[Discussion] Trans Issues and Rights

This thread is for the discussion of current events relating to trans rights, for discussion of the lives of trans people and difficulties they face, and for basic questions about the lives and experiences of trans people. (If basic questions become dominant we'll look at making a Q&A thread at that time.)

Irony is watching folks denounce trans identity as "sexually deviant" or "mental illness" and, in the same breath, go out of their way to defend a malignant narcissist who wants to bone his own daughter.

Tyops wrote:

Meanwhile in Canada....

This afternoon, the Canadian Armed Forces tweeted about its welcoming approach to recruitment.

"We welcome Cdns of all sexual orientations and gender identities. Join us!" it reads, with a photograph of Royal Canadian Navy Band members playing instruments festooned in Pride colours.

Canada does what American't.

Gravey wrote:

Canada does what American't.

So, what you're saying is that in twenty years, Canada will still be trying to sell us the same old blue, pointy schtick that we've all gotten bored of?

Is this a maple syrup analogy? I'm confused.

"Despite Trump announcement, Coast Guard will not 'break faith' with transgender troops"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...

Essentially all that president managed to do was look weak by all his military heads telling him they're adhering to the previous policy. Hopefully that continues.

It almost seems like he didn't actually consult with his generals at all. But that can't be!

Chaz wrote:

It almost seems like he didn't actually consult with his generals at all. But that can't be!

he said he consulted, not that he listened (but I doubt he consulted either)

Haiti passes bill to make open support of LGBT rights a crime.
Not going to Haiti

Baron Of Hell wrote:

Haiti passes bill to make open support of LGBT rights a crime.
Not going to Haiti

Puttin' the hate in Haiti.

thanks for sharing that pyxistyx, we don't generally hear about these other uprisings and I think it's important that we remember them.

as for those haters ignorantly commenting/trolling/whatever the hell, f*ck them all.

RoughneckGeek wrote:
Mermaidpirate wrote:

I support trans and genderqueer rights and I still don't want unisex bathrooms. I'm a hypocrite?

There's 3 types of unisex bathrooms I've encountered:

1) A "family" restroom in addition to traditional restrooms for each gender. This is normally a single occupant bathroom like you would have at home, but large enough to comfortably accommodate a changing table, handicap access, etc.

2) All the rest rooms available in a facility are single occupant restrooms without gender designations. These can be the same as option 1's family restroom. Sometimes they have a urinal in them in addition to the more common facilities like the toilet and sink. One of my regular brunch places has 3 of this style restroom as their only restrooms.

3) This is the one that is most like a traditional restroom. There are a shared bank of sinks in the restroom as you walk in. There are walled rooms with full doors for each "stall". I've only encountered a couple of this type of unisex restroom. The massive Starbucks Roasters in Seattle has one of these as the only restroom. Each stall door is marked with a symbol to show if it has a urinal (there are ~2 of those) or a toilet (~10) of those). None of the labeling is gendered. The doors have an indicator if they're locked or available without having to knock or jiggle the handle.

When you say you don't want unisex restrooms, which example are you talking about and why? Personally, it gives me a happy feeling when I fire up the Refuge Restrooms app and see that there are a multitude of options nearby my trans friends can use without having to worry about thinking if they pass sufficiently enough to be able to pee.

Belatedly taking this up from the how to be a gender thread where I initially put it. I'm wrong it because I know my unwillingness to use unisex restrooms is flawed, and there is a part of me that is trying to shift it

For the most part I like to think that men and women are more similar than they are different, and that as such combining bathrooms shouldn't matter. But in my gut I have objections with multiple facets.

One, possibly the most easily dismissable one, is a fear that it will lead to less bathroom space overall as people building on the cheap put in three unisex stalls when before there would have been three each for men and women. It's a fear and therefore may not come to pass. People building super cheaply will have bad bathrooms whether or not they are unisex, probably.

The other is that I just don't want to share a bathroom with creepy guys. Or super macho guys. Sometimes it feels nice to have a space to retreat to where you know the people causing you trouble can't follow.

For most general toilets maybe it wouldn't even change anyone's behaviour and therefore not be a big deal, but when I think about the swimming pool I use and the change rooms I can't imagine a change to all unisex (there's already a 'family area' for anyone) being met with anything but outrage.

And there's also a straight up selfish component that as someone often in male majority spaces, the women's bathroom is almost always empty and therefore fast to use.

I don't like that any of this comes at the cost of trans people having a hard time with bathrooms. I can see the good reasons to change to unisex ones, and I wish angry people would change so that trans people feel ok even before remodeling happens. I'm just airing out some thought processes to go through them.

Re: Roughneckgeek's options, I guess I assumed new bathrooms would be like option 3 except not with private urinals, as from what I've seen on tv, they're not private now.

This is a tad glib but it seems that the issue doesn't distribute meaningfully by sex or gender, but by attitude. As in, maybe we should have two bathroom contexts: bathrooms for sh*theads; and bathrooms for people who aren't sh*theads. The sh*theads can do what they want and leave the people who can be mature alone.

Pretty sure unisex stalls still fall under a per person building code. You have to still have x facilities per y persons. I could be wrong though but even if they shift everything to unisex you won't lack for facilities.

Texas anti-trans bathroom bill dies a death, for now.

The next time such a bill can be introduced is in two years, when they re-adjourn for their regular session. House Speaker Joe Straus actually ended the special session a day early, much to the dismay of the Republican lawmakers present.
One of the primary arguments against the bill was that it would cost the state about $5.6 billion through 2026 if it should pass. Given that North Carolina passed a similar bill that cost would cost them $3.7 billion, the argument had some weight. As well, many organizations—sports organizations, specifically—came out against the bill, threatening to pull out of the state if the bill should pass, once again illustrating that yes, there is a very specific price tag on passing such a bill.

I definitely understand the wanting to get away from creepy guys thing. I don't know that bathrooms are really sufficient, given the number of times I've seen drunk dudes follow a person where he really shouldn't. At least it's obvious to others just how inappropriate he's being at that point, but still. :X

I'd like to believe that we can improve our society so that people won't just let that kind of behavior pass in any context, not just when bathrooms are involved. But it's not a trivial concern.

Most multi-stall unisex designs I've seen have fully private stalls—closer to small one-person unisex restrooms with a shared sink area outside than to what we're used to in the U.S. Apparently, that's not common in the states because of weird "what if people are doing drugs/having sex/etc. in the bathroom!" attitudes and rules based on them.

Hypatian wrote:

Most multi-stall unisex designs I've seen have fully private stalls—closer to small one-person unisex restrooms with a shared sink area outside than to what we're used to in the U.S. Apparently, that's not common in the states because of weird "what if people are doing drugs/having sex/etc. in the bathroom!" attitudes and rules based on them.

Our new campus has single-occupant and universal bathrooms, and the latter are exactly as you and RNG describe (except no symbols on the door, which begs the question of why even have urinals in the first place and make some stalls unusable to half the users? Wouldn't it be more efficient to have all toilets? But I digress.) But yeah, the stalls are even more private than our previous gender-exclusive bathrooms' (walls go all the way to the floor, no half-an-inch of clearance around the door).

walls go all the way to the floor, no half-an-inch of clearance around the door

This part always amazes / horrifies me about US bathroom cubicle designs D:

The purpose is to stop people from doing drugs in the bathroom. However, people just use the space to watch other people poop.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

The purpose is to stop people from doing drugs in the bathroom.

Nope. If that were true, bathrooms in professional environments wouldn't have them. And yet, they're ubiquitous at Fortune 500 companies, where there's a reasonable expectation that the staff aren't shooting up at 10am on a Tuesday.

Jonman wrote:

And yet, they're ubiquitous at Fortune 500 companies, where there's a reasonable expectation that the staff aren't shooting up at 10am on a Tuesday.

I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation.

Jonman wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:

The purpose is to stop people from doing drugs in the bathroom.

Nope. If that were true, bathrooms in professional environments wouldn't have them. And yet, they're ubiquitous at Fortune 500 companies, where there's a reasonable expectation that the staff aren't shooting up at 10am on a Tuesday.

Well it might not be for all bathrooms but this issue came up in Seattle when they changed the bathrooms in Pike Place market and other places. They specifically stated they changed them because of people doing drugs in the stalls.

I done a google and this is what's on the 'American Restroom Association' (that's a thing?) webpage.

STALL DOORS

To prevent unnecessary queuing, anyone entering the restroom should be able to easily determine the state of occupancy of stalls. This can be done with doors that do not fully close when not in use or by other devices that signal occupancy. The doors of stalls often loose alignment over time. Doors should have sufficient clearance and locks latch length to function as the stall frame becomes misaligned.

So...it's either so you can see if all the stalls are occupied (personally i normally figure this out by the fact that the stall doors are either closed or not, but whatever) OR so you don't get trapped in a stall because the door warps?

Demyx wrote:
Jonman wrote:

And yet, they're ubiquitous at Fortune 500 companies, where there's a reasonable expectation that the staff aren't shooting up at 10am on a Tuesday.

I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation.

Clearly, I've been working with engineers too long. I want to hear your hilarious tales of workplace partying.

Jonman wrote:
Demyx wrote:
Jonman wrote:

And yet, they're ubiquitous at Fortune 500 companies, where there's a reasonable expectation that the staff aren't shooting up at 10am on a Tuesday.

I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation.

Clearly, I've been working with engineers too long. I want to hear your hilarious tales of workplace partying.

I work with engineers too and my idea of partying involves board games! I've just heard stories about Fortune 500 executives...

Demyx wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Demyx wrote:
Jonman wrote:

And yet, they're ubiquitous at Fortune 500 companies, where there's a reasonable expectation that the staff aren't shooting up at 10am on a Tuesday.

I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation.

Clearly, I've been working with engineers too long. I want to hear your hilarious tales of workplace partying.

I work with engineers too and my idea of partying involves board games! I've just heard stories about Fortune 500 executives...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not confuse common bathrooms with what Fortune 500 executives use. They either have private bathrooms, use the bathroom on their private jet, or just sh*t on some lowly peon's family photos.

Demyx wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Demyx wrote:
Jonman wrote:

And yet, they're ubiquitous at Fortune 500 companies, where there's a reasonable expectation that the staff aren't shooting up at 10am on a Tuesday.

I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation.

Clearly, I've been working with engineers too long. I want to hear your hilarious tales of workplace partying.

I work with engineers too and my idea of partying involves board games! I've just heard stories about Fortune 500 executives...

To be fair, I haven't seen the inside of an executive bathroom. I assume there's small Thai boys wafting palm fronds, a debonair older gentleman whose sole purpose is to demurely hand you a towel, and I suppose a bucket of cocaine wouldn't be out of place....

But also to be fair, I look at the execs at my company, and, well, they don't exactly look like the cool kids who were huffing lines off a cistern-lid.

Gravey wrote:

why even have urinals in the first place and make some stalls unusable to half the users? Wouldn't it be more efficient to have all toilets?

Having lived in a former all-women's dorm I can assure you, without urinals, some of the stalls will still become unusable for anything requiring sitting very quickly.

Quote is not edit.

Mesha Caldwell, 41
Jamie Lee Wounded Arrow, 28
JoJo Striker, 23
Tiara Lashaytheboss Richmond, 24
Jaquarrius Holland, 18
Chyna Doll Dupree, 31
Ciara McElveen, 21
Alphonza Watson, 38
Chayviss Reed
Brenda Bostick, 59
Sherrell Faulkner, 46
Kenne McFadden, 26
Josie Berrios, 28
Ava Le'Ray Barrin, 17
Ebony Morgan, 28
Troy "Tee Tee" Dangerfield, 32
Gwynevere River Song, 26