Transgender Bathroom Rights

Response to Con's Position Unfortunately (but perhaps not surprisingly) my opponent has chosen to argue a somewhat semantical position in this debate. He specifies that transgender individuals should not be allowed to use the bathroom of their choices in PRIVATE institutions. However, I've already addressed this and stated my position in Round 1. "I contend that transgender people should be allowed to use their choice of public bathroom."Clearly I was referring to public (non-private) bathrooms. This debate is specifically in reference to the bills like HB-2 in North Carolina, which look to bar transgender people from using public (non-private) bathrooms. For my opponent to accept this debate with the specific intent of arguing semantics is somewhat abusive, but more importantly, just kind of annoying and questionable conduct. Nevertheless, Con argues that "public bathrooms" refer to bathrooms that are open to the public in general. We have no reason to assume that standard. Consider the fact that public urination is a crime [1]. If Con's vernacular were correct, public urination would be equal to peeing in any restroom that is open to the public. However the law does NOT distinguish public urination as urinating merely in front of people, but rather urinating in front of people outside of a designated area. As such, we have no reason to accept that "public" bathrooms only refer to bathrooms that are open to the public, but bathrooms that are specifically not private. The same goes for the distinction of public in this debate. Argument on Rights Con's entire argument is predicated on a business owner's rights. Let's assume that the judges don't recognize Con's obvious attempt to derail this debate via cheap semantics. Even if we were to accept business owner's rights (which I do), the resolution specifies that transgender people SHOULD not be banned from their choice of bathroom. Ergo, I am not arguing that transgender people MUST be allowed to use their choice of bathroom. On the contrary, my only burden is to prove that even private businesses should afford them this opportunity. Thus even if we accept that trans people do not have a RIGHT to use any bathroom they please, to win this debate I only have to prove they should be able to use the bathroom of their choice. Therefore, you can extend my 2A, 2B and 2C points while simply removing the word "rights."In fact, none of my arguments refer to trans people's RIGHTS but rather why their claims are significant.In the last round, I've explained that trans people suffer unimaginable pain, discrimination and violence. I showed examples proving that many trans people look nothing like their biological sex. As such, please extend my point: even if trans people don't have the RIGHT to use whatever bathroom they please, they should not be banned from using the bathroom of their choice for these reasons - per the full resolution. Re: Safety I've proven that trans people are ruthlessly mocked and savagely attacked, specifically when it comes to bathroom politics. Con writes, [Since most rape does not occur in public, and by people the victim knows] this certainly indicates... that cisgender individuals are not a threat to transgender people." But this statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just because most rape does not occur in public places doesn't mean TRANS PEOPLE ARE NOT ATTACKED for using the "wrong" bathroom, which I have cited and sourced in the last round with multiple statistics and citations. Con cannot ignore these cited sources; he must discredit the studies and personal testimony if he wants to discount it. In fact, in the last round I've shown that more than 70% of trans people have experienced violent intimidation and/or confrontation while using the bathroom; some were even denied access. This alone negates Con's point. I've highlighted the physical pain and suffering (health related issues) that trans people suffer from avoiding the bathroom, because of how often and likely it is they will suffer violence or the threat of violence. I will cite a few more sources proving that trans people are, in fact, violently attacked and more-so in bathrooms [2, 3, 4, 5].My opponent claims I cannot say "bathroom assaults are rare" but then suggest trans people suffer bathroom violence.That is completely false. Trans people are specifically the victims of hate crimes and attacked for using the "wrong" bathroom.Con claims that people will still abuse trans people regardless of the law. While some will still attack trans people, Con's proposition is giving people more of a reason to antagonize trans folk. I mentioned that rape does not often occur in public places, but violence usually does. Thus Con has not proven that trans people aren't likely to be attacked when their own fears (and statistics) prove that is untrue. I'd also like to use Con's own argument against him here: he questions whether or not violence and discrimination has gone down for gays in direct correlation to their increased rights and privileges. The answer is overwhelmingly YES. Homophobia has consistently been on the decline over the last 100 years. Anti-gay violence is down as the law and society makes homosexuality more socially acceptable. However while anti-gay violence is down, anti-trans violence is up [6]. So by Con's own logic, we should provide greater moral and legal support to the trans community in order to discourage the violence against trans people that he agrees is appalling.Re: The Law Extend my point about the context of the resolution. I can recognize a business owner's right to discriminate, and still argue that they should not discriminate. Unfortunately my opponent's attempt to play semantics has backfired, or at least can be similarly used against him. Again my only burden (per the resolution) is to prove that trans people SHOULD be allowed to choose their bathroom.I do not have to prove that it is their legal right to do so; I do not believe it is (in private business). Re: Mitigating Factors Con claims that trans people will have access to bathrooms regardless. Please extend my statistics proving that many trans people avoid bathrooms (and suffer health problems) specifically because they don't have access to safe or trans friendly bathrooms. While my opponent is able to name a few businesses that cater to trans people, he cannot prove that this will likely be popular. This is especially true in the Deep South, Bible Belt, or virtually any other red state or city that is socially conservative. Conclusion My opponent does not contest most of my points: that Americans are too prudish with nudity; that gender mixed bathrooms do not actually pose an inherent safety issue; or that it's ridiculous and unwarranted (according to the data) to assume that trans people in bathrooms would somehow promote sexual assault. Instead Con has 2 simple points. He first argues that trans people do not actually suffer from bathroom policy (which I've proven is blatantly false), and he then argues that businesses have the right to discriminate against trans people. Indeed, business owners do have that right, but A) This debate was clearly referring to public as in NON-PRIVATE bathrooms, per my round 1 clarificationB) Even the semantics argument crumbles under my actual burdenI have proven that individuals should not be banned from public bathrooms that do not correspond to their sex...even if business owners have the right to ban them. [1] http://definitions.uslegal.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.oregonlive.com...[4] http://www.rollingstone.com...[5] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...[6] http://www.advocate.com...