Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Apr 2016, 1:29 am


Indeed. No evidence of a problem across 12 states.

Experts in 12 states -- including law enforcement officials, government employees, and advocates for victims of sexual assault -- have debunked the right-wing myth that sexual predators will exploit transgender non-discrimination laws to sneak into women's restrooms, calling the myth baseless and "beyond specious."


No need for hard line rules. No need for "compromise" (as generously as bbauska thinks it is to "allow" post-op transsexuals to use the bathroom they want to).
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Jul 2016, 10:52 am

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/07/man-dressed-woman-caught-taking-photos-dressing-room/

Does this count as evidence of a problem?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 14 Jul 2016, 1:53 am


Yes. Is the problem voyeurism, which would always be a problem? Does East Idaho have any laws on bathroom gender?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 14 Jul 2016, 5:38 am

I don't think it really matters what they do in Idaho does it? Those who support the "anything goes" law point out this doesn't happen and it's a non-issue. Yet here we have an example that is brushed aside (as have a few others). If you wish to reply with something along the lines of this being "incredibly rare" or point to how it will happen regardless of what the law is or something along those lines, fine! But to say one thing and then ignore examples that disprove the claim is pretty foolish isn't it?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 14 Jul 2016, 10:07 am

The issue happened in a Target store, and it is allowed there. You asked for an example. I gave one.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Jul 2016, 2:54 am

bbauska wrote:The issue happened in a Target store, and it is allowed there. You asked for an example. I gave one.

OK. I also asked about the law, but I guess that's more than you are prepared to research.

But the other part of my comment was about how they were caught. Was it that they were seen using a camera? Or were they checked because they were "male looking"?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 17 Jul 2016, 1:24 pm

That answer is in the article. Suspect was taking pictures.

You stated "Indeed. No evidence of a problem across 12 states."

I give evidence of a problem. Take it or leave it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Jul 2016, 3:47 pm

bbauska wrote:That answer is in the article. Suspect was taking pictures.

You stated "Indeed. No evidence of a problem across 12 states."

I give evidence of a problem. Take it or leave it.
Those were the States where laws against discrimination have been put in place. Again, is Idaho one of those? Has there been an increase in the incidence of such events? Or is it an underlying problem that pre-existed legal and policy changes?

And the answer is that they were detected because they were using a camera. Not because their gender was suspicious itself.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 17 Jul 2016, 5:13 pm

What did you mean when you said "Indeed. No evidence of a problem across 12 states."

Transgender, in women's changing room, taking picture, problem.

What would it take to be a problem that would meet the criteria you alluded to in those 12 states? Are you saying it is not a problem because it didn't happen in one of the 12?

What is your point?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 18 Jul 2016, 10:50 am

does it matter if it were legal or not in Idaho?
If it were legal, it happened and it's an example
and if it were not legal, ummm, how does that matter, this person went and did it when illegal, how is that person now legally being allowed to be there going to stop them from taking pics/perversion?

The legality matters not
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jul 2016, 11:48 am

What about this. A cis-woman not only taking photos of naked women in the changing room, but body-shaming them.

Seems gender is not always the issue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... it-online/
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Jul 2016, 12:10 pm

danivon wrote:What about this. A cis-woman not only taking photos of naked women in the changing room, but body-shaming them.

Seems gender is not always the issue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... it-online/


Are you now agreeing that it was a problem that happened in a changing room, and are from a transgendered person? I did not see any answer to what I said. Perhaps silence is agreement...

It most certainly IS wrong to do what that Playboy model did, and I am glad she lost her job, lost her gym access and I hope she is arrested, convicted, and serves jail time.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jul 2016, 12:28 pm

If you read my response to you post where you brought up the case, what was my first word?

The point is, even a (non trans) woman can be a problem in bathrooms and changing areas. And a committed voyeur or attacker is not going to meekly follow laws.

As there already are laws against voyeurism (let alone assault, rape etc), is that not sufficient?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 18 Jul 2016, 12:59 pm

No kidding others can be a problem but the answer to this specific issue is that it didn't matter. Now we show examples where it does matter and we get this nonsense of others doing the same.
I believe someone is moving the goalposts perhaps?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jul 2016, 1:43 pm

Not at all. I am pretty sure the woman whose body was plastered over the Internet thinks what happened "matters".

But even if you discount that, the flip side is bad behaviour that "matters" by men in men's rooms. Pretty sure we can find plenty of evidence of that. Would that also be moving to goalposts?

The real question is not whether some transgender people are a threat (like any other group there will be good and bad). No one ever said that no transgender people could ever be bad.

The question is whether rules about bathroom use, or rules to bar discrimination affect the risks.

Anecdotes - or single cases - don't tell us that. Proper analysis of data would help. When you find some, please let me know.