There are only two true "solutions" to the challenges associated with this and neither is viable - provide individual bathrooms for all, or provide unisex bathrooms for all.

A third option exists that's admittedly not a viable solution either.

Send Ronda Rousey into that changeroom. Let this guy try his stupid shit. See what happens.

Now that is a PPV MMA I would watch.

You know, having not read any of this legislation I am starting to appreciate the nuance (or lack thereof) of your argument. This man should have been arrested. Police should have been called. Neither of those things happened, which means that regardless of trolling or limit testing by this individual, there was no actual "test" of if this kind of behavior is expected from the law. Clearly this is not the spirit of the law, but it may be within the letter, and "proving" that you are trans (sans obvious conversion) is sort of like "proving" you are gay, or a mensa member - not exactly going to show up in a blood test.


I'm starting to think the logical conclusion to this will be single use facilities that are unisex, but to enable that will require substantial overhaul and investment.

You can keep tilting at your stupid fucking windmill, but no one wants to be your Sancho Panza.

Unless he wants to say otherwise, we have yet another case of a heterosexual male saying that he wants to go into the women's changing room, which isn't what the law is about in the least.

Are conservatives unable to imagine anyone as anything other than a sex fiend 24/7, including themselves?

I'm sorry, I am genuinely confused by your comment. What does "heterosexual" have to do with this. Please explain.

Exactly. But then what about female homosexuals. They could get off on that as well, but no one's arguing to keep them out.

Why can't we all just not care?

What's the point of posting this? Flamebait?

The guy in the story was clearly trolling. Based on what I read/watched he made no effort to present as female, did not identify himself as female and erroneously seems to believe that the new washroom and changeroom laws somehow give men the right to change wherever they like.

If anyone else had posted this, it would likely be a +1 WTF, but because obvious troll is obvious...

Respectfully, like HP Lovekraftwerk above, you don’t understand what you’re talking about. HP Lovekraftwerk seems to think this has something to do with being gay or straight, with is bizarre, and you seem to think you have “to make an effort to present as female” – which is likewise totally irrelevant.

From Lambda Legal
(http://www.lambdalegal.org/about-us)

Q: What if someone doesn't look masculine or feminine enough to use a particular restroom?

A: There is no rule that a person must look a certain way to use a certain restroom. This kind of “gender policing” is harmful to everyone, whether a transgender person, a butch woman, an effeminate man or anyone dressed or groomed in a way that doesn’t conform to someone else’s gender standards.

"Hey, buddy, that's the women's room."
"I am a woman."
"Ok."

That's all well and good and should be what we strive for and hopefully at some point we will just have "washrooms" rather than segregated washrooms.

However, in WA state "a state regulation went into effect that guarantees access to restrooms, locker rooms, and other such facilities according to a person’s gender identity. It affects public and private buildings, including schools, restaurants, stores and most places of employment.

Seattle recently affirmed a similar rule and required single-stall restrooms to be open to all genders." (emphasis mine).

State's rules for transgender restroom access set off debate

So yeah, from one standpoint if the person in your post has a female gender identity, then there's no problem. However, it really sounds like this was a cis-male (and yes, I hate having to use "cis" just as much as you, but it's appropriate here) who just wanted to make a point. There's no indication that the person was trans, identified as trans or female or made any attempt to convey that. The linked TV report even says right at the end that the WA state regulations rely on "verbal identification or physical appearance and this man offered neither."

Do you honestly believe that this man had a sincere desire to use the women's change room as a safe space yet also refused to identify himself to patrons or staff, and also failed to come forward to defend his choice? It really, really sounds like it was a guy who just wanted to fuck with people, point out a poorly worded law and make the point that... ? Well, I don't know what his point is, except that I guess people are fuckwits.

“I hate having to use "cis" just as much as you”

No you don’t.

I don’t use neologisms and cant to hide the lack of logic in my assertions. And when the TV report says that regulations depend on “physical appearance” they are in error. All that is required in the brave new world of make-believe is the assertion, by anyone at all, that they are the sex they want to be that day – that’s the fucking point. Appearance isn’t the measure – biological sex isn’t considered, just belief.

The legislation borne of this magical thinking throws open the doors to every woman-only space, including those for children, to placate a fraction of a percent of the population that is arguably suffering from serious mental illness.

Girls getting changed before swim class should not have have naked men joining them in the showers. It’s an abhorrent notion. And you know what, it isn't going to happen.

I do in fact hate using "cis" as I've mostly encountered it in a pejorative sense, but believe what you will.

I'll grant you the point that girls in change rooms shouldn't have to see "men". However, your claim that our "brave new world of make believe" (rather than neologisms, we'll go with your time worn cliches) is just a slippery slope argument. As though suddenly with new regulations there will be an epidemic of men going in to change rooms to leer at women. It's the same argument that claims decriminalizing or legalizing drugs will create a whole bunch of new substance abusers.

And why would we ever want to placate small fractions of our population. Let's get rid of those pesky handicap parking spaces.

Seriously though, trans legislation isn't meant to allow men to get away with pretending to identify as female in order to stare at tits in the change room or listen to women pissing. It's meant to help a small percent of the population that is severely marginalized. But you've demonstrated on numerous occasions that your only concern (if we can call it concern) is with status quo, "real" men and "real" women and their place in society.

I mean, if you honestly believe that there is just going to be millions of dudes pretending to be women for an afternoon in order to check out prepubescent girls and grannies in a change room, you're fucked. By that notion you must already believe that gay men have fought for rights and acceptance for so long so that they can openly hit on poor hetero you.

Ostensibly your position seems to be one of protecting women-only spaces, but your narrow definition of biological woman. Gender and sex ARE spectrum. Are we going to require masculine presenting women to prove they don't have penises in order to use a female changeroom? You can't just pretend that there isn't an issue here.

I can agree that as currently worded, many of these laws are difficult and can create problems. However, we can't go back in time, just like we can't segregate schools to appease racists or begin sterilizing mentally incompetent adults without consent.

I understand the point you are making, but you do it so insensitively, so abhorrently that it is lost beneath the bile you spew.

“I understand the point you are making”

Then you have the answer to your question, “What's the point of posting this?”

Classic. When finally something is said you can't refute or counter, you say nothing at all.

On the contrary.

I guess my meaning was unclear…

On April 12, you wrote to me asking:

“What's the point of posting this?”

Then on April 13, you responded to my post, in part, by saying:

“I understand the point you are making,”

All I was saying was that if you understood the point I was making, then you must likewise understand why I posted the story in the first place - In other words, I thought your penultimate post answered the question posed by your initial post:

“I understand the point you are making”

Then you have the answer to your question, “What's the point of posting this?”

Didn’t mean to be cryptic. I apologize if I was.

Thank you for clarifying your lack of a point by using more words to say the same nothing.

You surely meant to be cryptic. But hey, it only took umpteen posts and three days to get us here.

There is really one question that has to be asked before anything else can be said, and no one has answered it: what gender is this person, by self-identification?

Since everyone seems to be referring to them as a man, I'm guessing the answer is male. In which case, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I want to say something about a Third Leg.. but I 'll skip it.

Good question, reasonable assumption. Although, it only puts off the argument/discussion for as long as it takes someone with the balls (har-de har har) to do the same thing then stand in front of a camera and say "I have body dysmorphia, and I used the appropriate changing room."

I can imagine these kinds of conversation are going to be complicated, and therefore around for a long while...