Support for statewide nondiscrimination law growing in Utah, poll shows

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • TrihsDer ISS Enterprise, OH
    Oct. 25, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    Historically, "gender" was assigned at birth, based on genitals.

    There have always been some who did not fit that binary, who claimed their identity was at odds with their physical appearance. Some societies condemned and punished those people, some accepted and some celebrated.

    Often, those who condemned and punished had other rigid roles and requirements around gender - how men and women dress and act, their jobs and duties, and their place in society. Societies with rigid gender requirements have tended to be patriarchal, with women often treated as second class or even as property - with limited rights and freedoms and choices.

    Modern research is finding that gender - and transgender - are not as simple as was once supposed. Gender has a genetic component, but also includes an interplay of hormones and brain structure. Brain scans of transwomen have found that function of their brain follows much more feminine formats. Science has also become aware of a variety of genetic variations that impact gender and gender identity.

    Research is showing that the "gender binary" is complex and much more of a progression than an either/or.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 23, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    @ Chris b
    Ambiguous genitalia (also known as atypical genitalia) is a birth defect (or birth variation) of the sex organs that makes it unclear whether an affected newborn is a girl or boy. This condition occurs approximately once in every 4,500 births.

    Until very recently parents or the doctors decided willy nilly which sex the childs outward appearance would be, and never told the person who might not be the person the parents decided.

    Not all is simple girls vs boys?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Oct. 23, 2014 6:37 a.m.

    Why is it okay to tell an LGBT person that "we don't serve your kind here"?

    Why is it okay to tell an LGBT person that "your fired" because you're gay?

    Why is it okay to tell an LGBT person that "you have to move because you're gay"?

    If it is okay to treat an LGBT person that way, it should be okay to treat a Mormon, or Catholic, or Baptist that way. It should be okay to tell a black man "we don't serve your kind here", or a Latino, or an Asian. If the one is okay then it follows that the others must be okay too.

    Frankly, NONE of the above are okay. If you think it is okay, then there is something wrong with you. Whatever happened to the Golden Rule? It only applies to people you like?

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 22, 2014 1:32 p.m.

    @jsf:
    As explained in my original post, "legitimate" transpeople using restrooms or facilities of the gender they present in would be protected under the ordinance. These are people who have a documentable history of medical treatment, amended drivers licenses, and the like. Their trans status is provable. (And really, no cis-woman in a restroom has reason to worry if a transwoman is there, even if she looks like a linebacker in a dress-- she's just not interested in you).

    Your concern is about fraudulent use of facilities, e.g. a cis-man in drag opportunistically entering the women's room for voyeurism or whatever. These men would not have the documentable status as trans for a legal defense. There's nothing to stop a guy from doing it (and I suppose it happens occasionally), with or without the ordinance. It's just that, under the ordinance, nothing has changed in these cases. A cis-man in drag arrested in a women's restroom for creating a nuisance or voyeurism could not claim protection under the ordinance for being a transperson. You can't prevent the restroom access, but you can prevent the fraudulent legal defense.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Oct. 22, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    @jsf --

    "My question was how?"

    They would be punishable more than preventable. It would be easy to determine whether a person actually lived as a transgender or not.

    "This in no way implies my requiring them to wear a badge. I don't know haw you come to that conclusion?"

    It's very simple. People who oppose the nondiscrimination ordinance usually cite a perceived "problem" with transgendered people using the "wrong" bathrooms. Surely identifying "true" transgenders with pink triangles would make those opponents feel safer?

    "The proposed state nondiscrimination law has nothing to do with who uses which bathroom."

    Tell that to the opponents of the law. They uniformly cite concerns about transgendered people in bathrooms.

    "Also for clarification, the pink triangle was not required in the general public like the yellow star"

    That's because anyone who was convicted of homosexuality was sent to prison. Jews were still allowed to walk free (until they were sent to the camps).

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Oct. 22, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    Again Contrariuser, Lagomorph said "claims of trans status to gain access to restrooms should be easily preventable. My question was how? This in no way implies my requiring them to wear a badge. I don't know haw you come to that conclusion?

    The proposed state nondiscrimination law has nothing to do with who uses which bathroom.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Oct. 22, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    Also for clarification, the pink triangle was not required in the general public like the yellow star, but was a concentration camp badge only. The Germans sent between 50,000 and 63,000 convicted gay men to the concentration camps during this time.

    Other concentration camp badge identifiers:
    Red triangle—political prisoners
    Green triangle— "professional criminals"
    Blue triangle—foreign forced laborers, emigrants.
    Purple triangle—Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious persons that would not swear allegiance.
    Pink triangle—homosexual men, rapists, pedophiles
    Black triangle—people who were deemed "asocial elements" and "work shy"
    Brown triangle—Roma
    Uninverted red triangle — an enemy POW

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Oct. 22, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    @jsf --

    "You have gone off the thread Contrariuserer."

    Actually, it's a perfectly relevant question.

    You are the one who is so concerned about transgendered people using the "wrong" restroom. Would you feel safer if they all wore pink triangles so you could pick them out of the crowd?

    Here's a clue for you: transgendered people ALREADY use the restrooms that reflect their personal gender identity. The proposed state nondiscrimination law would only make it safer for them to do so.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Oct. 22, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    You have gone off the thread Contrariuserer. "Would it make you feel better if gays wore those now?" The response was to Lagomorph who said "claims of trans status to gain access to restrooms should be easily preventable." My response was to his comment, how would status be easily preventable. Go back and read the thread.

    So like the President and First Lady this week in their speeches both made the comments "Us folks" in race conjecture about getting out the vote.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 22, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    @Lost --

    "Because of those ill-intended and/or misguided judges, I can never support such a statute."

    The LDS church supported the SLC statute. Who are you to contradict the church?

    Also please remember that similar statutes are already the law in SLC and many places throughout the state and the country -- and the world has not come to an end.

    If anyone tries putting on a dress to use a girl's bathroom and harrasses anyone, it will be a very simple thing to establish whether that person lives as a female and punish him appropriately if he doesn't.

    @jsf --

    "like the yellow star of Germany?"

    Actually, the Nazis made homosexuals wear pink triangles -- not stars. Would it make you feel better if gays wore those now?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Oct. 22, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    "Fraudulent claims of trans status to gain access to restrooms should be easily preventable." Why because the trans status person will be wearing a marker like the yellow star of Germany? Will there be public bathroom police to ensure no violation? Will public bathrooms be electronically equipped to identify users before they can gain access?

    Men are men, women are women.

    Fix the problem, individually accessed public bathrooms. Imagine the Energy Solutions arena with a couple of thousand individual porta pottie sized bathrooms.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 22, 2014 10:15 a.m.

    Ill-intended and/or misguided judges have used such statutes to require schools to allow gay or gender-confused boys to use the girls’ restroom, because that is who they “identify with”. Who cares how the girls feel about it?

    Ill-intended and/or misguided judges have used such statutes to deny business owners their constitutionally guaranteed religious rights by forcing them to cater to gay weddings, despite deep held religious beliefs. Who cares what their religious beliefs are and that pesky thing called the 1st Amendment?

    As long as there are such ill-intended and/or misguided judges, religious liberties and females’ rights to privacy will be under threat wherever such statutes exist.

    Because of those ill-intended and/or misguided judges, I can never support such a statute.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 22, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    ThoughtNotDogma: "What remains a great question is how many Utahns will support a law that officially allows cross-dressing men to use the same restroom and changing rooms as their wives and daughters at public rec centers, in high schools and colleges, etc."

    As Contrariust explained, the gender identity part of the nondiscrimination ordinance applies to, for lack of a better term, "full-fledged" transpeople, who strongly identify psychologically and emotionally as the sex opposite of their genes/anatomy and may be in the process of (or have completed) transitioning through therapy (counseling, hormones, surgery) to bring their lives into conformity with their hearts and minds. Transitioning is a long term, permanent commitment (and documentable) and not a casual walk on the wild side. While in some contexts cross-dressing cis-men do fall under the "transgender" umbrella, that is not the intent of the ordinance. Fraudulent claims of trans status to gain access to restrooms should be easily preventable.

    I don't know about the public facilities you mention, but cross-dressing men regularly use private department store changing rooms (even ZCMI, back in the day). Many businesses are trans-friendly that way.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 21, 2014 10:07 p.m.

    @Christopher.B --

    "Men are men."

    Oh Lord, not this again.

    Chris -- It doesn't really matter what you personally believe about gender and gender identity. You happen to be very much mistaken about the supposed simplicity of assigning gender designations accurately, but that's pretty much beside the point.

    The LDS Church supported the SLC nondiscrimination ordinance. I don't know if they've taken a stand on a statewide ordinance or not, but since they supported the first one it's likely they'd support this one as well.

    Who are you to contradict the LDS church?

  • Christopher.B Salt Lake, UT
    Oct. 21, 2014 6:04 p.m.

    Men are men. Women are women. When competent medical professionals have, typically at birth, concluded a person to be male or female, that evidence of what they are is much more accurate than what a person thinks they are or wishes they were.

    I could think I was a flying purple dinosaur

    I could wish I was a flying purple dinosaur.

    That would not make me a flying purple dinosaur.

    Society has determined it is best to have male and female locker rooms/restrooms separated.

    Any man who simply says "I am a woman" should not be allowed into whichever locker room he wishes.

    Similarly, it is respectable and logical that people may not want to share private living quarters with someone of the opposite gender.

    A man who thinks he is a woman is no more a woman than I am a flying purple dinosaur.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 21, 2014 4:38 p.m.

    @RedWings --

    "where there are a plethroa of similar businesses, it it really necessary to force all to comply?"

    Is it okay for a white supremacist restaurant owner to deny service to a black man, so long as there is a "black" restaurant next door?

    The answer has been a resounding "NO" for 50 years now.

    @Thought Not Dogma --

    "how many Utahns will support a law that officially allows cross-dressing men to use the same restroom"

    First -- "cross-dressing" does not equal transgender. Simple cross-dressers would not be protected by this statute, because cross-dressing is not a sexual orientation or gender identity.

    Second -- restrooms and changing rooms have doors and curtains for a reason. Use them.

    "are Utahns really going to force small businessmen to provide services to homosexual "weddings""

    If you run a business, you MUST obey the laws of your jurisdiction. Period.

    "A landlord wouldn't be able to deny a man a room even though he may be sharing a room"

    Since when does a commercial landlord pick roommates for anyone? The roommates can pick whomever they wish.

    This statute really is a no-brainer. The LDS church supported the SLC ordinance. Why fight the church?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 21, 2014 4:08 p.m.

    @Chris B
    First off, this applies more to apartment complexes, not people renting out a room or two.

    Secondly, if someone doesn't want to share private living quarters with someone of the opposite gender, then don't live somewhere where you have roommates.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Oct. 21, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    Non-discrimination in employment and housing is a no-brainer. Sexual orientation or gender identification have no bearing on how one performs a job, or where a person may live.

    Where I struggle is the rights of a business owner vs. the rights of customers. In an area like the Wasatch Front where there are a plethroa of similar businesses, it it really necessary to force all to comply? For example, if there are 100 bakeries that make wedding cakes and 3 are owned by people who oppose gay marriage, why not just go to one of the 97 that support your union? Is it really that big of a deal?

    As an LDS member, if I knew that a restauraunt owner did not want to serve members of my church, I would simply accomodate him and go elsewhere. The economic vote is far more persuasive and less confrontational that the legal fight....

  • Thought not Dogma Hurricane, UT
    Oct. 21, 2014 3:06 p.m.

    Easy to believe most Utahns support a general anti-discrimination provision. We do have a nasty habit of wanting to enforce our morals on others, right? Of course, in this case, the morals being enforced are not offensive to those on the left so it is ok to enforce them by law.

    What remains a great question is how many Utahns will support a law that officially allows cross-dressing men to use the same restroom and changing rooms as their wives and daughters at public rec centers, in high schools and colleges, etc.

    Similarly, are Utahns really going to force small businessmen to provide services to homosexual "weddings" contrary to deeply held religious conviction? Who wants someone who views his union as sinful to officiate the marriage even if he is running a for-profit wedding chapel or happens to be a public official? What kind of extremists entrusts his most important cake or photographs to someone he thinks is a bigot, or simply doesn't want to provide the service?

    No real reason to deny services at the proverbial lunch counter. But actively participating in or assisting with a "wedding" that is immoral is quite another.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 21, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    And what about the rights of a females who wants to share a room for example only with other females?

    A landlord wouldn't be able to deny a man a room even though he may be sharing a room or just living in a house with other females, so long as he says he is a woman?

    Sorry, I do rent a home to single women and I respect their right to not want to share private living quarters with men - and I will never force a woman to share that space with a man, even if he thinks/wants to be a woman.