Trans Clothing Exchanges and NC Gender Bigotry

[phathack]

When I was working in Columbia, outside of the airport you just didn't find public bathrooms with a sex/gender label on them. They were all the same. One restaurant I went into the restroom was a long wide hallway with 12 stalls on each side. Each stall had a toilet and sink inside. You just grabbed which eve one was available.

[moonshadow]

I have to say I agree. Changing villages (for some unknown reason that term is used in the UK) where everyone uses a single-occupancy changing room is fairer on everyone else.

I have to say that I hate changing rooms as I always end up catching a sight of something I'd rather not!

Exactly, I dont really expect communal unisex facilities any time soon. But personally I never liked multi-occupant restrooms. Even among other men I get uncomfortable. I hate the little gap between the stalls, I hate the fact that the walls and doors are so high off the floor. When ever Im sitting on the commode and hear a bunch of kids come in hooting and hollering I cringe waiting for them to peep under the stall door, or play some prank like throw a wet paper towel ball in my stall, or shut the lights off on me.

Single occupancy is the way to go for a multitude or reasons.

[bobmoore]

I wonder who the bigots really are. In general there are two kinds of tolerance: negative and positive. Negative tolerance is when we just ignore something we don't like or approve of under the principle of live and let live. Example: say you live next door and decide to paint your house purple with orange stripes. I hate that. But it is your house, so you have the right to do as you please with it, and I have no right to force you to change your mind. OTOH, positive tolerance demands that I not only allow you to do as you wish with what is yours, but requires me to publically affirm and support your position. Tolerance that is coerced is not tolerance at all, but the antithesis of it.

So those who support HB-2 are defined as bigots if they resist forced positive tolerance. That, friends, is true bigotry.

[moonshadow]

I wonder who the bigots really are. In general there are two kinds of tolerance: negative and positive. Negative tolerance is when we just ignore something we don't like or approve of under the principle of live and let live. Example: say you live next door and decide to paint your house purple with orange stripes. I hate that. But it is your house, so you have the right to do as you please with it, and I have no right to force you to change your mind. OTOH, positive tolerance demands that I not only allow you to do as you wish with what is yours, but requires me to publically affirm and support your position. Tolerance that is coerced is not tolerance at all, but the antithesis of it.

So those who support HB-2 are defined as bigots if they resist forced positive tolerance. That, friends, is true bigotry.

And yet I got cited once for an untagged car on my property. Why? Because enough people got together and determined a junk car was a blight and passed an ordinance against it. So rather than simply tolerate one silly vehicle that even had a "for sale" bill on it, I had to pay to have it towed to moms.

Ill grant that people have a right to complain and dissagree. However, who is the master rule maker when it comes to which commode to use? These are public places, at least it should be up to the business. It could be argued that supporters of HB-2 could just not use the restroom if they have an issue with it. Or do like I tend to do and just find a bush.

It may come as a surprise, but as I may not be a transgender, I do wear the type os skirts that might make people think I am. Personally I'd just use what ever room im expected to. And honestly if the bathroom is too crowded... yes I've been known to find a tree or bush to pee behind.

Then again you're talking to a guy (me) who hates public restrooms anyway.

So if I were a true TG, I'd probably just relieve myself the way nature intended. In the dirt.

But once again, I never pitched a fit at Cato. Nor did I spend another dollar there.

But Bob, that argument is kind of weak. That like someone calling me out for not tolerating intolerant people. Does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe technically so, but then you're missing the point. That point being these people are not physically harming anyone, no more than my old car was...

[bobmoore]

It wasn't an argument, but a statement of fact. That tolerance can be either negative or positive is not arguable. I understand your point. Mine intention was to remind people that in our society there is far too much in the way of legally forced tolerance. This or that interest group is forever howling about how anyone who expresses disagreement is a bigot. Weak kneed politicians regularly cave in at the mere suggestion of bigotry. If businesses had merely made individual decisions, and the proponents of men in the ladies room had been content to patronize those businesses (and the opponents not to), then no problem. But no, negative toletence--which makes civilized life possible--is not politically acceptable. You WILL comply, Comrad, or we will demonize and destroy you.

Your car is a case in point. Your rights to use your private property were trampled, and you didn't like it.
BTW, private property is the foundation of liberty, but it is a foundation that has been under legal assault for a long time. Those who would assert that their wishes are more important than yours or mine are the enemies of liberty.

[pelmut]

...You WILL comply, Comrad, or we will demonize and destroy you.

...and that is precisely what the bigots of NC are saying. "We believe there are only two sexes, and gender corresponds to sex, so if you don't happen to fit our proven-to-be-false beliefs (through no fault of your own) we will have you arrested, demonised and destroyed."

Please don't try to convice us that this represents any form of tolerance. It is bigotry and persecution based on a fabric of lies.

[skirted_in_SF]

I would recommend you find and read the book The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism by Edward E Baptist.

The history is actually quite dirty, and both "sides" profited mightily from slavery. There's more than enough tar to go 'round, and precious little honour.

I'll look around for a copy.

Try your local library, that's where I found it. The SFPL had several copies including one at my local branch.
The book goes into some depth over how people in all areas of the country/world profited from slavery.

[moonshadow]

Weak kneed politicians regularly cave in at the mere suggestion of bigotry. If businesses had merely made individual decisions, and the proponents of men in the ladies room had been content to patronize those businesses (and the opponents not to), then no problem. But no, negative toletence--which makes civilized life possible--is not politically acceptable. You WILL comply, Comrad, or we will demonize and destroy you.

I understand what you're saying Bob, and I won't deny that it does take place, more often than not.

Really when you get right down to it, there is no answer that is going to please everyone. Although I may disagree with the view, I can at least understand that having a transgender person in the bathroom can make people, particularly more traditional minded people uncomfortable. To the transgendered person, there really is no right answer, take a m2f for example, if she goes into the females room, she knows that should she be outed as a male under those clothes, then harassment may follow, likewise, if she presents as a female, she will be harassed in mens restroom. I know this for a fact, because I have had ugly comments made to me while wearing skirts in the men's room, and I'm not even transgender. Granted it's not often, but it does happen.

You know what I was thinking in on the way home today. There's a word I don't hear anymore. I haven't heard it in the paper, I haven't heard the preachers talk of it, I haven't heard of the right, or the left, the transgendered, or the those who disapprove of them.. that word is

COMPROMISE

NOBODY even tries any more. In many way's you are right Bob. BOTH sides want it all their way or the high way, and that's not really a realistic solution, nor a practical one. There are millions of people in this country, and the growing trend I see is that there are just about as many view points, and it seems EVERYBODY wants it their way or the high way!

I can understand Dillon's issue. The state needs to back off. However I'll take it a step further. I personally don't think it's up to localities to decide either. Why not just let the individual businesses decide how they want to handle the use of THEIR restrooms? People can then "vote with their feet" if need be. In the mean time, TG people need to understand that theirs is not the only opinion, and should at least acknowledge that their alternative lifestyle at least will take some time for people to adjust to. Likewise, traditionalist need to be patient with transgendered and the like, and RESPECT their rights too. Live and let live IS the way to go Bob. And that should be the ultimate goal for both sides. Like it or not, these conflicts aren't going away. Despite the prayers and legislation of the conservative right, there will always be transgendered people, there will always be people who aren't happy with their biological sex, there will always be people different that we are. That's never going to change. Unless we want to pull a Hitler and just execute everyone who doesn't fit our vision of the proper human being, than we all are going to have to try to COMPROMISE on our different views.

How?

THAT should be the topic of discussion for our lawmakers. Not a bunch of "thou shall NOT'S" but rather, what is the best possible solution to make as many people comfortable as possible while respecting individual civil liberties?

One method is for forward thinking businesses to begin changing over to single occupancy restrooms and doing away with assigning sex to them as it would be pointless. Other countries are on board... what's the U.S.'s problem? I'll tell you what it is... a lack of COMPROMISE. Better, a business doesn't really even have to go ALL OUT and remodel their entire bathroom arrangement, often times, just a simple single unisex restroom will suffice, just as I saw in the Lowes in Bristol VA the other day. It's not like the world is overrun with transgendered people. One TG bathroom per shopping center should be sufficient. And it it's occupied and the transgendered person REALLY has to go.... well put it to you this way... if I'm in a looking at two single occupancy restrooms, one male and one female, the male is occupied, and I'm about to piss all over my self, I will, and HAVE used the women's room plenty of times!

Compromise! Forcing transgendered people to "get over it" is wrong. Forcing traditionalist to "get over it" is also wrong. COMPROMISE!

[Disaffected.citizen]

Not a bunch of "thou shall NOT'S" but rather, what is the best possible solution to make as many people comfortable as possible while respecting individual civil liberties?

If the actions of somebody else do no harm, they should be unfettered. Some laws are made to mitigate risks of harm; thus understandable: e.g. speed limits.

One method is for forward thinking businesses to begin changing over to single occupancy restrooms and doing away with assigning sex to them as it would be pointless. Other countries are on board... what's the U.S.'s problem?

Not just the USofA, also UK.

if I'm in a looking at two single occupancy restrooms, one male and one female, the male is occupied, and I'm about to piss all over my self, I will, and HAVE used the women's room plenty of times!

Funny that, I was recently in a small cafe with just that scenario. The men queued for the one tagged "mens'", the women went into the first one available.

So, some observations, thoughts, ideas:

Men (generally) follow rules, blindly?
Men are respectful that their "spray" may make the seat unsanitary for the women; women may choose the men's room.
Businesses have already installed separate facilities; it's cheaper to keep them.
There's an industry producing urinals that have a vested interest (urinals seem to require replacing more frequently).
Similarly producing signs for the rooms.
And signs to warn of a male attendant in the female room or vice versa.
Then there's the volume throughput; most go to urinate and most men can be through quicker with a urinal. Three urinals in the space for an individual stall room.
Most men don't "socialise" in the "mens' room", women seem to go in twos, threes or mores to chat, gossip, apply make-up, etc.

There's no one answer; no right nor wrong. Businesses should be free to determine how they will service their customer demand. If they are intolerant towards one group, unless that intolerance manifests itself as overt discrimination or incitement then it is their "right"; why would I frequent an establishment that doesn't welcome me? Do I agree with everything above? Not necessarily; just food for thought.

[pelmut]

So, some observations, thoughts, ideas:

Men are respectful that their "spray" may make the seat unsanitary for the women; women may choose the men's room.

Men can sit (easier with skirts than trousers*). Women sometimes complain that their seats are insanitary too, so they 'hover' and risk spraying the seat for the next occupant in turn.

Businesses have already installed separate facilities; it's cheaper to keep them.

New-build 'omni' installations would be cheaper than two separate ones, but UK regulations don't permit them (unless there have been recent changes that I have missed). A gradual changeover would occur if 'omni' were permitted.

Then there's the volume throughput; most go to urinate and most men can be through quicker with a urinal. Three urinals in the space for an individual stall room.

Women's urinals are available, but girls in the Western world are taught from an early age to sit down - and most never consider the quicker alternative (it does need practice; but girls can be taught the correct technique, the same as boys are) .

Most men don't "socialise" in the "mens' room", women seem to go in twos, threes or mores to chat, gossip, apply make-up, etc.

Men will sometimes socialise at the washbasins, once they have got past the embarassing business of peeing shoulder-to-shoulder with other men.

* Back on topic - whatever happened there?

[moonshadow]

Men (generally) follow rules, blindly?

Generally, yes. But not this man. I may have to follow some rules, but I wont do so blindly, and I'll complain all day about it.

Men are respectful that their "spray" may make the seat unsanitary for the women; women may choose the men's room.

As an occasional women's room user, I was often surprised about how nasty the women's toilets were. And I I don't spray on the seat, even a minor miss isn't a big deal because I generally lift the seat to pee. And yes I remember to return it to the down position when finished. Do women sit on the rim of the bowl?

There's an industry producing urinals that have a vested interest (urinals seem to require replacing more frequently).
Similarly producing signs for the rooms.
And signs to warn of a male attendant in the female room or vice versa.

True, but those who loose their job at the urinal factory can get employment working with contractors who remodel businesses to unisex restrooms, and replacing toilet sets that men keep peeing on.

Then there's the volume throughput; most go to urinate and most men can be through quicker with a urinal. Three urinals in the space for an individual stall room.
Most men don't "socialise" in the "mens' room", women seem to go in twos, threes or mores to chat, gossip, apply make-up, etc.

In my house when someone is hogging the bathroom, we bang on the door. The QUICKEST way to pee is to pull over and find a bush or tree. (if time is of the essence) Soda bottles work well too.
Ladies: You can do this too! *gasp*

There's no one answer; no right nor wrong. Businesses should be free to determine how they will service their customer demand. If they are intolerant towards one group, unless that intolerance manifests itself as overt discrimination or incitement then it is their "right"; why would I frequent an establishment that doesn't welcome me? Do I agree with everything above? Not necessarily; just food for thought.

Can't argue with that!

I tell ya... all this fuss over taking a piss. It's almost comical.

You know... after a review of some of my post here.... I've concluded God screwed up on me. He/she/it* put a girls brain in a boys body. Boy brains were on backorder at the time. But I guess I'm lucky... these day's brains seem to be in short supply all around!

*What is God's gender anyway? Which bathroom would God use? *Moon throws a BRICK at the hornets nest*

BTW: In case anyone hasn't realized, this reply of mine was meant to be fun-spirited. I'm trying to lighten up a little bit. All this grumpiness is not good for the heart.

[Fred in Skirts]

BTW: In case anyone hasn't realized, this reply of mine was meant to be fun-spirited. I'm trying to lighten up a little bit. All this grumpiness is not good for the heart.

I was laughing half way through reading the post. Your are 1000% right that all of this grumpiness is bad for the ol' ticker.

I have used what ever bathroom was available at the time, never had a problem.

So lets all just take a seat and down a few ales and hit the bathroom.

Fred

[Caultron]

...As an occasional women's room user...

Please elaborate.

[moonshadow]

...As an occasional women's room user...

Please elaborate.

I'll use a single occupancy women's room if the mens room is tied up and I have to go real bad. Im not going to wet my pants (or skirt) or damage my kidneys for the likes of society.

Ive never used a multi occupant women's room.

Ironically, I would feel more uncomfortable wearing a skirt in a single occupancy womens room because I would think onlookers would think Im doing the whole transgender thing and make a big scene when all I want to do is pee!

At least in trousers the onlookers might just chuckle saying "humph well... when ya gotta go!"

[Fred in Skirts]

Ive never used a multi occupant women's room.
Ironically, I would feel more uncomfortable wearing a skirt in a single occupancy womens room because I would think onlookers would think Im doing the whole transgender thing and make a big scene when all I want to do is pee!
At least in trousers the onlookers might just chuckle saying "humph well... when ya gotta go!"

When you talk about single occupancy rest room are you talking about the ones that are marked for family and handicapped??? Or are you talking about some other type of single occupancy rest room??

Fred