5 ms·

> The LGBTQI+ category is far from empty, and some of that is physically impossible to refute, with genes not matching phenotype, and thus in this case excludin

> The LGBTQI+ category is far from empty, and some of that is physically impossible to refute, with genes not matching phenotype, and thus in this case excluding intersex people from taking a pee in any public toilet in TX, legally, IIUC. Why would intersex people be legally excluded from taking a pee in a public toilet? Don't their birth certificates have an assigned sex? (Not that people carry around their birth certificates... but still, we're talking about a legal doctrine, not necessarily practical issues).

DamonHD 3y ago
They may have had one thing originally written on their birth certificate and ended up later with different physical genitalia, at which point they could have been arrested for either breaking this new rule or some other 'public decency' nonsense. This isn't theoretical. Assignment surgery to try to get the best overall result is not going to happen at birth. It may take place many years later. It may take more than one go. That 'at birth' thing is arbitrary if for example you are a mix of male and female cells, or as in the story, genetically one thing but partly physically another. Especially if it takes some time to work out what the facts are for a given person.
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  > They may have had one thing originally written on their birth certificate and ended up later with different physical genitalia, at which point they could have been arrested for either breaking this new rule or some other 'public decency' nonsense. What does one's genitalia have to do with breaking this new rule? I thought this new rule was about assigning people to the two categories of bathrooms based on their birth certificate, not their genitalia? (Not that I agree with it, because I'm assuming you can't change the birth certificate, but still).
  - DamonHD 3y ago
    To put it directly, if your original birth cert said "female" but you now have a penis (eg to match your actual XY chromosomes: could have happened to the subject of this story), and you go in to the female toilets as the new Bill would require, and anyone notices and complains, you are almost certainly in trouble for having a penis in female toilets as an adult under all sorts of other existing laws and custom.
    - someplaceguy 3y ago
      But from what I understand, the new law was actually clarifying the issue, because it is assigning people to the two different types of bathrooms based on a clearly objective criteria (the assigned sex in the birth certificate), rather than one's genitalia which can be much more ambiguous and problematic to check/assert. So I would think that the new law is actually making things much more clear for the situation you just mentioned, rather than more ambiguous and problematic (due to the existing laws and customs you are speaking of, which can be more subjective and therefore lead to the problems you mention). If there were any issues (e.g. if someone called the police), the person in that situation could just show a picture of the birth certificate on their phone, which would clarify any possible confusion and would avoid getting into trouble, wouldn't it? In my view, leaving things the way they are, or making things more subjective only serves to add to the confusion and/or add problems, rather than making things more clear (especially when we're talking about the law). That said, if you are going to have separate bathrooms (and therefore categorize people), I don't think the birth certificate is the right way to do it, if it can't be changed post-birth.
      - DamonHD 3y ago
        I suspect that you haven't interacted with the police much. Especially very conservative ones. If a woman is screaming that there's a man in their toilets, attempting to argue with them about your birth certificate isn't going to get you anywhere good, nor let you take a pee, so in practice you can't do it. (Someone I know well, British working in France, when Britain was in the EU, was told by local police that she shouldn't be working even though by treaty law she absolutely was in the right. When she protested the police said "Try arguing that from inside the cell I'll put you in." She left that job and in fact moved to another EU country after that.) Being put in an invidious no-win position for someone's political gain is bad. There seems to be a lot of it about at the moment.
        someplaceguy 3y ago
        I don't think this argument of yours is a good one. In fact, if the police are as bad as you say they are, then not making things legally simple and clear is even worse for these situations! If the law clearly says: "assigned sex in the birth certificate" == "assigned bathroom", then it's much easier to argue to the police that you're using the right bathroom (although again, I wouldn't use the birth certificate as it probably can't be changed). If you don't have a clear and simple law like that one, and your sex is somewhat ambiguous, good luck trying to convince the police that you're using the right bathroom! In fact, the example you used is a good one: the police probably didn't believe your acquaintance precisely because such treaty laws are so long and complex, with lots of edge cases that are outside the norm (and therefore unlikely for your standard police officer to be aware of).

DamonHD 3y ago

They may have had one thing originally written on their birth certificate and ended up later with different physical genitalia, at which point they could have been arrested for either breaking this new rule or some other 'public decency' nonsense. This isn't theoretical. Assignment surgery to try to get the best overall result is not going to happen at birth. It may take place many years later. It may take more than one go. That 'at birth' thing is arbitrary if for example you are a mix of male and female cells, or as in the story, genetically one thing but partly physically another. Especially if it takes some time to work out what the facts are for a given person.

someplaceguy 3y ago
> They may have had one thing originally written on their birth certificate and ended up later with different physical genitalia, at which point they could have been arrested for either breaking this new rule or some other 'public decency' nonsense. What does one's genitalia have to do with breaking this new rule? I thought this new rule was about assigning people to the two categories of bathrooms based on their birth certificate, not their genitalia? (Not that I agree with it, because I'm assuming you can't change the birth certificate, but still).
- DamonHD 3y ago
  To put it directly, if your original birth cert said "female" but you now have a penis (eg to match your actual XY chromosomes: could have happened to the subject of this story), and you go in to the female toilets as the new Bill would require, and anyone notices and complains, you are almost certainly in trouble for having a penis in female toilets as an adult under all sorts of other existing laws and custom.
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    But from what I understand, the new law was actually clarifying the issue, because it is assigning people to the two different types of bathrooms based on a clearly objective criteria (the assigned sex in the birth certificate), rather than one's genitalia which can be much more ambiguous and problematic to check/assert. So I would think that the new law is actually making things much more clear for the situation you just mentioned, rather than more ambiguous and problematic (due to the existing laws and customs you are speaking of, which can be more subjective and therefore lead to the problems you mention). If there were any issues (e.g. if someone called the police), the person in that situation could just show a picture of the birth certificate on their phone, which would clarify any possible confusion and would avoid getting into trouble, wouldn't it? In my view, leaving things the way they are, or making things more subjective only serves to add to the confusion and/or add problems, rather than making things more clear (especially when we're talking about the law). That said, if you are going to have separate bathrooms (and therefore categorize people), I don't think the birth certificate is the right way to do it, if it can't be changed post-birth.
    - DamonHD 3y ago
      I suspect that you haven't interacted with the police much. Especially very conservative ones. If a woman is screaming that there's a man in their toilets, attempting to argue with them about your birth certificate isn't going to get you anywhere good, nor let you take a pee, so in practice you can't do it. (Someone I know well, British working in France, when Britain was in the EU, was told by local police that she shouldn't be working even though by treaty law she absolutely was in the right. When she protested the police said "Try arguing that from inside the cell I'll put you in." She left that job and in fact moved to another EU country after that.) Being put in an invidious no-win position for someone's political gain is bad. There seems to be a lot of it about at the moment.
      - someplaceguy 3y ago
        I don't think this argument of yours is a good one. In fact, if the police are as bad as you say they are, then not making things legally simple and clear is even worse for these situations! If the law clearly says: "assigned sex in the birth certificate" == "assigned bathroom", then it's much easier to argue to the police that you're using the right bathroom (although again, I wouldn't use the birth certificate as it probably can't be changed). If you don't have a clear and simple law like that one, and your sex is somewhat ambiguous, good luck trying to convince the police that you're using the right bathroom! In fact, the example you used is a good one: the police probably didn't believe your acquaintance precisely because such treaty laws are so long and complex, with lots of edge cases that are outside the norm (and therefore unlikely for your standard police officer to be aware of).