Why are we silent?

[Ahab]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have a question that pretains to this isssue.  Do women feel they are in a private space when they are using one of the stalls?

Ah, quite a challenge for a man to understand the feelings of women.

Good luck with all that.

[Avatar4321]

Are we silent? I'm way too loud and obnoxious

[mtomm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I have a question that pretains to this isssue.  Do women feel they are in a private space when they are using one of the stalls?

Private is too strong a word but certainly separate.  

[Bernard Gui]

We conservative Washingtonians have been shouted down.... the battle is over. It's just a matter of shutting up the wounded. The advocates of open facilities are militant, abusive, and focused. One learns to keep one's mouth shut.

Just this week:

http://mynorthwest.com/992/2913750/Man-caught-undressing-in-front-of-girls-at-Green-Lake-locker-room

All he had to do to be legal was to say, "I'm transgender," and he would have been within his rights to be in there.

Today, the sponsor of a state-wide voters initiative to repeal the Dept of Human Rights rules about gendered facilities reported the spamming of their website with hundreds of pornographic images, obscene language, threats of rape, and other intimidating actions. In our neighborhood school, if a child as young as kindergarten named John wants to be called Joan, the school must comply and cannot consult with parents. There are rules in place to enforce mixed gender restrooms, but so far the teachers have resisted and no one has pressed the point yet.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I have a question that pretains to this isssue.  Do women feel they are in a private space when they are using one of the stalls?

Semi-private...but in general I'd probably find it fairly uncomfortable to have a guy in there. I wasn't a big fan when the conference I went to decided to try unisex bathrooms when there was a focus on transgender issues at the therapy conference. I mean I went and tried the dude's bathroom...because, why not...but I prefer separate gender space when I'm doing my business.

[MorningStar]

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 2:09 PM, california boy said:

I have a question that pretains to this isssue.  Do women feel they are in a private space when they are using one of the stalls?

Not really. Someone could look under or over, plus some doors have bigger gaps than others.

Edited February 21, 2016 by MorningStar

[Daniel2]

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 8:10 PM, Anijen said:

1. I don't need your condescending attitude. 2. I didn't know one had to "know enough" to state their opinion.

Of course it is, you would rather have them silent, [those who opposes your beliefs]. 

No, and you spelled predators wrong. 

No, and I did not claim that.

Now to everyone else (not california boy). His posts is an example of the ridicule I knew would happen. And in his very first post he tried to shame me back into silence. 

Hi, Anijen,

It's understandably preferable to avoid feeling as if one's views are being condescendingly disparaged.

On BOTH sides of issues like this one, I can appreciate that many people tend to be very vocal and unnecessarily inflammatory in the public square, especially during in person exchanges in public rallies or when surrounded by crowds of like-minded supporters of which ever cause is being championed.

I am of the firm belief that even though we may disagree with others, we can avoid being disagreeable, and that understanding and progress of any cause is most often best-served through respectful dialogue.  I'm not always as patient as I'd like to be, and sometimes I fail at my own standards and say things that may be inflammatory due to my own frustration levels, but which I ultimately regret.

Having said all of the above... from my perspective, I hope that CaliforniaBoy's opening sentence (wondering if you "know enough to express your opinion on this matter") implied more condescension than he may have actually intended (EDIT: And from his subsequent posts, I see he explained he didn't mean to be offensive and apologized).  I note that your response responded in defense of his tone.

Even so, I think he made some salient points that are fairly reasonable and worth answering...  The two images he posted are representative of many trans-women (M-to-F, that is, "males that've transitioned to females") and men (F-to-M, that is, "females that've transitioned to males").  There are many other examples one could find online, including two trans men, both straight men married to women, who've been featured on the cover of Men's Health: (pg-rated images of shirtless trans-male bodybuilders, see here, here and here).  In the same fashion, there are many examples of very feminine trans women (males who have transitioned to females), including beauty pageant queens (see here), and have even participated in mainstream, non-trans beauty pageants (see here and here).  Two great collections of trans individuals were compiled in an article titled "Transgender People Share Photos of Themselves for #WhatTransLooksLike," and  can be found here and here.

The point, at least when it comes to being comfortable with other patrons using the same public restroom as you, is simply this: 

Trans-men (F-to-M) don't look like women---they look like men.

Trans-women (M-to-F) don't look like men--they look like women.

There is even a campaign that I've seen on social media of a straight, married (to a straight woman) trans-man (F-to-M) who looks about as burly and masculine and manly as you could imagine--who takes photos together with his wife in empty bathrooms and posts them with the caption--"Would YOU want YOUR wife to be alone with me in the women's bathroom?" (see here... and during my google search, I found a similar idea by a trans-woman, titled "Trans Woman Asks: 'You Really Want Me In The Same Bathroom As Your Husband?' with a very telling photo...)

Even if I disagree with religious objections to LGBT individuals' relationships and choices, I at least understand them--but when it comes to "comfort in the bathroom due to the perceived gender of one's fellow bathroom patrons," I DON'T think that "forcing trans individuals to go to the bathroom based on their biological gender at birth" is going to accomplish what many THINK it's going to accomplish---and will actually cause the reverse...

I hope that's helpful, and received with the intended effort to engage in respectful dialogue.

D

Edited March 15, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 9:13 PM, The Nehor said:

I am more concerned that the option exists at all. I have never met a mentally balanced transgender person.

Out of curiosity... how many transgender individuals HAVE you met, and well enough to gauge their mental health...?  In what types of circumstances did you meet them?

Even as an openly gay man who moves in fairly liberal social circles (though not an active participant in gay nightclubs and the like), I've only met a dozen or so of them--but even so, most have been at my place of employment (I met and interacted with a few in an LGBT public awareness speakers' organization I was asked to join many years ago when I first came out while living on the East Coast).  Based on my working interactions and personal conversations with many of them, they are all competent individuals who seem as mentally-balanced as any of the rest of my coworkers.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 5:50 PM, Bernard Gui said:

All he had to do to be legal was to say, "I'm transgender," and he would have been within his rights to be in there.

If "all [an individual] has to do to be legal is to say, 'I'm transgender,'" is all any law requires to prove one has transitioned or is transgender, then I think that's a poorly-written law that needs correcting.

A law that simply says you must use a gendered-restroom according to your legally-recognized gender would exclude male perverts from merely claiming to be transgendered as a chance to oogle at the opposite sex.

If the above were included in legislation, it would allow business owners the recourse (especially in locker room settings) to ask suspect patrons (i.e. a male undressing in a women's locker room) to provide identification (Driver's License, Passport) acknowledging their legal gender, or be removed from the premesis.

That being said, from what I understand, such instances are very few--in fact, the one you posted is the first one I've ever heard of.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Out of curiosity... how many transgender individuals HAVE you met, and well enough to gauge their mental health...?  In what types of circumstances did you meet them?

Even as an openly gay man who moves in fairly liberal social circles (though not an active participant in gay nightclubs and the like), I've only met a dozen or so of them--but even so, most have been at my place of employment (I met and interacted with a few in an LGBT public awareness speakers' organization I was asked to join many years ago when I first came out while living on the East Coast).  Based on my working interactions and personal conversations with many of them, they are all competent individuals who seem as mentally-balanced as any of the rest of my coworkers.

One friend and half a dozen acquaintances. None of them seem all together outside of areas where they have to act 'put together'. It is always possible that my sample is off or there is something in the water here. I am not claiming it as categorical but anecdotally I have never met one I would consider stable. Maybe one day I will.

[Bernard Gui]

On February 17, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Anijen said:

I am a member of the silent majority. As I attend class, I have noticed a very loud liberal agenda. Here in South Dakota (where I am attending grad school), the state legislature just passed a bill that does not allow those who identify themselves as transgender to use the rest rooms of the opposite sex. I have seen so much publicity in the news of how this is a "hate" bill. How it is discrimination etc. Not just in the print, press, broadcast news, but is a huge issue on social media as well. Even here on this MDDB forum it is often a popular topic.

Up to now I have remained silent because I tend to hold a contrary view to the loud voices of the LGBT. I do not hate gay, black, polygamous, or any other group or people, but I know I will be labeled and typecast as a  hater or racist simply because I do not agree with their beliefs.

My question that I would like to discuss is; are there are a lot in the silent majority like myself who do not want to enter the controversial fray because they want to avoid the contention and being thought of as a flat-earther, behind the times, racist, prejudicial, or other hater term? Also, should we be more vocal? Am I wrong, am I in a silent majority or am I now in a minority?

 

We have talked about this as a family. I have 2 sons who live and work in a very liberal West coast city. They must remain silent at their work and on any social media or public venue on issues like this. As a public school teacher, I also learned to keep my mouth shut in faculty meetings and lounges. The blowback and ostracism we get is very real if we we speak out.

[mtomm]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

We have talked about this as a family. I have 2 sons who live and work in a very liberal West coast city. They must remain silent at their work and on any social media or public venue on issues like this. As a public school teacher, I also learned to keep my mouth shut in faculty meetings and lounges. The blowback and ostracism we get is very real if we we speak out.

Kind of like being an LDS liberal and the added bonus of working for the church. You just learn to keep your mouth shut if you want to avoid notes taped your door, the disdain and ostracism. Email filtering is also a tender mercy. 

[ksfisher]

15 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

If "all [an individual] has to do to be legal is to say, 'I'm transgender,'" is all any law requires to prove one has transitioned or is transgender, then I think that's a poorly-written law that needs correcting.

A law that simply says you must use a gendered-restroom according to your legally-recognized gender would exclude male perverts from merely claiming to be transgendered as a chance to oogle at the opposite sex.

If the above were included in legislation, it would allow business owners the recourse (especially in locker room settings) to ask suspect patrons (i.e. a male undressing in a women's locker room) to provide identification (Driver's License, Passport) acknowledging their legal gender, or be removed from the premesis.

That being said, from what I understand, such instances are very few--in fact, the one you posted is the first one I've ever heard of.

Then the law would have to define what a suspect patron was (probably after a lawsuit someone filed after being labeled suspect).

Seems like the world is becoming a pretty confusing place if I have to show ID before I can use the men's room.

[rodheadlee]

On 2/18/2016 at 4:48 PM, california boy said:

 

 

 

First of all, I want to state that I think no one should feel they should be silent about anything they want to express their feelings about.  But if you  have something to say, I think it is important to really think about what you want to say and what your objections are.  When we are talking about transgender people, this is what we are talking about

 

 

Now how will you even know this person is transgender?  Does she look threatening to you?  Do you think it would be an issue if she walked into the mens room?  Do you think she is a sexual preditor that is going to attack you?  Should she be forced legally to use a mans bathroom.

 

Now how about this guy?  This is what a female to male transgender looks like.  Would you feel comfortable with him using the womans bathroom?  Would your daughter be comfortable with him being forced to use the womans bathroom?  Do you think he would cause more of a disturbance in a womans bathroom or a mans bathroom?  This is what we are talking about.  

 

Do you even know enough about this subject to make a statement?  If you are, fine.  If you are not, then perhaps silence is a prudent course of action.  Do sexual preditors need bathrooms in order to attack you?  Do you know of ANY case where a  person claiming to be transgender who sexually attacked someone in a bathroom?

 

 

 

Adam's apple or lack of one. It's not that difficult.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Then the law would have to define what a suspect patron was (probably after a lawsuit someone filed after being labeled suspect).

Seems like the world is becoming a pretty confusing place if I have to show ID before I can use the men's room.

It isn't about making life easier or the law even the tiniest bit more comprehensible.  It's about gamesmanship and drama.

[strappinglad]

Perhaps the Romans were the most progressive on this issue.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=roman+toilets&qpvt=roman+toilets&qpvt=roman+toilets&FORM=IGRE

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, mtomm said:

Kind of like being an LDS liberal and the added bonus of working for the church. You just learn to keep your mouth shut if you want to avoid notes taped your door, the disdain and ostracism. Email filtering is also a tender mercy. 

In a mostly well-meaning attempt to deal with racism and marginalization we have turned public speech into a minefield. What was an attempt to be inclusive and not silence people has silenced almost everyone. Very few people are trained to talk politically correct at all times and the goalposts constantly shift. The war of words has led to strange phenomena like idiots trying to claim disadvantaged status as it seems to them that it is social capital. I have interacted with transfats (normal weight people who identify as fat), people who identify as other races, people who make us strange genders and claim  them, and of course people who claim that white people eating tacos is cultural appropriation and imperialism. It is an endless one-up battle. While the extremes are still hiding on the Internet I worry even this will spill over.

Meanwhile you get things like this: 

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

And while it might be better then overt racism and sexism it creates a messed-up climate. People afraid of offending minorities will avoid them. People who are shouted down and insulted will stop talking. In the end it cultivates hatred. What was designed to make people able to interact with each other will cause them to stay separate. Those who feel they have no voice will stew in anger and hatred. It does not encourage people away from racism and instead covers it up

I do not want to go back to the days of overt racism but there has to be a happier medium somewhere. That a certain presidential candidate is appealing to so many for his bluntness, no matter how idiotic, shows that any relief from the current sickness is very needed.

[Anijen]

21 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

The point, at least when it comes to being comfortable with other patrons using the same public restroom as you, is simply this: 

Trans-men (F-to-M) don't look like women---they look like men.

Trans-women (M-to-F) don't look like men--they look like women.

Thanks Daniel2 for your post. I made that thread because of the law that was recently vetoed by the South Dakota Governor. I had a small interest in it because I am currently a law student in South Dakota. I clicked on most the links you provided. It wouldn't affect me at all seeing those pictures because I could not even tell the guys were once girls or vice-verse. If I saw a women in the same bathroom as me I would be uncomfortable as would my wife if she saw a guy. But if we can't tell then it wouldn't even be a conscious thought and its impossible for me to see the difference (it least from the photos you showed). I have to admit I don't like being in the same bathroom at the same time even with other guys, let alone other women. But IIRC the statute they were talking about here, did not matter if you were not yet finished with the transgender process, but it was also for those who just identified themselves as transgender. Now that would make me uncomfortable because then I could tell.

I think a great solution would be three bathrooms, one for men, one for women, and one for transgender or families, etc. I have already seen this in many places and would save someones peace of mind. I do not think it should go as far as allowing men (who look like men) going into a woman's bathroom because most the women I know would feel uncomfortable (the same for women, who still look like women, going into a men's bathroom). As far as changing my thoughts, it is possible, but not likely. I am like an old piece of pottery already fired and set, it would be almost impossible to make me a pliable piece of clay again. 

I have read many of your posts and many of California Boys posts and there is a difference in tone. I did take California Boys post personally, but did so because I have read many of his posts and they simply read dripping with condescension. Perhaps I am wrong. I have been wrong many, many (too many), times, I could be here as well. Your posts on the other hand have always seemed to be cordial and the dialogue has remained civil, although I still disagree with much of what both of you post. I am probably 1 of 3 people in a class of 80 who believe marriage should be just between a man and a women. (having said that I believe a gay couple should have every legal right as a heterosexual couple has. 

Thank you again for your reply

[The Nehor]

Clearly having separate male and female bathrooms is "separate but equal". Unisex bathrooms all around.

[mtomm]

47 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Clearly having separate male and female bathrooms is "separate but equal". Unisex bathrooms all around.

You would never say they are equal if you've stood in line at a woman's restroom.   Unisex isn't going to help with the biggest problem in restrooms! 

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, mtomm said:

You would never say they are equal if you've stood in line at a woman's restroom.   Unisex isn't going to help with the biggest problem in restrooms! 

hah...I reminded when in crowded places I'm in and out only to come out seeing my wife standing in a line that will take half the afternoon to get through. 

[Daniel2]

On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 10:55 AM, ksfisher said:

Then the law would have to define what a suspect patron was (probably after a lawsuit someone filed after being labeled suspect).

Seems like the world is becoming a pretty confusing place if I have to show ID before I can use the men's room.

I appreciate the comments.

First off, let me begin by saying that as a father of two young girls (teen and pre-teen) myself (as well as two adult 'bonus' daughters--the term I prefer over 'step-daughters'), I am AS concerned as ANY other parent about my children's safety and security, especially in light of sexual predators in the bathroom.  And all of my fellow gay, lesbian, AND transgender friends and acquaintances who are also fathers and mothers equally share the same concerns for and the desire to protect our children from sexual predators.

Unfortunately, the heart of his issue seems to be a new spin on the old tactic of suggesting that homosexuals (and now transgendered folks) should be regarded and feared as increasing risks of sexual predation.  

Regarding identifying and defining what a "suspect patron" is:

It doesn't strike me as difficult to identify or define, either through law or any given institution's policy, what a "suspect patron" would be.  In the scenario that was linked in the thread, there clearly were complaints from multiple female patrons about the individual who walked into a woman's dressing room, because the complaints all alleged that looked and was traditionally dressed as a male and showed no identifying characteristics of a female, even when getting undressed.  Without having to legally identify what a suspect patron would look like, the complaints, alone, identify the patron as "suspect" and necessitate a response from the management of the establishment--even if the complaints end up being dismissed.  And in such cases, it's ENTIRELY appropriate for local management to investigate ALL such complaints, just as they did in the scenario provided. 

I note that the article also included the possibility that the incident could have been a set-up by an individual opposed to transgender individuals using the bathroom according to their trans-identity.

Either way--whether it was truly an incident involving an authentically-transgendered individual (which certainly seems entirely unlikely, by ALL accounts in the article), or whether it was a publicity stunt to create fear and stigma in support of laws prohibiting transgendered individuals' use of public restrooms--the situation would have been better served if the management had been empowered to approach the suspect and ask for ID, thus allowing them to have security move forward with prosecuting a potential sexual predator, or confirm that the individual was truly self-identifying as female.

Additionally, as the article notes, it's unfortunate that the police weren't called, because that would have provided documentation and follow up to ascertain the true motives (and true "gender or transgender status") of the individual. 

To your comment of, 'Seems like the world is becoming a pretty confusing place if I have to show ID before I can use the men's room":

This is a classic example of  what is referred to as a "straw man argument, because I didn't say the world has become a place where individuals would routinely have to show ID before using a restroom.  I said that suspected pedophiles or sexual predators should be expected to show ID.  If you don't fall into that category, you wouldn't be required to show ID.

What I DID propose was that in cases where complaints about suspected sexual predators hanging out in bathrooms are being given to management, then management should be legally empowered to ask for ID.  Doing so would facilitate ID-ing potential predators AND exonerating innocent transgendered individuals who were being misjudged.  That seems like a win/win, and is, frankly, something that I believe the law would already allow, and which I personally would do, anyway, if I owned or operated an establishment where I were receiving such complaints from female patrons about suspicious characters in bathrooms.  And I'd also call the police, if an individual who manifests the physical characteristics of a male, while wearing men's clothing, went into and undressed in a women's lockerroom or restroom.

As many have already said, in today's world, often times there are "family restrooms" as options, as well--and I can see where many non-gender-stereotypical transgendered individuals would take that opportunity to avoid the ridicule.

In today's world, any man could attempt to dress up as a woman and try to loiter in a bathroom to ogle unsuspecting females--whether there are bans on transgender individuals, or not.  Laws banning trans individuals target the wrong population.

From my perspective, this whole issue REALLY doesn't have to be as complicated as it seems to me that some are attempting to make it.

D

Edited March 16, 2016 by Daniel2

[ksfisher]

31 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I appreciate the comments.

First off, let me begin by saying that as a father of two young girls (teen and pre-teen) myself (as well as two adult 'bonus' daughters--the term I prefer over 'step-daughters'), I am AS concerned as ANY other parent about my children's safety and security, especially in light of sexual predators in the bathroom.  And all of my fellow gay, lesbian, AND transgender friends and acquaintances who are also fathers and mothers equally share the same concerns for and the desire to protect our children from sexual predators.

Unfortunately, the heart of his issue seems to be a new spin on the old tactic of suggesting that homosexuals (and now transgendered folks) should be regarded and feared as increasing risks of sexual predation.  

Regarding identifying and defining what a "suspect patron" is:

It doesn't strike me as difficult to identify or define, either through law or any given institution's policy, what a "suspect patron" would be.  In the scenario that was linked in the thread, there clearly were complaints from multiple female patrons about the individual who walked into a woman's dressing room, because the complaints all alleged that looked and was traditionally dressed as a male and showed no identifying characteristics of a female, even when getting undressed.  Without having to legally identify what a suspect patron would look like, the complaints, alone, identify the patron as "suspect" and necessitate a response from the management of the establishment--even if the complaints end up being dismissed.  And in such cases, it's ENTIRELY appropriate for local management to investigate ALL such complaints, just as they did in the scenario provided. 

I note that the article also included the possibility that the incident could have been a set-up by an individual opposed to transgender individuals using the bathroom according to their trans-identity.

Either way--whether it was truly an incident involving an authentically-transgendered individual (which certainly seems entirely unlikely, by ALL accounts in the article), or whether it was a publicity stunt to create fear and stigma in support of laws prohibiting transgendered individuals' use of public restrooms--the situation would have been better served if the management had been empowered to approach the suspect and ask for ID, thus allowing them to have security move forward with prosecuting a potential sexual predator, or confirm that the individual was truly self-identifying as female.

Additionally, as the article notes, it's unfortunate that the police weren't called, because that would have provided documentation and follow up to ascertain the true motives (and true "gender or transgender status") of the individual. 

To your comment of, 'Seems like the world is becoming a pretty confusing place if I have to show ID before I can use the men's room":

This is a classic example of  what is referred to as a "straw man argument, because I didn't say the world has become a place where individuals would routinely have to show ID before using a restroom.  I said that suspected pedophiles or sexual predators should be expected to show ID.  If you don't fall into that category, you wouldn't be required to show ID.

What I DID propose was that in cases where complaints about suspected sexual predators hanging out in bathrooms are being given to management, then management should be legally empowered to ask for ID.  Doing so would facilitate ID-ing potential predators AND exonerating innocent transgendered individuals who were being misjudged.  That seems like a win/win, and is, frankly, something that I believe the law would already allow, and which I personally would do, anyway, if I owned or operated an establishment where I were receiving such complaints from female patrons about suspicious characters in bathrooms.  And I'd also call the police, if an individual who manifests the physical characteristics of a male, while wearing men's clothing, went into and undressed in a women's lockerroom or restroom.

As many have already said, in today's world, often times there are "family restrooms" as options, as well--and I can see where many non-gender-stereotypical transgendered individuals would take that opportunity to avoid the ridicule.

In today's world, any man could attempt to dress up as a woman and try to loiter in a bathroom to ogle unsuspecting females--whether there are bans on transgender individuals, or not.  Laws banning trans individuals target the wrong population.

From my perspective, this whole issue REALLY doesn't have to be as complicated as it seems to me that some are attempting to make it.

D

I appreciate the time and thoughtfulness you've put into your response.  I'm still not sure how this would work.  While you didn't say that everyone would be asked to show ID before entering a restroom/changing area, I don't see how this could be avoided.  You say that suspected pedophiles would be IDed.  How do you identify a suspected pedophile?  Would business owners who have public restroom facilities be required to be trained on identifying suspected pedophiles?  Would they need to station an employee by the restroom to monitor suspected pedophiles?  What if they start asking everyone for an ID?  What if they don't ask a pedophile for ID?  What if they ask me and I decide to sue them because they've identified me as a pedophile and embarrassed me in front of family or friends?

[Atheist Mormon]

On 2/17/2016 at 10:46 AM, Anijen said:

Am I wrong, am I in a silent majority or am I now in a minority?

 

You are not wrong. I consider myself 110% liberal accepting LGTB related causes, but I hate the thought of people using opposite sex bathrooms. This has the possibilities of worse type of violations.....

 

[Jeanne]

On 3/16/2016 at 4:07 PM, Daniel2 said:

I appreciate the comments.

First off, let me begin by saying that as a father of two young girls (teen and pre-teen) myself (as well as two adult 'bonus' daughters--the term I prefer over 'step-daughters'), I am AS concerned as ANY other parent about my children's safety and security, especially in light of sexual predators in the bathroom.  And all of my fellow gay, lesbian, AND transgender friends and acquaintances who are also fathers and mothers equally share the same concerns for and the desire to protect our children from sexual predators.

Unfortunately, the heart of his issue seems to be a new spin on the old tactic of suggesting that homosexuals (and now transgendered folks) should be regarded and feared as increasing risks of sexual predation.  

Regarding identifying and defining what a "suspect patron" is:

It doesn't strike me as difficult to identify or define, either through law or any given institution's policy, what a "suspect patron" would be.  In the scenario that was linked in the thread, there clearly were complaints from multiple female patrons about the individual who walked into a woman's dressing room, because the complaints all alleged that looked and was traditionally dressed as a male and showed no identifying characteristics of a female, even when getting undressed.  Without having to legally identify what a suspect patron would look like, the complaints, alone, identify the patron as "suspect" and necessitate a response from the management of the establishment--even if the complaints end up being dismissed.  And in such cases, it's ENTIRELY appropriate for local management to investigate ALL such complaints, just as they did in the scenario provided. 

I note that the article also included the possibility that the incident could have been a set-up by an individual opposed to transgender individuals using the bathroom according to their trans-identity.

Either way--whether it was truly an incident involving an authentically-transgendered individual (which certainly seems entirely unlikely, by ALL accounts in the article), or whether it was a publicity stunt to create fear and stigma in support of laws prohibiting transgendered individuals' use of public restrooms--the situation would have been better served if the management had been empowered to approach the suspect and ask for ID, thus allowing them to have security move forward with prosecuting a potential sexual predator, or confirm that the individual was truly self-identifying as female.

Additionally, as the article notes, it's unfortunate that the police weren't called, because that would have provided documentation and follow up to ascertain the true motives (and true "gender or transgender status") of the individual. 

To your comment of, 'Seems like the world is becoming a pretty confusing place if I have to show ID before I can use the men's room":

This is a classic example of  what is referred to as a "straw man argument, because I didn't say the world has become a place where individuals would routinely have to show ID before using a restroom.  I said that suspected pedophiles or sexual predators should be expected to show ID.  If you don't fall into that category, you wouldn't be required to show ID.

What I DID propose was that in cases where complaints about suspected sexual predators hanging out in bathrooms are being given to management, then management should be legally empowered to ask for ID.  Doing so would facilitate ID-ing potential predators AND exonerating innocent transgendered individuals who were being misjudged.  That seems like a win/win, and is, frankly, something that I believe the law would already allow, and which I personally would do, anyway, if I owned or operated an establishment where I were receiving such complaints from female patrons about suspicious characters in bathrooms.  And I'd also call the police, if an individual who manifests the physical characteristics of a male, while wearing men's clothing, went into and undressed in a women's lockerroom or restroom.

As many have already said, in today's world, often times there are "family restrooms" as options, as well--and I can see where many non-gender-stereotypical transgendered individuals would take that opportunity to avoid the ridicule.

In today's world, any man could attempt to dress up as a woman and try to loiter in a bathroom to ogle unsuspecting females--whether there are bans on transgender individuals, or not.  Laws banning trans individuals target the wrong population.

From my perspective, this whole issue REALLY doesn't have to be as complicated as it seems to me that some are attempting to make it.

D

Loving the "bonus daughters" versus "step"...never thought of it that way..now I have a "bonus son"!