According to Trans Legislation Tracker, 658 bills that would restrict the rights of trans people have been introduced within 2024. Thankfully 488 have failed, but unfortunately 45 have passed with another 125 still under consideration. https://translegislation.com/ I’d like to talk about two of the bills that have been passed this year, AL SB129 and ID HO455. These bills require people to use the bathroom that aligns with their birth sex. These have colloquially come to be known as bathroom bills. These bills are harmful for a number of reasons. They make it more difficult for trans people to exist in public life, introduces them into more dangerous situations, and ultimately prevents an insignificant number of people from offending. I know supporters of these types of legislation are not likely convinced by the arguments mentioned above. So instead I’d like to focus on the harm that these bills inflict on cis women. These bills force cis women to share restrooms with trans men (Clarification of terms: Trans men are women who have transitioned to men.) A simple image search for Aydian Dowling will demonstrate that testosterone does amazing things for trans men; facial hair, deeper voices, increased muscle mass, etc are common results. I can understand why that might make a woman uncomfortable. On top of that, the fear mongering around trans women (Clarification of terms: Trans women are men who have transitioned to women.) is that predators will pretend to be trans to access women’s facilities. Well hey, now that muscular people with beards and deep voices in women’s facilities has been normalized it’ll be that much easier for predators to victimize cis women. What I’m trying to say is, maybe you’re not too concerned if trans people are harmed by these bills, but at the very least you have to acknowledge that cis women are harmed by them too. That’s the opposite of the stated intent. Seems to me these bills are only meant to harm a vulnerable minority.
How are they "restricted"? Trans people have a right to use a bathroom just like anyone else. Using the word "restricted" is very much a matter of opinion; at the very least it obfuscates a more complicated issue. Are they really that "harmful"? Does it really make it so difficult for trans people to get along? And how does it "introduce them to more dangerous situations"? I see a lot of vague descriptions from you without going into tangible meaningful detail. This seems like a strange argument, almost a funny argument, one I have never heard from Trans supporters before. If anyone has ever seen "Trans men" (born women), the large majority of them do not look too built up and big in body build. It would also be physically difficult for a "Trans man" to commit rape. In fact, I'd bet you'd struggle to be able to find any case of a Trans man who committed rape in a public place against a stranger. I think this argument you're making is a very weak one, without much backing, in real world reality. But of course I can easily see how it would seem rational to anyone who believes a transgender reassignment transforms someone from one gender to another and it's that simple. I'm sure you might be able to find a few transgender people who appear to have been "completely transformed" into a totally masculine huge built very masculine form, but it's rare. Those are the exceptions. I'm also more than skeptical that simply giving a group of women a high dose of testosterone will make that group as statistically likely to commit rape as natural men.
the right want Trans men to use the women's bathrooms course this allows heterosexual men to sneak into women's restrooms easier
One potential solution to this is to just not let anyone who appears hugely muscular and built like a man to enter the women's bathroom. I imagine most men would not have too much of an issue with "Trans men" (women) being permitted to enter their bathroom. Especially if the individual appears very masculine. Let's go over your argument. Your argument is that if there is a rule that Trans have to go into the bathroom of their birth gender, and then we have lots of "Trans men" - women who appear more like men - routinely going into the women's bathroom, then it will be very easy for a real man to sneak into the women's bathroom, because people will assume that individual is one of the Trans men.
Yes, but I don't think the Right considers it a really big deal. If Trans men want to enter the men's bathroom, that's nowhere near as a big of a concern. In fact it's probably far easier for the average Trans man to enter into a men's bathroom unnoticed than it is for the average Trans woman to be able to enter into a women's bathroom. So your argument seems to equate to that, if there are appear to be any questions, the individual should just have to use the men's bathroom, and then we do away with any potential problems.
if they make it a crime to use the men's bathroom, then they have no choice but to use the women's bathroom, that is the point "These bills require people to use the bathroom that aligns with their birth sex."
That's an argument against making it a crime to use the men's bathroom. Not an argument against making it a crime to use the women's bathroom.
the bills make it a crime to use either, show me in the bills when it says what you are suggesting "These bills require people to use the bathroom that aligns with their birth sex." the reality is, it's heterosexual males that are the biggest threat
~ In the near future Western Woke government will provide the inflatable portable binary toilet for each individual. Made in China, of course.
Saying that trans people’s rights aren’t restricted because they aren’t being blocked from using restrooms entirely is no different from saying homosexuals’ rights weren’t being restricted because they had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else. The argument doesn’t hold water. It absolutely introduces them into more dangerous situations. A trans man in a woman’s restroom is more likely to be accosted as a predator than if they are simply allowed to use the men’s room. Trans woman are more likely to be assaulted when forced to use men’s facilities than if they are allowed to use women’s facilities. Feel free to point out where you feel I’m being vague and I will be happy to elaborate further in the future. You misunderstand the point of my argument if you think that I’m concerned about trans men raping women. There are two points here. 1) Women are understandably made uncomfortable by sharing facilities with a person who clearly presents and identifies as a man. 2) Normalizing people who present and identify as men being forced to use women’s facilities makes it easier for actual predators to simply claim they are trans men and that they have to use women’s facilities. I am illustrating the fact that bathroom bills result in neither comfort nor safety for cis women. With these bills not accomplishing their stated intent, you have to look at what they do accomplish, which is harming trans people. From that, you can determine their actual purpose.
The problem, among many, with this solution is that you now set a subjective looks standard for who is and isn’t allowed to use the women’s facilities. Who is meant to be the judge of who is feminine enough to use women’s facilities? Do you want the government setting beauty standards? How many cis women would be determined to look too masculine to use women’s facilities? Again the proposal does not contribute to the comfort or security of women. It fails to accomplish its goal. We’re left to look at what it does accomplish, which is harm trans people.
Does that go for men’s bathrooms too? Anyone that appears too effeminate shouldn’t be allowed to enter a the men’s restroom. How is that measured? Must people now take tests in order to be allowed into a bathroom? Are there going to be guards at the door measuring muscles. So you are happy to let all the skinny, non-muscular trans-women into female bathrooms, just bar the muscly ones. Great idea. If a ‘real’ man sneaks into the ladies room, then he should not be there and should leave. Why would a ‘real’ man want to sneak into a ladies room — to enjoy the lovely ambiance, attack an unsuspecting female, or because they are too drunk to know the difference? Most people go into a bathroom to go to the bathroom. There is nothing to stop a man hiding in the women’s restroom and attacking them. Does anybody have any statistics of how many trans-women have attacked cis-women in the bathroom? Maybe it’s just another case of people not accepting the trans population and using laws to crap on their rights. That seems likely. As a female, I don’t care if a trans-women comes into the bathroom while I am there. Your argument has many holes in it.
So far their proposal seems to be women’s restrooms are for women that meet a subjective beauty standard and men’s rooms are unisex. Very incoherent.
Detecting sarcasm in text is not anyone’s thing. What, aside from it being stupid, made you think their proposal was sarcasm?
A very key point. We already have cis women who are being accused of being trans women/bio males and being denied access to women's restrooms or at the least being harassed. So how does these bill actually address this problem? It's like the makers of these bills aren't actually interested in protecting the ones they claim they want to protect.
I go you there, at least to a point. 67% of sexual assaults occur in or near the victim's home or the home of a friend or relative. Only 10% were in enclosed public areas. Since that includes other spaces besides restroom, the number is not going to be anywhere near the 10%. Basically, they want to address the rare cases instead of the common ones. Feel good instead of actually making an impactful difference.
Anyone with a beard can go into the mens room. Hell, anyone at all can go into the mens room. We all know this isn't about who is allowed into the mens room. No one who doesnt have to go in there wants to go in there, and no one in there is asking questions about who else is in there. Would you say there is zero, or more than zero, of people who are likely to 'identify' as trans merely in order to legitimize having more intimate access to women and young girls in the bathroom? And how legitimate of a concern, in your opinion, is this to women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted, having biological men with the right to share their intimate space based merely on their claim of identity?
How legitimate of a concern, in your opinion, is this to women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted, to have biological women who do not look like biological women, at least in their personal opinion, share their intimate space? Is that fear sufficient enough to force this woman to stay of women's restrooms? And of course there is the issue that bills like this would force people like Buck Angel into the women's restroom. I really don't think that he (she according to trans opponents) is going to leave sexually assaulted women feeling safe, despite being a biological woman, at least with how you are painting the sexually assaulted women.
Once you understand that, then your left to look at what the bills actually do, which is harm vulnerable minorities.
People in first world countries tend to have first world problems. I assume you take issue with the Republican legislatures pushing through these anti-trans bills, yes?
Why can't they use the mens room? Anyone with a beard can go into the mens room. Hell, anyone at all can go into the mens room. We all know this isn't about who is allowed into the mens room. No one who doesnt have to go in there wants to go in there, and no one in there is asking questions about who else is in there. Would you say there is zero, or more than zero, of people who are likely to 'identify' as trans merely in order to legitimize having more intimate access to women and young girls in the bathroom?
