And appearance makes sense? So you you would leave it all up to something that is purely subjective? By that reasoning if I put some lipstick on I should be able to go into a ladies room all I want because to me I am acceptable, then I can sue the store for denying me entrance because from their view point I am not passable as a woman. Or I can just say "I found out I am a woman like 15 minutes ago, I can go in the ladies room" and what law is there to say otherwise? Do we need to have gender police around the country now to be called when a business decides a person doesnt look enough like the opposite sex to use the restroom?
And why is just now suddenly not ok to just have men in mens rooms and women in womens restrooms? It seems to have worked so far for the past 100 years.
And why does no one consider the people who are made uncomfortable by them being there? If a trans persons feelings matter so much then why dont the feelings of people who arent trans? Again, it goes back to the minority getting what they want because they yell the loudest, that isnt exactly a way you should decide on a law or rule. Giving a small group what they want purely for the sake of not wanting negative press is not a good way to make decisions, on any subject matter. Rules whether they be in a county, a state, or the whole country should be made with the good of the whole in mind.
I like how you take my reasonable, rational suggestion and turn it into something ridiculous because it fits a preconceived idea that you have. Show me where i suggest a man just throw on some lipstick and claim he's a woman. That's not remotely close to what I'm talking about. But I guess that's the problem if you believe ANY transgender woman is "a man in lipstick".
As for the "gender police", I don't see how that situation is any different than trying to enforce HB2 now. Since my appearance idea and people not being able to tell seemed silly to you, are we going to check birth certificates and ask people to pull their pants down before we let them use the bathroom? Is that more realistic? Sure, you'll catch obvious cases, but you would have caught those anyway. The difference is, you're now making it illegal for actual transgender people to use the bathroom that makes sense.
Again, Shawn Stinson...was born a female. If he went into the women's restroom as HB2 demands, are you honestly trying to suggest there wouldn't be an absolute shitstorm of people feeling uncomfortable and wondering why there's "a man in the ladies room"? So, for him to not create mass hysteria and have the police called, he has to break the law and use the men's room. That's how much sense HB2 makes...
So, what is the alternative then? If people like Stinson (which to me is the actual transgender demographic...people who believe in their hearts that they were born the wrong gender and have taken steps to transition. It's not Uncle Larry putting on a dress to be funny) can't use the men's room. And it makes everyone uncomfortable if he goes into the women's room. Where do transgender people go? Oh, right...as far away from society as possible since they're just a bunch of sick, perverted freaks.
That's the endgame of the HB2 argument. And it's insulting to act like the rest of the world isn't smart enough to figure it out. It is willful discrimination against a group out of fear that a few people might take advantage. Hell, if that's the way we function now, shouldn't all of Wall Street be ostracized too?