Stopping Edu. Funds for Disabled Students over Bathroom Laws

[Des-Bal]

Well, let's suppose that you have a typical Men's bathroom and it contains a few typical urinal stalls and a few toilet stalls, all in one room.
Let's also suppose that you have a typical Women's bathroom and it contains individual toilet stalls.
Now, let's suppose that we are actually concerned with privacy and specifically women's privacy and freedom from fear that a man will overpower them in a restroom, the to have gender neutral bathrooms, each restroom will need to be a separate unit, which means more individual bathrooms which means more space for bathrooms and more walls.

Or just take the signs off the doors and let women use whatever facilities they are comfortable with.

[MightyQuinn]

Well, let's suppose that you have a typical Men's bathroom and it contains a few typical urinal stalls and a few toilet stalls, all in one room.
Let's also suppose that you have a typical Women's bathroom and it contains individual toilet stalls.
Now, let's suppose that we are actually concerned with privacy and specifically women's privacy and freedom from fear that a man will overpower them in a restroom, the to have gender neutral bathrooms, each restroom will need to be a separate unit, which means more individual bathrooms which means more space for bathrooms and more walls.

Unless bathrooms were equipped with gender detecting force fields while I wasn't looking, cheap plastic signs continue to be ineffective against sexual predators.

Non sequitur. This was in response to a claim that individual genderless bathrooms were as cost effective as sex-segregated bathrooms.

[Galloism]

Unless bathrooms were equipped with gender detecting force fields while I wasn't looking, cheap plastic signs continue to be ineffective against sexual predators.

Non sequitur. This was in response to a claim that individual genderless bathrooms were as cost effective as sex-segregated bathrooms.

Genderless public bathrooms are the cheapest of all, and no evidence exists showing such bathrooms are even 0.000000000000000000000000000001% more dangerous.

Logic would dictate they would be less dangerous.

[Jolet]

You are making the assumption that that someone who is not transgender and then abusing this law to their advantage is doing this without any ill intent.

No, I'm not.

I am not. I don't need to spell that out, you can puzzle out what I'm implying on your own like the intelligent person that you are. What the law does is- theoretically, anyway- prevent in their minds the potential for abuse and the fallout from it.

Exactly how does a law prevent the potential for people to abuse it?

Your explanation of the law has successfully confused me. From what I understand, the hue and cry about this law is that it prevents people of transgender identity from going into the bathroom of which they identify with. Now you're telling me that those who pretend to be transgender can do exactly that and it's fine under the law, even though those who are transgendering aren't allowed to, even though it's exactly the same behavior under the exact same reason. What exactly is going on here? What am I missing in this whole debate that would solve this apparent contradiction?

No, I'm saying that, theoretically, a cisgender individual could abuse this new law in order to gain access to bathrooms of the gender opposite to theirs.

So we're in agreement, both in that the law lacks teeth and can't be enforced and that this abuse can and will occur. Thank you for clarifying. I still don't agree with you on this being the proper solution, but that's okay- I don't really need to, and you don't have to agree with me. That's the wonder of intellectual conversation, disagreement can occur peacably.

You are making the assumption that that someone who is not transgender and then abusing this law to their advantage is doing this without any ill intent. I am not. I don't need to spell that out, you can puzzle out what I'm implying on your own like the intelligent person that you are. What the law does is- theoretically, anyway- prevent in their minds the potential for abuse and the fallout from it.

Your explanation of the law has successfully confused me. From what I understand, the hue and cry about this law is that it prevents people of transgender identity from going into the bathroom of which they identify with. Now you're telling me that those who pretend to be transgender can do exactly that and it's fine under the law, even though those who are transgendering aren't allowed to, even though it's exactly the same behavior under the exact same reason. What exactly is going on here? What am I missing in this whole debate that would solve this apparent contradiction?

Yes. Let's say a cis-male wants to go into a restroom for nefarious reasons. Under the law, a transgender man (female-to-male) is still required to use the women's restroom. Using this, the cis-male pervert can simply appeal to the law by saying they are a transgender man, and are acting in compliance with the law by using the women's restroom.

This isn't even going into the fact that there's no indication that show's that this law's premise is even warranted or anything other than pure fiction, but I digress.

The abuse can occur either way, with our without the law. The law is silly, yes, but it makes an ideological stance. My guess is that this is mostly political posturing, and even though it's recieving national backlash the state's pretty damn satisfied with itself. The Feds don't like it because it doesn't fall in line with the Federal stance, and they're currently trying to tighten control by pulling the State's federal money for education. In a way, it's also posturing on the Fed's part as well, trying to appeal to a constituency- the high ups in the federal government probably don't give a rip about rights for anybody unless it'll net them more votes in the upcoming elections/keep them in their appointed positions. They too are playing to a much larger constituency, thus that lashback from the Feds. This is not an ideological debate between the two, but a power play between the Federal government and the State of North Carolina. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, either way.

[Wallenburg]

It is a far cry away from extortion or blackmail. The states have no right to federal money. They have to earn it.

And no, it isn't cost effective at all to have segregated bathrooms.

Well, let's suppose that you have a typical Men's bathroom and it contains a few typical urinal stalls and a few toilet stalls, all in one room.
Let's also suppose that you have a typical Women's bathroom and it contains individual toilet stalls.
Now, let's suppose that we are actually concerned with privacy and specifically women's privacy and freedom from fear that a man will overpower them in a restroom, the to have gender neutral bathrooms, each restroom will need to be a separate unit, which means more individual bathrooms which means more space for bathrooms and more walls.

If a man really wants to rape a woman in a restroom, he won't give a shit what the sign on the door is.

[Wallenburg]

Unless bathrooms were equipped with gender detecting force fields while I wasn't looking, cheap plastic signs continue to be ineffective against sexual predators.

Non sequitur. This was in response to a claim that individual genderless bathrooms were as cost effective as sex-segregated bathrooms.

I never made such a claim. I claimed that they were more cost effective than segregated ones.

[Noraika]

State your concerns or don't.

Very well.

Suppose a man- heck, let's call him a sex offender, just to illustrate my point- walks into a supermarket and goes to enter the women's restroom. Nobody questions it since he can go into whatever bathroom he identifies as and it's not our position to judge. While inside he sees a ten year old girl, and he ends up molesting the girl due to his pedophilic addiction. In my viewpoint, that is what the law is trying to prevent. As unlikely as this might be- which honestly, probably isn't even all that unlikely if this became the norm- the fact is that this sort of stuff would happen, and probably with disturbing frequency. That is my concern- if we do not question, how do we prevent these things from happening? We don't. As unfortunate as the stigma is, it exists for a reason- previous to this, men did not go in women's bathrooms and vice versa. That was the moray of society up until this point. To throw that out the window in favor of a few hundred thousand people "just because" is poorly thought-out. To every choice there is consequence- including altering the status quo. We know the problems with the current way of doing things- what about throwing that out for this new model? What are the problems there? Has anybody really stopped and considered the possible repercussions from this? I would say no.

Its not an objection out of a 'just cause' line of though. Its an objection because the law itself has no basis in reality. Transgender individual have already been using the accommodations matching their gender identity for decades without incident, and its only become an issue because of these laws now trying to restrict it in the name of 'bathroom safety'. This claim ignores the fact that laws protection and allowing the ability for transgender individuals to use the accommodations befitting their gender identity, across the United States, in local authorities and states, in countries, with some having this in place for more than a decade, and the fears of individuals abusing this law, and the fears of it compromising bathroom safety, have been reported as being unfounded by the police departments therein, as well as the societies in general.

All-in-all there is nothing I have seen from any credible source which supports the premise of this law as being anything but pure fiction, and yet I have already quoted sources which observe it as a means of reinforcing stigma in society, which can lend itself even more to harassment and discrimination, and is unbefitting a developed and egalitarian society.

In addition to this, the law does nothing to make it more difficult for a pervert to gain entry into the bathroom. In fact, it opens up an entirely new means THROUGH the use of this law, since a cis-male pervert can simply claim to be a transgender male, and is therefore legally obligated to use the women's room under HB 2, and likewise laws. Overall, this law does nothing to promote bathroom safety, nor does it inhibit the ability for perverts to behave in criminal manners. However, it does cause psychological, physical, and emotional damage to transgender individuals which is completely avoidable and unnecessary, by forcing them to be unable to live their lives befitting their gender identity, and can easily equal compromising bathroom safety for transgender individuals.

[Arlen Sanglere]

Eh, I guess some people don't care about others rights, kinda pathetic really if you think about it. Stopping transpeople using the right is rather shitty.

[Jolet]

Very well.

Suppose a man- heck, let's call him a sex offender, just to illustrate my point- walks into a supermarket and goes to enter the women's restroom. Nobody questions it since he can go into whatever bathroom he identifies as and it's not our position to judge. While inside he sees a ten year old girl, and he ends up molesting the girl due to his pedophilic addiction. In my viewpoint, that is what the law is trying to prevent. As unlikely as this might be- which honestly, probably isn't even all that unlikely if this became the norm- the fact is that this sort of stuff would happen, and probably with disturbing frequency. That is my concern- if we do not question, how do we prevent these things from happening? We don't. As unfortunate as the stigma is, it exists for a reason- previous to this, men did not go in women's bathrooms and vice versa. That was the moray of society up until this point. To throw that out the window in favor of a few hundred thousand people "just because" is poorly thought-out. To every choice there is consequence- including altering the status quo. We know the problems with the current way of doing things- what about throwing that out for this new model? What are the problems there? Has anybody really stopped and considered the possible repercussions from this? I would say no.

So fear mongering based on assumptions about the likelihood of a narrow class of sexual abuse? Tell me, what happens if this particular sex offender happens to be interested in little boys? Why shouldn't we use mixed bathrooms? If that's the case then whoever is molesting whoever, it is now twice as likely that somebody able to render assistance is going to walk through the door.

It's as narrow as you want it to be. Man on child, man on woman, it's irrelevant- the fact is that it opens up the possibility for a more widespread form of abuse. The remainder of your points, however, are valid, with the exception of calling this fear mongering. That's not what this is- if it was, I'd be going the extra step to portray you as some sort of monster for suggesting it, which I'm hopefully not. I sincerely apologize if anything I said came across that way, that wasn't at all my intent. This is meant to be an honest discussion, not a mudslinging event on the level of the Republican primary- we're probably doing a better job articulating our points than anybody up on the stage at any time ever did. Digression aside, that is where I stand on it, agree with me or not.

Also, general question for my personal gratification, where in the world do they have fully mixed-sex bathrooms? The last time I went to Europe it was still split up between men and women, so probably not there. Any ideas?

[Galloism]

So fear mongering based on assumptions about the likelihood of a narrow class of sexual abuse? Tell me, what happens if this particular sex offender happens to be interested in little boys? Why shouldn't we use mixed bathrooms? If that's the case then whoever is molesting whoever, it is now twice as likely that somebody able to render assistance is going to walk through the door.

It's as narrow as you want it to be. Man on child, man on woman, it's irrelevant- the fact is that it opens up the possibility for a more widespread form of abuse. The remainder of your points, however, are valid, with the exception of calling this fear mongering. That's not what this is- if it was, I'd be going the extra step to portray you as some sort of monster for suggesting it, which I'm hopefully not. I sincerely apologize if anything I said came across that way, that wasn't at all my intent. This is meant to be an honest discussion, not a mudslinging event on the level of the Republican primary- we're probably doing a better job articulating our points than anybody up on the stage at any time ever did. Digression aside, that is where I stand on it, agree with me or not.

Also, general question for my personal gratification, where in the world do they have fully mixed-sex bathrooms? The last time I went to Europe it was still split up between men and women, so probably not there. Any ideas?

Honestly, kind of fell out of use during the industrial revolution.

I remember before that almost all restrooms were mixed gender.

[Jolet]

Very well.

Suppose a man- heck, let's call him a sex offender, just to illustrate my point- walks into a supermarket and goes to enter the women's restroom. Nobody questions it since he can go into whatever bathroom he identifies as and it's not our position to judge. While inside he sees a ten year old girl, and he ends up molesting the girl due to his pedophilic addiction. In my viewpoint, that is what the law is trying to prevent. As unlikely as this might be- which honestly, probably isn't even all that unlikely if this became the norm- the fact is that this sort of stuff would happen, and probably with disturbing frequency. That is my concern- if we do not question, how do we prevent these things from happening? We don't. As unfortunate as the stigma is, it exists for a reason- previous to this, men did not go in women's bathrooms and vice versa. That was the moray of society up until this point. To throw that out the window in favor of a few hundred thousand people "just because" is poorly thought-out. To every choice there is consequence- including altering the status quo. We know the problems with the current way of doing things- what about throwing that out for this new model? What are the problems there? Has anybody really stopped and considered the possible repercussions from this? I would say no.

Its not an objection out of a 'just cause' line of though. Its an objection because the law itself has no basis in reality. Transgender individual have already been using the accommodations matching their gender identity for decades without incident, and its only become an issue because of these laws now trying to restrict it in the name of 'bathroom safety'. This claim ignores the fact that laws protection and allowing the ability for transgender individuals to use the accommodations befitting their gender identity, across the United States, in local authorities and states, in countries, with some having this in place for more than a decade, and the fears of individuals abusing this law, and the fears of it compromising bathroom safety, have been reported as being unfounded by the police departments therein, as well as the societies in general.

All-in-all there is nothing I have seen from any credible source which supports the premise of this law as being anything but pure fiction, and yet I have already quoted sources which observe it as a means of reinforcing stigma in society, which can lend itself even more to harassment and discrimination, and is unbefitting a developed and egalitarian society.

In addition to this, the law does nothing to make it more difficult for a pervert to gain entry into the bathroom. In fact, it opens up an entirely new means THROUGH the use of this law, since a cis-male pervert can simply claim to be a transgender male, and is therefore legally obligated to use the women's room under HB 2, and likewise laws. Overall, this law does nothing to promote bathroom safety, nor does it inhibit the ability for perverts to behave in criminal manners. However, it does cause psychological, physical, and emotional damage to transgender individuals which is completely avoidable and unnecessary, by forcing them to be unable to live their lives befitting their gender identity, and can easily equal compromising bathroom safety for transgender individuals.

I'm going to refer you to my previous post about what I think about the law and the controversy surrounding it, as well as the Fed's reaction to it. I agree, the law is dumb, but it raises the question that I think is a valid one.

Do I think this law was written with causing stigma in mind? No. Do I think it's the result of stigma? Meh, probably not, but you never know. Trying to apply something abstract like gender identity to something concrete like a bathroom is going to cause problems, so it isn't a surprise that something like this got passed. What happens next, though, is the real question.

[Jolet]

It's as narrow as you want it to be. Man on child, man on woman, it's irrelevant- the fact is that it opens up the possibility for a more widespread form of abuse. The remainder of your points, however, are valid, with the exception of calling this fear mongering. That's not what this is- if it was, I'd be going the extra step to portray you as some sort of monster for suggesting it, which I'm hopefully not. I sincerely apologize if anything I said came across that way, that wasn't at all my intent. This is meant to be an honest discussion, not a mudslinging event on the level of the Republican primary- we're probably doing a better job articulating our points than anybody up on the stage at any time ever did. Digression aside, that is where I stand on it, agree with me or not.

Also, general question for my personal gratification, where in the world do they have fully mixed-sex bathrooms? The last time I went to Europe it was still split up between men and women, so probably not there. Any ideas?

Honestly, kind of fell out of use during the industrial revolution.

I remember before that almost all restrooms were mixed gender.

See, that's interesting, because in Rome they segregated their bathrooms and bathhouses by gender. I wonder where the shift happens between them and pre-industrial revolution. Do you think it could have been the social climate of the time that led to it being fine? Perhaps availability of facilities?

[MightyQuinn]

Non sequitur. This was in response to a claim that individual genderless bathrooms were as cost effective as sex-segregated bathrooms.

I never made such a claim. I claimed that they were more cost effective than segregated ones.

Let's see your argument that individual bathrooms are less expensive than communal bathrooms, which require more space for the same number of facilities and more walls, and therefore more construction.

[Galloism]

Honestly, kind of fell out of use during the industrial revolution.

I remember before that almost all restrooms were mixed gender.

See, that's interesting, because in Rome they segregated their bathrooms and bathhouses by gender. I wonder where the shift happens between them and pre-industrial revolution. Do you think it could have been the social climate of the time that led to it being fine? Perhaps availability of facilities?

As I recall, the toilets were generally segregated more on social status than gender, and although baths were segregated for a time, some evidence exists that segregation faded somewhere in the first or second century.

[Wallenburg]

I never made such a claim. I claimed that they were more cost effective than segregated ones.

Let's see your argument that individual bathrooms are less expensive than communal bathrooms, which require more space for the same number of facilities and more walls, and therefore more construction.

They require fewer walls and less space, actually. For instance, that wall over there that divides the women's restroom from the men's, that one is definitely the first to go.

[Des-Bal]

It's as narrow as you want it to be. Man on child, man on woman, it's irrelevant- the fact is that it opens up the possibility for a more widespread form of abuse. The remainder of your points, however, are valid, with the exception of calling this fear mongering. That's not what this is- if it was, I'd be going the extra step to portray you as some sort of monster for suggesting it, which I'm hopefully not. I sincerely apologize if anything I said came across that way, that wasn't at all my intent. This is meant to be an honest discussion, not a mudslinging event on the level of the Republican primary- we're probably doing a better job articulating our points than anybody up on the stage at any time ever did. Digression aside, that is where I stand on it, agree with me or not.

Also, general question for my personal gratification, where in the world do they have fully mixed-sex bathrooms? The last time I went to Europe it was still split up between men and women, so probably not there. Any ideas?

1. The narrowness is absolutely not irrelevant. What matters is the thing your sacrificing and what you get for it. How large the class of people you are protecting is about half of the equation here. I don't know how frequent bathroom attacks are but I'd wager "not very". Already, not many people to help. If we're acknowledging that same sex abuses are either not effected or worsened by preventing transgender people in the bathrooms of their gender then then there's another big chunk of people gone right away. There's also no advantage against people who are able to carry out assault in public bathrooms undetected and are also not bothered by the sign on the door. At a certain point we're reaching an impact that doesn't really bare notice.
2. What you are doing is fear mongering. You said specifically that IF we allow transgender women into the women's room THEN sex offenders will exploit this "probably with disturbing frequency." You are arguing that the way things are is the way that things should be because of fears that don't seem to be based in anything.

[MightyQuinn]

Let's see your argument that individual bathrooms are less expensive than communal bathrooms, which require more space for the same number of facilities and more walls, and therefore more construction.

They require fewer walls and less space, actually. For instance, that wall over there that divides the women's restroom from the men's, that one is definitely the first to go.

You're supposing that women want to share bathrooms with men. I think you'll find yourself mistaken.

BTW, the poll seems to indicate that money for educating the disadvantaged and the disabled is more important than getting rid of sex segregated bathrooms.

[Neutraligon]

Honestly, kind of fell out of use during the industrial revolution.

I remember before that almost all restrooms were mixed gender.

See, that's interesting, because in Rome they segregated their bathrooms and bathhouses by gender. I wonder where the shift happens between them and pre-industrial revolution. Do you think it could have been the social climate of the time that led to it being fine? Perhaps availability of facilities?

No actually there were many mixed gendered restrooms in Rome.
http://ancientpeoples.tumblr.com/post/5 ... re-not-shy

[Wallenburg]

They require fewer walls and less space, actually. For instance, that wall over there that divides the women's restroom from the men's, that one is definitely the first to go.

You're supposing that women want to share bathrooms with men. I think you'll find yourself mistaken.

The women supporting the NC law certainly do.

BTW, the poll seems to indicate that money for educating the disadvantaged and the disabled is more important than getting rid of sex segregated bathrooms.

Argumentum ad populum.

[Des-Bal]

You're supposing that women want to share bathrooms with men. I think you'll find yourself mistaken.

BTW, the poll seems to indicate that money for educating the disadvantaged and the disabled is more important than getting rid of sex segregated bathrooms.

That would totally mean something if the issue was we had just enough money to desegregate the bathrooms or educate the disadvantaged or disabled. It's not. The issue is that states don't want to do both.

[Neutraligon]

You're supposing that women want to share bathrooms with men. I think you'll find yourself mistaken.

The women supporting the NC law certainly do.

BTW, the poll seems to indicate that money for educating the disadvantaged and the disabled is more important than getting rid of sex segregated bathrooms.

Argumentum ad populum.

Especially since what the Obama administration is dealing with has nothing to do with getting rid of sex segregated restrooms. We have never really had sex segregated restrooms to begin with.

[Wallenburg]

You're supposing that women want to share bathrooms with men. I think you'll find yourself mistaken.

BTW, the poll seems to indicate that money for educating the disadvantaged and the disabled is more important than getting rid of sex segregated bathrooms.

That would totally mean something if the issue was we had just enough money to desegregate the bathrooms or educate the disadvantaged or disabled. It's not. The issue is that states don't want to do both.

California does.

[Geilinor]

They require fewer walls and less space, actually. For instance, that wall over there that divides the women's restroom from the men's, that one is definitely the first to go.

You're supposing that women want to share bathrooms with men. I think you'll find yourself mistaken.

BTW, the poll seems to indicate that money for educating the disadvantaged and the disabled is more important than getting rid of sex segregated bathrooms.

This thread is not about sex-segregated restrooms. Sex-segregated restrooms are not what the NC bathroom debate is about.

[Neutraligon]

You're supposing that women want to share bathrooms with men. I think you'll find yourself mistaken.

BTW, the poll seems to indicate that money for educating the disadvantaged and the disabled is more important than getting rid of sex segregated bathrooms.

This thread is not about sex-segregated restrooms. Sex-segregated restrooms are not what the NC bathroom debate is about.

Like I said have we ever really had sex segregated toilets? I mean we used to only have toilets for men (absolutely none for women) in public, but once we started toilets for women where they really sex segregated, or where they segregated based on gender presentation?

[MightyQuinn]

You're supposing that women want to share bathrooms with men. I think you'll find yourself mistaken.

The women supporting the NC law certainly do.

BTW, the poll seems to indicate that money for educating the disadvantaged and the disabled is more important than getting rid of sex segregated bathrooms.

Argumentum ad populum.

In politics, argumentum ad populum is a viable tool.
Ghostbusters: "You will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M39l7rj80bM