• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Federal judge strikes down Tennessee's transgender bathroom sign law

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,667
Location
So. CA
Federal judge strikes down Tennessee's transgender bathroom sign law
A federal judge struck down a Tennessee law Tuesday that would have required businesses in the state to post warning notices on their public restrooms if they have policies allowing transgender patrons to use the facilities that match their gender identities.

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law in June on behalf of two business owners — the owner of Sanctuary, a performing arts and community center in Chattanooga, and the owner of Fido, a restaurant in Nashville, among other businesses.

The law went into effect on July 1, but U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger issued a preliminary injunction against it a week later. Then on Tuesday, Trauger permanently blocked the law by granting the ACLU's motion for summary judgment, which asks a court to decide a case without a full trial.

She wrote in a 40-page decision that the law violates the First Amendment of the Constitution because it compels speech that is controversial and with which the plaintiffs disagree.

"It would do a disservice to the First Amendment to judge the Act for anything other than what it is: a brazen attempt to single out trans-inclusive establishments and force them to parrot a message that they reasonably believe would sow fear and misunderstanding about the very transgender Tennesseans whom those establishments are trying to provide with some semblance of a safe and welcoming environment," Trauger wrote.

Glenn Funk and Neal Pinkston, both district attorneys; Christopher Bainbridge, the state director of code enforcement; and Carter Lawrence, the state fire marshal, are named as defendants. They did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A representative for Gov. Bill Lee has also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The law required business owners with even informal policies that allow people to use whichever bathroom they want to post a sign that reads, “This facility maintains a policy of allowing the use of restrooms by either biological sex regardless of the designation on the restroom,” at the entrances of single-sex public restrooms, locker rooms, dressing areas or other facilities that are “designated for a specific biological sex ... where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

The law said the sign must be at least 8 inches wide and 6 inches tall and use the colors red and yellow, with a boldface typeface, among other requirements.

Representatives for the state argued that the law is a "content-neutral" rule meant to clarify restroom signage and is not meant to be an endorsement of how gender identity should be understood, according to the opinion. The ACLU's clients, they argued, have “imagined an idiosyncratic, hidden undertone to the [required] signage.”

Trauger, who was appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton, disagreed, noting that the government's preferred view of how gender works — that it is dictated by "biological sex," which is assigned at birth and is limited to male or female — is contested.

"The only thing that is imaginary in this case, though, is the imagined consensus on issues of sex and gender on which the defendants seek to rely," Trauger wrote. "Transgender Tennesseans are real. The businesses and establishments that wish to welcome them are real. And the viewpoints that those individuals and businesses hold are real, even if they differ from the views of some legislators or government officials."
 
A law that requires a warning sign for women's bathrooms makes more sense than allowing men to use a woman's bathroom. The ACLU argument that such a sign "sows fear and misunderstanding of the transgender community" is ridiculous. The concept of transgenderism engenders fear and misunderstanding, let alone sharing a bathroom.

I know more than one man that would instantly become a danger to the transgender community if his wife or daughter came running out of a bathroom screaming, "There's a man in there." Oh, and a sign would not make a difference.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if at some time in the near future, the wash sinks will become common use by both sexes, with closed off rooms for each water closet, hence non-gender and possibly an area marked off urinals.

Because if it doesn't really matter who uses what area anymore, what's the sense of writing male or female on a birth certificate?
 
I wonder if at some time in the near future, the wash sinks will become common use by both sexes, with closed off rooms for each water closet, hence non-gender and possibly an area marked off urinals.

Because if it doesn't really matter who uses what area anymore, what's the sense of writing male or female on a birth certificate?
We have this at one of our community facilities. Individual gender neutral toilet rooms with a common sink area.
 
A law that requires a warning sign for women's bathrooms makes more sense than allowing men to use a woman's bathroom. The ACLU argument that such a sign "sows fear and misunderstanding of the transgender community" is ridiculous. The concept of transgenderism engenders fear and misunderstanding, let alone sharing a bathroom.

I know more than one man that would instantly become a danger to the transgender community if his wife or daughter came running out of a bathroom screaming, "There's a man in there." Oh, and a sign would not make a difference.
Backwood hicks gonna do backwood hick stuff.

"The concept of transgenderism engenders fear and misunderstanding, let alone sharing a bathroom." What century are you living in?
 
Backwood hicks gonna do backwood hick stuff.

"The concept of transgenderism engenders fear and misunderstanding, let alone sharing a bathroom." What century are you living in?
I would explain why I have a hard time with people that mutilate their body because they can't decide which department to shop in.....but this forum is not the place for that.
 
Last edited:
So, the argument we would typically see here is that gender neutral washrooms or allowing a transgendered individual to use a washroom other than that of their birth is inherently dangerous and typically related to sexual assault. This would appear to be an assumption given that North America has primarily used gendered washrooms and there is no direct data to draw comparisons from. However, we can analyze this assumption by looking at other countries who have used gender neutral facilities for some time now. Multiple studies have been completed demonstrating that there is no difference in sexual assault rates in bathrooms between gender neutral countries and gendered countries.

Now, this does not mean that there will not be a difference here. This is only one of the variable to analyze. The other one is people.

So, since we know scientifically that gender neutral washrooms do not increase the rate of sexual assaults, our premise for not allowing gender neutral washrooms on the basis of safety in North America would be that the people here have more of a inclination to commit sexual assaults than other places. Now, if we look at the incidence rates of rape, we may be able to hypothesize what a gender neutral washroom would result in. In my country, we have a relatively low incidence of rape (1.9/100000). The US on the other hand is the 13th highest in the world (27.3/100000).

Specifically for the US, this data could indicate a higher expectation of sexual assault in gender neutral washrooms.

I would be interested to see data coming out of places that have pushed for gender neutrality in the US (California?). This would be a lot more solid correlation for data.
 
Maybe if we put XX or XY on the doors it wouldn't be discriminatory....Unless we are going to say science isn't real...like climate change...
 
Maybe if we put XX or XY on the doors it wouldn't be discriminatory....Unless we are going to say science isn't real...like climate change...
What happens with someone with Klinefelter syndrome which is caused by: One extra copy of the X chromosome in each cell (XXY),
 
Well the odds of that person being a sex offender just got a lot smaller so let them go wherever..... ;)

Although 1 in 500 is more than I would have thought and being higher in people with mental disorders might blow my entire theory to hell....Thanks Mark!

Klinefelter syndrome (XXY aneuploidy) is the most common human sex chromosome disorder. Approximately 1 in 500-600 males is born with an extra X chromosome. The prevalence rate is 5-20 times higher in males who are mentally challenged than in the general male population
 
So, the argument we would typically see here is that gender neutral washrooms or allowing a transgendered individual to use a washroom other than that of their birth is inherently dangerous and typically related to sexual assault. This would appear to be an assumption given that North America has primarily used gendered washrooms and there is no direct data to draw comparisons from. However, we can analyze this assumption by looking at other countries who have used gender neutral facilities for some time now. Multiple studies have been completed demonstrating that there is no difference in sexual assault rates in bathrooms between gender neutral countries and gendered countries.

Now, this does not mean that there will not be a difference here. This is only one of the variable to analyze. The other one is people.

So, since we know scientifically that gender neutral washrooms do not increase the rate of sexual assaults, our premise for not allowing gender neutral washrooms on the basis of safety in North America would be that the people here have more of a inclination to commit sexual assaults than other places. Now, if we look at the incidence rates of rape, we may be able to hypothesize what a gender neutral washroom would result in. In my country, we have a relatively low incidence of rape (1.9/100000). The US on the other hand is the 13th highest in the world (27.3/100000).

Specifically for the US, this data could indicate a higher expectation of sexual assault in gender neutral washrooms.

I would be interested to see data coming out of places that have pushed for gender neutrality in the US (California?). This would be a lot more solid correlation for data.
Statistics aside there is more at stake than sexual assault which by the way, has already happened in a high school girl's bathroom. The acceptance of transgenderism furthered the erosion of societal norms.

You mention California. In California the only criteria is one's inward identity. So if a man thinks that he prefers to be a female....she's good to go.

The red fly asked what century I'm living in. Well it's not the century that I would choose ; it does have the hallmarks of being the last century.
 
I still open doors for women, I think they are women?:eek:

Ususally get a no thank you afterwards!
 
The acceptance of transgenderism furthered the erosion of societal norms.
When has society stayed the same? Why do we want it to stay the same now? Why should I care how someone else wants to live their life? And moreover, why should the government be empowered to force them not to?

But in reality, there have been small sections of society in both of our nations who have done this. Amish communities are excellent examples of groups of people who have declined to progress with society and chosen to stay at a given level or progress. Conceptually, they same could happen here.

In looking at this thread, I was reminded of a section from Admiral (retired) William H. McRaven's book Sea Stories, where he talks about millennials (my generation) and contrasts the widely held view of society with his own experience working with those my age. He indicates one of the only material difference he experienced is a greater drive to know the answer to "why". "Why are we going to war, why are we increasing our debt, why can't we do something new and different?" The section starts on page 268 and continues on 269.

If anyone gets the chance to pick this book up, it is a great read. I would highly recommend it.
 
Statistics aside there is more at stake than sexual assault which by the way, has already happened in a high school girl's bathroom. The acceptance of transgenderism furthered the erosion of societal norms.

You mention California. In California the only criteria is one's inward identity. So if a man thinks that he prefers to be a female....she's good to go.

The red fly asked what century I'm living in. Well it's not the century that I would choose ; it does have the hallmarks of being the last century.
Ice, the high school bathroom assault you described is not the result of a trans individual taking advantage of being able to use the RR they choose and then acting on some sexually deviant behavior because of the opportunity.

"Authorities have not commented on the youth’s gender identity and it did not become an issue Monday in court. During the hearing, the 15-year-old victim in the first case testified she had consensual sexual encounters with the defendant on two occasions in a girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn. On May 28, she said, the two arranged to meet again and the youth threw her to the floor and forced her to perform sex acts."

I do not ever recall seeing any signage that would warn us of the possibility that we will be sharing a restroom with a homosexual individual. Seems to me that would be much more dangerous as they are obviously sexually attracted to the same persons using the facility. This has been going on since the beginning of time without any signage. what is the difference?
 
“The case generated local and national attention after the parents of the girl assaulted in May said the charged youth was “gender fluid,” prompting renewed backlash against a policy in Loudoun County schools that allows transgender students to use bathrooms that match their gender identity. That policy was adopted after the May assault.”
 
I'm more concerned by the thousands of transgendered assaulted by transphobic people. Forcing a transgendered female to only use male restrooms will result in many more assasults.
 
“The case generated local and national attention after the parents of the girl assaulted in May said the charged youth was “gender fluid,” prompting renewed backlash against a policy in Loudoun County schools that allows transgender students to use bathrooms that match their gender identity. That policy was adopted after the May assault.”
"the parents of the girl assaulted in May said the charged youth was “gender fluid,”" hearsay.......
 
When has society stayed the same? Why do we want it to stay the same now? Why should I care how someone else wants to live their life? And moreover, why should the government be empowered to force them not to?
Not all change is for the better. There is no way to prevent change so Luddites are vocal but not heard. I have no issue with an individual that chooses to deny their gender other than a belief that when taken to an extreme it becomes an illness of the mind.

The government has no authority over a transgender person's life. The conundrum then is what can the government require of me with regards to those people with the aforementioned condition. Am I supposed to embrace them as normal in every respect. When a transgender person has been appointed to a position of authority am I not allowed to be concerned that the mental illness that caused that person to remove their genitals might manifest in other abhorrent ways?

A recent Miss USA pageant contestant from the state of Nevada was a man. Do you think that perhaps this has gone a step too far?
 
Last edited:
Vincent van Gogh cut of his ear and has been labeled crazy for 134 years. Today he would be just another person with a desire to change his appearance.
 
Top