Sigvatr wrote:

You can even have a unisex stall in a regular toilet which costs very little - keeping in mind that 100% of the cost for every company would have to be paid by taxpayer money and 0% by the company itself.

 kronk wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

You can even have a unisex stall in a regular toilet which costs very little - keeping in mind that 100% of the cost for every company would have to be paid by taxpayer money and 0% by the company itself.

Maybe in Germany. I don't know your laws as I am not a German Lawyer.

Here in the states, if a law (federal, state, county, city) requires to have a wheel chair ramp, uni-sex bathroom, or whatever, and there is no grand-father clause or other provision for exclusion, then you must install said thingy and pay for it yourself by whatever date you're told.

 whembly wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

You can even have a unisex stall in a regular toilet which costs very little - keeping in mind that 100% of the cost for every company would have to be paid by taxpayer money and 0% by the company itself.

Maybe in Germany. I don't know your laws as I am not a German Lawyer.

Here in the states, if a law (federal, state, county, city) requires to have a wheel chair ramp, uni-sex bathroom, or whatever, and there is no grand-father clause or other provision for exclusion, then you must install said thingy and pay for it yourself by whatever date you're told.

If you don't, you can actually be sued for damages.

 kronk wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

You can even have a unisex stall in a regular toilet which costs very little - keeping in mind that 100% of the cost for every company would have to be paid by taxpayer money and 0% by the company itself.

Maybe in Germany. I don't know your laws as I am not a German Lawyer.

Here in the states, if a law (federal, state, county, city) requires to have a wheel chair ramp, uni-sex bathroom, or whatever, and there is no grand-father clause or other provision for exclusion, then you must install said thingy and pay for it yourself by whatever date you're told.

If you don't, you can actually be sued for damages.

And fined.

And if you have some sort of business license to operate, that could be put in peril in extreme cases.

Edit: I'm not saying that it's wrong to force businesses to do X, Y, or Z for public safety, etc. That's not my argument or point in posting.

NORTH CAROLINA -
Governor Pat McCrory's office sent out a release which it called "Myths vs Facts: What New York Times, Huffington Post and other media outlets aren't saying about common-sense privacy law." This refers to NC House Bill 2, which overrides all local ordinances concerning wages, employment and public accommodations. Thus, the law now bars local municipalities from creating their own rules prohibiting discrimination in public places based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It's this bill that shot down Charlotte's recently-passed ordinance that would have allowed transgender people to use the bathroom of the sex they identified with, not the sex they were born as.

Here are the statements sent out by McCrory's office, which supports House Bill 2.

1. Does the new bill limit or prohibit private sector companies from adopting their own nondiscrimination policies or practices?

Answer: No. Businesses are not limited by this bill. Private individuals, companies and universities can adopt new or keep existing nondiscrimination policies.

2. Does this bill take away existing protections for individuals in North Carolina?

Answer: No. In fact, for the first time in state history, this law establishes a statewide anti-discrimination policy in North Carolina which is tougher than the federal government's. This also means that the law in North Carolina is not different when you go city to city.

3. Can businesses and private facilities still offer reasonable accommodations for transgender people, like single occupancy bathrooms for instance?

Answer: Yes. This bill allows and does nothing to prevent businesses, and public or private facilities from providing single use bathrooms.

4. Can private businesses, if they choose, continue to allow transgender individuals to use the bathroom, locker room or other facilities of the gender they identify with, or provide other accommodations?

Answer: Yes. That is the prerogative of private businesses under this new law. For instance, if a privately-owned sporting facility wants to allow attendees of sporting events to use the restroom of their choice, or install unisex bathrooms, they can. The law neither requires nor prohibits them from doing so.

5. Does this law prohibit towns, cities or counties in North Carolina from setting their own nondiscrimination policies in employment that go beyond state law?

Answer: No. Town, cities and counties in North Carolina are still allowed to set stricter non-discrimination policies for their own employees if they choose.

6. Does this bill mean transgender people will always have to use the restroom of the sex of their birth, even if they have undergone a sex change?

Answer: No. This law simply says people must use the bathroom of the sex listed on their birth certificate. Anyone who has undergone a sex change can change their sex on their birth certificate.

7. I'm worried about how this new law affects transgender children or students in North Carolina. Does this bill allow bullying against transgender children in schools?

Answer: Absolutely not. North Carolina law specifically prohibits bullying and harassing behavior against children on the basis of sexual identity.

8. Does this bill affect people with disabilities?

Answer: No. Statewide law also bans discrimination based on disability.

9. Why did North Carolina pass this law in the first place?

Answer: The bill was passed after the Charlotte City Council voted to impose a regulation requiring businesses to allow a man into a women's restroom, shower, or locker room if they choose. This ordinance would have eliminated the basic expectations of privacy people have when using the rest room by allowing people to use the restroom of their choice. This new local regulation brought up serious privacy concerns by parents, businesses and others across the state, as well as safety concerns that this new local rule could be used by people who would take advantage of this to do harm to others.

In fact, the Charlotte City Council tried to pass this ordinance before but failed, and passed the same ordinance in February of 2016 despite serious concerns from state officials, business leaders and other concerned citizens.

10. What about parents or caregivers bringing children into the restroom?

Answer: The law provides exceptions to young children accompanied by parents or care givers.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

I think the main problem here is some people tend to lump "transvestites" and "transsexuals" in the same category. Transsexuals who have had the sex change procedure, and legally change their sex, are fine under State law (and were never the target of this legislation to begin with). Transvestites, or "cross dressers", were already forbidden to use restrooms of the opposite sex (and rightfully so).


However, my concern are for those transsexuals who haven't gone all the way, and gotten the final procedure done. In other words, for want of better terminology, people whom the porn industry refers to as "she-males" or people call "pre-op trannies". They are more or less "transformed" into the opposite sex, with only their original "equipment" still intact (and it doesn't always work for some transsexuals). These are the people that the subject of the debate, and the target of both the Charlotte ordinance and State law.

Personally, I don't see the problem. Most of these "pre-op" transsexuals generally prefer men or are bi-sexual. So, it's no different than a heterosexual, bi-sexual, or gay woman using the ladies room.

It's a non-issue and nothing to get worked up over for all of us "squares" in North Carolina.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

I think the main problem here is some people tend to lump "transvestites" and "transsexuals" in the same category. Transsexuals who have had the sex change procedure, and legally change their sex, are fine under State law (and were never the target of this legislation to begin with). Transvestites, or "cross dressers", were already forbidden to use restrooms of the opposite sex (and rightfully so).


However, my concern are for those transsexuals who haven't gone all the way, and gotten the final procedure done. In other words, for want of better terminology, people whom the porn industry refers to as "she-males" or people call "pre-op trannies". They are more or less "transformed" into the opposite sex, with only their original "equipment" still intact (and it doesn't always work for some transsexuals). These are the people that the subject of the debate, and the target of both the Charlotte ordinance and State law.

Personally, I don't see the problem. Most of these "pre-op" transsexuals generally prefer men or are bi-sexual. So, it's no different than a heterosexual, bi-sexual, or gay woman using the ladies room.

It's a non-issue and nothing to get worked up over for all of us "squares" in North Carolina.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its a rare subset.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its a rare subset.

So if owning a Wiener Dog but you wouldn't want your government passing laws specifically targeting Wiener Dog owners.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
However, my concern are for those transsexuals who haven't gone all the way, and gotten the final procedure done. In other words, for want of better terminology, people whom the porn industry refers to as "she-males" or people call "pre-op trannies". They are more or less "transformed" into the opposite sex, with only their original "equipment" still intact (and it doesn't always work for some transsexuals). These are the people that the subject of the debate, and the target of both the Charlotte ordinance and State law.

Personally, I don't see the problem. Most of these "pre-op" transsexuals generally prefer men or are bi-sexual. So, it's no different than a heterosexual, bi-sexual, or gay woman using the ladies room.

 kronk wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

You can even have a unisex stall in a regular toilet which costs very little - keeping in mind that 100% of the cost for every company would have to be paid by taxpayer money and 0% by the company itself.

Maybe in Germany. I don't know your laws as I am not a German Lawyer.

Here in the states, if a law (federal, state, county, city) requires to have a wheel chair ramp, uni-sex bathroom, or whatever, and there is no grand-father clause or other provision for exclusion, then you must install said thingy and pay for it yourself by whatever date you're told.

Most people go into a public bathroom for a specific reason, do their business and leave, it's not much of a place for social interactions

 Chongara wrote:
Given that at a glance it may be impossible to ascertain someone's sex with 100% accuracy and the clear, serious and immediate threat that someone may be going into the incorrect bathroom I now demand state & federal genital inspectors in every bathroom. You don't enter the law has verified you belong, period. This can't be some namby-pamby half baked inspection either, I'm talking no clothes, full squeeze for the gents, full probe for the ladies and the axe for anything in between. If you don't hate our children's safety™ you can't be opposed to this. Object to this post if you want but it only serves as definitive proof you support pervents & child molestors.

 Frazzled wrote:
No if you were saying that right

 Frazzled wrote:
No, what I was referring to is this is a non-issue. We don't need legislation about it.

I agree this is a non-issue that doesn't need legislation.

 Frazzled wrote:

I agree this is a non-issue that doesn't need legislation.

Exactly. What it needs is better stall doors.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
However, my concern are for those transsexuals who haven't gone all the way, and gotten the final procedure done. In other words, for want of better terminology, people whom the porn industry refers to as "she-males" or people call "pre-op trannies". They are more or less "transformed" into the opposite sex, with only their original "equipment" still intact (and it doesn't always work for some transsexuals). These are the people that the subject of the debate, and the target of both the Charlotte ordinance and State law.

Personally, I don't see the problem. Most of these "pre-op" transsexuals generally prefer men or are bi-sexual. So, it's no different than a heterosexual, bi-sexual, or gay woman using the ladies room.

It's a non-issue and nothing to get worked up over for all of us "squares" in North Carolina.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

I really wish I knew what the right answer was.

For a male to female, their choices would not greatly affect bathroom use, as they can sit (though it is a braver woman than I that willingly sits in some public stalls!).
But for female to male, without the use of prosthesis or phalloplasty, they cannot stand to go. In places where there are only urinals, there is an entire industry based around passable, practical and comfortable prosthetic urinary devices, some are hundreds upon hundreds of dollars. Now I can't say the aesthetics are purely based on their ability to pass safely at a urinal, as non Stand to Void prosthesis can be similarly costed.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
However, my concern are for those transsexuals who haven't gone all the way, and gotten the final procedure done. In other words, for want of better terminology, people whom the porn industry refers to as "she-males" or people call "pre-op trannies". They are more or less "transformed" into the opposite sex, with only their original "equipment" still intact (and it doesn't always work for some transsexuals). These are the people that the subject of the debate, and the target of both the Charlotte ordinance and State law.

Personally, I don't see the problem. Most of these "pre-op" transsexuals generally prefer men or are bi-sexual. So, it's no different than a heterosexual, bi-sexual, or gay woman using the ladies room.

It's a non-issue and nothing to get worked up over for all of us "squares" in North Carolina.

I'm not one of those terminology police (the whole "born X" vs "assigned X", "cis", etc etc) but what you're saying is a generalisation of something that is already poorly misrepresented or understood in the public eye.
In our heads there are these three stages of trans: Unchanged, Crossdressing, and Surgery.
In truth, there are a great many steps, all of which are valid and "finished" if that is what that person feels comfortable with. Lower surgery is becoming less of a terrifying spectre, but an awful lot of people stop at hormones and top surgery, and remain there.

For a male to female, their choices would not greatly affect bathroom use, as they can sit (though it is a braver woman than I that willingly sits in some public stalls!).
But for female to male, without the use of prosthesis or phalloplasty, they cannot stand to go. In places where there are only urinals, there is an entire industry based around passable, practical and comfortable prosthetic urinary devices, some are hundreds upon hundreds of dollars. Now I can't say the aesthetics are purely based on their ability to pass safely at a urinal, as non Stand to Void prosthesis can be similarly costed.

I have read cases in the news of trans kids and young teens making themselves sick by refusing to drink or pee at school because they are denied access to the bathroom they feel comfortable using. I have friends who only feel safe to go at home, or if I guard the door of an otherwise empty public bathroom for them. others use radar keys to access disabled toilets, which is not their intended use.
I really wish I knew what the right answer was.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

For a male to female, their choices would not greatly affect bathroom use, as they can sit (though it is a braver woman than I that willingly sits in some public stalls!).
But for female to male, without the use of prosthesis or phalloplasty, they cannot stand to go. In places where there are only urinals, there is an entire industry based around passable, practical and comfortable prosthetic urinary devices, some are hundreds upon hundreds of dollars. Now I can't say the aesthetics are purely based on their ability to pass safely at a urinal, as non Stand to Void prosthesis can be similarly costed.

Really, though, urinals are for lazy men-myself included, and kinda wierd if you really think about them too much (not as horrible as troughs, though!). Everyone can sit on a toilet. I actually can't think of a place where there were only urinals?

 AegisGrimm wrote:

For a male to female, their choices would not greatly affect bathroom use, as they can sit (though it is a braver woman than I that willingly sits in some public stalls!).
But for female to male, without the use of prosthesis or phalloplasty, they cannot stand to go. In places where there are only urinals, there is an entire industry based around passable, practical and comfortable prosthetic urinary devices, some are hundreds upon hundreds of dollars. Now I can't say the aesthetics are purely based on their ability to pass safely at a urinal, as non Stand to Void prosthesis can be similarly costed.

Really, though, urinals are for lazy men-myself included, and kinda wierd if you really think about them too much (not as horrible as troughs, though!). Everyone can sit on a toilet. I actually can't think of a place where there were only urinals?