Author Topic: bathrooms  (Read 28847 times)

HydroJim

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 92
  • Age: 27
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #50 on: May 14, 2016, 02:00:42 PM »
I admittedly didn't read all the comments so not sure if this has been brought up.

But all this hoopla lately over transgender bathrooms has me really confused. Transgender people have existed previously to all this news coverage and they have definitely been using the bathroom all these years. What caused the recent uproar?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #51 on: May 14, 2016, 02:43:12 PM »
I admittedly didn't read all the comments so not sure if this has been brought up.

But all this hoopla lately over transgender bathrooms has me really confused. Transgender people have existed previously to all this news coverage and they have definitely been using the bathroom all these years. What caused the recent uproar?

I'd guess it's an election year tactic designed to get the conservative right exercised enough to get them to the polls in November, primarily. 

Sibley

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7428
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #52 on: May 14, 2016, 02:48:50 PM »
If you look like a female, use the women's bathroom.

If you look like a male, use the men's bathroom.

If I can't tell which you are, then I'll figure it out by which bathroom you walk into. Unless it's a unisex, in which case I'm still confused.

Don't assault anyone in any bathroom, no matter what they look like, unless they attacked you first. Then you can defend yourself.

Pretty simple.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #53 on: May 14, 2016, 04:03:35 PM »
I just want to point out that the actual legislation we have seen so far seems more about forcing everyone to accept, through the use of force via state governments, a more conservative view on gender fluidity. I.e., that there is none.

I'd much rather have state governments pushing this legislation since:

1) States have more Constitutional authority than the federal government in these matters via the 10th Amendments in this regard
2) It's far easier to influence local and state policies to accommodate a desires of a population than a national
3) You can move to a more accommodating state more easily than moving to a different country

Personally, I don't care what you identify as and neither should other people. I support very fluid binary gender definitions. A man that dresses, acts, behaves like a woman is still a man and I believe that the definition of male stretches to accommodate a vast array of femininity. This new modern push of gender fluidity isn't the acceptance of male and female traits, it's narrowing down those binary roles to create this gray area of idiocy.

We're making it socially unacceptable to be a guy in a dress by telling him that he likes dresses because he's not really a guy. It boggles the mind.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #54 on: May 14, 2016, 04:11:57 PM »
I just want to point out that the actual legislation we have seen so far seems more about forcing everyone to accept, through the use of force via state governments, a more conservative view on gender fluidity. I.e., that there is none.

I'd much rather have state governments pushing this legislation since:

1) States have more Constitutional authority than the federal government in these matters via the 10th Amendments in this regard
2) It's far easier to influence local and state policies to accommodate a desires of a population than a national
3) You can move to a more accommodating state more easily than moving to a different country

Personally, I don't care what you identify as and neither should other people. I support very fluid binary gender definitions. A man that dresses, acts, behaves like a woman is still a man and I believe that the definition of male stretches to accommodate a vast array of femininity. This new modern push of gender fluidity isn't the acceptance of male and female traits, it's narrowing down those binary roles to create this gray area of idiocy.

We're making it socially unacceptable to be a guy in a dress by telling him that he likes dresses because he's not really a guy. It boggles the mind.

No. There are transvestites, and transgender people.  They are different. 

Transgender people feel that they are actually a different gender inside than their body.

Transvestites (though that term is somewhat dated, and the preferred term now is "crossdresser" enjoy wearing clothing that generally "belongs" to the opposite gender. 

The comedian Eddie Izzard is perhaps the best-known cross-dresser in the public eye today.  He is a male, identifies as a male, is straight (so, he has relationships with women, not men), but often dresses in clothing that is "coded" as women. 

This transgender debate has basically nothing to do at all with crossdressers. 

And as far as your other point about state governments and legislation -- I'm not going to comment on that, because that's not what I was commenting on.  Your original statement was:

"This is less about bathrooms and more about forcing society to accept, through the use of force via the federal government, a more liberal view on gender fluidity."

I pointed out that that does not at all seem to be the case, given that 1) this is happening at the STATE level, not the federal as you asserted; and 2) the legislation is forced by conservatives, not liberals as you asserted.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #55 on: May 14, 2016, 04:35:47 PM »
And as far as your other point about state governments and legislation -- I'm not going to comment on that, because that's not what I was commenting on.  Your original statement was:

"This is less about bathrooms and more about forcing society to accept, through the use of force via the federal government, a more liberal view on gender fluidity."

I pointed out that that does not at all seem to be the case, given that 1) this is happening at the STATE level, not the federal as you asserted; and 2) the legislation is forced by conservatives, not liberals as you asserted.

That's what all this has been pinning on and the history behind what's going on in North Carolina. The City of Charlotte passed a bill requiring businesses to allow all persons into whatever bathroom, shower, or locker room they wanted. The business leaders and community complained, so the state decided to pass legislation so cities couldn't create their own policies requiring private parties to do anything like this. It also clarified the policy for public bathroom and facility usage throughout the state.

Then the federal government gave the state an ultimatum to reverse their decision, threatening to withhold funding to schools, roads, etc as a threat which the federal government later backtracked on. This escalated when the DoJ gave a 3 day deadline to repeal... 3 days! NC refused and sued the US government and the US government is suing the state.

So no, it's been happening on a local, state, and federal level and is in response to a ridiculous liberal policy in Charlotte.

La Bibliotecaria Feroz

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7124
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #56 on: May 14, 2016, 04:37:45 PM »
And as far as your other point about state governments and legislation -- I'm not going to comment on that, because that's not what I was commenting on.  Your original statement was:

"This is less about bathrooms and more about forcing society to accept, through the use of force via the federal government, a more liberal view on gender fluidity."

I pointed out that that does not at all seem to be the case, given that 1) this is happening at the STATE level, not the federal as you asserted; and 2) the legislation is forced by conservatives, not liberals as you asserted.

That's what all this has been pinning on and the history behind what's going on in North Carolina. The City of Charlotte passed a bill requiring businesses to allow all persons into whatever bathroom, shower, or locker room they wanted. The business leaders and community complained, so the state decided to pass legislation so cities couldn't create their own policies requiring private parties to do anything like this. It also clarified the policy for public bathroom and facility usage throughout the state.

Then the federal government gave the state an ultimatum to reverse their decision, threatening to withhold funding to schools, roads, etc as a threat which the federal government later backtracked on. This escalated when the DoJ gave a 3 day deadline to repeal... 3 days! NC refused and sued the US government and the US government is suing the state.

So no, it's been happening on a local, state, and federal level and is in response to a ridiculous liberal policy in Charlotte.

NC's law would also prevent businesses from having their own INCLUSIVE policies. And there's no way this ends well. Are people supposed to carry their birth certificates around all the time? Who's going to go around asking butch-looking women to show their IDs because they kinda look like dudes?

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #57 on: May 14, 2016, 04:49:28 PM »
NC's law would also prevent businesses from having their own INCLUSIVE policies. And there's no way this ends well. Are people supposed to carry their birth certificates around all the time? Who's going to go around asking butch-looking women to show their IDs because they kinda look like dudes?

After reading the law, it does nothing to impair the ability of businesses and private persons to create their own policies regarding their facilities. The law only applies to public governmental facilities.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #58 on: May 15, 2016, 12:27:10 PM »
With a "women's" sign, he would have had to worry about someone seeing him go in and calling security or whatnot. Without that sign, no such worry.

No, if the person was transgendered she wouldn't have to worry about about someone seeing her go in . . . because she would look an awful lot like a person with a vagina until she gets her panties down.  Which is what happens now with transgendered people most of the time.  It's just that what goes on today anyway would be legally allowed.

La Bibliotecaria Feroz

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7124
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #59 on: May 15, 2016, 01:16:06 PM »
With a "women's" sign, he would have had to worry about someone seeing him go in and calling security or whatnot. Without that sign, no such worry.

No, if the person was transgendered she wouldn't have to worry about about someone seeing her go in . . . because she would look an awful lot like a person with a vagina until she gets her panties down.  Which is what happens now with transgendered people most of the time.  It's just that what goes on today anyway would be legally allowed.

I was referring to the example of a PP's friend who was assaulted by a MAN, not a transgender woman, in a unisex bathroom. The question was whether separate men and women's bathrooms would prevent this kind of assault. In this one particular case, it might have, because cisgender dudes are not permitted, under society's rules, in ladies' bathrooms, and his entry might have been observed. Since this was a unisex, no one would remarked on his entry, because he had a right to be there.

If you see my previous comments elsewhere, I am perfectly happy to have transgender women in the stall next to me and consider it the appropriate place for a person dressed in women's clothes, regardless of what's underneath them. You're right, I wouldn't know anyway.

At present, I prefer NOT to pee next to actual dudes, but fortunately for me, I have not encountered multistall unisex bathrooms.

Just to make clear that I am not a transphobe. I have, in fact, been clear. I am offended by men (not you! Like friends of friends on Facebook!) who think they know better than I do who has a right to be in the ladies' room. We've managed for decades, fellas.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #60 on: May 15, 2016, 02:02:40 PM »
I am offended by men (not you! Like friends of friends on Facebook!) who think they know better than I do who has a right to be in the ladies' room.

I know right! I'm reminded of the following Facebook comment from some dude: "I believe that women will feel safer if we enforce gender-specific bathrooms - not sex-specific bathrooms." Without taking sides here, it's still pretty fucking obvious that he should keep his mouth shut about how he "believes" women feel. For fuck's sake.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #61 on: May 15, 2016, 03:09:13 PM »
I know right! I'm reminded of the following Facebook comment from some dude: "I believe that women will feel safer if we enforce gender-specific bathrooms - not sex-specific bathrooms." Without taking sides here, it's still pretty fucking obvious that he should keep his mouth shut about how he "believes" women feel. For fuck's sake.

You're absolutely right. Men shouldn't, in any way, care about the well-being, security, or comfort of women. In addition, men and women's feelings are so completely different that there are absolutely no parallels to draw between the genders and in no way can men show any type of empathy or understanding with what someone of the opposite gender feels.

I'm glad that we've clarified this. I wholeheartedly endorse your idea of 'stay the hell out of my gender' and 'you can't know anything about women, because you're not one.' I couldn't find an eye roll emoticon that could correctly convey the depth of my post's sarcasm. I'm a guy though, you'll just have to believe me.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #62 on: May 15, 2016, 03:30:29 PM »
I know right! I'm reminded of the following Facebook comment from some dude: "I believe that women will feel safer if we enforce gender-specific bathrooms - not sex-specific bathrooms." Without taking sides here, it's still pretty fucking obvious that he should keep his mouth shut about how he "believes" women feel. For fuck's sake.

You're absolutely right. Men shouldn't, in any way, care about the well-being, security, or comfort of women. In addition, men and women's feelings are so completely different that there are absolutely no parallels to draw between the genders and in no way can men show any type of empathy or understanding with what someone of the opposite gender feels.

I'm glad that we've clarified this. I wholeheartedly endorse your idea of 'stay the hell out of my gender' and 'you can't know anything about women, because you're not one.' I couldn't find an eye roll emoticon that could correctly convey the depth of my post's sarcasm. I'm a guy though, you'll just have to believe me.

You're straw-manning. Of course men can care about or have some empathy for what women feel. What they can't do is state how women *will* feel about something. They can't know that.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #63 on: May 15, 2016, 06:05:27 PM »
You're straw-manning. Of course men can care about or have some empathy for what women feel. What they can't do is state how women *will* feel about something. They can't know that.

I think that's true whether the speaker is a man or woman. A single woman cannot speak for her entire gender, she can't know what other women *will* feel. It seems like you're more angry about an assumption behind the statement rather than the fact that it was a male saying it.

Unless you're saying that you believe that a woman is somehow more in tune with the needs of her gender more than a man, which would be ironic since we're discussing an issue where a male can be legitimately considered a female if he/she identifies as such.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #64 on: May 15, 2016, 06:45:12 PM »
You're straw-manning. Of course men can care about or have some empathy for what women feel. What they can't do is state how women *will* feel about something. They can't know that.

I think that's true whether the speaker is a man or woman.

You're wrong. A particular woman might not always know how most women would feel about a given situation, but a particular man *can't* know and therefore should avoid pontificating on the subject. There's a difference.

A single woman cannot speak for her entire gender, she can't know what other women *will* feel.

Again, perhaps not always, but that doesn't substantially change my point.

It seems like you're more angry about an assumption behind the statement rather than the fact that it was a male saying it.

Wrong again. I see you like to read minds, but I assure you, my reaction was entirely the result of the fact that it was a male saying it.

Unless you're saying that you believe that a woman is somehow more in tune with the needs of her gender more than a man, which would be ironic since we're discussing an issue where a male can be legitimately considered a female if he/she identifies as such.

As I said, I have not staked out a position on the question the OP raised, so I don't see any irony. Try again.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #65 on: May 15, 2016, 08:02:35 PM »
You're wrong. A particular woman might not always know how most women would feel about a given situation, but a particular man *can't* know and therefore should avoid pontificating on the subject. There's a difference.

You say 'might not', which implies that this hypothetical woman *might* be able to know how most women feel about a given situation. Yet a man, any man, absolutely cannot and for some reason is fundamentally unable to.

Why? This makes no sense, this whole conversation has been centering around this point and you're not explaining it very well.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #66 on: May 15, 2016, 08:10:01 PM »
This is like the fourth thread about where people pee.  Can we move on yet?

In general, I agree with Kris from above.  This is only in the news as an excuse to turn out the conservative vote. 

It's exactly the same tactic Karl Rove used when he championed all those "defense of marriage" bills to positively assert that then-current discrimination had to be made explicitly more legal than it already was.  He didn't really care about discrimination, but he knew some voters who cared an awful lot would show up to the polls for just that one issue, and end up voting down the Republican ticket.

And every time you start another thread about it, or repost another facebook thing, you're helping them out.  There is no moral outrage here, only cold political calculation, and you're playing right into it.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2016, 09:56:06 PM by sol »

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #67 on: May 15, 2016, 08:56:45 PM »
You're wrong. A particular woman might not always know how most women would feel about a given situation, but a particular man *can't* know and therefore should avoid pontificating on the subject. There's a difference.

You say 'might not', which implies that this hypothetical woman *might* be able to know how most women feel about a given situation. Yet a man, any man, absolutely cannot and for some reason is fundamentally unable to.

Why? This makes no sense, this whole conversation has been centering around this point and you're not explaining it very well.

Dude, what's your dog in this fight? You've suddenly latched onto a thing I said, as if it's somehow super important, and you're straw-manning it and grammar-pantsing it into oblivion. Why? Do you just like to argue?

Men shouldn't go around stating how women feel. This isn't controversial, unless one is a jerk.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #68 on: May 16, 2016, 05:51:02 AM »
With a "women's" sign, he would have had to worry about someone seeing him go in and calling security or whatnot. Without that sign, no such worry.

No, if the person was transgendered she wouldn't have to worry about about someone seeing her go in . . . because she would look an awful lot like a person with a vagina until she gets her panties down.  Which is what happens now with transgendered people most of the time.  It's just that what goes on today anyway would be legally allowed.

I was referring to the example of a PP's friend who was assaulted by a MAN, not a transgender woman, in a unisex bathroom. The question was whether separate men and women's bathrooms would prevent this kind of assault. In this one particular case, it might have, because cisgender dudes are not permitted, under society's rules, in ladies' bathrooms, and his entry might have been observed. Since this was a unisex, no one would remarked on his entry, because he had a right to be there.

If you see my previous comments elsewhere, I am perfectly happy to have transgender women in the stall next to me and consider it the appropriate place for a person dressed in women's clothes, regardless of what's underneath them. You're right, I wouldn't know anyway.

At present, I prefer NOT to pee next to actual dudes, but fortunately for me, I have not encountered multistall unisex bathrooms.

Just to make clear that I am not a transphobe. I have, in fact, been clear. I am offended by men (not you! Like friends of friends on Facebook!) who think they know better than I do who has a right to be in the ladies' room. We've managed for decades, fellas.

Is there a difference in your mind between peeing next to an 'actual dude' and someone who is not an 'actual dude'? I fail to see the difference; if someone's in the bathroom, they're probably there to do the same thing I am, and most likely are uninterested in what I am doing. I don't enjoy people watching me pee, and kinda assume anyone who would be interested in watching me go the bathroom has some interests I don't share, but however they identify or look or dress has no bearing on them sitting in the stall next to me.

La Bibliotecaria Feroz

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7124
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #69 on: May 16, 2016, 10:04:13 AM »
With a "women's" sign, he would have had to worry about someone seeing him go in and calling security or whatnot. Without that sign, no such worry.

No, if the person was transgendered she wouldn't have to worry about about someone seeing her go in . . . because she would look an awful lot like a person with a vagina until she gets her panties down.  Which is what happens now with transgendered people most of the time.  It's just that what goes on today anyway would be legally allowed.

I was referring to the example of a PP's friend who was assaulted by a MAN, not a transgender woman, in a unisex bathroom. The question was whether separate men and women's bathrooms would prevent this kind of assault. In this one particular case, it might have, because cisgender dudes are not permitted, under society's rules, in ladies' bathrooms, and his entry might have been observed. Since this was a unisex, no one would remarked on his entry, because he had a right to be there.

If you see my previous comments elsewhere, I am perfectly happy to have transgender women in the stall next to me and consider it the appropriate place for a person dressed in women's clothes, regardless of what's underneath them. You're right, I wouldn't know anyway.

At present, I prefer NOT to pee next to actual dudes, but fortunately for me, I have not encountered multistall unisex bathrooms.

Just to make clear that I am not a transphobe. I have, in fact, been clear. I am offended by men (not you! Like friends of friends on Facebook!) who think they know better than I do who has a right to be in the ladies' room. We've managed for decades, fellas.

Is there a difference in your mind between peeing next to an 'actual dude' and someone who is not an 'actual dude'? I fail to see the difference; if someone's in the bathroom, they're probably there to do the same thing I am, and most likely are uninterested in what I am doing. I don't enjoy people watching me pee, and kinda assume anyone who would be interested in watching me go the bathroom has some interests I don't share, but however they identify or look or dress has no bearing on them sitting in the stall next to me.

By "actual dude," I mean a person whom most people would readily identify as a man and who identifies himself as a man. I just don't like having men hear me use the toilet. Personal foible, perhaps, but there you have it. Society seems really uncomfortable right now with women's biological processes--witness the banning of Thinx ads from the New York subway. And closer to home, my husband, an otherwise enlightened fellow, really believes that women should never pass gas. Under those circumstances, I'd rather keep my business just between us girls.*

Not that it's society's job to make me comfortable. Just that I PERSONALLY prefer the idea of transwomen in the ladies room than with the idea of unisex bathrooms. Since the subject came up.

*As people define themselves.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #70 on: May 16, 2016, 10:06:01 AM »
With a "women's" sign, he would have had to worry about someone seeing him go in and calling security or whatnot. Without that sign, no such worry.

No, if the person was transgendered she wouldn't have to worry about about someone seeing her go in . . . because she would look an awful lot like a person with a vagina until she gets her panties down.  Which is what happens now with transgendered people most of the time.  It's just that what goes on today anyway would be legally allowed.

I was referring to the example of a PP's friend who was assaulted by a MAN, not a transgender woman, in a unisex bathroom. The question was whether separate men and women's bathrooms would prevent this kind of assault. In this one particular case, it might have, because cisgender dudes are not permitted, under society's rules, in ladies' bathrooms, and his entry might have been observed. Since this was a unisex, no one would remarked on his entry, because he had a right to be there.

If you see my previous comments elsewhere, I am perfectly happy to have transgender women in the stall next to me and consider it the appropriate place for a person dressed in women's clothes, regardless of what's underneath them. You're right, I wouldn't know anyway.

At present, I prefer NOT to pee next to actual dudes, but fortunately for me, I have not encountered multistall unisex bathrooms.

Just to make clear that I am not a transphobe. I have, in fact, been clear. I am offended by men (not you! Like friends of friends on Facebook!) who think they know better than I do who has a right to be in the ladies' room. We've managed for decades, fellas.

Is there a difference in your mind between peeing next to an 'actual dude' and someone who is not an 'actual dude'? I fail to see the difference; if someone's in the bathroom, they're probably there to do the same thing I am, and most likely are uninterested in what I am doing. I don't enjoy people watching me pee, and kinda assume anyone who would be interested in watching me go the bathroom has some interests I don't share, but however they identify or look or dress has no bearing on them sitting in the stall next to me.

By "actual dude," I mean a person whom most people would readily identify as a man and who identifies himself as a man. I just don't like having men hear me use the toilet. Personal foible, perhaps, but there you have it. Society seems really uncomfortable right now with women's biological processes--witness the banning of Thinx ads from the New York subway. And closer to home, my husband, an otherwise enlightened fellow, really believes that women should never pass gas. Under those circumstances, I'd rather keep my business just between us girls.*

Not that it's society's job to make me comfortable. Just that I PERSONALLY prefer the idea of transwomen in the ladies room than with the idea of unisex bathrooms. Since the subject came up.

*As people define themselves.

Thank you for explaining. I did not intend my question to make you uncomfortable.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #71 on: May 16, 2016, 11:41:10 AM »
This is like the fourth thread about where people pee.  Can we move on yet?

In general, I agree with Kris from above.  This is only in the news as an excuse to turn out the conservative vote. 

It's exactly the same tactic Karl Rove used when he championed all those "defense of marriage" bills to positively assert that then-current discrimination had to be made explicitly more legal than it already was.  He didn't really care about discrimination, but he knew some voters who cared an awful lot would show up to the polls for just that one issue, and end up voting down the Republican ticket.

And every time you start another thread about it, or repost another facebook thing, you're helping them out.  There is no moral outrage here, only cold political calculation, and you're playing right into it.

Great minds.

I am going to just put it out there.. this is retarded. These sort of hot topics are a red herring for whatever is truly important that is being messed with and they don't want to talk about. They want to hide their mess so they spot light an inflammatory one.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #72 on: May 17, 2016, 08:59:41 AM »
Thank you, Frugal Paragon, this is how I feel too, and was wondering if it is because I am older and not current.   In our society women have enough difficulty maintaining boundaries, and this is a boundary pusher.  Body autonomy and privacy and all that.  A lot of women are not all that comfortable sharing multi-person facilities, I think - if there are 2 women and 4 stalls there will be an empty one (or 2) between them.  It is different if they all know each other (i.e. at a group activity) or the place is super busy, but strangers?   

The thought of sharing a space with a man I do not know is totally icky, even if there are visual boundaries - there are no auditory ones.  How many people like having a noisy fan in a powder room in a private home so no-one can hear what is happening?  Or won't open the bathroom door until the toilet has completed its flush?

By "actual dude," I mean a person whom most people would readily identify as a man and who identifies himself as a man. I just don't like having men hear me use the toilet. Personal foible, perhaps, but there you have it. Society seems really uncomfortable right now with women's biological processes--witness the banning of Thinx ads from the New York subway. And closer to home, my husband, an otherwise enlightened fellow, really believes that women should never pass gas. Under those circumstances, I'd rather keep my business just between us girls.*

Not that it's society's job to make me comfortable. Just that I PERSONALLY prefer the idea of transwomen in the ladies room than with the idea of unisex bathrooms. Since the subject came up.

*As people define themselves.

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #73 on: May 18, 2016, 06:09:40 AM »
I agree the bill should have never been brought. There was a general understanding that if you were a male (or looked like one) you went to the men's restroom. If you were a woman (or looked like one) you went to the women's restroom. Nobody that I have heard of ever complained of any transgender issues.

Whether the bill was meant as political fodder for conservatives, or whether the intention was to add some teeth to the law to keep peeping toms and the like behind bars for a longer period of time (one more law broken equals one more charge, equals the likelihood of more jail time) will likely never be known. We can speculate until we're blue in the face, but in the end we're just speculating. Regardless, it's catching a group of individuals in the crossfire, and their response and their supporters' responses aren't the correct answer, if you ask me.

It's not the trans individuals conservatives are worried about. It's the predatory males who have, are, and will (there are already cases occurring) take advantage of the gender-less bathrooms to make victims out of my wife, sisters, and mother. It's not the trans high school student just looking for a comfortable place to use the bathroom, it's the horny teen males who now have a legal right to be in a place where teenagers of the opposite sex are unclothed and/or showering.

You don't have to be physically assaulted to become a victim and suffer from permanent emotional turmoil. It only takes one case of being video taped in an intimate setting to cause a lifetime of psychological issues. Just look at the case of Erin Andrews. The emotional distress her and her father detailed in court was heartbreaking to listen to.

While the North Carolina law might not be the right answer, allowing anyone to use any bathroom they please is taking it too far the other direction if you ask me. We're giving a legal defense to these predatory males to be in a place ripe with opportunity to scar a woman or a child for a lifetime.

There's probably a middle ground in there somewhere that could solve this situation, but unfortunately everybody is so entrenched on their political sides, coming to the middle isn't an option.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #74 on: May 18, 2016, 07:27:50 AM »
Look, the conservative legislature tried to turn this into an issue and it backfired in their face.  The original start was the Charlotte ordinance that merely added LGBT people to the anti-discrimination statue that was already on the books.  The "controversial" part was the stipulation that people use the bathroom they identify with.  This anti-discrimination statue is on the books in hundred of major and minor cities across the country in most states.  Has there been an explosion in bathroom assaults in all these other cities...NO!

The legislature then passed a law that enshrined the state definition of discrimination as the law, prohibiting local towns from setting their own rules.  Besides legalizing LBGT discrimination (bathroom issue aside), it also prohibits towns from setting their own minimum wage, or expanding discrimination protection to any groups.

This was such a ridiculous overstep and response (calling the state legislature back into session for this one issue) that it boggles the mind.  It makes an issue out of a nonissue.  Nobody cares what bathroom you use.  In all of the other states and towns where this rule was already in place, there is no increase in assaults/peeping.  It is a dog whistle to motivate voters, just like all the "religious freedom" laws being bandied around.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #75 on: May 18, 2016, 09:04:33 AM »
It's not the trans high school student just looking for a comfortable place to use the bathroom, it's the horny teen males who now have a legal right to be in a place where teenagers of the opposite sex are unclothed and/or showering.

A legal right?  Really?  You seem to be very confused on this issue.

It has never been illegal to use the "wrong" bathroom.  It has been generally discouraged, but there is no law against it.  I've done it, in places where it was necessary.  I'd wager you have too.

What IS illegal is assaulting people.  In bathrooms or elsewhere.  By videotaping them or in other ways.  Those things are already illegal, and this new law wouldn't have made them any more illegal.  What you're asking is for people to be legally prohibited from being allowed into a position where they MIGHT commit a crime that is already illegal. 

You might as well make it illegal for black people to drive because they might commit a DUI.  You've singled out one group, you've made something illegal that shouldn't be illegal, and you've not provided any additional protection against something that is already illegal.  So what's the point, if not to discriminate?

Quote
We're giving a legal defense to these predatory males to be in a place ripe with opportunity to scar a woman or a child for a lifetime.

See?  You've even admitted it.  You're saying we need to criminalize the opportunity to commit a crime (that is already illegal) for some subset of the population that is not otherwise doing anything criminal. 

As an alternative, how about we stiffen the enforcement or penalties for actually committing the crimes we want to discourage?  Banning black people from driving cars doesn't make any sense either.

You've probably already shared a bathroom with a trans person at some point in your life without even knowing it.  Why put that person, who is already facing a lifetime of discrimination and hatred, into a situation where their very biological needs are now legally scrutinized?  Why not let people (all people) have the privacy they desire when conducting their bathroom business?

If you object to sharing a bathroom with someone over the opposite gender because you are ashamed of the fact that you poop, and most Americans apparently are, there are lots of solutions available to you that do not involve actively discriminating against people who are doing nothing wrong except making you uncomfortable by being alive.  People like you, trying to criminalize using the wrong drinking fountain or sit in the wrong part of the bus, are the ones who will have to change for our country to adhere to it's stated ideals of equality and freedom.  Sorry. 

Or, you know, we could just make all the trans people wear a big yellow star on their chests.  Just so that we can easily identify who they are, in case we need to round them up in the future for some reason.  Does that also sound like a good idea to you?

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #76 on: May 18, 2016, 10:28:31 AM »
It's not the trans high school student just looking for a comfortable place to use the bathroom, it's the horny teen males who now have a legal right to be in a place where teenagers of the opposite sex are unclothed and/or showering.

A legal right?  Really?  You seem to be very confused on this issue.

It has never been illegal to use the "wrong" bathroom.  It has been generally discouraged, but there is no law against it.  I've done it, in places where it was necessary.  I'd wager you have too.

What IS illegal is assaulting people.  In bathrooms or elsewhere.  By videotaping them or in other ways.  Those things are already illegal, and this new law wouldn't have made them any more illegal.  What you're asking is for people to be legally prohibited from being allowed into a position where they MIGHT commit a crime that is already illegal. 

You might as well make it illegal for black people to drive because they might commit a DUI.  You've singled out one group, you've made something illegal that shouldn't be illegal, and you've not provided any additional protection against something that is already illegal.  So what's the point, if not to discriminate?

Quote
We're giving a legal defense to these predatory males to be in a place ripe with opportunity to scar a woman or a child for a lifetime.

See?  You've even admitted it.  You're saying we need to criminalize the opportunity to commit a crime (that is already illegal) for some subset of the population that is not otherwise doing anything criminal. 

As an alternative, how about we stiffen the enforcement or penalties for actually committing the crimes we want to discourage?  Banning black people from driving cars doesn't make any sense either.

You've probably already shared a bathroom with a trans person at some point in your life without even knowing it.  Why put that person, who is already facing a lifetime of discrimination and hatred, into a situation where their very biological needs are now legally scrutinized?  Why not let people (all people) have the privacy they desire when conducting their bathroom business?

If you object to sharing a bathroom with someone over the opposite gender because you are ashamed of the fact that you poop, and most Americans apparently are, there are lots of solutions available to you that do not involve actively discriminating against people who are doing nothing wrong except making you uncomfortable by being alive.  People like you, trying to criminalize using the wrong drinking fountain or sit in the wrong part of the bus, are the ones who will have to change for our country to adhere to it's stated ideals of equality and freedom.  Sorry. 

Or, you know, we could just make all the trans people wear a big yellow star on their chests.  Just so that we can easily identify who they are, in case we need to round them up in the future for some reason.  Does that also sound like a good idea to you?

Your entire post completely proves my last point.

Quote
There's probably a middle ground in there somewhere that could solve this situation, but unfortunately everybody is so entrenched on their political sides, coming to the middle isn't an option.

You were so eager to demonize me for being intolerant and unsympathetic that you completely disregarded my first sentence. I have no problem with North Carolina repealing the section of the law dealing with bathrooms. I would 100% support that. For one, I think it's unenforceable and I'm not okay with legislation for the sake of legislation. It's a waste of time, money, and resources. At best, it could be a secondary offense to someone caught videotaping or peeping. But do I think people should be demonized and chastised for questioning someone who looks to be a male for entering the women's restroom or locker room? No. I don't. And the cases popping up in Washington, Missouri, and Texas prove that allowing non-trans males to enter the women's restrooms and locker rooms unabated has the potential to make victims out of the women that are in there.

I'll leave the rest of your post alone. All of my sarcastic comments about your Nazi sympathizer references do nothing to further the discussion.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #77 on: May 18, 2016, 10:56:45 AM »
All of my sarcastic comments about your Nazi sympathizer references do nothing to further the discussion.

You don't get to defend yourself against accusations of persecuting minorities by saying "calling me a Nazi isn't fair" because in this case it is exactly fair.  It is exactly analogous.  You are attempting to segregate and marginalize a minority of the population that hasn't done anything wrong.

America went through this exact process once before, when we decided that the people who were claiming public facilities should be "separate but equal" were actually just bigots who were uncomfortable around black people even when those black people weren't doing anything criminal.  Now we're repeating it, with people who are uncomfortable around trans people. 

My racist grandparents learned to pee next to black people.  I'm sure we can all learn to pee next to trans people.  My grandparents had the exact same arguments we've heard in this thread, which basically boil down to "I don't want them hearing me fart because I'm trying to maintain the illusion of superiority by concealing my bodily functions from them."

As a second an ancillary point, I thought your appeal to protect our "wives, sisters, and mothers" was blatantly and offensively analogous to the language white supremacists once used to justify racial segregation.  My racist grandpa used to say the same thing, as an appeal to people's combined racism and simultaneous sexism to assert that women were somehow vulnerable waifs who needed white men to protect them from publicly mingling with black men, lest they be somehow tainted by their presence (or maybe overcome with "unnatural" lust).

At least this anti-trans bathroom movement hasn't yet started citing the Bible as their source for "the natural order of things" that these different kinds of people need to be kept separate as God's will.  That's the next step, I give it two weeks until that argument shows up on the talk shows.

Wilson Hall

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 163
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #78 on: May 18, 2016, 11:00:04 AM »
I agree the bill should have never been brought. There was a general understanding that if you were a male (or looked like one) you went to the men's restroom. If you were a woman (or looked like one) you went to the women's restroom. Nobody that I have heard of ever complained of any transgender issues.

Whether the bill was meant as political fodder for conservatives, or whether the intention was to add some teeth to the law to keep peeping toms and the like behind bars for a longer period of time (one more law broken equals one more charge, equals the likelihood of more jail time) will likely never be known. We can speculate until we're blue in the face, but in the end we're just speculating. Regardless, it's catching a group of individuals in the crossfire, and their response and their supporters' responses aren't the correct answer, if you ask me.

It's not the trans individuals conservatives are worried about. It's the predatory males who have, are, and will (there are already cases occurring) take advantage of the gender-less bathrooms to make victims out of my wife, sisters, and mother. It's not the trans high school student just looking for a comfortable place to use the bathroom, it's the horny teen males who now have a legal right to be in a place where teenagers of the opposite sex are unclothed and/or showering.

You don't have to be physically assaulted to become a victim and suffer from permanent emotional turmoil. It only takes one case of being video taped in an intimate setting to cause a lifetime of psychological issues. Just look at the case of Erin Andrews. The emotional distress her and her father detailed in court was heartbreaking to listen to.

While the North Carolina law might not be the right answer, allowing anyone to use any bathroom they please is taking it too far the other direction if you ask me. We're giving a legal defense to these predatory males to be in a place ripe with opportunity to scar a woman or a child for a lifetime.

There's probably a middle ground in there somewhere that could solve this situation, but unfortunately everybody is so entrenched on their political sides, coming to the middle isn't an option.

+1. And I think the greater concern for lots of people is the locker room or dorm room, where there is less physical privacy than in a public restroom.

dougules

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2899
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #79 on: May 18, 2016, 11:18:21 AM »

How is the not the same?  We have a group of people being discriminated against for being who they are.  Transgender are no more able to control their gender as black people are their race.  All deserve equal rights.


The civil rights movement was an entire group of people trying to get their freedoms back after centuries of stolen wealth, rape, slavery, murder, selective breeding and a whole lot of other REALLY bad stuff. None of them chose to be black. They didn't get to choose to be born into ridiculously oppressive communities and economies.

I can show you a DNA slide with someone's ancestral descent. I can show you in history books of their oppression and slavery. These are facts. Not bored attention grabbing make believe.

The people who decided to make some shit up about picking where they go to the bathroom and what's between their legs doesn't hold a fucking candle to the Civil Rights movement. Where you go to the bathroom has been traditionally about whats between your legs. What's between your legs isn't debatable. Yet here we are... That's the insanity of this. You want to change tradition, fine knock yourself out. But, don't you dare belittle what all of those people went through to make you or someone you know feel better about your self proclaimed 'struggle.'

+1000. It's an insult to the people whose ancestors endured heavy physical and emotional pain and who collectively continue to suffer the effects of slavery to compare this to supposed trans oppression. Who is beating and forcing a trans to work for free? Who is preventing them from exercising their right to freedom of movement or freedom to determine the direction of their lives?

40% of all transgender people will attempt suicide in their lifetime.   Do you not think that represents something pretty extreme?   It was illegal to even be gay or transgender until recently, so yes, the oppression has been equal if not more.   Wanda Sykes even said "you don't have to come out as black," and she knows both sides of the coin.  Being transgender is even harder than being gay.   I'm not trying to minimize the challenges that racial and ethnic minorities continue to face, but minimizing the challenges faced by LGBT people is the same.   

And by the way, LGBT people have been part of the civil rights movement since its inception. 
« Last Edit: May 18, 2016, 11:30:04 AM by dougules »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #80 on: May 18, 2016, 11:35:09 AM »

America went through this exact process once before, when we decided that the people who were claiming public facilities should be "separate but equal" were actually just bigots who were uncomfortable around black people even when those black people weren't doing anything criminal.  Now we're repeating it, with people who are uncomfortable around trans people. 


African Americans with penises were not allowed to white mens restrooms and African Americans with vagina's were not allowed to go to white womens restrooms.

What the NC law did (whether you agree with it or not) was tell trans people they needed to go to bathroom consistent with their birth certificate (and presumably their genitalia).  They aren't being excluded from the the bathroom consistent with their genitalia, just consistent with how they identify. 

Personally, I think both NC and Obama are idiots for wading into this.  If an adult person identifies as a man and wants to pee in the men's restroom, who cares.  I'm not inspecting your equipment at the door.

On the other hand, I don't think pre-teen and teenage people with penises who identify as a girl should be in the girls locker room (and vice versa).  There is no privacy in the locker room.  As I understand it, many schools were accommodating these kids by allowing them to use the nurses office or a unisex bathroom.  Outlawing that option has caused as many problems as the NC law.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #81 on: May 18, 2016, 12:25:43 PM »

America went through this exact process once before, when we decided that the people who were claiming public facilities should be "separate but equal" were actually just bigots who were uncomfortable around black people even when those black people weren't doing anything criminal.  Now we're repeating it, with people who are uncomfortable around trans people. 


African Americans with penises were not allowed to white mens restrooms and African Americans with vagina's were not allowed to go to white womens restrooms.

Do we really need to put penises and vaginas in separate rooms? Why can't we all just go along?

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #82 on: May 18, 2016, 01:30:19 PM »
Oh God...is this really going to devolve into a "whose pain is worse" arguement between transgender and the african-american community? 

As if this wasn't enough of a waste of energy and time.  I swear, I feel like I am living in crazytown lately.  We actually have real problems and we are wasting time on this bullshit. 

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #83 on: May 18, 2016, 01:54:24 PM »
All of my sarcastic comments about your Nazi sympathizer references do nothing to further the discussion.

You don't get to defend yourself against accusations of persecuting minorities by saying "calling me a Nazi isn't fair" because in this case it is exactly fair.  It is exactly analogous.  You are attempting to segregate and marginalize a minority of the population that hasn't done anything wrong.

America went through this exact process once before, when we decided that the people who were claiming public facilities should be "separate but equal" were actually just bigots who were uncomfortable around black people even when those black people weren't doing anything criminal.  Now we're repeating it, with people who are uncomfortable around trans people. 

My racist grandparents learned to pee next to black people.  I'm sure we can all learn to pee next to trans people.  My grandparents had the exact same arguments we've heard in this thread, which basically boil down to "I don't want them hearing me fart because I'm trying to maintain the illusion of superiority by concealing my bodily functions from them."

As a second an ancillary point, I thought your appeal to protect our "wives, sisters, and mothers" was blatantly and offensively analogous to the language white supremacists once used to justify racial segregation.  My racist grandpa used to say the same thing, as an appeal to people's combined racism and simultaneous sexism to assert that women were somehow vulnerable waifs who needed white men to protect them from publicly mingling with black men, lest they be somehow tainted by their presence (or maybe overcome with "unnatural" lust).

At least this anti-trans bathroom movement hasn't yet started citing the Bible as their source for "the natural order of things" that these different kinds of people need to be kept separate as God's will.  That's the next step, I give it two weeks until that argument shows up on the talk shows.

You're just not getting it. Perhaps you're a visual learner?



I don't care if she goes to the women's restroom. Repealing the North Carolina law gives her access to that woman's restroom, and it's something I would support.



I do not want perverts like him in the women's restroom. (He was caught peeping in an O'Fallon, MO Target.) The gender-less bathroom policies liberals are pushing allow him unfettered access to the women's restroom. In Washington he could walk into any women's bathroom he wants. Or, like the gentleman in Seattle, he could walk into the women's locker room at the YMCA while little girls are changing into and out of their bathing suits. In your utopia, questioning why he's in there brings the insults and comparisons you've been hurling (Nazi, racist, sexist). Letting Subway Jared have an all-access pass to watch all those little girls he liked to look at online do it in person instead isn't exactly my idea of a utopia.

dougules

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2899
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #84 on: May 18, 2016, 01:58:36 PM »
Oh God...is this really going to devolve into a "whose pain is worse" arguement between transgender and the african-american community? 

As if this wasn't enough of a waste of energy and time.  I swear, I feel like I am living in crazytown lately.  We actually have real problems and we are wasting time on this bullshit.

No, I'm definitely not going for that.   I was more going down the line of it being annoyed with the irony of minorities who have had a long rough history attacking other minorities that have had a long rough history. 

But how is it not a real problem when millions of people feel so hated that they'd rather commit suicide than live their lives? 

Wilson Hall

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 163
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #85 on: May 18, 2016, 02:05:53 PM »
Oh God...is this really going to devolve into a "whose pain is worse" arguement between transgender and the african-american community? 

As if this wasn't enough of a waste of energy and time.  I swear, I feel like I am living in crazytown lately.  We actually have real problems and we are wasting time on this bullshit.

You know, I'm a social liberal on most issues-- or was, until recently, apparently-- and this is the sort of thing that makes me feel like I've fallen through the looking glass. There are an awful lot of people who belong to one or more protected groups, and every so often this "my oppression is worse than yours" debate comes up. Rather than cooperating to make the world a better place for everyone collectively while trying to respect individual rights and beliefs whenever possible, the whole situation devolves into a lot of finger-pointing and name-calling. In the meantime, everyone else thinks we're crazy for infighting instead of looking at the bigger picture, such as trying to support policy to lift millions of people out of poverty, reign in government spending, or put an end to our ceaseless wars in the Middle East.

Historically, women have had plenty of reasons for, at least some of the time, keeping themselves separate from men: partially for safety reasons, partially because of social standards or pressures, and partially due to individual preferences. Personally, I think the whole bathroom issue has been blown out of proportion-- after all, transgender individuals have been using public bathrooms for ages, and in facilities with single-use restrooms it's a non-issue. If, however, we're getting to the point where some folks think a woman is in the wrong for not wanting to undress, shower, or live in a communal space with anyone having male genitalia, then I don't know what to say.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #86 on: May 18, 2016, 02:45:00 PM »
My racist grandparents learned to pee next to black people.  I'm sure we can all learn to pee next to trans people.  My grandparents had the exact same arguments we've heard in this thread, which basically boil down to "I don't want them hearing me fart because I'm trying to maintain the illusion of superiority by concealing my bodily functions from them."

Who in this thread said this?

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #87 on: May 18, 2016, 05:21:07 PM »
I do not want perverts like him in the women's restroom. (He was caught peeping in an O'Fallon, MO Target.) The gender-less bathroom policies liberals are pushing allow him unfettered access to the women's restroom. In Washington he could walk into any women's bathroom he wants. Or, like the gentleman in Seattle, he could walk into the women's locker room at the YMCA while little girls are changing into and out of their bathing suits. In your utopia, questioning why he's in there brings the insults and comparisons you've been hurling (Nazi, racist, sexist). Letting Subway Jared have an all-access pass to watch all those little girls he liked to look at online do it in person instead isn't exactly my idea of a utopia.

I think this whole debate could really benefit from first agreeing on terminology. Here's how I would define the relevant terms:

There is a difference between sex and gender. Sex (male/female) refers to your reproductive organs. Gender (man/woman) is a social construct. Certain clothing choices, pronouns, etc. are seen as more masculine or more feminine. Most males consider themselves men, use "he" as a pronoun, dress in a masculine fashion. Most females consider themselves women, use "she" as a pronoun, dress in a feminine fashion. Transgendered people have a gender that doesn't follow the typical male->man or female->woman pattern.

It seems to me that many of the people who support these bathroom laws are trying to deny the legitimacy of transgendered people, by either denying that sex and gender are different or by saying that sex (instead of gender) should be the determining factor of which bathroom you use when the two are in conflict. I categorically disagree with these people.

The transgendered girl pictured above considers herself a woman, so she should go to the women's room. The man pictured above has no business in the women's restroom. He considers himself a man so he should go to the men's room. If we are to have bathroom laws, they need to split people based on gender rather than sex.

Cyaphas

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
  • Age: 41
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #88 on: May 18, 2016, 05:40:44 PM »
It seems dangerous to create laws based on peoples whims. I cannot decide in my heart that I'm a pilot, no matter what anyone else says, that's how I feel and then get up set when I can't take the Blackbird for a spin. What sex you are (for the most part) is undeniable. That something we can prove. How do you legislate peoples feelings and what kind of precedent would you be setting? Thought police, either positive or negative, is dangerous and unpredictable.

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #89 on: May 18, 2016, 05:59:56 PM »
It seems dangerous to create laws based on peoples whims. I cannot decide in my heart that I'm a pilot, no matter what anyone else says, that's how I feel and then get up set when I can't take the Blackbird for a spin. What sex you are (for the most part) is undeniable. That something we can prove. How do you legislate peoples feelings and what kind of precedent would you be setting? Thought police, either positive or negative, is dangerous and unpredictable.

Herein lies the issue. Being transgender is not in any sense a "whim." It is an innate quality that a person possesses. A person no more decides to be transgender than they decide to be gay, or black, or short.

Yes, sex is easier to prove than gender. That fact alone doesn't make it the proper factor to use when segregating people for bathroom usage. The legal system should be able to establish whether someone is a transgender woman or a cisgender man. The difference might not be quite as cut and dried as what sex organs a person has, but I also find it hard to believe that a person who typically dresses in a masculine fashion and uses male pronouns (and bathrooms), when caught entering a women's room to peep on the women inside would be able to convince a jury that they are in fact a transgender woman doing nothing wrong.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #90 on: May 18, 2016, 06:18:02 PM »
It seems dangerous to create laws based on peoples whims.

Do you think that transgender people go through a life of ridicule, hatred, expense, and enormous suffering because of a whim? Does that seem like the kind of thing you just do because it sounded like it might be fun? These people get surgery, take drugs for the rest of their life, etc. If that's your idea of a whim...

Cyaphas

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
  • Age: 41
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #91 on: May 18, 2016, 06:21:53 PM »

Herein lies the issue. Being transgender is not in any sense a "whim." It is an innate quality that a person possesses. A person no more decides to be transgender than they decide to be gay, or black, or short.


Black, short and gay can be easily, legally and clearly proven. What you're proposing can not.



The legal system should be able to establish whether someone is a transgender woman or a cisgender man.


The legal system already recognizes sex changes.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #92 on: May 18, 2016, 06:28:03 PM »
It seems dangerous to create laws based on peoples whims.

Do you think that transgender people go through a life of ridicule, hatred, expense, and enormous suffering because of a whim? Does that seem like the kind of thing you just do because it sounded like it might be fun? These people get surgery, take drugs for the rest of their life, etc. If that's your idea of a whim...

If you go through full sex reassignment surgery, I think it's pretty clear you've changed. 

If you have a penis and wear a dress or have a vagina and wear men's clothes, the line is more blurred. 

Cyaphas

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
  • Age: 41
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #93 on: May 18, 2016, 06:29:42 PM »
It seems dangerous to create laws based on peoples whims.

Do you think that transgender people go through a life of ridicule, hatred, expense, and enormous suffering because of a whim? Does that seem like the kind of thing you just do because it sounded like it might be fun? These people get surgery, take drugs for the rest of their life, etc. If that's your idea of a whim...

Back to the pilot analogy, if I were persecuted in every airport I went to and they wouldn't let me fly the planes I wanted because I felt like I was a pilot. I could start a movement or... I could spend the massive amount of time, effort and money to legally be recognized as a pilot. The same applies to changing your sex. It's not on the world to change for you. It's not the worlds burden to bare.

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #94 on: May 18, 2016, 06:47:07 PM »

Herein lies the issue. Being transgender is not in any sense a "whim." It is an innate quality that a person possesses. A person no more decides to be transgender than they decide to be gay, or black, or short.


Black, short and gay can be easily, legally and clearly proven. What you're proposing can not.

Really? How can we prove someone is gay? A gay man can look like any other man, and many gay men have even dated and been married to women in order to fit into society. At some point if someone says they're gay you have to look at their behavior to see whether you believe them or not. Transgender status seems very similar here. Someone who has "come out" as transgender will typically make every effort to appear as a member of their preferred gender. Forcing people who wear dresses, use women's names and pronouns, etc. to use the men's bathroom simply because they haven't yet decided to have surgery on their genitals makes zero sense and puts such individuals in very real danger.

Meanwhile the hypothetical of a perverted man claiming to be transgender in order to gain legal access to the women's room is just that: a hypothetical. Show me one occasion where such a charade holds up in court and we can talk. Any prosecutor should have zero trouble producing plenty of witnesses proving that the person in question does not actually act as a transgender person.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2016, 06:53:30 PM by seattlecyclone »

Cyaphas

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
  • Age: 41
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #95 on: May 18, 2016, 07:24:46 PM »

Really? How can we prove someone is gay? A gay man can look like any other man, and many gay men have even dated and been married to women in order to fit into society. At some point if someone says they're gay you have to look at their behavior to see whether you believe them or not.


I can link up some pornography that can make things like this very clear.


Transgender status seems very similar here. Someone who has "come out" as transgender will typically make every effort to appear as a member of their preferred gender. Forcing people who wear dresses, use women's names and pronouns, etc. to use the men's bathroom simply because they haven't yet decided to have surgery on their genitals makes zero sense and puts such individuals in very real danger.

It's not. No one's forcing them to do anything. Bathrooms are based on your sex. They always have been. What's in those restrooms and how they function are based on the sexes that use them. Assault is already illegal, do you blame rape victims for being scantily clad too?



Meanwhile the hypothetical of a perverted man claiming to be transgender in order to gain legal access to the women's room is just that: a hypothetical. Show me one occasion where such a charade holds up in court and we can talk. Any prosecutor should have zero trouble producing plenty of witnesses proving that the person in question does not actually act as a transgender person.

Somewhere in the US every night, I'll bet you hard money, bouncers throw perverted drunken idiots out of women's restrooms. A fairly common and stupid thing, but hey, it was survival of the barely adequate. If we legally recognize how people 'feel' every one of those bouncers could potentially be taken to court and sued for assault and a slew of other bullshit. All it would take is for the man to say how he felt at the time. Not the day before, not today, just at the time. You could parade every witness through court that was there and still the defense couldn't do squat because none of those witnesses could prove that he was or wasn't feeling feminine at the time. The only evidence we could have to go off of relating to his feelings is him.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #96 on: May 18, 2016, 07:50:43 PM »

Herein lies the issue. Being transgender is not in any sense a "whim." It is an innate quality that a person possesses. A person no more decides to be transgender than they decide to be gay, or black, or short.


Black, short and gay can be easily, legally and clearly proven. What you're proposing can not.

Really? How can we prove someone is gay? A gay man can look like any other man, and many gay men have even dated and been married to women in order to fit into society. At some point if someone says they're gay you have to look at their behavior to see whether you believe them or not. Transgender status seems very similar here. Someone who has "come out" as transgender will typically make every effort to appear as a member of their preferred gender. Forcing people who wear dresses, use women's names and pronouns, etc. to use the men's bathroom simply because they haven't yet decided to have surgery on their genitals makes zero sense and puts such individuals in very real danger.

Few things 1) assault is illegal.  If a person with penis is wearing a dress in the men's restroom (or vice versa), they shouldn't be assaulted.  I'm sure it has happened but, I don't hear of it frequently. I suspect it occurs about as frequently as perverts wearing dresses to look at naked women 2) Since you are arguing safety, a person with female genitalia in a boys high school locker room is in more danger in that environment, than in the girls locker room. If this was about safety, no one would argue that someone with female sex organs should be in a boys locker room.  It's beyond a bad idea.  3) We have a historical and scientific definition of sex.  I get that these people feel outside the norm and I'm not condemning them for that.  To those inside the norm, however, it's uncomfortable being naked (locker rooms especially) with someone who possess different sex organs than them.  There is at least some recognition of that or we would be arguing for unisex locker rooms for all.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2016, 07:54:28 PM by Midwest »

Cyaphas

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
  • Age: 41
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #97 on: May 18, 2016, 08:09:47 PM »

I get that these people feel outside the norm and I'm not condemning them for that.  To those inside the norm, however, it's uncomfortable being naked (locker rooms especially) with someone who possess different sex organs than them.


It's ok for normal people to be uncomfortable, just not the special people. Not that I know a lot of people who are comfortable in a locker room. Is it ok for a Cisgender female to play Helicopter in the girls locker room?

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #98 on: May 18, 2016, 09:18:51 PM »

Really? How can we prove someone is gay? A gay man can look like any other man, and many gay men have even dated and been married to women in order to fit into society. At some point if someone says they're gay you have to look at their behavior to see whether you believe them or not.


I can link up some pornography that can make things like this very clear.


I don't get your meaning. What ironclad "gayness" test do you propose?

Quote
It's not. No one's forcing them to do anything. Bathrooms are based on your sex. They always have been. What's in those restrooms and how they function are based on the sexes that use them.

Citation needed. For a long time it's just been assumed that sex and gender are always the same. Now that we know that's not the case, it's impossible to say which was meant to take precedence. Never have we had genital inspectors at the entrance to the bathroom, so it seems that actual sex has never been all that important. Go into the one that matches your gender presentation and nobody will bat an eye. Furthermore, you could look at the signs: they have a picture of skirt/no skirt. If the bathroom was supposed to be segregated based on sex instead of gender, wouldn't it be more appropriate to put penises and vaginas on the signs?

Quote
Assault is already illegal, do you blame rape victims for being scantily clad too?

Of course not. You know what else is illegal? Being a peeping tom. There's no need whatsoever to force people into a bathroom contrary to their gender identity if the existing laws are good enough.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: bathrooms
« Reply #99 on: May 19, 2016, 04:37:07 AM »
seattlecyclone is right bathrooms are not categorized by sex anyway but by gender. There are more than two sexes and for years not "male" or "females" have been using both or either. Or it could be thought of that regardless of categorization by sex or gender that the categorization has been built on a false narrative of there being only two in each category. Which there is not.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!