Watch: Denver Wrangler gay bar Deny Entry To a Drag Queen Telling Him He’s Not Transgender
September 5, 2013
“Award Winning” Journalist Victoria Brownworth Caught Lying YET AGAIN!
September 7, 2013

VICTORY in Texas: Activism Works!

The transadvocate recently reported on the efforts of the Texas radical right to derail a proposed LGBT non-discrimination policy in San Antonio. As noted, the proposed ordinance wasn’t asking anything more of San Antonio’s adults than what has been asked of their children (without incident, mind you) for sometime now. The San Antonio public school district already bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity… and yes, that means trans students can gasp empty their bladders just like the cis students can. The proposed San Antonio ordinance would also prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The level of maturity shown by San Antonio’s children was apparently far too much to ask from some adults and they demanded the right to gender check individuals in the restroom. In response to their demand to oversee the way in which trans people empty their bladders, a “compromise” was struck:

Nothing herein shall be construed as directing any policy or practice regarding the use of restrooms, shower rooms, or similar facilities which have been designated for use by persons of the opposite sex. – SA Ordinance wording as of 8/28/13

SA

However, GetEqual Texas along with many other social justice advocates continued to advocate for fully inclusive wording until the 12th hour:

“As soon as the draft ordinance with the bathroom exception was included Equality Texas and our coalition partners came out against it. Because of the united front from all of the ordinance’s supporters we were able to have it removed. It was not easy, but our commitment to the inclusion of the trans community in everything we do isn’t dependent on if it’s easy. There was never a question: Equality Texas was going to fight for a fully inclusive ordinance.” – Daniel Williams, past Board member of the Transgender Foundation of America and current Legislative Specialist with GetEqual Texas

Around 10:30 PM at night Councilmember Rey Saldana offered the following amendment…

Nothing in Division 5 shall be construed as allowing any person to access to any sex-segregated space for any unlawful purpose. – Approved SA Ordinance

… and the revised ordinance with the Saldana amendment was passed around midnight.

Division 5 of the ordinance refers to Places of Public Accommodation (ie, restrooms).

In other words, if you’re trans and need to pee, use the restroom. However, if you’re trans or cis, you can’t go into the restroom because you want to rape, harm, stalk, etc. people.

I particularly like this amendment because it strikes at the heart of the fearmongering. It is ALWAYS presented that equality efforts would somehow allow minorities to rape and pillage. The Radical Right used this rhetorical trick against the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, against the Equal Rights Amendment and even against the end of racial segregation:

“Listening to the opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment, you would think it was designed to… integrate public toilets, legalize rape, outlaw heterosexual marriage… Law professor Paul Freund objected in 1973 to being ‘quoted erroneously and out of context by certain opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment’ and commented flatly, ‘I have not staled, and I do not believe, that the Amendment would require the sharing of restroom and prison cells by both sexes.’ Yet in 1975 a huge anti-ERA advertisement in Baton Rouge papers credited him with the allegation that the ERA would integrate bathrooms. ” – Ruston Daily Leader, Thursday, June 16, 1977

“Most concerns we heard about showers and bathrooms were based on stereotype— that gay men and lesbians will behave as predators in these situations, or that permitting homosexual and heterosexual people of the same sex to shower together is tantamount to allowing men and women to shower together.” – Pentagon’s report on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, page 13

“Angry white CIO steelworkers today sought a national union order ending racial segregation on union property… CIO officials several days ago issued instructions to all local unions to do away with separate toilet, fountain and locker room facilities for whites and negroes. Some… told him they would not stand for “Southern traditions being torn down.” – The Tuscaloosa News – May 26, 1950

The Radical Right rolls out this restroom meme against equality measures and they always will. For example, consider the way SA councilmember Chan calculatingly planned on using this very meme against this step towards equality:

Jeff: You get the most political points by standing up for traditional values with this one. It’s not an economic argument. This isn’t a small government argument. This is a social, cultural argument right here and this is how you… And you’re going to score the biggest points by taking that stand…

CW Chan: Maybe what we can do, can we maybe throw some questionable confusions like okay, this transgender… Because this definition is so broad, we don’t want to go into detail, but if you, I look up, I had a… Maybe I say I was not educated on what transgender is about. I look up the, the Wikipedia, whatever, and I’m very surprised how broad the definition can be and it can cause a lot of troubles. What is the, would that, in other words start to have a lot of questions. Would we be discriminating someone if a person go to uhh, uhh, go to a female bathroom?

Roger: Yup.

CW Chan: Because the person that I am…

Jeff: I feel like I’m a woman.

CW Chan: … I feel myself that I’m a woman…

James: That gets down to, umm, what’s on the driver’s license. In some states, you can get, if you have…

Jeff: In the state of Texas, identifies you with what you were born as.

James: By chromosome, right?

Jeff: It’s about what you were born as. By the equipment you have at birth…

CW Chan: Exactly!

The Saldana amendment cuts through all the BS and gets to the heart of the hyperbole by rhetorically asking, In what way does gender equality nullify laws prohibiting rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance? Despite the right wing hyperbole, the reality is that this ordinance doesn’t allow trans (or cis) folk to do any of this and it never did.

The San Antonio equality ordinance passed, despite the Radical Right’s best effort!

adult-derp

The radical right doing what they do best: trying to trick you into denying your fellow citizens of their 14th amendment rights.

A big thanks to all who did their part in moving Texas a little closer to being a place where all citizens may enjoy their full 14th Amendment rights!


BONUS: EVEN MORE RECENT WINS!

 


[column size=”one-half”]

Tip this TransAdvocate!

Writers for the TransAdvocate work hard to bring you news and commentary. If you found this article meaningful, let the author know that you appreciate the work they do with a tip!
[/column] [column size=”one-half” last=”true”] TipJar


[/column]
Cristan Williams
Cristan Williams
Cristan Williams is a trans historian and pioneer in addressing the practical needs of the transgender community. She started the first trans homeless shelter in the South and co-founded the first federally funded trans-only homeless program, pioneered affordable healthcare for trans people in the Houston area, won the right for trans people to change their gender on Texas ID prior to surgery, started numerous trans social service programs and founded the Transgender Center as well as the Transgender Archives. Cristan is the editor at the social justice sites TransAdvocate.com and TheTERFs.com, is a long-term member and previous chair of the City of Houston HIV Prevention Planning Group.
  • @kathy padilla I think you are vastly over estimating current gene technology If you think you can change XX to XY with todays technology you are kidding yourself! And even if you could it would make little difference these chromosomes determine sex but several genes play a role in “sex” development if a person could magically lose a y chromosome and gain an x they would not develop female organs unless maybe very early in development within the womb have you never heard of an xx male! many genes are certainly not even understood and were for a long time even discarded as junk. So I see very little evidence to support any real hope of genetic treatment in short term, maybe if somebody was still in the womb there could be a realistic possibility in the near future of changing ones sex but not after development and obviously I know of gene therapy but as there is no known gene therapy for changing ones sex after development it seemed a waste of time talking about.
    I did not say at any point that I thought is was entirely psychological, there quite likely are physical differences that are more likely to occur in trans people then “cis” people but that does not equate them to being a biological female.
    I don’t really care whether Im talking about trans guys or girls it just seems a waste of typing them both out all the time and I am sticking with my original question which has once again been ignored!
    “Spend years obsessing” today is the first time I have ever posted on this site and the first time I wrote a comment on a trans issue was this week!
    You made out I have spent all my life on this issue when I have spent less then one day! and you have not bothered to address anything that I have said about the original issue, if these are your tactics for winning an argument I am not impressed!

    • Ahem – you didn’t say anything about using genetic technology to change morphology later in the development stages. You said you couln’t change chromosomes – and that chromosomes – not any changed morphogy – was your standard for someone’s sex and their gender.

      Now – it’s – hey – if they ever can change
      chromosomes – well – fuck that too.

      So – exactly what is your argument?

      For someone who’s never posted ever, ever before you seem to have the language down pat – Cis – sex determining genes – transition – blah – and you sound just like that Nick asshole.

      So – totally unbelievable. But – you could post your real name and prove it.

      Also – totally haven’t addressed most of the comments others have made – so – don’t expect the favor returned.

      G’night Nick

      • coda – yes – it really is important for people to address why they obsesses so over trans women exclusively. that lovely blessing we’re bestowed leads to our greater employment difficulties, the enormous levels or violence we face and stigmas we carry. if one looks at the remembering our dead list for trans people murdered due to hate violence 99% or so are trans women. 56% of lgbt hate murders are – trans women. because people obsesses exclusively over trans women for some odd reason.

        people obsesses about us and it hurts us. it matters.

        It matters when I go to work, it matters when I’m out for a drink, it matters when I drive home and some weirdo follows me home. It matters when anonymous guys want to tell me what my rights should be and who I am instead of listening to me about who I am. you know – like he tells everyone else who they are instead of listening to them,

        On the other hand – why does it matter to anonymous guy to be in charge of other peoples identities?

        people just have a screw loose about trans women. they can’t help themselves. they need help. and for some reason the little darlings seem to think it improves our lives to share their dysfunction with us?

        c’mon – their motivation isn’t to in anyway respect us. who respects someone by coming up to them anonymously and saying I’m going to tell you who you really are (you poor ignorant fools) and what your rights should be? who does that and thinks it’s respectful?

        it’s to mess with us – every day – everywhere. because they can. because it gives them pleasure to mess with us – and makes them feel powerful. it’s obvious there’s no threat here – really – decades of stats proves that.

        i’m old enough to remember when people like this said gay men didn’t really exist – they were just straight men who didn’t understand who they really were. there was no scientific basis to to say anything different – and you shouldn’t listen to them about their lives – listen to the guy who isn’t part of their group our speaking from their experience – he can tell you about their lives and identities. He can tel them about their identities and should – and what their rights should be, Wait – that still happens too – just a lot less often.

  • This is why trans guys are allowed in the women’s rest room.

    Say – you’re allowing anonymous posters again?

    There is no difference between Jack and a woman with a trans history.

    If Jack is a terf – this rather ends any further discussion with finality.

    If Jack is not dissembling and is male – he could of course transition and identify as a women – but then he would not by definition be a cis male.

    He might on the other hand rum an experiment and find an objective answer. Tell his wife, his boss, his parents, his friends, the DMV, the social security bureau, his landlord or mortgage company, his children, the credit bureaus, if divorced and he has a custody agreement – the courts, and others that he is now female but is not changing his name or transitioning.

    Please report back on how any of those entities respect your request to change your sex designation any differently then they do for trans women and men who do.

    Maybe you could try the second and then the first to come to a truly objective answer and report back?

    I’d love to hear from you.

    • I am a male, I don’t believe it to be possible to “transition” to be a female, by definition you cannot change chromosomes! Im not being a bigot im just saying the truth biologically speaking, a male at this time cannot even get primary female organs. I still find it difficult on how people are meant to draw the line between trans and “cis” because you seem to say “transition” but what does that involve a full surgical change or just putting on a dress and make up, what I mean is should a male dressed as a women be allowed in the womens toilets. What if someone does not even identify themselves as a women does it and were just a pervert they would be protected by law and have an excuse and biologically they would be the same as any man even somebody who fully “transitioned” is closer biologically to a man the to a women!
      So far I have seen 3 things-
      gender identification/role- make up, dresses etc. This is stereotypical gender stuff it does not define sex in anyway at all and does not really matter and should not play any role in somebodies biological sex!
      biology- Obviously the science does not support a trans being biological opposite sex to what they are. This is essentially why I don’t believe trans to be anywhere near the same as women biologically and it impossible the generalise how all women are meant to be otherwise without heavy stereotyping!
      Lastly desire obviously there is a great want and desire to be female but what somebody desires the not equate the reality. Now I think that is a totally justified argument backed up by scientific fact, and science is essentially what I believe in not stuff that is purely PC.

      • Hi Dr. Nick!

        Why don’t you empty your dirty diapers elsewhere?

        Hey – you have no idea what anyone’s chromosomes are. Yeah – you can change them. It’s called gene therapy. Actually – a huge advance just occurred that will make all kinds of changes that weren’t possible now possible.

        Pretty clear that several physical differences have been found that indicate yeah – being trans in inborn as is being Cis.

        Lord knows why you you seem to be fixated on trans women – why don’t you try to talk about trans guys at least half the time?

        Look – you obviously have a desire to control trans women. There’s no scientific basis for me to believe this to be a natural inborn condition. Why would someone obsess so much and spend so many years over a group they say they don’t care for, is a tiny powerless minority and is delusional?

        What would cause a rational, supposedly moral male to spend so much time associated with and obsessing over these trans women?

        What kind of stereotyping of them must he do to justify these expenditure of time? They must me a terrible threat to deserve this effort.

        He needs that to be true to justify his empty life.

        They simply can’t be real people, struggling to lead authentic lives like everyone else. If they are – what does that make him?

  • no I believe only women should be using the womens restroom, but if they allow men who identify as being women into women restrooms on the basis that they are not necessarily there to do anything illegal “rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance” then they might as well allow all men in using that logic, why would men who identify as being women be any less of a risk of these things then all other men. I’ve got no view on race here it seems totally irrelevant..

    • [ I’ve got no view on race here it seems totally irrelevant]

      Surely you’re attempting a poor strawmen argument. Certainly you’re not this obtuse. I spelled it out for you. Did I say that you’re a racist? Nope. I said that you’re employing the exact logical fallacy that the radical right used against equality for women.

      [no I believe only women should be using the womens restroom, but if they allow men who identify as being women]

      Yup. You can just stop right fucking there. You’re the problem. Again, you’re asserting that trans women are cis men. You’re equivocating. Please, just stop.

      In just two paragraphs, you’ve attempted to employ equivocation, the slippery slope fallacy and a strawman argument in an attempt to provide a rationale for your bigotry. If you’re unable to present a rational argument to support your need to institute cis/trans segregation, at least be honest about it. Stop trying to justify your bigotry with dishonest fallacious assertions. Have the courage of your convictions and fly under your true colors.

      • I never said you said I was racist I just do not really equate that to this situation! Its funny that you call me a bigot, insult and swear at me when I have said nothing bigoted! You simply don’t agree with what I am saying therefore call me a bigot. You did not address the important thing I said and that is what separates Trans from “cis” men in this argument if you are saying that not allowing a trans person in a restroom is bigoted because it assumes they are going to do something like “rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance” then why is it not bigoted to say the same for “cis” men surely by your own argument it would be discriminatory to not let them in as it assumes that they are all sexual predators! And what are you defining as trans here just somebody who has had a “sex” change or anybody who identifies themselves with another gender without necessarily going through any kind of treatment.

        • You: [I’ve got no view on race here it seems totally irrelevant]
          Me: [Did I say that you’re a racist? Nope.]
          You: [I never said you said I was racist I just do not really equate that to this situation!]

          Does this crap work for you in real life? Deal with the substance of my assertion instead of attempting to sidestep it with a strawman arguments:

          [They assert that since black and white women can use the same restroom, men and women might as well too. You assert that since trans and cis women can use the same restroom, men and women might as well too.]

          Either the logic supporting each rhetorical stance – the stance of racists who hated equality for women and your stance – is the same or it isn’t. Which is it? If it isn’t, offer a rational rebuttal.

          On the off chance that you’re not a troll and are truly failing to grasp the fallacy inherent in both assertions, maybe this will help: a baseball is round and so is an orange and you can eat an orange. Is it logical to then assert that since both are round and that an orange is edible, one may also eat a baseball? Of course not. Likewise, if a transwoman is male assigned at birth (MAAB) and a cisman is likewise MAAB and a transwomen uses the women’s restroom, is it logical to then assert that men can use the women’s restroom because transwomen may? Of course not. You’re offering a terribly transparent logical fallacy.

          [what separates Trans from “cis” men in this argument if you are saying that not allowing a trans person in a restroom is bigoted because it assumes they are going to do something like “rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance” then why is it not bigoted ]

          This in no way represents the quote. Mine is a response to the right wing making the fact assertion that allowing transwomen in the women’s restroom is dangerous. If the quote represented the logical foundation upon which the ordinance was built, you’d be right to critique it in the manner you did. The fact is that this quote is a very specific response to a very specific lie. Instead of dealing with the quote as a response to a very specific lie, you’re instead pretending that this quote is the logical underpinning of the ordinance itself. The logical underpinning of the ordinance itself is that A.) people need to empty their bladders in peace; and, B.) both transwomen and ciswomen are women and transmen and cismen are men. If you want to attack the ordinance, then attack the actual logical underpinnings of the ordinance. If you want to attack my response to the fact assertion that transwomen in the women’s restroom is dangerous, then do so. To do otherwise is quotemining in support of a strawman argument; you’re taking my response to a specific lie, pretend that my quote was instead logical foundation of the ordinance itself and then attacking the ordinance on that basis.

          For the sake of argument, I’ll choose to pretend that instead of quotemining you’ve asked me why, when it’s asserted that transwomen in the women’s restroom is dangerous, it’s reasonable to simply note the legal reality. In other words, isn’t recognizing the legal reality just one big slippery slope? By recognizing law instead of creating a society of gender police ready to have unsuspecting trans people jailed when discovered, convicted serial rapists, the criminally insane and/or cannibals (but especially men) could all likewise simply mill about any restroom their choosing!

          I’ve already unpacked this fallacious tarball. If you want to know why ciswomen and transwomen use the same restroom, read the post.

          [And what are you defining as trans here just somebody who has had a “sex” change or anybody who identifies themselves with another gender without necessarily going through any kind of treatment.]

          I will, for the moment, decline your offer to begin debating absolutes – which is where people like you inevitably take these questions. How about a compromise then? I will give you as precise and absolute definition as the precise and absolute definition you provide me for the term “sex” (as in, “sex-segregated”) you keep using.

          At this point I’m thinking that you’re either you’re constitutionally incapable of reasoned discussion concerning this topic or you’re quite aware of the logical fallacies you’ve offered and are a troll wasting my time. Which is it? If it’s a lack of understanding, I’m willing to continue this conversation. However, if you’re simply a troll, I’m gonna stop the nonsense now. Prove that you’re not a troll. In a reply, explain to me why appealing to the law is fallacious. If you want to discuss the logical underpinnings of the ordinance, then we can talk about Federal standards. If you want to discuss why you think your behavior isn’t consistent with the dictionary definition of bigot, then we can do that as well. However, if you reply with hyperbole and more equivocation, I’m not going to further waste my time.

  • but what is the point of having a sex designated areas if you allow people of both sexes to go there. yeah trans people may not be a sexual threat to the women in there but then you can say that about non trans people, as well but they are not given the right to go where they please. I think In women toilets only women should be allowed to go, but Nobody seems to think about their rights sadly.

    • *sigh* Slippery slope fallacy.

      Can you not see that you’ve just equated trans women and cis men? You’ve just stated that since trans women can use the restroom in the women’s restroom, we might as well allow cis men in there too.

      Compare the logic you’ve just presented with the logic the radical right offered for not passing equal rights for women:

      “If they can integrate restrooms on the basis of race, why not on the basis of sex?” – 3/25/1973, The Anniston Star

      You’re using their exact argument. They assert that since black and white women can use the same restroom, men and women might as well too. You assert that since trans and cis women can use the same restroom, men and women might as well too.