Transgender people already lead incredibly difficult lives, even above and beyond the difficulties faced by the cisgender lesbian, gay, bisexual, and otherwise queer people that they share a community with. Well, a hateful, bigoted GOP representative from Florida wants to make their already difficult lives even more so.Representative Frank Artiles of Miami put forth a bill this past Wednesday that would actually make it a crime worthy of a $1,000 fine or up to a year in jail for a transgender person to use the bathroom that does not correspond with his or her birth sex.Further, the bill, should it become law, would allow anyone to sue the trans person for “unlawful entry” in single sex public restroom facilities. For your reading disgust, here is a bit of an excerpt from House Bill 538:Quote“The purpose of this act is to secure privacy and safety for all individuals using single-sex public facilities. Single-sex public facilities are places of increased vulnerability and present the potential for crimes against individuals using those facilities, including, but not limited to, assault, battery, molestation, rape, voyeurism, and exhibitionism.”Now, the very assertion that anyone needs protection from transgender people for this reason is just ridiculous. In fact, transgender people, especially transgender women, and transgender women of color in particular, are much more likely to be beaten, raped, and even murdered than their cisgender counterparts. So, if anything, trans people are the ones who need protection, not cisgender people.
“The purpose of this act is to secure privacy and safety for all individuals using single-sex public facilities. Single-sex public facilities are places of increased vulnerability and present the potential for crimes against individuals using those facilities, including, but not limited to, assault, battery, molestation, rape, voyeurism, and exhibitionism.”
(a) This section does not apply to public facilities that are conspicuously designated for unisex or family use.
(c) This section does not require any place of public accommodation, school, or place of employment to construct or maintain single-sex public facilities or to modify existing public facilities.
You're developing a horrible habit of misrepresenting the intentions and actual consequences of certain actions. From the bill itself: Quote(a) This section does not apply to public facilities that are conspicuously designated for unisex or family use.Quote(c) This section does not require any place of public accommodation, school, or place of employment to construct or maintain single-sex public facilities or to modify existing public facilities. Literally all this bill does is essentially mandate that single-sex bathrooms are used by that fucking sex. It doesn't, at all, require bathrooms to be designated as single sex, it doesn't require the construction of single-sex bathrooms and it doesn't require the maintenance of single-sex bathrooms. If there's an anti-LGBT bias here, I can't find it in the bill.
If there's an anti-LGBT bias here, I can't find it in the bill.
If this bill isn't anti-LGBT
then who will be monitoring the bathrooms to make sure they're only used by the appropriate biological sex
Quote from: Mad Max on February 09, 2015, 11:47:37 AMIf this bill isn't anti-LGBT It fucking isn't, the bill doesn't even mention transgender people. You cite a source which claims a "hateful" GOP rep. put it forward, explicitly tries to make it look as if a transgender person--specifically--using the wrong bathroom is what's being criminalised and then implies that the bill is trying to say trans people are rapists and perverts. With no evidence for any of it.Quotethen who will be monitoring the bathrooms to make sure they're only used by the appropriate biological sexIf you read the bill you'd know either the person making the unlawful entry, or the owner promoting the unlawful entry, is liable in cases of civil action from somebody lawfully inside said room.
What's the purpose of this bill, then?
It's the fact that it exists at all that implies a bias.
Quote from: Kupo on February 09, 2015, 11:56:18 AMIt's the fact that it exists at all that implies a bias. You mean like the fact that property rights exist imply a bias towards capitalism? Or is it a bias towards crushing the poor, broken spirits of the Proletariat? I mean, really, come on. You're shoehorning your own biases into this bill by trying to make it look like it was born out of some ignorant hatred. As opposed to a more parsimonious explanation being a bias towards the preservation of privacy? It literally does nothing to hinder the accommodation of trans people.
It literally does nothing to hinder the accommodation of trans people.
prohibits knowingly and willfully entering single-sex public facility designated for or restricted to persons of other biological sex
There's much more important legislation that could be happen
but this chump is taking time out of his day to push the next 20XX Comprehensive Redundant Act of Legislative Bathroom Redundancy Act of 20XX.
could be interpreted that way by a conservative judge?
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 09, 2015, 12:06:33 PMIt literally does nothing to hinder the accommodation of trans people....except threaten them with jail time and a fine if they use the "wrong" bathroom
(a) This section does not apply to public facilities that are conspicuously designated for unisex or family use
Quote from: RC on February 09, 2015, 12:13:25 PM could be interpreted that way by a conservative judge?I don't give a shit if some transphobic judge is going to be stroking his gavel as he fines/jails a person for using the wrong bathroom. Bathrooms are segregated on sex not gender. People are always--rightly--adamant to maintain the difference between the two. So, let's do it here, too.
Quote from: Kupo on February 09, 2015, 12:11:22 PMThere's much more important legislation that could be happenAnd I'm sure it is. The entire Floridian House of Representatives isn't engaged in vociferous discussion around the issue. I'm not going to try and claim knowledge about the efficacy of laws like these--I actually think it's a dumb idea--but the guy is probably pushing it for no other reason than to have legislation under his belt.
But, I'll say it again: QuoteIt literally does nothing to hinder the accommodation of trans people.
Post-surgery?
Quote from: Mad Max on February 09, 2015, 12:20:45 PMPost-surgery?I'd say so. The bill is fucking retarded in defining it as "at birth".
It hardly counts if it (likely) doesn't pass.
Congrats, you took the bait.
Bathrooms outside of this segregationist arrangement are excluded from the provisions of the bill.
..which is a pretty good indicator of the author's intentions
You're the only person talking about unisex and family bathrooms here.
Quote from: Kupo on February 09, 2015, 12:21:32 PMIt hardly counts if it (likely) doesn't pass. Thank God for the guy's career then, seeing as it was passed. . .
No, you did. Literally all this bill does it legally segregate bathrooms on the basis of sex. Bathrooms outside of this segregationist arrangement are excluded from the provisions of the bill.
Quote from: Mad Max on February 09, 2015, 12:27:36 PMYou're the only person talking about unisex and family bathrooms here. You're complaining that sex-based bathrooms are being segregated on the basis of sex.
It was proposed, and that's it. It hasn't even gone up for vote yet.
And what I'm saying is that it's pointless because that's already what the law says.
I'm complaining that entering the bathroom that doesn't match your birth sex carries the threat of a fine and a year in jail.
Quote from: Kupo on February 09, 2015, 12:29:58 PMIt was proposed, and that's it. It hasn't even gone up for vote yet.My bad, I saw the date it's supposed to come into effect and assumed it had been passed. Fuck, if it hasn't even been passed what are we moaning about? Not only is evidence for the bill being transphobic incredibly weak, but it hasn't even been scutinised or voted upon. QuoteAnd what I'm saying is that it's pointless because that's already what the law says.If that's what the law already says, then the bill is even more demonstrably non-transphobic since it doesn't introduce any new 'Draconian' measures--it's literally a waste of time. However, I don't think that is the law. As far as I'm aware, it isn't a misdemeanour to enter the wrong bathroom in Florida.
Quote from: Mad Max on February 09, 2015, 12:35:50 PMI'm complaining that entering the bathroom that doesn't match your birth sex carries the threat of a fine and a year in jail.So you're complaining about excessive punishment? That's probably a better angle than transphobia. Sure, I agree with that. Now change your title and the body of your post to something that is empirically supported and not mindless GOP-bashing.
Bumping the penalty up to a felony is unnecessarily draconian.
That and the fact that it's a waste of time is only evidence in favor of arguments that it's discriminatory. I don't know what kind of gymnastics you performed to reach the opposite conclusion.
FL bill to fine/jail trans people
