No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds

No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds

There is no evidence that letting transgender people use public facilities that align with their gender identity increases safety risks, according to a new study from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. The study is the first of its kind to rigorously test the relationship between nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations and reports of crime in public restrooms and other gender-segregated facilities.

“Opponents of public accommodations laws that include gender identity protections often claim that the laws leave women and children vulnerable to attack in public restrooms,” said lead author Amira Hasenbush. “But this study provides evidence that these incidents are rare and unrelated to the laws.”

A new study about transgenders using the bathrooms of their aligned gender gives good evidence that all the fears about allowing transgenders into a bathroom of their choice has no real effect on endangering public safety. I mean duh. If you've met these people, it's pretty obvious that a trans person isn't looking to molest little girls, but it's nice that some science is corroborating it.

To determine whether a relationship exists between nondiscrimination laws and crime, Hasenbush, a law and policy fellow at the Williams Institute, zeroed in on Massachusetts, where at the time of the study some localities had transgender-inclusive public accommodation laws and others did not. She and her team compared cities and towns with similar characteristics that had such laws to those that did not. They then examined police reports of assault and privacy violations in these localities both before and after the laws came into effect.

The data were collected prior to the 2016 passage of Massachusetts’ statewide nondiscrimination law that protects transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations.

“Research has shown that transgender people are frequently denied access, verbally harassed or physically assaulted while trying to use public restrooms,” according to Jody L. Herman, one of the study’s authors and a public policy scholar at the Williams Institute. “This study should provide some assurance that these types of public accommodations laws provide necessary protections for transgender people and maintain safety and privacy for everyone.”

I'm totally not surprised that the trans people are the ones in danger of using the bathrooms as opposed to "think about the children" defenders. Hopefully this changes some people's minds, but I'm really not holding my breath. I'm sure the ones wanting to disbelieve will come up with an excuse to do so.

I took screenshots of this, I can post them when I get home. It's a good long multi-page story of a first hand account of a dude that liked to dress up like a woman so he could go into the womens bathroom and jerk off to the sound of them #ting.

You're right a real trans person isn't likely to do this. Take a gander through one of those Chan boards sometime and see what kind of dude.dressed like a girl is more common. There's a whole lot of dudes that get turned on by dressing like women. They're not confused they're just horny and trying to get off.

originally posted by: dug88
I took screenshots of this, I can post them when I get home. It's a good long multi-page story of a first hand account of a dude that liked to dress up like a woman so he could go into the womens bathroom and jerk off to the sound of them #ting.

“Opponents of public accommodations laws that include gender identity protections often claim that the laws leave women and children vulnerable to attack in public restrooms,” said lead author Amira Hasenbush. “But this study provides evidence that these incidents are rare and unrelated to the laws.”

This is why you don't use anecdotes to try to prove your position.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The author of this study is a high profile LGBT attourny in CA. This study is the equivalent of one of the 1980's "there is no connection between smoking and cancer" studies funded by Phillip Morris.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Can you actually prove the methodology is flawed or are you just jumping to conclusions because you don't want to trust this guy?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It’s a sad state of affairs that a study like this even has to be done. It’s not a good thought thinking how ignorant a lot of Americans truly still are.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Can you actually prove the methodology is flawed or are you just jumping to conclusions because you don't want to trust this guy?

It's easy to prove!

Just google search for all the kids assaulted in these gender neutral bathrooms. Sexual predators could exploit such laws by posing as transgendered in order to gain access to women and girls.

This HAS been happening.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You didn't read the thread did you?

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It’s a sad state of affairs that a study like this even has to be done. It’s not a good thought thinking how ignorant a lot of Americans truly still are.

Well look at the reactions in this thread. Everyone is jumping to tell me anecdotes about how this study is wrong. A study that SPECIFICALLY says that anecdotes like that are rare and not a result of the laws in question.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You didn't read the thread did you?

I did. The thread title is the clincher here. "Study finds no link between bathroom safety and transgendered"

But because of it, there is a safety problem!

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Can you actually prove the methodology is flawed or are you just jumping to conclusions because you don't want to trust this guy?

It's easy to prove!

Just google search for all the kids assaulted in these gender neutral bathrooms. Sexual predators could exploit such laws by posing as transgendered in order to gain access to women and girls.

This HAS been happening.

How do laws stopping transgender people from using the bathroom of their choice stop a guy dressed up as woman from going into the womens bathroom and assaulting kids?

Or vice versa?

I mean, they’re dressed up like the opposite sex anyway.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

From your link

As for the Williams Institute study, Yvette Ollada, a consultant for Keep MA Safe, called it “totally biased” and claimed “there was an obvious conflict of interest on the part of the researchers and publishers.” Ollada alleged the study’s researchers shared their findings with those in favor of keeping the nondiscrimination law in place before it was available to the public and denied that same early access to Keep MA Safe. “This speaks to the bias of the researchers and publishers at UCLA, that they would withhold the study from one political campaign and share it with another,” Ollada said.

Guess it will be settled the american way....
also from your op...

The organization succeeded in putting the Massachusetts Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum on the ballot this November, making Massachusetts the first state to see a transgender nondiscrimination protection come up for a statewide vote.

also from your link...

Two other ballot measures designed to restrict transgender individuals’ access to public facilities failed in 2018. In April, voters in Anchorage, Alaska, rejected a ballot measure that would have mandated “intimate facilities” in municipal buildings, like restrooms and locker rooms, only be used by persons of the same “sex.” And in Montana, the "Montana Locker Room Privacy Act,” a measure that would have required people to use public restrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their sex assigned at birth, failed to get on the November ballot.

above all be scared.....
also from your link

Casey added that his organization is expecting a “coordinated attack on trans people” to continue in the coming legislative session with “many more bills to be introduced” to limit the rights of the trans community.

a "coordinated attack on trans people"
really

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You didn't read the thread did you?

I did. The thread title is the clincher here. "Study finds no link between bathroom safety and transgendered"

But because of it, there is a safety problem!

There is more to the thread than just the title. Reading the title != reading the thread.

More cowering to the 1%.

We learned this long ago but the sausages go in one bathroom and the buns in a separate location.

Our dna tells you which you are in case someone has confused you.

a reply to: shooterbrody

So that means what to you? You found text to confirm your biases so now you don't have to actually look at the study's methodology to see if it is truly biased?

a reply to: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

So that means what to you? You found text to confirm your biases so now you don't have to actually look at the study's methodology to see if it is truly biased?

from your link

As for the Williams Institute study, Yvette Ollada, a consultant for Keep MA Safe, called it “totally biased” and claimed “there was an obvious conflict of interest on the part of the researchers and publishers.” Ollada alleged the study’s researchers shared their findings with those in favor of keeping the nondiscrimination law in place before it was available to the public and denied that same early access to Keep MA Safe. “This speaks to the bias of the researchers and publishers at UCLA, that they would withhold the study from one political campaign and share it with another,” Ollada said.

it is your thread
it seems to have debunked itself

a reply to: shooterbrody

So Yvette Ollada says it is biased and that's that. Yvette Ollada is the definitive source on this matter? Her opinion trumps EVERY other piece of info in the thread?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

seems that its as good as anything the Williams Institute has put forth or it wouldn't have been published?

good thing the good people of mass will ultimately decide
public referendums are a good thing

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

So that means what to you? You found text to confirm your biases so now you don't have to actually look at the study's methodology to see if it is truly biased?

from your link

As for the Williams Institute study, Yvette Ollada, a consultant for Keep MA Safe, called it “totally biased” and claimed “there was an obvious conflict of interest on the part of the researchers and publishers.” Ollada alleged the study’s researchers shared their findings with those in favor of keeping the nondiscrimination law in place before it was available to the public and denied that same early access to Keep MA Safe. “This speaks to the bias of the researchers and publishers at UCLA, that they would withhold the study from one political campaign and share it with another,” Ollada said.

it is your thread
it seems to have debunked itself

So a woman from a Christian lobbying organization thinks it’s a biased study?

You don’t say?

Recognizing that healthy families are indispensable to the preservation of a strong and free society, Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) is dedicated to strengthening the family and affirming the Judeo-Christian values upon which it is based.

www.mafamily.org...

Next you’re going to be telling me water is wet.