But surely what the state legislature passes into being, is not the fault of individual users, the vast majority of whom will be totally powerless ordinary people with zero influence?
It's like someone personally taking it out on me because the council alters the rules on bin collection.
But surely what the state legislature passes into being, is not the fault of individual users, the vast majority of whom will be totally powerless ordinary people with zero influence?
It's like someone personally taking it out on me because the council alters the rules on bin collection.
It's nothing new I suppose. Sports teams around the world boycotted South Africa in the apartheid era. You could use the same arguments against that.
But surely what the state legislature passes into being, is not the fault of individual users, the vast majority of whom will be totally powerless ordinary people with zero influence?
It's like someone personally taking it out on me because the council alters the rules on bin collection.
The people in North Carolina voted these idiots into office presumably because they agree with their views.
The fallout from North Carolina’s discriminatory and transphobic “bathroom bill” is raining down on the state and its economy. The European finance giant Deutsche Bank has announced it is “freezing” its plans for a $9 million expansion in protest over the bigoted and useless law, HB 2, which criminalizes the use of non-biologically corresponding bathrooms by transgender Americans. The expansion would have created some 250 jobs.
Nor is it a bandwagon. It is a patently regressive, intrusive law that is taking that state back to the days when the south thought it was a great idea to treat black people differently from white.
Quite rightly the rest of the USA rebelled and stood up for the concepts of tolerance and equality and eventuality forced the end of any further repressive acts that are against the concept of fair mindedness towards which all humans should aspire.
The fact that people like Bruce Springstein and other stars have cancelled performances in protest to this backward step is going to send a real message that such things are not to be tolerated in a free society.
It is not a bandwagon if you believe in what you take a stand against.
no, quite but some people with an opposing view do like pretend that no one would REALLY think <insert opinion>.
no, quite but some people with an opposing view do like pretend that no one would REALLY think <insert opinion>.
What I find most amusing is that the idiots who cooked up this law have probably achieved the exact opposite of what might have happened had they done nothing.
Before there would have been individual establishments who were anti trans and who might have sought to enforce a private ban on anyone they suspected. It even happens from time to time in the UK where it is specifically illegal to discriminate. There was a recent video posted of a trans woman in a pub being denied access to the toilet which she filmed on her phone.
But now with all of this hoo ha the likelihood is many who might have done this quietly will think twice of how it might effect their image.
There will always be some people who cannot understand what being trans is all about. I have no issue with that as it is hard enough to grasp when you have been trans all your life, let alone have to fathom what it means from the outside.
But by challenging civil rights, basic human freedoms and getting a real backlash from a broad range of major institutions and public figures then you win over most of the neutrals and even some of those privately unhappy with the nature of the whole trans issue might hold back out of disgust at this misguided policy.
So it has backfired so spectacularly that it almost has had the opposite effect.
I am sure that Caitlyn Jenner and her battlebus of trans women that are being filmed as they tour the US for her E! series will be on route to test this law as we speak.
It's a nice bit of publicity for a porn site in the more mainstream media and they didn't have to pay for it. Ironic when you consider that none of the newspapers would carry a paid advert for the site on their websites or in their newspapers .
Not all of them did. Some will have voted the other way, or not voted at all.
Use to live in Chapel Hill NC a very liberal part of the state, as a gay man who lived there with my partner I never had any homophobic problems but can imagine in redneck country there would be issues.
I think that's ridiculous. I get that the bank are free to withdraw as they please and if that's their agenda then fine. But as far as I'm concerned there are two genders, male and female. And I include trangender people because they either are transitioning from one sex to the other, or simply identify possibly as the opposite sex of their biological gender. However regardless of that, I don't think pre op transsexuals should freely be able to use toilets of the opposite sex unless they've had the operation. That's how I feel on the matter. Biology matters to me.
I think that's ridiculous. I get that the bank are free to withdraw as they please and if that's their agenda then fine. But as far as I'm concerned there are two genders, male and female. And I include trangender people because they either are transitioning from one sex to the other, or simply identify possibly as the opposite sex of their biological gender. However regardless of that, I don't think pre op transsexuals should freely be able to use toilets of the opposite sex unless they've had the operation. That's how I feel on the matter. Biology matters to me.
I understand your concern, and, I emphasise, this is not a reply directly aimed at you but a general response. Here are a few things to bear in mind.
Some people cannot/do not have surgery for various reasons. If they are too old or have an illness that prevents it, for example. And in the case of trans men the surgery is much more difficult and less effective (though getting better) so many chose only a mastectomy and not 'bottom' surgery.
So do you only call a transition complete if surgery happens? In law, no, because of these factors. Surgery is not essential for a complete legal change of gender. Though other things are.
Moreover, transition also involves (always pre surgery by at least a year or two) the transformation of the body via hormonal alteration. This can have very significant effects. In trans men, for example, just this treatment and no surgery can make the individual look so masculine that it would be hard for anyone to judge externally that they were not born a man. Beard growth and deep voices and male muscle mass all come via hormone therapy and not surgery.
Though less instant or dramatic with trans women there are very noticeable changes without surgery - including changes to muscle mass, change in body shape, growth of breasts and the opposite with sex organs.
So if you are talking about the use of bathroom facilities at what point do you arbitrarily decide that a person transitioning should stop using the birth assigned facility?
If they start to look significantly like their new gender then they are bound to cause more of a problem for other occupants of the birth assigned facility than for the ones in the transitioned gender on the basis that the more they change appearance the less they look to be in the correct facility if they stay in the birth assigned one.
So for all reasonable purposes - and to benefit both the transitioner and other occupants of the loos - it makes sense to do this earlier rather than later and not only after surgery.
Most of the concerns people have over this stem from a misguided premise.
That 'men' will use the 'opportunity' of going into a ladies loo to assault someone. This has no basis in credibility with trans people and it is not possible to transition legally without proper medical support so is not going to happen on a whim or for reasons other than being genuinely trans.
And any sick person wanting to do this would do it regardless of laws against trans people who would be the only ones excluded and not those with ulterior motives.
More importantly, men and women share toilets with trans men and women all the time, all over the world and in nearly every case nobody even knows they are doing this. Very possibly everyone reading this thread might have done so at some point and not have the slightest clue. There are tens of thousands in the UK alone so the odds are pretty high over a few years if you think about it.
Most trans people do not stand out in a crowd as they are transitioning to become normal and not to cause a fuss.
Nor is it a bandwagon. It is a patently regressive, intrusive law that is taking that state back to the days when the south thought it was a great idea to treat black people differently from white.
Quite rightly the rest of the USA rebelled and stood up for the concepts of tolerance and equality and eventuality forced the end of any further repressive acts that are against the concept of fair mindedness towards which all humans should aspire.
The fact that people like Bruce Springstein and other stars have cancelled performances in protest to this backward step is going to send a real message that such things are not to be tolerated in a free society.
It is not a bandwagon if you believe in what you take a stand against.
They don't want to be in the United States anyway, they voted to leave until Lincoln got his war. The South should be its own country.
I think the world could do without that. We have enough rogue states as it is.
They lost the war and are part of the US and hopefully common sense from a broader perspective will eventually win the day.
The United States is as rogue a state as Russia, starting wars all the time for the interests of arms manufacturers. The Southern people will never forget.
The United States is as rogue a state as Russia, starting wars all the time for the interests of arms manufacturers. The Southern people will never forget.
Not pretending that the US is perfect (nor the UK for that matter). Yes, we have made errors and caused wars that we should not have done and deserve to be brought to book for that.
But specific to this thread - the anti trans laws - the US - though not as liberal as the UK (which has had a Gender Recognition Act for a decade now and allows birth certificates to be amended under proper medical approval) - does at least have a degree of respectful laws for trans people.
As a trans woman I have travelled and worked in the US many times since the early 80s and even then (when laws in the UK and US were equally vague and nothing like today) my biggest problem was getting groped on a bus in downtown LA like no doubt a few other women - certainly not worrying whether I would be arrested going to a rest room,
But even after living most of my life in my true gender I would have to decline going to any state issuing such repressive laws against trans people. Both on principle and common sense grounds.
Comments
But surely what the state legislature passes into being, is not the fault of individual users, the vast majority of whom will be totally powerless ordinary people with zero influence?
It's like someone personally taking it out on me because the council alters the rules on bin collection.
It's nothing new I suppose. Sports teams around the world boycotted South Africa in the apartheid era. You could use the same arguments against that.
The people in North Carolina voted these idiots into office presumably because they agree with their views.
no, quite but some people with an opposing view do like pretend that no one would REALLY think <insert opinion>.
What I find most amusing is that the idiots who cooked up this law have probably achieved the exact opposite of what might have happened had they done nothing.
Before there would have been individual establishments who were anti trans and who might have sought to enforce a private ban on anyone they suspected. It even happens from time to time in the UK where it is specifically illegal to discriminate. There was a recent video posted of a trans woman in a pub being denied access to the toilet which she filmed on her phone.
But now with all of this hoo ha the likelihood is many who might have done this quietly will think twice of how it might effect their image.
There will always be some people who cannot understand what being trans is all about. I have no issue with that as it is hard enough to grasp when you have been trans all your life, let alone have to fathom what it means from the outside.
But by challenging civil rights, basic human freedoms and getting a real backlash from a broad range of major institutions and public figures then you win over most of the neutrals and even some of those privately unhappy with the nature of the whole trans issue might hold back out of disgust at this misguided policy.
So it has backfired so spectacularly that it almost has had the opposite effect.
I am sure that Caitlyn Jenner and her battlebus of trans women that are being filmed as they tour the US for her E! series will be on route to test this law as we speak.
Not all of them did. Some will have voted the other way, or not voted at all.
Use to live in Chapel Hill NC a very liberal part of the state, as a gay man who lived there with my partner I never had any homophobic problems but can imagine in redneck country there would be issues.
I think that's ridiculous. I get that the bank are free to withdraw as they please and if that's their agenda then fine. But as far as I'm concerned there are two genders, male and female. And I include trangender people because they either are transitioning from one sex to the other, or simply identify possibly as the opposite sex of their biological gender. However regardless of that, I don't think pre op transsexuals should freely be able to use toilets of the opposite sex unless they've had the operation. That's how I feel on the matter. Biology matters to me.
I understand your concern, and, I emphasise, this is not a reply directly aimed at you but a general response. Here are a few things to bear in mind.
Some people cannot/do not have surgery for various reasons. If they are too old or have an illness that prevents it, for example. And in the case of trans men the surgery is much more difficult and less effective (though getting better) so many chose only a mastectomy and not 'bottom' surgery.
So do you only call a transition complete if surgery happens? In law, no, because of these factors. Surgery is not essential for a complete legal change of gender. Though other things are.
Moreover, transition also involves (always pre surgery by at least a year or two) the transformation of the body via hormonal alteration. This can have very significant effects. In trans men, for example, just this treatment and no surgery can make the individual look so masculine that it would be hard for anyone to judge externally that they were not born a man. Beard growth and deep voices and male muscle mass all come via hormone therapy and not surgery.
Though less instant or dramatic with trans women there are very noticeable changes without surgery - including changes to muscle mass, change in body shape, growth of breasts and the opposite with sex organs.
So if you are talking about the use of bathroom facilities at what point do you arbitrarily decide that a person transitioning should stop using the birth assigned facility?
If they start to look significantly like their new gender then they are bound to cause more of a problem for other occupants of the birth assigned facility than for the ones in the transitioned gender on the basis that the more they change appearance the less they look to be in the correct facility if they stay in the birth assigned one.
So for all reasonable purposes - and to benefit both the transitioner and other occupants of the loos - it makes sense to do this earlier rather than later and not only after surgery.
Most of the concerns people have over this stem from a misguided premise.
That 'men' will use the 'opportunity' of going into a ladies loo to assault someone. This has no basis in credibility with trans people and it is not possible to transition legally without proper medical support so is not going to happen on a whim or for reasons other than being genuinely trans.
And any sick person wanting to do this would do it regardless of laws against trans people who would be the only ones excluded and not those with ulterior motives.
More importantly, men and women share toilets with trans men and women all the time, all over the world and in nearly every case nobody even knows they are doing this. Very possibly everyone reading this thread might have done so at some point and not have the slightest clue. There are tens of thousands in the UK alone so the odds are pretty high over a few years if you think about it.
Most trans people do not stand out in a crowd as they are transitioning to become normal and not to cause a fuss.
I think the world could do without that. We have enough rogue states as it is.
They lost the war and are part of the US and hopefully common sense from a broader perspective will eventually win the day.
Not pretending that the US is perfect (nor the UK for that matter). Yes, we have made errors and caused wars that we should not have done and deserve to be brought to book for that.
But specific to this thread - the anti trans laws - the US - though not as liberal as the UK (which has had a Gender Recognition Act for a decade now and allows birth certificates to be amended under proper medical approval) - does at least have a degree of respectful laws for trans people.
As a trans woman I have travelled and worked in the US many times since the early 80s and even then (when laws in the UK and US were equally vague and nothing like today) my biggest problem was getting groped on a bus in downtown LA like no doubt a few other women - certainly not worrying whether I would be arrested going to a rest room,
But even after living most of my life in my true gender I would have to decline going to any state issuing such repressive laws against trans people. Both on principle and common sense grounds.