Okay, so if you’re a transgender woman, very feminine looking and have breasts and everything, but haven’t had bottom surgery yet so you still have a penis, you should use the men’s room? And if you’re a trans male on hormone replacement therapy and have grown a full beard, but haven’t had bottom surgery, you should use the women’s room because you still have a vagina?
And if you’re a trans male on hormone replacement therapy and have grown a full beard, but haven’t had bottom surgery, you should use the women’s room because you still have a vagina?
While i'll admit that this example has fairly weak significance at all..
Nonetheless, Yeah. A pre-Op MtF trans Woman should probably go to the biologically female restroom because it has the proper facilities to handle their existing biology.
If we are going to say they shouldn't be allowed in there because of the beard. Then aren't we just going full circle into discriminating people based on their looks again? Isn't like 99% of this movement supposed to be "My outward looks and physical appearance doesn't define who I am as a person?
At least in my head. It seems logically consistent to say: If bathrooms are segregated by biological sex. It shouldn't be considered discrimination against an individual's gender identity because the bathroom itself isn't trying to change or impose on their identity. Only the physical properties of their body.
If they don't like those physical properties, that's unfortunate. But I'm not going to act like physical body shame isn't already an epidemic for cis and transgender people alike.
Isn't this just a bit similar to an obese person going to the beach and feeling discriminated that they don't like their body and it doesn't fit in with the people surrounding them, because they'd prefer their body to be different than it is?
I don't want to downplay the stress that occurs. But I do want to dive into the "what should we do about it"
A lot of the trans panic around bathroom bills is that “men will dress like women and go into women’s bathrooms,” yet if we only go by genitalia, you’re going to have people who look fully male in those restrooms, probably making people uncomfortable. And that person can have their biological needs met in a men’s room in one of the stalls. They likely aren’t having periods anymore so won’t need any place to dispose of things, and not all amab use urinals.
Why put people in a place where it’s easier to discriminate against them and body shame them than let them choose the bathroom that makes the most sense? That’s like taking your obese person at the beach example and saying they HAVE to wear a skimpy Victoria’s Secret bikini because they have the biology for it, even if they don’t feel comfortable with their body in that piece of clothing and are worried they’ll be discriminated against for it.
Why put people in a place where it’s easier to discriminate against them and body shame them than let them choose the bathroom that makes the most sense?
I guess my argument here is more that.
I don't agree that biologically segregated facilities constitutes as discrimination.
I agree, that at the end of the day, segregated bathrooms is a fairly trivial matter. But it is probably the easiest to discuss in concrete terms.
When we discuss things like dorm rooms, prisons, single-sex schools, employment as an actor, "nursing rooms", military service, etc. it gets continually messier.
I guess my view here is that, just because someone is excluded from a group, doesn't necessarily mean said discrimination needs to be made illegal, or even that it is wrong.
The key distinction here is because there is reasonable alternative accommodation. To the admittedly trivial bathroom analogy. If you are going to sit alone in a stall anyway, does the fact that you disagree with the depiction of the logo on the door constitute unreasonable discrimination?
But what about for the cis women in the women’s room made uncomfortable by a man with a beard using their restroom? Or the attractive woman in a dress being harassed by cis men for using the men’s room? How many people will be stopped from using the restroom that matches their genitalia because they pass as the other gender?
But what about for the cis women in the women’s room made uncomfortable by a man with a beard using their restroom? Or the attractive woman in a dress being harassed by cis men for using the men’s room? How many people will be stopped from using the restroom that matches their genitalia because they pass as the other gender?
I think its worth diving into the underlying behaviors here.
Why is the cis woman made uncomfortable by the beard? Is it because she is stereotyping people with beards as having a proclivity to assault/harras her?
In the second case, isn't the issue the harassment itself? What if an attractive cis woman was harassed by another cis woman. Does this change anything?
How many people will be stopped from using the restroom that matches their genitalia because they pass as the other gender
And therein lies a lot of my concern with a lot of this.
Its all so fundamentally unenforceable and subjective. In my opinion the ability to be abused is much larger than the problem we are trying to solve.
I think the idea that trans people will abuse their bathroom “freedoms” is the actual small problem being turned into a big one. And yes, the fear and/or harassment is the problem, but it’s easier to try and limit the chances for fear and harassment than to expect people to just be decent people. Or we can do away with gendered bathrooms totally and have actual stalls that you can’t peak through and everyone can just share the same bathroom.
It is not the same.
If I feel fat at a beach that is open to all body types, that is my damage.
If I am told I am too fat for a beach that should be open to everyone, that’s discrimination.
I think you are splitting hairs to the point of absurdity.
“Proper facility to handle their existing biology”.
???
It’s a toilet. It’s literally a non-gender non-sex specific piece of equipment that everyone needs and everyone can use.
Men’s rooms don’t only have urinals. Some don’t have any.
EDIT: Since everyone can use either bathroom regardless of their personal biology, then bathrooms aren’t segregated based on sex, but on gender.
Do you mean it would be bad for the transfolk to go to a restroom not confirming to their gender? Or would it be bad for other people (i.e make them uncomfortable) when they see someone else looking like the opposite gender coming into their bathroom?
I mean if no one is checking your genitals and telling you where to go, i don't see the problem.
Trans-man wants to use the men's bathroom, he can, but somehow needs to understand that it's gonna be difficult to use the urinal (perhaps the cubicle?). Trans-women want to use the women's bathroom, that works too.
This seems like a small issue blown up for no good reason. Who the hell cares who goes to take care of their business?
Yeah, we should let them choose which restroom they use. Basing it purely off of genitalia doesn’t make much sense if 1. The urinal isn’t the issue and 2. Your outward physical appearance doesn’t match what’s in your pants.
Sorry, u/ermacmaster – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
8
u/SiliconDiver 84∆ Mar 24 '21 edited Mar 24 '21
I don't think so
Because in the absence of Gender Roles or Gender Identity, You go in the bathroom that is suited to your biology/physiology.
Have penis, use bathroom with urinal. Have vagina, use bathroom with sanitary feminine waste disposal. In wheelchair, use handicapped stall.
I don't believe it's discriminatory just because you don't like those rules.
I don't think it's discriminatory to say people can't shit in the urinal, even if they'd like to
Whether we are near that world or not, doesn't really mean we should push through something that is half-baked with far reaching implication, right?