Liberal Montgomery County, Maryland, has passed a measure to ban discrimination against transgender people in housing, employment and "taxi service." But a provision to require business establishments to allow individuals with gender identity conflicts to use either male or female restrooms, "regardless of whether the individual has provided documentation of their gender identity" (i.e., even if there are physically of the opposite sex from that for which the restroom is designated) was removed following vigorous protests, when it became clear that the measure would otherwise fail to pass.
Another state, another restroom controversy. A human rights complaint was filed against a Scottsdale, Arizona bar after a pre-operative (biologically male) but female attired trans woman was ejected for using the women's restroom (it's now been settled). The bar owner claimed that female patrons using the restroom were "freaking out." But facing action by the state's attorney general's office, he agreed to turn one of the bar's restrooms into a unisex facility.
The plight of transgenders and restrooms is real, especially those who are biologically of one sex but otherwise self-identify with the opposite. Turning to the state in liberal jurisdictions may provide some "wins" by forcing business owners to create unisex, presumably single-user facilities, but I doubt it's going to help generate public support for transgender acceptance.
12 Comments for “Transgenders and Restroom Choice”
posted by ETJB on
What would you suggest?
posted by John on
How about at least using the restroom that one’s genitalia most resembles?
posted by Carol Anne on
How about referring to transgendered people as “transgendered people” rather than “transgenders”?
posted by avee on
Carol, how about joining the pc language police (oh, you already have!).
posted by Les GS on
John, my genitals don’t resemble any restroom that I know of. 🙂 But if I did use the restroom used by (mostly) people whose genitals most closely resembled mine, I’d either get screamed at, beaten up or have the cops called on me, bearded, baritone fellow that I am. No thanks. I’ll use the men’s room instead, no matter how gross the floors in there get.
posted by TomChicago on
unisex bathrooms have solved this problem in other places.
posted by Avee on
unisex restrooms are, as the post says, mostly “signle-user facilities.” Fine for maybe some restaurants; totally unworkable for high-volume venues.
I understand the difficulties this can pose to, especially, pre-op (or no-intention op) transgendered people (oh, carol, I HOPE I have used the correct term, since that is sooo important!).
But does the general public also have a privacy right to use a restroom that is only single-sex when single-user facilities are not practical? And what about small business owners who can’t afford to add or remodel their restrooms?
A government decree is not going to solve these issues; it’s going to take a lot of diaolgue and some compromise
posted by Linda on
What is the “BIG DEAL?”
Doesn’t EVERYONE have a “UNISEX” bathroom at home? Get a grip people…
posted by tbh on
I don’t understand what the big issue is. I doubt there is a women’s restroom in the country that has nothing more than a row of toilets without stalls were women just pop a squat out in the open. The only public thing going on in the restroom anyway is washing of hands or putting on lipstick. Likewise, not a lot of “public” activities are taking place in the men’s room, unless of course you are a GOP politician. This is just another clear case of paranoid ignorance.
posted by LIsaben on
I agree with Linda. What’s the big deal? Really, people, women’s restrooms have stalls with doors for god’s sake! And if you’re freaking out in a bar rest room because the person next to you might have a penis, you should really not be out in public. My only complaint would be that most women’s rooms do not need anymore people standing at the sink, preening in the mirrors, making sure their paint an lipstick looks whorish enough for drunk they left drinking at the bar.
posted by Craig2 on
Ablutionary units for people with physical disabilities already tend to be unisex.
Incidentally, I seem to recall Phyllis Schlafly warning about the heinous threat to western civilisation posed by unisex public lavatories if the Equal Rights Amendment passed…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Lori Heine on
As all the public restrooms I’ve ever been in — at least those with more than one toilet — have had enclosed stalls, I don’t care if the person in the next stall is transgender. Anyone who sits around worrying about stuff like that has WAY too much time on her hands.
I do not, however, want to share a restroom with men. Isn’t there enough forced familiarity between men and women in our hyper-hetero-sexed-up society as it is? At the risk of sounding like a prude, I think women ought to have some privacy. We already get ogled and harassed enough without having to put up with it in the bathroom, for crying out loud.
Again, it makes no difference to me what sort of private parts someone might have under her dress. Someone who identifies as female should be able to use the public facilities without being glared at because her voice is too deep to suit somebody, or because they think she’s got too much hair on her arms.
Unisex public restrooms, however, are simply a stupid idea.