Jump to content

What if I don't want to go back to the 50s?


Recommended Posts

Guest El Chalupacabra

I went in a men's room yesterday. Someone was in the women's and I figured it really didn't matter since they were single bathrooms anyway. Why do single bathrooms even have labels anyway? So the men don't piss all over the seat and floor in the women's room? I didn't end up using it because damn that bathroom was nasty gross. On second thought, if you're going to use the women's room, you should have to sit. That's all. Anyone can use it, just don't be gross.

One time I went to a public restroom where someone had used a label maker to create a semi-official looking label that stated "Toilet cam is for research purposes only," and stuck it to the door on the inside of the stall.

 

It was obviously a joke and I thought it was hilarious. But I doubt that would fly in a ladies room stall, or a unisex stall.

 

It's stuff like that which keeps public restrooms seperate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Crying Game

Yes, a transwoman's gender will differ from her genetic sex and vice versa.  But... who cares?   I guess that's what I will never get. If you are creeped out by somebody else, but there is no actual h

Justice can't AFFORD three bathrooms, you bigot.

 

One time I went to a public restroom where someone had used a label maker to create a semi-official looking label that stated "Toilet cam is for research purposes only," and stuck it to the door on the inside of the stall.

 

It was obviously a joke and I thought it was hilarious. But I doubt that would fly in a ladies room stall, or a unisex stall.

 

It's stuff like that which keeps public restrooms seperate.

 

Yeah... I got harassed by a couple of guys on my way into a public bathroom once. When I discovered the bathroom was empty, I was honestly afraid they were going to follow me in.

 

Someone did come in to bang around in the stalls while I was peeing.

 

Later, I found out one of them was arrested for taking and selling upskirt pics from that store.

 

So, uh... there's probably pictures of me peeing on the internet somewhere. That's not a funny joke.

 

However, I have shared public restrooms with transgender women before. And I didn't mind that at all. Not a one was ambiguous about their gender, and no one made a big deal out of it.

 

I'm personally a fan of either single toilet unisex bathrooms, or three options - men's, women's, and unisex. And I'm all for letting people decide which one is best for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
However, I have shared public restrooms with transgender women before. And I didn't mind that at all.

 

Here's something those that repeat this need to understand. "I didn't mind," is not a reason to let something happen if it bothers or frightens other people. You are not the only person in the world.

 

I am not singling out Iceheart, because this has been repeated several times on this thread by several posters. It's a very egocentric statement and not at all respecting the rights and feelings of the many women who do NOT feel comfortable with this arrangement. Even if it's only 1 in 20 women who are legitimately bothered, that's still too many.

 

Now, to put to bed the other argument that Spam brought up at the very beginning about policing bathrooms or birth certificates. This is nonsense. Obviously no one is going to case a bathroom checking for penises. That's just a way to satirize without actually looking at the issue. What the law does do is empower people to go out and seek assistance. If a woman complains about a man using her facilities, or a father sends his 9-year-old to the bathroom and watches a man follow her in, the authorities won't have to just shrug their shoulders and say it's their right.

 

Something can be done if help is called for. And, presumably, almost every time, an easy solution can be found.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Poe makes a good point there.

 

That said, I think both sides of the argument have a legitimate point, but the problem is neither side wants to compromise. Those arguing for transgendered people to use the restroom of the gender they assume seem to be arguing that a transwoman should be allowed to use a ladies room without restriction, and naturally-born women need to just "deal with it." Those arguing against it cite that one's naturally-born gender needs to decide which room they go to. In both situations, someone loses.

 

I think the best compromise where everyone wins is what a lot of government and educational buildings and businesses have done: provide a men's room, a women's room, and a smaller and private unisex room that anyone can use. I think that satisfies all requirements for all parties involved. A transperson therefore has a restroom to themselves, should they opt for it. If a woman (or man) suspects that there may be transpeople in their restroom and are uncomfortable about it, they have an option they didn't have before (the unisex restroom). The only one that seems to be truly inconvenienced is the establishment in question, due to the extra cost of an additional restroom, but if there were government tax breaks granted for that, it would entice a lot of businesses to go this route.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think the best compromise where everyone wins is what a lot of government, educational, and businesses have done: provide a men's room, a women's room, and a smaller and private unisex room that anyone can use.

 

I think that compromise is fine, as do most people. Let's face it, the biggest place where this is really an issue is in schools. And there are plenty of restrooms and changing places that can be made available without any fuss or extra cost that are actually nicer than the communal pit-holes most students use. In fact, I truly believe that the all-or-nothing attitude is almost totally on the LGBT side. Is this really something worth boycotting over? Was the Indiana law last year really that horrible? Sadly, they've gone from having a legitimate beef about equality, and have won so thoroughly that they've moved to the point of intolerance themselves.

 

That's a lesson on why social change should come through legislative compromise and not courts and bureaucratic dictates, but that's a whole other issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think the best compromise where everyone wins is what a lot of government and educational buildings and businesses have done: provide a men's room, a women's room, and a smaller and private unisex room that anyone can use.

This is the standard pretty uch everywhere in California. Beaches, rest stops, Dinseyland, my house...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, I have shared public restrooms with transgender women before. And I didn't mind that at all.

Here's something those that repeat this need to understand. "I didn't mind," is not a reason to let something happen if it bothers or frightens other people. You are not the only person in the world.

 

I am not singling out Iceheart, because this has been repeated several times on this thread by several posters. It's a very egocentric statement and not at all respecting the rights and feelings of the many women who do NOT feel comfortable with this arrangement. Even if it's only 1 in 20 women who are legitimately bothered, that's still too many.

 

Now, to put to bed the other argument that Spam brought up at the very beginning about policing bathrooms or birth certificates. This is nonsense. Obviously no one is going to case a bathroom checking for penises. That's just a way to satirize without actually looking at the issue. What the law does do is empower people to go out and seek assistance. If a woman complains about a man using her facilities, or a father sends his 9-year-old to the bathroom and watches a man follow her in, the authorities won't have to just shrug their shoulders and say it's their right.

 

Something can be done if help is called for. And, presumably, almost every time, an easy solution can be found.

 

AGREED, excepting that "I mind" is also not a reason to trump the rights of anyone trans, either. Most everyone 'minded' when Loving v VA decided

white people COULD legally marry black people and it was made law anyway. Many of our laws drafted to protect minorities fly in the face of public

opinion, so I'm not sure someone being skeeved out by transsexuals is a good enough reason, either.

 

Maybe the solution is that all public restrooms be made single-occupancy, but that's really going to cost some money and put financial pressure on

businesses. And in bigger cities, these come with even bigger problems. In Seattle, SO bathrooms get used as homeless shelters, hotel rooms for

prostitution and places to shoot up for addicts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that just because I am comfortable with something does not mean everybody else is, or that they should be shamed if they are not. I do not agree that 1 in 20 is "too many," however.

 

With this issue specifically, it's a solution in search of a problem; just stinky chum pandering to the base's fears, really.

 

I mean, if somebody who has female parts but identifies as male uses the restroom with me, it is not at all an issue, nor should it be unless that person intentionally threatens or harms other people in some way. And if somebody intentionally threatens or harms others, there are already laws to deal with it that don't unfairly single out transgender people.

 

Normal people use the restroom to do restroom things, not check one another out and assess whether or not they appear to identify as the biological sex they were born into. If that's what you do, you're the weirdo here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AGREED, excepting that "I mind" is also not a reason to trump the rights of anyone trans, either.

 

What right is being violated? We throw around the word, but there's nothing here that rises to that level. There's no right to have the government recognize a person's gender as malleable to their preference for living a masculine or feminine lifestyle (and even if they do, the fact remains that it isn't).

 

I would counter that a person's feelings of security, privacy, and safety in bathrooms and changing rooms is something in much greater need of protection.

 

 

 

And if somebody intentionally threatens or harms others, there are already laws to deal with it that don't unfairly single out transgender people.

 

What law singles out transgendered people? All that's in question here is whether transgendered people are provided with an exception to a longstanding and universal set of uncontroversial laws.

 

And that whole last paragraph was a strawman having nothing remotely to do with anything I said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

I think the best compromise where everyone wins is what a lot of government, educational, and businesses have done: provide a men's room, a women's room, and a smaller and private unisex room that anyone can use.

 

I think that compromise is fine, as do most people. Let's face it, the biggest place where this is really an issue is in schools. And there are plenty of restrooms and changing places that can be made available without any fuss or extra cost that are actually nicer than the communal pit-holes most students use. In fact, I truly believe that the all-or-nothing attitude is almost totally on the LGBT side. Is this really something worth boycotting over? Was the Indiana law last year really that horrible? Sadly, they've gone from having a legitimate beef about equality, and have won so thoroughly that they've moved to the point of intolerance themselves.

 

That's a lesson on why social change should come through legislative compromise and not courts and bureaucratic dictates, but that's a whole other issue.

 

If by schools, you mean elementary/junior high/high schools, I agree. I think the issue is the idea that kids also being transgendered, especially before puberty, is still controversial and freaks out parents because its not a topic they are prepared to tackle. Not so much in higher ed, though.

 

I don't know that LGBT are more responsible for the all-or-nothing attitude. I think that there are a lot of parts of the country, namely the bible belt, that completely rejects the idea of transgender: one is either a man, or a woman, and anything in between is just a man in a dress, or woman in a man's clothes. And some are militant about it, too.

 

That said, I do agree that there are some LGBT people out there that when it comes to transgendered people in public restrooms that do want all or nothing. And it is more about forcing their will on people, than simply wanting a place where a transgendered person can use a public restroom. I feel having a third unisex room for everyone to use is a good compromise, and a transgendered person who says that isn't good enough makes me question their motive. Like, are you wanting a facility to use, or are you trying to foist your world view on everyone else? If it is the latter, then such a transgendered person is no better than the knuckle-draggers that think all transgendered or LGBT people are sinners that God hates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And if somebody intentionally threatens or harms others, there are already laws to deal with it that don't unfairly single out transgender people.

What law singles out transgendered people?

 

From what I understand, the NC bill bans people from using public restrooms who don't match their biological sex. So if somebody has not fully transitioned and the sex on their birth certificate does not match what they identify with, too bad so sad. Even if there is no penalty beyond "You're outta here!" I'd really like to know how this is not singling out transgender individuals?

 

I'm just saying, unless NC's legal system has not progressed to Code of Ur-Nammu levels (quite possible given its populace), issues like threats/unwanted pervery/assault/etc... are undoubtedly already covered, and there is no reason to bring up transgender individuals whatsoever, outside of riling up the always important fearful bigot voting bloc during an election year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And it is more about forcing their will on people, than simply wanting a place where a transgendered person can use a public restroom. I feel having a third unisex room for everyone to use is a good compromise, and a transgendered person who says that isn't good enough makes me question their motive.

 

That's what's being offered in most cases and the compromise is being turned down in the name of "rights". Any sort of segregation between a transgendered person and the facilities of the gender they identify with is seen as an infringement.

 

 

 

I think that there are a lot of parts of the country, namely the bible belt, that completely rejects the idea of transgender: one is either a man, or a woman, and anything in between is just a man in a dress, or woman in a man's clothes

 

Thing is, in the end, that's the reality of the situation. I'm no bible belt guy, and I could never stand the whole "definition of marriage" argument for why guys couldn't marry. However, aside from a few outliers, a person's sex is a simple unambiguous thing. An unalterable scientific fact.

 

Now, there are a million complications, social and biological, beyond that. And as a society we should deal with how to treat each other respectfully. That means not hassling people who choose to live this way and to figure out a way to keep them safe and comfortable without trampling on other people's sense of safety and comfort.

 

However, it also means that you need to respect reality and that a person might not be willing to ignore reality in order to maintain your own self-image. Indeed, I believe the push to say that you are something that you're not, encouraged groups and even psychologists, is another part of why it's such a no-compromise situation. There is inherent knowledge that a transgendered person is still a male or female, and instead of accepting what they are, and find their own joy in that, many engage in reflexive self-image maintenance because the premise that they hold is false.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel pretty safe. I don't get this underlying current of fear and worry that drives these people. I guess I'm oblivious. I am an observant person and notice lots of things but I don't get this sense of danger from a dude going to the bathroom in one of the women's room. I will admit I have gone into a mens room to go because the womens room was so fantastically dirty and no one was in the mens room. I just came right of the stall and pretended I was in the right room as I walked out as guy was coming in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

From what I understand, the NC bill bans people from using public restrooms who don't match their biological sex.

 

There you go. That's not singling out anybody. That's broad and merely eliminates an exception that only recently had been formulated as a way around the boys/girls facilities are segregated rules that have been around for a very long time and that was surely the intent behind the law as it had previously stood.

 

 

 

I'm just saying, unless NC's legal system has not progressed to the Code of Ur-Nammu (quite possible given its populace), issues like threats/unwanted pervery/assault/etc... are undoubtedly already covered

 

Sure. But preventative measures aren't a bad thing. We have these laws segregating the facilities based on sex for good reason and those reasons aren't strictly based on the motives of the person walking through the door.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but just because some people are bothered by something doesn't mean their opinions should be made law. What about people still bothered by women in postitions of power? Or men in childcare or teaching? Or people bothered by people who don't speak English? I'm bothered by anyone who pierces their lips. I think it's disgusting. And I'm sure if I polled 20 people more than just me would agree, so what can we bar them from doing? Serving my food? Driving a car? Doing my taxes? Being in public with their stupid looking faces?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry but just because some people are bothered by something doesn't mean their opinions should be made law.

Yeah. I don't think you're going to make progress with somebody who is uncomfortable with the LGBTQ community by calling them names and insulting them (even if you think they are dumb/bigoted and they drive you crazy, it's just not helpful), so IMO, in the interest of progress and freedom of speech/thought, you have to tolerate those feelings in others to some extent.

 

But absolutely agree -- no law should be passed because the intrinsic qualities of another person make you feel "icky," or because you think otherwise law-abiding group of people "might do something." (e.g. I oppose Empress Carrie's decree requiring fat people to wear square, canvas tents over their bodies in public).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm sorry but just because some people are bothered by something doesn't mean their opinions should be made law.

 

In general, sure. But this is in the privacy of a bathroom/changing room. It's not asking a lot that the opposite sex not be allowed in. As I've said several times, the idea of segregated facilities among the sexes is not controversial. If there is any such thing as a safe zone, that's the place and laws and public opinion have long upheld that basic notion.

 

We've had these laws in place for who knows how long and we've yet to start banning fat people in the public square. There's no slippery slope to worry about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

 

 

 

I think that there are a lot of parts of the country, namely the bible belt, that completely rejects the idea of transgender: one is either a man, or a woman, and anything in between is just a man in a dress, or woman in a man's clothes

 

Thing is, in the end, that's the reality of the situation. I'm no bible belt guy, and I could never stand the whole "definition of marriage" argument for why guys couldn't marry. However, aside from a few outliers, a person's sex is a simple unambiguous thing. An unalterable scientific fact.

 

Now, there are a million complications, social and biological, beyond that. And as a society we should deal with how to treat each other respectfully. That means not hassling people who choose to live this way and to figure out a way to keep them safe and comfortable without trampling on other people's sense of safety and comfort.

 

However, it also means that you need to respect reality and that a person might not be willing to ignore reality in order to maintain your own self-image. Indeed, I believe the push to say that you are something that you're not, encouraged groups and even psychologists, is another part of why it's such a no-compromise situation. There is inherent knowledge that a transgendered person is still a male or female, and instead of accepting what they are, and find their own joy in that, many engage in reflexive self-image maintenance because the premise that they hold is false.

 

That is the heart of the debate, isn't it. One side feels gender is simply what you are born with between your legs, whereas the other side feels gender has more to do with a mindset. The thing is, the very concept of gender is a social construct. It is not an absolute. Who gets to decide what gender is, and so on? It is more complicated than that.

 

I used to be in the camp of the former, and like a lot of people (dare I say the majority?), I believed that if you were born a male, you were a man, or born a female, then you were a woman, and it is just that simple. But my opinion has evolved over time, and I now believe that physical sex, and gender identity are two separate things. Like human sexuality which is more of a spectrum, gender identity is also something that can be measured in degrees. So, I don't think gender is as simple as saying that if someone is born physically a male, that if should they later on identify and want to live as female, they are somehow wrong. For someone who is transgendered to be forced to live as their birth gender, that could feel as wrong to them, as forcing a gay person to try to be straight, or a straight person to be gay, for that matter.

 

That said, I think that people who are in a vast minority like the transgendered are, they should respect the fact that not everyone is going to think like they do, and when a compromise like a third restroom is offered, that it may be the best solution to provide trans people a public restroom to use (which is meeting the basic requirement, after all). Maybe for some of the transgendered it's not quite what they want, but unless and until the greater society becomes more accepting of trans people, this is the best society can offer, at least at this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is the heart of the debate, isn't it. One side feels gender is simply what you are born with between your legs, whereas the other side feels gender has more to do with a mindset.

 

Yeah, but it's not really a debate. Your sex is what you are. That needs to be agreed upon up front or nothing more is really worth saying. It's not a social construct. It is a biological fact.

 

 

 

But my opinion has evolved over time, and I now believe that physical sex, and gender identity are two separate things.

 

This is true. But what you are speaking to by gender identity actually IS a social construct. Whether a person feels more in touch with the culturally generated norms of masculinity or femininity. Which is ironic considering that we've spent the last five decades trying to decrease the importance of culturally created norms in identifying oneself so that little girls are encouraged more to do "boy things" and vice versa. We are now saying that your preference for such things takes precedence in what it means to be male or female. In effect, it's taking gender norms back to the 50s (presumably in this single case).

 

When you get into transgendered people actually being identified by the government as opposite their biological sex, able to receive benefits as a member of the opposite sex, qualify for sports teams restricted to the opposite sex, and, yes, using the wrong facilities and call it a matter of civil rights, then you're crossing a line called reality and saying up is down because we feel that up is down. I'm just not following you down that path.

 

Some things, you can't change. You can change how you act if you want. But you can't actually be something you're not. Any more than adopting eastern customs can make a black man Korean (even though ethnicity and race actually are closer to a cultural construct) or a 40-year-old man acting like a teenager actually makes them young again. You can live the way you choose, and it should be respected in its way, but only in the case of gender identity is the whole world asked to actually believe that such a basic fact is malleable to what the individual wants it to be.

 

Maybe that's even hurtful to say, but it is still the truth. You can't be something that you're not. However, that doesn't mean what you are is bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mentally identifying with the opposite of what is between your legs is still biological. It may not be an appendage or hormonal alignment but it is far more than a society influenced decision.

 

I'm afraid to ask where you stand on whether or not being gay is a choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What right is being violated?

The Right to privacy, for one. This scenario has already played out in the USA in the 50s with race instead of gender.

Conservatives have rejected that sexual identity should be part of the protection because they feel it is chosen.

This is funny to me, since they claim their religious rights are being trampled and that's what their issue is with this

and there's nothing that's protected by our Constitution that's more of a choice than religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your sex is what you are. That needs to be agreed upon up front or nothing more is really worth saying. It's not a social construct. It is a biological fact.

 

Then what of those 1 in 1,500 persons born as intersex-on which no clear path to male or female fits 100%? That's no social constuct-that's biology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...