Have you considered...

I really can't believe how many people miss the point of this meme... **SIGH!**

Megan's law, a.k.a. the sex offender registry law, was enacted because Megan Kanka was raped and murdered by a habitual child sexual abuser who had moved in across the street. Megan's parents believed that had they known their new neighbor was a predator, Megan's death could have been prevented.

The legislatures, in a brilliant move of foresight, anticipated the possibility that someone, a child or woman, could wind up becoming a victim. They believed in prevention rather than reaction. Must someone become a victim before the law is enacted?

Since criminals, by definition, break the law, I fail to see how these bathroom laws will prevent would-be peepers and rapists (of either gender) from doing what they've always done. Their misdeeds are already illegal, and yet they still commit them. One more law isn't going to get in their way. If anything, I'd say it would *encourage* them to disguise themselves as the opposite gender.

And so, by that reasoning, the sex offender registry doesn't actually prevent anything. You may as well say that we should do away with it.

The bathroom laws make it so obvious males CAN'T be in the women's legally. Many of the folks who "identify" as the opposite gender are still quite obviously of their original gender. The disguise thing only works if it doesn't matter that they are obviously male. You'd be VERY hard-pressed to show someone who ISN'T obviously male who IS a peeper/rapist. This law gives women the opportunity to identify when a male is where he shouldn't be and empowers these women to seek law enforcement protection. Just like the sex offender registry empowers the community to know and be watchful of the sex offender living near them.

I, for one, believe these laws DO work at preventing victimization. Even if it would only prevent one victim (like Megan), then isn't it worth a little inconvenience to small minority?

I will concede this: The law should not be based on birth gender, but on what equipment a person is currently packing. In the prisons, if you have a p**is, you go to the men's. No amount of crying and pleading deters them. If a transgender has had the surgery to remove their p**is (the creation of a va**na is a multiple surgery process), then I would say they are absolutely welcome to use the women's.

There's another side effect of these ordinances: biological women being harassed and accused of being transgender, while in the women's restroom, because they look butch - sometimes by men who follow them in there (which is what these laws are supposed to discourage, right?). What about that?

Simple. Call the cops if you're being harassed, especially if a man is trespassing in the women's room. This isn't rocket surgery.

Point conceded on that one.

Basically if you mashed your guys' arguments up you'd end up with something pretty close to the truth of the situation as it stands. I for one don't care a flip about who is in who's toilet. I've pissed in enough shitters in bars at the same time as a (actually-identifying) woman - drunk, too full to wait in the line to the ladies' - that I just have developed the ability to not care. Anyway, someone of the male persuasion who is intent on molesting a woman is not going to allow a be-dressed icon on the outside door to the bathroom stop them. As mentioned above criminal activity should be reported to law enforcement, and some leering dude making crass comments or diddling himself in the ladies' room fits that category. Less denial of the inevitable change and more forthright education would be the answer here. That and single-seater, lockable restrooms.