sundin13 said:
You pose this assertion of disastrous consequences without any proof or evidence that such disastrous consequences would occur. Further, in areas where we have already seen individuals be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice, the have been no disastrous consequences, which should invalidate this argument, yet I still see it made commonly. And again: "The potential for abuse by cis men goes both ways. If individuals are allowed access to bathrooms based on gender identity, a cis man could claim to be a trans woman and enter the bathroom. On the other hand, if individuals are allowed access to bathrooms based on their gender assigned at birth, a cis man could claim to be a trans man and enter the bathroom. Either way the potential for abuse exists. This is one of the reasons why there hasn't been any noted increase in such crimes in areas where individuals are allowed to choose their bathroom based on gender identity." Laws restricting bathroom use do not protect people. They put transgendered individuals in harms way, and we do not see any tangible benefits. There is no trade-off here. Laws restricting bathroom use are harmful. |
Again its an opinion from my unique perspective, but i don't think you are going to see my point. I also cant give you concrete evidence as I don't believe any impoverished country has adopted such laws - and they probably never will. Ghana is literally getting used to escalators and killing gay people. Goodluck with unisex toilets. That was mostly a joke but i guess we can agree to disagree. At the end of the day i just don't think some facets of life, can afford to trivialize gender identity.







