North Carolina Bathroom Law

[mrswdk]

http://www.wikihow.com/Tolerate-the-TSA ... ime-Victim

The TSA is *not* permitted to ask you to undergo a physical strip search. If they do, contact a law enforcement officer immediately by dialing 911.

tzor aka 'the Bathroom Peeper of Long Island', you as so busted.

[AndyDufresne]

In the early 1700s, women were expected to use the bathroom at their home, and most public restrooms were only for men.


--Andy

[Army of GOD]

that said, I'm split on whether or not I am ok with the law or not. Hear me out: just because conservatives are illogical, I don't think we can throw out their fears as meaningless. Fears are inherently irrational. But why should the desires of transgenders to use whatever bathroom they want trump the fears of the morons? I don't know if they should.

So you are arguing that irrational fear should trump freedom of self-expression?

yes, why not? some punk kid could write a threat to a public official and get arrested for it...his self-expression was trumped by an irrational fear. There isn't some natural law claiming that self-expression is inherently more important than fears

I'm not trans, so I don't know how they feel about this at their core, but if someone said "AoG, you're only allowed to use the women's bathroom" I would say "fine, as long as I have somewhere to shit"

By extension of the same logic you could ask why blacks in the South got so worked up about segregation, because they still had their colored bathrooms and schools.

what TGD said. Jim Crow laws were separate but certainly weren't equal. We're not sending transers to the back of the bus, we're just telling them to use a bathroom theyv'e used their entire life.



all in all, the ideal long term solution is to get rid of the antiquated "two bathroom" deal altogether and just have a unisex bathroom.

[thegreekdog]

So you are arguing that irrational fear should trump freedom of self-expression?

Sorry, I'm not following - what's the self-expression you're talking about?

Self-identity, whatever. People identifying as transgender.

By extension of the same logic you could ask why blacks in the South got so worked up about segregation, because they still had their colored bathrooms and schools.

Yes, and he's exactly right. The problem with separate but equal is that it wasn't actually equal. The question on this transgender thing is whether being required to use a bathroom corresponding to his/her gender at birth is the same thing as separate but equal relative to the racial issues.

Why would it be different?

Because there are already separate but equal bathrooms (a room for men and a room for women) and there is not a significant difference in quality. This is why I don't get the constitutional claim. Even if transgender is a protected class (and they should be... everyone should be), where's the violation? The argument that would have to be made (I think) is that there is some hardship for a man identifying as a woman (and not having changed her birth certificate) to use the men's bathroom and not the women's bathroom. I think... who knows? It's hard to understand this issue because, like I said from the jump, this is really really really dumb thing on which to be spending government time and dollars and media time and dollars.

[mrswdk]

Because there are already separate but equal bathrooms (a room for men and a room for women) and there is not a significant difference in quality. This is why I don't get the constitutional claim. Even if transgender is a protected class (and they should be... everyone should be), where's the violation? The argument that would have to be made (I think) is that there is some hardship for a man identifying as a woman (and not having changed her birth certificate) to use the men's bathroom and not the women's bathroom. I think... who knows? It's hard to understand this issue because, like I said from the jump, this is really really really dumb thing on which to be spending government time and dollars and media time and dollars.

I would have thought that is exactly the argument being made. Disallowing a transgender individual from accessing the bathroom of the gender they identify with basically mandates that their self-identity is not worthy of the same status and protections as other people's self-identities.

An argument could be made in favor of the North Carolina laws if the whole debate was framed in terms of sex, which is a fact of biology and not a social construct, but as far as I'm aware it is not.

I was about to agree that the attention being given to the whole debate is really dumb, but I guess this transgender bathrooms thing is just the latest excuse for people to fight about equality, freedom etc., so in that sense this debate is just a proxy for discussing a bigger issue.

that said, I'm split on whether or not I am ok with the law or not. Hear me out: just because conservatives are illogical, I don't think we can throw out their fears as meaningless. Fears are inherently irrational. But why should the desires of transgenders to use whatever bathroom they want trump the fears of the morons? I don't know if they should.

So you are arguing that irrational fear should trump freedom of self-expression?

yes, why not? some punk kid could write a threat to a public official and get arrested for it...his self-expression was trumped by an irrational fear. There isn't some natural law claiming that self-expression is inherently more important than fears

I wouldn't exactly call being sent an explicit threat and being intimidated by it an 'irrational fear'.

[Army of GOD]

yes, I'm sure arresting an eleven year old making a joke on the interwebs is rational


even if someone made a threat on a public official, there's already a ton of security in place for the officials so it's not like there's any real danger.

[thegreekdog]

I would have thought that is exactly the argument being made. Disallowing a transgender individual from accessing the bathroom of the gender they identify with basically mandates that their self-identity is not worthy of the same status and protections as other people's self-identities.

An argument could be made in favor of the North Carolina laws if the whole debate was framed in terms of sex, which is a fact of biology and not a social construct, but as far as I'm aware it is not.

I was about to agree that the attention being given to the whole debate is really dumb, but I guess this transgender bathrooms thing is just the latest excuse for people to fight about equality, freedom etc., so in that sense this debate is just a proxy for discussing a bigger issue.

It actually is worthy of the same status and protection as other people's self-identities, provided they change a birth certificate (which in some states means going through medical therapy or actually engaging in a sex change operation). As I hope I stated previously, I do not understand the various levels of transgender biology (e.g. what makes someone transgender apart from wanting to be a gender they were not equipped with at birth). I can understand, conceptually, why a man looking like me would make women uncomfortable if he entered the woman's restroom. I do not understand, conceptually, why Kaitlyn Jenner entering a woman's restroom would make a woman uncomfortable. Again, the high school kid from, I think, North Carolina, may have identified as a woman but he looked like a man; I understand why that would make a 16 year old girl uncomfortable to share a restroom with the man identifying as a woman. And thus, my question is where does the protection begin? Does merely self-identifying as a woman, without any physical/chemical/biological changes entitle that person to the use of a restroom of his/her choosing? Or does there have to be something more? If so, what is that something more? It's not that a woman is uncomfortable that a transgender person is using the same restroom as she is; it's that a man is using the same restroom as she is.

[thegreekdog]

yes, I'm sure arresting an eleven year old making a joke on the interwebs is rational


even if someone made a threat on a public official, there's already a ton of security in place for the officials so it's not like there's any real danger.

My favorite stories are when public schools suspend students for wearing a certain kind of shirt or bringing in certain things for show and tell.

[mrswdk]

yes, I'm sure arresting an eleven year old making a joke on the interwebs is rational

You didn't say an eleven year-old making a joke on the web. When you first mentioned threats I was envisaging a Congressman getting a letter making a death threat or something.

In any case, a threat's a threat. I'm not saying a kid should be banged up in jail for sending off a random threat but neither should they be allowed to send those threats in the first place.

even if someone made a threat on a public official, there's already a ton of security in place for the officials so it's not like there's any real danger.

Didn't a Congresswoman get shot just a few years ago?

[mrswdk]

I would have thought that is exactly the argument being made. Disallowing a transgender individual from accessing the bathroom of the gender they identify with basically mandates that their self-identity is not worthy of the same status and protections as other people's self-identities.

An argument could be made in favor of the North Carolina laws if the whole debate was framed in terms of sex, which is a fact of biology and not a social construct, but as far as I'm aware it is not.

I was about to agree that the attention being given to the whole debate is really dumb, but I guess this transgender bathrooms thing is just the latest excuse for people to fight about equality, freedom etc., so in that sense this debate is just a proxy for discussing a bigger issue.

It actually is worthy of the same status and protection as other people's self-identities, provided they change a birth certificate (which in some states means going through medical therapy or actually engaging in a sex change operation).

Don't US birth certificates say 'sex'? Because that's not the same thing as gender. Someone who is a biological male but identifies themselves as feminine is transgender but not transsexual, so there would be no grounds for changing their birth certificate.

As I hope I stated previously, I do not understand the various levels of transgender biology (e.g. what makes someone transgender apart from wanting to be a gender they were not equipped with at birth). I can understand, conceptually, why a man looking like me would make women uncomfortable if he entered the woman's restroom. I do not understand, conceptually, why Kaitlyn Jenner entering a woman's restroom would make a woman uncomfortable. Again, the high school kid from, I think, North Carolina, may have identified as a woman but he looked like a man; I understand why that would make a 16 year old girl uncomfortable to share a restroom with the man identifying as a woman. And thus, my question is where does the protection begin? Does merely self-identifying as a woman, without any physical/chemical/biological changes entitle that person to the use of a restroom of his/her choosing? Or does there have to be something more? If so, what is that something more? It's not that a woman is uncomfortable that a transgender person is using the same restroom as she is; it's that a man is using the same restroom as she is.

I likewise don't know (or care) enough about transgender to have any idea of where a line should be drawn with regards to bathrooms. I just think that point blank ruling it out the possibility of a transgender individual using the restroom of their choice (as tzor is doing) doesn't make any objective sense.

Personally I think the best solution is to just skirt the issue altogether and make all bathrooms unisex (or maybe have unisex as a third option alongside male/female - maybe there are some religious issues with getting men and women to share the same space idk).

[thegreekdog]

I agree on all counts. I'm trying to determine whether the equal protection claim comes into play and I just don't have the time to read the caselaw to figure out what the arguments would be on both sides (other than to say "avoiding uncomfortability" is probably not a compelling state interest).

[/]

I agree with most points presented in this thread. If brought to its fullest conclusion, the only logical solutions are unisex bathrooms, individual bathrooms, or way too damn many bathrooms.

After all, if we want to account for everything, there's way more than male and female. There are so many intersexed individuals that one could count as either; some that had the wrong thing sewn up or lopped off because the doctor just had to put down an M or an F, yet would rightfully identify against that, either as the opposite, both, or something else entirely. Gender on the other hand is also a gray area; one would think that a trans man (for example that dude that got pregnant), with a beard, dressed as a man is thought to dress in our society, would cause a bit more of an upset in a ladies room than a men's room, but North Carolina seems to disagree, they say if you have a vagina, it's off to the ladies room every time.

That's why most trans individuals want to use the restroom as what they identify as; that's what they dress like, that's what many look like. They don't want to freak everyone out because they entered the men's room in a dress, or the lady's room in a tux. In some cases it can be outright dangerous for them to do so; the trans community is far more likely than average to experience hate crimes.

I'd say, if it's so important to keep segregating restrooms, the test should be psychological above all else, administrated by a trained professional. Though really, I don't mind sharing a restroom with anyone that has bathroom etiquette. If you mind your own business, don't be a creep, and don't be gross, you could be a trained goat for all I care.

[thegreekdog]

The Obama administration is going to release a letter today providing guidance to schools on transgender bathrooms and locker rooms. I'm still confused as to what transgender means. So - a six foot tall person with a beard and a penis who wears men's clothing and identifies as a woman, is that person transgendered? And, if so, is that person allowed to use a woman's restroom?

[jgordon1111]

Here is a indisputable fact male human at birth= x and y chromosomes

Female human at birth= x and x chromosomes

And as of yet nobody has figured out how to change this FACT

no amount of hormones, testosterone,estrogens or any other body part addition or subtraction can make you something other than what you were born

End result transgender = lie
Supporters of this = liars

Religion has nothing to do with this discussion
It has EVERYTHING to do with personal agendas and the ego of those promoting this obvious lie.

[/]

The Obama administration is going to release a letter today providing guidance to schools on transgender bathrooms and locker rooms. I'm still confused as to what transgender means. So - a six foot tall person with a beard and a penis who wears men's clothing and identifies as a woman, is that person transgendered? And, if so, is that person allowed to use a woman's restroom?

Technically, yes to the first part, as an umbrella term. Trans, as a prefix doesn't mean 'transform', it means beyond, the term transgender includes those with any identity beyond the default notions of gender, such as third gender people, agendered people, whatever. This is an issue, but not quite the issue that legislature has in mind, in the same way as 'wear a helmet on your bicycle to be safe' doesn't mean you should get out your full-face knights helm unless you are being deliberately obtuse to play devil's advocate.

For an interesting discussion though, do you feel that forgetting to shave that morning is the thin line that turns a woman back into a man? As for wearing 'men's clothing', how might be determine that? "Oh shit, that woman is wearing jeans, don't you see the stick figure on the door has a dress? Get out of here!" I'd imagine that lots of people six feet tall might have trouble finding 'women's clothes' in that case.

The people in this issue are more specifically those trans individuals who suffer from gender dysphoria, though that itself is somewhat controversial these days. If it does seem too complicated to segregate because of all the degrees and ambiguity, it could be a sign that it doesn't really matter to enforce the social construct. For example, well there's the whites restroom, but how white are you? It's really easier for all involved to permit rather than restrict.

Really, if we needed to discriminate against people for their "potential" to commit sexual harassment, it would make more sense to issue sexuality cards for everyone. Why not have a heterosexual bathroom, and a homosexual bathroom? And of course bi people aren't safe to have around anyone. (I'm being sarcastic of course.)

Here is a indisputable fact male human at birth= x and y chromosomes

Female human at birth= x and x chromosomes

And as of yet nobody has figured out how to change this FACT

no amount of hormones, testosterone,estrogens or any other body part addition or subtraction can make you something other than what you were born

End result transgender = lie
Supporters of this = liars

Religion has nothing to do with this discussion
It has EVERYTHING to do with personal agendas and the ego of those promoting this obvious lie.

So then, why have chromosome tests never been a part of issuing gender to ANYONE EVER?
Do you know what chromosomes you have? Most people die without knowing for certain. There are people with male genitals and XXY chromosomes, people with female genitals and and XXY chromosomes, people born with male genitals with XX chromosomes, people with female genitals and XY chromosomes, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders ... evelopment

[Dukasaur]

I agree with most points presented in this thread. If brought to its fullest conclusion, the only logical solutions are unisex bathrooms, individual bathrooms, or way too damn many bathrooms.

After all, if we want to account for everything, there's way more than male and female. There are so many intersexed individuals that one could count as either; some that had the wrong thing sewn up or lopped off because the doctor just had to put down an M or an F, yet would rightfully identify against that, either as the opposite, both, or something else entirely. Gender on the other hand is also a gray area; one would think that a trans man (for example that dude that got pregnant), with a beard, dressed as a man is thought to dress in our society, would cause a bit more of an upset in a ladies room than a men's room, but North Carolina seems to disagree, they say if you have a vagina, it's off to the ladies room every time.

That's why most trans individuals want to use the restroom as what they identify as; that's what they dress like, that's what many look like. They don't want to freak everyone out because they entered the men's room in a dress, or the lady's room in a tux. In some cases it can be outright dangerous for them to do so; the trans community is far more likely than average to experience hate crimes.

I'd say, if it's so important to keep segregating restrooms, the test should be psychological above all else, administrated by a trained professional. Though really, I don't mind sharing a restroom with anyone that has bathroom etiquette. If you mind your own business, don't be a creep, and don't be gross, you could be a trained goat for all I care.

+1

[KoolBak]

I pee outside.

[jgordon1111]

The Obama administration is going to release a letter today providing guidance to schools on transgender bathrooms and locker rooms. I'm still confused as to what transgender means. So - a six foot tall person with a beard and a penis who wears men's clothing and identifies as a woman, is that person transgendered? And, if so, is that person allowed to use a woman's restroom?

Technically, yes to the first part, as an umbrella term. Trans, as a prefix doesn't mean 'transform', it means beyond, the term transgender includes those with any identity beyond the default notions of gender, such as third gender people, agendered people, whatever. This is an issue, but not quite the issue that legislature has in mind, in the same way as 'wear a helmet on your bicycle to be safe' doesn't mean you should get out your full-face knights helm unless you are being deliberately obtuse to play devil's advocate.

For an interesting discussion though, do you feel that forgetting to shave that morning is the thin line that turns a woman back into a man? As for wearing 'men's clothing', how might be determine that? "Oh shit, that woman is wearing jeans, don't you see the stick figure on the door has a dress? Get out of here!" I'd imagine that lots of people six feet tall might have trouble finding 'women's clothes' in that case.

The people in this issue are more specifically those trans individuals who suffer from gender dysphoria, though that itself is somewhat controversial these days. If it does seem too complicated to segregate because of all the degrees and ambiguity, it could be a sign that it doesn't really matter to enforce the social construct. For example, well there's the whites restroom, but how white are you? It's really easier for all involved to permit rather than restrict.

Really, if we needed to discriminate against people for their "potential" to commit sexual harassment, it would make more sense to issue sexuality cards for everyone. Why not have a heterosexual bathroom, and a homosexual bathroom? And of course bi people aren't safe to have around anyone. (I'm being sarcastic of course.)

Here is a indisputable fact male human at birth= x and y chromosomes

Female human at birth= x and x chromosomes

And as of yet nobody has figured out how to change this FACT

no amount of hormones, testosterone,estrogens or any other body part addition or subtraction can make you something other than what you were born

End result transgender = lie
Supporters of this = liars

Religion has nothing to do with this discussion
It has EVERYTHING to do with personal agendas and the ego of those promoting this obvious lie.

So then, why have chromosome tests never been a part of issuing gender to ANYONE EVER?
Do you know what chromosomes you have? Most people die without knowing for certain. There are people with male genitals and XXY chromosomes, people with female genitals and and XXY chromosomes, people born with male genitals with XX chromosomes, people with female genitals and XY chromosomes, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders ... evelopment

And yes / you are the first person here to actually bring up the only legitimate counter argument of this topic. What about all those people somewhere in the middle. How many are there? I believe someone had the idea here already, its called co-ed and the quicker humanity comes to terms with this the better for everyone.

[thegreekdog]

The Obama administration is going to release a letter today providing guidance to schools on transgender bathrooms and locker rooms. I'm still confused as to what transgender means. So - a six foot tall person with a beard and a penis who wears men's clothing and identifies as a woman, is that person transgendered? And, if so, is that person allowed to use a woman's restroom?

Technically, yes to the first part, as an umbrella term. Trans, as a prefix doesn't mean 'transform', it means beyond, the term transgender includes those with any identity beyond the default notions of gender, such as third gender people, agendered people, whatever. This is an issue, but not quite the issue that legislature has in mind, in the same way as 'wear a helmet on your bicycle to be safe' doesn't mean you should get out your full-face knights helm unless you are being deliberately obtuse to play devil's advocate.

For an interesting discussion though, do you feel that forgetting to shave that morning is the thin line that turns a woman back into a man? As for wearing 'men's clothing', how might be determine that? "Oh shit, that woman is wearing jeans, don't you see the stick figure on the door has a dress? Get out of here!" I'd imagine that lots of people six feet tall might have trouble finding 'women's clothes' in that case.

The people in this issue are more specifically those trans individuals who suffer from gender dysphoria, though that itself is somewhat controversial these days. If it does seem too complicated to segregate because of all the degrees and ambiguity, it could be a sign that it doesn't really matter to enforce the social construct. For example, well there's the whites restroom, but how white are you? It's really easier for all involved to permit rather than restrict.

Really, if we needed to discriminate against people for their "potential" to commit sexual harassment, it would make more sense to issue sexuality cards for everyone. Why not have a heterosexual bathroom, and a homosexual bathroom? And of course bi people aren't safe to have around anyone. (I'm being sarcastic of course.)

Here is a indisputable fact male human at birth= x and y chromosomes

Female human at birth= x and x chromosomes

And as of yet nobody has figured out how to change this FACT

no amount of hormones, testosterone,estrogens or any other body part addition or subtraction can make you something other than what you were born

End result transgender = lie
Supporters of this = liars

Religion has nothing to do with this discussion
It has EVERYTHING to do with personal agendas and the ego of those promoting this obvious lie.

So then, why have chromosome tests never been a part of issuing gender to ANYONE EVER?
Do you know what chromosomes you have? Most people die without knowing for certain. There are people with male genitals and XXY chromosomes, people with female genitals and and XXY chromosomes, people born with male genitals with XX chromosomes, people with female genitals and XY chromosomes, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders ... evelopment

I cannot tell if this is a good explanation or not. Perhaps there is a disconnect here. You're plainly well-versed in the science and psychology of transgender, but do not appear to be well-versed in the real life implications of someone who looks like a man entering a woman's restroom. If a woman is using a woman's restroom and someone who looks like a man enters the restroom, what do you think would happen? Do you think the woman would say "Oh, must be a transgender individual with gender dysphoria, I will not feel uncomfortable."? Or do you think it is more likely that the woman will feel uncomfortable and/or go to management to complain? As indicated previously, I'm supportive of unisex bathrooms but I bet there are a whole lot of people who are not supportive of unisex bathrooms (and not for religious or social conservative reasons). Additionally, I'm trying to determine what makes a particular transgender person (or person with gender dysphoria) subject to equal protection considerations such that he or she should feel comfortable using a restroom of his or her choice that does not correspond to the genitalia he or she was born with (or, in fact, currently sports).

[Metsfanmax]

It's not that a woman is uncomfortable that a transgender person is using the same restroom as she is; it's that a man is using the same restroom as she is.

Well, it wasn't all that long ago that white men were uncomfortable with black men using the same restrooms as they did. The personal desire of bigots not to interact with the people they are bigoted against never outweighs the personal desire of others to have freedom of movement and access.

[Army of GOD]

the rhetoric on both sides of the debate is pretty funny. And by funny, I mean ridiculous

I've seen arguments from the left similar to "trans people are not allowed to use any bathrooms" and arguments from the right are "every pervert in the world is gonna rape your daughter"

[tzor]

Well, it wasn't all that long ago that white men were uncomfortable with black men using the same restrooms as they did. The personal desire of bigots not to interact with the people they are bigoted against never outweighs the personal desire of others to have freedom of movement and access.

Well, first of all, white men were never in any trouble of being attacked by black men, while the fear of rape is always a concern among women. However, until the law was settled, black men using the same restrooms could easily have been lynched, so perhaps if you reversed the argument it would have worked. Unfortunately, there was no pressure for white men to use the definitely inferior black restroom.

[thegreekdog]

It's not that a woman is uncomfortable that a transgender person is using the same restroom as she is; it's that a man is using the same restroom as she is.

Well, it wasn't all that long ago that white men were uncomfortable with black men using the same restrooms as they did. The personal desire of bigots not to interact with the people they are bigoted against never outweighs the personal desire of others to have freedom of movement and access.

Bigoted against what and who exactly? Bigoted against men or bigoted against men who identify as women? A woman has no idea if a man who enters a woman's restroom is a man identifying as a man or transgender; therefore, she can't possibly be bigoted against transgender. Perhaps she's bigoted against men although the cultural history of the United States (and maybe the world) says that she should be uncomfortable with a man (not transgender... man) using a woman's locker room or bathroom.

I find it fascinating that people liken the transgender bathroom movement to the desegregation movement. There is an historic and pernicious element to racism that just does not exist with respect to the transgender community. Transgender people are able to use the same quality restroom as anyone else... they can go to the same schools, sit wherever the f*ck they want on a bus, and get service from everyone; black people were not only forced to use restrooms of substandard quality, they were forced to go to schools of substandard quality and sit at the back of the bus and refused service. Transgender people don't have to deal with laws that discriminate against them (other than North Carolina's bathroom law). Black people literally had laws set up specifically to not allow them to do or say certain things. Transgender people can vote; black people either couldn't vote or were intimidated from voting. Perhaps this is why I find this to be a stupid issue. As far as I'm concerned, likening the transgender bathroom movement to the desegregation movement is something to be ashamed of.

[thegreekdog]

Well, it wasn't all that long ago that white men were uncomfortable with black men using the same restrooms as they did. The personal desire of bigots not to interact with the people they are bigoted against never outweighs the personal desire of others to have freedom of movement and access.

Well, first of all, white men were never in any trouble of being attacked by black men, while the fear of rape is always a concern among women. However, until the law was settled, black men using the same restrooms could easily have been lynched, so perhaps if you reversed the argument it would have worked. Unfortunately, there was no pressure for white men to use the definitely inferior black restroom.

Can you please stop participating in this thread until I'm done? See below. It's pretty embarrassing.

the rhetoric on both sides of the debate is pretty funny. And by funny, I mean ridiculous

I've seen arguments from the left similar to "trans people are not allowed to use any bathrooms" and arguments from the right are "every pervert in the world is gonna rape your daughter"

[tzor]

Can you please stop participating in this thread until I'm done? See below. It's pretty embarrassing.

No.

Bigoted against what and who exactly? Bigoted against men or bigoted against men who identify as women? A woman has no idea if a man who enters a woman's restroom is a man identifying as a man or transgender; therefore, she can't possibly be bigoted against transgender. Perhaps she's bigoted against men although the cultural history of the United States (and maybe the world) says that she should be uncomfortable with a man (not transgender... man) using a woman's locker room or bathroom.

Ignoring the "I identify" problem, if a real transgendered women enters a woman's restroom, there is generally little you can tell to give the indication that she has a penis underneath it all. And if "she" is really transgendered, "she" is probably not going to want to flaunt it anyway, so no one will ever know. Sometimes, if you are spotting things like jawbone lines, you might tell, but with time, even that becomes harder to spot.

The problem is putting that into an effective policy or law. People who have spent years in gender reconstruction are not the same as those who just "feel like a natural woman" at the moment. The former are more of less in a sort of self imposed "witness protection program" while the latter are just weird.