There are few ways to do this. Before tumblr made some changes to their API, it was actually a lot easier… But now… not quite as much since one of the main tools I used to use doesn’t work (and I haven’t figured out how to replicate it myself… bc my ruby skills aren’t quite that advanced). But I’m going to list the ways I currently know that work:
For those who don’t know, here’s what the Planet Fitness thing is about. A cis woman enters a changeroom. She sees a trans women. Who is fully clothed. The cis woman then leaves the changeroom to complain to the staff. She is informed that Planet Fitness has a 'judgement free’ policy and allows ppl to use whichever changeroom they feel is appropriate. Cis woman is upset by this. She then spends the next several day harassing other customers to tell them about the fact that trans women occassionally exist in the same space they do. Her membership is cancelled for violating the 'no judgement’ policy. She sues.
He expects a similar GOP bill to also be filed in the state senate. “My bill focuses on privacy,” Hunt said. “You assume people changing clothes around you are of the same gender as you.
This exact thing is actually addressed in the Planet Fitness judgement. Its a judgement I appreciate because the judge is explicit that he isn’t actually factoring the whole 'trans’ thing at all:
This court is not called upon to determine whether transgender persons have any protected right for use of a locker room facility.
The first issue the judgement deals with is the notion of the 'invasion of privacy’.
(For this quote, tw: for transmisogyny)
A common area of a locker room, which is open to other patrons, is not a place in which a reasonable person would expect to be in solitutde or secluded because multiple patrons may use it at the same time. Plaintiff may have reasonably expected only women would be present in the women’s locker room, even in the common area: however she could no longer reasonably expect only women would use the facility after being told about the 'judgement-free zone’ policy of Planet Fitness. There was no intrusion upon the solitude or seclusion of Plaintiff by the presence of the clothed male in the common area of the restroom.
Overall, this is a good thing to have clarified about these kinds of spaces. One possible bad area is the notion that it might be reasonable to expect only 'women’ in a women’s restroom… Which, of course, leaves open the issue of whether or not trans women are women. For those who do not think so, then perhaps their expectation of privacy is violated.
One interesting thing about this line of thought is that, as more and more awareness and laws are passed around this issue, the reasonable expectation of privacy gets smaller and smaller. If a jurisdiction has some kind of rule saying that people can use whatever restroom they feel is appropriate, then this expectation is no longer reasonable. This makes the current US federal government’s stance that 'transgender’/gender identity is covered by sex for a ground of discrimination rather interesting. Since, at least, within federal facilities in the US, there can no longer be any reasonable expectation that only cis women will be in these kinds of public accommodations.
Given the overall trend, I imagine that the privacy argument is something that won’t be tenable in the very near future, despite whatever laws people are trying to pass to restrict restroom access to 'birth sex’ or 'genitals’1.
One important part is this:
Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s created a policy that could allow for intrusion into her seclusion, but Plaintiff has not alleged actual intrusion into her seclusion. The Court finds there has been no allegation which would constitute an intrusion for the invasion of privacy cause of action to survive. Merely creating a policy which a person may utilize to intrude upon another person’s seclusion would be an extension of the tort of right to privacy beyond the parameters which have been adopted by the appellate courts of this state when they created it.
This is interesting because it deals with the conjuctive statements that transmisogynists love to use to justify oppressing trans women. Statements like "a man could enter the restroom to spy on girls!”. The reality is that there many ways in which invasion of privacy or other such things are possible. Simply having a rule that trans women can use the women’s washroom if we feel like it, isn’t doesn’t actually constitute an invasion of privacy in and of itself.
For those with the patience, the entire judgement is worth a read, if only to see the judge absolutely destroy all of the cis woman’s bullshit arguments.
The key part of this, to me, is that it essentially says that a trans woman co-existing in the same public space as a cis woman isn’t enough to actually be a violation of privacy. There’s some ambiguity around the context of why the trans woman is there and the expectation of privacy, but this is a constantly shrinking field. And soon there won’t a single place to stand on.
Also of interest, is the analysis of the 'intentional infliction of emotional distress’ which deals with whether or not the policy counts as 'extreme and outrageous conduct’. This is particularly important since it seems to be one of the main areas that this cis woman is basing her appeal on. Here’s what the judge says about this:
It fails to allege facts showing Defendents’ conduct was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. The policy may be offensive to Plaintiff and uncomfortable for her, but subjective offense is not the standard for the evaluation.
In other words, just because she doesn’t like it, doesn’t make this an offense to the community as a whole.
It’s interesting to me because, as noted above, he never once actually addresses anything to do with trans people (or our legal status at least). He is simply saying that having a policy that allows trans women to use the women’s locker room doesn’t 'go beyond all possible bounds of decency’.
Plaintiff opposes the policy but fails to allege any specific ats perpetrated causing her emotional distress. She merely alleges Defendents recklessly instituted a policy that could expose unclothed women and children to a transgender person in the locker room; however, nothing to establish that she personally suffered such an impact. There has been insufficient showing of actions by Defendents involving Plaintiff which are intolerable in a civilized community. Individuals may be uncomfortable in certain situations presented by the 'judgement-free zone’ policy; however, Defendents have adopted a policy they wish to establish for inclusiveness of their members, and it does not go beyond the bounds of decency to allow them to do it. Individuals will be uncomfortable in either situation as long as a facility has only men and women locker rooms and people self identify as being the opposite sex from their biological status. Once again, this Court does not address the bigger social issue involving transgender persons use of public facilities as it is not ncessary for decision on this case.
Now…. the unwillingness for the judge to talk about the social issue might look like a dodge, but in this case, I actually think its a good thing. Why? Because as noted above, the judge destroys any and all consideration of hypotheticals. The exact same kind of hypotheticals that are the bread and butter of opposition to trans women accessing public accommodations.
Most of the rhetoric is about stuff that could happen. But this judgement makes it pretty clear that what could happen isn’t sufficient evidence on its own.
Of course, I’ve already noted the problem with this. Mainly that it is only a matter of time until transmisogynists have an actual incident to use to 'prove’ their point. At this point, then, we’ll have to see how this goes. Because this particular judgement only holds so long as we are only dealing in hypotheticals. Eventually, the social issue of trans women accessing public accommodations will need to be dealt with.
Of course, I also don’t know how officials in the US actually think they’ll be able to enforce this, especially as more and more states remove the surgical requirements for changing your sex designation on your documentation. Because it would be an actual invasion of privacy to demand to see someone’s genitals at any point. Perhaps a person could be asked to show their ID, but if they ID has the correct sex designation, what then? It’s shit like this that lets you know that the current slate of reactionary laws aren’t going to last long, since they are obviously untenable. Not to say that it won’t take years to deal with this, similar to how the gay marriage bans took years to get rid of in the US. ↩
ok @ literally everyone. im gonna start unfollowing undertale fans that reblog or create racist depictions of frisk. Most of the people doing this are white and none of them are east asian. (Every east asian person I’ve spoken to has said its hurtful so really why dont y’all fuckin listen?)
Like if we’re mutuals, I’ll let you know before I unfollow but I’ll still do it.