Tolerating an opinion one perceives as bad is exactly what is being asked of these 200 individuals it would seem. What's not up for debate is the physical presence of penis and testicles. Something which may be glimpsed when in a locker room.
If the same 200 people took just as much issue with simply sharing a female bathroom that is 100% stalls, well. yeah. I think a reasonable person would conclude they doth protest too much. (still likely doesn't change the emotional reality for some/all)
Ghazkuul wrote: In this case specifically the transgender person was tolerated, was accepted into society and then that person wanted their 5 minutes of fame and fethed up the whole situation to make a big stink out of which bathroom he/she got to use. Tolerance means you TOLERATE it doesn't mean you have to kowtow to them.
Well, for starters, it's considered a big part of proper respect in any society to use the proper pronouns when discussing a person. She's a she, not a he/she.
Tolerance doesn't mean you stop kicking the gak of out them for being different. It means actually accepting them, for who they are, and who they present as.
Not allowing a female to use the female change room is intolerant. Whether it's justifiably intolerant is a different story. (Compare, for example, allowing a Jew to wear a skullcap despite a no-hats policy with disallowing a Sikh from bringing a dagger unto an airplane).
We're days into this discussion, and the absolute worst harm that anybody has come up with from allowing her to change with girls is that another girl might see a penis. Which seems at the outmost limits of what could be considered harmful to a high school aged woman. So, I don't see it as kowtowing, because it's not asking people to really put with much, other than her existence.
Now, I agree that she doubled down here, and made this a bigger mess than was needed, but that's also how you get social change.
Tolerance doesn't mean you stop kicking the gak of out them for being different. It means actually accepting them, for who they are, and who they present as.
No thats acceptance. Tolerance indeeds mean you don't commit crimes against them.
Not allowing a female to use the female change room is intolerant.
Yes and you miss the point. It's no a female using a female change room, i's a man identifying as a woman using a woman's locker room. That's a huge difference. Whether you'd be offended by that is another issue, as no kids were involved. I mean...would you, as an adult, flip out if a man changed clothes in a women's locker room? I'll just assume that most people are familiar with the looks of male genitalia at that point and wouldn't make a hassle out of it. Meh. In this very case, he could have just used the men's locker room or agreed to a neutral one. Being a drama queen...king all about it tells us more about his personality than necessary.
For now she has to make do with the wig and likely will grow out her hair to take the place of the wig, the artificial boobs with hormone therapy will be real, the last hurdle is the most expensive and difficult to have done actually, and likely will require surgery out of country as they have surgeons in other lands able to totally re sculpt genitals so that they can have a sensitive and functional vagina and still be more than a human barbie down there. Hormone therapy will also help her with facial hair, (electrolysis is also useful, but I hear hurts).
Biologically we males are sporting the same equipment, it is our ovary parts are testicles instead, and the penis(OMG he said Penis, and earlier Vagina< scandal!) is pretty much an out hanging vaginal ovipositor to ensure delivery of the genetic materials to a females' ovaries is all. It is just that once the body is given certain codes, it locks those parts one way, or the other, and breast tissue is a later in life thing.
As a reincarnation believer, I think the issue is that a soul reborn to a new body well, with the birth thing, they forget that they may have chosen to try life as a different gender, and then feel the way their old body used to be, and the new one feels "wrong" this can also happen with ethnicity, but seems the most pronounced with a gender change, and the person really decides they wish to be what they were in that past life body/shell.
Crablezworth wrote: Tolerating an opinion one perceives as bad is exactly what is being asked of these 200 individuals it would seem.
Except the opinion that transwomen, even pre-op, can change with ciswomen isn't a fringe, crazy opinion. it's a pretty well supported one, and its growing.
Remember, back in the mists of time, when we were discussing gay rights? Remember when society went berserk trying to explain that they tolerated gay people, they just didn't want them married, or in the military, or in the Boy Scouts, or really doing anything gay at all?
This is the same issue. It's a bit ickier, because trans status is less relatable, but since the Stonewall riots, the gay rights movement basically made the argument that they should be treated fully as people, despite their orientation. Mainstream society spent 45 years arguing that, no, gay rights had nothing to do with racial civil rights, and if we gave gay people rights this time society really would explode.
Has society exploded?
Look, I get that progress is scary. I don't envy people, that are none too sophisticated to begin with, being asked to comprehend issues like gender identity and whatnot. it's tough overcoming a lifetime of ingrained biases and prejudices. But we've done this before! We all been on this ride, with Black rights, women's rights, gay rights. We're getting there on immigration rights. What is considered almost unthinkably bizarre now will seem laughably regressive in a generation.
Xenomancers wrote: So if I want to go into the womens locker room - all I gotta do is pretend to be trans for a few minutes? Nice to know.
and that is why I think this is a dumb rule/law. I have to prove everything else in my life but apparently I don't have to prove im transgender when I want to walk into the opposite sex bathroom/locker room.
And for the love of god stop posting that same line "But nobody has complained yet!" yeah you know why? they would get ostracized by bigots like you who would then rush to defend the pervert and to hell with whom ever was offended or sexually harassed.
Xenomancers wrote: So if I want to go into the womens locker room - all I gotta do is pretend to be trans for a few minutes? Nice to know.
Seems like it. And nobody can really demand any proof either.
And you wonder why we think your bigots. Because you continually make really stupid jokes about being trans. That has been rebutted multiple times.
You have the right to refuse to accept that a person wants to alter their gender. But making jokes about it? That's hateful, and frankly a sign of bigotry.
We're talking about giving someone who isn't trans a free pass to enter the opposite sex bathroom. Because they can just claim they are trans and get away with it.
We're talking about giving someone who isn't trans a free pass to enter the opposite sex bathroom. Because they can just claim they are trans and get away with it.
Except they can't. I mean, you know that, right? The woman in this case had been dressing and identifying as a woman for a year prior to this.
It's usually policy that a person outwardly identify as the transition gender for a while before anything official recognizes them.
The people doing this are liberals. Do you really think they wouldn't have a regulatory structure in place?
Xenomancers wrote: So if I want to go into the womens locker room - all I gotta do is pretend to be trans for a few minutes? Nice to know.
Seems like it. And nobody can really demand any proof either.
Frankly no one should even ask if you are transgendered. It would be bigoted to question why you chose to use a locker room that does not seemingly match what is physically between your legs. Unless you break some law/sexually harass the other occupants they should just accept it.
Xenomancers wrote: So if I want to go into the womens locker room - all I gotta do is pretend to be trans for a few minutes? Nice to know.
Seems like it. And nobody can really demand any proof either.
Frankly no one should even ask if you are transgendered. It would be bigoted to question why you chose to use a locker room that does not seemingly match what is physically between your legs. Unless you break some law/sexually harass the other occupants they should just accept it.
I think in an institutional environment like a school, there's enough structure, given guidance counselors and the like, to facilitate some sort of oversight.
If nothing else, to prevent people from wearing drag one day and conducting a panty raid.
What I'm saying is there are some very good reasons for not letting a pre-op tranny use the opposite sex bathroom. Namely it opens the door for allowing perverts and sex offenders another way to do what they do.
At the very least, you should be required to be post-op before you are allowed to use the opposite sex bathroom.
Grey Templar wrote: . Namely it opens the door for allowing perverts and sex offenders another way to do what they do.
How?
And what public high schools have sex offenders as students?
Did you miss the "pervert" part of my sentence? And this applies beyond just schools, I think it highlights a problem that could extend to the larger public.
We're talking about giving someone who isn't trans a free pass to enter the opposite sex bathroom. Because they can just claim they are trans and get away with it.
Except they can't. I mean, you know that, right? The woman in this case had been dressing and identifying as a woman for a year prior to this.
It's usually policy that a person outwardly identify as the transition gender for a while before anything official recognizes them.
The people doing this are liberals. Do you really think they wouldn't have a regulatory structure in place?
Pol, can you go back and look to the original article linked in the first post? The lawyer involved worded it so that anyone can go in and claim to be trans. I made a comment about it early in the thread. While I agree that's not RAI, it is RAW here.
Grey Templar wrote: Did you miss the "pervert" part of my sentence? And this applies beyond just schools, I think it highlights a problem that could extend to the larger public.
So, you think a pervert is going to publicly announce a change in gender, dress in that gender, and live that new gender for months. All to gain access to the locker room?
Crablezworth wrote: Tolerating an opinion one perceives as bad is exactly what is being asked of these 200 individuals it would seem.
Except the opinion that transwomen, even pre-op, can change with ciswomen isn't a fringe, crazy opinion. it's a pretty well supported one, and its growing.
Remember, back in the mists of time, when we were discussing gay rights? Remember when society went berserk trying to explain that they tolerated gay people, they just didn't want them married, or in the military, or in the Boy Scouts, or really doing anything gay at all?
This is the same issue. It's a bit ickier, because trans status is less relatable, but since the Stonewall riots, the gay rights movement basically made the argument that they should be treated fully as people, despite their orientation. Mainstream society spent 45 years arguing that, no, gay rights had nothing to do with racial civil rights, and if we gave gay people rights this time society really would explode.
Has society exploded?
Look, I get that progress is scary. I don't envy people, that are none too sophisticated to begin with, being asked to comprehend issues like gender identity and whatnot. it's tough overcoming a lifetime of ingrained biases and prejudices. But we've done this before! We all been on this ride, with Black rights, women's rights, gay rights. We're getting there on immigration rights. What is considered almost unthinkably bizarre now will seem laughably regressive in a generation.
Actually thats not the argument, nor the issue. people aren't aren't arguing she's not what she wants to be.
People are arguing forcing high school girls to be around a swinging dick reaks of all kinds of violations of cutlure for no reason, and may in fact violate the constitute and criminal laws.
Pol, can you go back and look to the original article linked in the first post? The lawyer involved worded it so that anyone can go in and claim to be trans. I made a comment about it early in the thread. While I agree that's not RAI, it is RAW here.
that's his argument, probably not the one that I'd make. But I'm also not certain she has a legal right to use the locker room.
Grey Templar wrote: Did you miss the "pervert" part of my sentence? And this applies beyond just schools, I think it highlights a problem that could extend to the larger public.
So, you think a pervert is going to publicly announce a change in gender, dress in that gender, and live that new gender for months. All to gain access to the locker room?
Now you're being sexist and bigoted. Thats not a pervert. Thats a misunderstood induvisual exploring all gender options and merely seeking greater education on those options. With a camera.
Grey Templar wrote: Did you miss the "pervert" part of my sentence? And this applies beyond just schools, I think it highlights a problem that could extend to the larger public.
So, you think a pervert is going to publicly announce a change in gender, dress in that gender, and live that new gender for months. All to gain access to the locker room?
no we dont polonius, but according to the stupid law that has been cited a few times, they don't have to. All they have to do is walk into the bathroom/dressing room and if anyone questions them they can sue for infringing on their rights as a transgender person. Please show me where in the US laws it says the person has to be publicly transgender for months and has lived as trans gender for months?
Lt. Coldfire wrote: I feel like the word "bigot" has been thrown around so much in this thread that it has completely lost it's meaning.
It now means a type of bad pastry. It derives from the French beignet, which is awesomesauce, but is its crappier, spoiled older brother who drinks too much and has cigarette breath.
Actually thats not the argument, nor the issue. people aren't aren't arguing she's not what she wants to be.
People are arguing forcing high school girls to be around a swinging dick reaks of all kinds of violations of cutlure for no reason, and may in fact violate the constitute and criminal laws.
And let me assure you: people made the same half assed, weak tea arguments for the problems behind desegregation and gay marriage.
I'm not saying you're 100% wrong. I'm saying that in 20 years, or 30, you will be seen as being 100% wrong.
Grey Templar wrote: . Namely it opens the door for allowing perverts and sex offenders another way to do what they do.
How?
And what public high schools have sex offenders as students?
Many. My district houses a Juvenile Affairs contracted facility dedicated to housing just those underage students who have committed sex crimes. Once they leave these facilities, they must be allowed admittance into the regular school unless they were convicted of a violent crime. The end result is that current federal and state law requires districts open access to all but the most violent offenders. Peeping Toms, even convicted, must be provided with the same education, in the same environment as all students.
No. But they can lie and say they've been doing that. Are you going to ask for photographic proof and character witnesses?
As for dressing that gender, given that there are a lot of clothing that are gender neutral now, along with haircuts, can you honestly say someone's dress and style means anything in this? I see dozens of women wearing pants, t-gaks, and having short hair. Heck, I know women who have shorter hair than I have, and they are definitely not trannys(or lesbians if that matters)
Lets say a new student transfers to the school. They are genuinely a tranny. They want to use the opposite sex restroom. You have zero evidence one way or the other on this person. Are you going to require them to attend school for X period of time before you allow them to use the opposite sex bathroom? What if someone just begins to claim they are tranny?
Putting a time requirement on stuff doesn't close this potential loophole.
Grey Templar wrote: No. But they can lie and say they've been doing that. Are you going to ask for photographic proof and character witnesses?
As for dressing that gender, given that there are a lot of clothing that are gender neutral now, along with haircuts, can you honestly say someone's dress and style means anything in this? I see dozens of women wearing pants, t-gaks, and having short hair. Heck, I know women who have shorter hair than I have, and they are definitely not trannys(or lesbians if that matters)
Lets say a new student transfers to the school. They are genuinely a tranny. They want to use the opposite sex restroom. You have zero evidence one way or the other on this person. Are you going to require them to attend school for X period of time before you allow them to use the opposite sex bathroom? What if someone just begins to claim they are tranny?
Putting a time requirement on stuff doesn't close this potential loophole.
Dude, please stop using "tranny" that's a hateful word.
Grey Templar wrote: Did you miss the "pervert" part of my sentence? And this applies beyond just schools, I think it highlights a problem that could extend to the larger public.
So, you think a pervert is going to publicly announce a change in gender, dress in that gender, and live that new gender for months. All to gain access to the locker room?
no we dont polonius, but according to the stupid law that has been cited a few times, they don't have to. All they have to do is walk into the bathroom/dressing room and if anyone questions them they can sue for infringing on their rights as a transgender person. Please show me where in the US laws it says the person has to be publicly transgender for months and has lived as trans gender for months?
What law? There isn't really a law here.
Do you think it's illegal to walk into a woman's locker room? It's not. It's illegal to intrude on privacy, willfully and knowingly. But it'd be just as much true if I walked into a men's locker room and started inappropriately staring at the naked men, or exposing myself to the men there.
We're talking about giving someone who isn't trans a free pass to enter the opposite sex bathroom. Because they can just claim they are trans and get away with it.
Except they can't. I mean, you know that, right? The woman in this case had been dressing and identifying as a woman for a year prior to this.
It's usually policy that a person outwardly identify as the transition gender for a while before anything official recognizes them.
The people doing this are liberals. Do you really think they wouldn't have a regulatory structure in place?
So hang on - now you can tell me how to dress and be trans at the same time? Are you the fashion police? Come on man - this is a load of crap. It should only be treated seriously with sarcasm. In the united states if you have penis you use a mens room and likewise a vagina uses the womens room. If you have both - you go to the room that your birth certificate tells you to. That is our culture. It's worked fine for hundreds of years. Now get over it. You want to go to the womans room - go turn your penis into a vagina - it's so simple.
I guarantee you, if I walked into a womens restroom and never looked at or did anything inappropriate I would still get arrested. Even if all I was doing was something totally legal. Like say I sat down in a corner and started reading War and Peace. I'd still get in massive trouble.
Grey Templar wrote: Putting a time requirement on stuff doesn't close this potential loophole.
there's a concept in a lot of civil rights stuff called "sincere belief." Usually it's a religious issue, but I can see it applying here.
A decision maker doesn't need to determine if the legitimacy of a claim, but the sincerity. Yes, you can check and see if this person is being sincere in their identity and how they carry themselves.
Actually thats not the argument, nor the issue. people aren't aren't arguing she's not what she wants to be.
People are arguing forcing high school girls to be around a swinging dick reaks of all kinds of violations of cutlure for no reason, and may in fact violate the constitute and criminal laws.
And let me assure you: people made the same half assed, weak tea arguments for the problems behind desegregation and gay marriage.
I'm not saying you're 100% wrong. I'm saying that in 20 years, or 30, you will be seen as being 100% wrong.
Really? So every segregated locker room is "half assed, weak tea arguments?" Must be rarefied air up there on that sacred mountain top all alone.
In fact, one could argue its actually a sex crime-the public display of genitals to the opposite sex without their consent. You don't want to see her on a sex offender list do?
Xenomancers wrote: So if I want to go into the womens locker room - all I gotta do is pretend to be trans for a few minutes? Nice to know.
and that is why I think this is a dumb rule/law. I have to prove everything else in my life but apparently I don't have to prove im transgender when I want to walk into the opposite sex bathroom/locker room.
How would you demand someone prove it?
Grey Templar wrote: What I'm saying is there are some very good reasons for not letting a pre-op tranny use the opposite sex bathroom.
I'm doing my best not to brutally oppress and censor you by saying this, but would you mind not using the word "tranny"? It comes across, to me at least, as being rude and dismissive.
Grey Templar wrote: No. But they can lie and say they've been doing that. Are you going to ask for photographic proof and character witnesses?
As for dressing that gender, given that there are a lot of clothing that are gender neutral now, along with haircuts, can you honestly say someone's dress and style means anything in this? I see dozens of women wearing pants, t-gaks, and having short hair. Heck, I know women who have shorter hair than I have, and they are definitely not trannys(or lesbians if that matters)
Lets say a new student transfers to the school. They are genuinely a tranny. They want to use the opposite sex restroom. You have zero evidence one way or the other on this person. Are you going to require them to attend school for X period of time before you allow them to use the opposite sex bathroom? What if someone just begins to claim they are tranny?
Putting a time requirement on stuff doesn't close this potential loophole.
Dude, please stop using "tranny" that's a hateful word.
Well since you say it is hateful - it must be hateful. Well make sure not to abbreviate any words while you are on watch so as not to offend anyone.
You know what offends me? When the media uses the phrase "people of color" I find it extremely offensive. It suggest we are un-colorful which has a negative connotation - as in heartless - un emotional - lifeless. I also find it offensive that such a term exist specifically. Is there even a term of it's type that excludes only one race and accepts all others?
Grey Templar wrote: Did you miss the "pervert" part of my sentence? And this applies beyond just schools, I think it highlights a problem that could extend to the larger public.
So, you think a pervert is going to publicly announce a change in gender, dress in that gender, and live that new gender for months. All to gain access to the locker room?
no we dont polonius, but according to the stupid law that has been cited a few times, they don't have to. All they have to do is walk into the bathroom/dressing room and if anyone questions them they can sue for infringing on their rights as a transgender person. Please show me where in the US laws it says the person has to be publicly transgender for months and has lived as trans gender for months?
What law? There isn't really a law here.
Do you think it's illegal to walk into a woman's locker room? It's not. It's illegal to intrude on privacy, willfully and knowingly. But it'd be just as much true if I walked into a men's locker room and started inappropriately staring at the naked men, or exposing myself to the men there.
How many of those people would be underage? Not exactly the best choice in analogy. I promise you that if an adult male walked into a girls bathroom, there'd be trouble or if an adult man exposed himself to a group of underage males, there'd be jail time and you know it.
Grey Templar wrote: I guarantee you, if I walked into a womens restroom and never looked at or did anything inappropriate I would still get arrested. Even if all I was doing was something totally legal. Like say I sat down in a corner and started reading War and Peace. I'd still get in massive trouble.
You might get arrested, but even then only if you refused to leave.
I wouldn't recommend it, but lets assume you walked into the women's restroom, dressed as a man, went into a stall, did your business, flushed, washed your hands, and left.
What, exactly, do you think would happen? Maybe somebody gets a manager or something. Odds are, they'd be happy you left.
How long ago has it been that people were sincerely arguing that it is wrong for gay guys to be in the same locker room as straight guys because they are just going to fantasize about all the naked guys and it puts the other people at risk because the gay guys might not been able to restrain themselves?
Has "gay on straight locker room sexual assault" become the pandemic that it was claimed to be?
Xenomancers wrote: Well since you say it is hateful - it must be hateful. Well make sure not to abbreviate any words while you are on watch so as not to offend anyone.
Yeah, it's never used for being rude against you, so how could anyone be offended by it?
Xenomancers wrote: So if I want to go into the womens locker room - all I gotta do is pretend to be trans for a few minutes? Nice to know.
and that is why I think this is a dumb rule/law. I have to prove everything else in my life but apparently I don't have to prove im transgender when I want to walk into the opposite sex bathroom/locker room.
How would you demand someone prove it?
Grey Templar wrote: What I'm saying is there are some very good reasons for not letting a pre-op tranny use the opposite sex bathroom.
I'm doing my best not to brutally oppress and censor you by saying this, but would you mind not using the word "tranny"? It comes across, to me at least, as being rude and dismissive.
If you had bothered to read my earlier posts you would have seen that I said they should have to go to a psychologist and be diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria. And even after that I would still rather them use a gender neutral bathroom for changing and things like that. I don't understand why my daughters should have to view a transgender Penis in highschool just to pass gym class.
Grey Templar wrote: Putting a time requirement on stuff doesn't close this potential loophole.
there's a concept in a lot of civil rights stuff called "sincere belief." Usually it's a religious issue, but I can see it applying here.
A decision maker doesn't need to determine if the legitimacy of a claim, but the sincerity. Yes, you can check and see if this person is being sincere in their identity and how they carry themselves.
Ok, how are you going to test the sincerity?
Lets use the bar for religion. I don't have to tell you that the bar for sincerity is really really low. I could put Pastafarian(worship of the flying spaghetti monster) on a form, there really wouldn't be much you could do to say I'm not one.
Actually thats not the argument, nor the issue. people aren't aren't arguing she's not what she wants to be.
People are arguing forcing high school girls to be around a swinging dick reaks of all kinds of violations of cutlure for no reason, and may in fact violate the constitute and criminal laws.
And let me assure you: people made the same half assed, weak tea arguments for the problems behind desegregation and gay marriage.
I'm not saying you're 100% wrong. I'm saying that in 20 years, or 30, you will be seen as being 100% wrong.
Really? So every segregated locker room is "half assed, weak tea arguments?" Must be rarefied air up there on that sacred mountain top all alone.
In fact, one could argue its actually a sex crime-the public display of genitals to the opposite sex without their consent. You don't want to see her on a sex offender list do?
Exposing yourself isn't a crime. Exposing yourself for sexual gratification, or exposing yourself to a child less than fifteen years of age under circumstances in which he or she knows that his or her conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the child is, at least in Missouri.
Quietly changing in the corner doesn't qualify. BTW, these rules are not gender specific, meaning that if a boy exposed himself to a boy in a way that would cause affront, that's a sex crime.
Grey Templar wrote: I guarantee you, if I walked into a womens restroom and never looked at or did anything inappropriate I would still get arrested. Even if all I was doing was something totally legal. Like say I sat down in a corner and started reading War and Peace. I'd still get in massive trouble.
You might get arrested, but even then only if you refused to leave.
I wouldn't recommend it, but lets assume you walked into the women's restroom, dressed as a man, went into a stall, did your business, flushed, washed your hands, and left.
What, exactly, do you think would happen? Maybe somebody gets a manager or something. Odds are, they'd be happy you left.
My wife routinely drags me to some arts/crafts/whatever show at the fair park with the end result being 5,000 women and 200 men. Every single time I go there are women using the men's bathroom because it is usually empty. When I go in and use the urinal they usually look pretty embarrassed when they come out of the stall and run towards the door.
Maybe I should start demanding a police escort to the bathroom to arrest them all on sight...
Grey Templar wrote: Putting a time requirement on stuff doesn't close this potential loophole.
there's a concept in a lot of civil rights stuff called "sincere belief." Usually it's a religious issue, but I can see it applying here.
A decision maker doesn't need to determine if the legitimacy of a claim, but the sincerity. Yes, you can check and see if this person is being sincere in their identity and how they carry themselves.
Ok, how are you going to test the sincerity?
Lets use the bar for religion. I don't have to tell you that the bar for sincerity is really really low. I could put Pastafarian(worship of the flying spaghetti monster) on a form, there really wouldn't be much you could do to say I'm not one.
You have them sit with a guidance counselor, who are trained in adolescent psychology. You interview them, the family. This isn't mind bogglingly difficult.
Grey Templar wrote: I guarantee you, if I walked into a womens restroom and never looked at or did anything inappropriate I would still get arrested. Even if all I was doing was something totally legal. Like say I sat down in a corner and started reading War and Peace. I'd still get in massive trouble.
You might get arrested, but even then only if you refused to leave.
I wouldn't recommend it, but lets assume you walked into the women's restroom, dressed as a man, went into a stall, did your business, flushed, washed your hands, and left.
What, exactly, do you think would happen? Maybe somebody gets a manager or something. Odds are, they'd be happy you left.
My wife routinely drags me to some arts/crafts/whatever show at the fair park with the end result being 5,000 women and 200 men. Every single time I go there are women using the men's bathroom because it is usually empty. When I go in and use the urinal they usually look pretty embarrassed when they come out of the stall and run towards the door.
Maybe I should start demanding a police escort to the bathroom to arrest them all on sight...
Now switch the genders around, woman would in fact call the cops on you for that. So whats your point?
d-usa wrote: How long ago has it been that people were sincerely arguing that it is wrong for gay guys to be in the same locker room as straight guys because they are just going to fantasize about all the naked guys and it puts the other people at risk because the gay guys might not been able to restrain themselves?
And they all have a penis. So why can't Kid With Penis also use the locker room allocated to people with penises? Can't the other people with penises be able to restrain themselves from what ever it is that makes this particular Kid With Penis worried?
Grey Templar wrote: Putting a time requirement on stuff doesn't close this potential loophole.
there's a concept in a lot of civil rights stuff called "sincere belief." Usually it's a religious issue, but I can see it applying here.
A decision maker doesn't need to determine if the legitimacy of a claim, but the sincerity. Yes, you can check and see if this person is being sincere in their identity and how they carry themselves.
Ok, how are you going to test the sincerity?
Lets use the bar for religion. I don't have to tell you that the bar for sincerity is really really low. I could put Pastafarian(worship of the flying spaghetti monster) on a form, there really wouldn't be much you could do to say I'm not one.
You have them sit with a guidance counselor, who are trained in adolescent psychology. You interview them, the family. This isn't mind bogglingly difficult.
What if they refuse? Could they not claim that nobody else has to prove their gender, why should they?
Grey Templar wrote: I guarantee you, if I walked into a womens restroom and never looked at or did anything inappropriate I would still get arrested. Even if all I was doing was something totally legal. Like say I sat down in a corner and started reading War and Peace. I'd still get in massive trouble.
You might get arrested, but even then only if you refused to leave.
I wouldn't recommend it, but lets assume you walked into the women's restroom, dressed as a man, went into a stall, did your business, flushed, washed your hands, and left.
What, exactly, do you think would happen? Maybe somebody gets a manager or something. Odds are, they'd be happy you left.
My wife routinely drags me to some arts/crafts/whatever show at the fair park with the end result being 5,000 women and 200 men. Every single time I go there are women using the men's bathroom because it is usually empty. When I go in and use the urinal they usually look pretty embarrassed when they come out of the stall and run towards the door.
Maybe I should start demanding a police escort to the bathroom to arrest them all on sight...
Now switch the genders around, woman would in fact call the cops on you for that. So whats your point?
Care to cite a single case of a guy being arrested for using the woman's bathroom?
d-usa wrote: How long ago has it been that people were sincerely arguing that it is wrong for gay guys to be in the same locker room as straight guys because they are just going to fantasize about all the naked guys and it puts the other people at risk because the gay guys might not been able to restrain themselves?
Has "gay on straight locker room sexual assault" become the pandemic that it was claimed to be?
That's not my problem. My problem is with my underage daughter being exposed to male genitalia in the locker room at school without my knowledge so that I could, as a parent, discuss the matter with her. It's effectively taking control away from parents/families and giving the big middle finger to people who might disagree. Lesbians have the same equipment as other women, gay men have the same equipment as men, as long as there's no hanky-panky, I have no problem but we're talking about mis-matched equipment sharing space in the same room.
There's a reason why streakers go to jail or people who flash their genitalia at minors are labeled sex offenders; it has and continues to be societies stance that people of one sex do not need to be forced to look upon or be subjected to the presence of the opposite sex's naked genitalia. There are multiple reasons for this particular mores in society and to just ignore it all and say, "tough, deal with it" is ignoring that there is a perfectly legitimate argument against it.
Obviously, if the school's stalls have doors, I have no problem with this young lady using the women's restroom; it's the locker room that I take issue with.
Grey Templar wrote: What if they refuse? Could they not claim that nobody else has to prove their gender, why should they?
That's called "tough."
schools have every right to be fair, and to make sure that people are protected. I don't want somebody going through a phase swapping locker rooms like shoes.
I just think that it's possible to determine that a person is sincerely trans, and that schools can (and possibly should) treat them fully as their declared gender.
Xenomancers wrote: Well since you say it is hateful - it must be hateful. Well make sure not to abbreviate any words while you are on watch so as not to offend anyone.
Yeah, it's never used for being rude against you, so how could anyone be offended by it?
Words mean different things depending on who is saying them and the words around them. It's clear he wasn't trying to be offensive is my point. Pointing out something like this when someone clearly ins't trying to be offensive just goes to show you how cooky political correctness has gotten. Which is in line with this topic. PC is so messed up a man can now walk into a women's restroom and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
d-usa wrote: How long ago has it been that people were sincerely arguing that it is wrong for gay guys to be in the same locker room as straight guys because they are just going to fantasize about all the naked guys and it puts the other people at risk because the gay guys might not been able to restrain themselves?
And they all have a penis. So why can't Kid With Penis also use the locker room allocated to people with penises? Can't the other people with penises be able to restrain themselves from what ever it is that makes this particular Kid With Penis worried?
Or does the argument only work in one direction?
Because the gay guy is a boy, that's why he uses the boys locker room. And despite the fact that everyone used to think that this will lead to sexual perversions it hasn't.
And a girl is a girl, what's why she uses the girls locker room. And again everybody is thinking that it will lead to sexual perversions, which it won't.
Am I the only one who sees "tranny" and sees "transmission" I feel so old now.
How many of those people would be underage? Not exactly the best choice in analogy. I promise you that if an adult male walked into a girls bathroom, there'd be trouble or if an adult man exposed himself to a group of underage males, there'd be jail time and you know it.
Exactly. Thats what I am referring to. This is actually potentially criminal.
Grey Templar wrote: I guarantee you, if I walked into a womens restroom and never looked at or did anything inappropriate I would still get arrested. Even if all I was doing was something totally legal. Like say I sat down in a corner and started reading War and Peace. I'd still get in massive trouble.
You might get arrested, but even then only if you refused to leave.
I wouldn't recommend it, but lets assume you walked into the women's restroom, dressed as a man, went into a stall, did your business, flushed, washed your hands, and left.
What, exactly, do you think would happen? Maybe somebody gets a manager or something. Odds are, they'd be happy you left.
My wife routinely drags me to some arts/crafts/whatever show at the fair park with the end result being 5,000 women and 200 men. Every single time I go there are women using the men's bathroom because it is usually empty. When I go in and use the urinal they usually look pretty embarrassed when they come out of the stall and run towards the door.
Maybe I should start demanding a police escort to the bathroom to arrest them all on sight...
Now switch the genders around, woman would in fact call the cops on you for that. So whats your point?
Care to cite a single case of a guy being arrested for using the woman's bathroom?
Xenomancers wrote: Well since you say it is hateful - it must be hateful. Well make sure not to abbreviate any words while you are on watch so as not to offend anyone.
Yeah, it's never used for being rude against you, so how could anyone be offended by it?
Words mean different things depending on who is saying them and the words around them. It's clear he wasn't trying to be offensive is my point. Pointing out something like this when someone clearly ins't trying to be offensive just goes to show you how cooky political correctness has gotten. Which is in line with this topic. PC is so messed up a man can now walk into a women's restroom and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
A man didn't walk into the women's restroom, though, so I don't see why you're making a fuss.
Grey Templar wrote: What if they refuse? Could they not claim that nobody else has to prove their gender, why should they?
That's called "tough."
schools have every right to be fair, and to make sure that people are protected. I don't want somebody going through a phase swapping locker rooms like shoes.
I just think that it's possible to determine that a person is sincerely trans, and that schools can (and possibly should) treat them fully as their declared gender.
How long should we make this process of gender declaration to prevent flip flopping? Can you change multiple times? Is anyone really qualified to determine the correct declared sex of a student?
These are more rhetorical questions because there aren't any good answers to these questions because the subject is so ridicules -still have to ask them to prove a point.
Grey Templar wrote: What if they refuse? Could they not claim that nobody else has to prove their gender, why should they?
That's called "tough."
schools have every right to be fair, and to make sure that people are protected. I don't want somebody going through a phase swapping locker rooms like shoes.
I just think that it's possible to determine that a person is sincerely trans, and that schools can (and possibly should) treat them fully as their declared gender.
I don't doubt you can determine if someone is trans, if they cooperate.
But again, what prevents someone from using the opposite sex bathroom to get some panty shots and just claiming they are trans if they get in hot water? They still dress and act like they did before. Can you really say they're not trans? What if they just also like to wear their "original" gender's clothing? Keep their hairstyle, etc...
d-usa wrote: How long ago has it been that people were sincerely arguing that it is wrong for gay guys to be in the same locker room as straight guys because they are just going to fantasize about all the naked guys and it puts the other people at risk because the gay guys might not been able to restrain themselves?
And they all have a penis. So why can't Kid With Penis also use the locker room allocated to people with penises? Can't the other people with penises be able to restrain themselves from what ever it is that makes this particular Kid With Penis worried?
Or does the argument only work in one direction?
Because the gay guy is a boy, that's why he uses the boys locker room. And despite the fact that everyone used to think that this will lead to sexual perversions it hasn't.
And a girl is a girl, what's why she uses the girls locker room. And again everybody is thinking that it will lead to sexual perversions, which it won't.
You didn't answer anything.
Becuase when guy brings his willy into the girl's locker and shower room, the girls could press charges and have the guy arrested, no matter what preference or gender.
Xenomancers wrote: Well since you say it is hateful - it must be hateful. Well make sure not to abbreviate any words while you are on watch so as not to offend anyone.
Yeah, it's never used for being rude against you, so how could anyone be offended by it?
Words mean different things depending on who is saying them and the words around them. It's clear he wasn't trying to be offensive is my point. Pointing out something like this when someone clearly ins't trying to be offensive just goes to show you how cooky political correctness has gotten. Which is in line with this topic. PC is so messed up a man can now walk into a women's restroom and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
A man didn't walk into the women's restroom, though, so I don't see why you're making a fuss.
The only sex organ this person posses is a penis and you don't believe this is a man? Yet can claim I am not a woman and he is a woman just because he..."acts more girly"? come on man.
Grey Templar wrote: What if they refuse? Could they not claim that nobody else has to prove their gender, why should they?
That's called "tough."
schools have every right to be fair, and to make sure that people are protected. I don't want somebody going through a phase swapping locker rooms like shoes.
I just think that it's possible to determine that a person is sincerely trans, and that schools can (and possibly should) treat them fully as their declared gender.
I don't doubt you can determine if someone is trans, if they cooperate.
But again, what prevents someone from using the opposite sex bathroom to get some panty shots and just claiming they are trans if they get in hot water? They still dress and act like they did before. Can you really say they're not trans? What if they just also like to wear their "original" gender's clothing? Keep their hairstyle, etc...
Isn't taking panty shots sexual harassment no matter your gender?
Would you be concerned if you were in the locker room and another man was constantly staring at your genitalia?
Grey Templar wrote: What if they refuse? Could they not claim that nobody else has to prove their gender, why should they?
That's called "tough."
schools have every right to be fair, and to make sure that people are protected. I don't want somebody going through a phase swapping locker rooms like shoes.
I just think that it's possible to determine that a person is sincerely trans, and that schools can (and possibly should) treat them fully as their declared gender.
Non transgender people do declare their sex with their birth certificate, so I honestly don't have an issue to ask for some sort of "proof" from a transgender person.
I obviously wouldn't want them performing an Olympic games style gender test on every child that is transgender, but a simple doctors note like it is required for so many other things is okay: "Tim can't come to school, he is sick." "Bob can't participate in PE for the next 6 weeks because of injury" "Susie can't have the MMR vaccine because she is allergic to the ingredient" "Eric identifies as a girl".
Xenomancers wrote: The only sex organ this person posses is a penis and you don't believe this is a man? Yet can claim I am not a woman and he is a woman just because he..."acts more girly"? come on man.
Xenomancers wrote: Well since you say it is hateful - it must be hateful. Well make sure not to abbreviate any words while you are on watch so as not to offend anyone.
Yeah, it's never used for being rude against you, so how could anyone be offended by it?
Words mean different things depending on who is saying them and the words around them. It's clear he wasn't trying to be offensive is my point. Pointing out something like this when someone clearly ins't trying to be offensive just goes to show you how cooky political correctness has gotten. Which is in line with this topic. PC is so messed up a man can now walk into a women's restroom and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
A man didn't walk into the women's restroom, though, so I don't see why you're making a fuss.
No, a man, who identifies as a women, definitely did enter a women's restroom.
I can put on a wig, a mini-skirt, and wear a sports bra. But it doesn't change that I am physically a man.
If I have a mental condition where I really do believe I am a chicken, it doesn't make me a chicken. At least until I under go surgery to become a chicken.
Ok, fine. You genuinely believe you are a women trapped in a mans body. Fine, I can accept that. But you're still physically a man, till you get that fixed use the men's room. Or a gender neutral bathroom.
There's a reason why streakers go to jail or people who flash their genitalia at minors are labeled sex offenders; it has and continues to be societies stance that people of one sex do not need to be forced to look upon or be subjected to the presence of the opposite sex's naked genitalia. There are multiple reasons for this particular mores in society and to just ignore it all and say, "tough, deal with it" is ignoring that there is a perfectly legitimate argument against it.
Most streakers go to jail for disturbing the peace more than exposing themselves.
And the exposure laws I've seen have been narrowly written so as not to criminalize any viewing of your genitals, but only those that are alarming, harmful, or sexually motivated.
The laws actually reflect the idea that simply seeing naked people in a non-sexual way really isn't that big of a deal.
Xenomancers wrote: The only sex organ this person posses is a penis and you don't believe this is a man? Yet can claim I am not a woman and he is a woman just because he..."acts more girly"? come on man.
Are you serious?
I am being absolutely serious. Whats to stop any man from claiming to be transgender and going into a female locker room?
Xenomancers wrote: Well since you say it is hateful - it must be hateful. Well make sure not to abbreviate any words while you are on watch so as not to offend anyone.
Yeah, it's never used for being rude against you, so how could anyone be offended by it?
Words mean different things depending on who is saying them and the words around them. It's clear he wasn't trying to be offensive is my point. Pointing out something like this when someone clearly ins't trying to be offensive just goes to show you how cooky political correctness has gotten. Which is in line with this topic. PC is so messed up a man can now walk into a women's restroom and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
A man didn't walk into the women's restroom, though, so I don't see why you're making a fuss.
The only sex organ this person posses is a penis and you don't believe this is a man? Yet can claim I am not a woman and he is a woman just because he..."acts more girly"? come on man.
I once danced on a table with a bird colonel singing YMCA and slamming straight vodka. Does that count? Did I say too much?
You didn't answer anything.
Becuase when a guy brings his willy into the girl's locker and shower room, the girls could press charges and have the guy arrested, no matter what preference or gender.
Xenomancers wrote: The only sex organ this person posses is a penis and you don't believe this is a man? Yet can claim I am not a woman and he is a woman just because he..."acts more girly"? come on man.
Are you serious?
I am being absolutely serious. Whats to stop any man from claiming to be transgender and going into a female locker room?
Your country has plenty of people walking around with guns. What's to stop any of them from shooting you because they feel like it?
Spoiler:
The answer: 1, because it has consequences.
2, because the majority of people are not douches.
Ashiraya wrote: Why have so many in in this thread forgotten that sex =/= gender?
That might be the progressive status quo - but it doesn't fly in the "real world." In the real world sex = gender and there is nothing bigoted about saying that - it is scientific fact.
Grey Templar wrote: I guarantee you, if I walked into a womens restroom and never looked at or did anything inappropriate I would still get arrested. Even if all I was doing was something totally legal. Like say I sat down in a corner and started reading War and Peace. I'd still get in massive trouble.
You might get arrested, but even then only if you refused to leave.
I wouldn't recommend it, but lets assume you walked into the women's restroom, dressed as a man, went into a stall, did your business, flushed, washed your hands, and left.
What, exactly, do you think would happen? Maybe somebody gets a manager or something. Odds are, they'd be happy you left.
My wife routinely drags me to some arts/crafts/whatever show at the fair park with the end result being 5,000 women and 200 men. Every single time I go there are women using the men's bathroom because it is usually empty. When I go in and use the urinal they usually look pretty embarrassed when they come out of the stall and run towards the door.
Maybe I should start demanding a police escort to the bathroom to arrest them all on sight...
Now switch the genders around, woman would in fact call the cops on you for that. So whats your point?
Care to cite a single case of a guy being arrested for using the woman's bathroom?
So we have one case of an arrest warrant, a person getting naked in front of a child, men recording women, a person being investigated for possibly stealing condoms and then arrested for public disturbance, and lots of transvestites getting booed on page 1?
You didn't answer anything. Becuase when a guy brings his willy into the girl's locker and shower room, the girls could press charges and have the guy arrested, no matter what preference or gender.
Highlighted the important part for you.
WRONG. slick willy is the important part, else we wouldn't be having this conversation. Physical science must suck for you.
Ashiraya wrote: Why have so many in in this thread forgotten that sex =/= gender?
That might be the progressive status quo - but it doesn't fly in the "real world." In the real world sex = gender and there is nothing bigoted about saying that - it is scientific fact.
You didn't answer anything.
Becuase when a guy brings his willy into the girl's locker and shower room, the girls could press charges and have the guy arrested, no matter what preference or gender.
Highlighted the important part for you.
WRONG.
slick willy is the important part, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.
No, if a guy was going into the girl's locker room with his penis out we would not be having the conversation.
The conversation is about a transgender girl using the girl's locker room and a bunch of people who, at this point, are just willfully ignorant that gender is more than a piece of flesh between your legs.
but only those that are alarming, harmful, or sexually motivated.
A prosecutor could make that stick in this circumstance, especially when most fo the girls would be minors. That sex predator territory.
Indeed.
If someone somehow accidentally ended up naked in front of children it would be incredibly easy to stick him with indecent conduct involving a minor or some other sex offender type charge.
You can't bring in evidence of behavior at the time of the incident, unless you somehow had crystal clear video footage of the entire event. So really all the evidence you have is naked person found with minor. I think the vast majority of jurys will find that to be sufficient evidence.
Ashiraya wrote: Why have so many in in this thread forgotten that sex =/= gender?
That might be the progressive status quo - but it doesn't fly in the "real world." In the real world sex = gender and there is nothing bigoted about saying that - it is scientific fact.
It depends a lot on what part of the real world you live in. For example, the medical part of the world says that, no, sex and gender are not linked. The legal part of the world, in most states, allows gender to differ from birth sex.
This isn't some tiny outpost of social justice. This is increasingly the real world.
You didn't answer anything.
Becuase when a guy brings his willy into the girl's locker and shower room, the girls could press charges and have the guy arrested, no matter what preference or gender.
Highlighted the important part for you.
WRONG.
slick willy is the important part, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.
No, if a guy was going into the girl's locker room with his penis out we would not be having the conversation.
The conversation is about a transgender girl using the girl's locker room and a bunch of people who, at this point, are just willfully ignorant that gender is more than a piece of flesh between your legs.
Its more than that, but whats between your legs is a vitally important part of that. And I think its the only part that should be considered in the case of restrooms.
Ashiraya wrote: Why have so many in in this thread forgotten that sex =/= gender?
That might be the progressive status quo - but it doesn't fly in the "real world." In the real world sex = gender and there is nothing bigoted about saying that - it is scientific fact.
Xenomancers wrote: The only sex organ this person posses is a penis and you don't believe this is a man? Yet can claim I am not a woman and he is a woman just because he..."acts more girly"? come on man.
Are you serious?
I am being absolutely serious. Whats to stop any man from claiming to be transgender and going into a female locker room?
Your country has plenty of people walking around with guns. What's to stop any of them from shooting you because they feel like it?
Spoiler:
The answer: 1, because it has consequences.
2, because the majority of people are not douches.
True consequences. What could actually be the consequence here? What law are they breaking? Changing my gender too quickly? Also think about it...how man sick dudes are there out there that are willing to go through the process of having the cops called on them and spending a night in jail just to get a glimps of a naked female minor?
There's a reason why streakers go to jail or people who flash their genitalia at minors are labeled sex offenders; it has and continues to be societies stance that people of one sex do not need to be forced to look upon or be subjected to the presence of the opposite sex's naked genitalia. There are multiple reasons for this particular mores in society and to just ignore it all and say, "tough, deal with it" is ignoring that there is a perfectly legitimate argument against it.
Most streakers go to jail for disturbing the peace more than exposing themselves.
And the exposure laws I've seen have been narrowly written so as not to criminalize any viewing of your genitals, but only those that are alarming, harmful, or sexually motivated.
The laws actually reflect the idea that simply seeing naked people in a non-sexual way really isn't that big of a deal.
My state's statute on exposure:
Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby
I bolded the "or" for you.
Guess what happens when you're convicted of a sex crime? Straight to the sex offender registry with you my friend and lord above help you if children are present. We put people in prison for decades for possessing an ounce of pot, just think what they do to people who expose themselves to children.
You didn't answer anything.
Becuase when a guy brings his willy into the girl's locker and shower room, the girls could press charges and have the guy arrested, no matter what preference or gender.
Highlighted the important part for you.
WRONG.
slick willy is the important part, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.
No, if a guy was going into the girl's locker room with his penis out we would not be having the conversation.
The conversation is about a transgender girl using the girl's locker room and a bunch of people who, at this point, are just willfully ignorant that gender is more than a piece of flesh between your legs.
You just said the same thing.
Does the transgender still have a penis?
Is so, end of story, no going into the gyno gifted locker room, else you go to jail.
True consequences. What could actually be the consequence here? What law are they breaking? Changing my gender too quickly? Also think about it...how man sick dudes are there out there that are willing to go through the process of having the cops called on them and spending a night in jail just to get a glimps of a naked female minor?
Sexual harassment is serious business. Behaving sufficiently inappropriately in a locker room is going to make people sue you no matter your gender.
Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby
I bolded the "or" for you.
Guess what happens when you're convicted of a sex crime? Straight to the sex offender registry with you my friend and lord above help you if children are present. We put people in prison for decades for possessing an ounce of pot, just think what they do to people who expose themselves to children.
You didn't answer anything.
Becuase when a guy brings his willy into the girl's locker and shower room, the girls could press charges and have the guy arrested, no matter what preference or gender.
Highlighted the important part for you.
WRONG.
slick willy is the important part, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.
No, if a guy was going into the girl's locker room with his penis out we would not be having the conversation.
The conversation is about a transgender girl using the girl's locker room and a bunch of people who, at this point, are just willfully ignorant that gender is more than a piece of flesh between your legs.
You just said the same thing.
Does the transgender still have a penis?
Is so, end of story, no going into the gyno gifted locker room, else you go to jail.
Give up. We're all bigots for not wanting our daughters around a bare or nearly bare penis without our foreknowledge, consent or comment. I'm the slimiest bigot in the world for wanting parental say-so in when my daughter is exposed to male anatomy at school.
True consequences. What could actually be the consequence here? What law are they breaking? Changing my gender too quickly? Also think about it...how man sick dudes are there out there that are willing to go through the process of having the cops called on them and spending a night in jail just to get a glimps of a naked female minor?
Sexual harassment is serious business. Behaving sufficiently inappropriately in a locker room is going to make people sue you no matter your gender.
It is indeed.
Hence why we should separate people by their physical differences. You claim your a girl? Ok, but you still got a wang, use the room for persons who have wangs.
Its more than that, but whats between your legs is a vitally important part of that.
Your brain, your hormones, and your genetics are going to be more important parts of your identity than your genitals. That's where your identity is formed, not between your legs.
And I think its the only part that should be considered in the case of restrooms.
And like I have said quite a few times, how transgender people integrate with society and how society should accept them and how both groups should interact is a good thing to talk about.
But there is still, despite many attempts at education, the argument that "he's a guy as long as he has a dick, no matter what", together with people making jokes about pretending to be transgender to get a thrill, comparing being transgender to thinking you are a chicken.
If people want to know why transgender have a high suicide rate? Look at some of the responses in this thread and you will find the cause, it's not because they were "allowed" to pick a gender before they were 18.
Speaking as a woman, I have had transwomen in the same locker room as me before, and it has never caused any issues. They are typically rather discreet.
If someone were to start staring a lot, it would be a cause of concern, but I doubt it is something I will ever see happen. Those peeping bogeymen seem to permanently reside under my bed together with the rest of the monsters.
Hence why we should separate people by their physical differences. You claim your a girl? Ok, but you still got a wang, use the room for persons who have wangs.
You didn't answer anything.
Becuase when a guy brings his willy into the girl's locker and shower room, the girls could press charges and have the guy arrested, no matter what preference or gender.
Highlighted the important part for you.
WRONG.
slick willy is the important part, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.
No, if a guy was going into the girl's locker room with his penis out we would not be having the conversation.
The conversation is about a transgender girl using the girl's locker room and a bunch of people who, at this point, are just willfully ignorant that gender is more than a piece of flesh between your legs.
You just said the same thing.
Does the transgender still have a penis?
Is so, end of story, no going into the gyno gifted locker room, else you go to jail.
Give up. We're all bigots for not wanting our daughters around a bare or nearly bare penis without our foreknowledge, consent or comment. I'm the slimiest bigot in the world for wanting parental say-so in when my daughter is exposed to male anatomy at school.
yep, apparently im a bigot to because I dont want my daughter exposed to male genitalia in her middle/high school. Im such a bigot....
Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby
I bolded the "or" for you.
Guess what happens when you're convicted of a sex crime? Straight to the sex offender registry with you my friend and lord above help you if children are present. We put people in prison for decades for possessing an ounce of pot, just think what they do to people who expose themselves to children.
I bolded the "lewdly" for you.
That only applies to the first half.
There are 2 situations for defining exposure by that statute.
If you lewdly expose your genitals in a public place.
or if you expose yourself in any place where people who might be offended or annoyed by it.
You didn't answer anything.
Becuase when a guy brings his willy into the girl's locker and shower room, the girls could press charges and have the guy arrested, no matter what preference or gender.
Highlighted the important part for you.
WRONG.
slick willy is the important part, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.
No, if a guy was going into the girl's locker room with his penis out we would not be having the conversation.
The conversation is about a transgender girl using the girl's locker room and a bunch of people who, at this point, are just willfully ignorant that gender is more than a piece of flesh between your legs.
You just said the same thing.
Does the transgender still have a penis?
Is so, end of story, no going into the gyno gifted locker room, else you go to jail.
Give up. We're all bigots for not wanting our daughters around a bare or nearly bare penis without our foreknowledge, consent or comment. I'm the slimiest bigot in the world for wanting parental say-so in when my daughter is exposed to male anatomy at school.
As a fellow dad, agreed.
I should note the counter argument is for locker room access. That includes showers. I don't care what their mental state is, this concept is just stupid.
Give up. We're all bigots for not wanting our daughters around a bare or nearly bare penis without our foreknowledge, consent or comment. I'm the slimiest bigot in the world for wanting parental say-so in when my daughter is exposed to male anatomy at school.
I hope you don't feel too attacked. I don't think you're being a bigot. You and Frazz have both spoken respectfully about the woman in question, and I don't think you're concern is coming from a bad place.
I think you are overvaluing the need to protect high school age girls from seeing a penis, but I'm not a father, so I can understand your concern.
I also think you're undervaluing the psychological harm it does to be further singled out. As I've said multiple times, I think the private room was a reasonable compromise in the situation.
Personally, I don't see the problem with having a person with a penis, that's not sexually interested in the women around him, changing with women. I think that there's a good point to be made that the women in question should have at least some say, which is a point I find more persuasive than parental rights.
So why are you arguing this person should be allowed to use the women's locker room? Especially when those other women in question are making it clear they do NOT want someone with a penis in their locker room.
Please, take your ass into a woman's locker room and let it all hang out in the shower with them. Tell me how long it is before you are bounced out of there, with the local constabulary demonstrating why a billy club may be less effective than a taser on a shot per shot basis, but it is oh so much more satisfying.
Ashiraya wrote: Speaking as a woman, I have had transwomen in the same locker room as me before, and it has never caused any issues. They are typically rather discreet.
If someone were to start staring a lot, it would be a cause of concern, but I doubt it is something I will ever see happen. Those peeping bogeymen seem to permanently reside under my bed together with the rest of the monsters.
I would have thought that would be the last place you would want them.
Give up. We're all bigots for not wanting our daughters around a bare or nearly bare penis without our foreknowledge, consent or comment. I'm the slimiest bigot in the world for wanting parental say-so in when my daughter is exposed to male anatomy at school.
That is perhaps the single most disappointing post to me in this thread. And it is especially hurtful coming from you considering that it is quoting me.
I have not called a single person in here a bigot. I have not called you a bigot. I have not call Frazzled a bigot.
I have stated over and over again that I am fine with working out a solution and that I realize that it is a difficult solution.
I have also stated over and over again that the big thing that is bothering me is the dismissal of "transgender" being a real thing and the failure to realize that the brain has a huge role in identity when it comes to gender and that you can biologically be a gender other than your genitals. And I honestly don't feel that this last point was ever something that I ever really felt any disagreement from you. I might have felt that you have a problem with your daughter seeing a penis, but I think you have managed to make it clear that you don't have a problem with her seeing a "guy pretending to be a girl" or anything like that and you have stated that if there was no chance of genital exposure (stalls or whatnot being present) your concern would be gone.
There are quite a few people throwing bigot around like candy at carnival and I don't think name calling helps anyone, but I am not one of them.
Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby
I bolded the "or" for you.
Guess what happens when you're convicted of a sex crime? Straight to the sex offender registry with you my friend and lord above help you if children are present. We put people in prison for decades for possessing an ounce of pot, just think what they do to people who expose themselves to children.
I bolded the "lewdly" for you.
That only applies to the first half.
There are 2 situations for defining exposure by that statute.
If you lewdly expose your genitals in a public place.
or if you expose yourself in any place where people who might be offended or annoyed by it.
No, Lewdly applies to both. The verb is expose, and lewdly is an adverb modifying that verb. Any use of exposed in that sentence will be modified by lewdly.
Ashiraya wrote: Speaking as a woman, I have had transwomen in the same locker room as me before, and it has never caused any issues. They are typically rather discreet.
If someone were to start staring a lot, it would be a cause of concern, but I doubt it is something I will ever see happen. Those peeping bogeymen seem to permanently reside under my bed together with the rest of the monsters.
Hence why we should separate people by their physical differences. You claim your a girl? Ok, but you still got a wang, use the room for persons who have wangs.
It does not say wang on the door, though.
There is a cultural difference here though. In europe there are unisex bathrooms and people pee in the streets in public urinals. The united states is different. In the US people are parinoid about the opposite sex seeing their junk and there is nothing wrong with that,
Ashiraya wrote: Speaking as a woman, I have had transwomen in the same locker room as me before, and it has never caused any issues. They are typically rather discreet.
If someone were to start staring a lot, it would be a cause of concern, but I doubt it is something I will ever see happen. Those peeping bogeymen seem to permanently reside under my bed together with the rest of the monsters.
I would have thought that would be the last place you would want them.
My CSM army resides under my bed. There's enough spikes in there to bleed an army.
Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby
I bolded the "or" for you.
Guess what happens when you're convicted of a sex crime? Straight to the sex offender registry with you my friend and lord above help you if children are present. We put people in prison for decades for possessing an ounce of pot, just think what they do to people who expose themselves to children.
I bolded the "lewdly" for you.
Are you willfully ignoring the "or" in there? Lewd doesn't have to occur for an arrest or conviction to take place.
Edit:
Bleh, you're right about the "lewd" part but lewd is just defined in my state as something done for sexual gratification. A fairly low bar. But none of this is on topic, heck I can't remember how I got on this tangent. Where's my maalox?
Ashiraya wrote: Why have so many in in this thread forgotten that sex =/= gender?
That might be the progressive status quo - but it doesn't fly in the "real world." In the real world sex = gender and there is nothing bigoted about saying that - it is scientific fact.
You keep on using that word...
I can offer you my anatomy books from college. I assure you it tells you how to determine a male or female in there. To be fair I get what you are saying. Psychology isn't actually a testable science - it's constantly changing and no one agrees on anything because no one really understands how these things work. There is no science to support why gays are gay or why transgender are transgender - it's all theory and wild ideas. Until recently transgender people were considered to have mental disorders...I am inclined to agree. Plenty of evidence suggests that sexuality is a learned behavior.
There is a cultural difference here though. In europe there are unisex bathrooms and people pee in the streets in public urinals. The united states is different. In the US people are parinoid about the opposite sex seeing their junk and there is nothing wrong with that,
Please, take your ass into a woman's locker room and let it all hang out in the shower with them. Tell me how long it is before you are bounced out of there, with the local constabulary demonstrating why a billy club may be less effective than a taser on a shot per shot basis, but it is oh so much more satisfying.
Please, uh, get hit by a bus? I don't know. Maybe a car. I'll let you choose.
Well, aside from one of the highest teen birthrates in the industrial world, and the time and expense spent by people in therapy for the sexual repression pounded into them as children.
There is a cultural difference here though. In europe there are unisex bathrooms and people pee in the streets in public urinals. The united states is different. In the US people are parinoid about the opposite sex seeing their junk and there is nothing wrong with that,
There is a cultural difference here though. In europe there are unisex bathrooms and people pee in the streets in public urinals. The united states is different. In the US people are parinoid about the opposite sex seeing their junk and there is nothing wrong with that,
There is a cultural difference here though. In europe there are unisex bathrooms and people pee in the streets in public urinals. The united states is different. In the US people are parinoid about the opposite sex seeing their junk and there is nothing wrong with that,
I have never seen a street urinal in my life.
Because everyone is either a woman or transgender and needs to sit down? Zing!
I believe the street urinal thing is big in the UK, primarily. People in the US get confused on Europe vs. all the countries inside of Europe.
There is a cultural difference here though. In europe there are unisex bathrooms and people pee in the streets in public urinals. The united states is different. In the US people are parinoid about the opposite sex seeing their junk and there is nothing wrong with that,
I have never seen a street urinal in my life.
There's plenty of them in London at about 1am.
I have been inside a red phone booth in London. That is a street urinal.
Ashiraya wrote: Speaking as a woman, I have had transwomen in the same locker room as me before, and it has never caused any issues. They are typically rather discreet.
If someone were to start staring a lot, it would be a cause of concern, but I doubt it is something I will ever see happen. Those peeping bogeymen seem to permanently reside under my bed together with the rest of the monsters.
I would have thought that would be the last place you would want them.
My CSM army resides under my bed. There's enough spikes in there to bleed an army.
My sister took a picture of one in England when she visited there.
There is a cultural difference here though. In europe there are unisex bathrooms and people pee in the streets in public urinals. The united states is different. In the US people are parinoid about the opposite sex seeing their junk and there is nothing wrong with that,
I have never seen a street urinal in my life.
Because everyone is either a woman or transgender and needs to sit down? Zing!
I believe the street urinal thing is big in the UK, primarily. People in the US get confused on Europe vs. all the countries inside of Europe.
I was just generalizing - I am sure not every European country does this.
Are you willfully ignoring the "or" in there? Lewd doesn't have to occur for an arrest or conviction to take place.
No, I'm not. I do know how to read a damn statute though.
the sentence:
Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby.
If you just look after the or (well, the third or), you have a clause that reads "in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby."
Which isn't, you know, a sentence. You need the preamble, the "Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals" which precedes the first "in." You can't take all that, and not have "lewdly."
Psienesis wrote: Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?
Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.
No, we're worried about the can of worms that letting anyone claiming to be trans into whichever room they want. And general unwanted exposure to opposite sex genitalia.
And hey, its not like you couldn't have a trans person born as a man, who identifies as a women, who is attracted to women.
Psienesis wrote: Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?
Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.
I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.
Grey Templar wrote: Even if it does apply, it doesn't make a difference. Lewd would be very easy to prove. It means "sexual in an offensive or rude way".
Changing clothes is not sexual, and certainly not in an offensive or rude way.
Are you willfully ignoring the "or" in there? Lewd doesn't have to occur for an arrest or conviction to take place.
No, I'm not. I do know how to read a damn statute though.
the sentence:
Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby.
If you just look after the or (well, the third or), you have a clause that reads "in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby."
Which isn't, you know, a sentence. You need the preamble, the "Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals" which precedes the first "in." You can't take all that, and not have "lewdly."
You need to look up the definition of Lewd. It means "sexual in an offensive or rude way". You simply being naked could easily fit the definition if I am offended by it or consider it rude.
Psienesis wrote: Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?
Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.
No, we're worried about the can of worms that letting anyone claiming to be trans into whichever room they want.
And hey, its not like you couldn't have a trans person born as a man, who identifies as a women, who is attracted to women.
I honestly completely forgot about that. A lot of transgender, identify as the opposite sex but are still attracted to them. Though that doesn't really change much since homosexuals are allowed in their gender specific bathroom.
Psienesis wrote: Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?
Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.
I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.
I also think you're undervaluing the psychological harm it does to be further singled out. As I've said multiple times, I think the private room was a reasonable compromise in the situation.
And thats my point. As long as this person is not hindered from activities represented by that gender, there is a set aside so this person is not harassed or attacked, then there should be leeway to protect the rights of the women as well.
For example. The wife's exercise class. There is an attorney, who depending on what day is more or less trans. He's affectionately known as "funGlen" by the wife. The only time anyone cared was when they had "bad dress day" or something and he won. No one cares. But if he had gone back into the shower room, they'd kick his ass.
Give up. We're all bigots for not wanting our daughters around a bare or nearly bare penis without our foreknowledge, consent or comment. I'm the slimiest bigot in the world for wanting parental say-so in when my daughter is exposed to male anatomy at school.
I hope you don't feel too attacked. I don't think you're being a bigot. You and Frazz have both spoken respectfully about the woman in question, and I don't think you're concern is coming from a bad place.
I think you are overvaluing the need to protect high school age girls from seeing a penis, but I'm not a father, so I can understand your concern.
I also think you're undervaluing the psychological harm it does to be further singled out. As I've said multiple times, I think the private room was a reasonable compromise in the situation.
Personally, I don't see the problem with having a person with a penis, that's not sexually interested in the women around him, changing with women. I think that there's a good point to be made that the women in question should have at least some say, which is a point I find more persuasive than parental rights.
Not too much. I agree that this young lady deserves as much respect and support as any child; however, as a parent, I believe I have the right to know when my daughter might be faced with male organs at school.
Again, bathrooms are fine as long as there are stall doors but locker rooms are a bit much for me as as parent. It's not a good situation for her or the other girls in the school but to be fair, she's sort of forced the issue and the school dropped the ball with a communication opportunity. As a parent, I would like to at least have the information in advance so that my wife and I may sit down with our daughter and discuss the situation to determine if I even need to be concerned.
People tend to overreact when you just throw something at them instead of giving the matter the weight it deserves. The school should have provided parents with information on transgender issues and facts about gender identity and given families the summer to work things out for themselves. I think in that circumstance there wouldn't have been nearly the outcry that occurred.
Psienesis wrote: Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?
Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.
I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.
Do you think nude Greek statues are offensive?
I know there are probably a lot of people in the world who would consider them offensive.
Psienesis wrote: Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?
Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.
I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.
Do you think nude Greek statues are offensive?
No I don't find them offensive, because they aren't trying to enter my daughters changing room/bath room and get naked in front of them. but thats a great useless argument to make.
Psienesis wrote: Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?
Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.
I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.
Do you think nude Greek statues are offensive?
No - but typically you wont find them in schools - except maybe in latin/history class. Then we can just call it art. Being transgender is not art - it is an idenity crisis.
Psienesis wrote: Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?
Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.
I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.
Do you think nude Greek statues are offensive?
I know there are probably a lot of people in the world who would consider them offensive.
You know it, or probably?
I don't know--there's something a bit more visceral about a real penis vs. a Greek statue penis. I am relieved to see that most of the Greek statues don't seem to emulate John Holmes. It makes me feel better about myself.
Ashiraya wrote: I remember seeing a lot of kids around when I visited the Louvre. Their sanity appeared intact.
Indeed. But we're not worried about the people who won't get offended.
There are plenty of people who are indeed offended by nudity in any form, sexual or not. Its why most places don't let people walk around naked, even if they are doing nothing specifically sexual or wrong. The mere act of being naked in public is offensive to a lot of people. You have to respect this view.
Psienesis wrote: Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?
Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.
I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.
Do you think nude Greek statues are offensive?
I know there are probably a lot of people in the world who would consider them offensive.
You know it, or probably?
I don't know--there's something a bit more visceral about a real penis vs. a Greek statue penis. I am relieved to see that most of the Greek statues don't seem to emulate John Holmes. It makes me feel better about myself.
Well, just to use an example, I would say the overwhelming majority of Muslims, even the more progressive ones, would be offended by a nude statue.
Grey Templar wrote: You need to look up the definition of Lewd. It means "sexual in an offensive or rude way". You simply being naked could easily fit the definition if I am offended by it or consider it rude.
it really couldn't. Nudity is not inherently sexual. (Fun tangent: this is one reason child pornography is a separate exception under free speech, as not all child porn is obscenity under the law).
a term that also means indecent, pornographic, obscene and lascivious
Law Dictionary: What is LEWD? definition of LEWD (Black's Law Dictionary)
I think you'd really struggle to show before any court that changing clothes is lewd. Taking a shower is usually done while naked, but isn't normally sexual.
Xenomancers wrote: What about the ones that are faking being transgender? It's also a great strategy - appear to be discreet - but inside - enjoying the view legally.
Psienesis wrote: Are we concerned now that the transgender student might be sexually aroused by being around members of the gender opposite their birth-gender?
Then what about lesbians in the girls' lockerroom? Gays in the boys'? It's not like one's preferences wait until you're 18+.
I don't think that was really the point so much as the fact that we don't want UNDERAGE children viewing the opposite genders genitalia, especially in a school environment.
Do you think nude Greek statues are offensive?
No I don't find them offensive, because they aren't trying to enter my daughters changing room/bath room and get naked in front of them. but thats a great useless argument to make.
Anyone think of this as a really scary weeping angels episode?
Xenomancers wrote: What about the ones that are faking being transgender? It's also a great strategy - appear to be discreet - but inside - enjoying the view legally.
Do you have any evidence that such a thing ever happens?
Xenomancers wrote: What about the ones that are faking being transgender? It's also a great strategy - appear to be discreet - but inside - enjoying the view legally.
Do you have any evidence that such a thing ever happens?
If we continue to have the burden of proof for being trans be zero, yeah, it will happen eventually.
Eventually there will be some horny teen boy who gets the idea as a way to get his rocks off.
Ashiraya wrote: And then he gets his rocks sued off for sexual harassment.
What's the problem?
You assume he'll get caught. Teens are a little more clever than you give them credit. Not that many aren't klutzes, but not all of them. Not the ones that I see hatching this type of plan.
And really, all this does is make this type of harassment easier. We shouldn't be doing that.
The simply solution is to use the bathroom/locker room assigned to your biology OR a gender neutral bathroom/locker room. Which I may add was provided but the student didn't accept that.
There is a cultural difference here though. In europe there are unisex bathrooms and people pee in the streets in public urinals. The united states is different. In the US people are parinoid about the opposite sex seeing their junk and there is nothing wrong with that,
I have never seen a street urinal in my life.
Because everyone is either a woman or transgender and needs to sit down? Zing!
I believe the street urinal thing is big in the UK, primarily. People in the US get confused on Europe vs. all the countries inside of Europe.
That is absolutely true as all British men have resplendent penises and require large urinals.
IIRC, this was mentioned before, but would showering even factor into it? We never showered at my school (no inclanation or reason, besides you only have 4 min between classes). And you don't take your underwear off when changing for gym, so there's no nudity consern. At most they'd see a bulge but, trust me, they've seen far more than that at that age.
I would imagine that someone staring at anyone in a sexual way in a locker room will be caught the same way they are already caught regardless of gender.
Co'tor Shas wrote: IIRC, this was mentioned before, but would showering even factor into it? We never showered at my school (no inclanation or reason, besides you only have 4 min between classes). And you don't take your underwear off when changing for gym, so there's no nudity consern. At most they'd see a bulge but, trust me, they've seen far more than that at that age.
I would say
1. You are a distinct minority.
2. Are you a girl? By necessity that have to be more hygienic than us bipedal apes. RRRR!
d-usa wrote: I would imagine that someone staring at anyone in a sexual way in a locker room will be caught the same way they are already caught regardless of gender.
Are we pretending video cameras don't exist? They're not exactly bulky anymore.
Girls can operate video cameras these days, because the controls have been massively simplified compared to the days when only people possessing Y chromosomes had the intellectual capacity to operate them.
d-usa wrote: I would imagine that someone staring at anyone in a sexual way in a locker room will be caught the same way they are already caught regardless of gender.
Are we pretending video cameras don't exist? They're not exactly bulky anymore.
And every locker room I have changed in during the last decade already has rules against cell phones and people who record other people will be caught the same way they are already caught?
Kilkrazy wrote: Girls can operate video cameras these days, because the controls have been massively simplified compared to the days when only people possessing Y chromosomes had the intellectual capacity to operate them.
d-usa wrote: I would imagine that someone staring at anyone in a sexual way in a locker room will be caught the same way they are already caught regardless of gender.
Are we pretending video cameras don't exist? They're not exactly bulky anymore.
And every locker room I have changed in during the last decade already has rules against cell phones and people who record other people will be caught the same way they are already caught?
"We don't need to worry about criminals. They'll get caught!"
Kilkrazy wrote: Girls can operate video cameras these days, because the controls have been massively simplified compared to the days when only people possessing Y chromosomes had the intellectual capacity to operate them.
I know right. Mine operate them with only minimal guidance from nearby males. They've been trained well and appeared imbued with renewed spirit, which they can then channel into better baking habits.
d-usa wrote: I would imagine that someone staring at anyone in a sexual way in a locker room will be caught the same way they are already caught regardless of gender.
Are we pretending video cameras don't exist? They're not exactly bulky anymore.
And every locker room I have changed in during the last decade already has rules against cell phones and people who record other people will be caught the same way they are already caught?
"We don't need to worry about criminals. They'll get caught!"
They will. And unless you are going to argue for private bathrooms and locker rooms for everyone it is silly to pretending that someone posing as a transgender person could lead to some sort of unique problem with someone staring at you or recording you. Maybe I have too little faith in humanity but it would probably be easier for a guy to spend less money to have a girl record in her locker room than it would be to buy a wig and pretend he is transgender.
All of your unique problems are already against the law.
Honestly, gender-neutral bathrooms and changing/locker rooms are probably the best idea. On the other hand, reasonable solutions like this cost money, so roll on the gakky situations!
For all of the people suggesting that the gender neutral bathroom would be an acceptable compromise, how on earth would that not be interpreted by the individual in question as a slap in the face, and proof that nobody really believes their identity.
No trans individual I have ever met flaunts their genitalia. Most go to lengths to hide it, because of the whole dysphoria thing.
If you are that worried about your daughters seeing a penis, consider suggesting to them that they do not stare at the transgirl's genitals. Then, if they do have a look, its their problem, not the transgirl's.
Crystal-Maze wrote: For all of the people suggesting that the gender neutral bathroom would be an acceptable compromise, how on earth would that not be interpreted by the individual in question as a slap in the face, and proof that nobody really believes their identity.
No trans individual I have ever met flaunts their genitalia. Most go to lengths to hide it, because of the whole dysphoria thing.
If you are that worried about your daughters seeing a penis, consider suggesting to them that they do not stare at the transgirl's genitals. Then, if they do have a look, its their problem, not the transgirl's.
If you're replying to me, I was suggesting gender-neutral stuff for everyone, then you don't have to worry about seeing anyone else's stuff, regardless of identity/sexuality.
Crystal-Maze wrote: For all of the people suggesting that the gender neutral bathroom would be an acceptable compromise, how on earth would that not be interpreted by the individual in question as a slap in the face, and proof that nobody really believes their identity.
No trans individual I have ever met flaunts their genitalia. Most go to lengths to hide it, because of the whole dysphoria thing.
If you are that worried about your daughters seeing a penis, consider suggesting to them that they do not stare at the transgirl's genitals. Then, if they do have a look, its their problem, not the transgirl's.
If you're replying to me, I was suggesting gender-neutral stuff for everyone, then you don't have to worry about seeing anyone else's stuff, regardless of identity/sexuality.
Naa, not you - it was more Whembly's stance on the matter I was getting at there.
Xenomancers wrote: What about the ones that are faking being transgender? It's also a great strategy - appear to be discreet - but inside - enjoying the view legally.
Outside of outdated sitcoms, this is not a thing.
X-Ray specs you can order from the back of comic books don't allow you to perv on the girls either.
If you are that worried about your daughters seeing a penis, consider suggesting to them that they do not stare at the transgirl's genitals. Then, if they do have a look, its their problem, not the transgirl's.
Edited for rudeness.
That is some extreme extrapolation you've got going on there, and I'm not sure that I can follow your logic on the link
My world is constantly made a complicated and frustrating place by the attitudes of some cisgender people when it comes to trans rights. I'm starting my PhD on the subject in just under a month's time, but on a day to day basis most of these issues also affect me in a distinctly personal way.
"My world is constantly made a complicated and frustrating place by the attitudes of some cisgender people when it comes to trans rights. "
That screams bigoted statement itself. Unless someone wants to be called "cisgender" you should afford them the same respect you yourself want. Take it from an old breeder. Instead of a PHD on this subject, have you considered getting a real job?
-Shrike- wrote: Honestly, gender-neutral bathrooms and changing/locker rooms are probably the best idea. On the other hand, reasonable solutions like this cost money, so roll on the gakky situations!
Just have unisex toilets / locker rooms everywhere. Merge female / male toilets and have one for both genders. Have cabins for people afraid / offended by it.
We got unisex restrooms in our whole company for years, never had any problems with it.
Frazzled wrote: "My world is constantly made a complicated and frustrating place by the attitudes of some cisgender people when it comes to trans rights. "
That screams bigoted statement itself. Unless someone wants to be called "cisgender" you should afford them the same respect you yourself want. Take it from an old breeder. Instead of a PHD on this subject, have you considered getting a real job?
There has to be a term for people who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. You are a man, but trans men are men also. When you want to refer to men who identify with their birth assigned gender, and not the other kinds, what word do you suggest we use? Can you see the problem with one lot being 'real' men or whatever, and then the other lot having to have the extra modifier 'trans'?
And I do have a real job. Its how I live whilst doing eduction.
There has to be a term for people who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. You are a man, but trans men are men also. When you want to refer to men who identify with their birth assigned gender, and not the other kinds, what word do you suggest we use?
How about...just "man," "straight," "normal" "regular Joe" "guy." This desire to cut and sub classify everyone is...lame.
There has to be a term for people who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth.
Yes, "man".
I'm a genius.
If you feel the strong need to further differentiate yourself from normal men, then you should think about what made you want to be more different rather than being the same, but different.
There has to be a term for people who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. You are a man, but trans men are men also. When you want to refer to men who identify with their birth assigned gender, and not the other kinds, what word do you suggest we use?
How about...just "man."
Because just 'man' refers to all of the men regardless of what their genitals are. The statement 'the continuing enmity between men and transmen' makes no sense; there needs to be a word to replace the men in there to signify the men who are not transmen.
You are literally the first person I have met who has a problem with 'cis'; even my mother managed it after the second bottle of wine was opened.
There has to be a term for people who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth.
Yes, "man".
I'm a genius.
If you feel the strong need to further differentiate yourself from normal men, then you should think about what made you want to be more different rather than being the same, but different.
Well there was one differentiator: "Manly Man!"
Automatically Appended Next Post: 'the continuing enmity between men and transexual men makes no sense"
Bam! done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
even my mother managed it after the second bottle of wine was opened.
-Shrike- wrote: Honestly, gender-neutral bathrooms and changing/locker rooms are probably the best idea. On the other hand, reasonable solutions like this cost money, so roll on the gakky situations!
Just have unisex toilets / locker rooms everywhere. Merge female / male toilets and have one for both genders. Have cabins for people afraid / offended by it.
We got unisex restrooms in our whole company for years, never had any problems with it.
Out of curiosity, how many teenagers work for your company and is your company a public high school?
There has to be a term for people who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth.
Yes, "man".
I'm a genius.
If you feel the strong need to further differentiate yourself from normal men, then you should think about what made you want to be more different rather than being the same, but different.
The reason the term 'transmen' exists is that there are these people who keep trying to discriminate against the transmen, so a term of solidarity is needed. And if the transmen held up placards at protests and parades and suchlike with the phrase "MEN'S RIGHTS MATTER" on them, people might get the wrong end of the stick.
So in this thread we have the Dakka progressive wing arguing that people should grow a thicker skin while the Dakka conservative wing is arguing that more care has to be given to respect people's feelings on the subject.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So in this thread we have the Dakka progressive wing arguing that people should grow a thicker skin while the Dakka conservative wing is arguing that more care has to be given to respect people's feelings on the subject.
What's going on with the world?
Not to mention a topic in OT about transgender people has lasted 17 pages.
The girls are obviously upset and don't like the idea of a physical male being in their locker room even if he identifies as a she. Girls have a lot of body image issues at that age and are already stressed out enough just dealing with changing in front of other females. I've worked at a women's rehab facility that specialized in eating disorders and in most cases their conditions first began when they were going through puberty and had great difficulties dealing with sharing locker rooms and bathrooms with other female students and it left them traumatized. That's all without dealing with the possible presence of males in those locker rooms.
As males we may not think it's a big deal, "oh they'll need to get over seeing penises, that's just a part of growing up", which incredibly insensitive. Girls who are still in the early stages of discovering their own identity and bodies are often very self conscious and they do not need additional pressures on them. When they are confident and mature enough to explore the male anatomy they should be able to do so at the time of their own choosing and not being subject to it sooner. Additionally there are a lot of women and girls that have endured sexual abuse even at a young age and the presence of a male/penis being forced upon them in a locker room situation where they already feel exposed and vulnerable could have a very traumatic impact. So when people joke "what's the big deal if they see a penis?" they are certainly not looking at things from a females perspective or considering what actual emotional harm it can trigger.
There are a significant number of women and particularly young girls that feel uncomfortable around the male body & penis and would feel threatened by it being in the locker room next to them regardless of if the owner identified as female or not. The male may not have any sexual intention whatsoever but that may not be how the women & girls perceive it. They have every right to a locker room or bath room in which they don't feel threatened in.
I don't feel that it's correct to let one student trample over the privacy rights of hundreds of young girls when he was offered an appropriate gender neutral facility for his needs.
Crystal-Maze wrote: For all of the people suggesting that the gender neutral bathroom would be an acceptable compromise, how on earth would that not be interpreted by the individual in question as a slap in the face, and proof that nobody really believes their identity.
No trans individual I have ever met flaunts their genitalia. Most go to lengths to hide it, because of the whole dysphoria thing.
If you are that worried about your daughters seeing a penis, consider suggesting to them that they do not stare at the transgirl's genitals. Then, if they do have a look, its their problem, not the transgirl's.
If you're replying to me, I was suggesting gender-neutral stuff for everyone, then you don't have to worry about seeing anyone else's stuff, regardless of identity/sexuality.
Naa, not you - it was more Whembly's stance on the matter I was getting at there.
So... ignore the other 200 girls who has concerns?
timetowaste85 wrote: Well said, Stanman. That's probably the most logical and reasonable thing that's been posted in this whole thread.
Actually, it is ignorant and sexist. It assumes all women are weak and need to be protected, it assumes all penises rape, it aserts basically all transgender should use the boys room always because a girl with a penis 'scares' girls due to rape and a boy with a vagina 'scares' girls due to body images. It misunderstands privacy rights and claims rights people don't actually have based upon the law and steamrolls the rights people actually do have to get it.
And again, we have ignorantly wrong terms like "physically male" or "biologically male" which discount a whole load of science as well as closes the door on unknowns in medical science along with brain chemistry. If you read a lot of these stories which end up going to court, you find out that often the child had a gender assigned to them at birth and it was the wrong one. ( they had both or not a fully deployed genitals, and a doctor mutilated them to make things easier and the doc chose wrong, the lawsuit heading up the line to the Supreme Court from Minnesota involves a child who was 'assigned' gender... So there is no 'biological' or 'physical' litmus test which can be applied to people obsessed with penises.)
Many of these arguments were used to try to ban gays because of fear of perceived sexual deviants going on rape rampages. Mostly out of people who believe homosexuality is a choice made by a pervert and not born that way.easier to see imaginary rapists trying to rape and peep your weak scared vulnerable daughter when you see transgender as a choice made by perverts as well.
I reject pretty much the entirety of his argument.
FYI: the walk out in this particular case was done originally in Support of the transgender girl using the female locker room. Only after that did some counter protest.
You guys realize that a lot of transgender students are HIPAA info and you as a parent of a child at their school have zero rights or input to know the identity of a transgendered student and zero rights to determine how the school applies the legal law, which if there is discrimination legislature in place means they use the gender-identified bathroom. I bet half of you guys complaining already live in a place where the laws allow transgendered students to use gender identified locker rooms and they are currently using them and no one knows because the kids don't actually mind it, no one is raping or peeping and the school is protecting the transgendered students identity.
NYC schools has gender identity locker rooms. Thousands of kids in NYC seem to get by every day. No one is raping or peeping. No one is wearing wigs to pull 80s style teenage pranks. No people have provided any evidence of harm to anyone. It is like this all over the country in the multiple states with mandatory anti discrimination laws.
"Brain chemistry" has no fething bearing on what the girls see when the trans student drops their pants/shorts/skirts while changing. If they are physically male and have a penis it's what is going to actually be seen, regardless of how they feel or identify.
I am also not saying that females are weak. When you are dealing with pre-teens and young teens that are going through puberty they are all in an awkward phase and typically uncomfortable within their own bodies and uncomfortable around others regardless of physical sex. As adults we tend to be much more comfortable looking at the opposite sex but that's because we are much more sexually mature and forget how we perceived things before or during puberty. As a parent I'd be uncomfortable for a person with male genitals to be in my young teen daughters locker room and I'd be equally uncomfortable if somebody with female genitals and breasts were in my young teen sons locker room.
As I'd said in my previous posts those things are perfectly fine and natural for somebody to be exposed to when they emotionally secure and mature enough to chose seeing them but pre-teens and early teens typically are not at that point yet and should not have to be forced to see or interact with those things until they determine they are ready to.
timetowaste85 wrote: Well said, Stanman. That's probably the most logical and reasonable thing that's been posted in this whole thread.
Actually, it is ignorant and sexist. It assumes all women are weak and need to be protected, it assumes all penises rape, it aserts basically all transgender should use the boys room always because a girl with a penis 'scares' girls due to rape and a boy with a vagina 'scares' girls due to body images. It misunderstands privacy rights and claims rights people don't actually have based upon the law and steamrolls the rights people actually do have to get it.
And again, we have ignorantly wrong terms like "physically male" or "biologically male" which discount a whole load of science as well as closes the door on unknowns in medical science along with brain chemistry. If you read a lot of these stories which end up going to court, you find out that often the child had a gender assigned to them at birth and it was the wrong one. ( they had both or not a fully deployed genitals, and a doctor mutilated them to make things easier and the doc chose wrong, the lawsuit heading up the line to the Supreme Court from Minnesota involves a child who was 'assigned' gender... So there is no 'biological' or 'physical' litmus test which can be applied to people obsessed with penises.)
Many of these arguments were used to try to ban gays because of fear of perceived sexual deviants going on rape rampages. Mostly out of people who believe homosexuality is a choice made by a pervert and not born that way.easier to see imaginary rapists trying to rape and peep your weak scared vulnerable daughter when you see transgender as a choice made by perverts as well.
I reject pretty much the entirety of his argument.
FYI: the walk out in this particular case was done originally in Support of the transgender girl using the female locker room. Only after that did some counter protest.
You guys realize that a lot of transgender students are HIPAA info and you as a parent of a child at their school have zero rights or input to know the identity of a transgendered student and zero rights to determine how the school applies the legal law, which if there is discrimination legislature in place means they use the gender-identified bathroom. I bet half of you guys complaining already live in a place where the laws allow transgendered students to use gender identified locker rooms and they are currently using them and no one knows because the kids don't actually mind it, no one is raping or peeping and the school is protecting the transgendered students identity.
NYC schools has gender identity locker rooms. Thousands of kids in NYC seem to get by every day. No one is raping or peeping. No one is wearing wigs to pull 80s style teenage pranks. No people have provided any evidence of harm to anyone. It is like this all over the country in the multiple states with mandatory anti discrimination laws.
It is not ignorant or sexist. But thank you for your wrong opinion.
It assumes girls have a comfort zone. It assumes they should be in charge of their comfort zone. It assumes a penis shouldn't be hanging out in a school girl locker room. That's all.
That... seems rather strange, considering how most people appear to raise their children, though it's not entirely wrong.
That is to say, many people will bathe their young children (5 and younger, for example) together, regardless of their gender, but then later separate them because it's "improper" (or whatever other reasons they provide... some of them are... of dubious validity).
As you mentioned issues with body-image... that's a societal problem, not a biological or psychological one (rather, it is a psychological issue caused by social issues). If we did not spend so much time telling girls that they *must* look a certain way or they're not beautiful, and instead promoted healthy living and acceptance of bodies in all shapes and sizes, this problem would disappear inside of 3 generations. Boys, too, though they are not *quite* so inundated with mass media demanding they look and dress a certain way.
We would also have less problems if we disassociated the concept of nudity from sexuality. The two are not synonymous. However, our society was founded by the Puritan Pilgrims, and for some unknown reason we continue to perpetrate their social mores in the most repressed parts of our national psychology.
Somewhat relevant. Isabella Bennet is one third of the singing automaton internet sensations Steam Powered Giraffe. She was born a boy and achieved some internet fame in SPG whilst privately struggling with her gender identity. When she transitioned, her stage persona transitioned, too. Isabella has been quite open about her experiences and there are several interviews for your perusal.
Here she is singing solo about the subject:
And here is some early Steam Powered Giraffe:
It's abundantly clear that many guys ITT are wholly un-educated on this subject. Trans persons are not freaks, accidents or deviants. They are people trying to living their life, just like you and me.
Of course while the Earth was bickering and warring, and quarreling about, well, everything, the giant galactic star goat came and ate it, population and all!
stanman wrote: As adults we tend to be much more comfortable looking at the opposite sex but that's because we are much more sexually mature and forget how we perceived things before or during puberty.
We also tend to underestimate the maturity of teens and preteens while talking up our own.
stanman wrote: As adults we tend to be much more comfortable looking at the opposite sex but that's because we are much more sexually mature and forget how we perceived things before or during puberty.
We also tend to underestimate the maturity of teens and preteens while talking up our own.
o
Yea, I'll wholeheartedly disagree with that, especially as it pertains to teen body image.
As a barely-still-19YO myself, I'd say it's a mix of both. Teens are immature, but nowhere as immature as many people seem to think. At the very least the people I knew weren't, but then again I am a raving lunatic, so this might be complete nonsense I'm spouting.
EDIT: also, seriously, can the OP please change the "ver" to "Over". It's annoying me so much.
Not only do we need to be polite (which you are all doing better), but we need to consider if a post is worthwhile or spam before posting it. Keep that in mind guys and girls.
I think the best place to look at how to integrate trans into a society would be to look at Samoan society, they even regard there to be 3 genders, although I think we'll need 27 to fit in LGBTWTFOMGBBQ
But yeah, it is weird to present the need of the transwoman to feel safe as somehow more important than the ciswomen who need to feel safe as well.
I'm not saying I agree with the resolution of the case but there is a general principle to be considered, which is that discriminated against minorities often are less safe than the majority group and therefore they may need to be given special consideration for the sake of social justice.
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm not saying I agree with the resolution of the case but there is a general principle to be considered, which is that discriminated against minorities often are less safe than the majority group and therefore they may need to be given special consideration for the sake of social justice.
This is just my personal opinion, but I only consider children, the elderly, and the disabled as requiring special consideration and protection. They're the most vulnerable members of society.
Ashiraya wrote: I do believe gender dysphoria is considered mental illness (you can be diagnosed with it), but it is not disabling in the typical sense.
I thought it used to be, but with the increasing acceptance of transgender individuals, it is no longer considered a mental illness.
Ashiraya wrote: I do believe gender dysphoria is considered mental illness (you can be diagnosed with it), but it is not disabling in the typical sense.
I thought it used to be, but with the increasing acceptance of transgender individuals, it is no longer considered a mental illness.
It is here, though you can't 'cure' it - only make the best of it.
It is actually good that it is, because that means transpeople get free counseling, sex reassignment surgery, etc.
Ashiraya wrote: I do believe gender dysphoria is considered mental illness (you can be diagnosed with it), but it is not disabling in the typical sense.
I agree, that's why I added the brackets. Anyone diagnosed with gender dysphoria (or any other mental illness) is vulnerable socially, and in some cases legally and professionally.
I can't see if Lila Perry has been diagnosed anywhere, but I'd assume that's the case
Crystal-Maze wrote: You are literally the first person I have met who has a problem with 'cis'; even my mother managed it after the second bottle of wine was opened.
stanman wrote: The girls are obviously upset and don't like the idea of a physical male being in their locker room even if he identifies as a she. Girls have a lot of body image issues at that age and are already stressed out enough just dealing with changing in front of other females. I've worked at a women's rehab facility that specialized in eating disorders and in most cases their conditions first began when they were going through puberty and had great difficulties dealing with sharing locker rooms and bathrooms with other female students and it left them traumatized. That's all without dealing with the possible presence of males in those locker rooms.
As males we may not think it's a big deal, "oh they'll need to get over seeing penises, that's just a part of growing up", which incredibly insensitive. Girls who are still in the early stages of discovering their own identity and bodies are often very self conscious and they do not need additional pressures on them. When they are confident and mature enough to explore the male anatomy they should be able to do so at the time of their own choosing and not being subject to it sooner. Additionally there are a lot of women and girls that have endured sexual abuse even at a young age and the presence of a male/penis being forced upon them in a locker room situation where they already feel exposed and vulnerable could have a very traumatic impact. So when people joke "what's the big deal if they see a penis?" they are certainly not looking at things from a females perspective or considering what actual emotional harm it can trigger.
There are a significant number of women and particularly young girls that feel uncomfortable around the male body & penis and would feel threatened by it being in the locker room next to them regardless of if the owner identified as female or not. The male may not have any sexual intention whatsoever but that may not be how the women & girls perceive it. They have every right to a locker room or bath room in which they don't feel threatened in.
I don't feel that it's correct to let one student trample over the privacy rights of hundreds of young girls when he was offered an appropriate gender neutral facility for his needs.
Exactly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shasolenzabi wrote: Of course while the Earth was bickering and warring, and quarreling about, well, everything, the giant galactic star goat came and ate it, population and all!
Crystal-Maze wrote: You are literally the first person I have met who has a problem with 'cis'; even my mother managed it after the second bottle of wine was opened.
Yea, I'll wholeheartedly disagree with that, especially as it pertains to teen body image.
I know plenty of adults that have severe issues with body image, sexuality, and taking a mature position on either; often both.
Should have been more clear. I don't disagree with that portion.
I vehemently disagree with the notion that teenagers are more mature than we give them credit for. Maybe on a few singular basis. Maybe. But as a whole? No way.
If we're talking about preventing young women from being forced to deal with body image issues, then shouldn't the argument be that any instance in which they are forced to expose their bodies in front of another person be avoided? The same goes for young men, of course, as they also frequently suffer from body image issues and the sexual assaults triggers that Stanman mentioned.
dogma wrote: If we're talking about preventing young women from being forced to deal with body image issues, then shouldn't the argument be that any instance in which they are forced to expose their bodies in front of another person be avoided? The same goes for young men, of course, as they also frequently suffer from body image issues and the sexual assaults triggers that Stanman mentioned.
Yep. The counter-argument is that removing shared locker rooms in favour of individual stalls is expensive, but it is still an ideal to aim for.
No one said the goal was to prevent young anyones from being forced to deal with body issues.
Some folks are arguing that unnecessarily exacerbating those issues by allowing Kid with Penis to shower and change with kids with vaginas is a dumb move. Kid with Penis can shower and change with other kids with penises.
I vehemently disagree with the notion that teenagers are more mature than we give them credit for. Maybe on a few singular basis. Maybe. But as a whole? No way.
Don't get me wrong, teenagers are immature. My point is that the maturity gap between teenagers and adults isn't as large as people often believe it to be.
Yep. The counter-argument is that removing shared locker rooms in favour of individual stalls is expensive, but it is still an ideal to aim for.
It wouldn't necessarily be that expensive, as the existing rooms could pretty easily be converted to feature banks of changing stalls. I mean, as it stands, I'm unaware of any US public school which features assigned gym lockers. The real issue, at least in certain districts, would be facilitating the sale of drugs.
Yep. The counter-argument is that removing shared locker rooms in favour of individual stalls is expensive, but it is still an ideal to aim for.
The other option is to eliminate P.E.
An excellent suggestion! If only they'd implemented this before I had to suffer through the indiginity of attempting to play sports...
It wouldn't necessarily be that expensive, as the existing rooms could pretty easily be converted to feature banks of changing stalls. I mean, as it stands, I'm unaware of any US school which features assigned gym lockers.
The school I went to over here would have been very difficult to convert, due to the overall size and shape of the changing rooms. On the other hand, changing policy on this would probably result in a turn-around of about 50 years, before the vast majority of schools used individual stalls.
The real issue, at least in certain districts, would be facilitating the sale of drugs.
It wouldn't necessarily be that expensive, as the existing rooms could pretty easily be converted to feature banks of changing stalls. I mean, as it stands, I'm unaware of any US public school which features assigned gym lockers.
Every gym locker room I have ever been to in the state of MD has a system with 5 mini lockers next to a 'tall' locker. The mini locker is assigned to a student to keep gym clothes in, the tall one next to it is where you put your stuff during class. This allows 5 students to share a 'large' locker and have an individual small one to keep gym clothes during the week.
And the way civil rights work, is if someone has a 'problem' with people exercising their civil rights they can opt out. Like a white woman scared of black people and doesn't feel 'safe' in an integrated locker room, or a hetero person scared of homosexuals and doesn't feel 'safe' in an integrated locker room, those people can remove themselves from society because in society the law doesn't pander to irrational fears, ignorance or hate to keep the status quo.
Of course it takes a generation or two to expose it... Remember the 90s? remember when parents were storming schools because they heard a kid at the school had AIDS? Remember parents demanding to know the identity of that student and make that student be isolated and not share bathrooms or or play in gym class because they ignorantly thought sharing a toilet seat could give their kid aids? So to make the fearful, ignorant and often hate-filled people feel 'safe' the expectation was to violate student's with AIDS Civil rights and Medical Privacy.
We don't deny people their basic civil rights because some people are fearful, ignorant or hate-filled. People with a problem with it can opt-out without violating anyone's rights.
Thank goodness we have laws protecting people and people like the lady who was thrown out of the gym are shown the door. Sooner we have federal laws protecting citizens, the better.
I do find it hilarious for the people who want 'Junk Checks' and claim 'body images' for girls.
By their ignorant POV, my friend from school would have been forced to use the female's locker room exclusively, even though he was a Boy, who liked girls and looked acted and dressed in all manners like a boy except for his androgen insensitivity syndrome, he had a vagina. He would have been in heaven and by some of your standards, the girls would have had no right to feel 'unsafe' because he had a vagina and couldn't rape them or expose himself to them.
The truth is, people don't want 'junk check', they want all trans people to use the boys locker room. Both to protect 'weaker' girls from fainting due to the vapors as well as allowing the boys to give that trans pervert 'what for', That is why I wholeheartedly disagree with 'junk checks' because it is sexist and intentionally trying to put trans people at further risk for no reason to placate gross ignorance and fight the transpanic boogeyman.
Please define the civil right under the constitution for male high school students have to use the lockers and shower with high school females. I would have been supremely interested in this right when I was a lad.
The truth is ... they want all trans people to use the boys locker room.
I seriously doubt there is a single post in the multiple pages of this thread to back up your 'truth'. Even if you could find one, it would be an anomaly. I suspect you would have a hard time finding your 'truth' put forth as a position in many places at all. In fact I suspect your 'truth' isn't.
The real issue, at least in certain districts, would be facilitating the sale of drugs.
I'm not sure I follow you on this.
Adjacent stalls with doors greatly ease the ability of students to engage in illicit exchanges. Lots of Chicago area public schools have neither for exactly this reason.
The real issue, at least in certain districts, would be facilitating the sale of drugs.
I'm not sure I follow you on this.
Adjacent stalls with doors greatly ease the ability of students to engage in illicit exchanges. Lots of Chicago area public schools have neither for exactly this reason.
In Chicago's defense, it has way bigger problems than gender issues, like rampant felony crime (yes in the school), a dropout rate that makes Pakistan point and laugh, and inabilty to teach 2+2=4
The truth is, people don't want 'junk check', they want all trans people to use the boys locker room. Both to protect 'weaker' girls from fainting due to the vapors as well as allowing the boys to give that trans pervert 'what for', That is why I wholeheartedly disagree with 'junk checks' because it is sexist and intentionally trying to put trans people at further risk for no reason to placate gross ignorance and fight the transpanic boogeyman.
GTFO with this nonsense. Your hyperbole is especially ridiculous in this instance.
I do love how you're so willing to trample on the rights of these teenage girls, however.
Ashiraya wrote: I do believe gender dysphoria is considered mental illness (you can be diagnosed with it), but it is not disabling in the typical sense.
The thing that bothers me most about this is you could be diagnosed with this before puberty, before sexual maturity, before even understanding your own sexuality. With all these nut job parents allowing their kids to cross dress and play with cross gender toys, so as not to put gender labels on them, how many of them just may be confused. Psychiatry is not even close to being a science it more of an art, many of the smartest in the field have made that claim, and there is no norm in which the human mind can be judged. Gender dysphoria is diagnosed as a deviation from a norm.
This is just my opinion, what do I know, its not like my opinion matters in the grand scheme of things.
Are parents 'nut jobs' for allowing their kids to clothe themselves in the way they desire?
Of course. All children should be wearing proper OSHA approved miner's uniforms. You have to protect those kids when they go to the mines at 8. Safety first!
I know I have often discouraged inappropriate (to the situation/function/place) clothing for my kids (both Son1 and Son2 and now daughter). And I do think parents SHOULD do so.
Are parents 'nut jobs' for allowing their kids to clothe themselves in the way they desire?
Yes.
CptJake wrote:I know I have often discouraged inappropriate (to the situation/function/place) clothing for my kids (both Son1 and Son2 and now daughter). And I do think parents SHOULD do so.
Agreed.
When parents don't enforce any discipline they end up like one of my ex's...
Spoiler:
an 18 year old girl with a history of drug abuse that flip flopped between being straight/bi/les every month or so and had both nipples pierced by the time she was 17...now if you want your daughter sleeping around with a guy 9 years older than her that suffers from mental health issues than by all means don't both with any discipline
Yes, really. Is there some right to not be in the presence of exposed genitalia? I mean, if you're already disrobing in a facility where others can see you disrobe it seems like you've already consciously forfeited a certain reasonable expectation of privacy.
When parents don't enforce any discipline they end up like one of my ex's...
Spoiler:
an 18 year old girl with a history of drug abuse that flip flopped between being straight/bi/les every month or so and had both nipples pierced by the time she was 17...now if you want your daughter sleeping around with a guy 9 years older than her that suffers from mental health issues than by all means don't both with any discipline
You don't see the distinction between allowing a certain freedom in how a child dresses and "no discipline at all"?
Yes, really. Is there some right to not be in the presence of exposed genitalia? I mean, if you're already disrobing in a facility where others can see you disrobe it seems like you've already consciously forfeited a certain reasonable expectation of privacy.
I think in a women's locker room you'd have a very reasonable expectation not to be exposed to male genitalia. And vice verse in a men's locker room.
CptJake wrote: I know I have often discouraged inappropriate (to the situation/function/place) clothing for my kids (both Son1 and Son2 and now daughter). And I do think parents SHOULD do so.
Be glad your children live such a cut and dry life. Imagine having your son born with what appears to be a vagina with an overdeveloped clitoris, and you choose to 'assign' him the gender of female by having that penis-shaped object cut off at birth.
And imagine years later your little daughter which you have been forcing into dresses is physically maturing and is clearly a boy and going to develop into one at puberty, and if only you had left his body alone at birth, hormone treatments could have helped his penis grow and become a mostly intact boy.
Now regardless of any treatment, because of a snap judgement at birth, that boy will have a vagina even though he is not genetically a woman and could have grown a reasonably functional penis if he hadn't been mutilated as a child.
*Are you going to yell at him and make him wear girl clothes and go to the girls bathroom because you 'discourage' it probably causing irrevocable harm to your child.
*Are you going to let him function in all possible ways as normally as he can as a boy and simply tell him to go into the boys room and be discreet while meeting privately with his school to make sure they understand his situation?
It is a lot easier to make up trans-panic and oppress people's rights opposed to treat people as human and realize that no one is harming your kids by pissing next to them in a bathroom or discreetly changing in a locker room.
And I would love to know what 'rights' people think they have in public locker rooms... If they actually had rights, they would have lawsuits... but guess what? The only right they have is to remove themselves from society if they disagree with giving people equal protection under the law. They can have their scared girl opt-out of the girls locker room out of fear of wang.
Yes, really. Is there some right to not be in the presence of exposed genitalia? I mean, if you're already disrobing in a facility where others can see you disrobe it seems like you've already consciously forfeited a certain reasonable expectation of privacy.
I think in a women's locker room you'd have a very reasonable expectation not to be exposed to male genitalia. And vice verse in a men's locker room.
Please provide evidence of this right. I can't really find it in the constitution... And I don't think you know what 'privacy' means as there is zero expectation of privacy in PUBLIC restroom and locker rooms. Privacy has to do with identity, not pissing while being comfortable and alone so no one hears your loud poops.
The people who have the right to privacy are the transgender people who don't have to answer your damn questions or provide proof of 'junk check' to use the facilities because in most states they have a legally protected right to be there. Basically, Mind your own business.
Yes, really. Is there some right to not be in the presence of exposed genitalia? I mean, if you're already disrobing in a facility where others can see you disrobe it seems like you've already consciously forfeited a certain reasonable expectation of privacy.
I think in a women's locker room you'd have a very reasonable expectation not to be exposed to male genitalia. And vice verse in a men's locker room.
Please provide evidence of this right. I can't really find it in the constitution... And I don't think you know what 'privacy' means as there is zero expectation of privacy in PUBLIC restroom and locker rooms. Privacy has to do with identity, not pissing while being comfortable and alone so no one hears your loud poops.
The people who have the right to privacy are the transgender people who don't have to answer your damn questions or provide proof of 'junk check' to use the facilities because in most states they have a legally protected right to be there. Basically, Mind your own business.
Ok, if you are pulling the Constitution angle, where does it say transgender people have the right to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with?
And again, what about the rights of the very very large majority here?
Crablezworth wrote: 200 people should accomodate 1 person, it should only ever be one way and if the 200 don't like it, they' can remove themselves from society.... solid
Yeah, that is what the civil rights movement was when those bigots in Mississippi had 200 people who were not comfortable with a black girl going to their school. Those 200 people had to accommodate her legal protected rights to be there and if they didn't like it they could always opt out of society.
And from the news reports, it seems a bunch of the people 'walking out' supported the transgender girls right to use the female locker room. Stop recycling this 200 people when it was no where close to that number against the student.
Crablezworth wrote: 200 people should accomodate 1 person, it should only ever be one way and if the 200 don't like it, they' can remove themselves from society.... solid
Yeah, that is what the civil rights movement was when those bigots in Mississippi had 200 people who were not comfortable with a black girl going to their school. Those 200 people had to accommodate her legal protected rights to be there and if they didn't like it they could always opt out of society.
And from the news reports, it seems a bunch of the people 'walking out' supported the transgender girls right to use the female locker room. Stop recycling this 200 people when it was no where close to that number against the student.
Please don't compare civil rights with this. Its not even close to the same situation. Black people were not exposing themselves to the opposite sex.
Crablezworth wrote: 200 people should accomodate 1 person, it should only ever be one way and if the 200 don't like it, they' can remove themselves from society.... solid
It can only ever be one way at a time. Anyone who doesn't like that way is free to dissent, of course, and its likely that dissent will produce discourse. This might lead to change, or it might not; that's how society works.
I don't know where you're getting this whole "Love it or leave it." thing from, as in no way is that a part of my argument.
Yes, really. Is there some right to not be in the presence of exposed genitalia? I mean, if you're already disrobing in a facility where others can see you disrobe it seems like you've already consciously forfeited a certain reasonable expectation of privacy.
I think in a women's locker room you'd have a very reasonable expectation not to be exposed to male genitalia. And vice verse in a men's locker room.
Please provide evidence of this right. I can't really find it in the constitution... And I don't think you know what 'privacy' means as there is zero expectation of privacy in PUBLIC restroom and locker rooms. Privacy has to do with identity, not pissing while being comfortable and alone so no one hears your loud poops.
The people who have the right to privacy are the transgender people who don't have to answer your damn questions or provide proof of 'junk check' to use the facilities because in most states they have a legally protected right to be there. Basically, Mind your own business.
Ok, if you are pulling the Constitution angle, where does it say transgender people have the right to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with?
And again, what about the rights of the very very large majority here?
The part about basic human rights and the non discrimination parts.
And as the courts fight it out, we find those rights affirmed, and as the states work it out we find those rights legislated in anti discriminated laws, and eventually the feds will force it nation wide with a supreme court ruling.
I have posted the laws in this thread multiple times which clearly state where it is illegal to discriminate and transgender people have the right to use gender identity facilities.
Yet there is zero right or legal precident to have the 'right' to be segregated apart from people you feel ooogy next too.
Ok, basic human rights that are not explicitly defined.
Are you saying that only the Trans person has these rights? What about the basic human rights of the majority not to be exposed to opposite sex genitalia without their consent?
Trans people are going too far demanding they be allowed to use whatever facility they identify as. They can use the facility designed to accommodate their current plumbing or a gender neutral facility.
Crablezworth wrote: 200 people should accomodate 1 person, it should only ever be one way and if the 200 don't like it, they' can remove themselves from society.... solid
Yeah, that is what the civil rights movement was when those bigots in Mississippi had 200 people who were not comfortable with a black girl going to their school. Those 200 people had to accommodate her legal protected rights to be there and if they didn't like it they could always opt out of society.
And from the news reports, it seems a bunch of the people 'walking out' supported the transgender girls right to use the female locker room. Stop recycling this 200 people when it was no where close to that number against the student.
Please don't compare civil rights with this. Its not even close to the same situation. Black people were not exposing themselves to the opposite sex.
I am sure the white people's 'disgust' of sharing bathrooms with black people had directly the same racial-panic of fear of seeing black people naked or fear of being violated by black people. People said gay rights and medical discrimination were not civil rights and was nothing like race because of 'science' and 'decency' and they were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
Ignorant, unfounded and stupid fears which should not have been catered to and did not justify abusing people's rights.
And it is still illegal to 'expose' yourself in public facilities regardless of gender. You lost that argument a few pages back where you assumed simply changing clothes constituted 'being vulgar' legally if the person seeing it was an uptight bigot by changing the meaning of the law based upon the perception of the supposed victim.
My point the entire thread has been you simply can't tell me with a straight face that 200 people are bigots and leave it at that.
Being open minded generally involves seeing gradients instead of binaries. Saying everyone has to accept trans individuals regardless of the context or what in particular upsets them in said context is ludicrous.
"some guys just flashed his dick at a bunch of people in the parking lot" is usually followed by calling the police, not skepticism about people's fears or accusations of being bigots. The cops don't generally show up and accuse the victims of just putting it on or being small minded, they're not subjected to skepticism about how said incident may or may not have affected them emotionally. I also don't think lila had any intention to play helicopter with her angry member in full view of the girls.
I'll give both sides here the benefit of the doubt that they're not content with the current situation.
You mean laws regarding indecent exposure? Those are based on the absence of the right to engage in lewd behavior, thereby allowing the state to restrict lewd behavior; not any particular right to not see something.
Are you saying that only the Trans person has these rights? What about the basic human rights of the majority not to be exposed to opposite sex genitalia without their consent?
Trans people are going too far demanding they be allowed to use whatever facility they identify as. They can use the facility designed to accommodate their current plumbing or a gender neutral facility.
Except requiring that is actually illegal in a majority of states currently. You have to break the law to enforce a non-existent made up human right.
And if people are 'scared' of transpanic they can opt-out of using public facilities and opt for private ones where they can discriminate legally. That is how it works. You build a 1950s bomb shelter and go live it in.
CptJake wrote: I know I have often discouraged inappropriate (to the situation/function/place) clothing for my kids (both Son1 and Son2 and now daughter). And I do think parents SHOULD do so.
Be glad your children live such a cut and dry life. Imagine having your son born with what appears to be a vagina with an overdeveloped clitoris, and you choose to 'assign' him the gender of female by having that penis-shaped object cut off at birth.
And imagine years later your little daughter which you have been forcing into dresses is physically maturing and is clearly a boy and going to develop into one at puberty, and if only you had left his body alone at birth, hormone treatments could have helped his penis grow and become a mostly intact boy.
Now regardless of any treatment, because of a snap judgement at birth, that boy will have a vagina even though he is not genetically a woman and could have grown a reasonably functional penis if he hadn't been mutilated as a child.
*Are you going to yell at him and make him wear girl clothes and go to the girls bathroom because you 'discourage' it probably causing irrevocable harm to your child.
*Are you going to let him function in all possible ways as normally as he can as a boy and simply tell him to go into the boys room and be discreet while meeting privately with his school to make sure they understand his situation?
It is a lot easier to make up trans-panic and oppress people's rights opposed to treat people as human and realize that no one is harming your kids by pissing next to them in a bathroom or discreetly changing in a locker room.
And I would love to know what 'rights' people think they have in public locker rooms... If they actually had rights, they would have lawsuits... but guess what? The only right they have is to remove themselves from society if they disagree with giving people equal protection under the law. They can have their scared girl opt-out of the girls locker room out of fear of wang.
I feel for the 1:20,000 or .005% of kids/parents this is an issue for.
Having said that, I stand 100% by my statement. Not just in regards to 'gender' specific clothing. Parents should parent.
Are you saying that only the Trans person has these rights? What about the basic human rights of the majority not to be exposed to opposite sex genitalia without their consent?
Trans people are going too far demanding they be allowed to use whatever facility they identify as. They can use the facility designed to accommodate their current plumbing or a gender neutral facility.
Except requiring that is actually illegal in a majority of states currently. You have to break the law to enforce a non-existent made up human right.
And if people are 'scared' of transpanic they can opt-out of using public facilities and opt for private ones where they can discriminate legally. That is how it works. You build a 1950s bomb shelter and go live it in.
"feth off and die" isn't really the greatest education strategy. For someone so open minded, there's a lot of binary choices being presented. that doesn't strike be as progressive or pragmatic.
The message you present is "it's not polite to disregard other people" followed by "feth all those people who don't agree"
Crablezworth wrote: My point the entire thread has been you simply can't tell me with a straight face that 200 people are bigots and leave it at that.
Being open minded generally involves seeing gradients instead of binaries. Saying everyone has to accept trans individuals regardless of the context or what in particular upsets them in said context is ludicrous.
"some guys just flashed his dick at a bunch of people in the parking lot" is usually followed by calling the police, not skepticism about people's fears or accusations of being bigots. The cops don't generally show up and accuse the victims of just putting it on or being small minded, they're not subjected to skepticism about how said incident may or may not have affected them emotionally. I also don't think lila had any intention to play helicopter with her angry member in full view of the girls.
I'll give both sides here the benefit of the doubt that they're not content with the current situation.
Flashing your dick and playing helicopter is not the same as changing clothes and using a shower in gym.
If the student *ACTUALLY* did something illegal, they can report it to staff who can call the police. Simply catching a passing glance of a penis or knowing there is one in the locker room is not illegal. I suspect most trans people in this situation are very discreet and don't make a scene of it in the locker room. Usually in news stories, it is someone actively following, harassing, peeping on the transgender person and when they 'figure it out' they get violent against the transgender person and make the scene.
We have laws which already cover peeping, lewd behavior, and actual flashing and nudity in public. Transgender people are not immune to those laws, but merely existing doesn't violate them. (as the gold gym story showed)
Crablezworth wrote: 200 people should accomodate 1 person, it should only ever be one way and if the 200 don't like it, they' can remove themselves from society.... solid
Yeah, that is what the civil rights movement was when those bigots in Mississippi had 200 people who were not comfortable with a black girl going to their school. Those 200 people had to accommodate her legal protected rights to be there and if they didn't like it they could always opt out of society.
And from the news reports, it seems a bunch of the people 'walking out' supported the transgender girls right to use the female locker room. Stop recycling this 200 people when it was no where close to that number against the student.
Please don't compare civil rights with this. Its not even close to the same situation. Black people were not exposing themselves to the opposite sex.
I am sure the white people's 'disgust' of sharing bathrooms with black people had directly the same racial-panic of fear of seeing black people naked or fear of being violated by black people. People said gay rights and medical discrimination were not civil rights and was nothing like race because of 'science' and 'decency' and they were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
Ignorant, unfounded and stupid fears which should not have been catered to and did not justify abusing people's rights.
And it is still illegal to 'expose' yourself in public facilities regardless of gender. You lost that argument a few pages back where you assumed simply changing clothes constituted 'being vulgar' legally if the person seeing it was an uptight bigot by changing the meaning of the law based upon the perception of the supposed victim.
This is far from ignorant, unfounded, and stupid.
Women's locker rooms are for people with vaginas. Men's locker rooms are for people with penises. Its not for people who mentally identify as one or the other. Especially when children are involved, then there is the rights of parents as well.
Nobody is saying trans people can't use the locker room. They just have to use a specific one. Just like everybody else. This student was even given special treatment with a private room.
Are you saying that only the Trans person has these rights? What about the basic human rights of the majority not to be exposed to opposite sex genitalia without their consent?
Trans people are going too far demanding they be allowed to use whatever facility they identify as. They can use the facility designed to accommodate their current plumbing or a gender neutral facility.
Except requiring that is actually illegal in a majority of states currently. You have to break the law to enforce a non-existent made up human right.
And if people are 'scared' of transpanic they can opt-out of using public facilities and opt for private ones where they can discriminate legally. That is how it works. You build a 1950s bomb shelter and go live it in.
Those laws are, in my opinion, overreaching and symptoms of our messed up society. Plus they have ziltch to do with the Constitution like you were claiming.
CptJake wrote: I know I have often discouraged inappropriate (to the situation/function/place) clothing for my kids (both Son1 and Son2 and now daughter). And I do think parents SHOULD do so.
Be glad your children live such a cut and dry life. Imagine having your son born with what appears to be a vagina with an overdeveloped clitoris, and you choose to 'assign' him the gender of female by having that penis-shaped object cut off at birth.
<cut>
Are you really going to pretend that even 10% of transgender cases have anything to do with a legit physical deformity? Talk about your overwhelming ignorance.
I feel for the 1:20,000 or .005% of kids/parents this is an issue for.
Having said that, I stand 100% by my statement. Not just in regards to 'gender' specific clothing. Parents should parent.
But you still feel those people deserve to be marginalized and their rights abridged to accommodate the majority...
Parents should parent their OWN kids... and when you send your kids to public school, your kids will have to interact with situations you have zero right to control. Hence why schools have opt-out policies for parents who object to a specific thing at their kids school. Because the school most times legally can't bow to 'parent pressure' when it violates other student's rights.
Maybe not, but no less of a good argument than a Trans person has of saying he has the right to use the facility of the gender he identifies with.
Actually it seems to me that the trans person has a much better argument, given that it is grounded in something which is usually considered a basic human right: equality.
CptJake wrote: I know I have often discouraged inappropriate (to the situation/function/place) clothing for my kids (both Son1 and Son2 and now daughter). And I do think parents SHOULD do so.
Be glad your children live such a cut and dry life. Imagine having your son born with what appears to be a vagina with an overdeveloped clitoris, and you choose to 'assign' him the gender of female by having that penis-shaped object cut off at birth.
<cut>
Are you really going to pretend that even 10% of transgender cases have anything to do with a legit physical deformity? Talk about your overwhelming ignorance.
Considering we still don't know why people are homosexual, to try to only allow rights for medically explainable situations defeats the purpose.
It is none of your business the motivation or the medical implications of *WHY* someone is transgender. It doesn't impact you and you have no right to force them to be segregated from aspects of society in public. If you have a problem with it, you can remove yourself.
You mean laws regarding indecent exposure? Those are based on the absence of the right to engage in lewd behavior, thereby allowing the state to restrict lewd behavior; not any particular right to not see something.
CptJake wrote: I know I have often discouraged inappropriate (to the situation/function/place) clothing for my kids (both Son1 and Son2 and now daughter). And I do think parents SHOULD do so.
Be glad your children live such a cut and dry life. Imagine having your son born with what appears to be a vagina with an overdeveloped clitoris, and you choose to 'assign' him the gender of female by having that penis-shaped object cut off at birth.
<cut>
Are you really going to pretend that even 10% of transgender cases have anything to do with a legit physical deformity? Talk about your overwhelming ignorance.
Considering we still don't know why people are homosexual, to try to only allow rights for medically explainable situations defeats the purpose.
It is none of your business the motivation or the medical implications of *WHY* someone is transgender. It doesn't impact you and you have no right to force them to be segregated from aspects of society in public. If you have a problem with it, you can remove yourself.
Maybe not, but no less of a good argument than a Trans person has of saying he has the right to use the facility of the gender he identifies with.
Actually it seems to me that the trans person has a much better argument, given that it is grounded in something which is usually considered a basic human right: equality.
Of course this person has the right to equality. That is not denied by saying if you have a penis you can't use the women's locker room. There is a Men's locker room right next door that is for people with penises.
Maybe not, but no less of a good argument than a Trans person has of saying he has the right to use the facility of the gender he identifies with.
Actually it seems to me that the trans person has a much better argument, given that it is grounded in something which is usually considered a basic human right: equality.
Of course this person has the right to equality. That is not denied by saying if you have a penis you can't use the women's locker room.
Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex, and legally she can choose her gender, and the girls gender is female, she has every right to use the locker room which matches her gender identity.
Because, as it stands, they depict a person wearing a dress and a person not wearing a dress. It would be more accurate to depict a caricature of a penis and a caricature of a vagina.
Maybe not, but no less of a good argument than a Trans person has of saying he has the right to use the facility of the gender he identifies with.
Actually it seems to me that the trans person has a much better argument, given that it is grounded in something which is usually considered a basic human right: equality.
Of course this person has the right to equality. That is not denied by saying if you have a penis you can't use the women's locker room.
Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex, and legally she can choose her gender, and the girls gender is female, she has every right to use the locker room which matches her gender identity.
No, locker rooms are not based on gender. They're based on sex, which for a long time was equated with gender. If you use that assumption, and we use the "modern" notion that they are different, we can now transition to where we now separate based on sex.
Because, as it stands, they depict a person wearing a dress and a person not wearing a dress. It would be more accurate to depict a caricature of a penis and a caricature of a vagina.
Plus, it would amuse me.
Thats obviously why we don't do that. It would be vulger to do that.
The Dress wearing person now stands in for people with vaginas. The person not wearing a dress stands in for people with penises.
Maybe we can change the symbol to something less projecting of a stereotype, but that is an entirely different discussion with zero bearing here.
Of course this person has the right to equality. That is not denied by saying if you have a penis you can't use the women's locker room. There is a Men's locker room right next door that is for people with penises.
That's one sense of equality, sure. But we don't restrict locker rooms on the basis of sex alone, we also restrict them on the basis of gender. Hence you're continued conflation of the two.
I feel for the 1:20,000 or .005% of kids/parents this is an issue for.
Having said that, I stand 100% by my statement. Not just in regards to 'gender' specific clothing. Parents should parent.
But you still feel those people deserve to be marginalized and their rights abridged to accommodate the majority...
Parents should parent their OWN kids... and when you send your kids to public school, your kids will have to interact with situations you have zero right to control. Hence why schools have opt-out policies for parents who object to a specific thing at their kids school. Because the school most times legally can't bow to 'parent pressure' when it violates other student's rights.
I'm not marginalizing anyone. In fact, I'm all about equality. Kids with vagina all use one locker room/shower room and kids with penises all use another. I don't give a crap about what any of them identify with or what they are sexually attracted to. Treat them all the same. School faculty/admin protect all kids from bullying or punish bullies when they fail to protect. Doesn't matter if bullying is due to small fat kid being picked on for being small and fat or kid with penis who wishes to be kid with vagina gets picked on for that. Treat them all equally. Can't get more equal than that.
Maybe not, but no less of a good argument than a Trans person has of saying he has the right to use the facility of the gender he identifies with.
Actually it seems to me that the trans person has a much better argument, given that it is grounded in something which is usually considered a basic human right: equality.
Of course this person has the right to equality. That is not denied by saying if you have a penis you can't use the women's locker room.
Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex, and legally she can choose her gender, and the girls gender is female, she has every right to use the locker room which matches her gender identity.
No, locker rooms are not based on gender. They're based on sex, which for a long time was equated with gender. If you use that assumption, and we use the "modern" notion that they are different, we can now transition to where we now separate based on sex.
Too bad I posted multiple laws that show you are wrong. There is no 'junk check' when using a bathroom or locker room in the united states. You don't have to stick your wang in a hole to confirm you are a guy to get into the mens bathroom.
Besides, all these people scared about 'oh they might see other genitals, they have a right to never see them!' At what age does that start?
We have laws on the books which prevent minors under certain ages from being alone in public which means often a father has to take his daughter to a male bathroom or a mother has to take her son into a female locker room. And guess what? The world isn't falling apart. I guess because taking a 4 year old into the female locker room to change him at the pool is funny and cute and part of the majorities life experience that the fact someone might be exposed to 'wang' is universally overlooked.
Because, as it stands, they depict a person wearing a dress and a person not wearing a dress. It would be more accurate to depict a caricature of a penis and a caricature of a vagina.
Because, as it stands, they depict a person wearing a dress and a person not wearing a dress. It would be more accurate to depict a caricature of a penis and a caricature of a vagina.
nkelsch wrote: Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex
Do you have any evidence for this assumption?
The laws which state that people can legally choose their gender and that people have the right to public facilities which match their gender identity? How about that?
Maybe not, but no less of a good argument than a Trans person has of saying he has the right to use the facility of the gender he identifies with.
Actually it seems to me that the trans person has a much better argument, given that it is grounded in something which is usually considered a basic human right: equality.
Of course this person has the right to equality. That is not denied by saying if you have a penis you can't use the women's locker room.
Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex, and legally she can choose her gender, and the girls gender is female, she has every right to use the locker room which matches her gender identity.
No, locker rooms are not based on gender. They're based on sex, which for a long time was equated with gender. If you use that assumption, and we use the "modern" notion that they are different, we can now transition to where we now separate based on sex.
Too bad I posted multiple laws that show you are wrong. There is no 'junk check' when using a bathroom or locker room in the united states. You don't have to stick your wang in a hole to confirm you are a guy to get into the mens bathroom.
Besides, all these people scared about 'oh they might see other genitals, they have a right to never see them!' At what age does that start?
We have laws on the books which prevent minors under certain ages from being alone in public which means often a father has to take his daughter to a male bathroom or a mother has to take her son into a female locker room. And guess what? The world isn't falling apart. I guess because taking a 4 year old into the female locker room to change him at the pool is funny and cute and part of the majorities life experience that the fact someone might be exposed to 'wang' is universally overlooked.
Thats because the parent is the controller of that child.
The parent should have the right to restrict the possibility that his child may see a penis. Anything within their control. And school activities should be included in that.
Just because nobody does a junk check doesn't mean that isn't what the room is for. You're being thick and obtuse.
nkelsch wrote: Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex
Do you have any evidence for this assumption?
The laws which state that people can legally choose their gender and that people have the right to public facilities which match their gender identity? How about that?
Is that the case universally, or in a selection of states?
There's been more talk of penises and vaginas in this thread than your average porn production. All that's needed is a bow chicka wow sound track and we're off to the races!
nkelsch wrote: Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex
Do you have any evidence for this assumption?
The laws which state that people can legally choose their gender and that people have the right to public facilities which match their gender identity? How about that?
Is that the case universally, or in a selection of states?
Most states have different laws, some require a doctors note, some hormones, some only require a name change to change identity.
And the discrimination laws are based upon gender identity.
So that shows that SEX or 'Junk Check' is not the law and has never been the law of the land.
Thats because the parent is the controller of that child.
The parent should have the right to restrict the possibility that his child may see a penis. Anything within their control. And school activities should be included in that.
Just because nobody does a junk check doesn't mean that isn't what the room is for. You're being thick and obtuse.
You do have the right, you can remove your child. If I am a mother changing my son in the locker room, and you are in there with your daughter and you don't want her to see it, you be a parent and remove your daughter... Or tell her not to look... or put what she saw into context. What you cannot do is make a scene and have the mother and her son thrown out.
In school, if you don't like something, like the content of an assembly, sex ed, religious stuff, seeing gay people, being in a class is someone with AIDS or possibly being exposed to transgender students... you can opt-out for your child. You cannot have those other things removed from the school.
nkelsch wrote: Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex
Do you have any evidence for this assumption?
The laws which state that people can legally choose their gender and that people have the right to public facilities which match their gender identity? How about that?
Is that the case universally, or in a selection of states?
Most states have different laws, some require a doctors note, some hormones, some only require a name change to change identity.
And the discrimination laws are based upon gender identity.
So that shows that SEX or 'Junk Check' is not the law and has never been the law of the land.
I would argue that we've never had regulation till recently, but its always been the expected norm that you're only going to find penises in the men's room and vaginas in the women's room. And precedent is a very important part of the law. Whats "normal" and expected by any reasonable person.
Thats because the parent is the controller of that child.
The parent should have the right to restrict the possibility that his child may see a penis. Anything within their control. And school activities should be included in that.
Just because nobody does a junk check doesn't mean that isn't what the room is for. You're being thick and obtuse.
You do have the right, you can remove your child. If I am a mother changing my son in the locker room, and you are in there with your daughter and you don't want her to see it, you be a parent and remove your daughter... Or tell her not to look... or put what she saw into context. What you cannot do is make a scene and have the mother and her son thrown out.
In school, if you don't like something, like the content of an assembly, sex ed, religious stuff, seeing gay people, being in a class is someone with AIDS or possibly being exposed to transgender students... you can opt-out for your child. You cannot have those other things removed from the school.
Actually, that's not quite true. It depends, for example, on what the content of the assembly is, but you can certainly have questionable content removed from schools. It's not really a black and white case, the world is painted in shades of grey.
_7th_March_2007_009.jpg)
