Answers Originally Posted By Me On Quora
Answered Dec 17
A famous case in New Zealand is the Mona Blades disappearance. Presumed dead, from either some serial killer, as alleged “punishment” for naughty behaviour, like hitchhiking, or by gang members whom she knew.
The other is the Tamam Shud case, also known as the Mystery of the Somerton Man, who died in the 1940s, in Australia.
Updated Dec 18
When they have committed a relevant act which I view as legitimately criminal. Especially if there is legitimate public interest and/or hypocrisy.
The case that springs to mind is that of former US Senator Larry “Wide Stance” Craig, who was arrested in 2007 for soliciting sex with an undercover policeman in a public men’s toilet.
First, people have the right to use a public toilet without being sexually propositioned.
Second, Mr. Craig was an elected government official with a history of openly anti-gay attitudes regarding legislation.
A more borderline case is homophobic Christian evangelical pastor Ted Haggard. While I have very little sympathy for him, my hesitation is due to the fact that I don’t believe that drug use and paying prostitutes should be criminalised. Although there was an allegation that some of his actions may have been non-consensual, in which case I would say go ahead and publicly prosecute. Also, while he made himself a public figure with some influence on his audience, he wasn’t an elected government official.
Mr. Haggard’s actions were repulsive in terms of both public hypocrisy and in cheating on his wife. But, again, it seems borderline.
Similarly, it would be acceptable to out someone who had perpetrated sexual harassment, such as in a workplace or educational context.
Another context would relate to the cheating issue. If I knew a heterosexually married woman, and also knew that her husband was going around having sex with random guys in public toilets, I would tell her. It’s not only cheating – it’s dangerous in terms of diseases. Although it isn’t a gay-specific issue, since I would view it the same if the cheating/promiscuity was heterosexual.
Lastly, it would be reasonable to disclose in a medical situation, if the patient were unconscious:
“Doctor/nurse/EMT, I’m Jane, and I’m Diane’s wife, so I can receive medical information, and can contribute to medical decisions.”
“Doctor/nurse/EMT, I’m Sarah, and I’m Sally’s best friend, so I know she takes estrogen, and I also want you to be civilised when you remove her clothes to examine her.”
If it’s your coworker, neighbour, acquaintance, or even someone you think is your friend, and you are just gossiping to get attention and seem like you have something interesting to say, Absolutely Not.
If you fancy yourself as a “social justice warrior”, or an “ally”, or want to do liberal virtue-signalling, Absolutely Not.
If you are LGBTQWhatever, and think everyone should be as out as you, Absolutely Not.
Personal information is a type of personal property. And it is the individual’s personal choice to either share or withhold access. This applies to many other areas besides the ones in the present question.
Updated Dec 19
Any competition is determined by physical intimidation.
The larger, stronger, more aggressive bum will bully other bums to stay away from “my spot”.
They will also bully you if you are spanging (“spare change?”) a block upstream from them on a street with heavy pedestrian traffic. Because they will be (correctly) worried that, passers-by will say/decide that, they already gave their spare change to you, and have no more for the bully.
Some will bully you if you are trying to scam with a cardboard sign that claims some illness or disability. Not out of ethics, but because they are worried that you will milk the passers-by better.
You might be able to sort of stake out a territory if you arrive early in the morning, and are there every day. I had an acquaintance who had an established spot at a busy street intersection, partly because he was willing to hobble right out into traffic whenever the light was red. He was somewhat weak and vulnerable, due to a drug habit, but also highly motivated.
Don’t believe any lies about homeless people, and especially any lies about addicts, banding together to help each other. When you are homeless, one of your biggest dangers is other homeless people. Similar to the way that many housed poor people view their neighbours as targets.
The hyper-aggressive type bums will intimidate and prey upon other bums who are ill, disabled, weak, or very young. Male bums will intimidate and prey upon female bums.
That said, it was a really character-building experience for a short period in my mid-20s to stand on Melrose Avenue, spanging/begging. Gautama Buddha got his start that way.
Try it sometime.
Updated Tue
A few points:
The literacy claims here are misleading, because literacy isn’t black-and-white.
Plenty of people are “literate” at only a very basic level. They have very poor vocabularies and poor comprehension. They also choose not to read anything that they don’t absolutely have to, and so never improve their skill. This also leads having a very poor personal knowledge-base.
Many are also completely oblivious to their skill deficiency.
I’ve encountered adults who got personally offended by meeting someone with decent written or spoken language skills, and/or a good knowledge-base obtained by extensive reading.
And no, these aren’t all just English-as-a-second-language immigrants. And they aren’t all economically downtrodden, either.
I’ve also seen people attempting higher education when their skill levels and attitudes meant that they wouldn’t be able to handle high school.
There are serious disparities based on geographic location and socioeconomic status. Schools for children aren’t all equal. Socioeconomic disparities lead to racial/ethnic disparities.
Higher education (and pseudo-higher education) is also multi-tiered.
The eight universities are one level.
The 16 polytechnics are at a lower level, and some have been caught engaging in blatant fraud and providing seriously poor quality courses. I had a very negative experience with a certain polytechnic some years ago, and the difference between there and a university was like night and day.
Poor management at polytechnics has resulted in three separate government financial bailouts this year. Including at one that was supposedly within a month of shutting down, in the middle of a semester, and had it’s entire governing board fired as a condition of the bailout. In another case, a polytechnic was caught for fraud, hit with a financial penalty that it couldn’t pay, and so received forgiveness of said penalty, plus a pile of additional cash.
One reason for the government tolerating (and even rewarding) bad behaviour from polytechnics is geographic. There are people who wouldn’t even go 20 kilometres from Porirua to either of Wellington’s two universities. Thereby giving Porirua’s polytechnic reason for existing (and receiving one of those bailouts).
There are also deep issues with low expectations and low standards, with polytechnics offering courses taught at high school level, and which do not lead to any improvement in the student’s job prospects. Some specialise in scraping the bottom of the barrel to enroll students with remarkably low skill and attitude levels. And lowering the bar, so that their certificates aren’t worth the paper on which they are printed.
I’ve witnessed a totally irrational situation of shoveling in people who had zero chance of success, and also taking people for whom the level and pace were insulting to their high intelligence, and putting them in the same classroom. Guess who got bullied?
Still lower are private training establishments targeting international student cash-cows with low-level, low-quality non-degree courses, which damage the country’s reputation.
Improvements?
One thing would be to teach students, right from primary school, to act civilised. At the aforementioned polytechnic, I saw people in their twenties and even older doing classroom behaviour that I wouldn’t consider acceptable for a ten-year-old. They got away with it in primary and secondary school, and expect to continue. And I’m not just talking about people with disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds.
When the classroom disruption is so severe that a tutor stops speaking/teaching, that deprives the good students of the education that they may be paying and sacrificing to obtain.
Kids also need to be taught that, reading is a normal, daily life function, rather than some uncool misery to be avoided.
A huge issue is parenting. Violence at home? Foetal alcohol syndrome leading to behavioural problems? The child coming to school hungry every morning because Mommy spent the food budget on cigarettes? Poor people having children they cannot afford? Middle-class people who coddle their children and instill a sense of entitlement? All of these harm education for those children, and the others around them.
Another issue is the people who go into teaching. I recall back in 2005, a recently-graduated schoolteacher (in her 20s) living next door. I mentioned the Cassini–Huygens landing on Titan, and said that the kids would probably be excited to look up some photos on the internet. This schoolteacher actually said that she didn’t use the internet, for anything.
NCEA has various problems, and I get the impression that it is excessively complex. And can also be “gamed” to show students/cohorts performing better than they really are.
Education is also affected by unplanned (or deliberate) pregnancies, which can totally derail a young (or even not-so-young) person, and can do so permanently. There needs to be proper sex education in high school, with the emphasis on reducing this. I’ve actually encountered women who acted like I should have been having unwanted children while still a student. Or, really, instead of being a student. This is also a huge factor in the disparities between men and women, in terms of advanced academia and science professions.
Children and teenagers or any demographic background should be encouraged to take interest in science fields, and to see this as a viable path for themselves, and towards rewarding jobs.
The requirements for University Entrance were significantly raised in 2014, but some people say they are still much too low.
I have mixed feelings about “discretionary” entrance for over-20-year-olds without University Entrance. I’ve seen it work out very well in a couple of cases. But I’ve also seen people get indiscriminately shoveled into courses when they had no business being in any classroom, anywhere. Just for revenue.
For higher education, Labour’s fees-free scheme (i.e. election bribe) doesn’t seem to have worked to get more people into university. It’s expensive, and may incentivise some people to view it as a year’s vacation. It would have been better arranged as a reward for actually passing academically.
The previous National government was provoked by a perception of wastage, and basically punished everyone involved in higher education, including students. From 2011, there have been restrictions on loan and allowance eligibility and time limits. Which are worse for mature students and for postgraduate students.
I don’t suggest just throwing money at students who aren’t serious. But will say that, one of the biggest stressors and distractions is worrying about keeping a roof over your head for the years it takes to finish a degree. Especially in high-cost cities, like Auckland and Wellington. I have seriously contemplated camping in a public park.
I support cracking down on cheating and plagiarism (e.g. assignment-for-hire businesses). And on international students (and overseas agents) lying to obtain a visa.
Another problem to address is the increased pressure on academic staff to pass students, as part of performance evaluations, which affect not only individuals, but also institutional funding.
Two universities are currently undergoing “reorganisations”, which have provoked negative atmospheres among the staff, and some students. It’s important to consider economic viability, but the bean-counters can go much too far.
There are problems with supply and demand in certain fields. There may be a perceived labour shortage in a certain field, so it is promoted as where the jobs are, but three years later, there is a labour glut of new graduates. Not coincidentally, schoolteaching qualifications have had this cycle around in the past several years.
New Zealand has serious issues with funding and conduct of research, which can limit opportunities for postgraduate students, and also for the value of the degrees. Some people leave the country in order to pursue research and/or academia (i.e. the “brain drain”).
There is also tall poppy syndrome endemic in New Zealand society. I’ve been treated with open contempt by acquaintances upon hearing that I chose to go to university as a mature student in a STEM field, rather than remaining trapped in a low-level, low-skill, low-wage dead end job. As I’ve written before, this is a strongly female-biased pattern, based on a sense of competition and taking things personally.
Some people get negative attitudes like that, while simultaneously feeling entitled to all of the things that are created by, and work done by, highly educated people.
A million Kiwis lack literacy skills, prompting call for review
Updated Dec 17
Not sure about actual discrimination, but I’ve definitely been harassed.
Example:
I was working at a bottom-of-the-barrel job, paid slightly above minimum wage, with part-time, totally unstable hours. Plus going to university as a mature student.
An important dynamic is that it was a female-dominated workplace. In my experience, men don’t care if you have children or not, but women definitely care. Shortly after starting there, one coworker directly asked if I had children. Subsequently, two others directly brought up the subject, so it must have been a point of gossip.
“Hey, I heard that you don’t have any kids or anything. I can’t imagine that!” That came from someone in her early-mid twenties, who’s two kids were living with the parents of the baby-daddy (with whom she didn’t have a stable relationship).
“So… you live alone.” That one was with a tone that was very clearly like I owed an explanation for this bizarre circumstance.
These working poor women really seemed to believe that, other working poor people are somehow obligated to have multiple unplanned, impoverished children. People like this don’t care if you are single, with zero support system, or how low your income is. They think that having children is automatic, without any choices, or any regard for the consequences.
Another context was a horrible two semesters I spent at a place that I sometimes call “Low Rent Polytechnic” several years ago.
Two separate classmates openly viewed me as a tall poppy, simply for being childfree. One even had affluent parents paying for her childcare, and had a scenario of an obviously unplanned first pregnancy, leading to an unplanned marriage, and loved to sit in class whinging about how trapped she felt.
I even had a Low Rent Polytechnic staff member openly bully me in class over the issue, with the attitude that childfree individuals couldn’t possibly work in any people-oriented job. And should be discriminated against in education.
There are pervasive bad attitudes among women who feel stuck and trapped with marriage and children. Some will get openly offended by the alleged unfairness if you aren’t in the same position. And may try to dictate that, your horizons must be just as narrow as their own.
Mothers are also intensely cliquish, with incessant talking/commiserating about their kids. And a woman who isn’t participating is deemed an outsider deserving of scorn. This can degrade both employment and educational experiences.
Answered Nov 25
This question or debate is often misguided on both sides.
It is based on the general idea that, something is legitimate if it is forced upon you. And isn’t legitimate if you made a choice.
Examples:
If a 40-year-old woman doesn’t have any children, it is much more socially acceptable for her to be “suffering” from infertility, compared to being childfree by choice.
There is strong social pressure for an adult woman to psychologically cling to her mother, regardless of how toxic and abusive, and to surrender to a sense of a forced relationship. If she chooses to cut the umbilical cord, she will be socially abused.
There is a common assumption that, a person is somehow assigned to a geographic location as a child, and that, they “have to” live there for their entire life. There will be social condescension (and even open hostility) if she asserts her right/ability to choose her location as an adult. Especially if she reserves the right to do so again in the future.
Women who feel trapped and restricted in a financially/practically/emotionally dependent marriage will resent a single woman makes her own choices without needing to ask a husband.
Someone who feels trapped in a job may claim that, someone who chooses to put forth extra effort and progresses to a better job is “unstable”.
Religious people may enjoy the idea of a fixed set of rules that everyone “must” obey, because their God is about universal “thou shalt not”, rather than giving individual choices.
Some people resent their own physical bodies, but feel trapped, and will deride/resent anyone who chooses to take the effort for physical self-control.
There are various LifeScript(TM) issues, where many many people assume, “this is how everyone’s life is arranged and proceeds”. They will become confused and derisive towards someone who chooses to diverge from that script.
There is social pressure to “settle down”. Which means to bring your life story to a complete halt, and never make any personal choices ever again.
So, the application to LGBTQWhatever folks is the idea that, such designations are legitimised if the person was forced into it by biology (the “born that way” argument). And that, social tolerance/acceptance is owed to these passive victims. While ignoring the fact that, engaging in physical homosexual acts is a choice.
It feeds into the general idea that, being forced into something is legitimate, and should be tolerated, while making your own choices isn’t legitimate, and perhaps should be punished or suppressed.
And let’s not forget the way that, some of the Ls and Gs get negative attitudes towards the Bs and Ts for allegedly having choices, and thus being less legitimate.
Updated Dec 17
Because they want customers, not immigrants.
A commonly used term is “export education”. This means that, those hordes of foreign students are lured here, pay a pile of money, and then leave. They need to leave, in order to make room for replacement with next year’s cohort. The ultimate outcomes for those students aren’t considered particularly important.
These people’s contribution is bringing cash into the country, not staying or working long-term. They are effectively viewed as tourists.
There have been mass abuses:
Those private training establishments have serious, systemic issues. They are accredited by the government, generally for low-level courses and “qualifications” that do not result in any credit towards an actual degree. Some is taught at a high school level. This results in little or no benefit to the students, and doesn’t enhance their ability to contribute to NZ society, in terms of employment. They are not creating highly skilled/qualified, in-demand professional workers.
The government has previously tolerated that, specifically because those PTEs exclusively target international student cash cows. Unfortunately, it is starting to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, when those students go back home, and tell all of their friends about the “ghetto education” being sold.
There was an incident several years ago, where a few (probably related) PTEs in Auckland passed about 50 Chinese students with some kind of diploma in business management, which they then used to get into a university, ostensibly to study at degree level. And couldn’t speak a word of English.
There was situation a few years ago, where students who had some type of Indian nursing qualification had taken a course at a polytechnic, that they believed would get them nursing licenses in NZ. But their Indian qualifications were then deemed to be inadequate. They protested in front of Parliament, but had no recourse or compensation.
There was an incident recently, where a PTE had had its accreditation cancelled a year ago, so that the students didn’t receive their certificates from NZQA. Then, a bunch of them moved on to another PTE, where the same thing happened again.
There are also serious quality issues going on at various polytechnics, which are Crown-owned, but have had major accountability issues, but that’s another story.
International students don’t receive NZ government loans or the taxpayer subsidies that apply to domestic students, so there isn’t an investment that you would want to be recovered by having people stay here and pay taxes for a few more decades.
It’s all about pulling money into the country.
Generally, NZ also has serious population issues. Auckland and Wellington both have high housing costs, crowding, and infrastructure problems. The country overall has plenty of empty space, like in the middle of the South Island, but that isn’t where new immigrants (or anyone else) tend to want to go.
There is a strong perception that foreigners (both immigrants and non-resident investors) are largely responsible for the housing problems. There may also be a perception that, people from crowded and poor countries like China and India, will tolerate poor housing conditions and working conditions, thus enabling bad attitudes from landlords and employers, dragging things down for everybody.
There is also social ghettoisation that you can see among international students, while they are studying. The Chinese students huddle together, and the Indian students huddle together. There may be a sense that they simply aren’t interested in ever fully assimilating, and would continue that ghettoised situation if they stayed.
And, to a significant extent, there is also pervasive xenophobia in NZ society, which actually goes way beyond racism, and will also be directed at white/European, English-speaking immigrants.
Updated Nov 24
Someone who was psychologically and practically equipped to move to a new country, may also be psychologically and practically equipped to move again. Also, some people deliberately use NZ as a “back door” to their real destination, Australia, which has greater economic and social opportunities.
However, a big reason could be the incredibly negative social attitudes towards immigrants.
I know I harp on this, but there is a big difference between men and women.
Men say stupid things, like:
“Do you ever think about going back?”
“Huh, huh, huh, I bet you wish you were back there!”
And then they get disappointed if you tell them that you actually have control over your location.
Women are much, much worse.
“You have an accent! Where are you from? Why are you here! You owe me an explanation!”
Incessantly.
Most women in this country take one of exactly two attitudes:
It really is that micromanaging. A lot of women get personally offended at the idea that someone could even just relocate to a new city, inside the same country. This also relates to many, many women’s locations being based on an emotional umbilical cord to their mothers, and/or a financial umbilical cord to their breadwinning husband. They totally resent women who assert basic adult independence.
Did I mention the, “You have an accent!” harassment with virtually every woman you meet? Some of them expect you to be impressed by their amazing perceptiveness. Some of them act like they have never met a foreign-born person before.
There are women who will start up a rapid-fire interrogation. Where they reveal nothing about themselves (not even their name). While demanding details about a foreign-born person’s legal/governmental status, work and finances (including taxes), and the arrogantly intrusive, “Why did you come here, so I can decide if your reason satisfies me”. Try working with the public, and total strangers will do this.
Let’s not forget the mass racism. If an immigrant is white/European looking, some people will assume that they automatically share the common bias against Asian people.
A lot of the condescension and hostility towards immigrants is really about tall poppy syndrome, and the resentment of anyone who got off the couch and did anything interesting with their life.
Some women get an indignant, “I never get to go anywhere I want!” attitude, as if the immigrant is perpetrating some kind of personal unfairness against them.
No matter how long an immigrant has lived here, there is an automatic assumption that they are really just on vacation. With confusion and resentment about how someone could be on vacation for years and years.
Generally, the only relief is in more educated situations, such as university environments, which contain many foreign-born people.
Speaking of which, there are people who will direct the, “you have to go back where you can from” attitude towards an immigrant with higher education in a STEM field, including a degree that was heavily subsidised by NZ taxpayers. It’s like they actually think that the “brain drain” is somehow going to help the country.
Some will automatically assume that, a foreign-born university student is here on a student visa which will expire upon graduation (or maybe better yet, dropping out). If she corrects this, and states that she is a permanent resident, some still don’t seem to comprehend the difference, and keep pushing.
I once encountered an induhvidual who claimed that, no employer in NZ will ever hire an immigrant, or even someone who merely moved to a new city within the country. The logic being that, all immigrants “go back where they came from”(to a specific town) for emotional reasons. So there isn’t any point in hiring someone who will be doing that real soon now. However, this is combined with the idea of job discrimination being used to force immigrants to leave. So it’s a circular logic.
I have encountered women who will demand to know if an immigrant’s mother lives in New Zealand, and get offended and demand an explanation if the answer is “no”. One directly stated the intent to harass a middle-aged coworker, every single day, to go home to her mommy.
I have encountered a woman who was a small-time landlord’s wife, and who suggested that, a paying, civilised tenant should move out and go back where they came from.
An OK country. But many, many stupid, small-minded people. And that includes in larger cities, like Wellington.
Updated Dec 6
This is the media click-bait de jour, it seems.
The creepy bathroom obsession is the “thin end of the wedge”.
The people fixating on this actually have a larger goal. They want to eliminate transsexual people.
And, after that, some of them want proceed on to abuse and degrade the position of females who are not transsexual. The other end of the wedge is much thicker than it might appear.
Bullying people to use public toilets with a public declaration of, “This Is The Birth Sex Of This Person” is a way of dictating that, the person hasn’t really socially transitioned to the role or position of their adopted gender.
Then, consider the issue of enforcement. If there is a confrontation, how would you verify whether a person is or isn’t legally allowed in that public toilet? The obvious answer is to demand to see their government identification.
Next, the public bullying/outing will be to change laws to remove the ability to change the sex/gender marker on driving licenses, passports, and other government identification. The US federal government is already making efforts to define legal sex as immutable and permanently set at birth.
There are also debates in the UK and New Zealand, where hostile feminists are demanding that people should not have the right to change the sex on their birth certificates, or anywhere else. They feel personally oppressed by a letter on someone else’s passport.
This identification issue will help to enable prospective employers to spot transsexual job applicants, and discriminate against them.
Here in New Zealand, driving licenses don’t have any obvious sex/gender marker (although it might be coded into the serial number somehow, and is probably in a database somewhere). However, an immigrant who must show a foreign passport and visa may be severely disadvantaged if her birth sex is listed on those.
The connection between public toilets and government identification is all about violating people’s right to privacy for deeply personal, painful, and stigmatised medical information.
Continuing with the enforcement issue, what kind of penalties would be imposed for using the “wrong” toilet? Are people going to end up with a criminal record as a sex offender (thereby further degrading their ability to be members of society, and to secure employment)? Will there be a fine that they cannot afford to pay? Jail time? And will the birth-sex bathroom issue extend to placing post-operative transsexual women in men’s jails?
There are already severe disparities among transsexual people, some of which have nothing to do with personal legitimacy, sincerity, or decency. There are randomly assigned issues, including physical ones such as height and facial features. And situational ones, such as whether a young person has a supportive family or not, as well as socioeconomic background and geographic location. These lead to disparities in how a person looks to casual observers, along with access to treatment (especially at a young age). Which also leads to disparities in the ability to function as a participant in society, such as being treated in a halfway civilised manner by other people, and the ability to secure and keep employment.
Bathroom laws would have a more severe impact on transsexual women compared to transsexual men. Partly due to differences of hormone effectiveness (and thus “passability” patterns), and partly due to differences of paranoia level. Supposedly feminist, woman-defending laws would advantage this class of men over this class of women, when there is already a general pattern of people gaining or losing social male privilege.
There are pervasive social issues concerning transsexual people’s appearances. Some people make their acceptance based on whether the person conforms to certain physical standards, including beauty standards. Others are paranoid that, a person who looks “passible” is somehow deceiving them personally, and withholding information to which the observer feels entitled. It isn’t about having sex without disclosure, and isn’t limited to toilets. There are people who think that someone doesn’t have the right to walk down a public street with an appearance that strangers interpret as opposite to their birth-sex or current genitalia.
This is an example of the general way that many people feel entitled to police public and semi-public spaces as if it were their own private space. As well as acting victimised by things that are none of their business. It connects with people who would abuse strangers for speaking a foreign language in public, or for holding hands with a same-sex partner. I have even encountered people (always females) who claimed that I didn’t have the right to appear in public places (or to be in the same room with other human beings), because I survived child abuse, or because I worked more than 40 hours per week. Because I would somehow be offending and harming total strangers who don’t even know that information. You are different to someone, or maybe they are envious in some way, and they will assert the authority to decide that you don’t get to be a member of society as a whole. There is no limit to the bizarre pettiness, arrogance, and self-defense fantasies.
For transsexual people, the quality of one’s mentality or behaviour is considered irrelevant. You could be finding life on Mars, curing cancer, solving global warming and pollution, building schools for girls in patriarchal third world countries, defending reproductive rights (that don’t benefit you, since you are sterile), working to reduce child abuse and other domestic violence, and bringing peace to the Middle East in your spare time. And many people will only want to focus on what is in your pants, what hormones and surgery you use, a letter on your birth certificate, and where you choose to urinate.
You may even be openly assigned the status of a “rapist” and predator without actually raping anyone, or harming anyone in any way. And we don’t want any “rapists” in public toilets. Including the kind of “rapist” who never actually raped anyone, and has zero intention of ever doing so. Because that is about the most sneaky, deceptive, and difficult-to-prosecute “rapist” there is.
Toilet owners probably aren’t going to put a device on the door that checks your identification, and only unlocks if it matches. And there is nothing about those “men” or “women” signs that forcibly filters who walks in.
Someone who appears female to a casual observer, goes into a stall, urinates out of anyone’s sight, flushes, washes hands, and leaves without any interaction with (or even looking in the direction of) other toilet-users, cannot reasonably be said to have victimised anyone.
Bathroom laws would be enforced based on physical appearance, not behaviour. Thus criminalising someone merely because some stranger doesn’t like the way she looks. It also places people at the mercy of whether that random stranger does or doesn’t choose to harass and confront them.
Next, since social transitioning is being eliminated, there will be efforts to create laws and regulations prohibiting doctors from prescribing cross-sex hormone treatment or surgery. This will start with underage adolescents, for sympathy, but will escalate to adult patients, with condescension. And claims of allegedly “helping” mentally incompetent people to avoid making a mistake.
Plus, we don’t want anyone medically altering her body in a way that might deceive strangers (ranging from other toilet-users, to prospective employers, to passers-by-on-the-street) about her birth-sex or genitalia. Because she “doesn’t” have any right to privacy or autonomy. And neither do you.
The proponents of bathroom laws practically admit that they are comfortable with abusing transsexual women who have done nothing to anyone, as punishment for the for the violent crimes actually (or even just potentially) committed by men. Also, I recall some American politician publicly stating that, if he had had the opportunity as a teenager to enter girls’ school bathrooms for voyeurism, he would have done so, like he thought this was cute. Project much? But ultimately, this has nothing to do with preventing fraudulent “fake trannies” from peeping or assaulting in public toilets (both of which are already illegal).
The people pushing this stuff would be quite happy to see each and every transsexual person put a gun to their head and pull the trigger.
Meanwhile, idiot transjacktivists with too much time on their hands, go on YouTube and other sites (including Quora), ranting that they can’t get laid, and pathetically trying to guilt-trip lesbians into providing sex and validation. They demonstrate massive disrespect of boundaries, consent, and females in general. Thereby feeding into the paranoia and contempt. They are disgusting, and I wouldn’t want to share any type of space with some of them.
The loudest people on that side create serious “guilt by association” for quieter ones who just want peace and privacy. Unfortunately, things have progressed to where some creepy, fetishistic dude thinks he can put “transgender woman” on his public online profile (while doing nothing more), and feels entitled to the same consideration as a sincere, shy, decent person who used permanent medical alterations, at great personal cost and suffering, to avoid suicide. This is one of the main social and political problems for transsexual people.
In this general type of debate (whether it is toilets, sex/gender markers on documents, hormones for underage minors, terminology/labels, or the general legitimacy of transsexual people), there is a lot of black-and-white thinking, and a lot of people yelling past each other, without real communication. Neither side presents themselves or their arguments well.
There is a privacy argument that, females should be free from males looking at them in a state of undress, or from the sight of a penis. Implying that there is open nudity going on in public toilets. I have never exposed (or seen) any body part in a public toilet that wouldn’t normally be visible. The partial disrobing happens inside a stall. The last communal toilet I was in had the edge of the door made so that there wasn’t any gap between it and the partition, so someone would need to look over or under. As far as I could tell, there weren’t any feminist “toilet police” there trying to check out my crotch, unless they had a hidden camera in the stall.
There is another privacy argument that, legally allowing legitimate transsexual women to access public toilets, would enable non-transsexual, cis-male predators to “put on a dress” and openly walk in without being confronted and removed. This also links to other female-designated spaces, of various types. And that, said predators would be further enabled to peep and assault (both of which are already illegal). I will withhold opinion on this, because the mentality of such predators is, by definition, irrational, and very far removed from my own mentality. I would be open seeing crime data for every dimension of this issue, including the number of incidents, and correlation to time-frame of legislation. This isn’t a dismissal – I am actually interested in seeing the numbers.
Who is the creepy pervert? The person who just wants a safe, accessible, private, appropriate facility for a normal, daily bodily function? Or some self-appointed “toilet police” obsessed with a stranger’s genitalia, that they can’t even see, who enjoys harassing members of a highly vulnerable minority?
Do the feminist bathroom-defenders want to deputise me as an enforcer? Am I expected to get one of those miniature remote-control helicopter drones with a video camera, and fly it over the partition, to verify the genitalia of the woman in the next stall, to make sure she is legal to be there? Am I expected to stand by the door all day, checking ID documents? Or conducting strip-searches, before strangers are allowed to go in and empty their bladders? How much “collateral damage” is acceptable, when I accidentally harass females who are too tall, or who fail to meet some hetero-normative femininity/beauty standards? Remind me again who is the creepy voyeur pervert?
Personally, I have always found communal toilets to be creepy in general. I want regular floor-to-ceiling walls and locking door between me and everybody else. I’m there to relieve my bladder, not to socialise. If available, I choose wheelchair-accessible toilets, for the privacy and larger space. These are often gender-neutral, and I don’t care, because I am the only person in there at the time.
There could be a simple solution right there. Single-user, gender-neutral toilets, with full-length walls and doors.
If I need to use a multi-stall toilet, I obviously don’t want someone looking in or assaulting me (both of which are already illegal).
Would I feel comfortable with a unisex multi-stall toilet or shower? No, I wouldn’t, because I don’t trust men in general in such a situation (or in many other situations). However, if another bathroom user meets my perception of being a woman (which honestly does have large appearance and “vibe” components), and is generally acting civilised, I don’t know or care what she has in her pants, or floating through her bloodstream, or on her identification documents. It doesn’t threaten me, doesn’t degrade my own social woman-status, and doesn’t affect me in any other way.
I’ve always had a personal policy of keeping my attention out of other women’s knickers, unless directly invited. Because I actually understand boundaries.
If I want total control to restrict access to a toilet, it needs to be my own personal toilet, in my own home, entirely paid for by me. If I use public toilets, I have to share them with other members of the public, who may be different to me in some way, and who may be people with whom I would never want to socialise. It’s the same with any other public or semi-public space.
Informed feminists should be aware of the connection between public toilets and oppression of women, ranging from 19th century Britain, to modern India. Lack of acceptable public toilets restricts women’s ability to go out in public as a participating member of society. And yet, some feminists are quite willing to see that imposed on people who happen to be different to themselves.
The bathroom-defenders don’t necessarily really think that, “use the toilet of your birth sex” is viable. I seriously doubt they want to see Buck Angel in the ladies’ room. And some of them will openly state that they simply don’t care about harassment or even violence against people who happen to be different to themselves.
This whole “issue” is being used as a moral panic. It focuses on a fraction of a percent of the population, but the disproportionate media attention (including both click-baiting and liberal virtue-signalling) suggest that public toilets everywhere are being absolutely overrun. Politicians pushing this are concerned with a much larger group, which is voters, who need to be told that there is huge social problem, and that those politicians are going to fix it and protect the public.
The previous moral panic was same-sex marriage, which many people still don’t like, but that fight appears to be now settled. So a new moral panic needed to start, with a smaller and more vulnerable minority.
In America, this type of issue (starting with military servicemember policy) has provided a distraction. From things like the alleged Russian involvement with the presidential election. And from that president’s attitude and conduct towards women. And from whether he is even minimally qualified or self-controlled enough for the position.
The creepy bathroom fixation sounds very specific. However, it is closely linked to other things, such as current efforts to restrict access to abortion.
This can also be seen with the opposition to transsexual hormone treatment for adolescents, with hand-wringing about how they are sterilised by the process. This relates to the pervasive view that, everyone is obligated to have children, whether they want to or not.
It also relates to the idea that the government has the authority to criminalise the consumption of the “wrong” types of drugs.
All of this is based on a general idea that, people (whether transsexual or not) don’t really have the right to control their own bodies or their lives.
I started this answer with the phrase, “the thin end of the wedge”. And that wedge isn’t going to stop with transsexual people.
The current, easy target is a tiny minority, towards which most people’s view ranges from lack of empathy, up to extreme contempt. And whose societal group-image suffers greatly from the garbage spewed by the above-mentioned, self-appointed, online transjacktivists.
However, this seemingly-specific legal and social progression will embolden its proponents to continue steamrolling over other demographics and rights.
The logical future?
Because people “don’t” really have the right to control their own bodies.
Along with the medical angles, you can also expect degraded big-picture situations for employment, regarding both sexist discrimination, and sexual harassment (including situations with zero involvement of any transsexual people).
It’s fascinating that, the feminist bathroom-defenders and ID document micromanagers are now on the same side as the folks who want to restrict women’s reproductive choices.
It’s also fascinating to see paranoid lesbians on the same side as homophobes.
And they are all on the same side as a president whose attitude towards women is, “Grab ’em by the pussy”.
A long time ago, I thought that feminism was largely about, “my body, my rules”. And about people making their own choices how to live their lives, without social coercion or restriction based on what they were born with between their legs.
It’s not at all clear what it’s about now.
Updated Dec 2
1997, after my brother’s suicide.