Transgender People Should be Barred from Restrooms

Views: 27829

Note: Dana has been VERY CLEAR that she NO LONGER holds these views and has expressed great regret for working with RadFems in the past.

I was recently made aware of a disgusting revival of some of the same Raymondiod fallacies that has been used against trans people since the 1970s. This time the TS Separatist, Dana Lane Taylor has, in a stunning display sycophantic credulity, hopped onto the Raymondism bandwagon saying:


The sooner the transgender community acknowledges this issue, the better…

As stated repeatedly in this communication, we abhor irrational discrimination against transgender and transsexual people.  However, we equally abhor the lack of concern for females that exists in the legislation promulgated by GLBT activists to remedy irrational discrimination against transgender and transsexual people.

Link to source

(Remember the above false dichotomy.)

Dana Lane Taylor is happy about the following letter submitted to the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women:


Females require sex-segregated facilities for a number of reasons, chief among them the documented frequency of male sexual violence against females and the uniquely female consequence of unwanted impregnation resulting from this relatively common form of violence. [xxi] …

We do not single out individual males as predatory, nor do we think any particular male is more likely to harm females. Further, we do not believe that transgender or transsexual women are any more likely to harm females. [xxii]

xxi: Please see “Men in Women’s Restrooms,”, an article cataloguing the presence of males in female-only space on the TS-IS Liberation website maintained by transsexual activist Dana Lane Taylor.  Our sincere thanks to Ms. Taylor for compiling this information.

xxii: Throughout this communication, we refer to “transgender” and “transsexual.”  These terms do not have definitions in any of the legislation cited in this communication.  However, the definition of “gender identity” intends to capture both “transgender” and “transsexual.”  For perspective on these terms, we refer you to, an excellent resource website operated by Sharon Gaughan and Lisa Jain Thompson.  Please also see S. Gaughan, “What About Non-op Transsexuals? A No-op Notion,”, 2006.

Yes, apparently TS Separatism has merged with anti-trans Feminism to mutate into the very intellectual barbarism that is the stock in trade of hucksters like Janice Raymond. The esteemed authors of the above letter, Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford, have built this logical house of cards upon the following premise:

  • Men present a significant risk to women;
  • Transgender women are men;
  • Ergo, transgender women should be barred from using the restroom.

Even this bit of BS was apparently had for them to swallow, because in the next paragraph they write, “We do not single out individual males as predatory, nor do we think any particular male is more likely to harm females. Further, we do not believe that transgender or transsexual women are any more likely to harm females.” However, the link they cite as being their supportive evidence goes to a TS Separatist site which does, in fact, make the claim that transgender women pose an assault risk to cisgender women:


This cited page goes on to give a few examples of men who – in various crossdressed states – assaulted women:


The Transgender Community wants to stay in denial about the dangers of men using women’s private spaces. On this page, I am pointing to articles that show men should not be allowed in women’s private spaces. There is also a section on Transgender offenders. I see Transgender, Inc. deny the existence of transgender individuals (cross-dressers and transvestites) committing crimes against women in their private spaces.

Women born transsexual are NOT men. The public needs to know the differences between those with transsexual histories, crossdresser, transvestite and gender variants.

This bit of Fox News intellectualism should be roundly denounced by all. Their argument is, in essence, that if a community is proven to have any sick fucks associated with it, then the entire population must be viewed as potential risk.

Never mind that this is the exact logic anti-Muslim idiots, racists asshats and genocidal thugs have use to prop up their crusades. If they can appropriate the barbarous and defamatory propaganda engine used in propping up everything from segregation to mass murder, apparently these TS Separatists and Radical Feminists are willing to put themselves into the same intellectual bed with the worst humanity has to offer.

The problem with this logic is that it can be turned on anyone. After doing some research of my own, I found another potential predator that needs to be barred from women’s restrooms:


You see… standing firm on the same logical ground of Dana Lane Taylor, Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford, one can only conclude that apparently women cannot be trusted in the women’s restrooms.



After seeing this evidence, how could any women feel safe going into a women’s restroom knowing that women might be in there… waiting?!?







Anyone can use this fallacious argument against any group! SHAME ON THEM!

Their intellectually dishonest and phobic rhetoric is absolutely repugnant and puts them in bed with other disgusting phobic assholes like Dr. Ruth Jacobs:

Some of you might remember Ruth Jacobs from her public smack-down in DC. She tried to argue that gay men had a high HIV infection rate and therefore should not be allowed to marry. Watching her argument get pulled apart would be almost painful if it were not for the fact that the good doctor seems to be oblivious to her own ineptitude. Check it out:

Ruth is back. Now she’s blasting out crazy-looking emails to people warning that if transgender people are allowed to work, little girls will be raped:

First of all, as a website designer, this piece of junk makes my eyes hurt. It screams, “I’M NOT A PROFESSIONAL! Don’t listen to me! I might be A RAVING LUNATIC!

Second of all, the substance of the argument is pure fiction… as in, it’s all a LIE.

Some might think after reading Ruth’s vapid remarks, “Wow! From the context, it sounds like those transgender people are already raping little girls.” However, if you are an intelligent person, you might think, “Wait, what? Did she actually come out and say that a child was raped by a transgender person?” If you asked yourself the second, please give yourself a gold star because, you use critical thinking!

Ruth lies. The Doctor is a lying liar who’s lying! Worse, she’s pimping a tragic case of child rape.

The child rape case Ruth is pimping involves no transgender people at all. The poor little girl was raped by a NON-transgender, heterosexual man.

Ruth, I’d like to say that I think your name is fitting since I can’t spell “Ruthless” without you. I don’t know that I’ve ever met someone who could read about the rape of a little girl and then pimp her out like you did. I’ll think of you the next time I read about the death of another transgender person. Liars like you give people the fiction-based fuel they need to drive their hate far enough to actually kill.

Link to post

What kind of mind gladly takes up the bloody mantle of this type of intellectual hucksterism? What sort of minds gleefully pour sycophantic adulations upon each other in such a bizarre public display of gross intellectual turpitude as this? Again, SHAME on them!

If Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford are the dealers of this incredulity, Dana Lane Taylor is the pusher. Dana Lane Taylor’s propaganda against transgender women puts her in the same moral boat as Dr. Ruth Jacobs, the KKK and those who would seek to bar Muslims from holding office. These bigots all use the same “some part of your population did something bad, therefore all of that population is a risk and should have their 14th amendment rights trampled upon” propaganda. Dana Lane Taylor, Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford are trading in the same disgusting propaganda that the worst right-wing offenders use in their effort to ensure that 14th amendment rights are never shared by all American citizens.

If there was ever any question about the bigoted roots of TS Separatism, these recent posts should put that debate to rest. Only the most obtuse mind will not recognize that the very propaganda traded among the bigoted groups I’ve named is the selfsame propaganda used by Dana Lane Taylor, Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford. SHAME ON THEM!

As trans women continue to my mauled by our culture’s fear-fueled system of discrimination, I think it is entirely appropriate for more rational minds to correctly point to people like Dana Taylor, Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford as being co-architects of that hateful system.

8/8/11, 9:00 AM:  UPDATE! Dana Lane Taylor Responds to Criticisms

… I feel honored that something I created is being included and being used to promote women’s rights and protections. The transgender community try to strong-arm their way into places they want to go, no matter who suffers from it.  I have heard, more than once, that cross-dressing men don’t feel safe using men’s restrooms. Well, boo fucking hoo…

Dana Lane Taylor, leader in the TS Separatist movement

8/8/11, 11:15 AM: UPDATE! Dana Lane Taylor Takes Down Her Separatist Site


Once again, I am taking a break from all of this.

My goals are to fight for women’s rights and protections and that includes all women (genetic females, transsexual females in transition and post-transsexual females). Everyone tells me my voice doesn’t mean anything until my name ended up on that document being sent to the United Nations. There has been a lot of vicious attacks lately and it is getting tiresome.

TS/IS Liberation is currently resting

Please try back again soon.

UPDATE: On May 5, 2012, Dana posted the following in in a blog post:

I just had an email exchange with Cathy Brennan that didn’t turn out like I thought it would. I found out she doesn’t give a shit about me..and never did.

I guess Dana finally understands the outrage many of us felt when she was gleefully playing the fool in public for RadFems.

Published by


Cristan Williams is a trans historian and activist. She started one of the first trans homeless shelters and co-founded the first federally funded trans-only homeless program, pioneered affordable healthcare for trans people in the Houston area, won the right for trans people to change their gender on Texas ID prior to surgery, started numerous trans social service programs and founded the Transgender Center as well as the Transgender Archives. Cristan is the editor at the social justice site, is a long-term member and previous chair of the City of Houston HIV Prevention Planning Group, is the jurisdictional representative to the Urban Coalition for HIV/AIDS Prevention Services (UCHAPS), serves on the national steering body for UCHAPS and is the Executive Director of the Transgender Foundation of America.

77 thoughts on “Transgender People Should be Barred from Restrooms”

  1. Was I just "Pimp Slapped"? Btw, am I the Pimp or the Prostitue? And how is your murder plot against Cathy going, Monica? Using just Axes or are you going to drive the stake through her heart?

      1. Have you been taking a nap? Monica spews out violent rhetoric agianst those who don't follow her thinking. I have called this out numerous times to no avail. Monica, stop calling us NAZIS. Monica stop calling us (insert whatever demeaning word you can think of here) but she continued. And the proof of what those words can do is here.

        Monica did not call this person out and actually participated in it. And even after all this, still did not claim responsibliity and tried to justify it. This is YOUR version of womens rights. Cristan, are you an advocate for women being safe? Or not? I think not.

        1. Why are you on my blog complaining about Monica's blog?!? I'm not interested in getting triangulated between some drama you have going on with Monica.

          "Cristan, are you an advocate for women being safe? Or not?"

          I'm an advocate for 14th amendment rights. Period.

          If you believe that if a sick fuck can be associated with a particular group, that group should lose their 14th amendment rights, then I have to disagree with you. If you like, the KKK will gladly agree with your logic. They have a report out showing that black people commit crimes more than white people and therefor white people should be protected from – separated from – black people. Also Islamophobics will agree with your logic as well. They will gladly tell you that since some sick Islamic assholes killed people, people of Muslim faith should be regarded with suspicion, caution and be prevented from holding public office.

          Dana, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you don't have the goddamned sense to be ashamed of yourself, then I'll be ashamed for you. I am ashamed that any transsexual would align themselves with such bigotry. The entire transsexual community should feel a sense of shame for your actions.

          Your bigoted rhetoric makes me physically ill; it's disgusting, vile and repulsive.

        2. That is what I thought you would say. And I knew, without a doubt, you would not condemn Monica's talk about murdering someone. Have a nice day.

        3. Guessing this represents more of your unfathomable logic then? If I refuse to insert myself into the internet drama you and Monica have going that means that you're right about everything you've posted here?

        4. Of course you refuse to insert yourself into Monica's discussiong of murdring someone. Why would I think any different?

        5. So let me get this straight: the rules you've set up for yourself are that when someone points out your bad behavior, you do the rhetorical equivalent of shouting "Hey! Look behind you!" Go rant about Monica on Monic's blog if you have a problem with Monica.

          The fact that you're not addressing your disgusting incredulity by focusing on someone that I've not even quoted in my post is, to me, quite telling.

    1. Um, it was the first article where a woman rapes another in the bathroom. If you want something involving women and children in the bathroom, see article #6 and if you just want women who use the women's bathroom to have sex, see article #7.

        1. Yes, when a woman sexually subjugates another women by raping her, it is rape. If you want to go beyond that to make unsubstantiated ad hoc claims, I suppose one could argue that the sexual crimes women commit against other women and children are more shocking to the victims since the myth is that only men are capable of this type of sickness.

          Do you think that the following victim is any less of a victim because she wasn't raped by a man?

          I ask because that seems to be the argument that you're making here.

  2. The "transgender" community does NOT get what womens rights are. This article is absolute proof of that. You went and searched for "women" "bathroom" and came up with this? Women are targetted by men in a sexual way that has nothing to do with this article. You should be embarassed about this article and anyone who sent kudos needs to learn a thing or two. What a joke.

    1. Dana, women's rights are full 14th amendment rights; nothing more and certainly nothing less.

      Are you saying that women don't target other women (men or children for that matter) in a sexual way? Your logic is fallacious, bigoted and repugnant.

  3. I'd like to be forced to use the women's bathroom. I'd like to get a chair and sit in their bathroom…but only so I can pleasure myself in a room where women are getting intimite with their panties. Ha! Just kidding. Seriously though, I think it's funny how some groups want trans women to use the men's bathroom. Does that mean bald, fat, hairy trans men get to use the ladies bathroom? I wonder what the advocates "no trannies in the bathroom of their choice" would think of me peeing in front of their daughters and grandmas.

  4. There are emotionally charged issues. I do not believe insults and name calling by either side advances the discussion.

    In my opinion neither a male dominated Congress nor a male dominated United Nations should pass legislation or approve policies focused on who can use women only spaces. Why? Because I believe women should decide these issues and are perfectly capable of doing so. That means leaving it to the actual occupants in the millions of women only spaces and I would say its reasonable to expect some bad results from time to time. But to me that is the price that must be accepted and it is a better reality than men codifying some universally applicable rules. It is also what has actually been happening since women only spaces were first created and seems to have worked reasonably well.

    To danalanetaylor let me compliment you on the efforts you have made in your local community towards securing medical care and transsexual policies in your college. I'm sure I don't even know a fraction of what you are doing in that environment but from what you have reported those efforts appear to me to be successful. But let me also say that the efforts you have put into the TS separatist concept appear wasted. Why not just separate yourself in real life from those you abhor? I'm not saying that to try in any way to silence you. I'm simply trying to point out that some fights are like tilting at windmills. By all means do what you think best.

    To Cristan let me say I admire your efforts in elucidating the documented history of things transgender and transsexual. In those efforts you seem to have tried to be factual. In that vein please allow me to point out that it would appear factual that there are billions of men and women who will never accept any person without ovaries and a uterus as a woman. And those people control the vast resources of society. There appears to be some much smaller group that does accept MTF transsexuals as women. How many people would you guess exist who truly in their hearts accept cross dressers as women? Personally those cross dressers that I know are men and not only own up to it but also admit they get sexual thrills from dressing. I admit I don't know many so maybe my experiences can not be extrapolated to the larger population. In my opinion every human deserves basic human rights so please don't misinterpret what I am saying. But as I stated above in this reply women are perfectly capable of sorting out who is or is not a woman. I prefer to leave it there in spite of the casualties. In my opinion less blood will be shed than if we let men sort things out.

    Sorry for the length. Perhaps I am just guilty of wasting time and thoughts. I send both of you best wishes no matter how our views may differ.

    1. While I do appreciate the attempt at peace-making, I can't support the way in which you attempt to encourage a parity between the behavior of Dana and I because it wrongly dismisses her demonstrable gleeful complicity in the suffering of trans women.

      I do not believe insults and name calling by either side advances the discussion

      Note that I never insulted Dana as a person; I've only correctly stated that her behavior was abhorrent in that the logic she's pushing was used in service of anti-trans outcomes. Her petty disregard for health and well-being of 14th amendment protections for all US citizens is disgusting and I am personally ashamed of her behavior.

      Please allow me to point out that it would appear factual that there are billions of men and women who will never accept any person without ovaries and a uterus as a woman.

      Yes, you can point that out, but I personally don't put a lot of stock into appeals to authority. It is likely that a majority of people throughout the globe still incorrectly believe in a creationism myth; a notion that is demonstrably false. Dana, in an astoundingly disgusting display of equivocation claims that the few sick fucks who attack women and happen to be wearing panties on their heads (or whatever mentally disturbed behavior she presents in the articles she posted) are the same as any transwomen – crossdressers specifically included – is as abhorrent as it is dishonest.

      Turning a blind eye to her slanderous misrepresentation of trans women as purveyors of sexual predation for the sake of not rocking the boat is a proposal I simply can't abide.

      1. Oh but you did from the perspective of an observer. You called into question her "goddamned sense". I won't bother to cite the 5 other ways you directly insulted her and attacked her. Will you own up to it or continue in denial?

        1. I disagree.

          After her barbarous behavior, questioning her "goddamned sense" is not a personal attack. I do not see where I attacked her personhood at all. My focus is entirely on her disgusting behavior, its logical underpinnings and the pathetic outcomes of her behavior. I've not once engaged in any ad hom attacks, have not hurled insults at her personhood nor have I offered up any strawman arguments. Yes, I have condemned her twisted ideology and the behavior it produced in the most (for me) strident manner possible, but I've not once attacked her personhood.

          If you'd like to reply with quotes by me in which I attack her personhood, I will stand corrected.

  5. That's sooooo F'D UP that Dana herself is a transgender woman, not born female and is advocating against other transgender from being safe against harm and abuse, etc when only wanting to use a toilet.. WTF.. that's just crazy.. where am I to pee.. This whole issue is out of control and out of hand… Just MAYBE if Dana and the others involved would of considered their wording, it would be more acceptable.. As a transgender woman my self, I AGREE that MEN should not use the women's rest room, but completely disagree with their premise that transgender women are men… Transgender is an umbrella term that does include some whom are and do identify as men, BUT, it also includes those whom identify as FEMALE and live their life on a full time basis as FEMALE and are on HRT and have secondary sex characteristics of being female, etc, etc.. yet Dana and her minions wish to exclude these women from rights and protections needed solely because of a single unwanted organ.. Pfftt…. please…. nonetheless, SCREW THE UNITED NATIONS…. I also find it distasteful and dishonest how Dana and the other uneducated witches attempt to portray all transgender as some sort of sexual predator and criminal…

    1. Dana would say that she is not a transgender woman. She would say that the word (contrary to English language dictionaries) means crossdresser. Furthermore, she would claim (lie) that a crossdresser invented the term "transgender".

  6. Cristan I reread all the back and forth and started to respond with the quotes you requested but then I decided it would be a bit daft to engage in such an exercise. You seem prone to flowery adjectives and I was simply letting you know how it struck me as an observer. Debating whether you were attacking ideas without rancor does nothing constructive in my opinion.

    You raise an interesting issue though. I have always deemed the concept of hate the sin yet love the sinner to be a huge fallacy. It is used in Christian settings as a rationalization for promulgating hate. Why that is wrong can be seen in the very words of Jesus where he points out that we are not our bodies but our thoughts. Isn't that the very same argument made at all levels of the transgender community?

    1. You raise an interesting issue though. I have always deemed the concept of hate the sin yet love the sinner to be a huge fallacy. It is used in Christian settings as a rationalization for promulgating hate. Why that is wrong can be seen in the very words of Jesus where he points out that we are not our bodies but our thoughts. Isn't that the very same argument made at all levels of the transgender community?

      You're response, whether intentional or not, seems to have been that you've chosen to stand on the firm ground of equivocation. Unlike any phony decorations of love that ring hollow, I am not claiming any such condescending "love" for Dana and I've not claimed any such vapid "love" while engaging in hate. My actions can't be further from your comparison; I am not engaging in such hypocrisy. I feel I've been exceptionally clear: I have only ever identified her disgusting ideology and behavior – in the strongest way I know how – as being fatuous, contemptible and downright abhorrent. I've based these conclusions upon her use of one of the most repugnant – and seemingly favorite – tools of bigots throughout history: the "some sicko can be associated with a population and therefore the entire population should be viewed as being suspect" reasoning. Literally everyone from Hitler to the Klan used this logical fallacy and it is repugnant and more than worthy of scorn and public admonition. Are you suggesting otherwise?

      It seems as if you propose a worldview in which it is simply too impolite to denounce – in the strongest manner possible – this type of intellectual hucksterism. If that is so, then I want no part of it.

  7. I read your posts and I certainly comprehend the points you were making. Even a ditz like me can recognize the fallacies you cite. I'm glad you hold no animosity towards danalanetaylor and were simply refuting her points or arguments. It didn't come off that way to me as a reader so thanks for clearing it up. The next time I read your sentences written in "the strongest way I know how" I'll understand you are just using expletives for emphasis.

    Sorry for the diversion.

    1. At this point you may (and, perhaps rightly so) accuse me of being a contrarian. At the risk of acquiring such a label, I want to point out that you do not seem to be anything like a "ditz". You've not engaged in ad hom attacks, have not resorted to strawman arguments neither have you taken up abhorrent fallacies to be used as a weapon against an oppressed people. You have made your points with care and have taken the time to express yourself in a cogent manner. Yes, we seem to disagree on a particularly disagreeable topic, but you have certainly conducted yourself with grace. I see no "ditz" here.

      1. I'm not sure we disagree at all or merely express concepts differently. Try this on for size.

        I don't want predominately male controlled legislative bodies writing laws and regulations which force a person such as an obvious cross dresser out of the womens restroom nor do I want laws and regulations that permit an obvious cross dresser unrestricted access to the womens restroom. I think in both cases society ends up worse than it is today. I would say the same if you replaced the words "obvious cross dresser" with post op transsexual. Let the restrooms remain an unregulated paradigm as they have always been. I offer you the hypothesis that the vast majority of people exercise some level of personal judgment and will act appropriately for their personal situation. For some that might mean seeking out a single occupant restroom. But that is something each person would decide individually. Yes there would be the occasional lonnie tune that creates such notoriety and then seeks out the largest and most crowded ladies room just to press the issue but disturbing the peace laws still exist for aberrant antics.

        What I am saying is that we should all fight to present these issues as non issues unworthy of regulation at all. We should take the position that women are perfectly capable of handling womens restroom issues by themselves without legislative interference. We should tell Barney Frank to refrain from his male attempts to be a bathroom monitor.

        From my perspective both the umbrella community and the TS separatists get suckered into playing legislative carve up. To take ENDA specifically all it needs to codify is that a person who isn't or doesn't appear to be hetero-normative can't be fired or not considered for employment based on anything but job skills and performance (exempting whatever religious institutions seem appropriate). How simple is that? The United Nations could take a similar stance in its policies on human rights and broaden it beyond an employment focus.

        1. Try this on for size. I don't want predominately male controlled legislative bodies writing laws and regulations which force a person such as an obvious cross dresser out of the womens restroom nor do I want laws and regulations that permit an obvious cross dresser unrestricted access to the womens restroom.

          What I am saying is that we should all fight to present these issues as non issues unworthy of regulation at all.

          An neutral approach then, is it? What I'm writing about is 14th amendment rights. What might a real-world example of 14th amendment neutrality look like? If I am neutral about protecting 14th amendment equality, I am not supportive of 14th amendment civil rights protection. If I'm not supportive of 14th amendment civil rights protection, then I and the right-wing platform have something in common. Nether a neutral nor a negative position are supportive of trans equality.

          Remember, an agnostic is an atheist. An atheist is someone who is with without a belief in god. Neither the agnostic nor the atheist holds a belief in god. In this case someone who is agnostic to trans equality and someone who is openly anti-trans equality are the same in that neither supports trans equality. If you don't support trans-equality, you don't support trans equality. There is only on position that can be taken that is not a non-trans equality stance. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."

          A government that is neutral or non-trans equality when it comes to our liberty would not seek to force trans women into private rooms where men are standing in the open in a state of undress. For instance, in Harris county, the county commissioners have ruled that any pre-op trans person (MTF or FTM) who uses a county restroom can be arrested. That means they think it's appropriate for Buck Angel to hang out in the women's restroom. This stupidity was pushed by religious fundamentalists who used the exact argument Dana Taylor used.

          While this was problematic for all trans folk, within the City of Houston (which is in Harris County), we've managed to have the Mayor pass an Executive Order allowing people like Buck Angel to use the correct restroom. The City order was a response to the county. To have a neutral stance on the deplorable actions of fundamentalists would have allowed the harassment of trans folk to continue without exception. I think it's important to remember that each demand for a right within the trans community is a response to the institutionalized denial of that liberty.

          Yes there would be the occasional lonnie tune that creates such notoriety and then seeks out the largest and most crowded ladies room just to press the issue but disturbing the peace laws still exist for aberrant antics.

          I absolutely agree… which is why I felt compelled to strongly denounce behavior that leads to trans suffering.

        2. I have no idea who Buck Angel is.

          An agnostic is not an atheist. An atheist believes there is no God while an agnostic is simply undecided on the question.

          I believe that if you allow governmental regulation of bathrooms and other women only spaces you will end up with a huge mess. You seem to want the government involved. Are you comfortable with Barney Frank writing secret language on how this all would be handled? I suspect you won't like it when it is finally revealed.

        3. Buck Angel is this guy:

          He’s an FTM and has a vagina. In Harris County, should Buck need to use the restroom, he would risk the loss of his freedom by not going to the women’s restroom.

          An atheist believes there is no God

          An atheist is someone who is without belief. If atheism is a belief, then off is a channel on your television and not getting a haircut is a type of haircut. Those without an affirmative belief (a) in god (theos) are collectively known as being atheists. An agnostic (a=without, gnostic=knowledge) does not hold an affirmative belief in god due to their lack of imperial knowledge. Atheists can be without belief for any number of reasons (and is know as the continuum of strong to weak atheism); agnostics do not hold a belief in god for a specific reason: the proposition us unfalsifiable.

          You seem to want the government involved

          No, I personally think it would be best if life could be like you envisioned. However, for that to become reality, we would need to live in a world devoid of fundimentalists who use government power to deny 14th amendment equality to all citizens. When fundies engage in this behavior, the only recourse is to address the unfair institutionalized practice. To nothing is to be complicit in the various ordinances and laws fundies have passed against the trans community.

        4. I agree with you about the 14th and just took the time to reread it and review some of the cases the Supreme court ruled on involving the 14th. Perhaps a good case contesting "various ordinances and laws fundies have passed against the trans community" could be brought to the Supreme court by one of the GLBT attorney groups. It will be interesting to see if the Supreme court cites the 14th should the prop8 appeal ever make it there.

  8. If your ID/DL has an M on it just keep out of the ladies room jeeze how hard is that to understand? Seems pretty simple to me. I have no problem with someone using the appropriate rest room once they have jumped through all the hoops the rest of us did for the GID diagnosis. The reasons lesbians are freaking out is seeing these old men in some form of midlife crisis wanting into female space… It freaks me out too. I say keep the laws strict and jail men for entering the wrong restroom.

    1. Did you get your ID/DL changed prior to going full time? Some states won't change it until after SRS.

      The reasons lesbians are freaking out is seeing these old men in some form of midlife crisis wanting into female space.

      Where is all of this happening? I don't think I've ever run into "… old men in some form of midlife crisis wanting into female space" in the women's restroom. Is it happening to you a lot?

      1. *raises hand* That situation with state-issued ID (driver's license, in my case) is exactly how it is in my state. The GID diagnosis (which I do have and had to get to be permitted access to the HRT which I've been taking for nearly two years) means nothing to the state where I live; only an affidavit that I have had SRS will permit me to have my ID updated to reflect this. That I live fully as the woman I am and can have various licensed professionals attest to that (which not to say that I believe this should be a requirement) is meaningless to the state.

    2. Just because you were fortunate enough to have the resources, time, money and support from the institutions to be able to change your gender on a plastic card doesn’t make you more of a woman than I am. Sometimes you have to check your privilege before imposing policies on already opressed minorities. I probably won’t be able to update my legal documentation any time soon because I don’t have a job and I don’t have money to go back to my country of birth to change my documents. So in the mean time I have a form of ID that does not represent who I am. Trans separatists might argue: “boo hoo not my problem, I did what has to be done in order to get it done. Thus I have the rights that you are not entitled to so deal with it”. If this is the case it sounds like in order to be recognized as a “true” transexual in society is a function of the thickness of your wallet. Elitism. Besides even HBS diagnosed people are required to have a one year real life test (RLT) before any surgeries. How will these people be protected during this difficult social transition time if they are systematically criminalized by our governing bodies on the basis of anatomy or the possession of a specific form of ID?

      I personally use women’s bathrooms all the time. It’s common sense since I look and behave as a woman. Last time I checked the bathroom signs said women and men not penis and vaginas. I have not yet encountered older people in midlife crisis yet but if I happen to see one I wouldn’t make a big deal of it. Trans people transition at different times in their lives. To condemn “old men” for wanting to be women at that point in their lives is called ageism.

      I agree with not allowing men in womens bathrooms and viceversa. But I agree more with gender neutral and single stall private bathrooms. Everybody needs to use the restroom! It’s more civilized that way and we wouldn’t have this discussion if it was this way. I use them whenever they are available since they tend to be cleaner 🙂

    3. Like Julia Serrano said in one of her performances: “Some women have a penis… some men don’t… And the rest of the world is just going to have to get the fuck over it”

      Please educate yourselves and peace to all!

  9. What seems to be missing from this whole debate is simple courtesy. People in bathrooms and changerooms are generally in a vulnerable position. If your appearance is likely to cause people to be frightened for their safety in such a circumstance, whether you're transsexual, a crossdresser, or even a butch cissexual woman, then have some consideration for others.

    It's perceptions of people's sex that causes the anxiety – not whether someone has a penis or an M on their identification.

    In my experience, late transitioning transsexual women are often the worst offenders in this respect – dripping in male privilege, and forcing their newly purchased womanhood on everyone they meet.

    1. Oh common now! Butch lesbians need to be more fem as to not offend someone?!? Nope. We all have 14th amendment and nowhere in the 14th amendment does it say that I have the right to live in a world that will always only present me with that which is pleasing and validates my own world views. If some blue haired old woman is bothered by the dyke with a blue mohawk, the one with the problem is the old woman, not the dyke.

      I too have met some late-transitioning transsexuals who do drip of male privilege and it's almost impossible for me to be around them.

    2. If people are concerned about the appearance of other people in public restrooms, I wonder how they even function at work, on public transit, at school or doing things in their day to day life. Do they get all scared and need to take a Vallium whenever they see a transsexual sitting down at a restaurant at a table at the other end of the establishment! I mean, even though they are minding their own business, they could very well put down that sammich and jump across the tables to rape that person! You can’t trust those dirty minorities, I mean transsexuals!

      Seriously, Natasha… your fear is unfounded.

  10. If you were not born a woman, you are not a woman. God did not intent for you to be a woman, deal with it. If you decide you do not belive in a god, its only because you want to ignore the fact that its not up to you, whether or not you are a woman…………………………….You wish you were a woman, in the end, you are not.

    I am hungry , an orange sounds good. I have apples, shall I paint them orange and act as though they are oranges?

    1. No one is born a man or a woman, we're all born BABIES, and if you think that babies have a gender then you're probably someone who should not be around babies. If God exists, then that deity made the gays and the straights and the Universe and the Devil and the good and the evil, and therefore sounds like one mixed-up fucker of a God.

  11. Jason. Mathew 19 12. Go check your bible, God made Intersex and Transgender people according to the bible, they came under the term Eunuch in biblical times. Jesus himself said what is written in Mathew 19 12 and Gods word is in Isaiah where Eunuchs are very well spoken of.

    If you're going to make a religious argument you'll need to better understand the religious texts and their historical cultural context.

  12. The last time I was in a men’s room, I was led out to the ladies room? Out of all the bickering, what seems to be missing from most of the post is a concern for my Safty. Why? Is it ok for a man to beat me to death, simply cause i had to answer the call of nature? And is his Safty granted by “gay panic”? Am i supposed to just wear a diaper? And what if a genetic man or woman is sick and accidently uses the wrong restroom in their haste? Should they be jailed? Registered as a sex offender? What if they are blind? Or the sign is not clear? Or removed? So if you are sick, and the restroom that matches your id is out of service, and you have no choice but to use the restroom on yourself, or use the restroom that dose not match your id, should you then be jailed?

  13. all i can say is being a butch lesbian i have been stared at so many times, especially in places like the gym, when i really look butch, when i use the restroom. when i was younger it used to affect me, almost anxiety, but now almost 50, if the women get scared,its not my issue. hell ,i will and have used the mens restroom if the womans' rr is occupied. as a lesbian and a born female, apparently thats the issue here, i couldn't care less who is in the rr as long as their intention is to use the rr. mtf have the right, imo, to use whatever rr they feel they identiy with. with all the issues in this world, that we would have such division among our own community really fucks with me. isn't it enough that most straight people hate us, i mean really hate us??? do we have to hate ourselves too?

    1. Thank you, Dolly! Yours seems to be the only sensible comment here. I don't care who uses the restroom I'm in (the women's room) as long as they are there to use the restroom only, then leave, minding their own business and obviously threatening no one. It seems to me that it's easy enough to spot "a man dressed as a woman" as opposed to a crossdresser who looks like a woman at first glance, and is there because he/she is reasonably playing the part of a woman at that particular time, and uses the restroom for its intended purpose only. Actions speak louder than words – or makeup. To me, a crossdresser (as above) should be treated as a woman as long as she pretty much looks like one and acts like one. On the other hand a crossdresser in his male personna should be treated like a man. No man is "born a woman", no matter how often and how loudly he protests. One's gender expression is in the head, not between the legs. That mental self-image is the determining factor in how that person expresses himself, and cannot and should not be codified, defined, or legislated. A person born male but seriously feeling and considering himself female will act on that and BE female regardless of birth sex. Gender and physical sex are two very different things. A person born male who considers himself female and lives in that manner is as much a woman as a man who has had SRS – the only difference is that the man who has had SRS can pass for a woman while naked. Just one (trans)woman's opinion.

  14. i guess just recently being introduced into the actual tg community, i feel totally uneducated about the issues in a community that although i have been part of, i know nothing about.
    i guess what it boils down down to for me is that we have come so far as women, gays, lesbians, transgendered, by the conversations i have read so far, we still have so far to go, and honestly it just makes me sad.

  15. Does any intelligent person actually care about this? I always use the ladies room, I have never, not once had a problem. Thats what trans people have been doing for years. A sad truth is that you can do this with safety only if you have the genetics to pass acceptably. If you dont, no law will make any difference. The issue is not the law, but acceptance. If cis sexual people dont accept trans people no law will matter.

Leave a Reply