I found myself in one of those gender-neutral restrooms

[Aldebaran]

Nothing you just stated changes anything about what I said.
Nor does it change anything about the facts.

Get back to me when you are willing to address the facts and reality of the situation. Screaming "common sense" against reality isn't going to make it different.

I guess you didn't read my further explanation of common sense, so here it is again for you to actually read (or ignore. Your choice.)

If a current policy mandates that men use the men's room and women use the women's room, and then a law comes along that says you can use whichever one you identify with, then the person who claims to be "gender fluid" is now legally able to get away with going into either the men's or women's room. The reason they would be able to start doing this legally is because a law was passed to allow it. Understand?

 

[Cute Tink]

I guess you didn't read my further explanation of common sense, so here it is again for you to actually read (or ignore. Your choice.)

If a current policy mandates that men use the men's room and women use the women's room, and then a law comes along that says you can use whichever one you identify with, then the person who claims to be "gender fluid" is now legally able to get away with going into either the men's or women's room. The reason they would be able to start doing this legally is because a law was passed to allow it. Understand?

And do what?

To be clear, that's not what your "common sense" says. This is:

With trans-friendly laws a man will:
Dress as a woman (whatever that entails) to sneak into a bathroom.
Claim genderfluid status, even proving it in court (which is the only way to enforce this right).

But your "common sense" says that a man, under your preferred laws, won't:
Claim to be a trans man (who is required to use the women's bathroom).

You have yet to explain that inconsistency.

 

[Radrook]

I once entered a woman's bathroom by mistake and only realized it when I heard women coming in and chatting while I was sitting on the toilet seat. I immediately announced from the stall that I had made a mistake and they hastily left.

 

[Aldebaran]

And do what?

To be clear, that's not what your "common sense" says. This is:

With trans-friendly laws a man will:
Dress as a woman (whatever that entails) to sneak into a bathroom.
Claim genderfluid status, even proving it in court (which is the only way to enforce this right).

But your "common sense" says that a man, under your preferred laws, won't:
Claim to be a trans man (who is required to use the women's bathroom).

You have yet to explain that inconsistency.

A person who claims to be "gender fluid" wouldn't have to dress any particular way to enter either restroom. That's the nature of being "fluid". You can go back and forth at will, and therefore not have to prove anything to a court.

 

[Cute Tink]

A person who claims to be "gender fluid" wouldn't have to dress any particular way to enter either restroom. That's the nature of being "fluid". You can go back and forth at will, and therefore not have to prove anything to a court.

The law only protects you if you can establish that your gender identity makes that facility appropriate. You fail to note that a business could tell that "genderfluid" person they don't believe them and kick them out anyway. The law creates a remedy, not automatic, unrestricted access.

This statement also shows a dramatic lack of understanding of both the law and what "genderfluid" means.

Besides, since it is so easy and so "common sense", the fact that nobody is doing it means ... nothing? Right. The fact that these laws actually don't create any more access than rapists had before means ... nothing? The fact that nobody can actually show that these laws create any actual problems means ... nothing? The fact that your "common sense" fails to note that requiring bathroom access to be based on 'birth sex' makes the situation easier (by your logic) means ... nothing? The fact that your entire assertion is based on the idea that people who are intent on committing felonies will be stopped by misdemeanors and store policies means ... nothing?

The number of other questions and observations that have been completely ignored leaves with me with this final statement: There is no point in continuing this "discussion", so I'm out.

 

[TurtleAnne]

I think they should just make single-stall restrooms going forward. It would only take up a little more space in larger buildings to have a few single-stall/room restrooms each with its own locking door; just make them small, only the basic necessities of toilet, small sink and small mirror, towels or hand dryer, one small trash can. Doesn't require very much space. That way it doesn't matter to me who uses the restroom; what matters to me is that I have complete security when I'm in there. Sure, people can still illegally plant cameras, but some employees already do that even in buildings where the bathrooms are strictly assigned by male vs female. For me the bottom line is just wanting to be able to feel safe when using a bathroom. I think most people want this, male or female.

 

[Aldebaran]

The law only protects you if you can establish that your gender identity makes that facility appropriate. You fail to note that a business could tell that "genderfluid" person they don't believe them and kick them out anyway. The law creates a remedy, not automatic, unrestricted access.

Oh sure! They wouldn't be inviting a lawsuit by doing that, would they? How would a business person be able to prove what they believed? People who run a bakery can't prove what they believe when they're slapped by a discrimination lawsuit for not baking a cake for a homosexual wedding. So how would they prove that they simply didn't believe what a "Gender fluid's" intent or claim was?

 

[Cute Tink]

Oh sure! They wouldn't be inviting a lawsuit by doing that, would they?

Possibly. Then again, they wouldn't be the first, nor the last to win in court either. Remember, in court the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the law protected them in this instance.

How would a business person be able to prove what they believed?

Same way as everyone else.

People who run a bakery can't prove what they believe when they're slapped by a discrimination lawsuit for not baking a cake for a homosexual wedding.

They didn't have any problem proving what they believed. The issue was their beliefs were not a defense against the law, as the plaintiffs established that the law actually protected them against discrimination.

So how would they prove that they simply didn't believe what a "Gender fluid's" intent or claim was?

Easily. Their denial of access actually goes rather substantively toward establishing that.

Now, are you ever going to address ANY of the other issues that I have presented or is there no point in bringing reality into the discussion?

 

[Aldebaran]

Possibly. Then again, they wouldn't be the first, nor the last to win in court either. Remember, in court the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the law protected them in this instance.

Wrong. It's up to the plaintiff to prove they were violated by the defendant.

Same way as everyone else.

Which is how? You didn't answer what I asked you. You're trying to avoid answering the question. You know the answer, so why not just give it?

They didn't have any problem proving what they believed. The issue was their beliefs were not a defense against the law, as the plaintiffs established that the law actually protected them against discrimination.

Then why would a business person's beliefs be any more of a defense than a person's beliefs in this case? So far, you're not showing the difference.

Easily. Their denial of access actually goes rather substantively toward establishing that.

Why wouldn't it show favoritism, or hatred? Those are usually the way your side likes to label anyone who doesn't give you your way. If it's worked so well up to this point, why wouldn't it work when someone claims to have been denied access to a restroom because of what gender they identify with?

Now, are you ever going to address ANY of the other issues that I have presented or is there no point in bringing reality into the discussion?

Still waiting for you to answer my questions without dodging them.

 

[Cute Tink]

Wrong. It's up to the plaintiff to prove they were violated by the defendant.

That's what I said... Plaintiff proves that the law protects them. Not sure what you missed there. It was even bolded.

Which is how? You didn't answer what I asked you. You're trying to avoid answering the question. You know the answer, so why not just give it?

They state that it's their belief, just like anyone else does. Not sure what you think is missing from that. Whether their belief is a valid defense is a separate matter.

Then why would a business person's beliefs be any more of a defense than a person's beliefs in this case? So far, you're not showing the difference.

I think you're forgetting that the plaintiff has to prove the law protects him first. Are the defendant's beliefs a defense against a violation in this case? Depends on the state, but if the law doesn't protect the plaintiff, then it's irrelevant.

Why wouldn't it show favoritism, or hatred? Those are usually the way your side likes to label anyone who doesn't give you your way. If it's worked so well up to this point, why wouldn't it work when someone claims to have been denied access to a restroom because of what gender they identify with?

Maybe ask someone who resorts to calling things hatred. I'm not accountable for other people's tactics.

Still waiting for you to answer my questions without dodging them.

I have answered all your questions, despite so many of mine (and others) being ignored. I'm not "dodging" your questions if you aren't satisfied with my answers. Let's address things in reverse order though. I'm content with repeatedly ignored questions remaining unanswered, even if they were asked a long time before this new attempt to create a problem that doesn't exist. Yes, I am answering questions about a scenario you can't even establish as a problem or an actual potential problem. Meanwhile my questions are all related to problems that actually exist and you have personally supplied evidence for.

 

[Cute Tink]

After doing more research, I realized I was a bit wrong about something. Trans protections have existed since 1975, when Minneapolis passed protections against discrimination on the basis of:

"having or projecting a self-image not associated with one's biological maleness or one's biological femaleness."

From the sounds of it, that would cover non-binary or "genderfluid" people. If I'm doing my math right, that's 41 years for Minneapolis.

Minnesota expanded those protections statewide in 1993. That's 23 years for a whole state. I had previously stated 10 years. My bad.

So you have either 41 years or 23 years of protections of people who are trans, non-binary or genderfluid, depending on whether you want to focus on a single city or an entire state.

Now, rather than address whatever concerns you can invent, I propose we deal with the reality of the situation. Feel free to point to any area demonstrating an increase in the rate of such crimes. I'll even entertain any evidence that people who aren't actually protected under the laws have been successful in suing a business under the laws in place.

It will probably be quite a task since, as I mentioned before, nobody has been able to demonstrate an increase in the rate of attacks in areas with these laws in place. Anyone can come up with wild fantasy situations, but I grow weary of responding to paranoia.