snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Rantidote (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Things you shouldn't have to tell people (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=96234)

crocoduck_hunter 25 November 2017 02:02 AM

Things you shouldn't have to tell people
 
If you don't want to be accused of being a transphobe, maybe you shouldn't use transphobic dog whistles all the time.

Seaboe Muffinchucker 27 November 2017 03:42 PM

What's a transphobic dog whistle?

Seaboe

GenYus234 27 November 2017 04:29 PM

One example would be how North Carolina's infamous anti-transgender HB2 bill was titled "Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act" to strongly suggest that allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of their gender would be dangerous.

ETA: From what I've seen, most dog whistles against transgender people take that tack or a similar one such as the politician who said that he as child (and by extension) other boys would have pretended to be transgender in order to be allowed into the girls' locker room, suggesting that transgender identity is pretend. The other attacks generally seem to be the same as ones against gay people, that they are more prone to criminal acts, especially child molestation, that they are attempting to convert young people, and that they are suffering from mental disorders that can be "cured".

crocoduck_hunter 27 November 2017 06:46 PM

This person was continually referring to people believing that they're transgender and was otherwise implying that it's a delusion.

Seaboe Muffinchucker 27 November 2017 07:36 PM

Thank you for your very coherent explanation, GenYus. I'm glad I didn't ask whether it was like a wolf whistle (give me a break; I'd never heard the term before).

I'm sorry to say I have a coworker of whom I'm quite fond who uses "only wants to use the women's room for nefarious purposes" argument.

Seaboe

Sooeygun 27 November 2017 07:48 PM

Put your dirty dishes in the dishwasher!

First, there's the dope in our office that leaves his oatmeal dish 'soaking' in the sink, but never returns to put it in the dishwasher (we haven't yet figured out which dope is doing it).

Second, was the guy in the kitchen who took a mug from the cupboard, drank some water from it and then put it back in the cupboard (I have now identified him as one of the auditors that come from the accounting firm to look at our books). I would have said something to him at the time, but I only saw it out of the corner of my eye and thought I was mistaken...looked in the cupboard, and nope, not a mistake, there's the cold, wet mug sitting there amongst the clean mugs. Which also blows my first theory that he was putting it aside to use again later.

Bill 27 November 2017 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenYus234 (Post 1965112)
One example would be how North Carolina's infamous anti-transgender HB2 bill was titled "Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act" to strongly suggest that allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of their gender would be dangerous.

ETA: From what I've seen, most dog whistles against transgender people take that tack or a similar one such as the politician who said that he as child (and by extension) other boys would have pretended to be transgender in order to be allowed into the girls' locker room, suggesting that transgender identity is pretend.

This issue came up recently in a campaign for a state senate seat. One of the candidates used the word predators and seemed to be sincerely expressing a concern about predators, and did not say that transgender persons are predators. Nevertheless the other side was outraged.

In all seriousness, though, what about that argument?

Suppose a man who is not transgender goes into the women's locker room. One of the women complains and the facility calls the police. The man tells them, "But, Officer, you don't understand. I'm transgender! That's my gender identity!" Would the police have to take his word for it and say, "Well, if he says he's transgender, he's transgender, and we have to take his word for it. Sorry, ladies, we can't throw him out."

I know that *transgender persons* are not *predators* and that this situation has not frequently happened. But I can see women not comfortable with a man who is not transgender in a woman's facility, and I'm asking in all sincerity if there's some mechanism to prevent it.

Thanks.

Bill

GenYus234 27 November 2017 10:21 PM

Things will vary widely between states and I don't how widespread this is, but in Arizona, a person in the process of transitioning can get a driver's license with her female name and picture*. In that case, a truly transgendered person would be in the same position as a male-appearing cis-woman, they would simply (if embarrassingly) show the police officer their driver's license or other ID that shows that they are in the correct locker room. And a cis-man pretending to be transgendered would be in the same position as it stands now, he would not have an official ID stating that he was actually a woman and could be prosecuted.

ETA: Getting this license requires a doctor to submit that the person has irrevocably committed to the transition. I don't know exactly what that entails**, but a friend of mine was able to get her driver's license as female before she had fully come out.

* Assuming a cis-male transitioning to female as per the hypothetical.
** I would guess beginning to take female hormones would qualify.

Bill 27 November 2017 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenYus234 (Post 1965145)
Things will vary widely between states and I don't how widespread this is, but in Arizona, a person in the process of transitioning can get a driver's license with her female name and picture*. In that case, a truly transgendered person would be in the same position as a male-appearing cis-woman, they would simply (if embarrassingly) show the police officer their driver's license or other ID that shows that they are in the correct locker room. And a cis-man pretending to be transgendered would be in the same position as it stands now, he would not have an official ID stating that he was actually a woman and could be prosecuted.

ETA: Getting this license requires a doctor to submit that the person has irrevocably committed to the transition. I don't know exactly what that entails**, but a friend of mine was able to get her driver's license as female before she had fully come out.

* Assuming a cis-male transitioning to female as per the hypothetical.
** I would guess beginning to take female hormones would qualify.

Thanks for the reply.

So, apparently, the person in my example (the cis-man who is not transgendered), who has not taken any steps toward transitioning could still be prosecuted. Just claiming to be transgender apparently isn't enough.

Thanks.

Bill

Darth Credence 27 November 2017 10:57 PM

First, I'm going to summarize what I think Bill is saying. Since I may misunderstand, I want to make sure we are clear.
The question is about if what appears to be a cis-man is in a women's locker room, right? Such that a cis-woman in the locker room thinks that it is a predator, and calls the police? With the statement that it seems like there should be a way to remove this cis-man?

If that is the case, I have a number of issues. First, it could actually be a trans-man, who due to laws in the state is in the locker room that laws require them to be in. Here is a story about a man who was born a woman, but you wouldn't think so by looking. A North Carolina style bathroom bill would require him to be in the women's locker room.
Second, there are certainly cis-women who can easily be mistaken for men. The man in the linked article mentioned that he was always looked at strangely in the women's bathrooms before he started to transition. That is looking how he was born, matching the gender on the BC.
Third, most trans people will just want to do what everyone else wants to do - finish what needs to be done and get out. Making any kind of stink about who should and should not be there is just slowing that down.
And finally, allowing trans-people in the bathroom will not change anything about predators in bathrooms. If a perverted cis-man wants to go in a women's locker room, they could do so just as easily in the past as now. If they are creeping in the locker room, it shouldn't matter if it is a cis-man, trans-man, cis-woman, trans-woman, or any other type of gender that I haven't mentioned. Being a creep is the problem. The mechanism to prevent it is the same as someone being a creep anywhere, which unfortunately means not a lot. If this was a true concern for someone, and not just a 'keep the weird people away from me' deal, they would certainly be pushing for much more stringent laws on protecting people in the workplace, or school, or pretty much anywhere. Trans people in bathrooms doesn't even come close to registering as a big driver of sexual assault and harassment.

GenYus234 27 November 2017 11:01 PM

Generally, officers aren't going to take claims of innocence at face value without some proof. If a young looking person is seen drinking alcohol, just claiming they are actually an adult with panhypopituitarism would probably not be enough.

Bill 27 November 2017 11:29 PM

Thanks for the reply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Credence (Post 1965147)
First, I'm going to summarize what I think Bill is saying. Since I may misunderstand, I want to make sure we are clear.
The question is about if what appears to be a cis-man is in a women's locker room, right? Such that a cis-woman in the locker room thinks that it is a predator, and calls the police? With the statement that it seems like there should be a way to remove this cis-man?

That is essentially the intended question, with the addition that the cis-woman does not necessarily think the other person is a predator, but just plain isn't comfortable with that person being in the room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Credence (Post 1965147)
And finally, allowing trans-people in the bathroom will not change anything about predators in bathrooms. If a perverted cis-man wants to go in a women's locker room, they could do so just as easily in the past as now. If they are creeping in the locker room, it shouldn't matter if it is a cis-man, trans-man, cis-woman, trans-woman, or any other type of gender that I haven't mentioned. Being a creep is the problem. The mechanism to prevent it is the same as someone being a creep anywhere, which unfortunately means not a lot. If this was a true concern for someone, and not just a 'keep the weird people away from me' deal, they would certainly be pushing for much more stringent laws on protecting people in the workplace, or school, or pretty much anywhere. Trans people in bathrooms doesn't even come close to registering as a big driver of sexual assault and harassment.

Right. As I said, I understand that transgender people are not necessarily predators.

But I'm pretty sure most women would not be comfortable with *men* in the locker room with them, whether they're predators or not.

Thanks.

Bill

ganzfeld 27 November 2017 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill (Post 1965144)
Suppose a man who is not transgender goes into the women's locker room. One of the women complains and the facility calls the police. The man tells them, "But, Officer, you don't understand. I'm transgender! That's my gender identity!" Would the police have to take his word for it and say, "Well, if he says he's transgender, he's transgender, and we have to take his word for it. Sorry, ladies, we can't throw him out."

How many times in the history of humankind have men claimed to be transgender in order to go into a woman's locker room. It's just an absurd fantasy, honestly, not a realistic situation. Even if it did happen once or twice in that long sordid history of stupid things people do, so what? There are lots and lots of other absurd things people can claim or do to defraud or threaten others and we don't have laws that disenfranchise others because of those (in most situations rare) cases. Why? Because people don't really give a darn about trans people's rights. Why? Because on some level even if they don't admit it many still believe this kind of ridiculous fantasy.

Sue 27 November 2017 11:59 PM

The answer to the question is no - no a man cannot hang around in a woman's bathroom and then play the transgender card and think the police have to take his word for it. If his sole source for "how can I peek at gals and get away with it" is right wing news sources then he's going to be in for a big surprise if he tries to pull that kind of con.

ganzfeld 28 November 2017 01:44 AM

What if a famous reality TV schlep used his position as a pageant staff to go into the women's dressing room?! That's why we don't allow men to be involved with pageants! Not really. Because we don't give much of a damn about the rights of a man born without a willy - or vice versa - to use the bathroom of their own gender verses the "right" of a man to be involved with a pageant. That's how little societies think of "those" people. As soon as people try to give them the slightest consideration (g)we jump to conclusions that haven't ever even been proposed for actual and existing predators victimizing people on a daily basis.

Don Enrico 28 November 2017 06:29 AM

Adding to everything said above, I would assume that even a (cis) woman in a womens locker room can be thrown out and be questioned by the police or even be prosecuted if she behaves in a creepy or harrassing manner.

Let's agree that we already have "no creeps in the locker room" laws and don't need "no trans in the locker room" laws.

thorny locust 28 November 2017 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill (Post 1965150)
I'm pretty sure most women would not be comfortable with *men* in the locker room with them, whether they're predators or not.

Then they're not going to be comfortable with trans men in the locker room with them. Which is exactly what laws which require people to use the locker room of the gender they were assigned at birth would cause to happen.

Seaboe Muffinchucker 28 November 2017 03:01 PM

Am I wrong that most transgendered people try to appear the gender they are moving toward? That is, a cis-woman would appear to be a woman, and a trans-male would appear to be a male?

If this is true, how would the XX woman know that the cis-woman was not a woman in the first place, in order to call the cops?

Seaboe

Lainie 28 November 2017 03:12 PM

Especially since there are cis women who may appear "masculine" to an observer for one reason or another (height, deep voice, manner of dress, etc.), but are not transgender.

GenYus234 28 November 2017 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker (Post 1965176)
If this is true, how would the XX woman know that the cis-woman was not a woman in the first place, in order to call the cops?

You're putting in at least 10,000% more thought into this scenario than the people who came up with it and are only using it as a scare tactic to drum up voters.

thorny locust 28 November 2017 05:33 PM

Seaboe, I think you've got your example people mixed up, don't you? Cis women are women who are female on their birth certificates and also in their identification. XX women are probably cis, but chromosomes don't always match genital appearance at birth, which is what gender assignments are usually made by.

I don't see how it's enforceable in practice except by posting guards outside all multi-stall bathroom doors to either check ID, and/or make everybody drop their pants outside the john to show their genitals. The first doesn't work for the intended purpose if some people's ID's have been changed to reflect the new/more accurate gender. And the second doesn't work for the intended purpose if people have had surgery and/or are intersex. And of course neither of them works for any purpose because, even aside from privacy issues, who's going to pay for all of those guards? [ETA: plus which, of course, neither of them works because either will result in some people being allowed only into the women's room who will be taken by other users for men, and vice versa.]

A law saying people had to use the bathroom designed for the gender they're presenting as would solve some of those problems, but (aside from not satisfying the people who are trying to jam everybody into one of two boxes) would create a new set. What about people who present ambiguously? And how are you going to define presentation? I mean, I am very cis female (though it's true I've never had my DNA checked.) But my outer clothing is often work pants and shirt and boots designed for men. If I weren't large breasted, I might well confuse people. And I know flat chested cis females who dress similarly.

When you add on to all of this the fact that at least a large part of the reason for separating the genders in bathrooms was a presumption that people couldn't be sexually attracted to others of the same gender, and that this is obviously not true . . . it seems to me that we need to provide a reasonable degree of individual privacy in bathrooms etc., and then stop worrying about who's using which one. Everybody uses the same bathrooms in houses, on planes, etc. anyway.

GenYus234 28 November 2017 05:51 PM

I refer the right honorable gentleperson to the answer I gave some moments ago.

First off, you have to remember that ultimately this is about using fear to whip up a group against a visible other that can be vilified. Actual practicality doesn't figure into it.

Then you have to recall that the politicians who do the whipping often have a mindview that jams everyone into pigeonholes with no wiggle room. So anyone who isn't gender normative is also wrong and needs to fix that. For example, they'd probably say that you wouldn't have a problem if you dress in skirts and blouses like a woman is supposed to do (and if you need to wear pants for you job, you aren't in the correct job for a woman).

ETA: I understand the theory behind pointing out the inherit problems in the idea, but if the nasty things it would do to a transgendered person's psyche aren't part of the calculation, I doubt logistical issues would hold sway.

crocoduck_hunter 28 November 2017 06:40 PM

Don't a lot of European countries have unisex bathrooms?

thorny locust 28 November 2017 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenYus234 (Post 1965196)
ETA: I understand the theory behind pointing out the inherit problems in the idea, but if the nasty things it would do to a transgendered person's psyche aren't part of the calculation, I doubt logistical issues would hold sway.

Not with the people doing the whipping-up, no. With some of the people they're trying to get whipped up, it may be a different matter.

Die Capacitrix 28 November 2017 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter (Post 1965206)
Don't a lot of European countries have unisex bathrooms?

Yes and no.

The trains in Switzerland have unisex bathrooms and there is a suggestion to change this. (sorry, no cite)

In the Luzern train station there is a public bathroom, which you have to pay for, which offers individual toilet stalls with fully closing doors and shared hand-washing facilities with urinals through a separate entrance, as the urinals are cheaper.

A restaurant re-opened after a renovation with a unisex WC. There was a lot of drama, partially because it is illegal. (Article in German) The discussion is still going on, the restaurant is still open with only a unisex WC, and this will probably take some time before it gets resolved.

It appears this is not just Luzern, but Swiss-wide, but just for restaurants. Trains aren't covered.

Here in Switzerland I've been to a number of public places where the facilities for women was woefully inadequate, and the women started using the men's room, without anyone blinking an eye. In the U.S. someone might decide to post a guard. Maybe.

(Now that I've typed this, I think I might have written something similar before.)

Lainie 28 November 2017 07:44 PM

ISTR stories of women being ejected from establishments or even fined ("disorderly conduct") for using the men's restroom. Ridiculous BS, IMO.

GenYus234 28 November 2017 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorny locust (Post 1965211)
Not with the people doing the whipping-up, no. With some of the people they're trying to get whipped up, it may be a different matter.

YMMV, but I would say that the people they are whipping up would be even less likely to think of the practicality of it. The politicians are doing it as a thought-out process, the rabble is reacting solely on emotion.

Seaboe Muffinchucker 28 November 2017 07:46 PM

Die Capacitrix,
You mean they're debating making the potties on the train itself be reserved for a particular sex? And they expect people of the "wrong" sex to actually go to a less convenient potty, just because they didn't select a seat close enough to the right one?

I've never been on a train, airplane or bus that had anything other than unisex bathrooms.

Seaboe

Lainie 28 November 2017 07:48 PM

Planes and buses have unisex bathrooms. It makes perfect sense to me for trains to have them, for pretty much the same reasons.

WildaBeast 28 November 2017 07:55 PM

Interestingly Interjet, which I've heard described as "Mexico's JetBlue", has a designated women's toilet on their planes. As far as I know the other toilets are all unisex, though.

thorny locust 28 November 2017 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenYus234 (Post 1965218)
YMMV, but I would say that the people they are whipping up would be even less likely to think of the practicality of it. The politicians are doing it as a thought-out process, the rabble is reacting solely on emotion.

The politicians are very likely not interested in the practicality; they're interested in votes. They may even be counting on being prevented by the courts, and/or opponents, from ever having to deal with the practicality. (I strongly suspect that's what happened with the Republicans and the ACA. They didn't have an alternative plan because they didn't expect to need one; they didn't think Trump was going to win either.)

I don't like referring to large blocks of the voting public as "the rabble", or assuming that all of a very large group of people are reacting "solely on emotion" -- let alone that the ones opposing them aren't acting also on emotion. Without emotion, none of us are capable of wanting anything: not justice, and not dinner. But, having said all that: for those who are acting purely on the imagined emotional shock of finding A Man in the bathroom designated for women, it may be useful to call on the emotional shock of imagining themselves having to prove their gender, and their small children's gender, before being allowed to go pee. Or, for that matter, the emotional shock of looking at their tax bill, after their municipality hired enough police to stand outside all the public bathrooms in the city.

Don Enrico 29 November 2017 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter (Post 1965206)
Don't a lot of European countries have unisex bathrooms?

Public toilets in Germany are women's and men's toilets. The exeption are planes, trains and very small eating establishments (the law in Hamburg says: up to 50 squaremeters eating area) that have only one toilet stall, which obviously has to be unisex.

Toilets at the workplace are gendered in bigger organisations. Small companies - a small office or something like a car repair shop - sometimes have only one toilet. In the past, this fact has been used as an argument why a small repair shop can't possibly take on a woman as an apprentice to become a mechanic, because "where would she go to pee?!?". :(

Lainie 29 November 2017 01:29 PM

How can a woman and a man share a dwelling? Where will the woman go when she needs to pee?

kitap 29 November 2017 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter (Post 1965206)
Don't a lot of European countries have unisex bathrooms?

The lobbies of the hotels we stayed at in Florence and Venice did.

Die Capacitrix 29 November 2017 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitap (Post 1965266)
The lobbies of the hotels we stayed at in Florence and Venice did.

My Italian coworker's eyes cannot roll back into his head enough, when he hears about some of the Swiss narrowmindedness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Enrico (Post 1965254)
Toilets at the workplace are gendered in bigger organisations. Small companies - a small office or something like a car repair shop - sometimes have only one toilet. In the past, this fact has been used as an argument why a small repair shop can't possibly take on a woman as an apprentice to become a mechanic, because "where would she go to pee?!?". :(

Same in many parts of Switzerland. :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker (Post 1965219)
Die Capacitrix,
You mean they're debating making the potties on the train itself be reserved for a particular sex? And they expect people of the "wrong" sex to actually go to a less convenient potty, just because they didn't select a seat close enough to the right one?

I've never been on a train, airplane or bus that had anything other than unisex bathrooms.

Seaboe

Found an article in English. New high-speed train to go through the new Gotthard tunnel.
Quote:

In order to keep passengers occupied and happy on long trips through tunnels, the Giruno also features a range of additional amenities: a 3G/4G mobile communications amplifier, sockets at every seat, large luggage racks and separate toilets for men and women, as well as special toilets for disabled passengers.
And in German
Quote:

Er wird ab 2019 auf der Gotthardlinie der SBB fahren – und bietet eine interessante Neuerung: Im Giruno wird es «WC-Inseln» geben. Jede Insel besteht aus einem WC für alle, einem WC für Frauen sowie einem Pissoir.
Rough translation: As of 2019 the train will run on the SBB Gotthard line and offers an interesting novelty: In the Giruno train there will be a "bathroom island". Each island offers a bathroom for everyone (actually for disabled), a bathroom for women and a urinal for men.

ganzfeld 29 November 2017 08:25 PM

Many facilities around here have at least one toilet for everyone. People generally leave it open for the disabled or people with small children but anyone can use it.

Lainie 29 November 2017 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Die Capacitrix (Post 1965320)
And in German
Rough translation: As of 2019 the train will run on the SBB Gotthard line and offers an interesting novelty: In the Giruno train there will be a "bathroom island". Each island offers a bathroom for everyone (actually for disabled), a bathroom for women and a urinal for men.

So, if a man has to defecate while on the train, he'd need to use the "for everyone"/disabled bathroom?

ganzfeld 29 November 2017 10:08 PM

Reminds me of a funny situation like that here, many years ago, where the western-style toilet was marked with a "woman" pictogram and the urinal with "man". I don't know how we all knew that just meant urinal vs. toilet (not that men couldn't use the toilet) but it never even occurred to me until a foreign man who was staying there whispered in an embarrassed (and in my memory slightly desperate) tone "Psst, hey, Ganz, where are, uh, men supposed to go to, um, defecate??" :lol: Anyway, it's not at all uncommon here that one bathroom be for all, one for women, and sometimes a urinal, or not. I think that's a pretty reasonable arrangement. (Just my two cents. Maybe some men feel cheated or whatever.)

Seaboe Muffinchucker 30 November 2017 03:02 PM

The English article Die Capacitrix linked to made it sound like they think this separate bathroom thing is the height of luxury.

Seaboe

WildaBeast 30 November 2017 08:35 PM

TYSHTTP: Amazon reducing the price one day after you bought it is not a reason to give a book a one star review. You're supposed to be reviewing the book, not Amazon.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.