bathrooms

[brett2k07]

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.

That's what bathrooms do already and have done for years. It only furthers the argument that the legislation in North Carolina should not have been brought. But if we're going to repeal the legislation and keep things status-quo, we also have to drop this idea that anybody that questions someone that looks out of place is automatically an "X"-phobic, or sexist, or whatever the popular term of the week is. A father questioning why a bearded individual dressed in masculine clothing is walking into the YMCA women's locker room where his two daughters are changing clothes should not automatically garner him any of those derogatory labels.

[golden1]

This isn't hard, this is easy.

Let people go into the bathroom they feel comfortable using.  Mind your own business.  If someone decides to try to commit a crime in a bathroom, arrest them.

This is all so stupid because there is no way to enforce this new law without doing a strip search combined with a birth certificate check.  So what is the point?  It obviously is not going to be feasible to implement this so even if you felt like this would somehow make things "safer" it won't actually protect anybody.  Not one single person will be "protected" by this law. 

If you think for thirty seconds about this whole issue, it is fairly obvious that a) most people have no understanding of what it means to be transgender and b) it is really about people's discomfort with the idea that gender is not as concrete as they would like to believe. 

[hoping2retire35]

Seems like everyone is forgetting gender is a social construct(only real in our minds and attitudes) as opposed to sex; we are born boys and girls but learn to behave in male and female roles(the degree and way is based on culture, etc)* and as far as I can tell everyone is basing their arguments around gender, something that is not really real(or atleast does not really matter).

I am pretty sure we have all shared a bathroom with a trans person at some point and it wasn't an issue then, it's only a problem because governments got involved. Though it would have been better for Charlotte and NC to keep quiet I think the real problem came when the feds involved Title IX which will translate to not questioning someone's self identification(which remember is learned and someone can "change their mind" on a whim. I am sure there are people who are suffering and want to just to get along and be accepted but their are a lot more who want to destroy and remake our culture (including the idea of gender) and that is where the train will come off the rails.

people who keep saying trans people need a safe place are forgetting(not realizing) that that is not the problem, its the people who want to cause disruptions.

*since someone will mention this and not stay in the normal bounds of argumentative reasoning where the exception becomes the rule Ill go ahead and mention that something like 1/2,000 which is the high number, of individuals born some variation of intersex.

[rosaz]

Let people go into the bathroom they feel comfortable using.  Mind your own business.  If someone decides to try to commit a crime in a bathroom, arrest them.

Why does the top advice only apply to violence in the women's room, and not violence on transgender women in the men's room? I'd also argue that most of the issue isn't about bathrooms, it's about locker rooms, dorm rooms, prison cells, homeless shelters. Even if no crime is committed, many people just feel uncomfortable with having to be naked in front of people of the opposite anatomy.

This is all so stupid because there is no way to enforce this new law without doing a strip search combined with a birth certificate check. 

I have no issue with transgender women using my locker room if no one is being made uncomfortable (that is, I disagree with both the NC law and Obama's directive). But if someone in the locker room at my YMCA (regardless of gender or sex) is being voyeuristic/exhibitionist, I'd like a YMCA employee to be able to ask them to use a single stall instead without risking a lawsuit. I'm concerned that with the Obama/Charlotte laws, if the perpetrator was biologically male, discrimination could be alleged and the YMCA sued, and the only defense would be for a witness/victim to try and prove that the you-know-it-when-you-see-it-but-it's-hard-to-prove-in-court line between appropriate and inappropriate behavior was crossed.

it is really about people's discomfort with the idea that gender is not as concrete as they would like to believe.

Actually I'd say I'm uncomfortable because the law seems to make gender a very concrete, binary thing. I'm a biological female who looks stereotypically female, but I've never identified with either gender, and the idea that I have to now seems very regressive to me. Locker room segregation by biological sex was always just a straightforward statement of your equipment; it never asked you to put something as complex and fluid as your psychological identity in one of two boxes. I've had a lot of negative experiences with people pigeonholing me on the basis of "gender", and I'm frustrated that progressives now seem to be championing a very rigid gender binary.

[Sailor Sam]

That's what bathrooms do already and have done for years. It only furthers the argument that the legislation in North Carolina should not have been brought. But if we're going to repeal the legislation and keep things status-quo, we also have to drop this idea that anybody that questions someone that looks out of place is automatically an "X"-phobic, or sexist, or whatever the popular term of the week is. A father questioning why a bearded individual dressed in masculine clothing is walking into the YMCA women's locker room where his two daughters are changing clothes should not automatically garner him any of those derogatory labels.

Would you be less alarmed to see a woman go into the YMCA locker room where his two sons were changing clothes?

One of the major arguments in this thread is that male creepers will somehow be granted free access to the bathroom of their creeper choice, free to legally creep away on our defenseless daughters. To me, it harkens straight back to the old, tired rag about men being unable to control their lusts, and women being utterly unable to defend themselves.

If the idea of men in the women's bathroom makes you fear for you daughter, consider sign her up for some self-defense classes. It will stand them in good stead no matter the strange circumstances. As other's have noted, there's nothing currently magical about the Women's sign posted on the bathroom door. It's not a ward keeping males out, nor can it differentiate between a full bladder and bad intent. 

[Cressida]

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.

As in all of my comments on this thread, I'm going to reiterate that I'm not staking out a position. I'm here out of curiosity about what people are saying about this issue.

That said: There are more than two sexes? How do you figure? Sure, there's male and there's female, and there's a tiny percentage of intersex people. But intersex people* have some combination of male and female physical attributes. The condition doesn't come about because of attributes from some third sex being thrown into the mix.

So, I get (1) male, (2) female, and (3) some combination of the two (rarely). That's still only two sexes.

What do you mean exactly? I know you can't be talking about gender fluidity, because you distinguish sex and gender in your first sentence.


*who - I feel it should be mentioned - don't really have anything to do with trans people.

[Metric Mouse]

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?


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.

I like that you propose public policy based on cartoon characters on signs.  There's a bar in town I can't go to, because I'd be unable to use the restroom because I am neither a 'cowboy' nor a 'cowgirl'....

[Spork]

That's what bathrooms do already and have done for years. It only furthers the argument that the legislation in North Carolina should not have been brought. But if we're going to repeal the legislation and keep things status-quo, we also have to drop this idea that anybody that questions someone that looks out of place is automatically an "X"-phobic, or sexist, or whatever the popular term of the week is. A father questioning why a bearded individual dressed in masculine clothing is walking into the YMCA women's locker room where his two daughters are changing clothes should not automatically garner him any of those derogatory labels.

Would you be less alarmed to see a woman go into the YMCA locker room where his two sons were changing clothes?

One of the major arguments in this thread is that male creepers will somehow be granted free access to the bathroom of their creeper choice, free to legally creep away on our defenseless daughters. To me, it harkens straight back to the old, tired rag about men being unable to control their lusts, and women being utterly unable to defend themselves.

If the idea of men in the women's bathroom makes you fear for you daughter, consider sign her up for some self-defense classes. It will stand them in good stead no matter the strange circumstances. As other's have noted, there's nothing currently magical about the Women's sign posted on the bathroom door. It's not a ward keeping males out, nor can it differentiate between a full bladder and bad intent.

The funny thing is: Neither side of the law solves the "man walking into women's restroom" issue.
* Use the bathroom you are comfortable with: You see born male/identifies female going into women's restroom.  OMYGOD!
* Use the bathroom of the genitalia you were born with: You see a bearded born female/identifies male following the law and walking into the women's restroom.  OMYGOD!

At this point, you're stuck and have to move onto something that the rest of the world calls "real problems."

[dycker1978]

I think the hate filled people need to educate them selves.

First there started discrimination against any one other then white.  Then the women were not aloud to vote, or have the same rights, because they were the "weaker sex", then gay people were not allowed to have the same rights, now it is transgender people.

Why can the people who hate just not admit that they don't understand something, so it is just easier to not educate, but to hate?

There is scientific proof out there that every person has the same chromosomal make up, an that the only difference in the amount of pigment in your skin...

It is also proven that some Trans people have a different chromosomal structure that what is "common".  For example a girl that is typically XX can be born XXY(girl body) but with the Y chromosome, fell like a boy.

The biggest issue I have with this is that trans people, just want to be left to live their lives.  They are not hurting anyone.  They just want to be who they are.  How is it any body's right to tell them they are not.  People who are committing the crimes need to be arrested. 

The funniest part of this whole argument to me is people saying "you can have guns laws, criminals don't follow the laws, it is only going to be the law abiding people to follow the laws." on one hand, and on the other "you better make it a law that only certain people can use the restrooms..." 

Because perverts who want to get into a female washroom to do unmentionable things will listen to the law... unlike the criminals who don't follow the gun laws right?

[ncornilsen]

I think the hate filled people need to educate them selves.

First there started discrimination against any one other then white.  Then the women were not aloud to vote, or have the same rights, because they were the "weaker sex", then gay people were not allowed to have the same rights, now it is transgender people.

Why can the people who hate just not admit that they don't understand something, so it is just easier to not educate, but to hate?

There is scientific proof out there that every person has the same chromosomal make up, an that the only difference in the amount of pigment in your skin...

It is also proven that some Trans people have a different chromosomal structure that what is "common".  For example a girl that is typically XX can be born XXY(girl body) but with the Y chromosome, fell like a boy.

The biggest issue I have with this is that trans people, just want to be left to live their lives.  They are not hurting anyone.  They just want to be who they are.  How is it any body's right to tell them they are not.  People who are committing the crimes need to be arrested. 

The funniest part of this whole argument to me is people saying "you can have guns laws, criminals don't follow the laws, it is only going to be the law abiding people to follow the laws." on one hand, and on the other "you better make it a law that only certain people can use the restrooms..." 

Because perverts who want to get into a female washroom to do unmentionable things will listen to the law... unlike the criminals who don't follow the gun laws right?

Thanks for bringing up the gun thing... You can look at it the other way, and the pro-trans people are the hypocrites. Except the anti-gunners, who tend to be democrats, are hypocrites in the same way on a whole SLEW of other issues.

But not to digress..

My issue is NOT with transgendered people. I could give a shit less if someone born with a dick feels like they shouldn't have been so equipped. Whatever, use the bathroom you feel comfortable with.

Its the abuse that will come from upending this social custom that is, and will be problematic. I absolutely know some teenage boys are going to feel gender fluid just to get attention or whatnot, and I think that makes light and is insulting to those who really have a gender identity crisis they're struggling with.

I know you don't think there will be abuse, but I disagree, and beleive it or not, someone can disagree with the LGBTQWTFBBQ agenda and it can be about something besides hate.

I'd probably not have any issue if the policy at schools was "You can change your student ID to the gender you feel like, at most once per school year. Enforce use accordingly." Make it  a RFID card or something.  Adults out in public

[sol]

Its the abuse that will come from upending this social custom that is, and will be problematic.

If we're worried about abuse that happens in bathrooms, why not just make the abuse illegal?

Oh wait we've already done that.  These new laws criminalize people who have done nothing wrong, while providing zero additional protection against people who do wrong. 

We don't criminalize driving while black because we're worried a black person might commit a crime.  We criminalize the actual crimes, and try not to discriminate against minorities who are trying to peacefully exercise the same rights as everyone else.  Why can't we apply the same rules to bathrooms?  Fear of crimes that might happen is not a good reason to ban black people from driving, or trans people from using public restrooms.

[dycker1978]

I think the hate filled people need to educate them selves.

First there started discrimination against any one other then white.  Then the women were not aloud to vote, or have the same rights, because they were the "weaker sex", then gay people were not allowed to have the same rights, now it is transgender people.

Why can the people who hate just not admit that they don't understand something, so it is just easier to not educate, but to hate?

There is scientific proof out there that every person has the same chromosomal make up, an that the only difference in the amount of pigment in your skin...

It is also proven that some Trans people have a different chromosomal structure that what is "common".  For example a girl that is typically XX can be born XXY(girl body) but with the Y chromosome, fell like a boy.

The biggest issue I have with this is that trans people, just want to be left to live their lives.  They are not hurting anyone.  They just want to be who they are.  How is it any body's right to tell them they are not.  People who are committing the crimes need to be arrested. 

The funniest part of this whole argument to me is people saying "you can have guns laws, criminals don't follow the laws, it is only going to be the law abiding people to follow the laws." on one hand, and on the other "you better make it a law that only certain people can use the restrooms..." 

Because perverts who want to get into a female washroom to do unmentionable things will listen to the law... unlike the criminals who don't follow the gun laws right?

Thanks for bringing up the gun thing... You can look at it the other way, and the pro-trans people are the hypocrites. Except the anti-gunners, who tend to be democrats, are hypocrites in the same way on a whole SLEW of other issues.

But not to digress..

My issue is NOT with transgendered people. I could give a shit less if someone born with a dick feels like they shouldn't have been so equipped. Whatever, use the bathroom you feel comfortable with.

Its the abuse that will come from upending this social custom that is, and will be problematic. I absolutely know some teenage boys are going to feel gender fluid just to get attention or whatnot, and I think that makes light and is insulting to those who really have a gender identity crisis they're struggling with.

I know you don't think there will be abuse, but I disagree, and beleive it or not, someone can disagree with the LGBTQWTFBBQ agenda and it can be about something besides hate.

I'd probably not have any issue if the policy at schools was "You can change your student ID to the gender you feel like, at most once per school year. Enforce use accordingly." Make it  a RFID card or something.  Adults out in public

I believe the only LGBT agenda is equal rights.  So to disagree with it is pretty much about hate.

[Kris]

Its the abuse that will come from upending this social custom that is, and will be problematic.

If we're worried about abuse that happens in bathrooms, why not just make the abuse illegal?

Oh wait we've already done that.  These new laws criminalize people who have done nothing wrong, while providing zero additional protection against people who do wrong. 

We don't criminalize driving while black because we're worried a black person might commit a crime.  We criminalize the actual crimes, and try not to discriminate against minorities who are trying to peacefully exercise the same rights as everyone else.  Why can't we apply the same rules to bathrooms?  Fear of crimes that might happen is not a good reason to ban black people from driving, or trans people from using public restrooms.

This.

Although for me, it's more analogous to not allowing black people to drive because we're afraid that Asians will commit a crime.   Because the argument I keep seeing is that we shouldn't let trans people use the bathroom they are more comfortable with because non-trans people will commit crimes.  So, um, WTF?

[Kris]

I think the hate filled people need to educate them selves.

First there started discrimination against any one other then white.  Then the women were not aloud to vote, or have the same rights, because they were the "weaker sex", then gay people were not allowed to have the same rights, now it is transgender people.

Why can the people who hate just not admit that they don't understand something, so it is just easier to not educate, but to hate?

There is scientific proof out there that every person has the same chromosomal make up, an that the only difference in the amount of pigment in your skin...

It is also proven that some Trans people have a different chromosomal structure that what is "common".  For example a girl that is typically XX can be born XXY(girl body) but with the Y chromosome, fell like a boy.

The biggest issue I have with this is that trans people, just want to be left to live their lives.  They are not hurting anyone.  They just want to be who they are.  How is it any body's right to tell them they are not.  People who are committing the crimes need to be arrested. 

The funniest part of this whole argument to me is people saying "you can have guns laws, criminals don't follow the laws, it is only going to be the law abiding people to follow the laws." on one hand, and on the other "you better make it a law that only certain people can use the restrooms..." 

Because perverts who want to get into a female washroom to do unmentionable things will listen to the law... unlike the criminals who don't follow the gun laws right?

Thanks for bringing up the gun thing... You can look at it the other way, and the pro-trans people are the hypocrites. Except the anti-gunners, who tend to be democrats, are hypocrites in the same way on a whole SLEW of other issues.

But not to digress..

My issue is NOT with transgendered people. I could give a shit less if someone born with a dick feels like they shouldn't have been so equipped. Whatever, use the bathroom you feel comfortable with.

Its the abuse that will come from upending this social custom that is, and will be problematic. I absolutely know some teenage boys are going to feel gender fluid just to get attention or whatnot, and I think that makes light and is insulting to those who really have a gender identity crisis they're struggling with.

I know you don't think there will be abuse, but I disagree, and beleive it or not, someone can disagree with the LGBTQWTFBBQ agenda and it can be about something besides hate.

I'd probably not have any issue if the policy at schools was "You can change your student ID to the gender you feel like, at most once per school year. Enforce use accordingly." Make it  a RFID card or something.  Adults out in public

Wow.  The tone of condescension toward trans people here is just... kind of stunning.

[ncornilsen]

Its the abuse that will come from upending this social custom that is, and will be problematic.

If we're worried about abuse that happens in bathrooms, why not just make the abuse illegal?

Oh wait we've already done that.  These new laws criminalize people who have done nothing wrong, while providing zero additional protection against people who do wrong. 

We don't criminalize driving while black because we're worried a black person might commit a crime.  We criminalize the actual crimes, and try not to discriminate against minorities who are trying to peacefully exercise the same rights as everyone else.  Why can't we apply the same rules to bathrooms?  Fear of crimes that might happen is not a good reason to ban black people from driving, or trans people from using public restrooms.

I think the hate filled people need to educate them selves.

First there started discrimination against any one other then white.  Then the women were not aloud to vote, or have the same rights, because they were the "weaker sex", then gay people were not allowed to have the same rights, now it is transgender people.

Why can the people who hate just not admit that they don't understand something, so it is just easier to not educate, but to hate?

There is scientific proof out there that every person has the same chromosomal make up, an that the only difference in the amount of pigment in your skin...

It is also proven that some Trans people have a different chromosomal structure that what is "common".  For example a girl that is typically XX can be born XXY(girl body) but with the Y chromosome, fell like a boy.

The biggest issue I have with this is that trans people, just want to be left to live their lives.  They are not hurting anyone.  They just want to be who they are.  How is it any body's right to tell them they are not.  People who are committing the crimes need to be arrested. 

The funniest part of this whole argument to me is people saying "you can have guns laws, criminals don't follow the laws, it is only going to be the law abiding people to follow the laws." on one hand, and on the other "you better make it a law that only certain people can use the restrooms..." 

Because perverts who want to get into a female washroom to do unmentionable things will listen to the law... unlike the criminals who don't follow the gun laws right?

Thanks for bringing up the gun thing... You can look at it the other way, and the pro-trans people are the hypocrites. Except the anti-gunners, who tend to be democrats, are hypocrites in the same way on a whole SLEW of other issues.

But not to digress..

My issue is NOT with transgendered people. I could give a shit less if someone born with a dick feels like they shouldn't have been so equipped. Whatever, use the bathroom you feel comfortable with.

Its the abuse that will come from upending this social custom that is, and will be problematic. I absolutely know some teenage boys are going to feel gender fluid just to get attention or whatnot, and I think that makes light and is insulting to those who really have a gender identity crisis they're struggling with.

I know you don't think there will be abuse, but I disagree, and beleive it or not, someone can disagree with the LGBTQWTFBBQ agenda and it can be about something besides hate.

I'd probably not have any issue if the policy at schools was "You can change your student ID to the gender you feel like, at most once per school year. Enforce use accordingly." Make it  a RFID card or something.  Adults out in public

Wow.  The tone of condescension toward trans people here is just... kind of stunning.

I was not aware I was required to display enthusiastic support. I can go as far as saying that I can kind of understand how it might feel to be trapped in a body that you don't identify with, and that would be difficult, but I'm not going to be a cheerleader for it. I'm good with live and let live.

I believe the only LGBT agenda is equal rights.  So to disagree with it is pretty much about hate.

I don't agree that equality is the only part of their agenda.  Or that they're entitled to be celebrated... a lot of what is being requested seems to be way beyond equality.

If we're worried about abuse that happens in bathrooms, why not just make the abuse illegal?

Oh wait we've already done that.  These new laws criminalize people who have done nothing wrong, while providing zero additional protection against people who do wrong. 

We don't criminalize driving while black because we're worried a black person might commit a crime.  We criminalize the actual crimes, and try not to discriminate against minorities who are trying to peacefully exercise the same rights as everyone else.  Why can't we apply the same rules to bathrooms?  Fear of crimes that might happen is not a good reason to ban black people from driving, or trans people from using public restrooms

Have I stated support for these new laws? I believe they're problematic. I also think it's problematic to make it a free-for-all with hormone driven teens in schools.

And for the record, making something illegal doesn't unrape someone. As hard as it is for a woman to come forward when that happens, how are they going to do it when she's just as likely to be called a bigot and sued as she is to get someone to take it seriously?  How can you deny that a Men's room creates a space where a woman would immediately be a signal that they're up to no good? How can you not see that kind of thing as a problem? Are you that blinded by your ideology? You could at least admit you see it could be an issue but think it probably won't, but I have yet to see even THAT bit of intellectual honesty.

[dycker1978]

I believe the only LGBT agenda is equal rights.  So to disagree with it is pretty much about hate.

I don't agree that equality is the only part of their agenda.  Or that they're entitled to be celebrated... a lot of what is being requested seems to be way beyond equality.

Please explain to me what they are requesting that is beyond equality.  The fact that they want to marry?  I just don't understand.

I guess giving someone the same rights that you have all ways had can feel a lot like people are trying to oppress you.

[Kris]

Its the abuse that will come from upending this social custom that is, and will be problematic.

If we're worried about abuse that happens in bathrooms, why not just make the abuse illegal?

Oh wait we've already done that.  These new laws criminalize people who have done nothing wrong, while providing zero additional protection against people who do wrong. 

We don't criminalize driving while black because we're worried a black person might commit a crime.  We criminalize the actual crimes, and try not to discriminate against minorities who are trying to peacefully exercise the same rights as everyone else.  Why can't we apply the same rules to bathrooms?  Fear of crimes that might happen is not a good reason to ban black people from driving, or trans people from using public restrooms.

I think the hate filled people need to educate them selves.

First there started discrimination against any one other then white.  Then the women were not aloud to vote, or have the same rights, because they were the "weaker sex", then gay people were not allowed to have the same rights, now it is transgender people.

Why can the people who hate just not admit that they don't understand something, so it is just easier to not educate, but to hate?

There is scientific proof out there that every person has the same chromosomal make up, an that the only difference in the amount of pigment in your skin...

It is also proven that some Trans people have a different chromosomal structure that what is "common".  For example a girl that is typically XX can be born XXY(girl body) but with the Y chromosome, fell like a boy.

The biggest issue I have with this is that trans people, just want to be left to live their lives.  They are not hurting anyone.  They just want to be who they are.  How is it any body's right to tell them they are not.  People who are committing the crimes need to be arrested. 

The funniest part of this whole argument to me is people saying "you can have guns laws, criminals don't follow the laws, it is only going to be the law abiding people to follow the laws." on one hand, and on the other "you better make it a law that only certain people can use the restrooms..." 

Because perverts who want to get into a female washroom to do unmentionable things will listen to the law... unlike the criminals who don't follow the gun laws right?

Thanks for bringing up the gun thing... You can look at it the other way, and the pro-trans people are the hypocrites. Except the anti-gunners, who tend to be democrats, are hypocrites in the same way on a whole SLEW of other issues.

But not to digress..

My issue is NOT with transgendered people. I could give a shit less if someone born with a dick feels like they shouldn't have been so equipped. Whatever, use the bathroom you feel comfortable with.

Its the abuse that will come from upending this social custom that is, and will be problematic. I absolutely know some teenage boys are going to feel gender fluid just to get attention or whatnot, and I think that makes light and is insulting to those who really have a gender identity crisis they're struggling with.

I know you don't think there will be abuse, but I disagree, and beleive it or not, someone can disagree with the LGBTQWTFBBQ agenda and it can be about something besides hate.

I'd probably not have any issue if the policy at schools was "You can change your student ID to the gender you feel like, at most once per school year. Enforce use accordingly." Make it  a RFID card or something.  Adults out in public

Wow.  The tone of condescension toward trans people here is just... kind of stunning.

I was not aware I was required to display enthusiastic support. I can go as far as saying that I can kind of understand how it might feel to be trapped in a body that you don't identify with, and that would be difficult, but I'm not going to be a cheerleader for it. I'm good with live and let live.

"Live and let live" is not how I would characterize your statements above.  Maybe, "Live and mock."  And no, you are not "required" to do anything. Clearly.  But I think there's a pretty wide chasm between "display enthusiastic support" and perhaps just "not go out of your way to use snideness in your tone."  Live and let live falls somewhere in the middle.  And just as you are exercising your right to say what you please, I'm exercising my right to point out that in this case, saying what you please is pretty contemptuous and dismissive toward your fellow human beings.

[ncornilsen]

I believe the only LGBT agenda is equal rights.  So to disagree with it is pretty much about hate.

I don't agree that equality is the only part of their agenda.  Or that they're entitled to be celebrated... a lot of what is being requested seems to be way beyond equality.

Please explain to me what they are requesting that is beyond equality.  The fact that they want to marry?  I just don't understand.

I guess giving someone the same rights that you have all ways had can feel a lot like people are trying to oppress you.

did I saw anything about marriage? I am A-OK with that.

And I don't recall every having the right to 'never have to be offended.' seems to be a privilege I've never been afforded.

I'm not OK with it being considered "hate speech" to use the wrong pronoun when referring to someone.
That anything but unconditional support for anyone identifying themselves as anything at any time for any reason is hatred.

[dycker1978]

I believe the only LGBT agenda is equal rights.  So to disagree with it is pretty much about hate.

I don't agree that equality is the only part of their agenda.  Or that they're entitled to be celebrated... a lot of what is being requested seems to be way beyond equality.

Please explain to me what they are requesting that is beyond equality.  The fact that they want to marry?  I just don't understand.

I guess giving someone the same rights that you have all ways had can feel a lot like people are trying to oppress you.

did I saw anything about marriage? I am A-OK with that.

And I don't recall every having the right to 'never have to be offended.' seems to be a privilege I've never been afforded.

I'm not OK with it being considered "hate speech" to use the wrong pronoun when referring to someone.
That anything but unconditional support for anyone identifying themselves as anything at any time for any reason is hatred.

That was a grand total of zero amount that is beyond equality.

Two things that stand out here...

1. You are allowed to be offended.  Of course this is true.  But to be offended for someone being who they are, well that is just dumb.

2. This is kinds two parts here... One how would you feel if some one constantly referred to you with the wrong pronoun?  I for one would not feel good about my self, it would probably be very hard on the self esteem,  two - how hard is it to respect some ones pronouns.  we do it all the time with dogs.  "She is a cute dog...you mean he... ops sorry he is a cute dog"  With people offence is taken.

I don't know why it is so hard for some just to respect people and let them be who they are.  In this case, trans people just want to pee.

[ncornilsen]

I believe the only LGBT agenda is equal rights.  So to disagree with it is pretty much about hate.

I don't agree that equality is the only part of their agenda.  Or that they're entitled to be celebrated... a lot of what is being requested seems to be way beyond equality.

Please explain to me what they are requesting that is beyond equality.  The fact that they want to marry?  I just don't understand.

I guess giving someone the same rights that you have all ways had can feel a lot like people are trying to oppress you.

did I saw anything about marriage? I am A-OK with that.

And I don't recall every having the right to 'never have to be offended.' seems to be a privilege I've never been afforded.

I'm not OK with it being considered "hate speech" to use the wrong pronoun when referring to someone.
That anything but unconditional support for anyone identifying themselves as anything at any time for any reason is hatred.

That was a grand total of zero amount that is beyond equality.

Two things that stand out here...

1. You are allowed to be offended.  Of course this is true.  But to be offended for someone being who they are, well that is just dumb.

2. This is kinds two parts here... One how would you feel if some one constantly referred to you with the wrong pronoun?  I for one would not feel good about my self, it would probably be very hard on the self esteem,  two - how hard is it to respect some ones pronouns.  we do it all the time with dogs.  "She is a cute dog...you mean he... ops sorry he is a cute dog"  With people offence is taken.

I'd not like it a bit. But making a moving target, and immediately being offended when I haven't happened to call you the one you chose for yourself today, is nonsense. Especially when it now carries penalties in some jurisdictions: http://www.snopes.com/transgender-pronouns-fine-nyc/  Yeah, you'd have to be a jerk to get fined in this situation, but that's a protection nobody else is afforded.

[dycker1978]

I believe the only LGBT agenda is equal rights.  So to disagree with it is pretty much about hate.

I don't agree that equality is the only part of their agenda.  Or that they're entitled to be celebrated... a lot of what is being requested seems to be way beyond equality.

Please explain to me what they are requesting that is beyond equality.  The fact that they want to marry?  I just don't understand.

I guess giving someone the same rights that you have all ways had can feel a lot like people are trying to oppress you.

did I saw anything about marriage? I am A-OK with that.

And I don't recall every having the right to 'never have to be offended.' seems to be a privilege I've never been afforded.

I'm not OK with it being considered "hate speech" to use the wrong pronoun when referring to someone.
That anything but unconditional support for anyone identifying themselves as anything at any time for any reason is hatred.

That was a grand total of zero amount that is beyond equality.

Two things that stand out here...

1. You are allowed to be offended.  Of course this is true.  But to be offended for someone being who they are, well that is just dumb.

2. This is kinds two parts here... One how would you feel if some one constantly referred to you with the wrong pronoun?  I for one would not feel good about my self, it would probably be very hard on the self esteem,  two - how hard is it to respect some ones pronouns.  we do it all the time with dogs.  "She is a cute dog...you mean he... ops sorry he is a cute dog"  With people offence is taken.

I'd not like it a bit. But making a moving target, and immediately being offended when I haven't happened to call you the one you chose for yourself today, is nonsense. Especially when it now carries penalties in some jurisdictions: http://www.snopes.com/transgender-pronouns-fine-nyc/  Yeah, you'd have to be a jerk to get fined in this situation, but that's a protection nobody else is afforded.

Fair, but I know many many Trans people.  Every single one of them, if anyone was to screw up their pronouns would correct you.  Then the conversation would carry on.  If you were to misgender them on purpose or make fun then there would be hell to pay.

[Yaeger]

I think anti-discrimination laws are ridiculous. You have every right to be a bigoted, racist, sexist asshole and I'll defend your right to be such. I'm not going to pretend that by passing a law we're somehow 'fixing' these people and society, and that these problems don't find a way to resurface in the future.

Also, society self-corrects. If you don't want to hire the most skilled worker because of their race, then you're going to be less competitive in the market and it'll hurt your business. If you don't want to bake a cake for a certain race or gender, you should have every right to refuse service and lose out on the profit you would otherwise be entitled to. If being a bad human being is more important than your business, but you should have every right to make that bad business decision.

[pbkmaine]

My sentiments:

[forummm]

I think anti-discrimination laws are ridiculous. You have every right to be a bigoted, racist, sexist asshole and I'll defend your right to be such. I'm not going to pretend that by passing a law we're somehow 'fixing' these people and society, and that these problems don't find a way to resurface in the future.

Also, society self-corrects. If you don't want to hire the most skilled worker because of their race, then you're going to be less competitive in the market and it'll hurt your business. If you don't want to bake a cake for a certain race or gender, you should have every right to refuse service and lose out on the profit you would otherwise be entitled to. If being a bad human being is more important than your business, but you should have every right to make that bad business decision.

That argument wasn't true during the slavery era and wasn't true during the Jim Crow era and isn't true now. Hatred often easily overcomes economic sensibilities. It took laws and federal enforcement of laws to move us further towards progress.

[sol]

Also, society self-corrects. If you don't want to hire the most skilled worker because of their race, then you're going to be less competitive in the market and it'll hurt your business.

Yea, I'm sure Rosa Parks would have been better off to just mind her own business and let that bus company slowly become less competitive in the public transportation marketplace by discriminating against the coloreds.

I hear what you're trying to say, but I don't think you've thought it through very carefully.  Was Jim Crow going to fix itself?  Was DOMA going to be repealed by market forces?  Was the 19th Amendment a violation of my rights as a man to deny the vote to women?  How about the minimum wage and child labor laws, those definitely made companies less competitive but they were still the right thing to do.

Equal rights are not something that we, as a society, are content to stand back from and hope that capitalism works it all out for us.  It has never worked that way. 

[Yaeger]

I think anti-discrimination laws are ridiculous. You have every right to be a bigoted, racist, sexist asshole and I'll defend your right to be such. I'm not going to pretend that by passing a law we're somehow 'fixing' these people and society, and that these problems don't find a way to resurface in the future.

Also, society self-corrects. If you don't want to hire the most skilled worker because of their race, then you're going to be less competitive in the market and it'll hurt your business. If you don't want to bake a cake for a certain race or gender, you should have every right to refuse service and lose out on the profit you would otherwise be entitled to. If being a bad human being is more important than your business, but you should have every right to make that bad business decision.

That argument wasn't true during the slavery era and wasn't true during the Jim Crow era and isn't true now. Hatred often easily overcomes economic sensibilities. It took laws and federal enforcement of laws to move us further towards progress.

Hatred is not equal to the denial of basic freedoms and rights under law. You can hate someone yet still treat them as equals with all of the freedoms and rights that it entails.

[Yaeger]

Also, society self-corrects. If you don't want to hire the most skilled worker because of their race, then you're going to be less competitive in the market and it'll hurt your business.

Yea, I'm sure Rosa Parks would have been better off to just mind her own business and let that bus company slowly become less competitive in the public transportation marketplace by discriminating against the coloreds.

I hear what you're trying to say, but I don't think you've thought it through very carefully.  Was Jim Crow going to fix itself?  Was DOMA going to be repealed by market forces?  Was the 19th Amendment a violation of my rights as a man to deny the vote to women?  How about the minimum wage and child labor laws, those definitely made companies less competitive but they were still the right thing to do.

Equal rights are not something that we, as a society, are content to stand back from and hope that capitalism works it all out for us.  It has never worked that way.

Don't confuse the removal of anti-discrimination laws with laws that actively discriminate. They're not the same.

[dycker1978]

I think anti-discrimination laws are ridiculous. You have every right to be a bigoted, racist, sexist asshole and I'll defend your right to be such. I'm not going to pretend that by passing a law we're somehow 'fixing' these people and society, and that these problems don't find a way to resurface in the future.

Also, society self-corrects. If you don't want to hire the most skilled worker because of their race, then you're going to be less competitive in the market and it'll hurt your business. If you don't want to bake a cake for a certain race or gender, you should have every right to refuse service and lose out on the profit you would otherwise be entitled to. If being a bad human being is more important than your business, but you should have every right to make that bad business decision.

But when government is the bigoted asshole it does not work for anyone.  Governments are passing these laws, do t forget that.

[jrhampt]

Let people go into the bathroom they feel comfortable using.  Mind your own business.  If someone decides to try to commit a crime in a bathroom, arrest them.

Why does the top advice only apply to violence in the women's room, and not violence on transgender women in the men's room? I'd also argue that most of the issue isn't about bathrooms, it's about locker rooms, dorm rooms, prison cells, homeless shelters. Even if no crime is committed, many people just feel uncomfortable with having to be naked in front of people of the opposite anatomy.

This is all so stupid because there is no way to enforce this new law without doing a strip search combined with a birth certificate check. 

I have no issue with transgender women using my locker room if no one is being made uncomfortable (that is, I disagree with both the NC law and Obama's directive). But if someone in the locker room at my YMCA (regardless of gender or sex) is being voyeuristic/exhibitionist, I'd like a YMCA employee to be able to ask them to use a single stall instead without risking a lawsuit. I'm concerned that with the Obama/Charlotte laws, if the perpetrator was biologically male, discrimination could be alleged and the YMCA sued, and the only defense would be for a witness/victim to try and prove that the you-know-it-when-you-see-it-but-it's-hard-to-prove-in-court line between appropriate and inappropriate behavior was crossed.

it is really about people's discomfort with the idea that gender is not as concrete as they would like to believe.

Actually I'd say I'm uncomfortable because the law seems to make gender a very concrete, binary thing. I'm a biological female who looks stereotypically female, but I've never identified with either gender, and the idea that I have to now seems very regressive to me. Locker room segregation by biological sex was always just a straightforward statement of your equipment; it never asked you to put something as complex and fluid as your psychological identity in one of two boxes. I've had a lot of negative experiences with people pigeonholing me on the basis of "gender", and I'm frustrated that progressives now seem to be championing a very rigid gender binary.

This is exactly what annoys me, too.  I've lived my whole life on the principle that gender should not matter, and now people (other than Southern Baptists) who should know better are trying to tell me it does.

[Metric Mouse]

I think anti-discrimination laws are ridiculous. You have every right to be a bigoted, racist, sexist asshole and I'll defend your right to be such. I'm not going to pretend that by passing a law we're somehow 'fixing' these people and society, and that these problems don't find a way to resurface in the future.

Also, society self-corrects. If you don't want to hire the most skilled worker because of their race, then you're going to be less competitive in the market and it'll hurt your business. If you don't want to bake a cake for a certain race or gender, you should have every right to refuse service and lose out on the profit you would otherwise be entitled to. If being a bad human being is more important than your business, but you should have every right to make that bad business decision.

That argument wasn't true during the slavery era and wasn't true during the Jim Crow era and isn't true now. Hatred often easily overcomes economic sensibilities. It took laws and federal enforcement of laws to move us further towards progress.

Hatred is not equal to the denial of basic freedoms and rights under law. You can hate someone yet still treat them as equals with all of the freedoms and rights that it entails.

But only if there are laws that force people to treat others equally.  Laws are designed to protect the minority against the majority when the majority is in the wrong.

[GuitarStv]

I think anti-discrimination laws are ridiculous. You have every right to be a bigoted, racist, sexist asshole and I'll defend your right to be such. I'm not going to pretend that by passing a law we're somehow 'fixing' these people and society, and that these problems don't find a way to resurface in the future.

Also, society self-corrects. If you don't want to hire the most skilled worker because of their race, then you're going to be less competitive in the market and it'll hurt your business. If you don't want to bake a cake for a certain race or gender, you should have every right to refuse service and lose out on the profit you would otherwise be entitled to. If being a bad human being is more important than your business, but you should have every right to make that bad business decision.

That argument wasn't true during the slavery era and wasn't true during the Jim Crow era and isn't true now. Hatred often easily overcomes economic sensibilities. It took laws and federal enforcement of laws to move us further towards progress.

Hatred is not equal to the denial of basic freedoms and rights under law. You can hate someone yet still treat them as equals with all of the freedoms and rights that it entails.

You can hate someone and treat them as equals with all the freedom and rights that it entails.  This is absolutely true!  By doing that, you give no visible outward indication of your hatred . . . so there's no reason to be offended.

That's not what we're talking about though.  Anti-discrimination laws don't target hatred, they target actions that come from hate.  They target the cases where someone fails to treat someone else with all the freedom and rights that they are due.

[Yaeger]

You can hate someone and treat them as equals with all the freedom and rights that it entails.  This is absolutely true!  By doing that, you give no visible outward indication of your hatred . . . so there's no reason to be offended.

That's not what we're talking about though.  Anti-discrimination laws don't target hatred, they target actions that come from hate.  They target the cases where someone fails to treat someone else with all the freedom and rights that they are due.

You should be fully able to express yourself and your position. Laws protect people equally from harm that threaten their life or liberty. You don't have a right to a job, that's not a thing, and private entities should have every right to discriminate based on whatever reason they see fit within their privately-owned organization. We're not helping anyone by 'protecting' them with anti-discriminatory policies, who employers just get around anyways, or are forced into accepting a lower quality workforce like the public sector.

[sol]

private entities should have every right to discriminate based on whatever reason they see fit within their privately-owned organization.

There was a Woolworths in Greensboro that made that exact same argument in 1960.  How well did that turn out?

[ncornilsen]

You can hate someone and treat them as equals with all the freedom and rights that it entails.  This is absolutely true!  By doing that, you give no visible outward indication of your hatred . . . so there's no reason to be offended.

That's not what we're talking about though.  Anti-discrimination laws don't target hatred, they target actions that come from hate.  They target the cases where someone fails to treat someone else with all the freedom and rights that they are due.

You should be fully able to express yourself and your position. Laws protect people equally from harm that threaten their life or liberty. You don't have a right to a job, that's not a thing, and private entities should have every right to discriminate based on whatever reason they see fit within their privately-owned organization. We're not helping anyone by 'protecting' them with anti-discriminatory policies, who employers just get around anyways, or are forced into accepting a lower quality workforce like the public sector.

Are you saying that people from a protected class create a lower quality workforce? I can quite categorically reject that.

[Yaeger]

Are you saying that people from a protected class create a lower quality workforce? I can quite categorically reject that.

The sole criteria should be merit-based and what's in the best interest of the employer. Period.

[GuitarStv]

Are you saying that people from a protected class create a lower quality workforce? I can quite categorically reject that.

The sole criteria should be merit-based and what's in the best interest of the employer. Period.

You just said that employers should be free to pick employees based on their sex, the colour of their skin, or sexual orientation.  Why do you support these non-merit based criteria while pushing for merit-based criteria to be used?

[Yaeger]

 

Are you saying that people from a protected class create a lower quality workforce? I can quite categorically reject that.

The sole criteria should be merit-based and what's in the best interest of the employer. Period.

You just said that employers should be free to pick employees based on their sex, the colour of their skin, or sexual orientation.  Why do you support these non-merit based criteria while pushing for merit-based criteria to be used?

Read it in context please, that quote was in response to a comment about public sector hiring practices. Private employers should be able to hire however, whoever, whatever they want.

[Northwestie]

Are you saying that people from a protected class create a lower quality workforce? I can quite categorically reject that.

The sole criteria should be merit-based and what's in the best interest of the employer. Period.

........yea, which is what anti-discrimination laws are all about.  If you hire the white guy consistently over the black guy with the same or better credentials, that is not legal. 

[ncornilsen]

Are you saying that people from a protected class create a lower quality workforce? I can quite categorically reject that.

The sole criteria should be merit-based and what's in the best interest of the employer. Period.

You just said that employers should be free to pick employees based on their sex, the colour of their skin, or sexual orientation.  Why do you support these non-merit based criteria while pushing for merit-based criteria to be used?

Read it in context please, that quote was in response to a comment about public sector hiring practices. Private employers should be able to hire however, whoever, whatever they want.

That's a battle that has been fought and lost... and for good reason. If you're talking about affirmative action things, then... well, I suppose I wouldn't go as far wanting quotas, but that's NOT the law as far as I know.

[Yaeger]

That's a battle that has been fought and lost... and for good reason. If you're talking about affirmative action things, then... well, I suppose I wouldn't go as far wanting quotas, but that's NOT the law as far as I know.

That's a battle what we've been fighting, and still losing. Has it helped bring up minorities in the 50 years that we've had these anti-discrimination policies? Does it work, or are employers getting around the laws and doing their own thing regardless via other means? What's the 'good reason'?

All you're really doing is creating inefficiencies and raising costs with no positive result to justify the policy.

[Kris]

That's a battle that has been fought and lost... and for good reason. If you're talking about affirmative action things, then... well, I suppose I wouldn't go as far wanting quotas, but that's NOT the law as far as I know.

That's a battle what we've been fighting, and still losing. Has it helped bring up minorities in the 50 years that we've had these anti-discrimination policies? Does it work, or are employers getting around the laws and doing their own thing regardless via other means? What's the 'good reason'?

All you're really doing is creating inefficiencies and raising costs with no positive result to justify the policy.

Well, I think it would be interesting to ask a representative sample of, say, black people whether they think things are better today, or 50 years ago.  What do you suppose they would say?

[forummm]

That's a battle that has been fought and lost... and for good reason. If you're talking about affirmative action things, then... well, I suppose I wouldn't go as far wanting quotas, but that's NOT the law as far as I know.

That's a battle what we've been fighting, and still losing. Has it helped bring up minorities in the 50 years that we've had these anti-discrimination policies? Does it work, or are employers getting around the laws and doing their own thing regardless via other means? What's the 'good reason'?

All you're really doing is creating inefficiencies and raising costs with no positive result to justify the policy.

Well, I think it would be interesting to ask a representative sample of, say, black people whether they think things are better today, or 50 years ago.  What do you suppose they would say?

Exactly. Or 200 years ago. Yaeger, if you have to hesitate about this answer (or answer that things aren't better), I suggest you have a LOT of historical reading to do.

[Yaeger]

Well, I think it would be interesting to ask a representative sample of, say, black people whether they think things are better today, or 50 years ago.  What do you suppose they would say?

Exactly. Or 200 years ago. Yaeger, if you have to hesitate about this answer (or answer that things aren't better), I suggest you have a LOT of historical reading to do.

Yup, and there were LAWS that had government approval with the willingness and ability to enforce them. Racially and sexually discriminatory laws! Jim Crow laws, segregation, slavery, all were promoted by government and you were required to follow those laws. Are you saying that's equality?

The absence of anti-discrimination laws is NOT EQUAL to having racially discriminatory laws with legal means of enforcement. Why is this a difficult concept to understand?

[Northwestie]

Even after those laws requiring discrimination were taken off the books there was still defacto discrimination - because there was nothing saying it was not legal.

Enter the Civil Rights law.   Where it used to be legal to discriminate in housing, employment, voting procedures, education - and other elements, it became illegal to do so.  There was no law requiring that employers discriminate - but they were certainly doing it.  Doesn't seem too difficult to grasp this reality.

[Yaeger]

Even after those laws requiring discrimination were taken off the books there was still defacto discrimination - because there was nothing saying it was not legal.

Enter the Civil Rights law.   Where it used to be legal to discriminate in housing, employment, voting procedures, education - and other elements, it became illegal to do so.  There was no law requiring that employers discriminate - but they were certainly doing it.  Doesn't seem too difficult to grasp this reality.

No, but it's very different if you're talking about GOVERNMENT policies, which apply to everyone and can be enforced and it doesn't leave alternatives or options available, and interactions between two private parties. Whole circle now, bring it in!

[GuitarStv]

Even after those laws requiring discrimination were taken off the books there was still defacto discrimination - because there was nothing saying it was not legal.

Enter the Civil Rights law.   Where it used to be legal to discriminate in housing, employment, voting procedures, education - and other elements, it became illegal to do so.  There was no law requiring that employers discriminate - but they were certainly doing it.  Doesn't seem too difficult to grasp this reality.

No, but it's very different if you're talking about GOVERNMENT policies, which apply to everyone and can be enforced and it doesn't leave alternatives or options available, and interactions between two private parties. Whole circle now, bring it in!

Can you give an example of exactly what kind of policy you don't like?  I'm feeling like I don't quite understand what you're upset with or exactly what you dislike.

[Northwestie]

Even after those laws requiring discrimination were taken off the books there was still defacto discrimination - because there was nothing saying it was not legal.

Enter the Civil Rights law.   Where it used to be legal to discriminate in housing, employment, voting procedures, education - and other elements, it became illegal to do so.  There was no law requiring that employers discriminate - but they were certainly doing it.  Doesn't seem too difficult to grasp this reality.

No, but it's very different if you're talking about GOVERNMENT policies, which apply to everyone and can be enforced and it doesn't leave alternatives or options available, and interactions between two private parties. Whole circle now, bring it in!

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Aren't all discrimination laws (race, creed, color, gender, sexual preference) set by the government?

[Yaeger]

Even after those laws requiring discrimination were taken off the books there was still defacto discrimination - because there was nothing saying it was not legal.

Enter the Civil Rights law.   Where it used to be legal to discriminate in housing, employment, voting procedures, education - and other elements, it became illegal to do so.  There was no law requiring that employers discriminate - but they were certainly doing it.  Doesn't seem too difficult to grasp this reality.

No, but it's very different if you're talking about GOVERNMENT policies, which apply to everyone and can be enforced and it doesn't leave alternatives or options available, and interactions between two private parties. Whole circle now, bring it in!

Can you give an example of exactly what kind of policy you don't like?  I'm feeling like I don't quite understand what you're upset with or exactly what you dislike.

Sure, the EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) prevents employers from discriminating based on classes of race, sex, age, origin, disability in the workplace. They should have every right to discriminate based on any and all metrics in an equal society. To hire based on whatever criteria the employer deems is in the best interests for the company. The government shouldn't have any say in that private transaction between the employee and the employer. The government is not paternal oversight there to right the wrongs in society.

Ultimately, this was true even prior to the the 1960's, society works to achieve equality naturally. The idea that we need someone to step in and 'fix' our behavior, as long as it doesn't harm life or liberty, is ridiculous. The idea that businesses, companies, and schools would willingly discriminate and give up 40% of the customer market is idiotic. That's why capitalism is the great equalizer, why American society has made great strides without laws, green is the only color that matters. The greatest harm to our society hasn't been in the inaction of government, it's been through the deliberate and misguided actions of a democratic government to legally deprive people of equality.

[GuitarStv]

Can you give an example of a time where a severely oppressed underclass stopped being oppressed spontaneously the way you're claiming happens naturally?  I honestly can't think of one.

[Yaeger]

Can you give an example of a time where a severely oppressed underclass stopped being oppressed spontaneously the way you're claiming happens naturally?  I honestly can't think of one.

That's because you're looking at this in a bubble. Change happens over time and opinion changes based on large numbers of social factors. Ending child labor didn't happen because we suddenly woke up one day and decided it was immoral, passed a law, and patted ourselves on the back. It happened because the economy was improving gradually to such a point where the majority families could afford to send their children to school during the day instead of working to support the family.

Social change is a gradual process, but most people only remember the tipping point.