Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 April 17

= April 17 =

Does Wikipedia have an article about transgender people and bathroom laws?
There is some new controversial law, I believe in North (or South) Carolina. Something about transgender people can use whatever bathroom they want to use. So, if someone is biologically male but identifies as female, they can use the female bathroom. And vice versa. Do we have an article about that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course: Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Joseph A. Spadaro this law actually has the opposite effect of what you've described. It criminalizes transgenger people who use the bathroom that fits their gender, by mandating that the sex indicated on a person's birth certificate is the only one that matters. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK. And that's controversial?  Good God.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it is controversial. Any law that mandates and formalizes state sponsorship of hatred and discrimination is bound to upset people who think that treating people with due decency and respect should be the proper course of action.-- Jayron 32 17:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Mandating that someone use the "anatomically correct" bathroom (for lack of a better word) hardly amounts to "hatred" and "discrimination". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What about "pigmentally-correct" seats on a bus? In any case, the North Carolina legislation requires those persons who _have_ had their anatomies aligned with their genders to use the wrong bathroom.  If one was born with a penis, one is required to use the facilities for men, even if one is no longer anatomically male. Tevildo (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Pigment has nothing to do with this issue/question. You are throwing in a red herring, which is completely irrelevant. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would disagree. You might argue that such discrimination is justified (I'm sure, for instance, that most people would agree that discrimination against young people is justified when it comes to buying alcohol), but I don't think you can argue that it's not discrimination.  But this is not an appropriate forum for debate.  Tevildo (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Even in cases of necessity, a not-infrequent situation in the context of bathroom usage? Is it now illegal in North Carolina for a cisgendered, heterosexual man to use the ladies' loo when circumstances require it?  Our article doesn't make this clear, and it would be interesting to know if this issue has ever come before the courts. Tevildo (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your comment. What does "necessity" mean, in the context of using a bathroom?  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is a crime (not merely a violation of local bylaws or a civil trespass) to use the wrong bathroom, someone accused of committing the offence might be able to raise a defence of necessity in court - namely, that he was faced with a choice of using the illegal bathroom or defecating in the street (presumably also a crime). See this BBC article (and our article on Nick Freeman) for a real-life example of this particular defence in action. Tevildo (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. Now I see what you mean.  But, "necessity" is a defense to all laws.  The law in question does not have to specifically state that "necessity" is an available defense.  Plus, even if it were not, no prosecutor would seek to bring charges in such an event of necessity.  "Real necessity", that is.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not murder. See R v Dudley and Stephens.  Tevildo (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that could come up in the US, which is the place under question. Any place catering to users of both genders is legally obliged to provide toilet facilities for both genders in proportion to the expected number of users (the exact ratio varies by state), so unless the hypothetical man had somehow found himself in a building which was ordinarily used only by women, the "I couldn't find a men's room" excuse could never come up (except in a few extreme hypotheticals like every mens toilet being damaged). More than you ever wanted to know about US toilet ratios here. &#8209; Iridescent 09:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think this happens rather often, actually. For instance, every time one of the bathrooms at a gas station is out of order, everyone would have to use the other bathroom (if there were two). This happened to me a couple months ago when a local station had closed their men's room for repairs. People, including myself, ended up using the women's. Dismas |(talk) 12:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * At events there often is quite a long queue at the Lady's, while there is none at the Men's (because men can pee with less overhead). It's not uncommon for women to use the Men's room in that case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Men can also pee with more overhead. One of the riskier pissing contests, but a sight everyone should see live at least once. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this is a stupid question. But if this is such a "big deal", why can't bathrooms just be generic / unisex? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To the pearl-clutchers making this a big deal (read: the ones who made the law), anyone with a penis is just itching for a chance to molest women in bathrooms, therefore penis-havers and vagina-havers must be kept separate at all costs. Of course, they seem to overlook the fact that a "women-only" sign is hardly going to deter a determined rapist. clpo13(talk) 19:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it is much more space-efficient to have urinals than cubicles, and it's more space efficient to have cubicles in a single room than separate rooms. And the same people who object to trans people using the toilet appropriate for their gender identity would object to having either of those types of bathroom be unisex. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Why would "they" (or anyone) object to having either of those types of bathroom be unisex? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, women might object to sharing a single occupant bathroom with men because:


 * 1) The bathroom may be left in worse shape, from urine on the toilet seat to more foul odors, to a messy sink.


 * 2) They may be subjected to graffiti left by the men.


 * 3) There is more opportunity for men to hide and retrieve hidden cameras.


 * As for multi-stall bathrooms, those also add the danger of assault and hearing and smelling more unpleasant sounds and smells from the men. At least here in the US, shared multi-stall bathrooms only existed on Ally McBeal, AFAIK, but single occupant bathrooms are often unisex, especially in homes or locations too small for two bathrooms, or with handicapped bathrooms.  There are also sometimes "Family bathrooms", designed for a parent and small child, of any genders. StuRat (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Huh? Your three or four points above are misogynist in the extreme.  I could just as easily preface your bullet list with "men might object because women might do the following offensive things ... leave a mess; make it stink; place graffiti; put a hidden camera; etc.".  What makes you think that men have a monopoly on those behaviors?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Aye. They're all home-wreckers. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If a lady just wanted to see random wangs there's easier and less weird ways than sneaking a spy camera into a bathroom. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Guys have the Internet, too. But peeping is often about seeing familiar, "real" people, not random ones. That goes for serious Reddit perverts, too. In the case of blackmail, the peeper may be getting nothing dirtier out of it than £165. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The media and the protesters seem to have missed the point of what this law is about. The bathroom thing is only one issue. The other parts of the law have to do with mundane stuff like minimum wage. What the law is really about is the Republican-controlled legislature asserting its authority over local governments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I added to the title to include the actual Q. StuRat (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Winston Churchill and bombing of London
Is it true that he provoked the Germans into bombing London during ww2? If so, what would have been his reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.36.123 (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know if he deliberately provoked Germany (or rather Hitler), but the RAF did bomb German cities during the Battle of Britain, and in particular bombed Berlin in late August 1940. In reply, the Nazis started to bomb London, reducing the pressure on RAF airfields in favour of increased attack on the civilian population. Older, more dramatic histories often consider this a pivotal event, as it allowed RAF Fighter Command to retain usage of the airfields in the southeast of England, and to recover somewhat. However, if I understand the currently predominant opinions, Fighter Command was never as close to defeat as Germany, the US, and many early historians of WW2 believed, so the significance of this event may not be that high. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The wording of the question makes me think they're referring to the Coventry Blitz and the associated myth that Churchill intentionally let Coventry burn to safeguard the secret that the Allies could decode Axis messages. Some good links here as well. Matt Deres (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * On the evening of 24 August 1940, some German bombers intending to bomb the docks at Rochester and Thameshaven, accidentally dropped their bombs on central London (they were 20 and 50 miles in error) and against specific Luftwaffe orders not to bomb the capital. According to this article (near the bottom of the page), 24 Londoners were killed and 1,200 houses were destroyed or damaged. Churchill ordered a retaliatory raid on Berlin on 25 August by 70 RAF bombers, operating at the limit of their range and without electronic navigational aids. No Germans were killed; see Britain bombs Berlin. This book; Cooperation under Fire: Anglo-German Restraint during World War II by Jeffrey W. Legro (p. 137) says that Churchill was "looking for an excuse to start city bombing". Unfortunately, I can't see the next page, but I suspect the motivation was that Britain had a large strategic bomber force, which could only operate at night and still stand a chance of getting back again. As seen above, the RAF hadn't mastered the art of hitting anything at night, so trying to bomb a specific factory was a waste of time, while there was a good chance that they might be able to hit a whole city. According to this page, 1,000 British civilians had already been killed in air raids before London was bombed, so whatever the effect on the Germans, Churchill would be able to claim that Britain was giving as good as she was getting. In retrospect, this was obviously a mistake on Churchill's part, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
 * As User:Stephan Schulz says above, traditional historians have said that the change in German bombing from RAF fighter stations to bombing London gave the RAF a chance to recover their strength and win the Battle of Britain. It is not credible that Churchill foresaw this as a possible outcome, nor I suspect, did he foresee the devastation which the Germans would bring down on nearly every British city. Since Churchill would never have admitted intentionally provoking The Blitz, it's all speculation. Alansplodge (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is it "not credible that Churchill foresaw this as a possible outcome" ? StuRat (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There are too many variables. For it to be a deliberate ploy, Churchill would have had to be able to foresee that: 1) The Luftwaffe would completely switch from precision bombing of airfields and aircraft production facilities to the blanket bombing of London, 2) That heavy bombing of London and other cities would not lead to a total collapse in civilian morale, when the received wisdom was that it would, 3) That the bombing of British cities would not seriously impair British war production, when the received wisdom was that it would. Churchill was renowned for making impetuous decisions and his decision to bomb Berlin on 25 August has all the hallmarks of one of them. Alansplodge (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Churchill did it to decrease German morale and increase British morale, similar to the goal of the Doolittle raid of the US against Japan early in the war there. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that was exactly what Churchill had in mind. I suspect that he thought he was initiating a tit-for-tat round of retaliatory nuisance raids rather than prompting the devastation of British cities. Nobody is going to be able to prove that however. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To my mind, evidence of a deliberate ploy would be a much larger mission against Berlin and for it to have been repeatedly carried out. That doesn't seem to be the case. That plus the discussion below on the origins of this idea make me inclined to dismiss it as no more than conjecture without evidence. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Well,I remember seeing David Irving say somewhere that Churchill did in fact provoke Hitler into bombing London121.44.36.123 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We've learned to distrust David Irving, even if he says "1 + 1 = 2". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Study the historian. An English court found that Irving "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". . Note also that Irving has a special interest in the topic of city bombing - our article details how in his first book, he gave an estimate of the number of dead in the Dresden bombing as between 100,000 and 250,000, figures that have been debunked and are now believed by historians to have been between 22,500 and 25,000. See David_Irving. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)