So Iwas reading this article, http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/07/19/there_s_no_such_thing_as_a_male_body.html . It references this: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/AdkinsDecl.pdf a testimony wrt gendering or sexing trans people and the problems of using such simplifications as "male" and "female".

Natural variations in sex characteristics like hormones, chromosomes, genitals, gonads, exist. In persons with variable sex characteristics, it's incoherent to attempt to apply "male or female bodied", and assuming a person's sex without considering their gender identity is equivalent to shooting everyone involved in the foot. From a medical perspective, using someone's gender identity as their sex is much more useful in any case of variation than to attempt to forcibly classify that person as some sex. In this way, the patient (especially an infant born with variations of sexual characteristics) will not have to later pursue further changes to rectify treatments that were based on the assumption of someone's sex.

Indeed, it would be useful to think of gender identity as another variable of sex (i.e. look at gender identity as a sexual characteristic) with natural variations but also the most important variable in determining the direction of treatment.

I'm on my phone and just woke up so I might have said weird things.

Edit: therefore, any bill or law that predicates itself on governing over male or female bodies is absurd especially so-called "bathroom bills".

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 24 2016, 3:38 pm by Sand Wraith.

There are a LOT of absurd laws out there.

No need to add more of those then ^^

I take issue with calling such laws "absurd".

Pretty much all laws work by restricting the freedom of some people in some situations, in order to maximise the general health and well-being of society as a whole. Road rules take away the freedom for you to drive at any speed that you want on the road, but in return allow everyone to have (relatively) safe usage of the road system, which increases productivity enormously.

I'm unsure if there are specific laws about bathrooms being for men or women, but it's certainly a cultural norm of western society, and if you were found to be in the wrong bathroom then you'd be at risk of a warning from the police, if not being arrested. Bathroom etiquette I suspect is mostly to protect women from men. While there's nothing stopping a man from going into the women's bathroom at the moment (and certainly that happens), a lot of sexual assaults and unwanted attention are crimes of opportunity; if men routinely were in the same bathrooms as women, then the incidents of a man or men attacking a lone woman would significantly increase.

So, having laws or social custom around gender-separation of bathrooms makes sense. Similarly laws that say men go to mens prisons and women go to womens prisons also have valid justification.

Calling these laws "absurd" is an over-reaction. Yes, for people of non-binary gender these laws and social norms can impose undue burden, but overall they are good for society. That doesn't mean that the laws shouldn't change and I'm not arguing against changing them, I'm just pointing out that calling them "absurd" when they do produce positive value for society as a whole is a silly position to take. Note also that I'm not talking about laws around stating that you must use the bathroom of your birth-gender, because I think overall these harm society more than they protect it - trans women who are forced to use the mens toilets when they would otherwise choose not to, are likely to be victims of assault.

Calling them absurd is my hyperbole. But I believe I can prove it. I want to attack that even as far as crimes of opportunity go, those laws that attempt to control bathroom or locker room usage based on assignation of gender at birth or gender marker on one's birth certificate will not actually reduce the criminal's opportunity unless they are strictly enforced, either by a human or automated system. If it's enforced prior to bathroom access there's going to be a huge ethical and practical mess regarding privacy and how to actually perform enforcement. Anyone, cis or trans, will have to be subject to scrutiny.

On the other hand, if it's enforced only when citizens report occurrences, this means anyone can be "not normal enough" to anyone else, including between cis people. In fact, bigots have already begun to harass other cis people over their appearance.

And if someone does end up getting reported, there remains the issue that you've pointed out that the trans person might be obviously not suited to one bathroom or another. And they still have to piss or shit, so you either key then do that first or a law enforced gets shit and piss everywhere.

So human rights issues aside, moral issues surrounding treating trans citizens as second class citizens, social issues aside: All that aside, the bills are still unenforceable, ineffective, or inconvenient for everyone involved. Hence why I call them absurd.

Critics of trans rights laws like to try to cast the whole laws or amendments into this bathroom context even though such laws aren't meant only for that context and they also wouldn't protect people engaged in criminal behavior, which is nearly entirely cis men who are the perpetrators and basically never trams women (or men).

I don't think you got the point of my post. I said this:
Ie, I don't support a law that says which bathroom you can use based on what it says on your birth certificate because I think that does more harm than good. But I do support a law that says people who identify as the female gender should use the female bathroom and people who identify as the male gender should use the male one, if they so choose.

I was mostly objecting to you saying this (emphasis added):

oops. Reading abilities

That said, how many laws are there are in the world that make such an attempt to hidden over male or female bodies?

Based on the Slate article and the testimony of the doctor before the NC court, I still hold to the opinion that laws based on regulating male or female bodies on the basis of birth certificate are still relying on the broken concept of a binary between male and female bodies.

I hope what you meant with that is that they need to go through a whole gender changing process first. Like name and gender change on your passport. It has to be documented so you cant change it as you please.

As for the whole bathroom issue. I guess you should go to the bathroom that best fits your physical attributes. That means you only get to see dicks if you have one yourself. That's also to protect the others from seeing things they don't expect.

People don't wave around their genitals in front of others when they use the washroom.

Pissoirs.

Also I bet woman would feel uncomfortable if someone with the appearance of a man entered the bathroom, regardless of what they get to see or not.

Well, it's preferable that they have some sort of official documentation stating their gender, but I don't think that's necessary.

So a transman would be forced to use the female bathroom because they don't have dicks? You'd force Buck Angel to use the women's bathrooms? What do you think the average cis woman would think about Buck Angel going into their bathroom?

It's very much necessary. Otherwise I could just use whatever bathroom I choose.

I'd force him to use whatever bathroom best fits their physical attributes. To define a best fit surely is a difficult task in this case since he's got a lot of male attributes but a female sex organ.

So who would like to confirm this man's sex organs? Are any of them his doctor? No?. . .

I think it's pretty simple, really.

You should use the bathroom that is safest for you, and those around you.

If people think you look very masculine, use the men's bathroom. If people think you look very feminine, use the women's. If you're pretty androgynous looking, then the women's bathroom will be safer for you on average than the men's. If you're using a bathroom that others may have contention with you for using, then try and be discreet and non-threatening about it.