On July 29, 2001 in Nashville, Tennessee, 38-year-old Willie Houston was celebrating his recent engagement with his fiancée and friends; he and his fiancée had taken a late night cruise together on a local casino riverboat. At the end of the evening, Willie held his fiancée’s purse when she took a trip to the restroom. One of Willie’s friends, who happened to be blind, also had to use the restroom, so Houston took him by the arm and led him into the men’s room while still holding the purse.
Quoting the Gay & Lesbian Times as to what occurred next:
Less than 30 minutes later, Houston was shot dead in the parking lot, having spent the last half-hour of his life having anti-gay epitaphs yelled at him. Houston’s fiancée, Jones, gave a eulogy instead of her wedding vows.
Elsewhere, transwoman Christina Sforza was assaulted on July 10 of this year by a manager at a Manhattan McDonald’s — specifically for using the women’s bathroom. Christina had specific permission from another employee at the restaurant to use the women’s restroom; however, the restaurant manager threatened to “kill her” and beat her with a lead pipe while other McDonald’s employees shouted “kill the faggot” for use of the women’s restroom.
Christina’s friends, with whom she was eating, called the police. The police officers refused to take a complaint — instead they arrested Christina for assault. Her subsequent attempts to file a complaint against the McDonald’s manager with the police were unsuccessful –she was threatened with a “filing a false report” charge.
Elsewhere still, Helena Stone has worked in Grand Central Station where she’s repaired telephones. The 70-yearl old transgender woman had been arrested three times during a six month period this year for attempting to use the women’s restroom. She stated that an MTA officer called her “a freak, a weirdo and the ugliest woman in the world” and warned her, “If I ever see you in the women’s bathroom, I’m going to arrest you.” New York City’s MTA recently settled her complaint, paying her $2000.00 legal fees.
Peeing in peace. Most people take it for granted that when they go to a public rest room in a shopping mall, a restaurant, or other public space that they are relatively safe. For transpeople, as well as other people who don’t fit within the purview of gender appearance norms, every public restroom is a potential place of arrest and/or violence.
For how much of an issue public restrooms are for those who don’t conform to gender appearance norms, the Transgender Law Center’s Peeing in Peace defines the problem as follows:
For many transgender people, finding a safe place to use the bathroom is a daily struggle. Even in cities or towns that are generally considered good places to be transgender (like San Francisco or Los Angeles), many transgender people are harassed, beaten, and questioned by authorities in both women’s and men’s rooms. In a 2002 survey conducted by the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, nearly 50% of respondents reported having been harassed or assaulted in a public bathroom. Because of this, many transgender people avoid public bathrooms altogether and can develop health problems as a result. This not only affects people who think of themselves as transgender, but also many others who express their gender in a non-stereotypical way but who may not identify as transgender (for instance, a masculine women or an effeminate man).
Recognizing this potential of violence, many colleges and universities in North America have taken to designating certain restrooms as gender neutral. In fact, most people have seen and used the model for gender neutral restrooms — gender neutral restrooms often are those single stall restrooms with the international symbol for handicapped restrooms.
Families make use of these gender neutral restrooms too. Fathers with young daughters and mothers with young sons appreciate the safe, family friendly atmosphere of small, gender neutral restrooms.
So from a safety and privacy perspective, these aren’t just public “transgender” bathrooms, but are bathrooms for transpeople, handicapped people, and families with small children. What’s not to like about providing gender neutral bathrooms as an option at colleges and universities?
Well, self-identified former homosexual Sylvia Bertolini doesn’t like the idea of providing safe restrooms for gender variant people. In a letter to the University of Calgary Gauntlet, she states:
As a former homosexual, I can confirm that change is possible, and that people are not born gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered or other. We are either male or female. One needs only look at our physical make up to realize this truth and thus, one should act according to one’s bodily form. To be more specific, since it seems that this may be necessary, if someone was born with male physiology, one is male, thus one should simply go to the men’s washroom. If someone was not born with a penis, then one should go to the women’s washroom.
One thing that helped me in my recovery, was to look at myself in a mirror without my clothes on, and thank God prayerfully for every part of me and especially for having created me a woman. We need to accept our sexuality and not run from it. We are either male or female.
Adding a new washroom for people struggling with this issue is not the solution. I am truly disappointed in the psychology, sociology, social work and other departments for their failure in addressing this need for people who are hurting in this way.
I believe the Intersex Society of North America might take issue with the idea that we all are born either male or female.
And, here at XGW, we’ve commented on the idea that gender identity and sexual orientation aren’t the same thing. With that in mind, it’s bothersome to me that this is the second time this week we’ve seen a self-identified former homosexual believing their former homosexual identification makes him or her an expert on gender identity issues. Gay isn’t transgender; ex-gay isn’t ex-transgender. Personal experience with homosexuality or transgenderism doesn’t automatically make one an expert on the other.
But even beyond that idea that our sex is fixed by our Creator at birth as male or female, the argument being made by Sylvia Bertolini is gender variant people should be subject to restroom violence because “change is possible.” Accept reparative therapy — or else.
When “change is possible” dogma becomes the preferred “solution” for restroom violence, then it’s pretty clear to me that the “change is possible” message has a morally bankrupt edge to it. Giving gender variant people, handicapped people, or parents with small children the option of gender neutral restrooms should be considered a reasonable solution when anti-violence measures, safety, and/or privacy is valued above dogma.
One needs only look at our physical make up to realize this truth and thus, one should act according to one’s bodily form.
So all you fat people better start being jolly RIGHT NOW!!!
“As a former homosexual, I can confirm that change is possible, and that people are not born gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered or other.”
I think this line from Sylvia Bertolini shows us her hubris is beyond belief. She claims she has ‘changed’, and because she has changed, she implies everyone else in the word should be forced into that change.
Also she assumes anyone who is gay, lesbian, or transgender MUST be hurting. We hear so often from the religious right that GLBT people are trying to push our way of life onto them, but as Sylvia Bertolini proves in her quoted letter, it is they who try to push their way of life on us.
Shame on them.
Oh yeah. A M to F tran would get her ass kicked if she went into the men’s room. But that’s probably what they want.
One needs only look at our physical make up to realize this truth and thus, one should act according to one’s bodily form.
You have two arms, two legs, a torso and a head. However, it doesn’t make you human; in my book you are nothing more than a monster, Sylvia.
Real Christians believe in a soul that is separate from the body. A soul that is more than the body and not defined by the stature of one’s flesh; a cripple on earth in not a cripple in heaven. Maybe these ex-gays need to take that into consideration next time they judge people like me. All I want is to be allowed to express and have acknowledgment for the shape of my soul and not for the shape of my flesh.
This is going to sound sexist or gay-vs-lesbian-bigotted…. but I wouldn’t trust an ex-lesbian at all about whether or not change is possible. The bisexual response is pretty much universal in the female gender. That any particular lesbian might flip is to be expected – though there are many I know who will never do so. She hardly has the bona-fides to speak upon homosexuality, let alone gender issues.
You can nip at my ass now…. or take out your pound of flesh as you see fit. Sorry, I’m still irking from whatever that ‘feminist, bisexual egomanic,’ Camille Paglia, said in the last decade or so. Tell me truthfully now, Camille Paglia morphed into Ann Coulter, didn’t she? I mean you never see them on the same venue.
That said, I’m all for omni-gender bathrooms. I’ve been in a few, they’re usually roomy enough for two… or three…
There I go again… something’s come over me….
. . .
Ms. Syliva B, has typical esteem issues.
So she can look at HER body and appreciate it.
Well, whoopy do.
Who cares what she thinks when she’s looking at HER body?
The issue isn’t life or death issues, or wouldn’t be if homophobes weren’t making such a damn big deal out of nothing.
And then expect the people it effects in the worst way, to just sit by and take this crap?
What a dolt that woman is, and the ex gay movement can have her.
I was at a Barnes and Noble where a father was with his three children. The two littlest were girls. I offered to help with the girls using the women’s restroom and I did monitor as the kids helped each other.
But they were awfully little.
Single, unisex, family, handicapped restrooms are the IDEAL solution to this.
But instead of exalting the SOLUTION, the homophobes go on a useless tear about how wrong THEY think the middle sexed are.
Yeah, we know what they think. But it’s STUPID and ILLOGICAL, and the whole world is supposed to just take it, cause it’s THEIR FAITH?!
What makes them think they are so brilliant?
Who died and put them in charge?
They certainly wouldn’t qualify for the ‘better idea committee’.
They have so few workable and reasonable solutions, they won’t become irrelevant to the general public soon enough.
Handicapped people don’t have hissy fits when I use the handicapped stall. I’m not a small woman and sometimes that’s the only one big enough and available. And I certainly wouldn’t jump ahead if someone handicapped needed it.
Gender isn’t relative to how decent a person is. And a personal stall, for whoever are should allow some personal space.
But damn, these stories of threats and violence over just using the restroom?!
My god….shades of ‘white only’ bathrooms, with NONE provided for anyone of color.
My folks told me those terrible stories of black people suffering the indignity of wetting themselves for lack of being able to use a bathroom, ANY bathroom available.
But for the mean spirit of the white people back then, who showed schadenfreude for such discriminatory practices in general, there is something similar in this spirit against the transgendered.
This is a necessary and universal bodily function we all have.
What hole it’s from doesn’t matter.
What’s the excuse for the holes in some people’s heads?!
I’m a transsexual woman. I am VERY skeptical about unisex bathrooms IF they are simply tranny toilets–being put there for the use of transgendered people, rather than for family use and so on.
I’ve seen a few of these campuses where what was intended to be an option became a requirement. For example, a completely passable and stealth student at a local university was told by the university that she would be required to use the trans bathrooms. None of her friends knew she was trans, so obviously using them would out her. In fact, the university’s position is that all trans people regardless of appearance, interest in using them or surgical status should only be using trans toilets.
She’s blithely ignored their advice and uses the ladies room. But it shows that these are not necessary the answer.
That might be true Kathygnome if it was in addition to an array.
But sometimes certain places only have room for a few facilities, and can’t segregate them for whatever reason.
I see your point. But considering all else, the family restroom, designated like the sign above, discloses nothing about the user.
I’m going to throw my lot in with Kathygnome. As a transgendered person I, too, shudder at the thought of unisex bathrooms being set up for our ‘benefit.’ Let’s not kid ourselves: unisex bathrooms for transpeople are not for our benefit, they are there to keep us away from the proper restrooms. In other words, these unisex bathrooms are being set up as enforcement tools to segregate and marginalize us.
Separate but equal is never equal because separate but equal is always established to separate those who have from those who are not deserving. Transgendered people, such as myself, can never hope to be equal in society so long as the institution insists on making us second class citizens.
Most people respect the fact that our feelings towards a given people have dramatic effect on how we treat them. What merits reminder, however, is that the inverse is also true: how we treat a given people has dramatic effect on how we feel towards them. A good example of an institution taking advantage of this was when Hitler ordered the Jews were to wear stars of david on their sleeves. By divorcing them from society he marginalized, dehumanized, and destroyed them.
If we as transpeople ever want to be treated with respect, we must insist on integration; we must never allow society ostracize and dehumanize us, with bathrooms or anything else.
I’m not a big fan of creating special accommodations for every disenfranchised person on the planet — that would inevitably lead to approximately six billion special accommodations (and counting).
However, I also believe Sylvia Bertolini’s comments exemplify unrepentant immorality because:
She denies the existence of intersexed individuals, despite their existence in the Bible.She pretends there is no severe harassment or violence, and therefore she neglects to offer any constructive options to stop such harassment.She egotistically universalizes her own experience of sexual orientation and demands that everyone else (including God) conform to her own experience and her own conveniently undisclosed definition of “change.”
I think unisex one-person bathrooms are a good idea in locations with limited rest-room usage, where the provision of two one-person bathrooms (one labeled male and one labeled female) is simply a waste of space. In locations such as McDonald’s that already have two one-person bathrooms, I see no need to require that one be reserved for each gender. If, for example, a busload of Boy Scouts shows up at a McDonald’s, why should they all be required to use just one of the two bathrooms?
In high-traffic areas that already have large multi-person bathrooms, I see a gray area in which the safety/privacy needs of men, women, and those somewhere in between, need to be balanced with overall public good, construction cost, and concern for equal/fair treatment.
Clearly, to the extent that there is severe harassment of intersexed and transgender individuals by ex-gay and anti-gay paople, someone — parents? churches? schools? — is not fulfilling their social responsibility to teach nonviolent methods of conflict resolution and civil disagreement. What can be done about that? That, I think, is the central question here.
I wish Bertolini had been thoughtful enough — Christian enough — to ask that question. But she wasn’t. Her comment was snobbish, sexist, uncharitable, and in no way compassionate.
As I said in the article, the option of gender neutral restrooms is what I prefer. I don’t prefer relegating transpeople to gender neutral restrooms.
I would rather transpeople who don’t pass as their target sex aren’t verbally harassed, physically threatened, actually beaten, arrested, or killed for using a restroom. In my value system, I value life and health over confirmation by authority of my gender identity. That doesn’t mean I don’t want authorities to value my gender identity — and as an out, activist transwoman I’d be visibly protesting a school’s policy that didn’t recognize my gender identity — but for the sake of my non-passing transbrothers and transsisters I’d suffer forced restroom relegation to gender neutral restrooms if it meant they were protected against violence and death.
I would rather transpeople who don’t pass as their target sex aren’t verbally harassed, physically threatened, actually beaten, arrested, or killed for using a restroom.
But consider that for a person who’s looking to put the beatdown on a transperson, staking out the gender neutral restroom would be an ideal way to find victims.
But consider that for a person who’s looking to put the beatdown on a transperson, staking out the gender neutral restroom would be an ideal way to find victims.
Not if those spaces are advertised as being gender neutral/unisex, family friendly, and wheelchair accessible – as they should be. It shouldn’t be a matter of having to ‘out’ oneself to use a particular space – it should be the opposite.
I’ve heard this argument before, but I can tell you that I feel infinietly safer using a gender neutral/unisex room than I do walking into a “men’s” room as a not-always-passing transboi and being told to “get out, dyke”.
This is not about “creating special accommodations” for transpeople – unless you consider some sort of safety from harrassment, violence and discrimination a “special consideration”. Gender neutral, family friendly, wheelchair accessible spaces should be the norm.
Isn’t it funny that just a few hundred years ago, Romans sat side by side one another, both male and female in public urinals? They’d sit there and conversed, and not pretend like it should be some private affair.
1 bathroom, all people.
If you want dividers go for it, other than that, the argument that there needs to be separation of the sexes, for privacy is childish at best.
Transpeople have been estimated to be somewhere between a 1-in-500 and a 1-in-30,000 experience. At colleges and universities, the populations are in the handfuls compared to the thousands of natal males and natal females attending colleges.
And, other people use gender neutral restrooms besides transpeople. And, like I do most of the time, a significant percentage of transpeople “pass” as a member of their target sex. (When transpeople refer to “passing privelege,” it generally refers to transpeople that aren’t harassed as transgender because they appear as a member of their target sex.)
In other words, waiting outside gender neutral toilets for transpeople may often make for a mightly long wait.
But this brings up the whole transgender issue of “passing.” When a transperson has obtained “passing privelege,” they don’t want to hassled as if they aren’t members of their target sex.
Basically, in the LGBT alphabet soup the T’s are the only letter people graduate from without identifying as ex-gay/ex-lesbian/ex-transgender. Most transpeople didn’t come out as transgender to be identified as transgender for the rest of their lives — they come out to become a full member of their target sex. My personal experience is that I don’t meet many transpeople that have been out for five years or more — they usually fade back into the woodwork at or before that five year mark.
And that’s good and bad. In the good sense, it speaks to how most people who’ve realigned their sex to their gender identity really are un-freakish — how mainstream transpeople are. In the bad sense, there aren’t many role models for transpeople in the early part of the process. It also means that not many people are fighting for the rights of people early in their transitions who don’t yet have “passing privelege.”
But if one is relegated to a separate restroom for being a pre-op or non-op transperson, then “passing privelege” doesn’t remove one from being reminded every time one goes to the restroom that one is considered a freak by many in society. It also reminds transpeople that they aren’t considered real men or real women by people in authority at the workplace.
I weigh safety against the “freak” factor, and it still makes sense to me to provide gender neutral restroom options — not only because these gender neutral restroom options are good for non-passing transpeople, but because these are also good for handicapped people and families with small children.
When I think about others besides me, I think about others’ safety, and give it more weight than my want to be accepted as female 100% of the time. Non-passing transpeople need a safe restroom option more than I need to be remided that I’m not a freak. Gender neutral restrooms as an option, and not a mandatory option, is what I think is a reasonable solution to allowing me to experience life as the woman I am, while allowing my non-passing peers to live more safely. And, I’ll use the gender neutral toilets too because I like my privacy.
And, just to be extra clear, the reason I wrot a piece about the gender neutral restroom issue and posted it on this website is that we have a self-identifed former homosexual arguing this issue from the dogmatic position of “change is possible.” No matter what side of the issue transpeople fall on regarding whether gender neutral restrooms are a best option or not, the the third choice of “change though reparative therapy — or else be subjected to violence in the bathroom” isn’t a choice that’s going to be embraced by any transpeople.
Basicly, none of the transpeople who’ve posted here are advocating becoming ex-transgender to solve the bathroom violence issue. And that’s a significant reason for bringing this issue up in this forum.
Many transgender people happen to agree with the statement “Change is possible”.
Many transgender people happen to agree with the statement “Change is possible”.
Lol, very good Audrey 😉
I still do not feel comfortable with the idea of unisex bathrooms where there are gender specific restrooms available. Especially in places of employment, there are several reasons why accepting unisex restrooms are a bad idea:
1) Unisex restrooms reinforce the idea that transpeople should not be in the gendered restrooms, thus making it more dangerous for transpeople who choose to frequent the common restroom.
2) Unisex restrooms reinforce the idea that transpeople are not truly members of their target sex.
3) Unisex restrooms encourage pathology and, especially in places of employment, discrimination in other arias of life. In other words, if it’s okay to treat transpeople differently in regards to restrooms then it is more okay to treat transpeople differently outside of the restroom.
4) Transpeople with the ‘passing privilege’ always run the risk of being outed, especially by people who are looking for transpeople.
If a place feels that they must have unisex restrooms they should never be in the same area of the building. If a place feels that they need to be extra inclusive to families they should also have a nursing room or have the unisex restroom double as such (and be labeled accordingly). Of course, families really don’t suffer from a lack of unisex restrooms because, at least where I live, the apartheid does not extend to young children with their parents.
Also, creating a unisex restroom and making it the handicapped room is also wrong; handicapped people should be accommodated in the normal restrooms and not be forced to use a separate bathroom.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. –Benjamin Franklin
Most of the unisex bathrooms that I am familiar with at work and elsewhere appear to be more general convenience than specifically designed for transgendered individuals. They are usually found in areas that would benefit from having a bathroom nearby, but there is only room for one or two small bathrooms. Therefore, they are made unisex so that anyone may use them and are also usually wheelchair accessible.
I personally did not realize that this was creating the transgendered stir that it seems to be creating. I am guessing that the crux of the problem is the idea of requiring a transgendered person to use such a bathroom, which I think is unneccessary.
I think that we will be seeing more and more unisex bathrooms for convenience reasons, and that male or female bathrooms will be more the norm for places that are likely to serve large populations needing to use the bathroom at the same time (stadiums, theaters, etc).
If they are going to create convenience bathrooms that’s great. I have seen them all over the place. What I have also seen, and am very much opposed to, are the Men’s, Woman’s, and ‘other’ bathrooms that are usually in line of sight of each other and often times next to each other. What we need to do is solidify in law the right for transgendered people to use their preferred bathrooms. Making us treck across a mall or up stairs etc… to use a washroom is very un-equal.
You know, perhaps it’s just me but I’ve never gotten the need for separate restrooms for male and female anyways. What exactly is it supposed to prevent? What purpose does it serve?
The concerns about unisex restrooms becoming a sign of stigma and marginalization is very valid, I feel; but I also see the side that argues it’s a good idea.
i’ve gotta weigh in on this: here’s my issue. i’m not trans. but i’m also not typically feminine. going into the women’s restroom for me in a public place is hell. i am constantly afraid and try to avoid it at all costs. i would prefer a gender neutral bathroom where i don’t have to hope that i won’t get the shit beat out of me. for me it’s not an issue of passing or not or having my genfer identity affirmed or not because i’m not trans. but it is an issue of safety.
I’m with you Shannon. I’m transgendered and its not always easy for me to fit in as a female. I used the mens room as long as possible but when I started getting men doing double-takes when they saw me there I became concerned for my safety and now I only use the womens but I’m nervous about getting a negative reaction there – hasn’t happened yet, fortunately. As long as the third choice is available as an unforced option I think this accomodates as many people as well as can be possibly done.
Whatever our opinions about unisex bathrooms might be, how could Sylvia Bertolini have conveyed her message with accuracy and sensitivity?
Sylvia Bertolini is saying all gays can and should change same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions. She’s saying society shouldn’t accomodate anyone’s desire to be the sex the feel inside when it contradicts with their body.
I don’t see anyway to convey an inaccurate and insensitive message as though it were accurate and sensitive.
Someone should point Ms. Bertolini to the UofC’s “Positive Spaces” program:
https://www.fp.ucalgary.ca/positivespace/
Apparently she hasn’t figured out that her experience doesn’t invalidate the experiences of others.
Bertoloni isn’t really concerned about who goes to what bathroom. Any one who has ever attended a college football game knows that there are always instances of some girl that can’t wait the 30 minutes to line up for the ladies room and has her boyfriend bring her into the mens room instead. If Bertoloni were all upset about gender conformity on campus, she’d start there.(I hope I didn’t date myself with that comment – I assume it still goes on). What Bertoloni is concerned about is any concession whatsoever made for a trans person (or a gay person).
Perhaps the “we loooove the homosexuals” mantra of these folks would be more convincing if they didn’t take every opportunity to make more difficult the daily lives of gay people or trans people for no reason other than that they are gay or trans.
“I love you, I just don’t want you to be able to pee in peace”. It’s a very strange and selfish interpretation of “love”. It reminds me of the line from Return of the Dead: If you loved me you’d let me eat your brains!
There is a simple way to eliminate the “Peeing in Peace” problem.
The solution is not to address the downstream problem (which is really a symptom), but to stop the problem at its source. Stop creating transgender people.
Just accept yourself the way you were created.
Or just spend less time worrying about who is in the next stall and let people deal with their lives as they see fit.
Hi Chester, Are you saying God should stop creating transgender people?Here’s what I believe: John Boswell reconstructs the minds of ancient people in his books. One of the most important things he offers us is an understanding of how ancient people in Rome, Greece, Europe and the Jewish states each viewed sexuality. Homosexuality, intersexuality, and transgenderism were, to the ancient mind inter-related and merely degrees of a spectrum. The idea that the mind resides in, but is separate from the body is a very recent concept that fortunately is disproving itself. Ancient people would view an effeminate personality to be the “nature” of an individual in the same way as they would view the “nature” of a mixed genital body (intersexed body). The language regarding the intersexuality, transgenderism and the homosexuality is frequently interchangeable in ancient cultures. All such people fall under the common catch words for eunuch. In our age we think of a eunuch as a man whose testicles have been removed. In the ancient world the term and the concept included anyone who did not or could not use sex for reproduction. This included the thousands of Eunuchs surgically altered as servants and slaves, gay people, people born with ambiguous genitalia, and transgender people. In ancient Judaism no one incapable of reproduction could be considered ritually pure and was denied access to the temple, whether for biological or behavioral reasons — they did not perceive these as mutually exclusive. This view was challenged and changed, and actually abhorred by Christianity. Once we understand that the word eunuch would have been used to describe the a broad spectrum of folk we’re given access to wonderful news. Isaiah, the prophet who foretells Jesus reassures us that although the world thinks we’re inferior, God considers us quite differently. In Acts, the first Christian convert is a Eunuch. In Matthew, Jesus calls himself one of us and tells his followers that there will be people who just don’t get it. Matthew 19:12 (quoting Christ) states:
And Isaiah 56:3-8 states:
I definitely didn’t create me as transgender — my life would be a heck of a lot less challenging if I wasn’t transgender. Chester, I believe God created me as transgender. I accept being transgender as God’s gift.
And lastly, Matthew 5:43-48 states:
I hope you don’t consider me your enemy, but whether you do or don’t, doing good to me would include setting up some gender neutral restrooms to help protect me from violence.