Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Mentally identifying with the opposite of what is between your legs is still biological.

 

Umm, yeah, the brain is squishy biology. But just because you identify with another gender's cultural norms, does not mean that you are, in fact, a member of them.

 

I believe I've made it clear that I do not discount the feelings of the individuals to live the way they wish, but it appears we're reached the portion of the program where whether it is a choice or hardwired becomes everything for some reason.

 

 

 

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

 

It's an intricate mix of nature and nurture just like pretty much everything else in the vast sea of the human experience. One or the other having more influence depending on the individual. Only an extremist on either end of the spectrum or someone without much knowledge of basic psychology would disagree.

 

The real question I've always had about that is why that question seems to be considered so important. Fortunately:

 

 

 

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

 

Which answers the question. A common misconception that the "chosen" or "not chosen" makes a difference. Well, as I stated above, pretty much any human behavior is a complex interaction between nature and nurture. There is more hard-wiring going on in our heads for everything from our most benign instincts to what turns people into monsters than most people would like to acknowledge.

 

It's really an irrelevant point.

 

Besides, the question at hand isn't even whether they are subject to protection (they are under the law), it's whether they have a right to be identified as something they are not and made an exception to the rules of their sex that everyone else must live with.

 

Myself, I am a moderate on this (about 10 years ago I would have been a liberal, but the world's changed, I haven't). They are completely welcome to protections and fair treatment. I realize that sending a transgender person into a male locker room could be potentially dangerous and wouldn't want them subjected to danger. I would personally call such a person by the name and common honorific that they ask. However, I reserve the right to acknowledge reality and don't believe that public records should reflect what is, in the end, a wish.

 

 

 

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.

 

Congrats on finding the one time I was sloppy and neglected to put a modifier that it is true most of the time.

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.

Essentially you are dictating how a person should live their life by telling them what restroom they are to use when they go. I am guessing the number of times anyone has encountered this issue when using a public restroom can be counted on one hand. And attention to the issue like passing a stupid law just creates hypersensitivity to non-issue.

 

Clearly people need to go to a drag show. Restroom identifiers like MEN WOMEN are more of a general guideline. I have seen more dicks squeezed into spanx than women jelly rolls in a public bathroom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Essentially you are dictating how a person should live their life by telling them what restroom they are to use when they go.

 

Well, yeah. I'm all for segregating bathrooms along sex lines. As are most people.

 

 

 

And attention to the issue like passing a stupid law just creates hypersensitivity to non-issue.

 

I'll remind you that the law was in response to another law in Charlotte that tried to overturn the original status quo. So it's not like they were out running around looking for trouble. Someone tried to alter the law and the state closed down the theory that bathrooms would be decided on what you identify with instead of what you are as a loophole.

 

What you are complaining about was always the law. Nothing has actually changed except the language has been made unambiguous.

 

 

 

Also, are public bathrooms a guaranteed inalienable right?

 

I have no idea where you're going with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe being transgender is simply identifying with the opposite gender's cultural norms. I don't necessarily identify with about half of my gender's cultural norms, but I don't feel what transgendered people describe feeling. I think it's much deeper than wanting to wear a dress or play with Tonka trucks or whatever. It doesn't even have anything to do with sexuality.

 

Also, what are you considering biological fact? What are you using to determine sex - genitalia or DNA? Does having gender reassignment surgery change things?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't believe being transgender is simply identifying with the opposite gender's cultural norms.

 

Maybe not "simply", but boiled down it is what we're talking about. There's a lot more going on to the point of often feeling out of place within one's body.

 

Obviously, most of us have things we enjoy or don't enjoy that go against are gender norms.

 

 

 

Also, what are you considering biological fact? What are you using to determine sex - genitalia or DNA?

 

Almost always it's both. So we're already talking rare exceptions.

 

In the cases where the DNA and genitalia don't match at birth, then whatever the person identifies as, which will almost exclusively be genitalia.

 

 

 

Does having gender reassignment surgery change things?

 

I don't see how that makes a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(e.g. I oppose Empress Carrie's decree requiring fat people to wear square, canvas tents over their bodies in public).

hahahahaha

 

Hey but I don't think the requirement was ever a canvas tent.

 

Anyways, I have little more to add to this discussion, except to lightly elaborate on what I already said back on page 1. I'm fairly indifferent to this and couldn't care less if public restroom configurations were changed. That being said, I do think it's completely reasonable that people are going to have widely varying expectations of privacy on this issue and such people aren't necessarily evil Hitler. Calling such people evil racist imperialist bigot Hitler crime against humanity satan is probably counter-productive when there's a pretty easy compromise solution here. Just mandate businesses can choose to have either unisex restrooms or put in sex-separate restrooms with a third restroom for anyone to use. I have trouble believing that anyone that's calm and rational would have a problem with that. It could place a burden on businesses, but you could fix that by stating it's only for new construction, and only for businesses above a certain size. Large businesses/public areas already typically build a third restroom anyway (as a handicapped restroom, family restroom, etc) so their models probably price that in anyway. You could also make it so only a certain number have to be built per building, in the most heavily trafficked areas. This whole issue I don't see all that different than accommodations for the disabled, and I would treat it as such.

 

All that being said, it's pretty obvious that this is the next SJW crusade that people are going to fight over for no f-cking good reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have trouble believing that anyone that's calm and rational would have a problem with that.

True, but we all know damn well that certain people aren't going to be calm and rational about this. The SJWs are going to grandstand, because that's what they do, the culture we live in kowtows to it and cheap tabloid media thrives on it. Less and less do I despise the actual SJWs and more and more is my loathing for the institutional enablers who encourage their foolishness.

 

 

All that being said, it's pretty obvious that this is the next SJW crusade that people are going to fight over for no f-cking good reason.

You don't say?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

(e.g. I oppose Empress Carrie's decree requiring fat people to wear square, canvas tents over their bodies in public).

hahahahaha

 

Hey but I don't think the requirement was ever a canvas tent.

 

Anyways, I have little more to add to this discussion, except to lightly elaborate on what I already said back on page 1. I'm fairly indifferent to this and couldn't care less if public restroom configurations were changed. That being said, I do think it's completely reasonable that people are going to have widely varying expectations of privacy on this issue and such people aren't necessarily evil Hitler. Calling such people evil racist imperialist bigot Hitler crime against humanity satan is probably counter-productive when there's a pretty easy compromise solution here. Just mandate businesses can choose to have either unisex restrooms or put in sex-separate restrooms with a third restroom for anyone to use. I have trouble believing that anyone that's calm and rational would have a problem with that. It could place a burden on businesses, but you could fix that by stating it's only for new construction, and only for businesses above a certain size. Large businesses/public areas already typically build a third restroom anyway (as a handicapped restroom, family restroom, etc) so their models probably price that in anyway. You could also make it so only a certain number have to be built per building, in the most heavily trafficked areas. This whole issue I don't see all that different than accommodations for the disabled, and I would treat it as such.

 

All that being said, it's pretty obvious that this is the next SJW crusade that people are going to fight over for no f-cking good reason.

 

Totally agree. People who continue to protest in this case when a viable compromise is offered, basically are just protesting to protest. It's similar to the lactivists that organize mass boob-ins when a business already has provided private rooms to go to, and/or said mother can simply feed their kid discretely with a towel covering things as much as possible, and not make a big deal about it.

 

For some reason, some people just want to create a problem where none exists, or where there used to be a problem, but has a solution that doesn't need their narrow (and sometimes ridiculous) requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

it's completely reasonable that people are going to have widely varying expectations of privacy on this issue and such people aren't necessarily evil Hitler. Calling such people evil racist imperialist bigot Hitler crime against humanity satan is probably counter-productive when there's a pretty easy compromise solution here. Just mandate businesses can choose to have either unisex restrooms or put in sex-separate restrooms with a third restroom for anyone to use. I have trouble believing that anyone that's calm and rational would have a problem with that.

All that being said, it's pretty obvious that this is the next SJW crusade that people are going to fight over for no f-cking good reason.

 

so "it's completely reasonable that people are going to have widely varying expectations of privacy on this issue and such people aren't necessarily evil Hitler." but those who don't like your 3-bathroom solution are "going to fight over for no f-cking good reason."?

 

Why should trans people be treated like 2nd class citizens? Separate but equal has never worked.

 

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,

 

Context. It's important. That line comes after a story where I was definitely harassed and possibly a victim of a sex crime by actual predators in a public women's room. I'm aware I'm not the only person in the world - I'm not even the only person this has happened to, by far. I'm saying that as someone who has been legitimately threatened in a public restroom, that sharing the space with someone who is a peaceful, harmless person who just wants a place to pee where they don't feel out of place or threatened is a very different experience. You know, I'm being cognizant of something bothering or frightening other people, and how I can lessen that for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

it's completely reasonable that people are going to have widely varying expectations of privacy on this issue and such people aren't necessarily evil Hitler. Calling such people evil racist imperialist bigot Hitler crime against humanity satan is probably counter-productive when there's a pretty easy compromise solution here. Just mandate businesses can choose to have either unisex restrooms or put in sex-separate restrooms with a third restroom for anyone to use. I have trouble believing that anyone that's calm and rational would have a problem with that.

All that being said, it's pretty obvious that this is the next SJW crusade that people are going to fight over for no f-cking good reason.

 

so "it's completely reasonable that people are going to have widely varying expectations of privacy on this issue and such people aren't necessarily evil Hitler." but those who don't like your 3-bathroom solution are "going to fight over for no f-cking good reason."?

 

Why should trans people be treated like 2nd class citizens? Separate but equal has never worked.

 

 

LMAO. Treating someone as a 2nd class citizen would be telling them to 'pee when they get home' or give them a portable restroom and tell them to deal. Offering a solution where you have a men/women/gender neutral restroom is not treating anyone like a 2nd class citizen.

Especially if the restroom is just a nice as the others (which, let's face it, most public restrooms are gross).

 

Frankly, I don't care. If a woman (or a woman who identifies as a man) wants to use the mens restroom, go for it.

 

And if separate but equal doesn't work, then you might want to talk to the Black Lives Matter movement that is demanding 'safe zones' for people of color only. Sounds separate to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

it's completely reasonable that people are going to have widely varying expectations of privacy on this issue and such people aren't necessarily evil Hitler. Calling such people evil racist imperialist bigot Hitler crime against humanity satan is probably counter-productive when there's a pretty easy compromise solution here. Just mandate businesses can choose to have either unisex restrooms or put in sex-separate restrooms with a third restroom for anyone to use. I have trouble believing that anyone that's calm and rational would have a problem with that.

All that being said, it's pretty obvious that this is the next SJW crusade that people are going to fight over for no f-cking good reason.

 

so "it's completely reasonable that people are going to have widely varying expectations of privacy on this issue and such people aren't necessarily evil Hitler." but those who don't like your 3-bathroom solution are "going to fight over for no f-cking good reason."?

 

Why should trans people be treated like 2nd class citizens? Separate but equal has never worked.

 

 

Well we already provide different restroom facilities for different types of people. For example, the handicapped often have their own little restroom to the side (usually single occupancy). Alternatively, in a low-use area, there may only be one single-occupancy restroom for everyone to use (and handicapped equipped). And then sometimes there may only be one (or two) single-occupancy restrooms and none are handicapped equipped (often seen in, for example, bars). Society has sorta deemed over time that this is a reasonable amount of accommodation, even if a disabled person feels bad and embarrassed that they have to go into their own little restroom away from the 'normal' people.

 

I think my proposed solution is pretty close to where society, on average, is on this issue right now. Of all solutions I've thought of, I think it probably angers the least amount of people and has the best chance of being a viable national policy. Maybe society moves on this and in 10 years, a transgendered person's right to go into whatever restroom they damn well feel like will become seen as some type of god-given constitutional right or whatever. But I don't think most average people are there right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And then sometimes there may only be one (or two) single-occupancy restrooms and none are handicapped equipped (often seen in, for example, bars).

 

Wait, what? Where? I didn't realize Michigan has such stringent accessibility laws. I've never seen a public bathroom that doesn't have at least the barest minimum for handicapped patrons. Some are very small or awkward and would probably be nearly impossible to use if you do use a wheelchair, but they at least make the effort for show. Is this what you're talking about? Or are there really places that don't have to conform to the disability act out there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether a business has to comply with certain provisions under the ADA is significantly more complex than you may think and has been the subject of much litigation.

 

I simply don't believe that you've never seen such a restroom. I think it's much more likely that you never noticed and therefore don't remember.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether a business has to comply with certain provisions under the ADA is significantly more complex than you may think and has been the subject of much litigation.

 

I simply don't believe that you've never seen such a restroom. I think it's much more likely that you never noticed and therefore don't remember.

I think it's pretty reasonable to believe. Maybe not for Iceheart in particular, but for someone who lives in the Midwest, I know plenty of people who only go to chain places, which typically have larger, more accessible restrooms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should trans people be treated like 2nd class citizens? Separate but equal has never worked.

 

Not giving somebody an exception isn't the same as treating them as 2nd-class citizens. Not pretending they're something they're not is not the same as treating them as 2nd-class citizens.

 

Besides, unless you're demanding unisex bathrooms be mandated in the same way that segregated bathrooms and water fountains were abolished for black people in the 60s, then you support separate but equal as well.

 

I'm sure you expected an instant blush and backing away by bringing up Plessy v. Ferguson and the specter of race segregated water fountains. But, it's not a bad thing in this case, is not controversial in general, and, indeed, has decades worth of practice to prove that separate but equal works perfectly well when it comes to segregating the sexes in the bathroom and changing rooms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's similar to the lactivists that organize mass boob-ins when a business already has provided private rooms to go to, and/or said mother can simply feed their kid discretely with a towel covering things as much as possible,

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

I can't even! This is too much!!

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

Please, oh great and wise childless man, please tell us more about what women can "simply" do to feed a baby! Yes! Cover the boob top and smother your child! Be banished to a backroom so that your baby can eat! Nobody wants to see the top of your breast, don't you know that, silly woman? Babies only need to eat in the dark, with no fresh air, out of sight!

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

Oh man...this is great. Please, pray tell, what else can a mother "simply" do to care for her child in the most natural way possible? How else can a baby eating possibly "offend"?

 

Seriously, you're going to tell a woman who is enjoying herself with her family to please excuse herself to another room so that her baby can eat? Or that she needs to "cover" up? Cover up what?!? Her breast?! Because suddenly her breast is no longer just an aesthetically pleasing sexual plaything? It's a food source now (GASP!!), and therefore cannot be seen like all the aesthetically pleasing sexual playthings that are on display everywhere?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sure you expected an instant blush and backing away by bringing up Plessy v. Ferguson and the specter of race segregated water fountains.

 

Watch out everyone! We gots one of dem real intellectuals up in hurr! He noes where "separate but equal" comes from! Name and err'thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Please, oh great and wise childless man, please tell us more about what women can "simply" do to feed a baby! Yes! Cover the boob top and smother your child!

 

What are you talking about? That's perfectly safe to do. Heck, I was at a birthday party for my nephew last week and vaguely wondered where one of the guest's baby went for a minute before realizing what was going on.

 

Sadly, I probably came across as a creeper because I didn't avert my eyes. Which is pretty much the social contract. Breastfeeding women take a few small precautions to maintain their modesty and the people around them respect their privacy and don't leer.

 

 

 

Watch out everyone! We gots one of dem real intellectuals up in hurr! He noes where "separate but equal" comes from! Name and err'thing.

 

Once again, what are you going on about? It's not like I cited some obscure trivia. Every middle schooler's heard where it comes from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Please, oh great and wise childless man, please tell us more about what women can "simply" do to feed a baby! Yes! Cover the boob top and smother your child!

What are you talking about? That's perfectly safe to do. Heck, I was at a birthday party for my nephew last week and vaguely wondered where one of the guest's baby went for a minute before realizing what was going on.

 

Sadly, I probably came across as a creeper because I didn't avert my eyes. Which is pretty much the social contract. Breastfeeding women take a few small precautions to maintain their modesty and the people around them respect their privacy and don't leer.

Well, you may be ok covering up your baby while you breastfeed, but here in Houston, it's akin to torture. But far be it for me to tell another woman how to feed her baby.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...