It's worked that way, and well, for about a hundred years. The only thing that's changed, recently, is a push in some jurisdictions to remove the social and legal protections for doing it that way. Restore those protections, and I see no reason why it shouldn't continue to work that way.
I agree that restoring to the old school system is best on net. No force of law in either direction, and let the people sort out for themselves who is disruptive enough to constitute a disorderly person. Maybe once in a while, you'll have a legitimate case of hate-based harassment against a transwoman, and that can be hashed out in court with appropriate penalties. More often than not, I would expect the women to prevail.
Because they are "related ideas and definitionally intertwined" as someone once wrote.
Do you disagree with the statement that women's bathrooms in NJ are 'intended for use by both sexes' per the law quoted above?
If you do care to make that argument, see if you can work in a key detail: In some jurisdictions, certain spaces are designated single-sex, which makes them unsuitable for the other sex as a matter of policy. In other jurisdictions (e.g. CA, NJ, NY) such designations are legally forbidden, making those spaces suitable for both sexes.
I expect both sexes to be using toilets and locker rooms in New Jersey, per the law quoted above.
Someone also wrote, in the same context, that often interchangeable does not mean always interchangeable. I remain shocked at how often that distinction is met by blank stares in this discussion.
Yes. Per the law, they explicitly are not.
Possibly overly pedantic, but 'unsuitable' is a different idea than 'not designated'.
Assuming you mean using nominally single sex designated toilets and locker rooms, I expect they are as well. {eta: with the caveat that well over 99% of the time, they are de facto single sex and some might well remain single sex 100% of the time}. Yet it is not based on them being designated as unisex and recognized as such. It is based on gender, defined by the state as unique from sex, being capriciously equated with sex. Sometimes. With no rhyme or reason or consistency.
Misty Hill is male. In New Jersey, per the law, which bathrooms is he intended to use?
Answered in depth and detail in the part of the post you took the extra time to snip out.
The rest of your post seems to be strange semantic quibbles which do not actually answer my question. It's strange that you can't just say "Mens" or "Womens".
See the eta. Ya ninja'd me.
Perhaps you're playing games with verb tense, but according to New Jersey law in the present (not the past) Hill is intended to use the women's bathroom, as he identifies as a woman.
Oh, but we aren't talking about the original design or the original designation, which may have happened long ago. We're talking about the law as of now. And the law in New Jersey right now intends Hill to use the women's bathroom.
I don't see how the law 'intends' anything at all of Misty Hill's specific restroom usage. Are you under the impression that he couldn't use a men's room or unisex facility? Does the law furrow its brow and codify itself with its 'intentions' towards our guest from Delaware?
The law intends for Hill to use the women's bathroom, because he identifies as a woman. This is not an accidental outcome, it's not some side effect or loophole, it is the desired outcome. That is what the legislators who passed the law wanted to happen as a result of the law. So we can absolutely say what the law intends in this instance.
Oh, he absolutely could, so long as he identifies as a man while doing so. That too is an intended outcome.
Then the law has no intent regarding Misty Hill. It has a general intent that Hill may or may not fit the intention of, assuming Hill has even entered the State in the last 8 years. In fact, if one cannot discriminate based on gender identity/expression, I challenge you to demonstrate how any woman or transwoman or the annoying nonbinary folk could be denied access to any restroom.
That makes no sense.
Discriminate based on sex, which is a solution that you specifically advocated. It's really not that hard. As has been beaten to death many times, one's gender identity and expression is not one's sex, so discriminating on the basis of sex IS NOT discriminating on the basis of gender identity or expression. Sure, some people can pass as the opposite sex, and you won't keep them out. But most cannot. Hill cannot. The ones who cannot pass as the opposite sex will be kept out if you discriminate on the basis of sex. That's how you keep Hill out of the women's bathroom.
It makes less sense to assume the law has intent towards a specific individual. The law has intent towards collectives in this sense.
We have that, yet gender has wormed its way in to be the functional equivalent, which if you recall, I have also advocated getting more hard line defined in order to stop the vascillations of convenience.
Who said anything about that? Not me.
Yes. And Hill is a member of the group to whom the law is addressed. And Hill is an intended recipient of the effects of the law as a result.
Not in New Jersey, not anymore.
Um...
Whether someone is male or not has little to do with the law at hand, and you further have some strong assumptions about some cat who hasn't even entered the state for 8 years, as far as I know. Is Hill's identification the same? Are you guys pen pals or something? Cuz I don't know enough to answer any questions regarding his internal.or even external workings today. Could have died years ago, for all I know.
Which one? Are you sure? To the point: would it even matter, if we cant discriminate at all? 'At all' means in any direction, including cis folk entering the opposite sex room.
Yes, the law has intent towards Hill because Hill is a member of a group. I never claimed that it had singled Hill out individually. That would be a stupid interpretation of what I wrote.
Quite so. That's rather my point. Because sex is irrelevant, bathrooms in New Jersey are de jure unisex.
I don't know why you're confused about this, it's pretty simple. The current status of the law in New Jersey is that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex. That is how things are, it is NOT how I want them to be. I want to be able to discriminate on the basis of sex. That is how things should be, not how they currently are in New Jersey. I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm pointing out that how things are doesn't match how they should (and could) be.
You yet again snipped out the relevant part. Why bring up Hill specifically when we don't know anything about them in the here and now?
Bathrooms in places of public accommodation are in fact required to be specifically labeled, and seperate sexed facilities are required by all employers who have multi stall restrooms.
"You are confused".
Ok. Say we go all Ziggaraut and sex segregated this afternoon (we already are but let's humor you). How would that stop your pen pal Misty Hill from asserting gender discrimination if denied access to the ladies loo?
Yes, Lord Copper.
