.
The thing is, if sexist expectations weren't behind this, what accounts for the fact that in some buildings there were no restrooms for women, while in others there were restrooms for women but they were significantly smaller? If it wasn't based on sexism, then what's the explanation? I'm curious to hear your account of this.
I was responding to jaja, who was challenging Zee's statement.
Yes, I am most certainly saying that women are inferior because they take longer to pee.
Jesus.
OK, I'll lay it out for you. jaja, who has contributed nothing to this thread other than repeatedly challenging anyone's claim that having separate bathrooms may be unfair, asked why it was a problem, in Zee's view that women and men have different bathrooms. Zee had commented that the fact that men's restrooms generally have both stalls and urinals while women's bathrooms only have the same amount of stalls as the men's (ie half as many altogether). I responded that it's a problem because it inconveniences women by making them stand in super long lines and miss out on the events they've paid big bucks to see. If you read the whole thread through, and take a person's comment in the context for which it was intended, it will probably make sense.
i read the whole thing thru and it made no sense, hence my questions. and frankly i consider my contributions--challenging faulty assertions--valuable since common sense many times is discarded when some issues are discussed. like your assertion that men's restrooms hold more peeing stations because of sexism and that is the reason lines in the restroom for women are longer
fact is women take longer to pee generally because they pull their pants down and squat to pee, while men generally stand. that also limits the number of peeing stations a restroom can hold since urinals wouldn't work in women's bathrooms.
What I meant by gender hierachies is mainly two things:
a)Imbalanced stalls. On the occasions I've had to go into men's restrooms, they are in comparison much more efficient in space utilization. Urinals are the most obvious examples of this... stations solely dedicated to pissing. With a few stalls tossed in for pooping or overflow pissers. No vanity mirrors, no couches, just plain simple bathrooms. Comparable women's restrooms have fewer stalls than men have urinals+stalls, and loads of space used up by vanity mirrors or random other non-pissing materials.
b)Both sexes can piss standing up, both can piss sitting down. We train boys to expedite their pissing by aiming and such. It is not a natural behavior to whip a penis out of a fly aim at a certain spot in a urinal and let fly. Its learned. It is also learned that women have to pull there pants all the way down to their ankles and squat over a bowl. We've designed special urinals to help men pee quickly and efficiently, and as someone said earlier on there are female urinals. They're just not popular because of the gendered belief that women need to sit to pee, or that they'll get dirty if they try to pee standing up.
It's not necessarily a huge problem in society, and there are obviously many more factors contributing to this particular eddy of gender, biology, and society. But it serves as a powerful reminder of just how much our society is predicated on the idea that men and women are different, that men are capable of things women arent, and that men are given preference and advantages in the development of technology. (Also, sorry I couldnt respond sooner...damn real life getting in the way of the internets)
do you have a penis? how do you know whippin out a penis isn't a natural thing. how do you think it was done thru out time? men peed against trees or rocks or whatever, standing. you seem to view this sanding thing as a dominant male act that women must likewise emulate or men should be forced to squat.
No, I do not have a penis, but I do have a brain :) We have not always worn clothing and women certainly did not always have fashions that kept them from peeing standing up. Men's fashion and clothing is specifically desgined to allow them to whip it out to pee without disrobing entirely. That is not 'natural' that is man made. And I am not suggesting that women need to emulate men, I am saying that women are fully able to pee standing up, it is a social requirement/fashion dictate that we must squat to urinate. We are taught this action. It is called potty training after all... when we're youngin's we just go when we go, doesnt matter if we're crawling, walking, sitting, standing.
the clothing did not create the desire to stand and pee but merely accommodated it. geez. you think if we go to cultures where they don't use zippers that we'll see men squating to pee?
Jesus. Saying that clothing design "allows" men to stand up while peeing is not the same as saying that the clothing created the desire to stand up while peeing. Stop claiming that people are saying things they're not.
what does she mean by "it's not natural" what is she referring to when she says that? or when she says women are taught to pee sitting down? do you need everything spelled out to get the gist.
all clothes are unnatural, so she is referring to the act of standing up to pee. not even addressing the obvious bigotry contained in that statement the way men pee is unnatural, her statement was not misrepresented.
the poster clearly finds the acts of men superior, even standing to pee, and somehow wants to make them squat because it will diminish them somehow. otherwise this whole talk about how peeing standing up in taught and the rest, like its some sort of entitlement passed from father to son, is nonsense
I'm not entirely sure how you managed to completely misread all of my posts. I am not arguing that men need to squat or that what they do is unnatural. What I am saying is that we, as humans, have created a situation where the sexes are taught different methods of peeing when it's absolutely not necessary biologically. In fact there is evidence that a lifetime of squatting/sitting to pee damages a woman's urinary tract leading to incontinence and such.
And yes on a level that is sexist. Because a woman is trained from whatever-age-you-do-potty-training to squat/sit over a toilet to pee which requires her to almost fully undress the lower half of her body, while men are trained and their clothing choice are almost universally designed to aid in them bringing out just their penis and peeing standing up. One pattern of pissing is not necessarily superior to the other (and both can have negative medical effects I'm sure) but there is no reason to make the sexes do it differently. And because the female version takes longer, simply because of having to undress, it adds up to long lines at a restroom which does create an impediment to us living out lives the way we want to, even if it is small.
Also, there are cultures where men squat to pee and where women pee standing up. It is culturally dictated.
Where exactly did I assert that? If you have to wrongly attribute things to me in order to drum up an argument, then you're in a truly sad place.
In the future, please quote me when attributing some position to me with which you wish to argue. The fact that you do this all the time is simply making me lose patience with you and stop taking you seriously.
why should i care what you think of me? anyway here's one quote from you:
It's true that the newer buildings on campus are not like this, but this is a really old campus, and you can see exactly how they used to do it. But many of the buildings are pre-1950, so maybe they assumed more men would be attending college here than women.
engineering based on this assumption stems from sexism. but either way, what makes the lines longer is the manner in which women pee, which in turn reflects the design of the restrooms
In the comment thread to which you were referring, I never said that bathroom design was a result of sexist engineering. However, the assumption that there would never be many women in the business world or the university that's reflected in the lack of accommodations for women in older buildings is sexist. Get it? The assumption that women would never pursue careers or education was sexist. The engineering itself was no doubt neutral and simply informed by the sexist assumptions of those who were planning out and financing the construction.
And if you don't believe me that preventing women from proper accommodations was used at one time to exclude them from education and jobs, read my earlier post about Rosalind Franklin, or just go find a basic college-level Genetics textbook, most of which now cover her story in detail, to see what I'm talking about. You may be in denial about this as much as you want, but there are historical examples backing my claim.
I agree with you that the whole gender segregated bathrooms thing is fundamentally stupid, but as for numbers of stalls: at least in Utah it's required by the building code (and has been for at least like 15 years now) that when building separate public restrooms that there are 1/3 more women's facilities than men's (eg: if men get 3 stalls + 3 urinals, women get 9 stalls). I can't imagine that Utah is particularly "progressive" so other states probably have similar statutes...
I was actually googling this stuff now, and apparently the way old building codes are mandated you have to have x amount of stalls for every male, x amount of urinals for every male, and x amount of stalls for every female.
However, the way its all distributed it doesn't come out to equality. One example is at a school of 600 students, sex ration 50/50:
1 urinal for every 30 male students: 10 urinals
1 stall for every 100 male students: 3 stalls
1 stall for every 45 female students: 7 stalls
So that's 13 for males to 7 for females.
Now building codes have 'potty parity' (awesomest phrase ever coined) so that toilets are spread equally among the sexes. (1 stall for every 100 males, and 1 stall for every 100 females, etc) Urinals are now regulated by saying that of the allocated toilets, up to 67% of them can be replaced with urinals. But these are recent building code changes.
The type of guy who will assault a woman in a bathroom is the type of guy who will assault a woman, period. It's absurd to pretend that suddenly, if men and women can use the same bathroom, men would be unable to prevent their baser instincts from taking over. Bathroom rights are important for transgendered individuals. And on a personal level, I wish it was socially acceptable to use the men's bathroom - I fucking hate standing in a 15 minute line to pee during a theater intermission or when a concert's about to start.
GN bathroom spaces are VERY exciting for folks like me who catch hell for looking "not quite female" and going into women's bathrooms. (i'm prepared for the next time with "do i need to show you my vagina or can i just tell you i have one?" although that privileges my F assignment more than i'd like) bathrooms should be safe for EVERYONE to use!
and i actually totally do NOT understand the religious right's BS arguments on this issue. they don't really make sense... i agree with the above comment on the Little Red Riding Hood crap mentality. and, on top of that garbage, what does this mean?: "this legislation would reap a whirlwind of social problems." REALLY? cuz i'm unfamiliar with any real problems that have arisen with GN bathrooms other than cisgender folks being closed-minded.
As a person who grew up in a "co-ed" household, where all of us shared the one bathroom pretty informally, and who has lived in dormitory situations with co-ed housing/toilet/shower facilities, the common sense of undifferentiated restrooms seems so obvious to me. Privacy can be created (as it is already) by separate stalls for the toilets and showers.
This also solves the problem of parents with young children of a different sex accompanying their kids to the restroom if they need help.
And as others have said on this thread, a sign on the door doesn't solve the problem of physical violence.
I think it really, at its heart, gets back to the conservative desire to essentialize gender, and their terror over what will happen if women stop being "women" and men stop being "men." And, further, to keep one sex a mystery to the other -- whether in terms of body and sexuality, interpersonal communication, or social activities.
In some Canadian shopping malls, they have "family" restrooms. The sign has a stick-figure mother, father, and child.
It has to be either a new shopping mall or one which renovated their bathrooms, though.
I don't know about America but if the kid is prepubescent then no one says anything about taking them into the toilets which fit the parent's gender.
No doubt this is a red herring by FOF, unfortunately its a particularly insidious & effective one. Albeit there is a problem here, even if its on a very small scale. Its odd enough seeing fathers bring their young daughters into men's restrooms to use them (I even recall one professor in college who brought his 5yo daughter into the men's locker room--big time party foul), much less seeing "women" in men's restrooms or "men" in women's restrooms.
FOF does raise an intriguing question, how precisely do the police enforce this? Do they have to check 'the goods' of any avowedly trans-sexual person who uses a restroom? And why is this a problem that needs to be addressed at all by the city? What's wrong with a visibly male trans-sexual using a men's restroom?
The current system is that if you don't look 100% like the gender of the bathroom, the owner of the building can insist that they see your driver's license.
Whaaaat? Really?
Yep. You can refuse to show it, but in a private business they can make you leave.
A girl I knew had a real problem because her driver's license hadn't been updated, and someone tried to do that to her. She didn't show it, she left, and luckily her state eventually let her change it, but it's really problematic and quite humilating, especially when you are, in fact, a born female.
HOw do you authenticate that theyre transgender? I dont want a potential rapist dressing as a woman and saying he's transgender just to use the womens bathrooms.
As others have already said, this isn't going to be any more likely with a revised bathroom system than it is now. That rapist could go in the women's bathroom anyway. And sure, it would be minorly easier for him to do so if he didn't have to "prove" anything, but the times he would actually be approached by someone would be so few that it really boils down to a difference that's just hair-splitting.
Considering the low difference it will make for rapists to get "easy access" to women in a transgendered bathroom, and considering the low number of people under the current system that actually bother reporting the man-using-women's-washroom incident, I really, really don't think the "threat" of rape trumps trans rights.
In fact, come to think of it, in my entire life--in my twenty-four years of using public washrooms on average probably twice a day during the week that whole time--I have never once encountered a single gendered bathroom incident. In all the rock concerts I've been to (which is many) where I used the men's washroom to beat the lines, in all the days at high school and college when guys/girls went into opposite bathrooms on a bet or a dare or something, I've never once encountered a single person who cared. And if they did, they never said anything--even if it is "illegal" for a man to use a woman's washroom, who's actually going to stop him? Who's going to do anything other than give the guy a dirty look or say "Excuse me, this is a woman's washroom"? How is your theoretical rapist going to rape a woman any easier under a trans-bathroom system?
I admit there are probably some people, but sure as hell not most, not enough to make any real difference.
With this line of argument--no one really gives a damn if a man uses a woman's restroom--then, in fact, it makes no sense to enact an ordinance to protect transgender rights because, in fact, there's no problem. ie, what you're saying is that transgendered or not, no one cares if a "man" uses a woman's restroom.
Again it begs the question of why the ordinance is needed. It would only be needed if a transgendered woman was kept from using a restroom but you're suggesting this doesn't really happen.
Well, the ordinace is needed to lead to a general shift in social thinking. Just because no one complains to an employee when a dude uses a woman's washroom doesn't mean they don't care, or that they don't stare at him, or say things like "Excuse me, this is a woman's washroom." I'm not saying there's no problem with it, just that nothing is generally done about it in the context of trying to get the guy kicked out of the establishment or even the bathroom itself, so this supposed rapist doesn't exactly have a hard time to begin with.
In the case of transgendered individuals, they can reply to such hurtful comments with "Well yes, and I'm a woman," and on the rare occasions where an incident does occur, they'd be protected by law from possible ambiguity over whether or not they are, indeed, a woman.
All I'm saying is that if this law were to change, it's these kinds of situations that will be affected, not the situations where a man who identifies as a gender male goes into the washroom to rape women and girls.
Its odd enough seeing fathers bring their young daughters into men's restrooms to use them (I even recall one professor in college who brought his 5yo daughter into the men's locker room--big time party foul)
What are you saying is wrong with this, though? Are you referring to the trouble those situations might pose for other people in the bathroom who might suspect the father of molesting the kid?
Women bring their young sons into bathrooms all the time. Why should fathers not do the same with their daughters? Until I was five or so, my mother was working a lot more than my dad (both were commercial actors), and I got taken into men's rooms fairly often (usually after my dad checked to make sure they weren't full of urinating men).
Of course, I think this is a good reason that those one-stall "family" bathrooms, used in addition to multi-stall gendered ones, can be a temporary placeholder for completely ungendered bathrooms.
The issue with bringing a young girl into a men's restroom is the urinals. Not every parent would be OK with their daughter seeing men's penises, and not all men who are OK with peeing in front of other men would be OK with peeing in front of a little girl. If the restroom is busy, it's not always possible to just check and make sure there's no one at the urinals.
Are these the same daughters that would likely share a bath with their brothers, if they have brothers? I did when I was that young. I don't see a problem with this at all. It's just a penis.
The only issue is that people are uptight, not that they're something inherently wrong with a five-year-old girl learning that some of us have penises and some have vaginas. And it's not like a father bringing his daughter into a bathroom is going to bring her up to the urinal and say "Look, sweety, this is what a big ol' cock looks like." He's just going to usher her into the stall. She probably wouldn't even see anything.
you don't see the difference between learning that some people have penises and seeing the penises of strange men in public restrooms? as they pee? you don't see how this differs from bathing with ones brothers? she may not see anything, but that her in there enough times and they likely will
But why does it matter if she does? I think that's the point. There is nothing evil about human genetalia, male or female. In fact we could solve alot of problems I think if we more open about these things and shown these things more.
What is it that you fear will happen if a girl sees a man? Will it make her more sexual? That's the only thing I can think of.
Exactly my point. I'm not suggesting there's no difference between seeing some strange man's penis and seeing your brother's; there is a difference. But if anything, it's a healthy difference. It makes the penis a regular thing, an unremarkable part of a man's body.
its not about it being evil, its about exposing one's children to certain things too young. we introduce them to the world and its ideas as they age because with time they are better able to handle these things. you guys sound like you don;t have kids so this is merely some mental exercise, but there are many things we dont expose kids to when they are young, not because they are evil but because its too early.
and if you do happen to have kids, i'd love to see how they develop. should be interesting
So what do you suggest a father does? A man is out in public with his young daughter when suddenly he has to pee. Does he leave her alone while he does it? Does he ask a stranger to watch her? Does he use the women's washroom? Or does he just bring her with him? Those are essentially his only options.
I'm still confused though. I can understand not wanting to expose them to pornography. But this is the human body, the most natural thing in the world. Don't you think that by keeping it so "secret" you are making it into something bigger and scarier then it is? That leads to body shame and other issues.
Besides we're not talking about going to a strip club. We're talking about something that is completely non-sexual. Like breast feeding. Would you let a child see a women breast feeding? I would. If so, what is the diff here?
I'm not suggesting we take little girls and force them to look at erect men with their pants down here. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be scared of little kids being introduced to the human body in an everday kind of context.
And, again, I really doubt the little girls see much. Have you ever watched a guy pee? All you can really see is his hand holding it, unless you make a point to stare. A responsible parent would just make sure to answer any questions the daughter has, and if necessary, take the opportunity to teach her that staring at anyone doing anything is rude. Just like you'd tell her that staring at someone on the bus or at the park is rude.
Why are we even debating this? Do you really have a problem with fathers taking their young daughters in the bathroom? They've been doing it for years. If this whole controversy is about safety for women and girls, then is it really a good idea for a father to make his five-year-old wait outside while Daddy tinkles?
It happens all the time as, in fact, it happened to me. I'm only pointing out that its weird, in that it doesn't happen everyday.
On the other hand, bringing your 5yo daughter into a locker room of naked men is weird in the sense that it just shouldn't happen at all, period. I recall him telling someone who asked about it that kids don't perceive nudity until they're much older. Sorry, but I think that line of reasoning is unsafe @ many levels.
This makes absolutely no sense. Say if I'm in the ladies' room at the mall, and a M-F transgender person walks in. If they look female, I'm not going to think that there's a man in the bathroom. I'm going to think there's a woman using the women's bathroom. I don't see her as a man in women's clothing. How the heck would I know if she still has a penis and testicles if she's in the stall next to mine? However, if that same M-F transgender person walks into the men's room, the men in there will think that there's a lady in the men's room."You're in the wrong bathroom, lady." So the only way anyone is going to freak out about an opposite sexed person being in the wrong bathroom is if Focus on the Family gets their way. How can they not realize this?
When I was a freshman in college, I walked into the bathroom in my dorm to brush my teeth. A girl was sitting on one of the sinks, and her male friend walked out of one of the stalls. He apologized and laughed along with his friend. And I said, "It's okay. I share a bathroom with my brother when I'm home." As long as the person is using the bathroom in the way in which it's supposed to be used, then I don't care who's in there.
I think the problem comes when the person's outward appearance doesn't match how they self-identify. So let's say you're a trans-gendered woman who hasn't yet had started treatment. The way the ordinances are being written, you'd still have the right to use the bathroom of your choice. That would certainly raise eyebrows...It might be one of those times when its better to leave it as it is. Because its a beehive to enforce, and self-regulation & reporting probably works best.
In that case, yes, they probably should use the bathroom of the gender they present as, for their own safety and to avoid confusion.
No offense, but that's an awfully privileged thing to say.
The issue there is that what someone "presents as" and what someone is "read as" can be very different things. Butch women, for instance, are commonly harassed in restrooms. They're just minding their business, being their butch, women selves, go to relieve their bladder, and someone reads them as a male and then enters the harassment and sometimes violence. In general, for trans folks and non-trans, just because you are presenting as your actual gender doesn't mean you are always going to be read as such! Being able to "pass" is often a combination of luck and access to resources, clout, & privilege. As a general rule, making a policy where passing is a prerequisite for gaining access to appropriate accommodations is a bad idea (for dozens of reasons!)
You might find the little booklet "Transitioning Our Shelters" a helpful read. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/TransitioningOurShelters.pdf It's specifially about Homeless Shelters (a big deal since trans folks disproportionately deal with homelessness) but many of the factors discussed in the booklet apply to other gender-specific accommodations as well.
The video "Toilet Training" by Sylvia Rivera Law Project is also a must-see for anyone contemplating best practices and policies around gender-separated facilities.
No, they should be able to use whatever restroom they feel comfortable (and safe) using. Trans people are quite capable of making their own judgements about safety; unfortunately we have to too often. As far as other people being confused, that's their problem, and shouldn't limit any one else's choices. Should we tell butch women which restrooms they can go to, for their safety and to prevent confusion?
(Replying to all 3 comments)
Well, I mean if someone doesn't have a driver's license to whip out that says their gender, to calm people down, and they quite clearly look like a certain gender, they should just use the bathroom that will cause the least concern. Obviously there are always people where it's uncertain, but the example was a transwoman who hadn't even begun hormone treatment yet-- it would be natural to see her as male, and she should understand that unless she dresses in a notably gendered way people may simply assume she is a born, straight male, and she may be putting herself in a potentially humiliating and dangerous position.
Obviously the individual should decide, but they can't decide purely based on how they feel; if they don't have any legal protection backing them up that says they are the gender they know they are (and they SHOULD, and I actively work to change those laws), they need to consider that a) people may make assumptions about them, b) if they violate the assumptions they may put themselves in a bad situation, and c) currently, there is no legal support backing up their rights, so they may find themselves thrown out of businesses or targeted by bigots, even if they are in fact the victim.
Most of the time, a butch woman can simply whip out her ID to the owner/manager/whatever and the person will apologize (or can successfully sue if they do not). Since transpeople don't always have access to correct IDs, they do have to keep in mind what may happen if someone objects to their bathroom choices.
Do you really think transfolks don't "keep in mind" all the possible outcomes of entering a public restroom? It's really insulting to those of us who have our identities and legitimacy questioned every single day to suggest that we just haven't thought about it, and that it's our responsibility to make sure no one beats us up or harasses us.
Yes. I was responding to a post above that suggested that a transwoman who presented as male and had had no treatment would simply ignore the issues. While I didn't think it right to presume to say ALL transpeople did consider it, I was replying to declare that it's definitely something they SHOULD be considering-- and presumably, almost all do.
I wasn't directing that at transpeople. Obviously that's not news to you.
I enjoy your ridiculous assumption that the amount of "treatment" someone has received corresponds with how dangerous gendered bathrooms are for them and how well they pass as their identified gender.
Not every trans person wants to pursue medical transition, and there are plenty of trans people who don't "pass" regardless of the medical options they've taken. No matter how long someone has been on hormones, no matter how they dress, no matter what their driver's license or birth certificate says, some people's genders are at risk of being read incorrectly. And they're vulnerable because of it. It's not always a predictable thing, either--if someone is read as female about 3/4ths of the time and male 1/4th of the time, what bathroom should they feel safest using? What option do they have that doesn't threaten to become dangerous at a moment's notice, if there are only gendered bathrooms available?
Again, i highly recommend reading "Transitioning Our Shelters"
I think its a common misconception that trans folks start to transition, go through a nice linear process, and pop out on the otherside "transformed" into our true selves. The reality is a lot more diverse, complicated, and inconsistent. A complex mix of cultural, economic, medical, and personal factors play out into the when/how/where/if's of trans people's process. When one factors in the reality of this into public policy, a simple matter of "just go with whats on your ID" or "just try
to guess what folks will read you as" don't always work, sometimes don't even make sense! Sure, we think about these things when making decisions about what facility will be safest to use, but it isn't a one-strategy-fits all scenario, and as such makes for bad public policy.
This is why i linked Transitioning Our Shelters above. I think it does a good job explaining some of the complex realities that come up for trans folks, and why so many well-intentioned policies fail -- especially when they're built around this very specific (white, middle-class, DSM-based) model of transition.
Then what, exactly, would you suggest as public policy? Obviously, #1 is to change ID genders as needed, with nothing more than a declaration of gender required. But beyond that, how would you meet the need of business owners to address visitor's complaints about "men" in the women's bathroom, and kick out any actual men in the bathroom, without stepping on the rights of transwomen and women who may not meet gender norms? What balance would you strike?
Good question! :-) I actually first might refer you to my and Zoe Brain's comments down below, as i think they are key to why i came to the conclusions i have on this issue.
The policies i recommend these days do sometimes vary on the particular institution in question, but in almost all situations i advocate for trans folks to use the facilities of the gender with which they identify, regardless of documentation or medical status.
How a business would address concerns of a customer around such a policy would really depend on the kind of services the business provided. But on a more generic note, i would definately assure my customers that i my business had a zero-tolerance policy of inappropriate activity of any kind will from ANY gender on my premises! If they specifically mentioned concerns a man might claim to be a trans woman, i might be tempted to mention that in other places implementing similar policies over the last several decades not a single incident of this has ever been reported. At the end of the day, while i would do all in my power to comfort my uncertain customers, i would not sway from the fact that the very real safety (and dignity) of my transgender customers is worth more than the unfortunate uninformed fears and myths of some of my other customers.
Because this really seems like the balance of concerns of which you speak. It is not the balance between the safety between my trans and cis women customers. This is the lie FotF is pushing. It is between the comfort of some cis folks and the safety of trans folks. If one looks at what happens when these policies are actually implemented (or the fact that its still legal to call someone's bluff!) one finds that in reality violence against women does not increase. It actually decreases significantly, for trans women.
Its true, i might loose a few customers over it, but i just don't want to live in a world where people are willing to sacrifice people's basic human rights for increased profit!
Of course trans people "keep in mind" what might happen. That's why some of us will avoid public restrooms entirely, to avoid the likely confrontations. But we shouldn't have to be concerned about that. The problem lies with people objecting to them being there. The trans person (or who ever else) is just trying to use the restroom, and should have a right to do so without being harassed, included forced to show ID.
For that matter, the ability to "whip out a drivers license" is a privilege that only some people have, as there are people without ID (because of poverty, immigration status, etc) and people whose ID doesn't match the gender they identify as/are presenting as. And even if they do have an appropriate ID, it only helps after they've been confronted, which they shouldn't have to worry about it the first place. And it might not stop continued harrasment anyway.
I agree. You shouldn't have to, and not by changing the bathroom laws, but by legally recognizing you as the correct gender. What's more, of course people do keep it in mind. I was responding to a poster who seemed to be suggesting a scenario where a pre-treatment transwoman, who appeared 100% male and whose ID probably still described them as such, would simply walk into a female bathroom as if that was not going to raise eyebrows. Obviously they would not. They would keep in mind possible repercussions, as they should until we can protect them more with legal backing. But I was responding to the poster by explaining what transpeople already know-- that they have to keep in mind the attitudes of others when they make certain decisions.
Showing ID always struck me as the easiest way to solve the issue of people objecting. If the owner discreetly asks for ID, confirms gender, and then goes to chastise the objecter, I don't really see the problem-- except that the laws currently do not issue correct IDs, but again, the answer to that seems to be to change the ID law, not prevent the owners from discretely enforcing their gendered bathrooms to meet the needs of their clients/customers/whatever.If the owner does not then protect the questioned person, they should be rightly sued, as has been done in a few cases with butch women.
And everyone in this country can get an ID, really. If not a driver's license, there are non-driver state IDs issued for only $10, passports, visas, Medicare/aid cards... Seriously, $10 for a state ID is not too much to ask of someone. And yes, as I said before, this IS a problem for transpeople, I never claimed it wasn't. In fact, I specifically mentioned lack of access to correct IDs for transpeople.
I'm just curious, and i'm being sincere in this, not rhetorical! :-) ...How would you envision an equitable distribution of correctly gendered IDs? And because you are concerned about filtering out men pretending to be (trans) women to gain access to a gender-seperated facility, how would you propose to keep such a man from also acquiring these IDs?
I must admit, i ask with an initial impression of doubt. In today's environment of increased xenophobia, identity theft, database matching, etc. getting accurate gender designations on licenses has not been easy! So i'm also uncertain about the political feasibility of this strategy. I think folks are often surprised how difficult it can be to get accurate documents where they are *most* needed: like homeless trans youth, trans immigrants seeking refuge (officially or not), trans folks who are *really* broke (due to intense employment discrimination).
But, you know, you also sound like you're not new to this topic either! I'm always open to suggestion :-D
And this really reveals another way we pressure people to "pass" as their own gender. As others have noted, even if you are of the appropriate sex for that bathroom but have chosen not to perform gender in the way your culture requires you to, you find yourself in a bit of a no-man's-land when it comes to restrooms.
And I'd like to add that I've been in about every men's bathroom in my alma mater. My friends and I launched an anonymous campaign to get condom machines installed in the bathrooms. We made posters that looked like condom machines and taped them in all the bathrooms on campus. We did this kind of late at night, so there weren't that many people in any of the bathrooms. We were all very surprised how much nicer the men's bathrooms were. They had coat racks and couches and stuff. None of the women's bathrooms had those accommodations.
" They had coat racks and couches and stuff. None of the women's bathrooms had those accommodations."
WTF?!
I'm not sure I'd want so sit on any couch I'd find in a bathroom...
The couches were in a little waiting area closer to the entrance. It looked like a bathroom you'd find in Macy's or Bloomingdale's.
sounds like the women's restroom at my law school
Where on earth did you go to school, if you don't mind my asking?
The facilities at my alma mater were identical and mostly gender-neutral. On the few halls/buildings that had single-gender bathrooms, the ones for women were usually markedly cleaner (the bathrooms were cleaned equally often, there just wasn't pee on the floor in the ladies' rooms).
I went to Marist College. The bathrooms were always very clean in the academic buildings and library. But the men's rooms were often bigger and generally nicer.
A couple months ago, I got really drunk at a hotel in downtown Austin -- the Driskill (very sophisticated, etc.) As soon as I realized I needed to stop drinking (too late) I decided to head up to my best friend's room in the hotel to cool off, but got lost along the way. I realized I needed to use the restroom while I was on this drunken journey and, in frustration of not being able to identify a women's restroom, I stumbled into a men's restroom. Both stalls were taken up, so I did what every sensible drunk woman would do -- I hiked up my skirt, backed up against a urinal, and peed. I looked at a gentleman next to me, who was smiling with amusement, and I apologized for the situation. He laughed and said, "Forget about it. When you gotta go, you gotta go." (Granted, there was a much older man washing his hands who looked absolutely horrified.)
I wish we all could learn to forgive gender role violations for the sake of nature's call.
You bring up a good point here--that "men" (or people perceived as such) are much more likely to get policed in a women's restroom than the other way around.
This is because men pose a larger threat to women than women pose to men. If a man goes into a woman's bathroom, is like a fox going into a chicken's nest. But if a woman goes into a man's bathroom, it's like a chicken going into the fox's hole.
Men are seen as predators with women as prey, and men are seen as perverts where women are expected to faint at the sound of urine coming from a man. I think that bathrooms should not be segregated at all, but personally would not feel safe thinking the guy in the stall next to me is getting some sort of sick pleasure out of it.
Perhaps this is one of those ways that patriarchy hurts men, too?
how is the separation of bathrooms even patriarchal?
It's based on the assumption that there are essential differences between men and women which must be protected/enforced and that women are more delicate and that even hearing a member of the opposite sex pee is somehow sexual in nature...
I disagree. That isn't why they are seperated. They are seperated because most people feel more comfortable, especially women.
I think most men would have no problem sharing bathrooms with women. They'd probably really like it. But I think most women WOULD have a problem sharing bathrooms. So if anything I think it's women who are enforcing the seperation.
I personally would have no problem sharing, though I can understand the concerns of others with regards to this topic.
For the most part, I agree with you, Honeybee. It's a matter of comfort. I'm a college freshman who lives in a co-ed dorm, but on an all-girls floor. Once in a while, you'll walk in on a guy in the girls' (that is, girls-only) bathroom, and it sketches me out a little bit because there are a lot of people I don't know (or trust) around here. I'm not saying that men as a whole aren't to be trusted, because there are some unsavory women around here too, I'm just saying that I'm more comfortable with gendered bathrooms when it comes to having strangers around.
That said, any law-abiding citizen, trans or not, should be allowed to go to the bathroom in peace and in comfort. The crap that the FoF is disseminating is wrong.
But having non-gendered bathrooms would help to deconstruct this notion that male strangers are in some way more threatening. It would also help deconstruct the notion that women just naturally feel more comfortable using the bathroom with other women. It is sexism, even if some may consider it trivial. Separate but supposedly equal in relation to gender almost always creates sexism, or is created by sexism.
If women and men were forced to use the same bathrooms (as most of us do at home) it would gradually become a non-issue and women and men would probably become a lot more comfortable with one another in ANY situation.
Of course I'm not saying this will happen overnight. There will probably be some discomfort and certainly some paradigm adjustment. But this is necessary.
It's been observed over and over again in anthropological fieldwork that the more separated the genders are from one another, the more stratification results. As genders are brought together the amount of stratification lessens. It's not quantifiable, perhaps, but still observable.
And finally, as many others have pointed out, someone who intends to assault someone is going to do it regardless of whether they're in a bathroom or not.
I would further argue that allowing men and women to share bathrooms would help lower incidences of sexual assault. Hatred often stems from fear or ignorance. Keeping ourselves separate from other genders keeps us ignorant and that encourages fear and hate.
I don't doubt that many women would feel uncomfortable. They've been socialized to think of it this way. We all have weird body issues that are instilled in us by our culture (a lot of men have been socialized to feel squicky about breastfeeding women...). But in cultures where they aren't taught to feel weird about it, men and women use the same facilities and think nothing of it.
Good point - I agree completely. And I think it's a worthy goal to break this down. But I also think it's a big challenge. Thx.
But in this case, it's not men, but transgendered women (MTF) that would be in the women's restroom. Obviously FoF sees them as dangerous perverts, but we should stand up against these kinds of claims.
I had a very similar situation to the one mentioned above. I'd gone out with some friends, and I had too much to drink. I couldn't find the women's restroom at the bar, so I went into the men's, which had only a urinal and a toilet, no partitions or anything, so generally, only one person could be using it at once in the first place. My best friend held the door shut for me, and a man tried to come in. He pushed and pushed and pushed, even though we said it was occupied, until he slammed the door open so hard, that my friend fell over. He proceeded to hold the door open so anyone walking by could see me peeing, and scream about how I wasn't supposed to be in there. He eventually called me a "stupid cunt," and he did not shut the door until I'd left. I was terrified to walk past him to get out of the bathroom.
Another good reason for having gender-neutral bathrooms (or "family" bathrooms like I've seen lately at some malls and airports) is what to do if a father is somewhere with his young daughter. A girl about 4 or 5 years old is probably too young to send into the women's restroom alone, but also too old to go into a men's restroom where there are men at urinals.
Or even parents with mentally/physically disabled kids or teens? Relatives of the same age? Maybe a mentally challenged person could get by with being helped in an opposite sex bathroom, but what if you've got a physical disability and need your opposite sex friend/cousin/sibling/etc. to help you? No situation comes to mind, but surely there must be situations like these.
Hell, sometimes I just want to go see if my boyfriend is almost done cause I'm tired of standing alone outside.
The family bathroom at the Bay (in Canada) in my city had specific rules posted: Men may only enter if they have a child/woman present with them. This does not apply to women. Shocking?
Maybe they think transgendered women are going to be whipping their willies out all willy-nilly, without going into the stall and closing the door first? Maybe the Focus men like to wag their wangs about in public, and assume anyone else with a penis will be unable to control the urge to do the same?
Do Focus on the Family members have separate men's and women's bathrooms in their own homes?
No, but those bathrooms lock and are 100% private. Indeed, no one cares if a person uses the "wrong" bathroom when it's a single-stall bathroom with a locking door-- it's generally accepted, at least around here. The issue is when you have urinals, or stalls, and separate sinks, and multiple people in the same area.
Soon they'll have divided living areas for males and females with separate staircases leading up to the segragated living areas upstairs like the Shakers. Which wouldn't be a bad thing, as it would make their brand of Christianity obsolete after one generation...
Lara Riscol at RH Reality Check has a blog from Feburary up on the issue. Check it out here.
"We specifically warned them that their vote for this bill would even allow men to use women's restrooms--right alongside women and even young girls."
Lions and tigers and trannies, oh my!
FotF does such a great job of making it seem like people who fall outside of gender norms are sick creepazoids who will sexually traumatize your innocent virginal daughters the first chance they get!
public restrooms are a very important part of teaching kids that "when you're a boy you do this, and when you're a girl you do that, and that's just the way it is cuz those are the rules." Obviously parents don't set out to indoctrinate gender-appropriate behavior. It's done almost subconsciously, just because that's how they were raised, and they never questioned it. Well, now that some folks want bathrooms to be inclusive to all genders (what?! there's more than just two? AHHHHHHH!!!!!) the FotF types feel threatened. Of course they do! All their lives they've been believing that gays go to hell and that God made men as men and women as women for a reason (to have lots and lots of babies!) and then *poof* suddenly they're living in a world where their kid might see a transgendered person in a restroom.
FotF refers to inclusive bathrooms as a "political danger." To them, it certainly is! If they suddenly realize that the GLBTQ community is humans just trying to go about their business (#1 or #2, in this case) conservative Christians might have to get off their high horses and rethink their own values. And if they rethink their values, they could wind up in the fires of hell, hanging out with a bunch of queers, murderers, and abortionists!
Notice how FotF makes such a big deal about a man in a woman's restroom, but doesn't fret at all about women in the mens room! Apparently another one of the cultural norms they're trying to protect (sanctity of restroom segregation aside) is the one where women are taught to be scared shit-less of men. Or maybe FotF is merely trying to manipulate people by playing on the fears they already have...
Or perhaps it's just yet another example of queer phobia disguised as "pro-family" nonsense.
FotF does such a great job of making it seem like people who fall outside of gender norms are sick creepazoids who will sexually traumatize your innocent virginal daughters the first chance they get!
Exactly! And so well put...
I think its less that people feel protected by the stick figure on the door and more that people feel vulnerable in bathrooms anyway, with a healthy dose of seeing anyone who is not straight as a predator out to violate their children.
This is so ridiculous. I actually agree that bathrooms need to be gendered, not for safety, since it is not a barrier, but for comfort and privacy-- many women, when offered a coed bathroom only, will simply chose not to go, and in my experience "co-ed" has tended to mean "men's bathroom that women use if they are really, really desperate and there aren't any men in it." So making all bathrooms "coed" just hurts women.
That said... a transwoman is a woman, a transman is a man. They need to use the one they present as (a pre-hormones transsexual wearing their biological gender's clothing/hairstyles should use their biological gender's bathroom), but if they aren't... Transwomen tend to be nonviolent, they don't want to draw attention to themselves and jail, even overnight, needs to be avoided at all costs in most states (as they would be housed with the male population). And what male abuser will pretend to be trans to get into a bathroom? So stupid.
I wouldn't feel safe going to a bathroom at night and having a man around. Men are just too misogynistic. We all know 'normal' men rape. I don't want the thought to cross his mind when I'm in an enclosed area with my pants down. It doesn't take much to knock the lock on one of those bathroom doors off. I can do it, why can't a dude? If it was normalized it wouldn't be like anyone would notice anything unusual about a man using a woman's bathroom to recount what he was wearing or looked like. If he was in his own bathroom not around women, the thought might not cross his mind. I'm all for transgender people using their own gendered restrooms and not being harassed for it, but the transition from looking like a female/male, to a full-on passing female/male is a finite trasition that I don't believe warrants changing laws that bring nature born men (and indocrinated) around womens spaces just to serve a minority demographic during an awkward stage while transitioning. Many men also want to use urinals and I wouldnt want to walk into a bathroom and see that much dick. I would also feel uncompfortable that guys wouldnt start to peek under the stalls, look through the cracks of the stalls while washing their hands (like you can do when washing hands by use of the mirror). Doesn't this also make it easier for pedophiles to have access to girls?
As a transwoman, there were many aspects of this comment which struck me as very privileged and made me feel very uncomfortable.
For instance, you say you would be worried about men peeping - well, in that case, should we ban lesbians, too? Aren't they equally likely to be attracted to you and want to sneak a peek? And keep in mind that in the direct parallel, the solution to that would be to force them to use the men's bathroom instead, essentially sacrificing their safety and comfort for your own.
And isn't saying that you are "uncomfortable seeing penis" just as sexist as a man arguing against public breast feeding on the basis of being "uncomfortable seeing a breast?"
And I am definitely not comfortable with the implied connection between trans women and pedophiles; if a man wants to dress up as a woman to abduct little girls or do horrible things to them (which is of course, EXTREMELY ILLEGAL) don't you think they would do so anyway?
If safety in bathrooms is an issue (and I'm sure it is) the solution is NOT to sacrifice the comfort and safety of a minority group in order to assure your own. If the problem is so bad that it warrants having security officers in the bathrooms, then THAT SHOULD BE DONE and if it isn't, then it's hardly fair to force transsexuals to face the risk of failing to pass (thus making hate crimes or other forms of discrimination VERY likely), not to mention all the discomforts you were talking about and perhaps a slew of other issues (ie: being discouraged from even trying to pass in public) by going to the wrong bathroom in order to procure a little bit of extra comfort for the majority.
Just an aside--I really hope "bathroom security" never becomes a common job. So many of us have had police or security hassle us in bathrooms even when these people are stationed elsewhere... I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of someone who earns hir salary by making sure I'm not a dude in the bathroom.
Oh I completely agree about not wanting someone whose job is to make sure nobody's in the wrong bathroom. I meant someone whose job it was to make sure nobody was getting raped or assaulted, since so many people seem so concerned about it. I agree that I hope it doesn't get to that point.
For instance, you say you would be worried about men peeping - well, in that case, should we ban lesbians, too? Aren't they equally likely to be attracted to you and want to sneak a peek?
In my experience, lesbians are not nearly as annoying as men are when it comes to checking women out. The women who check me out typically just check me out and get on with what they are doing. Men stare a little longer, are more obvious about it, and seem to have a much greater expectation that I will return the favor. The real problem is the privilege that men exude, not the urine.
Honestly, how often do you run into a transperson who would actually BE a safety risk? In my experience transwomen are less likely to cause problems than ciswomen, since they really, really don't want to get harassed by cops or cause any conflict.
So allowing transpeople alone-- as in, not making bathrooms coed by default, but certainly allowing transpeople to pick the appropriate bathroom-- is probably no safety risk at all. You'd be more likely to be attacked by some other random woman in the bathroom.
I'd rather be peeped by a lesbian who doesnt have male privilege supported by society and is doing it to play up to both a rapist perspective and a general immature attitude of seeing women as solely sex objects that exist solely to be sexually appealing to men. Many men think it justified to sexually harass, assault and peep on a woman. I'd rather another woman looking at me anyday than a man. Its not even like theyre enjoying it but just reinforcing a male misogynistic construct which subsists off of mistreating women. I dont need my bathrooms to become another space to reinforce some second state status for my gender.
"And keep in mind that in the direct parallel, the solution to that would be to force them to use the men's bathroom instead, essentially sacrificing their safety and comfort for your own."
We live in a patriarchy where women exist within a rape culture. I have no problem telling a guy to use or wait for another bathroom. My safety always comes first ahead of his comfort. He can pee outside on a tree.
"And isn't saying that you are "uncomfortable seeing penis" just as sexist as a man arguing against public breast feeding on the basis of being "uncomfortable seeing a breast?"
No, because when I pee no one sees my genitals. If a man were to use a urinal I would see his genitals. Also, as many men do, he could subversily sexually harass me by making a lewd gesture and showing me his dick. I'm not making it available for him to do that. Breastfeeding is essential for another human beings life. Women dont have the precedent of being sexually misogynistic for us to worry about, not to mention that a woman is typically the same size as any other woman and this is less intimidating.
"And I am definitely not comfortable with the implied connection between trans women and pedophiles"
Neither do I. I dont think transpeople are pedophiles and never implied that in my post.
"If the problem is so bad that it warrants having security officers in the bathrooms, then THAT SHOULD BE DONE "
Um no. I dont want to be policed in my bathrooms. Thats tax money. Those officers should be on call to fight crime not monitor my bathroom activities. Anyways, officers arent trustworthy. It would be like Brown vs Board of Education where the black students had to be escorted by police. I'm just trying to pee and being that most women arent used to having eerie police in the bathroom when they have to urinate I dont think theyd appreciate the hostile atmosphere. It woud be easier just to make it so that nature born men couldnt use womens bathrooms.Also, that would be a huge deterrent to many women who want to use the bathroom. It would be like reinforcing a second status in society when were just trying to relieve ourselves.
For the record I'm not against transpeople using whichever bathroom. But I dont know how long that awkward stage last until they pass as the opposite gender but its not worth it to change and affect everyones lives and make it available for men to enter womens spaces. Its vulnerable and opens up the door to misogynistic treatment.However if this specifies exclusively transgender people I'm not against it. I just dont want people who identify as men using womens restrooms.
"And isn't saying that you are "uncomfortable seeing penis" just as sexist as a man arguing against public breast feeding on the basis of being "uncomfortable seeing a breast?"
No, because when I pee no one sees my genitals. If a man were to use a urinal I would see his genitals.
I think you're deeply confused about how urinals work. Guys are generally pretty embarrassed about having their genitals seen by other guys (and the average guy even more so embarrassed by being seen by a woman), so I don't know why you think urinals are some sort of penis show. Everyone faces forward generally less than 10cm from the urinal/wall, so unless you're standing right next to someone who is either very well endowed or has very small hands, it's basically impossible to see anything. And on top of that it's common to have privacy dividers between urinals so even that already minuscule chance of accidentally glimpsing some penis is reduced to zero.
But still, I think Zyfron's point about comparing seeing a penis peeing to a breast breast feeding is that it's not fair to consider a penis peeing "gross and offensive" any more than it is to consider a breast nursing a child "gross and offensive". Yes one technically is a sex organ an the other isn't, but that's how we pee! and that's how babies eat! Both can be used in a sexual manner, but neither one is being sexualized in the above scenarios. So there's no reason to go flying off the handle about it.
And finally accusing men in general of being "just to misogynistic" or "unable to control their baser instincts and be tempted to rape by the mere proximity to a woman with her pants down" is frankly sexist, demeaning, and ultimately part of the problem, not the solution. Anyone on this board making similarly stereotypical claims about women would be filleted alive and you know it.
I find this comment extremely offensive on so many levels. I don't even think I need to explain why. Once again gopher you have crossed the line.
I know you have good intentions but to me half your points here are no better then comments by misogynist male assholes everywhere. So how is that helping anything?
I'm sorry, I know this post has been criticized already by others but I just have to point out a few things.
First of all, you absolutely DID imply a connection between transsexuals and pedophiles by posing the question "Doesn't this (a bill allowing transsexuals to use the bathroom of their choice) also make it easier for pedophiles to have access to girls?" and leaving the question completely unsupported. Had you said, for instance "because of a) b) c) and d)" it might not have implied a connection, but to just leave it hanging like that does. This is a very sensitive issue, and far to many people DO sincerely believe that transsexuals are pedophiles, so you might want to be a bit more careful with what you throw out there unintentionally.
Secondly: You seem to think that the risk of sexual assault in bathrooms is a major problem. But it's not a big enough problem to spend tax money on? But it IS a big enough problem to sacrifice the safety, comfort, and dignity of transsexuals (who, from other comments you've written, cannot be trusted to be "genuine" - how do we know they aren't just rapists in elaborate disguises?) This doesn't strike you as the least bit bigoted or transphobic?
If you are sincerely worried about being raped, then I am absolutely willing to have some of my taxpayer money go towards making you feel safer or lessening the threat - and I'm surprised that you aren't willing to let your own money do the same. certainly, I would start spending tax money well before I would start denying the rights and dignity of an entire people group to solve a problem.
Oh, and for the record, for many transpeople "that awkward stage" can be your entire life. You seem to have this idea that you wake up one day as a man, realize your trans, take some treatment for a few weeks or months and then start passing perfectly. For a lot of people, that isn't the way it goes. Some people have trouble ever passing - or can't afford treatment, or choose not to get treatment for medicinal or other reasons.
And even in principle I absolutely do not believe that a transsexual's (or anyone else's) safety and dignity should be limited by their outward appearance.
No. I thought that the letter was about allowing men to use womens bathrooms. I had no idea that this was only for transgender. I can see how you can make the transgender= pedophile assumption off of my post if you believe that I read the letter that way. However, I just thought this was about ungenedering the bathrooms. I'm all for letting transgender people use whichever bathroom and most certaintly dont think transgender people are pedophiles. That would be quite horrible and discriminatory. As a matter of fact isnt it nature born het men that are the pedophiles?
Pedophiles can be male, female, cis, or trans. Its a sexual disorder, not a character trait/flaw of some hetrosexual males.
Gopher: expert troll
A man can walk into a woman's bathroom now. Nothing is stopping him. Bathroom doors are not usually easy to see by staff; it would be quite easy to simply walk in.
Rapists and pedophiles already attack women and girls in bathrooms all the time.
As for discomfort, that is why I think that bathrooms should remain gendered-- women won't use coed bathrooms due to their own discomfort. But of course, a transitioning transwoman would use a stall same as you, and a transitioning transman would simply use the stalls in the men's room. So I don't really understand why the urinal thing is an issue for transitioning people? It's not like anyone wants to put urinals in the women's bathrooms for the transwomen.
"Rapists and pedophiles already attack women and girls in bathrooms all the time. "
But why make it more acceptable.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=80298&catid=188
http://www.lapdonline.org/october_2006/news_view/33647
People saw him entering the bathroom and found it odd. If this was acceptable they would've thought nothing of it.
Gee... I'm old enough to remember them running the scary unisex bathrooms issue as a major reason for not passing the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s.
The public restroom issue is one of their Swiss Army Knives all purpose scare tactics. Queers in the military? Oh no they will have to pee next to our sacred straights.
Transrights? Oh no that would mean transsexual and transgender folks have the same access to public facilities to pee and poop as normborns.
But it clearly still works - and remarkably well. Even most of the commenters here have taken the bait and are assuming that this legislation would end gendered bathrooms, as FoF is falsely claiming.
I hate Focus on the Family (I live in Colorado and their negative influence can be felt all throughout the state), but if men can go into women's restrooms then that ups the probability of sexual assault or rape. Today, patrons would note something suspicious about a man using a woman's bathroom which would be an eye-witness acount if something happened, if this becomes normal or acceptable then they'll be no witness accounts or complaints. Also, I'm sure many men would think it funny to trash up the women's bathroom. I'm thinking, "North County" and the things men did to the restrooms there to harass the women.
But the proposed legislation in almost every instance has to do with transgendered individuals. Assumably MTFs didn't go through all of the pain and stigma of transitioning just to have access to women's restrooms.
Yeah... I think you're misunderstanding because of the wording of the FOF letter. The actual laws are mostly to allow TRANSSEXUALS access to the appropriate bathroom, not to let random men wander in. And I doubt a transwoman is going to attack you or trash the bathroom.
I'm not against transpeople using either restroom, but non-transgendered men using womens bathrooms. Maybe I didnt read the letter right.
As long as a bathroom is clean and being used for "nature's call" and appropriate hand-washing afterward, I'm okay with whomever is in the bathroom. As far as I'm concerned, there are much bigger problems with public restrooms than who is in them -- how clean it is, how much room there is in the stalls (don't you just love having to hover over the toilet to get the door closed?), is there a place **other than** the floor for a purse or backpack, is there soap in the dispensers, paper towels in the holders, a trashcan next to the door? What about a low sink for children or people in wheelchairs? I hate having to lift my preschooler up so that she can wash her hands! Is there a mirror somewhere other than the sink so that the beauty-obsessed can adjust their hair and makeup without making others wait? (I acknowledge that checking hair and makeup in a public restroom is considered "normal," but for whatever reason it always freaks me out as if I'd walked in on someone doing a very private act. I wish I didn't have to see it.) If people want to complain about public restrooms, I wish they would dedicate their complaints to practical matters, not non-matters.
With great respect to all the good comments about transmen & transwomen, when it comes to straight men (maybe NOT readers of this blog?) and women in bathrooms... well, there simply IS no equivalent of the infamous tubgirl in the female public fantasy realm. Or, 2girls1cup.
As someone familiar with porn in all its aspects, let me tell you that the place where a women goes to do her bodily functions, can be a place of untold fascination to a certain kind of man... not saying women don't like to get a bit of kink on either, just that I personally would not want to have the squits where random guys can sit right next to me, outside a safe public area, and seperated only by plywood and a thumb-bolt.
This isn't about a dialogue where women are victims, "little Red Riding Hood" etc - it's about the same issues that mean dark streets are predator-friendly.
So is the bathroom where men and women go in without anyone noticing, and there are locks on booths.
Um, this legislation is specifically about transgendered individuals, not about making all bathrooms gender neutral. Fof simply continues to refer to MTFs as "men" and thus raises this huge fuss over "men" in women's bathrooms. And FoF assumes that anyone who would change their gender must be a perverted predator. We should challenge these claims rather than swallowing the bait and freaking out about it.
I've noticed the trend that some of the hip lounges and bars in my city have gender neutral bathrooms. I must confess, as a woman, it makes me incredibly uncomfortable. If a transwoman comes into a women's restroom, I couldn't care less; I probably wouldn't even notice. But something about sharing that space with heteromen creeps me out, to the point that I tend to avoid these lounges. I'll be thinking about this today, because I can't quite put my finger on why it creeps me out.
This and the comment above trouble me. I understand that, given the nature of sexism and violence against women, we learn to be wary of adult men in private spaces.
But I think it's important NOT to turn this into demonizing of hetero men as a group. Hetero men and the fear-mongering we, as a culture, create about their sexuality, should not be the determining factor here. We should separate out our subjective creeped-outness from what grounds we actually have for gender-segregated.
sorry. last three words should be: ". . . bathrooms (not much)."
I totally get what you're saying, and I certainly do not want to demonize all heteromen. The thing is, after pondering this, I don't think my discomfort stems from fear of rape. It's more like the discomfort stems from my male colleagues being able to see me check for boogers or stuff in my teeth, or God forbid, reapply lipgloss when we go out for drinks after work. But I'm a young female associate in a BigLaw firm...'nuf said.
Well, for me, straight up - it's the rape. I love men, but have no illusions that the sickest of them have escaped brainwashing about misogyny! Take out the lights between the women's dorm and the common room on any campus - is that a feminist act, because "the kind of man who will rape in the dark, would do it anyway"?
Have you SEEN 2girls1cup? And the many, many subgenres it spawned... swap.avi I hear is the grossest so far. Can you seriously say that women doing their stuff is a neutral issue for all straight men?
This isn't demonising - this is pest control. I know - stone me now!
The vast majority of rape is perpetrated by someone the victim knows. The vast majority occurs in a house, not in public. Rapists are not mentally ill (though I'm not saying they're great people); an "average" person can become a rapist.
Rape is perpetrated by men (and gasp! sometimes women) who have feelings of both entitlement and powerlessness. Like those who have been laid-off but believe they are entitled to the role of breadwinner are more likely to rape their spouse.
Knowing these truths has made the fear of rape in a public space by a stranger seem somewhat irrational to me.
Not to disrespect anyone who has been raped under these circumstances because of course it does happen. But to use that as a reason for gendered bathrooms strikes me as someone just grasping for any reason to justify their discomfort.
Fear in this situation only serves to support the existing paradigm that men are evil rapists and women NEED to be afraid of them.
With what you're saying, you're assuming that every transwoman that needs to pee in the "women's" bathroom is 100% passable. What if she's not? What if just one person, for some reason, somehow, knows or suspects that she was born a biological male?
Furthermore, what if someone suspects that a cisgender woman was once biologically male? How would you feel if it were you, in either situation?
Anyone identifying as female could come into that bathroom and no one would be able to have any basis to do anything whatsoever.
This is where the problem lies. Stop fucking yelling about it, and get to the point: Everyone is scared about the imaginary line that seperates You from Them, and simultaneously, they don't know what that even means.
See the forest, not the trees. It's a fucking bathroom; let's get to the bottom why why we're debating about fucking bathrooms, instead of talking about each tree that might be planted in each of the Earth's bathrooms.
Yipes, somebody peeing, eeeeeeeeeeeek...
Men pee. Women pee. Everybody pees. Hell, I don't care!
I have to say I'm disappointed by the number of commenters who are reducing this to "Gee, I wouldn't want to share a restroom with a dude either!" That is not the issue. Bigots would like you to think it is, but that. is. not. the issue. The issue is that men should be able to use men's rooms, and women should be able to use women's rooms. The number of commenters here who insist on keeping this a "dudes in the ladies room" conversation makes me really, really wonder how many folks here believe--as Focus on the Family clearly does--that transwomen are really men.
While I'd be happy to see examples to the contrary, I know of no one pushing for multiple occupancy gender-neutral bathrooms. Single occupancy gender-neutral bathrooms, on the other hand, are extremely helpful--not just for trans folks, but for many other reasons, some of which have already been mentioned above.
Thank you so much for saying this!
The response also surprised me as well. I'm quite sure FotF is lying, and its sad to see comments here buying into it! I seriously doubt anyone is putting forth a law to ban all gender-separated toilets! If DC is _anything_ like countless other laws across the country like this it probably says something like:
"It is illegal to deny someone access to public accommodations appropriate to a person's gender identity."
where public accommodation is usually defined elsewhere to include bathrooms and such and gender identity is defined elsewhere as someone's sense of themself as male or female.
DC already forbids discrimination based on gender-identity in public accommodations (and employment, housing and education). So FoF is probably instead worried that the federal government will pass something similar, now that Democrats are in control and everything. Which hopefully will happen, but I'm not holding my breath.
Guilty as charged. Growing up, my parents subscribed to the FotF newsletter; my father once bought me a book by Dr. Laura for my birthday. But somehow, I turned out to be a staunch feminist, with progressive views on gender, gender roles, and gender identity. But the bathroom issue is one that I discovered in the past couple years, after using several gender-neutral multi-occupancy bathrooms, has stuck with me.* I wonder why, of ALL things, this is the issue I can't get past? I want some genuine feedback, some theories about why this might be the case. Hence my comment above that you found so offensive.
*I understand there is no legislative push for such bathrooms; but it's definitely a trend I've noticed, at least in DC. I wonder whether the decisions to have gender-neutral bathrooms have anything to do with the experiences of trans-gendered people, or if it's just fashionable.
My comment wasn't directed at you in particular, but rather toward the thread at large. I was more confused than anything by your comment, since I've personally never encountered a multiple occupancy gender-neutral bathroom.
I haven't been to DC in over a decade, so I have to take your word on that being a trend--but just off the top of my head, I'd say that those of us who are gender deviants (my term, and not one I'd apply to anyone without their consent) would probably still face problems in that kind of setup. At least in my experience, women's responses to me in a women's room tend to very, very quickly shift from "You're a man, and you don't belong here" to "You're something else entirely, and you don't belong anywhere." Going into a multi-stall gender-neutral bathroom would, I'd wager, just mean I'd now risk that kind of reaction from men as well.
My undergrad college had multioccupancy gender-neutral bathrooms in all the classroom buildings and the co-ed dorms (and the bathrooms in the single-sex dorms were used by opposite-sex visitors on occasion). There were also some single-occupancy bathrooms in some classroom buildings.
I don't know of anyone who felt unsafe, much less who was attacked in a bathroom (although I did have one gay friend who refused to use the bathroom in the women's dorm and would walk back to his dorm). No one acted weird about it. There was no vandalism. The bathrooms in the all-male dorm weren't disgusting (although I occasionally found menstrual blood smeared on the stalls in the all-female dorm--wtf? Somehow, I don't think men were responsible). The weirdest thing was that the college didn't provide soap in the all-male dorm, so students took up a collection to buy soap.
Maybe it worked because most students were in the 16-18 range and just adapted as a natural outgrowth of sharing bathrooms at home; I dunno. But it wasn't a big deal. And having gender-neutral bathrooms does remove a lot of those safety concerns for transfolk, I think, because the bathroom is no longer seen as a gendered space (I don't know specifically--oddly, bathrooms never really came up with my RA, and I'm inclined to agree they're something of a red herring).
I wouldn't be comfortable, as a woman, walking into a men's restroom; I'm not sure how I'd feel about a man walking into a women's restroom, but that's irrelevant to transwomen using women's restrooms (not a problem for me at all). But I'd much prefer the restroom to just be a restroom, not a gendered space.
I think the issue is that the FOF letter's wording makes it seem like yeah, this is to protect transpeople but it's going to have the side effect of all coed bathrooms.
Like, my first interpretation was that the issue was that the laws were creating coed bathrooms to protect transpeople (good), but that would mean all bathrooms would be coed (bad). Once I read the thread I began to understand that the laws actually were just to protect transpeople's rights, not to create all coed bathrooms.
I know, we should know better, but there are colleges who overreacted and have made all their bathrooms coed to "protect" transpeople, so it's not too farfetched (and IMO putting transwomen in a bathroom with men and no security camera is not a good idea anyway). I don't think anyone here really thinks of transwomen as men.
Oh, and I think the headline is unhelpful, too.
Exactly!
I'm afraid I've already gotten into a couple of disagreements with people because I thought everyone got that this was an issue of transgendered people's rights to access to a bathroom and that people were still just insisting on making this an issue about men in women's bathrooms because they were being incredibly disrespectful of trans individuals. To me this FoF claim was totally transparent, but I've been exposed to a lot of their rhetoric, so maybe it's just more obvious to me.
Has Focus on the Family forgotten that we could be alone with men at ANY TIME? I love how there are millions of reasons why i could be in a room alone with a man, yet only in the bathroom am I in mortal danger of being raped. What a fucking joke. It's all too stupid for me to even understand.
I was at a fancyish club last weekend, with shared sinks, and separate rooms for the stalls of men and women. the rooms had no doors, but the stalls had locking individual doors. The women's restroom had 4 stalls, one of which a girl was laying on the floor and barfing in, one which had three girls in it talking, and one that was reserved for bartending staff. Which left ONE stall for all the women to use. The men? had 4 stalls and urinals, and only one stall was out of commission for waitstaff.
The attendant would NOT let me use one of the men's stalls! Even though I could see in the goddamned room. and they had empty stalls. It was just so fucking arbitrary and people need to get over this magical bathroom nightmare bullshit. rrrr.
Ok.. True Story:
My friends and I were out one evening two weeks ago, at a very upscale bar in a very upscale hotel. As we were preparing to leave, my girlfriend went to the ladies room, located a few steps from the front desk. Its a restroom with two stalls.
So my friend notices that one is occupied, and she uses the other. Not a minute after she sat down to pee, a guy sticks his head (no, the one with the hair on it...um..no, not that one, the one with the neck...um NO...not THAT one...the one with EARS on it...yea...ears...)under the partition and gawks at her. She froze, and then screamed at him to get out. He comes flying out, past the front desk, and out the door...and down the street.
I guess the point is...if you're going to encounter a perv in a bathroom, its highly unlikely they are going to be there no matter WHAT the sign is on the door.
(that last sentence should read " its highly LIKELY that they are going to be there, no matter what the sign is on the door")
If you were accompanying a 6-year old child in a public place, and had to send them (for whatever reason) to the bathroom alone - would you send them to the men's room, or the ladies' room?
And - why?
Okay, maybe this is an interesting philosophical question, but what is it doing in this thread? Do you really buy the Focus on the Family rhetoric that making bathrooms safe and accessible for transfolks means putting children in danger?
Let's raise the stakes on your question. I'm a butch (but cis) woman who frequently gets mistaken for a man (and has my right to exist in gendered spaces questioned daily). Would you send that six year old into the bathroom alone with me? And - why (or why not)?
A better question may be, why on EARTH would you send a 6 year old child into an unmonitored, unprotected public space alone and unattended, regardless of the gender of the child or the people around them?
If current gender normalization of bathrooms is causing this to happen, I'd say that that is a VERY strong reason to have gender-neutral bathrooms.
Uhm, how about whatever gender they are?
I wouldn't send a little boy into the ladies' room unless he was going with me, and I wouldn't send a little girl into the men's room unless there was a man I trusted to accompany her.
You still totally don't get it. The legislation in question, and the conversation in this part of the thread, is about allowing transgendered people to use the bathroom that corresponds to their chosen gender identity. This is not about allowing men into women's bathrooms, unless you insist on viewing MTFs as men, in which case you're engaging in some serious trans-hate.
(full disclosure: I've commented on Feministing before (though not much) under the user-name "Jzexoia" - I seem to have lost the password to that account and can't figure out how to recover it so I had to make this new account :( oh well)
One thing I have to say is noticeably absent from this discussion so far is any contribution from anyone who has identified themselves as a transsexual. well, let's change that right now : *I* am a trans-woman. Many of the comments here have been very cis-privileged, and I just want to caution and remind everyone about that - cisgendered people trying to talk about how transgendered people should behave or what we want - it's not necessarily inherently bigoted or wrong, I don't think the topic should be taboo - but ultimately its about the same as men talking about women, or any other privileged group talking about any other non-privileged group, and it should at LEAST be kept in mind throughout the conversation.
My biggest complaint about the whole bathroom conversation is that I see it primarily (and almost exclusively) as not only a scare tactic but a distraction. There are no non-discrimination laws for transsexuals at the national level, and very few at any other level. In many places, attacking or even killing someone for being trans does not qualify as a hate crime. Failing to "pass" is all to often fatal. THESE are the issues that I want addressed, an I think most of the trans- community would agree with me.
People, particularly bigots and the FotF types, like to center this conversation around some idea that transsexuals are perverts who get off by peeing in the wrong bathroom, to which opponents often respond that it is not sexual and it can be uncomfortable for a trans person to be in the bathroom reserved for the opposite gender. well, even that, to me, seems secondary. My fear is if I go into a men's bathroom wearing a dress (which I wouldn't do anyway, regardless of the law) isn't that I will feel "uncomfortable" around a bunch of men (though I would), my primary fear is that some bigot will see me go in and think "hey, let's round up the guys and some baseball bats and go beat up that tranny later" and that nobody would care if it happened.
Yes. It is uncomfortable to be in the wrong bathroom, but of all the societal ills that plague the trans community right now, it is very low on my list of priorities. It is all to often used to take a conversation about hate crimes and discrimination and turn it into a freak-show about people who have to pee.
And as for the conversation about how well a person "passes" : THAT is discriminatory on many levels that I think even much of the trans community doesn't realize. The feminist discussion around a woman's appearance tells us that if a woman has broad shoulders and hairy legs, and doesn't feel like conforming to societies standards of beauty, well, you know, good for her. But add in a penis to that equation, and suddenly you are expected to always wear makeup and dresses and hide your cheekbones if you expect anyone to take you seriously. It's so ingrained that many transwomen buy into it without thinking about it that much - but even if she isn't "passing", even if she isn't in a dress or hasn't shaved her legs (or any other part of her body) a trans woman is STILL a woman. There are very practical safety concerns around passing (which, I assure you, we do NOT need to be reminded of) but "passing" or "not passing" does NOT change someone's identity.
Yeah. This whole thread has just reeked of cis-privilege. I'm actually really disappointed.
Another trans woman here. Thanks for saying this. The cis privilege here is really annoying. Especially with the comments on passing. I'm a big, tall trans woman who dresses pretty androgynously in jeans and t-shirts. The most feminine thing about me is a bra. I sometimes pass, sometimes don't. I used to try to avoid using public restrooms out of a worry over cis women freaking out. Now I don't really care anymore, I just wanna pee.
BTW, I'm really kinda disappointed with this whole post and conversation. It is exactly been on what Focus on the Family wants us to talking about, the scary/othered trans women using the bathroom, instead of talking about the discrimination that trans people face in employment, for instance. Unemployment among trans people is a huge issue and a contributing factor to some trans people engaging in sex work. By falling for the bathroom red herring, trans people are dehumanised twice over. Once as we're made into predatory monsters and again as our issues are not even considered.
I just wanted to thank Zyfron and catspaw, wholeheartedly. I am pretty ignorant on the experiences of transgendered people. I don't know any, and apparently I've just been relatively self-centered to never think to try to learn anything about them. I actually feel terrible and ashamed about this - I actually had this thought in my head, until the recent months, that because I am part of a minority (being female, however cisgender) I have an ability to better understand other minorities - we are all battling white male privilege. What bulls***! That goes about an inch. The rest of the mile I need education to get. I am full of it sometimes. This is why I appreciate the insights provided on this blog. I am clueless sometimes on how ignorant I still am on so many things. But....I WANT TO LEARN! I want to understand, so please...keep educating me!! :-) Thanks!!
That being said, since college I have been a proponent of gender-neutral bathrooms, in the style of a single-toilet locked room, for several reasons - transgender people, families, female security, etc. I was just totally ignorant on how dangerous it really is for transgendered persons.
Just wanted to say: I think being part of a misunderstood group DOES help you to understand, it's just that it doesn't help you to understand many of our issues, just the way in which people can be misunderstood.
The reality of the world is that everyone is extremely ignorant about MOST things (there's just way to much knowledge out there for it to be any other way!) So I at least am certainly not offended when cis people know very little about trans people. It's only when cis people who understand very little about it try to speak with authority on the matter that it becomes really irksome. I think you have a great attitude towards this :)
Wow. I've been very ignorant about this whole thing. I am definitely all for single-stall gender-neutral bathrooms, and I can't see much wrong with multi-stall gender-neutral bathrooms, but when it comes to other issues trans people have to deal with daily, I never even thought about it. I always just kind of assumed that trans-women enjoyed the girlier sides of being a woman since the stereotypical trans-woman dresses in a very feminine manner and wear makeup. I now realize that, as a hetero ciswoman who doesn't even own a skirt and only very rarely wears makeup, I should have known that of course there are trans-women who are like me and don't necessarily revel in girly things. Instead, a lot of it has to do with "passing" and avoiding assault or worse.
The threat of violence being done to you just because of who you are is a horrible thing to live with, and though I knew violence against transgender and transexual people happened all to often, I didn't realize how pervasive this threat of violence is. Thanks for helping me understand a bit more and I really do hope that these ridiculous FotF people don't come out on top. Everyone should have equal access to public accommodations. I mean, it's a basic right and is taken for granted by cis-men and -women, so why shouldn't it be available to everybody without a hassle?
Yet another trans woman here. A lot of the comments here suprised and disturbed me. I'm in the midst of transitioning currently, and quite often I don't get read as the gender I'm presenting as, regardless of which it is. So using gendered public restrooms can be unpleasant, and I'll often avoid it if I can (unless I'm with a group of friends, typically). Personally, I'd prefer to see multi-stall gender-neutral bathrooms as the solution to this, combined with non-discrimination laws that cover gender identity.
I'm disappointed at how successful FoFs tactics are, even among people who wouldn't otherwise agree with them. These bills are about a lot more bathrooms (and even there they aren't making them gender-neutral), and are essential to protecting the civils rights of trans and gender-nonconforming people.
Great comment. I, too, am a trans woman, and it's been surprising - and depressing - to see how many people seem to be taking FoF at face value here.
I had what felt like a very close call many years ago. I was at a family function, and at that point I wasn't out to my whole family so I was hiding under a giant hoodie and baggy trousers, using my old name, and (of course) using the men's restroom. Unfortunately, although we were in a private room our toilets were in the public area of the pub, and the first time I went I encountered this drunk bloke while I was washing up: he walked in, looked at me, said, "Sorry, love!" and walked out; then he walked back in a few moments later, presumably after checking the sign on the door, and came right up to me and looked me in the face, from six inches or so away; he said, "Are you a bloke or a bird?" and I stammered, unable to give me a clear answer; he stared at me for a few more seconds and then he erupted in laughter, slapped me (hard!) on the back, hugged me around the shoulders, and said, "You had me going there for a while, mate! Good one!" and went off to do his business. I went back to the party, reflecting on how lucky I was that he wasn't slightly more drunk, slightly less drunk, or a less genial person, or there with friends. For the rest of the night I nursed a single lemonade and eventually resorted to sneaking outside and peeing in the bushes.
I suspect it's not a fear of real life voyeurs and assailants, but left over brain scrambling from sixth grade. "What if some guy/girl peeks through the stall door." Which might also explain the lack of fear of same sex peekers. Alternately, maybe people still believe in girl and boy cooties, which would explain the horror some people evince at someone of the "wrong" gender using a single occupant facility.
The last part for me is particularly disturbing, "this bill would even allow men to use women's restrooms--right alongside women and even young girls." The intimation being that trans people are more likely to attack children? In my limited experience, cis-people seem just as capable of this as any person at all.
And also, if the "biggest impact in our daily lives..." is using the freaking bathroom, FOTF has GOT to get their priorities straight.
I'll go into the men's room just for kicks sometime. After the first time I startled a girl in the girl's room (she saw me at the mirror and thought she was in the boys' room by mistake -- her expression was pretty funny) I thought, what the hell.
I did have an old man in a business suit walk in on me when I was standing in the men's room (again, at the mirror). He stopped to take a second look at me, then laughed it off because he "thought for a minute he was in the wrong room." I just smiled.
My partner also tends to use the women's room about as often as the men's, depending on attire and whether or not we're both going in at the same time. Nobody's ever stopped us or even seemed to notice.
I'm in favor of small, heavier-duty individually-lockable private stalls (this is the way it's done at my workplace) as opposed to having each gender go into a large separate room with rows of toilets separated by flimsy partitions. I'm sure the former is much more expensive though.
'I'm in favor of small, heavier-duty individually-lockable private stalls...'
THAT makes sense!