Charles Barkley: Move the NBA All-Star Game If HB 2 Isn’t Repealed. » « Blue-eyed Grass.

NYC Cops Get A YAY!

lead_large

I posted earlier about the great campaign taking place in New York. NYC keeps forging ahead, and when there’s basically nothing except bad news about police and police departments across uStates, it’s really nice to read something positive for a change:

The NYPD recently made its own statement in support of transgender rights with a post at their headquarters noting that bathrooms in all police stations are now gender-neutral, according to the New York Daily News.

Way to go, NYPD! I know not all individual cops are going to be on board with this, but they will have to deal, just as they did when queer cops stopped staying in the closet. The campaign also has a couple of new videos.

Via City Lab.

Charles Barkley: Move the NBA All-Star Game If HB 2 Isn’t Repealed. » « Blue-eyed Grass.

Comments

  3. says

    I think NYPD is running such a cookie and hug debit that they’re never going to get so much as a pat on the back .. because global warming will have submerged NYC before then.

  4. blf says

    How did bathrooms get to be separated by gender in the first place?:

    The ‘natural’ separation of men and women in these spaces arose less than 200 years ago, as part of a pervasive ideology of separation and dominance
    […]
    Some argue that one solution is to convert all public restrooms to unisex use, thereby eliminating the need to even consider a patron’s sex. This might strike some as bizarre or drastic. Many assume that separating restrooms based on a person’s biological sex is the “natural” way to determine who should and should not be permitted to use these public spaces.

    In fact, laws in the US did not even address the issue of separating public restrooms by sex until the end of the 19th century, when Massachusetts became the first state to enact such a statute. By 1920, more than 40 states had adopted similar legislation requiring that public restrooms be separated by sex.

    So why did states in the US begin passing such laws? Were legislators merely recognizing natural anatomical differences between men and women?

    I’ve studied the history of the legal and cultural norms that require the separation of public bathrooms by sex, and it’s clear that there was nothing so benign about the enactment of these laws. Rather, these laws were rooted in the so-called “separate spheres ideology” of the early 19th century — the idea that, in order to protect the virtue of women, they needed to stay in the home to take care of the children and household chores.
    […]
    The sentimental vision of the virtuous woman remaining in her homestead was a cultural myth that bore little resemblance to the evolving realities of the 19th century. From its outset, the century witnessed the emergence of women from the privacy of the home into the workplace and American civic life. […]

    Nonetheless, American culture didn’t abandon the separate spheres ideology, and most moves by women outside the domestic sphere were viewed with suspicion and concern. By the middle of the century, scientists set their sights on reaffirming the ideology by undertaking research to prove that the female body was inherently weaker than the male body.

    Armed with such “scientific” facts (now understood as merely bolstering political views against the emergent women’s rights movement), legislators and other policymakers began enacting laws aimed at protecting “weaker” women in the workplace. […]
    […]
    Architects and other planners began to cordon off various public spaces for the exclusive use of women. For example, a separate ladies’ reading room — with furnishings that resembled those of a private home — became an accepted part of American public library design. […]
    […]
    Well into the 1870s, toilet facilities in factories and other workplaces were overwhelmingly designed for one occupant, and were often located outside of buildings. These emptied into unsanitary cesspools and privy vaults generally located beneath or adjacent to the factory. The possibility of indoor, multi-occupant restrooms didn’t even arise until sanitation technology had developed to a stage where waste could be flushed into public sewer systems.
    […]
    Opponents of trans rights have employed the slogan “No Men in Women’s Bathrooms”, which evokes visions of weak women being subject to attack by men if trans women are allowed to “invade” the public bathroom.

    In fact, the only solid evidence of any such attacks in public restrooms are those directed at trans individuals, a significant percentage of whom report verbal and physical assault in such spaces.

    In the midst of the current maelstrom over public restrooms, it is important to keep in mind that our current laws mandating that public restrooms be separated by sex evolved from the now discredited separate spheres ideology.

    Whether or not multi-occupancy, unisex restrooms are the best solution, our lawmakers and the public need to begin envisioning new configurations of public restroom spaces, ones far more friendly to all people who move through public spaces.

  5. says

    Rather, these laws were rooted in the so-called “separate spheres ideology” of the early 19th century — the idea that, in order to protect the virtue of women, they needed to stay in the home to take care of the children and household chores.

    … which ultimately boiled down to class. Upper class victorians could afford to have the women stay home and take care of the children, could afford separate spheres. Simply: the division was an attempt to act like rich people at the time did.

Leave a Reply