When it is wrong - overoptimistically wrong.
Christine Wicker over at HuffPo has an otherwise good piece about the anti-trans histrionics of Focus on the Fraud regarding the new trans-inclusive Colorado public accommodations law.
How does a transvestite go to the toilet?
No joke. Can anybody tell me?
I don’t mean anatomically. I mean location-ly, publicly. When a transvestite is out and about, and feels the call of nature, where does he/she go?
I never thought about it until James Dobson’s Focus on the Family brought the issue up in a national campaign against Colorado’s new anti-discrimination bill. Colorado’s Gov. Bill Ritter received thousands of calls, emails and letters asking him to veto the bill. So I thought the governor’s spokesman, Evan Dreyer, might know.
He didn’t. And he didn’t seem interested in speculating. I was.
Perhaps transvestites have been in women’s restrooms all along. I never noticed. I never saw them going into men’s restrooms either. So where do they go?
So far, so good.
Dreyer didn’t know of anyone, anywhere ever being arrested for using a restroom meant for the opposite gender. Because, he said, it’s not against the law. Anybody can use any restroom. Unlawful behavior inside a restroom is against the law, just as it is outside a restroom, he said. So relax, all you hussies who’ve sneaked yourself into the men’s room after waiting too long in the women’s line. You’re safe.
Any?
Now, I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be that way. I’m just saying that Wicker (and, more importantly, Dreyer) should do some checking to make sure that is accurate.
Perhaps it actually is accurate in Colorado already; I haven’t checked to see if any city or county there retains a sex-specifying potty ordinance. I suspect, though, that at least one or two still exist there. Even where anti-crossdressing ordinances have long since died, often the potty ordinance persists. For example, Houston, Texas ordinance Sec. 28-20:
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally enter any public restroom designated for the exclusive use of the sex opposite to such person’s sex without the permission of the owner, tenant, manager, lessee or other person in charge of the premises, in a manner calculated to cause a disturbance.
That last clause, of course, is the type of language that Dreyer was referring to.
Still, do you want to have to try to prove that you were not calculating to cause a disturbance?
Yes, that last clause is an element of the crime that the state (or city) bears the burden of proving in order to convict (and I do know of at least one pre-op MTF who was able to get a Houston jury focus on that element in securing a not guilty verdict on a charge resulting from doing nothing more than using a women’s restroom for its intended purpose.) But, as some cops are honest enough to admit regarding the law in general, you may beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.
Meaning?
Even if you manage to convince a jury or judge to find you not guilty (or to throw out the charge), thanks to the psychotic Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, a cop can still arrest you even if a conviction on the charge in question could not result in any jail time (as is the case with the Houston ordinance.)
And we all know what an arrest usually means for a transsexual woman.
So, I hate criticizing an otherwise good article about trans issues - but being overoptimistic can lead those who are just transitioning to believe that things are better than they actually are, which can be deadly.