Tennessee sees new step in wave of anti-Trans bills

Quagmire said:

Because you're accusing them of something. You should care whether or not your accusations are accurate

Click to expand...

So far as all the evidence I've seen, it is accurate. I'm sure there are people who have internalized their transphobia in a way where it seems harmless or even 'good for society,' but that doesn't change what it is to me. No amount of 'think of the children' will make 'transwomen are dangerous to children' or 'transgenderism is a dangerous delusion' any less of a destructive and easily disprovable stereotype.

Quagmire said:

I think to a lot of people, a unisex sign showing up on the bathroom door would serve more or less the same purposr as the sign.

Click to expand...

One is actual incorporation, without judgement, another is a sign literally built as a warning for people.

Quagmire said:

Then where did the sign come from?

Click to expand...

A republican legislator who has only a track record of delegitimizing trans identity and trans expression, who is making it mandatory for businesses who cater to trans people identify themselves to the public in an anti-lgbt state.

Quagmire said:

Yes I know, those are called "guys'.

Click to expand...

Are you serious?

Quagmire said:

Yes I know, those are called "guys'.

Click to expand...

Ehh I prefer them over the ones who label themselves “men.”
Apparently they pee standing up. Can you believe that?
Can’t trust a person like that, if you ask me



(this post is one of jest.)

Mestemia said:

I suspect that if it does go to court they will get their arses handed to them at every turn just like the creationists in the Dover trial.

Click to expand...

I hope. After Trump packing the courts we'll have to see though, especially if anyone invokes religious freedom.

ADigitalArtist said:

One is actual incorporation, without judgement, another is a sign literally built as a warning for people.

Click to expand...

That can't get repeated enough.
It's not telling us we can use the bathroom. It's not friendly to us. At all. In any way.
It tells others to watch out for us. It is aggressive, it is hostile (as we've already seen where such bathroom vigilance gets people needlessly hurt).

ADigitalArtist said:

So far as all the evidence I've seen, it is accurate. I'm sure there are people who have internalized their transphobia in a way where it seems harmless or even 'good for society,' but that doesn't change what it is to me. No amount of 'think of the children' will make 'transwomen are dangerous to children' or 'transgenderism is a dangerous delusion' any less of a destructive and easily disprovable stereotype.

Click to expand...

That'ss not the point. The point is you were making it pretty clear that you think that the primary motive behind the two acts of legislation that we were talking about was punishment.

What you are I think about the stereotype is unimportant. What matters if we're trying to determine the motives of the people making this decisions is whether or not they believe in the legitimacy of the stereotypes.

If they seriously consider exposure to the fact of transsexualality a threat to their children, then it's reasonable to assume their motives in were large part to protect their children.

SomeRandom said:

One is actual incorporation, without judgement, another is a sign literally built as a warning for people.

Click to expand...

I still think that in practical terms they would serve the same purpose and come with the same problems.

Only difference I can see is that the sign is more noticeable.

SomeRandom said:

A republican legislator who has only a track record of delegitimizing trans identity and trans expression, who is making it mandatory for businesses who cater to trans people identify themselves to the public in an anti-lgbt state.

Click to expand...

That's not really what I was asking.

You said, "The 'people as a whole' in Tennessee would rather not see transgender people operating out in the open at all".

If that were true I would think that unisex bathrooms wouldn't be allowed in the first place.

Quagmire said:

That's not really what I was asking.

You said, "The 'people as a whole' in Tennessee would rather not see transgender people operating out in the open at all".

If that were true I would think that unisex bathrooms wouldn't be allowed in the first place.

Click to expand...

I feel like I'm repeating myself with the first part of the post so I'm going to reply to this one.

What the people want and what they can enact as public policy without the interference of the federal government is another thing entirely. Almost no civil rights legislation made at federal level was done with popular approval. If they made legislation forbidding trans people from entering bathrooms of their chosen identity, it would get federal lashback from previously established court cases. So this is a way of, like I said, outing businesses which are trans friendly. What those businesses should do, and really all businesses, is make unisex bathrooms available and remove the clear warning sign. Or just let trans people go in whatever bathroom they want and say '**** the sign and **** the people who would be offended.' That's probably what I would do.

Quagmire said:

That'ss not the point. The point is you were making it pretty clear that you think that the primary motive behind the two acts of legislation that we were talking about was punishment.

What you are I think about the stereotype is unimportant. What matters if we're trying to determine the motives of the people making this decisions is whether or not they believe in the legitimacy of the stereotypes.

If they seriously consider exposure to the fact of transsexualality a threat to their children, then it's reasonable to assume their motives in were large part to protect their children.



I still think that in practical terms they would serve the same purpose and come with the same problems.

Only difference I can see is that the sign is more noticeable.



That's not really what I was asking.

You said, "The 'people as a whole' in Tennessee would rather not see transgender people operating out in the open at all".

If that were true I would think that unisex bathrooms wouldn't be allowed in the first place.

Click to expand...

Uhh I didn’t say any of that. But as I’m here.
I think people use the “think of the children” excuse to try to give a semblance of credence to their own bigotry. Whether they realise it or not. Same thing happened when integration was new and with gay people.
It’s just a way to make one think they’re being righteous. Now whether or not they are sincere about the sentiment is really their business. But then again I never questioned the sincerity of such a motive

Saint Frankenstein said:

I'm just going by what people tell me. I've really never seen any of this myself. Lol.

Click to expand...

Wish it were like that for me. When I still used men's restrooms I HATED it if someone tried to talk to me. Especially those fat ******** with their arms spread out at a urinal stall and gyrating their hips back and forth. They also usually make a lot of unpleasant and irritating sounds.

SomeRandom said:

Uhh I didn’t say any of that. But as I’m here.
I think people use the “think of the children” excuse to try to give a semblance of credence to their own bigotry. Whether they realise it or not. Same thing happened when integration was new and with gay people.
It’s just a way to make one think they’re being righteous. Now whether or not they are sincere about the sentiment is really their business. But then again I never questioned the sincerity of such a motive

Click to expand...

The statements in quotes were statements I made. I think the quote function got messed up, didn't mean to be directed towards you.

Quagmire said:

That's not really what I was asking.

You said, "The 'people as a whole' in Tennessee would rather not see transgender people operating out in the open at all".

If that were true I would think that unisex bathrooms wouldn't be allowed in the first place.

Click to expand...

It looks that way to me when they are warning people we might be about.
And I haven't read the newspapers in Tennessee, but if the thinking is like it is in Indiana, they do expect to be so free of us in their lives that it being a right to not even work with was something they wanted.

ADigitalArtist said:

I feel like I'm repeating myself with the first part of the post

Click to expand...

Yes, it does get to sound like a mantra after a while.

ADigitalArtist said:

so I'm going to reply to this one.



What the people want and what they can enact as public policy without the interference of the federal government is another thing entirely. Almost no civil rights legislation made at federal level was done with popular approval. If they made legislation forbidding trans people from entering bathrooms of their chosen identity, it would get federal lashback from previously established court cases. So this is a way of, like I said, outing businesses which are trans friendly. What those businesses should do, and really all businesses, is make unisex bathrooms available and remove the clear warning sign. Or just let trans people go in whatever bathroom they want and say '**** the sign and **** the people who would be offended.' That's probably what I would do.

Click to expand...

So you're saying all this is already been decided at the federal level. I didn't know that, to be honest I'm not sure you're entirely correct about it.

I'll do a little research when I have the time.

SomeRandom said:

Uhh I didn’t say any of that. But as I’m here.
I think people use the “think of the children” excuse to try to give a semblance of credence to their own bigotry. Whether they realise it or not. Same thing happened when integration was new and with gay people.
It’s just a way to make one think they’re being righteous. Now whether or not they are sincere about the sentiment is really their business. But then again I never questioned the sincerity of such a motive

Click to expand...

I do. But, then again, Republicans go on about "think of the children" the most and loudest when it comes to something they personally don't like while simultaneously cutting back and ending assistance problems for children and their parents. Think of the children? If they did that we'd have better schools.

SomeRandom said:

Uhh I didn’t say any of that. But as I’m here.
I think people use the “think of the children” excuse to try to give a semblance of credence to their own bigotry. Whether they realise it or not. Same thing happened when integration was new and with gay people.
It’s just a way to make one think they’re being righteous. Now whether or not they are sincere about the sentiment is really their business. But then again I never questioned the sincerity of such a motive

Click to expand...

Sorry that was supposed to be a reply to @ADigitalArtist's post.

ImmortalFlame said:

Are you serious?

Click to expand...

No.

ADigitalArtist said:

I agree about warning about hazards. This isn't a hazard though. A black person in a former white only bathroom isn't a hazard and shouldn't, and didn't, erect a sign warning people who were used to that. And I also agree that this isn't like trigger warnings, where exposure to a stimulus can cause real harm to someone suffering from PTSD. A human just existing in a public space isn't harmful.
Would they feel any better if this person, who is a person born female, came into the women's bathroom? A transphobe would call this person a female even though they're a transman, but it wouldn't reduce the 'shock value' if they met them in a bathroom.

Click to expand...

Guys like him make my brain feel like it crash-slammed into a wall when I hear them mention having a period, lol. They are so male that using the women's restroom? Just accept what's going on your brain will do it's thing of patterns and easy routes and start to see him as a guy, minus all the baggage they want to attach.

Quagmire said:

So you're saying all this is already been decided at the federal level. I didn't know that, to be honest I'm not sure you're entirely correct about it.

I'll do a little research when I have the time.

Click to expand...

'Decided at a federal level' has a lot of gives. Protections for trans people have been added and rescinded over and over in federal courts. And even 'decided' landmarks like Roe V Wade or the overturn of DOMA could still be conceivably reversed, or written in a slightly different way for retrial. But right now Biden is rebuilding a lot of protections for trans that Trump rescinded and other state bathroom bans are bumping up against the Office of Civil Rights and federal nondiscrimination laws. Some states, like Wisconsin, were forced to revise their bathroom bills for gender neutral instead of assigned sex bathrooms. We'll see how the rest of the bills go. But I think Bill Lee saw the writing on the wall, and is trying a different tactic. It may be an assumption but it's an assumption informed by his political career and spoken attitude about trans issues.

ADigitalArtist said:

A new Tennessee law forces businesses to post a 'policy' sign if they allow transgender people to use bathrooms matching their gender identity

Tennessee is requiring that businesses where trans people can use bathrooms which match their gender post warning signs.

The signs look like this:
View attachment 50702
And the law outlines that the colors and text cannot be changed. Which is too bad, as I'd turn this transpanic induced BS into an affirmation like this:
View attachment 50703

Click to expand...

I'd love to see anyone enforce this in any way. How can someone prove the biological sex of a person, by how they look? In that case, many trans people would be assumed to not be trans and wouldn't have a problem to begin with, regardless of "policy". For folk who don't "pass" as well, still, how would one go about proving what's in their pants? Certainly asking someone to drop trousers to verify would be breaking a good few laws. There's also cis folks who look very androgynous or might be confused for the opposite sex. I'm imagining it now, "butch lesbian files a lawsuit against a small business for forcing her to use the men's room," I'm sure that would go over so well for the business.

Regardless of where anyone stands on trans rights or bathroom usage, in a world where anyone can present however they want regardless of sex or gender, a bathroom policy is frankly impossible to enforce in any way. I imagine these signs will just become a way for trans-affirming businesses to be open about it, since there's no way the state can really determine what a business's bathroom rules are.

While we're at it, I kinda find it funny that some people prioritize chromosomes over any of the other many things that play a role in sex and gender. I'd love to see some trans folks try to use their bio-sex bathroom in one of these states, I bet people would be way less comfortable watching that buff bearded man walk into the women's room than the men's room, regardless of what he's got in his pants.

Shadow Wolf said:

Wish it were like that for me. When I still used men's restrooms I HATED it if someone tried to talk to me. Especially those fat ******** with their arms spread out at a urinal stall and gyrating their hips back and forth. They also usually make a lot of unpleasant and irritating sounds.

Click to expand...

I haven't had this experience. I'm sorry. Lol.

Saint Frankenstein said:

No, it really doesn't. It just a sign. It's not going to stop me from using the men's room, if I lived there. When they start trying to take my health insurance away, then I'll be alarmed. The trans legislation proposed in Ohio is over youth sports. That doesn't have anything to do with me, either.

This are distractions from more important issues. Just more wastes of time. The sign thing seems quite silly to me.

Click to expand...

The problem isn't that the sign itself is going to change anything for people, it's that it opens the door for more anti-trans laws. Every law that passes to restrict the rights of LGBT folks, women, and any other minority or oppressed group only takes us one step further in the wrong direction, and eventually we run the risk of those steps taking us back to a place where some people are no longer safe, or have to watch their basic human rights slip away. You might say it's impossible to go that far, but we only think that because it hasn't happened yet. Yes it might never happen, but is it worth the risk? Why just accept legislation that further marginalizes people, legislation that brings to power a narrative of otherness and disrespect for their wellbeing? This law may not effect you now, but other laws that this paves the way for certainly might, or they might effect other individuals or communities that you care about.