Transgender Bathroom Rights

Re: What Public Bathrooms? Ironically my opponent accuses me of playing a semantics game. Indeed this debate clearly stems from the circus and outrage over the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act (a.k.a. HB2) in North Carolina, which seeks to ban transgender individuals from choosing their bathroom. Public Facilities refers to government buildings [1]. Things that are run by government are called PUBLIC, whereas things that are run by individuals are called PRIVATE. The public sector is the part of the economy concerned with providing various services sponsored by government. This includes police, courts, municipalities, schools, public transit, utility providers, legal buildings, infrastructure providers, health care, etc. I specified in R1 that this debate was referring to the PUBLIC sector which does not include private business [2].The public sector makes up over 53% of the economy and outnumbers manufacturers 8:1 [3]. So no, I was not being unclear in stating this debate was about PUBLIC buildings. Public = funded by tax payers. That is the common understanding of public vs. private in the everyday vernacular and status quo. I'm not sure why Con is trying to imply that "private" must refer to private golf clubs either, as if the term private is so exclusive. While I accept that my opponent's intent may not be malicious, his misunderstanding is not my cross to bear. It is well understood that the distinction between the public and private sector is that public = government run and private = independently run. Since I clarified that this debate was referring to the public sector in R1, it is Cobalt's mistake that renders his argument ineffective. It is not my burden to argue that transgender individuals have the RIGHT to impede on private business. For one thing, I specified this debate was not about private business. But more importantly, I only have to prove that transgender individuals SHOULD be allowed to choose their bathroom per the full resolution. Thus I believe they should have this privilege even within private businesses. If Con is arguing that public bathrooms = Target bathrooms (even though Target bathrooms are private bathrooms, i.e. cannot be regulated by government) then I am still saying that transgender people SHOULD be allowed to select their bathrooms, even in Target or any other business. If the owner chooses to restrict this privilege, that is their right, but it should not be the case. Re: Business Owner Rights Con's first argument is that business owners are justified in doing what will make their customers comfortable. First, let's ignore the fact that Con asked if the business owner should be "forced" to allow the trans person to use their choice of bathroom. I've already repeated that I am a firm believer in private business owner's rights... hence why I specifically clarified public in R1, and Con shouldn't even be allowed to use this argument in the first place.Nevertheless, please refer back to Round 2, point 3A where I have somewhat addressed this contention. If a customer does not appreciate something about a private business, they have every right to avoid that business. It's called boycott. Many would argue that an owner doing the right thing is more important than appealing to their customer's immoral bias. Furthermore, just as customers might boycott a business owner for one reason (being uncomfortable) some others could boycott for another reason. In other words, Con argued that an owner must protect their business, but protesting bigoted companies is not necessarily good for business. Neither is shaming them at the national level. We have seen conservative people in rural areas receive horrible publicity for their conservative policies which has destroyed their business [4, 5]. There are more pragmatic reasons for a business owner to be trans-friendly as well. I'll point out that Con has not responded to my points from R2 about many trans people looking nothing like their biological sex. If his concern is protecting the fragile feelings of social conservatives, he would have to explain how/why seeing someone who looks like a biological man (see photos from R2) would not be alarming to the average southern belle in the ladies room. I've explained that by forcing trans people to use the bathroom they do not identify with or often look like, it can encourage a violent response from other patrons. As such, by not taking measures to avoid this, private businesses are opening themselves up to potential lawsuits and bad publicity. Consider the Trans Panic defense - a defendant can get away with murder/assault and say they acted in a state of violent temporary insanity, because they "panicked" being in the presence of a trans person [5]. This has only been banned in one state, leaving 49 others open to the potential of one of their conservative patrons flipping out and murdering someone on their property. Con might say this could happen regardless, but I've explained that the majority of trans violence in bathrooms stems from conflict, confrontation and accusations of them using the "wrong" bathroom. In other words when a trans man is seen leaving the woman's room because he has a vagina, that is where the most violence occurs as other cis gendered males believe they are "fighting off a man using the woman's room." This was explained and sourced with citations in previous rounds. Ergo, if a trans man was allowed to use the men's room, no one might notice or care. But if a trans man was forced to use the women's room, people might become defensive and question (become aggressive) why an apparent man was using the "wrong" bathroom. Con's policy puts people in greater danger.Re: SafetySome of the aforementioned arguments can be extended to this category as well. Again, the majority of trans violence around bathrooms stems from the assumption that a man is using the woman's room. See R3 source 4 and R2 source 6. Therefore I disagree with Con's assessment that allowing them to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity (not biological sex) would not decrease the likelihood of violence. It also protects their dignity, but I digress.Con has not proven that transphobic violence has not gone down where protections have been enacted. This would be a hard correlation to prove because liberal laws that protect trans people are more likely to exist in liberal places where people are less likely to attack trans folk. But again the majority of anti-trans bathroom violence in particular stems from the assumption of them using the "wrong" bathroom. I would agree with Cobalt that many people abuse trans folk on the basis of hating them alone, and bathroom laws would not prevent all transphobic violence. But if it prevents any violence that is helpful, and it would likely inhibit a certain kind of violence as the result of being misgendered. My opponent highlights the word survey as if a survey does not somehow yield informative results. That isn't the case; it is equivalent with the term poll and Con hasn't proven a small sample size. Again the survey taken by the Journal of Public Management and Social Policy found that 70% of trans people had been harassed over bathroom politics. Another study was researched by the UCLA School of Law with more than 90+ trans people; this academic paper outlines the sample process and diversity considered yielding similar results [7], as did the Transgender Law Center [8]. But EVEN IF we accept that trans people will experience assault regardless, why not let them assess the individual situation and make the best choice for them in that particular scenario?Re: The Law & Mitigating Factors The effects of the law extend beyond protecting their safety. In my opening arguments, I questioned how laws or even policies that restrict trans people from using the bathroom of their preference would be enforced. Journalists have called up police departments all over North Carolina asking this question, but none of them had an answer [9]. Similarly my opponent does not have an answer. I've explained in R2 that 1) sexual organs alone cannot distinguish gender; see intersex people, 2) police officers are not trained doctors to recognize all sexual reassignment surgeries or intersex conditions. They would not even necessarily know if someone broke the law. And further on this point, I've argued in R2 why asking someone to expose their genitals in the bathroom (on suspicion they may be trans) is Unconstitutional. My opponent dropped this argument. Please extend my Round Two 4C and 4D arguments about Supreme Court legal precedent being in my favor, and why Con's policy violates the 4th amendment. This is important.ConclusionI've proven that trans people should have the right to pee in any restroom in PUBLIC buildings, per my R1 introduction. Con never disagreed with this and decided to make a red herring out of this debate. However per the resolution, I've still managed to prove that private businesses should allow trans people to choose their bathroom. First, we have every reason to assume this would decrease transphobic violence. But let's assume we drop that point. I've argued that trans people suffer and their feelings are not less valuable than other patron's feelings. I've argued we shouldn't cater to immoral bias. I've also shown that business owners should take measures to avoid violence or any bad legal publicity to protect their business, which would be best done by not causing a scene and inviting police to do something they cannot legally do (check people's genitalia). Talk about negative attention.There is no legal OR medical way to verify a person's gender on the spot (intersex). Thus any attempt at stifling trans people from using any bathroom they choose is just a discriminatory hassle that is unnecessary, immoral, arguably dangerous and Unconstiutional.Thank you.SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...