I.P. Freely: Minneapolis, Transgender Bathrooms Since 1975

[Nice Squirrel]

Still, the sheer length of time that Minneapolis’ ordinance has been on the books serves as perhaps the strongest piece of evidence to date refuting the widely circulated charge that similar LGBT protections somehow jeopardize the safety of others. From what those credited with the ordinance’s existence can remember, bathrooms – as a potential breeding ground for sexual assault or harassment – belong to a younger generation’s anti-LGBT playbook.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-minneapolis-became-the-first-city-the-country-pass-trans-protections

 

[ronburgundy]

Still, the sheer length of time that Minneapolis’ ordinance has been on the books serves as perhaps the strongest piece of evidence to date refuting the widely circulated charge that similar LGBT protections somehow jeopardize the safety of others. From what those credited with the ordinance’s existence can remember, bathrooms – as a potential breeding ground for sexual assault or harassment – belong to a younger generation’s anti-LGBT playbook.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-minneapolis-became-the-first-city-the-country-pass-trans-protections

Note the ordinance allows any person "having a preference for such an attachment" where that attachment refers to an emotional attachment to another person. IOW, any male that merely prefers the idea that the women in a bathroom consensual have an emotional attachment to them is allowed in the women's bathroom. In sum, wanting to have sex with women makes it legal to enter their bathroom whether they consent to it or not, so long as you would prefer that they consent to it.

Rather absurd.

Also, the fact that some obscure law that almost no one (including the cops) likely no about is technically on the books doesn't mean much of anything. The only thing that matters is what the actual practice is. When men enter women's restrooms does no one in MN ever pay any attention and act like nothing is wrong? If not, then it proves such an ordinance means nothing and is unknown to the general public. It is likely that for these 40 years virtually all biological males that are not full-on transexuals (i.e, medical and hormones changing of biological sex) have been using men's bathrooms, and the reverse for biological females. Thus, nothing can be inferred from the past 40 years about any consequences that would arise if such ordinances became widely known and manifested in actual practice.

Also, the cited article makes up the following bullshit:

"no person has ever been sexually assaulted or harassed in a bathroom by someone who is transgender;"

They appear to have just pulled this "fact" out of their ass. But more importantly, it is an irrelevant strawman. The concern is not that actual transgender's would assault someone in the bathroom. The concern that has been expressed is about non-transgenders being able to enter women's bathrooms at will for the purpose of sexual assault. This concerns is based in the fact that there is zero objective difference between a transgender and a non-transgenders other than whether they choose to say at any point that they identify as a "X".

and no policy protecting LGBT people has ever provided legal cover to someone pretending to be transgender in order to attack another person in the bathroom. No policy ever would.

This is complete bullshit they have no evidence for. Such a law cannot give legal cover to a person who is arrested for actually attacking someone. Whether they had a right to be in the bathroom at all is a moot point once they are charged with actual assault. However, without such a "right", then before they ever attack, the moment the walk into the bathroom, they have done something wrong that would put all on alert and warrant their ejection. If those who are objectively and appear to all to be biological males must be accepted as having full access to women's restrooms, then such an early warning about a sexual predator is completely lost. There is no available data that would indicate that no man has never used such ordinances to enter women's rooms for criminal purposes, because if they leave without engaging in assault (such as because they realize their are too many other women in there), then it would never be known what their intent was and if the engage in actual assault then their use of the ordinance of cover to enter the room would never come up because it is moot to the issue of their actual crime.

Besides, as per my response to the prior point, the obscure unknown and unpracticed nature of the law means that how it has been used or abused in the past is irrelevant to what it would allow, enable, and make more likely if it became standard known practice to allow any man who wants to, to enter the women's room.

The bottom line is that the effect on non-trans males abusing the "right" for nefarious reasons hinges directly upon whether the "right" is widely known, practiced and emphasized as extending to any all people, no matter how biologically male they still are and look. These qualities have not been true up to now, and since NDOs haven't been used in this way, this leaves little room for non-trans men to abuse such rights.

 

[prideandfall]

a bunch of stupid bullshit

this is all totally and utterly refuted by the fact that this has been possible all along, and it never happened - so you're advocating panic over a complete non-entity.

you know what i consider to be fucking ironic?
these self important hypocritical fucksticks lose their god damn minds about "the childrens!" being molested in the bathroom by some creepy perverted guy in a dress, and then to better protect them take them to church to be an altar boy.

 

[Lion IRC]

"...It may be fair to say that the general public didn’t understand what we were talking about back then anyway.”

Yeah. LOL

 

[RavenSky]

a bunch of stupid bullshit

this is all totally and utterly refuted by the fact that this has been possible all along, and it never happened - so you're advocating panic over a complete non-entity.

you know what i consider to be fucking ironic?
these self important hypocritical fucksticks lose their god damn minds about "the childrens!" being molested in the bathroom by some creepy perverted guy in a dress, and then to better protect them take them to church to be an altar boy.

The other glaring problem with them losing their minds about "children" being molested in the girl's bathroom by a man dressing as a woman to get access to children to molest...

apparently they don't give a crap about boys in the boy's bathroom with those same hypothetical men?

 

[Lion IRC]

...you know what i consider to be fucking ironic?
these self important hypocritical fucksticks lose their god damn minds about "the childrens!" being molested in the bathroom by some creepy perverted guy in a dress, and then to better protect them take them to church to be an altar boy.

Those creepy perverted guys* are insidious.
Hiding everywhere.
And they will do anything to get around the law.

Speaking of getting around the law...why was it that Minneapolis needed to change their bathroom laws and who exactly was leading the push back in 1975? Please don't tell me that all those morally upright, puritan transgender folk suddenly woke up one morning needing to use a different bathroom the one they had been using prior to 1975?

See, the argument from no harm, no consequences cuts both ways. If folks who are confused or conflicted as to their gender identity (or perhaps just trans curious) have been using male/female toilets interchangeably up till now with no consequences, why exactly are we NOW changing the status quo?

*"creepy perverted guys" is not intended to be disparaging of LGBTQI folks