[Genuine Realist]

There's no need for disguise in this day and age. Fewer and fewer women wear skirts, more's the pity. (God, do I miss the miniskirt.) Eliminate the social inhibitors, and no one's going to bother.

But this misses the larger point. If even a small minority of women are bothered by the possibility - and my sense is that it's a much larger number than a small minority, don't their concerns matter? Don't they have the right to be safe from assault, but even worry about the possibility?  When  did that cease to matter?

(And no, I don't think men's restrooms are dangerous for transgenders. I'm aware of no case in which a sexual assault against a transgender occurred in such a place. Correct me if you find one.)

Tons of reports and studies re: sexual assault of transgendered in bathrooms.  So, not really an opinion -- it happens pretty frequently, unfortunately. 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-i...l-assault/

And yes, those women with concern have the right to feel concerned.  They have the right to feel however they want (as we all do.) And I wouldn't tell them to feel otherwise -- that is their prerogative. 

Laws though are supposed to remove the feelings and be based on facts.  There hasn't been a single incident reported of a transgendered person assaulting a woman in a bathroom.  Nor has any city which allows transgendered people into either bathroom (or require gender neutral bathrooms) produced any shred of evidence that it leads to predators dressing up women to sexually assault women in the bathroom.  Literally, not one.  On the flip side, there's plenty of evidence that transgendered women using a male restroom leads to sexual assault pretty often. So, sure, feel concerned with no factual basis; you are allowed to, and I have no desire to try to tell you that you are right or wrong for it.  But when it comes to laws, I can sit and cite sources all day long that very heavily favor one side from a factual perspective; and that is what laws should be based on, not feelings.

That's an interesting study and may change my opinion. However, I also note that the study reports that 1 in 4 of ordinary high school students reports being assaulted in the last year, which is an eyebrow raising number. Seriously? I'm reminded of the feminist studies of a generation ago that reported astronomical rates of rape - similar to the 1 in 4 - and were almost universally decried by everyone, until resurrected a few years ago by some very dubious DOE policy.

The question it raises is how sexual assault is defined. The rate is so high that it would justiofy a considerable police presence on campus and in bathrooms, but I'm aware of no place that has done that.

Also, law absolutely deals with public attitudes and quieting fear and anxiety.

---

One of my pleasures with the old CEB was the opportunity to express myself with a stridency I would never used (sic) in flesh-and-blood life.

I hold the exact opposite view. The bane of message boards are keyboard warriors being "strident" in a way that they would never be IRL. I have never posted something in a manner that I wouldn't say (or haven't said) to someone standing right in front of me. To do otherwise is the height of cowardice. Controversy is interesting and presenting different views is the point of all this, but we need less "stridency" based on hiding behind the protection of a computer screen.

I have to note that 'height of cowardice' is a rather strident characterization to use in a post decrying stridency.

In any case, you are not dealing with the whole personality on an Internet chat board, but an Internet avatar. I enjoy the give and take and never take anything personally.

[Genuine Realist]

There's no need for disguise in this day and age. Fewer and fewer women wear skirts, more's the pity. (God, do I miss the miniskirt.) Eliminate the social inhibitors, and no one's going to bother.

But this misses the larger point. If even a small minority of women are bothered by the possibility - and my sense is that it's a much larger number than a small minority, don't their concerns matter? Don't they have the right to be safe from assault, but even worry about the possibility?  When  did that cease to matter?

(And no, I don't think men's restrooms are dangerous for transgenders. I'm aware of no case in which a sexual assault against a transgender occurred in such a place. Correct me if you find one.)

Tons of reports and studies re: sexual assault of transgendered in bathrooms.  So, not really an opinion -- it happens pretty frequently, unfortunately. 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-i...l-assault/

And yes, those women with concern have the right to feel concerned.  They have the right to feel however they want (as we all do.) And I wouldn't tell them to feel otherwise -- that is their prerogative. 

Laws though are supposed to remove the feelings and be based on facts.  There hasn't been a single incident reported of a transgendered person assaulting a woman in a bathroom.  Nor has any city which allows transgendered people into either bathroom (or require gender neutral bathrooms) produced any shred of evidence that it leads to predators dressing up women to sexually assault women in the bathroom.  Literally, not one.  On the flip side, there's plenty of evidence that transgendered women using a male restroom leads to sexual assault pretty often. So, sure, feel concerned with no factual basis; you are allowed to, and I have no desire to try to tell you that you are right or wrong for it.  But when it comes to laws, I can sit and cite sources all day long that very heavily favor one side from a factual perspective; and that is what laws should be based on, not feelings.

That's an interesting study and may change my opinion. However, I also note that the study reports that 1 in 4 of ordinary high school students reports being assaulted in the last year, which is an eyebrow raising number. Seriously? I'm reminded of the feminist studies of a generation ago that reported astronomical rates of rape - similar to the 1 in 4 - and were almost universally decried by everyone, until resurrected a few years ago by some very dubious DOE policy.

The question it raises is how sexual assault is defined. The rate is so high that it would justiofy a considerable police presence on campus and in bathrooms, but I'm aware of no place that has done that.

Also, law absolutely deals with public attitudes and quieting fear and anxiety.

---

One of my pleasures with the old CEB was the opportunity to express myself with a stridency I would never used (sic) in flesh-and-blood life.

I hold the exact opposite view. The bane of message boards are keyboard warriors being "strident" in a way that they would never be IRL. I have never posted something in a manner that I wouldn't say (or haven't said) to someone standing right in front of me. To do otherwise is the height of cowardice. Controversy is interesting and presenting different views is the point of all this, but we need less "stridency" based on hiding behind the protection of a computer screen.

I have to note that 'height of cowardice' is a rather strident characterization to use in a post decrying stridency.

In any case, you are not dealing with the whole personality on an Internet chat board, but an Internet avatar. I enjoy the give and take and never take anything personally.