“Show Me Your Papers Before You Pee”

Jim Burroway

March 19th, 2013

Cathi Herrod, of the Center for Arizona Policy (an official state affailiate of Focus On the Family) is shopping a proposal around to Arizona state legislators:

Now there is a “bathroom bill” before the state Legislature — “show me your papers” before you pee. Read it:

A PERSON COMMITS DISORDERLY CONDUCT IF THE PERSON INTENTIONALLY ENTERS A PUBLIC RESTROOM, BATHROOM, SHOWER, BATH, DRESSING ROOM OR LOCKER ROOM AND A SIGN INDICATES THAT THE ROOM IS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF PERSONS OF ONE SEX AND THE PERSON IS NOT LEGALLY CLASSIFIED ON THE PERSON’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS A MEMBER OF THAT SEX.

The targets are transgender residents of Arizona. They would be committing a crime (a misdemeanor) by using the wrong bathroom with the wrong birth certificate. (Moms and dads would be allowed to bring opposite sex kids into the bathroom with them.)

Acording to Arizona Repiblic’s Brahm Resnik , “The new bathroom bill, SB 1432, is a ‘strike-everything’ bill inserted in the shell of another bill that had the same number.”  The original SB 1432 was supposed to deal with the licensing of massage therapists. A hearing is set for 2:00 p.m. tomorrow before GOP State Rep. John Kavanagh’s House Appropriations Committee.

Jeez, I live in a total freak-show of a state.

Update: From the Arizona House of Representative’s web site:

Overview:

SB 1432 requires the Arizona State Board of Massage Therapy (Board) to appoint an Executive Director (Director), outlines the Director’s powers and duties and establishes the Board’s fund.

Summary of the Proposed Strike-Everything Amendment to SB 1432

The proposed strike-everything amendment to SB 1432 is an emergency measure that adds a person who intentionally enters a specified area designated for the opposite sex to the disorderly conduct statutory classification, with exemptions.

History:
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13, Chapter 29 establishes offenses against public order.  Specifically, statute outlines offenses classified as disorderly conduct, which include a person committing any of the following:

  • Engaging in fighting, or violent disruptive behavior,
  • Making unreasonable noise,
  • Using abusive or offensive language to provoke an immediate physical retaliation by another,
  • Preventing the transaction of business of a lawful meeting or gathering,
  • Refusing to obey a lawful order to disperse issued to maintain public safety, or
  • Recklessly handling, or discharging a deadly weapon.

Provisions:

  • States a person commits disorderly conduct if they intentionally enter a public restroom, bathroom, shower, bath, dressing room or locker room, and a sign indicates that the room is exclusively for the use of one sex, and that person is not legally classified as a member of that sex on their birth certificate.
  • Classifies the disorderly conduct violation as a Class 1 misdemeanor (6 months/$2,500).
  • Provides an exemption from the violation for persons that:
    • Enter as part of their job responsibilities,
    • Enter to give aid or assistance to another,
    • Is a child in need of assistance, or
    • Are physically disabled.
  • Contains an emergency clause.
  • Makes a conforming change.

The amended Section 1.  Section 13-2904 as proposed is shown here.

MattNYC

March 19th, 2013

“There are no comments for this post.”

Which might be the best comment…

Dave H

March 19th, 2013

Beyond the fact that this proposed legislation is obviously motivated by ignorance and animus towards transgender people, it’s also bad legislation because it would be an enforcement nightmare and a court case waiting to happen. No one is expected to carry their birth certificate around with them. Plus, a law enforcement officer would have to physically inspect the person in question’s genitalia in order to match it with the person’s birth certificate.

Still, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of our legislators jump on board with this. Many of them aren’t too familiar with the constitution, let alone basic compassion and decency.

Richard Poppen

March 19th, 2013

Jeez, there’s an emergency clause in this bill. Is there a rash of cross-gender restroom incursions going on in Arizona that has to be dealt with RIGHT NOW?

Timothy Kincaid

March 19th, 2013

This isn’t just hateful and ignorant towards trans people, it’s STUPID.

Anyone who has ever lived in the real world knows that there are a lot of times in which a person uses the bathroom that doesn’t align with their birth certificate. We’ve all seen girls ushered into a men’s room stall at a football game or in a dance club when the women’s line was crazy long and there was no one in the guy’s bathroom.

Or what are people to do when one bathroom is out of order, pee on the floor?

This is nanny-state, micro-management, intrusive big government at it’s VERY WORST; creating a “problem” so that a “solution” can be handed down by people who get off on their little power position.

Nick Thiwerspoon

March 19th, 2013

I thought the “right” wanted to reduce the size and scope of government, not increase it. And I bet you she a holy-roller too, all lovey-dovey on Sunday and thin-lipped the rest of the week.

Pathetic.

jpeckjr

March 19th, 2013

Will there be a provision in the state budget to provide for paid government employees to be restroom monitors?

Arizona already requires people to carry their birth certificates in order register to vote, obtain employment, and, I believe, purchase food and water. So, really, this is just a natural extension of the “Show me your papers” policy that already exists.

Ben in Oakland

March 19th, 2013

Nick, you just don’t understand.

Small government for me, big government for you.

The New Testament for me, the Old Testament for you.

Freedom of religion for me, freedom to follow my religion for you.

Freedom to have an abortion for rich me, freedom to have a baby you can’t care for poor you.

Freedom to marry whom I want for me, freedom to marry whom I want for you.

Kithpine

March 19th, 2013

I was the victim of a sever beating for entering a men’s restroom with the wrong gender presentation. Paradoxically I was using the men’s restroom because on a previous occasion a police officer had warned me that should I use the female restroom I could be arrested on sexual deviance charges because a mother had complained about me using this restroom before. Now then this fine young college student who outweighed me by almost a 100lbs got off on the gay panic defense.

So from this we can determine that when a person enters the restroom displaying the wrong gender this can instill panic in young adult men, so shouldn’t it behoove the Arizona government to not write legislation that will result in the panic and distress of our young college age men?

I only ask it this way because I don’t want anyone thinking I’m asking for special rights, but please someone thing of our heterosexual college age youths.

paul canning

March 19th, 2013

To answer Jim’s question. Yes, you live in “a total freak-show of a state”.

Hyhybt

March 19th, 2013

I’m surprised they didn’t include “original, unaltered” before “birth certificate” to stop those who had legally changed theirs.

gsingjane

March 20th, 2013

Am I missing something here? What am I not understanding about why this bill is proposed?

I have been using women’s restrooms for my entire life, and other than during the “bad old days” at Grand Central in NYC, where homeless women used to bathe in the sinks, I have never seen anything that I couldn’t have seen out on the sidewalk. What is in “public” to see is women washing their hands, brushing their hair, putting on makeup, etc., and sometimes changing a baby.

I know it’s a tiny bit different for men, but still, from what I understand, men mostly don’t walk around unclothed in restrooms and in any event there are stalls for them to use.

What do the lawmakers think that people will see or experience if they share a restroom with a trans person? Can’t they just compare it to what they see at any other time (which is nothing)?

This certainly seems like trans-phobia, pure and simple, because common sense, it isn’t.

Don

March 20th, 2013

Women sports reporters would be subject to arrest for conducting post-game locker room interviews of male athletes. Probably not the objective of the law, but badly written laws can be a legal nightmare in the courts.

homer

March 20th, 2013

Cathi Herrod’s Center for Arizona Policy writes anti-gay bills and hands them to Republican legislatures along with big campaign contributions. Legal bribery. About 7 or 8 years ago, she tried to prevent Tucson from offering joint library cards to lesbian or gay couples, because that was “sinful.”

Sharon B

March 20th, 2013

Another “I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ” story.

Hyhybt

March 20th, 2013

gsing jane: some newer restrooms I’ve seen have the stalls designed so that there is a large gap (as much as an inch) between the real wall and the stall, between panels, and at the hinge of the door. I don’t understand why they do this.

You’re also, as rational people do, assuming that people go to the restroom to take care of business and get out. Imagine instead that you’re paranoid about people coming into the restroom just to stand on their tiptoes or crawl around on the nasty floor so they can get a peek at you on the commode.

Of course, even were that common, the best solution would be designing restrooms to provide better privacy for *everybody.*

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Jubal

Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.