I Know. Still.

Well, now I've done it.  Yesterday I mentioned all the lesbian romance novels I've been reading.  Well, they've triggered my dysphoria something fierce.  I loved every minute reading "Solve For i", but I've felt depressed ever since I finished it.  Why can't I have Gemma's problems?  Why can't I have that life?  Her life isn't perfect, she has all sorts of problems.  I'm not asking for a perfect, problem-free life here.  What I want is something more than half the humans on the planet get for free, due to simple random biology.

This is an excerpt from the excellent book, She's Not There: A Life In Two Genders by Jennifer Finney Boylan.

    I often woke up and lay there in the dark. Usually this was about a quarter to four. I'm the wrong person, I thought. I'm living the wrong life, in the wrong body.
    To which I would respond:You're a maniac. An idiot.You have a life a lot of other people dream about, a life so full of blessings that your heart hurts.
    To which I would respond: I know. Still.
    To which I would respond: Well, what do you think you're going to do about this now? Have a sex change, at age forty? Abandon all the love that has made your life whole, so that you can enter into a new life, about which you know nothing? What kind of woman do you think you'd be now, having never had a girlhood? What kind of person do you think you'd be, leaving your children without a father, your wife without a husband?
    To which I would respond: I know. Still.
    To which I would respond:Well, you go on and have a sex change, then. Just leave me out of it. I'll just say my prayers so I can appreciate the things I have and not launch off like an imbecile into a life of lurid marginality.
    To which I would respond:You know, don't you, that no amount of wishing that this were not the case can make it not the case. No amount of praying that you are not transgender will make you some-thing other than what you are. No amount of love from anyone will make you fit inside a body that does not match your spirit.
    To which I would respond: Well, I'll be goddamned if I'm going to break anybody's heart. I'll be goddamned if I'm going to let my family down. I'll be goddamned if I'm going to give up everything I've always wanted just so I can fit.
    To which I would respond: I know. Still.
    To which I would respond: Well, all right, then. You'll be god-damned.

I read this book more than 10 years ago, and it's still one of my favorite books about transgender issues.  The passage above really resonates with me.  It sums up just about every feeling I have about my gender identity.

There are times when, from a logical standpoint, I don't even believe in the concept of gender.  It's just a made up social construct. Would I still feel transgender if we lived in some sci-fi future where there were no gender roles?  Would I still want to live as a woman if I lived in a country where women are treated like slaves?  Can't I just live my life as gender neutrally as possible, and let people assume I'm a normal guy? 

I know.  Still.

In the grand scheme of things, it just seems like such a First World Problem.  There are people out there fighting for survival every day, and here I am whining because I don't look cute in a dress. Even in my own life, I've got bigger problems.  I have debts, the house needs repairs, and so on.

I know.  Still.

Life is short.  What's the point of changing my life now, when I've missed all the years I'd want to enjoy most?  What do I really get from it?  Why risk all my current friendships?  Why alienate myself from my family?  Why risk my job?  Why make my current life harder?  Why not just focus on my hobbies, and let my identity go on the back burner? 

I know.  Still.

I make all these arguments, but I always come back to the same thing.  The logical reasons don't fix anything.  I still feel like I'm pretending my way through life, unable to show my true self.  Every night I picture myself in various lives. This is how I fall asleep: imagining myself as a woman, in different scenarios.  Sometimes I'm a redhead who lives in Seattle.  Sometimes I'm a brunette who lives in Wales.  I'll picture potential jobs, entire house layouts, what sort of friends I have, and so on.

Some of these fantasies are mundane, with me working a 9-to-5 job and barely making ends meet.  Sometimes I'm unbelievably rich.  Sometimes I have super powers.  If you're going to fantasize anyway, might as well go big, right?  But in all the scenarios, I'm female.  I simply can not fantasize about a life where I'm male.  There is no "dream life" where I'm a rich, good looking man.

I've given up getting cispeople to understand it.  I really don't think it's possible.  The best I can hope for is for them to realize that it's important to me.

I've probably said this before, but this is the best way I know how to explain it:  When you see a movie, and there's a character you think is really cool, to the point where you fantasize about being them.  It's usually someone of your own sex, right?  How many cis-men do you think saw Tomb Raider and though, "Gee, I wish I was Lara Croft?"  No, but you can bet a lot of them had Indiana Jones fantasies.  Me, I identify with the cool female characters.

Or when you look in the mirror, and decide that your body isn't perfect, and want to shed a few pounds or gain a bit of muscle.  You have an idealized image of yourself in your head, whether it's something possible (like losing weight) or something a lot less likely (like being six inches taller).  Mine is female.  Ideally, a cute thin redhead.  Some guys might envy Vin Diesel, and not just because they think it would get them laid more.  They just really like the look.  Me, I envy Felicia Day.

But I am not going to transition.  Not only is it just about impossible in so many ways - economically, socially, logistically - but even if I was rich and alone, I'm not convinced it would be fulfilling.  I have no way of knowing if I would ever feel 100% a woman, or if I would forever feel like some sort of imposter.

I have to accept that this is what life is.  It's not fair, but I have it better than a lot of people.  Some people wish they had legs. Or a roof over their heads.  Or their children's lives back.  And I'm sitting here wishing I looked cute in a dress.  It's time to stop pining over what I'm not, and work on improving the life that I have.

It's the only logical answer.

I know.  Still.

Living Vicariously Through Fictional Lesbians

(This should probably go on my entertainment blog, but it felt better here.)

Not too long ago I discovered BookBub, a site that e-mails you when Kindle books go on sale.  If you read a lot of e-books, it's worth checking out.  You tell them what categories you read, and they send you a daily e-mail with links to cheap/free books.  I've collected a large library of free Kindle books this way. 

I always thought romance stories were boring.  But BookBub showed me a category of romance novel I'd never really thought about - Lesbian romance.  Curious, I downloaded a few of the free ones just to see what I thought.

Well... I love them.  As it turns out, I don't hate romance after all, I just don't like reading about men.  Not that I dislike male characters, but my secret inner lesbian can't relate to them, and doesn't really care whether they "get the girl" or whatever.  And if the main character is female, well sure I want her to be happy, but I can't relate to wanting a man.

So it turns out lesbian romance is right up my alley.  Now let's be clear - I'm not talking about porn (though the occasional explicit scene doesn't bother me), but more like romantic comedies.  I've read several of them now, and like any other genre, some are better than others.  A couple of them were downright dull, but there have been a few standouts.

Here's a sampling of some of the ones I liked most:

The Rules of Love by Cara Malone
This is just a basic romance story between two lesbian college students.   Ruby is popular, but a great student.  Max has Asperger syndrome, and is very focused on her studies.  At first they see each other as rivals, but later give in to sexual tension.  But are they on the same page?  Is it just a fling, or the beginning of a relationship?

I liked this one because it was breezy - nothing earth-shattering, just the kind of light-hearted book you might read on an airplane to pass the time.  I was impressed at how well Asperger syndrome was portrayed (though it's not like I would know).  It has two follow-up books, which I am considering reading.  It's written in third person, but each chapter alternates which protagonist's point-of-view is in focus.

For those uncomfortable with love scenes, I should warn you that there are a couple.  The first one actually takes several (short) chapters, because as I mentioned above, that's how it switches point-of-view.  It takes a few chapters so you can see how each character perceives each part of the encounter.  The sex scenes are tastefully written IMO, but still fairly explicit.

Rulebreaker by Cathy Pegau
Liv Braxton is a professional criminal on a mission of corporate espionage, hoping to blackmail a major company.  She gets hired as a personal assistant to Zia Talbot, a no-nonsense executive with a weakness for beautiful assistants.  Can Liv find the incriminating files before being discovered?  And can she do it without falling for Zia herself? 

This was the first sci-fi lesbian romance I've read, and I hope I find more like it.   In fact, it has inspired me.  I don't want to go into detail, but I am considering writing some GLBT sci-fi of my own.  The world needs more of that out there.

Again, a warning for the squeamish - this one does have one explicit love scene.  Which makes me wonder where one draws the line between erotic literature and normal romance stories.  How explicit does it need to be?  How many such scenes need to be in the book?  How deep does the plot need to be, and does it matter if the sex is crucial to the plot?  Of the lesbian romances I've read so far, I'd only call a couple of them "erotica" or "porn" (and Rulebreaker wasn't one of them), but that definition's going to vary from person to person.

Solve For i by A E Dooland 
This is my favorite lesbian romance so far.  Gemma is a neurotic math wiz, working a menial job at a major corporation.  She has always thought of herself as straight, but has recently started having odd yearnings towards her long-time best friend, Sarah.  Thus begins a journey of self-discovery and personal growth, where Gemma eventually realizes she's gay and has to find a way of coming out to her friends.

Though Gemma and I live extremely different lives, I identified with Gemma more than I have ever identified with a fictional character.  It's written in first person, and the author has a real understanding of crippling social anxiety.  Often Gemma would be asked a question, and she would spend so long weighing all her possible answers - just knowing that every answer was the wrong one - until she finally wouldn't say anything at all.  I've been there.

I can't tell you how many times Gemma even annoyed me with her fear-induced procrastination.  And each time I would think, "Dammit Gemma, you need to tell them right now... but yeah, I probably would have done the same thing."  And that's the crux of it; it was like reading a character with my own worst qualities.
 
And yet, I would personally beat a puppy to death with a kitten just to have her problems.  As much as she is a colossal screw-up (as am I), she's also a cute redhead lesbian with a decent job and several close friends.  And by the end of the book she has overcome a lot of her fears and problems.  If I overcame my social anxiety and fears, I'd still be a middle-aged fat guy with massive debt and the wrong genitals.  In some respects, reading these lesbian romances may not be the best thing for me - when I snap back to reality afterwards, I grow even more depressed.

But anyway, it's a wonderful book.  It actually made me laugh and cry several times, and I haven't cried from a book since high school.  I plan to read Dooland's other books set in the same universe: Under My Skin and Flesh & Blood (which I believe take place before Solve For i, but feature some of the side characters). 

Explicitness factor: Not very high.  There are two love scenes, sort of.  One of them is a bit explicit, but not much worse than you might see in a Dean Koontz book. 

So if you only read one lesbian romance novel this year... oh, who am I kidding, no one who reads this blog is going to be into that.  Regardless, Solve For i had a deep personal connection for me.  Anyone who does decides to read it will understand the way I think a little bit more. 

IF (Deity=Y) THEN (Goto 500)

I have a lot of if/then beliefs.  For example, I don't believe in ghosts.  However, if ghosts are real, then I believe that cats can see them.  The second statement in no way softens the strength of my conviction of the first.  I don't think I could ever be convinced that ghosts exist. Even if I saw one, I would find another explanation.  But it's a quirk of my mind that if somehow I were convinced, I already have side beliefs that go along with it.

Religion's a bit easier. I've probably never believed in ghosts, but I've been Christian before.  So those side beliefs are already there, lying dormant, waiting to be activated in case my primary theology ever changes.

I've been an atheist for more than ten years, and I doubt I'll ever go back.  I'm not sure I would even know where to begin at this point.  According to Wikipedia, there are at least 4,200 worldwide religions.  Christianity alone has at least 30,000 denominations.

I like to think of it like a hotel with thousands of rooms, each room representing a different religion or denomination.  If you're currently in a room, then it seems black and white - everyone's either in your room or they're not.  But for those of us in the hallway, there's a seemingly infinite number of doors to choose from.  There's not much to indicate which one is the "right" door, they all look the same from here.

For every bit of evidence you have that your hotel room is the right one, I guarantee you that hundreds of other hotel rooms are offering the same evidence.  Your religion may use the cop-out, "We don't need proof because faith is what gets you into Heaven," but again, your opposing religions are saying it too.  Being in the wrong religion might be just as damning as being without one, so I'll just stay out here in the hall.

Yet despite my unwavering atheism, I have some strong ideas about the nature of God.  Do not take the following list as any indication that I'm warming up to religion again.  These are just my if/then beliefs.

IF God exists:

Basically, I believe God is both a scientist and an artist.  He's playing the ultimate game of SimCity, and after a lot of effort he has created a world that is both beautiful and scientifically sustainable.  More than anything he simply wants recognition for all the hard work he put into it.

I believe God wants us to study science, in order to understand and fully appreciate his work.  It's like the authors notes in some books, where the author tells us where they got their ideas.  God wouldn't have made science decipherable if he didn't want us to peek under the curtain.

I believe evolution is real, and that God guided it.  I believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that the "7 days" mentioned in Genesis are written in God-time.  The dinosaurs may have been an early experiment at creating life, but when that was unfulfilling, God wiped them out and started again, multiple times, until he finally decided to try his hand at a sapient species capable of actual civilization.

I believe the Bible was written in such a way as to be understood by the people of the time.  It was not meant to be taken literally 6,000 years later.  Why hasn't he given us an updated version?  I imagine he was hoping our moral code would evolve along with our scientific understanding, so that we wouldn't need to keep following an outdated instruction booklet.

I believe that a lot of the sins in the Bible were actually listed to keep people safe.  Certain animals were declared unclean because they had to be cooked thoroughly to prevent disease.  They were later made clean because humans were better at cooking.  In a similar vein, monogamy was encouraged at the time because sexual promiscuity could spread disease and could result in unwanted children.  Since the invention of the condom, God probably has a more relaxed view of sex.

I believe that a lot of the time when the Bible talks about the world, it actually means the universe.  I believe we are meant to eventually spread out to other planets.  I believe that God has put other civilizations elsewhere in the universe, and he hopes that we will eventually meet.

I believe God wants us to appreciate the beauty of the human body, rather than being offended by it.  While nudity can certainly be exploitative and sexist, people should not be outraged by nursing mothers and other natural nudity.  I believe that the reason we find nature so beautiful is because God wants us to preserve it and protect it.  The way humans carelessly destroy our planet probably angers God greatly.

I believe God is opposed to sexism.  A lot of misogynists think the Bible supports male domination, but I think that's just a sign of the times.  Back then the world was a much harsher place to live, and it probably made sense for the physically strong to make the rules, while keeping their weaker partners safe from harm.  In modern times, this power differential is no longer necessary.

I believe God is fine with homosexuality.  It's a natural human variation, like hair color or left handedness.  God may have even thrown it in to slow down population growth.  Yes, there are six verses in the Bible that supposedly condemn homosexuality, but those are misinterpreted, taken out of context, and/or only apply to people who lived 6,000 years ago.

I believe God is fine with abortion.  If God truly knows the future, then he knows which fetuses are going to be aborted, and therefore he wouldn't bother to put souls in them.  To claim otherwise is to admit you don't believe God is omniscient. Therefore, being pro-life is blatantly sacrilegious.  You might think I'm stretching there, but my logic is no more ridiculous than a lot of widely believed religious doctrine.

I don't believe the Second Coming or other apocalypse is meant to happen any time soon.  I'm absolutely horrified that there are people in positions of power who believe the world will end soon.  How are we ever going to save the planet if the world leaders believe there's a rapture coming up?

I believe most of the world's religions are really the same religion.  The same way urban legends change as they spread, so does religious doctrine.  Any religion that says, "be good, worship the creator, and you'll be rewarded after you die," is probably talking about the same deity.  People are willing to wipe each other out for worshiping what is essentially the same god by a different name.  I seriously doubt God wants anyone to kill anyone in his name.

I believe God disapproves of the rich.  That's a no-brainer, the Bible is pretty explicit in is disdain for wealth.  A rich person is someone who had the opportunity to help the poor, and chose to buy themselves more stuff instead.  It's pretty obvious they're not bound for Heaven.  But conservatives have convinced themselves that the poor deserve to be poor, and therefore it's okay not to help them.

I believe that Hell is just separation from God.  I simply can't believe that a good-aligned deity would punish people with eternal suffering.  The entire point of punishment is to correct bad behavior; there's just no logical reason to inflict everlasting pain on anyone.  Frankly, it sounds petty.  I believe that following God's moral code earns us the right to join his kingdom in the afterlife.  Those who fall short will be left on Earth, and their souls will simply cease to exist when they die.

I believe that a large majority of modern day Christians are doing it all wrong, and are going to pay the price.  The world is full of sexist, homophobic, racist conservatives, who somehow believe they will make it to Heaven by worshiping the rich.  I believe they will be quite surprised when the end comes.

Or Maybe...

Okay, now let’s change gears.  Above are things I would almost definitely believe if I believed in God.  The following are speculations - things I would think might be true, but only if I believed in God in the first place.

If there is a God, then I'm not sure he's actually magical.  I tend to lean towards more "sufficiently advanced alien" theories, or that this world is just a simulation.

If this is a simulation, maybe the history of the world came about in an attempt to bring about a smarter AI, one that can mix compassion with logic.  Perhaps those who pass the test have their minds copied to a higher folder when they die, while less useful AIs just get deleted.

I wonder if maybe Heaven is just what we're meant to turn the Earth into.  Those who follow God's teachings will make this world into a utopia, while those who embrace hatred will die out.  Perhaps we will eventually cure aging, fix world hunger, and create a world where nobody is ever poor or sick.  Maybe society will split into science-lovers and sun-worshipers, the former building giant bio-domes while the latter die out in the open from climate change.

Or perhaps we really will find a way to transport our minds into computers, and the biblical heaven actually describes a hard drive that "saves" our souls while our bodies are destroyed by some future apocalypse. 

Assuming God has a gender at all, I wonder if God might be female.  It honestly makes more sense to me for the Great Creator to be a woman. Letting us think she's a he, maybe that's just a test.  Maybe the ultimate final test will involve how society treats women.  I have this fantasy where the second coming occurs, and Jesus is an olive-skinned lesbian, ready to mete out judgement for all the racism and sexism by those in power.

Back to Reality...

But again, the above beliefs and theories assume I believe in God, which I don't.  In the real world, I believe that God is a myth that started with ancient people trying to explain things they didn't understand.  It amazes me that religion is so prevalent in 2017, and shows no sign of slowing down.  It also amazes me that despite most religions preaching about love, so many people use their religion to discriminate and hurt others.

Bottom line: I firmly believe there is no God, and we're destroying each other in the name of an urban legend.  But if there is a God, his followers are greatly distorting his teachings, and they're going to be very surprised when they get to the afterlife.

Jury Duty

Last year I served on the grand jury.  For those who don’t know the difference – when most people think “jury duty”, they imagine getting sequestered for a couple of weeks while attending a single, drawn-out trial.  But the grand jury simply decides which cases go to trial at all.  We would hear about 30 cases a day, over the course of a few hours.  We didn't decide guilt or innocence, just whether or not there was enough evidence that a crime really happened.  The vast majority of the cases we heard did go to trial, but there were a few that we ruled would have been a waste of the court’s time.

I can’t talk about any specific cases.  Well, technically I probably can, as any cases I heard are likely public record by now.  But I’d rather not risk it.  More generally, I saw a lot of examples of just how evil people can be to each other.   Some of the crimes were funny, in a “world’s dumbest criminals” kind of way, but most of them were depressing.  I saw cases of theft, forgery, domestic violence, gang activity, murder, rape, child abuse, and so on.

We also went on a few field trips, and had a few guest speakers.  In order to help us understand just where we’re sending people, we visited a prison.  In order to understand how hard an officer’s job really is, we tried a “Shoot/Don’t Shoot” field training program.  We also got to watch K-9 training, tried on goggles that simulated being drunk, got to meet Nashville mayor Megan Barry, and even rode a helicopter around Nashville. 

The prison was pretty scary.  After going through several checkpoints where we had to surrender all personal items including phones, wallets, and even belts, we visited the building where they kept those who are in for life.  We got to go into a typical cell, which was small and efficient.  One of the inmates (in for murder) spoke to us for a while about his experiences in prison, mostly complaining about how bad the food is.  Then we got to see death row, and we were even allowed to sit in the electric chair. 

I was on the fence about that last one.  Before I sat down, I wanted to make sure I was doing it for the right reasons.  I didn’t want to be one of those callous jerks who makes light of such a serious machine.  I’m not a fan of the death penalty, and sitting in that chair almost feels like an endorsement of the process.  I finally decided to do it because it was probably my only chance ever to do so.  Maybe someday I’ll be glad I had the experience, maybe I’ll even write a story from a condemned inmate’s point of view.  So I made sure to note everything about the room, how the chair felt, and any other details I might want to remember later.

The “Shoot/Don’t Shoot” program was an eye-opener.  They give you a gun or taser, both of which were originally actual weapons that had been converted into harmless training weapons.  Then they show you a first person video of a dangerous situation an officer might face.  These videos had points at which they could branch into separate videos, like those old laserdisc light gun games (“Mad Dog McCree” for instance). 

For example, there was one where you go into a warehouse at night, and encounter a guy who shouldn’t be there.  He’s standing behind a table with a box on it, keeping his right hand behind the box.  He attempts to explain why he’s there, but he’s just talking to keep your attention of his hand.  Then he suddenly pulls his gun-wielding hand out from behind the box and shoots you… sometimes.  Other times it’s the same video, but he pulls out a stapler instead.  Less than half a second passes between the time you can see the gun, and the time he shoots you.  That’s how quickly you have to decide whether to shoot.  Too slow?  You’re dead.  Bad aim?  You’re dead.  Guess wrong?  You’re a murderer.

It really makes you think about how dangerous it is to be an officer, and you find yourself a little more sympathetic towards officers who have accidentally killed innocent people.  It doesn’t excuse a lot of the cases, but at the very least stepping into an officer’s shoes is enlightening.  And, I hate to say it, but it’s fun.  If they released that program as a video game, I’d buy it.

Nashville by Helicopter

The helicopter ride was my favorite part.  I had never ridden a copter before, and I really enjoyed seeing Nashville from that angle.  The copter was open on the sides, so the only thing keeping me in was the harness.  I was allowed to take pictures as long as I used the wrist strap – dropping a camera from that height could be deadly.  This was easily the high point of jury duty, and I’m so glad I had the opportunity.

All in all, I’m glad I was able to serve on the grand jury.  It was emotionally taxing and I don’t like being too familiar with the dark side of Nashville, but it’s something that has to be done.  I even hope I get the chance to do it again someday… but maybe not for a couple of decades.

Prisons

I'm on Jury Duty right now - I can't talk much about individual cases, but I am allowed to talk about the job itself.  I'm on the Grand Jury, and we don't declare guilt or innocence, we just decide which cases go to trial. In an effort to make us understand the laws and police procedure better, we've been taking a few field trips.  So far I've watched them training the K9 dogs, I got to ride a helicopter, and I visited a maximum security prison.

Being in Nashville, my fellow jurors are mostly conservative.  They have a dim view of prisoners, and some of them complained about the few perks the prisoners got.  At the prison they mentioned how terrible the food is, and I heard at least one juror mutter that it was better than they deserve.  And so on.

In general, the public seems to agree with them.  For years I've seen Facebook posts praising Joe Arpaio, the Arizona sheriff who got famous for making sure his prison was the roughest one ever.  Look, I don't think prisons should be pleasure cruises either.  However, there is a huge difference between punishment and torture.

When someone says "prisoner", most people visualize the worst kind of serial murderers, rapists, and child molesters. But people are in there for all sorts of reasons. Some are serving 1-year terms for minor crimes. Some have been convicted of things that many Americans don't believe should be crimes. With such a large percentage of Americans lobbying for the legalization of Marijuana, is it fair that some guy who's only crime was possession, be given the same punishment as a murderer? Should he really be doing heavy labor in 138 degree weather, and eating spoiled bologna?

The punishment should fit the crime. And yet all of Arpaio's prisoners, who have committed different crimes, are getting the worst punishments available. One problem is that words like "prisoner" and "criminal" make most people think of rapists and murderers. But is there anyone in this country who hasn't broken a law at some point in their lives?  That's what bugs me most - I have friends who I have witnessed doing illegal things, complaining that prisoners have access to TV.  It's like they don't mind if someone's a criminal, as long as they don't get caught.

The general public needs to realize the difference between punishment and revenge. The ultimate goal is rehabilitation. But harsh prison sentences often serve only to make these people harsher criminals. If a prisoner seems beyond rehabilitation, fine, keep him in there longer, if only to keep him away from the rest of society. But don't piss him off for 10 years and then let him back on the street.

There's two kinds of people in the world. The first kind says, "It's better if a few guilty people go free than to risk wrongly punishing someone innocent." The second kind says, "It's better if a few innocent people get punished than to risk any guilty people going free." I'm the first kind, most people seem to be the second kind.

Double Standards

I'm just tired of being held to male standards.  If I say something that hurts my wife's feelings, it's my fault.  But if she says something that hurts my feelings, it's also my fault, because I'm being too sensitive.  Would she say that to a woman?  I don't know.

And The Bathroom Debate Continues

And now the same friend (see earlier blog) posted this:

Scenario:
Your 12 year old daughter goes to the bathroom at the restaurant by herself. Your daughter doesn't return for a bit and you go to check on her and hear her crying in a bathroom stall. She runs to you and says a man just touched her privates. You call the police and they come to investigate.
Just outside the bathroom is security cameras that records everyone coming and going from the Restrooms.
(Cameras aren't allowed inside the bathrooms) duh!!
Your daughter enters the bathroom and just behind her enters what according to the camera appears to be a man. The man is identified later in the investigation and is interviewed by police but says he is transgender and he was just using the bathroom and the little girl is lying.
If people of both sexes are able to enter the bathroom of their choice the little girls statement holds no credibility.
"Her word against his"
Now with the "Bathroom Law" in place, preventing a person of the opposite biological sex from entering the bathroom of their choice the little girls statement is credible and the offender has to explain why he entered a women's restroom when knowing it was against the law. This is maybe the evidence that helps convict the defendant or maybe the only evidence.
Now does this help the liberals understand!!!!!!
It's not about discrimination folks.
PLEASE SHARE EVERYONE

Actually, in the scenario above, I seriously doubt the creep saying he was transgender would help his case at all. Nobody's just going to take his word for it.  At the very least I'm sure they would ask for further evidence that he was transgender.  People don't just wake up one day, say "I'm transgender!" and start using women's restroom.  Myself, I have public blogs going back 10 years that discuss my gender issues.  I have friends who can corroborate that I'm transgender.  I've seen four therapists,  who presumably kept records.  I have photos of me en femme, a box full of women's clothing in my size, and so on.  

As I said in the last blog, women molest children too.  And men usually molest girls in other places besides public restrooms  So I'm not sure how many people this law would actually protect.  Meanwhile these laws will harm many, many trans people in all stages of transition.

These bathroom bills are evil, period.  They put trans lives in danger, they treat trans people like criminals, and they don't actually protect the ciswomen they're trying to protect.