New Hampshire Trans Sanctuary Bill (plus two others)

Submitted by 1carus_x t3_10a6q2s in newhampshire

New Hampshire recently proposed three bills regarding trans people
HB264
HB368
And unfortunately, HB396
And a new update: there's 619-FN as well, much worse than 396 imo. I really don't have the energy to edit the script I have, there's so many points to be proven harmful and I am honestly just really, really tired.

HB264 will allow people to change their gender marker without requiring surgery, which for trans women, often results in sterilization. The bill wouldn't force people to undergo medicalization that they may not want or need for their care so they can be legally recognized. If HB396 passes, all of that would have been for nothing.

HB396 changes the definition of sex to "biological sex", and never even defines what that is. It would forcefully out trans people, put them into dangerous situations, and overall restrict their freedom to live comfortably. It would also increase the hostility of butch and GNC women in bathrooms, who have already seen an increase in attacks while they're just trying to pee. This bill is obviously trying to protect women, but it's only going to further harm them, as more people will feel comfortable being "bathroom police" and yelling at cis (non trans) women. Not to mention a similar bill HB1180 failed last year.

HB368 is a trans sanctuary bill, which means New Hampshire will not comply with subpoenas from other states trying to prosecute trans folk and parents of trans children. Our motto is "live free or die", and this bill would actually support that, the government should not be preventing care that is being prescribed by medical professionals. As more states are proposing bills to criminalize and erase the existence of trans people, this is more important than ever.

If you wish to contact your local representative you can find their information here.
Down below in the comments I will have a script that can be used to urge reps to help protect those that are fleeing their homes to avoid prosecution, to help prevent required medicalization just to be seen legally, and to discourage the bill that encourages harassment towards and forces trans people into unsafe situations

60

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_j42o4u0 wrote

[deleted]

53

billegoat45 t1_j43xrp0 wrote

Absolutely, it’s intentionally open to the interpretation of whoever is enforcing it sees fit.

12

HowardNelsonJr t1_j43q2t8 wrote

We should propose a get mental help bill

42

Darwins_Dog t1_j43uuwd wrote

We could use more funding and support for mental health in NH. I'd support a bill to give people more access to mental help.

53

[deleted] t1_j46m7ub wrote

Mental health care for trans people is essential, yes. The consequences of the bigotry and violence that trans people are subjected to are huge. I wouldn’t mind at all if you and I subsidizes it with our tax dollars.

8

BelichicksBurner t1_j46r5gp wrote

Sadly, NH conservatives are fairly useless when it comes to mental health care as well. TBH I'm not sure what local conservatives are actually good at outside of trying to privatize the education system and restricting abortion rights.

6

Historical_Pie_5193 t1_j479kwz wrote

Have you ever thought about asking one?

2

BelichicksBurner t1_j479tpz wrote

Nope

2

Historical_Pie_5193 t1_j47a365 wrote

Then how would you know if what you’re saying is true?

2

BelichicksBurner t1_j47attc wrote

Believe it or not one does have the ability to look up what has been passed by state lawmakers. It's pretty clear to anyone willing to check what the agendas are for the local GOP. I don't ask because the lip service I'll get means less than nothing. I don't care what people say, I care what they do...and what they do is publicly available information.

4

Historical_Pie_5193 t1_j47bwy1 wrote

What law makers pass and what every day republicans want are not necessarily the same thing.

0

BelichicksBurner t1_j4q6ypj wrote

Wow interesting maybe stop voting republican then since they clearly don't represent you or your wanhahahaha sorry I couldn't even finish it because we both know you'll vote for anyone with that R next to their name. That's why trump won and why we're not too far off from becoming Northern Alabama. Again, I don't care what you say I care what you do...and people like you have been voting in right wing nut-jobs and free staters. That's all I need to know about you. Make changes to that first then we can talk about whatever you want, chief.

1

Historical_Pie_5193 t1_j47d1qu wrote

I’m not trying to be a clown, but I’m a republican and I don’t see the need for a lot of what the legislature does.

0

Azr431 t1_j446z6k wrote

Republicans would be the perfect sponsor of such a thing. It could be some self-help therapy

1

ThunderheadsAhead t1_j43qylh wrote

396 is an example of why it should be required to include a "what problem are you trying to solve" section on these bills. I'd also be interested in what they mean by "biologically male and female", particularly for intersex people who aren't at either end of the sex binary and are, in fact, somewhere in the middle - and have no problem being in the middle (intersex is not the same thing as transgender).

I wish 264 didn't mix male and female and gender all at once, which are different. Sex: male/female/inter, Gender: Man/Woman/Non-Binary/xenogenders, etc. This is relatively new distinction in cultural discourse and won't get fixed in state law anytime soon, but focusing in on only male/female erases intersex folks (there are over 3 dozen types and collectively, we show up in about 1-2% of the population). I do like that 264 mentions requiring a court order to change the birth certificate more than once, to prevent flipflopping (figuring out some of this stuff can be personally confusing).

21

B1naryD1git t1_j448twc wrote

You can't figure out what they mean by biologically male and female?

2

1carus_x OP t1_j44a48l wrote

Considering the fact there's a minimum of 6 different chromosomal sexes (not including all the variations of intersex, just a few), there's also endocrinologic sex, gonadal sex, and morphological sex. What is it basing it on, just one, or all? They're all biological, so which one?

22

Kekwexpress t1_j44coln wrote

Aren’t you talking about turner syndrome type stuff? Those are genetic errors in the developmental stage. These aren’t normal conditions. I don’t really understand what the point of all this is.

3

1carus_x OP t1_j44cwi8 wrote

Turner syndrome is just one of over 40 different variations. They are natural variations in sexual development, don't care for your intersexism. Still doesn't answer as to which of the biological sex categories intersex folk would fall into

11

Kekwexpress t1_j44dk66 wrote

But all these variations are abnormal conditions. It should be pretty obvious that when referring to biological sex, it’s referring to male/female.

3

Mrpgal14 t1_j44l45s wrote

OP replied well already but also just to state clearly, even if those things were uncommon abnormalities they should still be accounted for in the wording of the law to avoid any problems that ambiguity might cause. Laws shouldn’t be “pretty obvious” they should be crystal clear so certainly groups aren’t unfairly exempt, or worse so that the government doesn’t use that ambiguity to persecute whomever they see fit.

19

5teerPike t1_j45algt wrote

Plenty of intersex people live perfectly regular lives without cisnormative surgery, and such operations are increasingly considered unnecessary.

Being left-handed used to be considered an abnormal condition as well.

11

1carus_x OP t1_j44e7p1 wrote

Nope, intersex people are actually common, just as common as red heads, around 1.7% . Do you think those with blue eyes also have an abnormal condition since it was a mutation?
Again, don't care for your intersexism. And once again, I am asking, which of the several categories of sex are we referring to? Chromosomal, gonadal, morphological, endocrinologic? Intersex people's sex changes drastically depending on that category you're using.

3

vipstrippers t1_j44lk4i wrote

Where did you get 1.7%? You’re telling me almost 2 people out of 100 are intersex.

Edit: that number came from one person

Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.

7

largeb789 t1_j468g72 wrote

Even if it's 0.0017% the law should need to account for that situation. 0.0017% of 1.4 million would still leave the 24 people in a legal gray area and likely not legally able to enter a public restroom. A law restricting a person who has used the online handle of vipstrippers from entering a public restroom would be less restrictive.

3

quackslikeadoug t1_j46aksy wrote

You're confusing sex with characteristics associated with sexual dimorphism. The only two categories involved in defining a person's sex are chromosomal and gonadal, and ultimately gonadal wins out in any case where the two can't otherwise be reconciled; what really matters for most medical and social purposes is a person's phenotypical, or gonadal, sex.

2

1carus_x OP t1_j46avmn wrote

So you agree female isn't always XX then? There's XY woman with ovaries. Which, wow.... Means sex isn't binary! It's bimodal, two points that have an overlap. If it were binary there wouldn't be any overlap. What about those who don't have either or have both? Which bathroom does someone with a vagina and penis go to? Which prison would they put into? You'd be forcing men into the women's bathrooms, especially those who literally have peni and ovaries who have lived as men, are treated as such. Why do you want to make women uncomfortable?

1

vipstrippers t1_j44m2ve wrote

Wrong

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/ Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.

1

1carus_x OP t1_j44msd4 wrote

That is never what intersex meant lmao. It's pretty easy to look up the current definition of what is actually accepted. You are linking a post from 21 years ago. CAH babies are often forced to have genital mutilations, they are assigned the same and treated the same

12

Kekwexpress t1_j4np5yh wrote

Ridiculous. You can’t say that intersex is common. It’s extremely rare. You can’t use intersex people as an example to obviate the biological duality of sex, which upon all generation is based since all of human history.

Intersex is a biological anomaly and can’t be used to invalidate the concept of sex as a generality. Even further, most intersex people still manifest as either male or female.

The idea that intersex people exist doesn’t invalidate the idea that there is a male and a female.

So without being daft, you tell me which category of sex they’re talking about.

1

1carus_x OP t1_j4nq56k wrote

"Rare" yet there's at least two of us in these comments 🤭 no one has answered the question as to how those that can't be categorized into m or f would be placed, funny....

1

quackslikeadoug t1_j46a4u1 wrote

None of the genetic disorders resulting in "intersex disorders" creates a situation in which the functional sex of a living person is in any real question. The most compelling, case, obviously, would be weak or missing SRY, but we already have words for making distinctions between displayed characteristics and people's genotypes: phenotypes.

1

B1naryD1git t1_j44e75o wrote

Never heard of any of that. I've only met the 2 kinds of sexes in my 40+ years of life on earth

−11

1carus_x OP t1_j44ehz0 wrote

Great way to admit you only passed high school biology, actually, not even as I learned about the different types of sex in high school, and that someone half your age knows more abt the thing you act like you know anything abt.
Thanks for spending so much money on giving me rewards tho 💖

11

B1naryD1git t1_j44ffow wrote

I admit I only know about the 2 bathrooms. May not have even passed high school biology

−5

5teerPike t1_j45aqcj wrote

Public unisex bathrooms were never a problem until somebody told you trans people also use them.

7

B1naryD1git t1_j46r4we wrote

I don't have a problem with any of them just like I think weirdo goths and juggalos can do whatever hell they want. I still think they are weirdos though

1

5teerPike t1_j46rgq6 wrote

I wouldn't compare a gender identity to a costume, personally. Seeing as one is a choice & the other isn't.

I'm non binary, what do you want to know?

3

1carus_x OP t1_j46ai6h wrote

Wow I can't believe you actually admitted it lmao. Admitting it is the first step, here's a quick reading to catch you up on modern science, it's really quite fascinating all the ways the body can develop, here's more in the most common ones

6

ThunderheadsAhead t1_j45ujbo wrote

I personally have biological (genetic, endocrine, physical) markers for both male and female sexes. I'm a variation in the rich mosaic of human experience and I was born this way. I'd like them to clarify. I'd really like them to include a "why are we doing this" section in House bills.

I want to live my life in peace and have body autonomy. I want to be left alone when it comes to my genetics. I really just want to be left alone; I almost didn't comment on this post because this general cultural argument is so exhausting.

However, I'd also like to avoid being invalidated/erased by state law. I'm interested in things being crystal clear so that attempts to wage a battle over gender doesn't have negative side effects.

8

quackslikeadoug t1_j469lbg wrote

People with intersex disorders still have a definitive medical sex, albeit there are obviously other complications concerning what medicines will or won't kill you in cases where the disorder drastically affects your endocrinology. There's no "somewhere in between", there isn't some magical incremental slider between male and female.

−2

ThunderheadsAhead t1_j46z6nc wrote

>There's no "somewhere in between"

You should see the view from in here.

It also used to be "definitive(ly) medical" to do cupping, bleeding, and other strange things at one point, so I think that phrase doesn't necessarily equate to objective reality. I probably won't change your mind, and that's okay, but maybe "definite medical" is a little fuzzy and there's room to maneuver.

2

1carus_x OP t1_j42dxey wrote

Dear [name],
New Hampshire's motto is "Live Free or Die", and HB396 would prevent residents from doing such. A similar bill was introduced last year, HB1180, which failed. There is a reason for it's failing, New Hampshirites believe in living free. HB264 will help make New Hampshire a safer place, requiring surgery for trans people will often result in forced sterilization just so they can be legally seen, all of which would have been for nothing if HB396 passes. HB368 will help protect trans people across the country. As Oklahoma is trying to ban all gender affirming care, other states like Oregon, Virgina, Arkansas, Indiana, Washington, Florida, Mississippi, and many, many more whom are trying to erase, criminalize and ban the existence of trans people, a trans sanctuary bill is more important than ever. Please help save lives of those whom are already marginalized and at risk, pass HB264 and HB368.

18

1carus_x OP t1_j46l1ux wrote

Thank you all for getting this post up to 50 upvotes! It's not much but I know this post is also #4 most controversial for this month, but it's getting there. I've gotten at least 25 people I know personally to send an email, not including any who's done it from this post.
There's a few other reproductive rights bills, including the right to sterilization w/o hurdles, and the right to contraception that can also be advocated for! I don't have a script for those as I already sent an email a bit ago when some of them were first introduced, but they're pretty closely related

4

PrometheusOnLoud t1_j4472bf wrote

What is wrong with the term "biological sex"?

17

[deleted] t1_j448dd6 wrote

[removed]

15

SillyIce t1_j44l4ym wrote

Sex is not a spectrum.

−1

1carus_x OP t1_j44lrbw wrote

I mean you can be factually wrong if you want to, but it doesn't change the reality

Eta since my og was removed: Nothing on its own, as technically with transitioning trans people are their biological sex. By definition, it is based off several components: chromosomes, gonads, hormones, genitals, and secondary sex characteristics. With hrt and surgeries, they eventually fall into those categories. However, with the lack of description in the law it allows it to be interpreted by who ever is using it at the moment. It also further erases intersex people, who do not fall directly into male or female, are the ones actually receiving genital mutilations as young children

18

SillyIce t1_j44oegh wrote

Dude, XX and XY are the norm, sure there are exceptions, however, are rare (0.5%-1.7%), so considering most individuals, sex is binary. And for the population of humans, sex is strongly bimodal: most people, no matter whether you define sex using chromosomes or morphology or gamete structure, fit into the classes of either “male” or “female.” You still need two different gamete’s to reproduce.

4

squintyfacemcgee t1_j450fut wrote

The population of New Hampshire is currently around ~1.389 million. 0.5% to 1.7% of 1.389 million people is 6,945 to 23,613 people. If the bill does not explicitly define "sex," then it leaves those people ambiguous under the law, meaning the law is open to interpretation by whoever is using it at the moment. While the numbers may work out to be statistically insignificant, those numbers are derived from actual people with actual lives. Do they not deserve to be accounted for?

20

[deleted] t1_j44wd41 wrote

[deleted]

1

billegoat45 t1_j44y2my wrote

Again, intersex people exist

9

[deleted] t1_j4520xq wrote

[deleted]

4

1carus_x OP t1_j462czu wrote

Denying the existence of intersex people is the thing that has no basis in reality. You are conflating gender identity and sex

4

Kyle_Smiles t1_j44jeaa wrote

Seek mental help

−11

1carus_x OP t1_j4656cm wrote

I've been for over six years, and have now had my diagnosis changed to "in remission"- I've never been better.
You, on the other hand, are denying factual science, as I am giving the actual definition. The definition of delusional, for your sake, "characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary", and hope that you seek the care you need. I can't imagine how hard it must be to live with such delusions, that a whole population doesn't exist to you because you only passed middle school biology.

3

8kib t1_j4404wu wrote

How about that inflation, huh?

13

seaweed_is_cool t1_j45rqbw wrote

Sent your message to my local rep. Thank you for posting this and making it easy for me to follow through quickly.

4

1carus_x OP t1_j472p50 wrote

Thank you for helping out 💖 I tried to make it as easy as possible

2

phantom3535 t1_j473m8j wrote

I don't see much of the argument against letting people change the sex on their birth certificate without surgery. If they can already change it with SS, and on their Driver's License and everywhere else then why does it matter? Seems like an arbitrary requirement to have to begin with.

And for HB396, never assume that common sense or reason is guaranteed. IMO most people naturally assume "biological sex" is split into two categories or male/female with rare exception. But bills should always err on the side of specificity because someone enforcing such a bill can interpret it however they want then claim it wasn't defined clearly as a defense later.

​

*Not an expert on law or trans issues.

2

1carus_x OP t1_j47718h wrote

Both great statements. The use of biological sex is often assumed that there's only a few exceptions, but someone else did the math and we're looking at at max around 20k people whom this bill puts them in a grey area, we're as common as redheads

2

travel_tech t1_j46yp51 wrote

For the first one, is it allowing you to change your gender marker on your birth certificate? I know from personal experience that you can already change the gender on your ID without even a doctor's note.

For the second one I have to disagree on the "it's obviously designed to protect women" part. No, it's very clear that the only reason that the bill exists is to harm trans people.

1

[deleted] t1_j47006x wrote

[removed]

2

travel_tech t1_j470rxf wrote

Ah, I hope Massachusetts gets a similar bill passed, I was born there and still need surgery if I want to get that one last document changed.

Sure, I got my name legally changed, changed my gender on my ID and with Social Security, and have been living openly as this gender for years, but no they can't possibly change the gender on my birth certificate, what if I'm just faking so I can sneak into the women's room?

1

Frequent-Weird-7406 t1_j4a14kq wrote

I guess I feel there are more important issues at hand

0

Matryoshkova t1_j4ikfvh wrote

Maybe for you, but for those of us who the republicans are trying to legislate either back into the closet or out of existence completely, this is very important to securing our right to change our gender markers, the shooting down of the second will keep us safe from forcible outing and protect both trans and cus women from being arrested for “using the wrong bathroom”, and the third will keep trans folks fleeing from states where they are in danger from being hunted down and arrested. We can also be concerned about more than one thing at a time.

1

1carus_x OP t1_j4ps23w wrote

I have a poem called Privilege as a Political Party that discusses how if you don't care you're making it known it's bc it doesn't affect you. Also, unfortunately there's a fourth bill much worse than 396, I have a sort of draft written up but it's more me calling out all the things wrong with it, it's pretty long. I'll see if I get get it shorter n sometime next month I'll post again

2

Possible_Mud_4923 t1_j43vvtz wrote

What is a woman?

−8

5teerPike t1_j45b8fu wrote

A woman is who she says she is and you're the creep for spying on her in the bathroom.

13

Possible_Mud_4923 t1_j472wl9 wrote

Right okay so what makes a woman different from a man? Also why the hostility and why would you assume I spy on them in the bathroom lol? You got something you're trying to hide eh lol?

0

5teerPike t1_j473ahz wrote

You're asking a disingenuous question that transphobes came up with when they got tired of their one joke.

And you answered your own question right there; I don't know why anyone would do that unless they were such a presumptive creep like you!

Edit: I don't really give a shit "what makes a woman different" because what's going on with her isn't actually my business to begin with. But I'm saying that as a regular human from earth with a modicum of decency.

3

Possible_Mud_4923 t1_j48xulk wrote

So what is a woman lol

0

5teerPike t1_j492c6t wrote

A woman is who she says she is.

The rest is none of your business.

3

Possible_Mud_4923 t1_j4avhfy wrote

Right but how do I know what she is lol?

−1

5teerPike t1_j4cexbu wrote

She said she is, and you can fuck off now.

3

Possible_Mud_4923 t1_j4d4fgd wrote

What what is a she? Can anyone or thing be a she? How does one know what is and isn’t a she? Also why the hostility?

−1

5teerPike t1_j4d4nkb wrote

Because you're asking these questions in bad faith and you're not actually interested in the answer. Also, it doesn't hurt you that someone else is just different from you. Why do you have to pry? Why do you care so much? Why are you so obsessed with this?

3

Possible_Mud_4923 t1_j4d558k wrote

I want to know because I live in truth and the real world. And you haven’t given me an answer yet so I keep asking what defines a women?

−1

[deleted] t1_j44emd1 wrote

[deleted]

−10

[deleted] t1_j44h4td wrote

[removed]

7

vipstrippers t1_j44m8di wrote

Oh yeah, cut off born females breasts and then they change their mind

−11

5teerPike t1_j45b761 wrote

Procedures like that have a lower rate of regret compared to plastic surgery where young women are allowed to make their breasts bigger.

Human women are more than "female".

10

averageduder t1_j44mha8 wrote

That’s not what the above post said and not the argument.

4

5teerPike t1_j45axc2 wrote

You have a problem with that (none of which is real) but not cisnormative surgery for intersex infants (real)?

4

gmcgath t1_j42o24r wrote

My initial reactions:

396 is at best confusing. As you say, what do they mean by "biological sex"?

I have doubts about 264. The notion that people can simply assert their "gender" is silly. However, surgery is often a late stage in the transition, and people going through it would like to be known by their new status before that point. I'm undecided on that one.

368 sounds good, but I'd like lawyers to study it carefully for possible unintended consequences.

−15

1carus_x OP t1_j42ouli wrote

For HB264, here's what would be required instead of surgery:
>""a new birth record shall be prepared to reflect a change in the individual's gender upon receipt of a notarized certification by a licensed and qualified health care provider affirming the individual's gender designation.
>The notarized certification shall be signed by a licensed and qualified health care provider under the penalty of RSA 5-C:14. It shall provide that the named individual is currently or was previously under the signing health care provider's care, and that in the health care provider's professional opinion the individual's gender is male or female and can be reasonably expected to continue as such for the foreseeable future.""

Honestly I'm a bit confused abt the m or f considering new Hampshire has the option of X now, but you can't just walk in and get one, there's still some hoops to go through. Also, 296 would be subpoenas regarding trans care specifically rather than like ALL, if a trans person is under investigation for murder they'll obviously still look into it

4

[deleted] t1_j42fo8u wrote

[deleted]

−24

HelgaLovesApples t1_j42lg9l wrote

As a woman I can tell you men don’t need to pretend to be trans in a bathroom if they want to go assault women… they’ll find a way. I really dgaf what kind of genitals the person in the stall next to me has. Just wash your hands and leave me alone.

62

Azr431 t1_j447wa8 wrote

Fucking preach. These mouth breathers don’t give two shits and/or don’t know two shits about the real dangers or challenges that women face. They like to regurgitate dumb shit they hear from tucker Carlson.

12

AnythingToAvoidWork t1_j42pnkx wrote

You think laws are stopping predators?

So, you probably support gun control laws too then, right?

Those laws stop the bad guys getting guns, right?

9

ThunderySleep t1_j443hev wrote

I think you're on to something. We should get rid of laws.

8

5teerPike t1_j45basg wrote

How many times did Weinstein pretend to be a woman to do what he did? ...

4

1carus_x OP t1_j42j03a wrote

I guess you completely missed the part where enacting the bill would further hurt cis women and even make it easier for predators, if anything he could simply claim he's a trans man

I am well aware it doesn't happen. It's called using their logic, if they're so insistant on believing a cis man would pretend to be a trans woman, it could be far easier to just pretend to be a trans man if this bill passes

−4

savingeverybody t1_j42yqxf wrote

Nobody does this. This is a boogeyman scenario and it's just stupid. I welcome all trans women into women's restrooms. They deserve to be safe. Trans-women are way more likely to get hurt and beat up just for existing, than cis-women are likely to be stalked by a predator pretending to be a trans-woman in a bathroom.

13

5teerPike t1_j45bpa1 wrote

Aimee Toms had recently donated her hair to cancer patients. The woman verbally assaulting her in the bathroom thought that Toms, wearing a baseball cap over her short hair, was transgender.

A 20-year-old trans man was attacked over July 4 weekend for using the women’s restroom at a campground — after being instructed to use the women's restroom. He was charged with disorderly conduct and obstructing official business; his attackers have not been charged with anything at this time.

The nation’s leading organizations dedicated to stopping violence against women signed a letter saying that this argument is a myth. “These initiatives utilize and perpetuate the myth that protecting transgender people’s access to restrooms and locker rooms endangers the safety or privacy of others,” the letter states. “As rape crisis centers, shelters, and other service providers who work each and every day to meet the needs of all survivors and reduce sexual assault and domestic violence throughout society, we speak from experience and expertise when we state that these claims are false.”

I think they were talking about the fact that witch hunts for trans women in bathrooms has inevitably lead to cis women who don't appear gender conforming being attacked. But it is true, the bathroom predator assertion is a myth.

7

MahBoy t1_j43k74e wrote

Yeah, but do you actually care what cis-women want?

There are plenty of cis-women out there who don't want biological men in their bathrooms. What about them? Are you advocating for denying women their own private, intimate space?

−3

5teerPike t1_j45bx4g wrote

Cis women are being attacked if they don't look female enough to terfs. So how about this; mind your business and I'll mind mine.

Excuse me, what exactly is intimate about pissing in a public toilet.

8

billegoat45 t1_j444fjw wrote

Lol nice job with the terf rhetoric. There’s no such thing as “biological man” man is a descriptor for adult male, which begs the question; at what point does someone become a man? The day they turn 18, or based on development, and at what point then? If based on the day they turn 18, then that’s not very biological as bodies develop at different rates, it would be social. Man is a social category and cannot be biological. Either way, I highly doubt you give a fuck what cis women want, you just want to be transphobic.

2

MahBoy t1_j44g1p6 wrote

Biological man means that you have XY chromosome pairings, testes, a penis, and a prostate.

Biological woman means that you have XX chromosome pairings, ovaries, uterus, vulva, vagina, clitoris, etc.

To say that there’s “no such thing as a ‘biological man’” is just… not rooted in reality. Yes there is. Just as there are biological women. Chromosomes matter. Sex traits matter. Being a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ is not a social category - it comes down to genetic expressions of physical characteristics. Your DNA, chromosome pairings, and genetic traits make up your physical vessel. That isn’t a ‘social construct’ or whatever you’d want to call it.

I’m not a “transphobic” person, either. I’ve met and got along with plenty of people who identify with being transgender. And you know why? Because they agree with what I’ve laid out.

People like you are so wrapped up in virtue signaling and so-called social justice that you have lost track of what the real world actually is. Best of luck to you out there. Crack open an anatomy book some time and maybe some books that explain puberty - you may learn something.

2

1carus_x OP t1_j44wutg wrote

🥱 anyways, intersex people exist, and always have. My high school text book mentioned intersex, sorry you're a dinosaur and don't know modern medicine. I've done my attempt to educate

7

savingeverybody t1_j46bdpj wrote

I am a cis-woman... Yes, I care about what I think about this.

No cis-women I know care about this. It's a right wing taking point that has no basis in reality.

−1

warren_stupidity t1_j43c56c wrote

maybe we ought to have biological sex (which is a meaningless term) segregated , parking lots, as they actually are a frequent location for sexual assaults, unlike bathrooms.

−5

asuds t1_j43d0m7 wrote

We are going to need to build a whole bunch of bathrooms as there are a whole lot of biological sexes. Sure there are XX and XY but also XXY and so forth… or we could give up on the nonsense and have “bathrooms”. Wild idea I know, but so crazy it just might work!

7

dilznoofus t1_j42m2tg wrote

so three entirely partisan bills, yay.

−27