Victory For Common Sense?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35912227

[Quizproquo]

If pervs were going to dress as women to perv at women in the loo, they already can.
To use that as an argument for transgender usage is ridiculous quite frankly.

[jomifl]

Many's the time I've been having a pee in a lavatory in France when a woman/transgender? has walked past me to use the cubicle. I ain't a big deal, why make an issue out of it? Brits are such prudes.

[jim360]

In the long run, as and when it comes up, I would have to go to one toilet or the other. In one, I would feel uncomfortable and (possibly) a few others also might. In the other, I wouldn't feel nearly as uncomfortable, but possibly a few others might. In both cases, all I'm interested in is getting it over and done with. So far as I can tell, this is true with pretty much everybody. And the ones for whom it's not true are probably already abusing it. It's not like toilet use is policed currently; so far as I can tell, it's a self-enforced rule borne of etiquette.

Again, the basic point I'm trying to make is that "no transwomen in the ladies'" is based not on any actual dangers, or abuses, but just on the perception of a risk that doesn't actually exist. Or, as far as it does, it's not worth penalising the law-abiding majority for.

As it happens, this is an issue that could affect me personally. In a sense, since this is hardly the first time I've thought about it, it already has done. As and when it comes up, I'll go to the loo I feel most comfortable in. Thankfully, in this country most people are too polite to complain in person anyway.

[sp1814]

Just a point here...the Georgia bill has nothing to do with this...'Loogate' diversion.

Just in case people thought it was.

[mikey4444]

Well said SP !

[jim360]

Hmm. Not directly, but the "Loogate" laws, or bills, have been doing the rounds for a while lately to, and are part of the general debate of how far trans* rights should go. I hope most would agree that religiously-motivated discrimination shouldn't be legal, at least.

[jackthehat]

Loogate.....pervs.....and child-molesters.....the thread certainly took a meander right down 'Paranoia Avenue'....LoL

All that aside, vetoing the bill *was* a great victory for common sense.

[Togo]

So jim we have to be able to guage whether a person has had a trip to the dressing up box before being able to ascertain common ground and cause. Everybody back on the bus when you go to the loo?

[Peter Pedant]

has everyone spent their two-penny-worth on loogate ?

I really feel we are getting bogged down with piddling points of order ....

[Togo]

// I really feel we are getting bogged down with piddling//

Lol, he says such things khazi can.

[naomi24]

Quizproquo, //If pervs were going to dress as women to perv at women in the loo, they already can.//

So give them carte blanche to do it. What a good idea!!

Jom, //Many's the time I've been having a pee in a lavatory in France when a woman/transgender? has walked past me to use the cubicle. I ain't a big deal,//

Forgive me for pointing this out, but you’re not a woman, you’re not a child - you’re a bloke and hardly at risk from a creep dressed as a woman.

jackthehat, // 'Paranoia Avenue'....LoL//

Ah, right. It's all paranoia. Right on! Err… lol. ;o)

Jim, It's the impossibility of separating the genuine from the perverts, but as SP says, this thread isn't about Loogate. Still an interesting discussion anyway - even if it is all hypothetical.

[Quizproquo]

Quizproquo, //If pervs were going to dress as women to perv at women in the loo, they already can.//

So give them carte blanche to do it. What a good idea!!

Oh come on Naomi, you just muckstirring with that.

[Quizproquo]

You're

[Svejk]

When out and about with my young daughter, the only time I'd let her out of my sight was to use the women's toilets.
Call me old fashioned, indeed, call me a bigot, but I would have worried if I thought there were men dressed as women in there. Generally speaking, one feels women are more trustworthy around children. (well, I do)

[naomi24]

Quizproquo , //Oh come on Naomi, you just muckstirring with that.//

No, I’m realistic. We’re talking about allowing men dressed as women to use Ladies toilets. It might be de rigueur to empathise with the problems that trans-gender people face, but it simply isn’t sensible to ignore the undoubted consequences that such a concession would engender. It would be abused.

[mikey4444]

TTT...how it must gladden your heart to see how quickly your very simple but important question, resulted into daft whittering about toilets !

[naomi24]

Mikey, I don't know how this thread evolved into this subject, but there are some here who think it's relevant - Jim for one.

[jim360]

Everything is open to abuse, all the time, ever. That's no reason for doing the sensible thing and recognising that the "abusers" are too rare to define the law around.

I agree that the toilet discussion has gone on longer than I'm sure anyone would have intended it to. But then, hey, that's because someone would make a short point, someone else would reply, that answer invited a further reply, and so on. And it *is* relevant, indirectly at least, as for starters it's included in the article linked in the OP. It seems obvious that some people are happy enough assuming that "men dressed as women" (which, is, anyway, a bit of a dismissive term to use when describing transwomen) ought, implicitly to be treated as "perverts until proven otherwise". That's how it's coming across, and if people on the other side of this discussion can't see that they should read what they have written. It's fairly unpleasant reading. Almost everybody in the world, ever, walks into the toilet for the sole reason of using it. Nothing else. They should be treated that way.

[naomi24]

Jim, you're responsible for your perceptions, no one else.

[jim360]

Read svejk's post, then. The reason you, and others, feel uncomfortable is because transgender women (or crossdressers; and, incidentally, you probably wouldn't even know in many cases one way or another anyway) "might" be there for perverse reasons. If that's your default assumption, or if at least you don't start off by treating such people as innocent, what other perception is there to draw from that?

To turn something around from earlier, I suppose: at the risk of sounding uncaring, I don't see why their problem (of feeling uncomfortable) should create a problem for any transwoman (or someone presenting as a woman at the time) who needs to use the loo.