TheMeanDM wrote: So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.
Show me in the Constitution where you are expressly, or even by implication, given that right.
The courts have rules that a combination of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments together create a right to privacy without undue burden. A great many people in this country would consider that and undue burden.
Are you really claiming that a right to privacy is infringed because an individual who is choosing to enter a clearly marked enclosed space specifically used for changing clothes might see someone else...changing their clothes?
TheMeanDM wrote: So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.
Show me in the Constitution where you are expressly, or even by implication, given that right.
The courts have rules that a combination of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments together create a right to privacy without undue burden. A great many people in this country would consider that and undue burden.
Are you really claiming that a right to privacy is infringed because an individual who is choosing to enter a clearly marked enclosed space specifically used for changing clothes might see someone else...changing their clothes?
It seems like his argument would be better suited as a case against mandatory genital inspection and birth certificate laws for using restrooms.
TheMeanDM wrote: So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.
Show me in the Constitution where you are expressly, or even by implication, given that right.
The courts have rules that a combination of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments together create a right to privacy without undue burden. A great many people in this country would consider that and undue burden.
Are you really claiming that a right to privacy is infringed because an individual who is choosing to enter a clearly marked enclosed space specifically used for changing clothes might see someone else...changing their clothes?
Yes, specifically because men (anit-trans activitists in particular) have tried to use anti-discrimination laws and enter women's showers before. Their defenses have failed because of these rulings.
TheMeanDM wrote: So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.
Again. Great argument for a changing/locker room that has private areas for everyone, as well as private showers. I'm all for it! Let's lobby for that!
That would be one of the fastest bills to ever pass.
If any argument emerged, those for it would simply do a mass disrobe, then get dressed again.
d-usa wrote: Considering that it's a stupid argument I don't blame them.
Exactly how is this a stupid argument? Anything to back that up?
If I'm not supposed to be uncomfortable with a transsexual in the room (or more to my worry, my wife and daughter) then why can they worry about showering with me?
TheMeanDM wrote: So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.
Again. Great argument for a changing/locker room that has private areas for everyone, as well as private showers. I'm all for it! Let's lobby for that!
That would be one of the fastest bills to ever pass.
If any argument emerged, those for it would simply do a mass disrobe, then get dressed again.
I too support private changing areas for all.
THIS, definatly this. I would mandate that all "locker" rooms simply be for storage. All new schools have a row of single-person rooms for bathrooms or showers. A bit like airplane bathrooms, but perhaps a bit bigger.
d-usa wrote: Considering that it's a stupid argument I don't blame them.
Exactly how is this a stupid argument? Anything to back that up?
If I'm not supposed to be uncomfortable with a transsexual in the room (or more to my worry, my wife and daughter) then why can they worry about showering with me?
Just because you don't see why it's stupid, doesn't mean it's not stupid.
Can I send you a picture of my soaped up man-tackle right now?
Just because this is the cesspool of OT doesn't mean you can ignore Rule #1. And this isn't targeted at just d-usa. I know that some of you feel SUPER strongly about this, and I can definitively say that half of you are totally in the wrong (not saying which half).
So, in conclusion, be nicer in your conversations, and that's why the North won the Civil War.
Apparently the majority of women and many of us men who feel that we would rather not change and shower with trans individuals are not allowed to feel uncomfortabl. We just need to suck it up.
I am done with this conversation because you will not change my mind, nor are you willing to see my point of view.
I have already met "your side" half way by stating individual chamging room and insiviidual showers would be fine.
But no....not good enough for you.
So I am not going to keep banging my head against a wall that is obviously never going to, nor willing to, take ten seconds and try to see things from my point of view.....that being a parent and father.
I really didn't mean it at an insult at all. Just pointing out that it's silly to counter an argument about non-sexual exposure to genitals with "take a shower with me or you are a hypocrite".
He's already okay with same sex locker rooms, so with the logic of his argument he should be okay with me sending nude pictures of me in the shower to him since he is okay with seeing me nude in the locker room.
Or he might see that the argument doesn't make any sense, because even though I might see all my coworkers naked at the gym we are still expected to wear clothes everywhere else. Because situational non-sexual nudity is, surprise, situation specific.
Which is why "if you are okay with transgender folks using the same locker room, then you must be okay with looking at my penis and being nude in front of me right now" falls at being any kind of logical argument.
I'm fine with restrooms and changing rooms since they tend to offer (for the most part) reasonable privacy accommodations.
Unless communal showers address the same issue in a reasonable manner, then it's where I draw the line.
There has to be a middle ground. Period. And I don't give a damned how "progressive" one is. Self-righteous and "to hell with your concerns" attitudes work both ways, people.
TheMeanDM wrote: Apparently the majority of women and many of us men who feel that we would rather not change and shower with trans individuals are not allowed to feel uncomfortabl. We just need to suck it up.
I am done with this conversation because you will not change my mind, nor are you willing to see my point of view.
I have already met "your side" half way by stating individual chamging room and insiviidual showers would be fine.
But no....not good enough for you.
So I am not going to keep banging my head against a wall that is obviously never going to, nor willing to, take ten seconds and try to see things from my point of view.....that being a parent and father.
A ton of white people had to suck it up a few decades ago, they survived.
TheMeanDM wrote: Apparently the majority of women and many of us men who feel that we would rather not change and shower with trans individuals are not allowed to feel uncomfortabl. We just need to suck it up.
In all honesty I just feel that you need to examine why it makes you uncomfortable.
The presence of a penis in the women's changing room or lack of one in the men's doesn't mean the person attached to it is no longer a person, with the same intentions as you: Get changed, get out.
Plus, a trans individual us much more likely to be self conscious and getting changed subtly (or at home) than most people.
Chances are you wouldn't be seeing things where you believe they're misplaced, because the human they belong to would rather die than be seen.
TheMeanDM wrote: Apparently the majority of women and many of us men who feel that we would rather not change and shower with trans individuals are not allowed to feel uncomfortabl. We just need to suck it up.
I am done with this conversation because you will not change my mind, nor are you willing to see my point of view.
I have already met "your side" half way by stating individual chamging room and insiviidual showers would be fine.
But no....not good enough for you.
So I am not going to keep banging my head against a wall that is obviously never going to, nor willing to, take ten seconds and try to see things from my point of view.....that being a parent and father.
Yes sunshine, you have to suck it up when it comes to being exposed to genitalia.
Just like all those 'nice' folks had to when forced to share schools and buses and so on with people born with better suntans than theirs.
Society is evolving, deal or be remembered by history as one of 'those people'.
I am done with this conversation because you will not change my mind, nor are you willing to see my point of view.
I don't think it's so much that people aren't willing to see your point of view as that they understand your point of view but disagree with it.
Genitals are just body parts. As a society, we've decided that certain, completely arbitrary body parts are something that we should be embarrassed and ashamed about having and/or seeing, and it simply doesn't make sense.
Children (IMO) would be far better served by being taught that even the bits of our bodies that have a sexual function are ultimately just body parts, and not something to be scared of, rather than to be taught that they need to hide themselves away in case someone sees then naked and is traumatised as a result... The latter is a horrible thing to plug into a developing intellect, but we've been doing it for generations. It's absurd.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And how commonly are you guys seeming genitalia in changing rooms anyway? I've certainly never seen any (although I also haven't been looking).
Personally, I treat it like a shopping channel.
In all seriousness, I swam from age five to fifteen, and I remember very clearly that the floors were wet, you shouldn't run, discarded band aids were gross, and the pre-pool shower was always way too cold.
I remember the smell of chlorine, and squeaky swim floats. I remember the joy of being towed in the water by a parent if they joined me on rare occasion.
I don't remember how many penises or chuffs I did or didn't see.
d-usa wrote: I really didn't mean it at an insult at all. Just pointing out that it's silly to counter an argument about non-sexual exposure to genitals with "take a shower with me or you are a hypocrite".
He's already okay with same sex locker rooms, so with the logic of his argument he should be okay with me sending nude pictures of me in the shower to him since he is okay with seeing me nude in the locker room.
Or he might see that the argument doesn't make any sense, because even though I might see all my coworkers naked at the gym we are still expected to wear clothes everywhere else. Because situational non-sexual nudity is, surprise, situation specific.
Which is why "if you are okay with transgender folks using the same locker room, then you must be okay with looking at my penis and being nude in front of me right now" falls at being any kind of logical argument.
Okay, so if I asked them " hey, let's go to the gym and workout. Then when you go to take a shower, like you always do, and in and area where nudeness is all ready expected and non sexual I come in and take a shower right next to you." I'm willing to bet the disgust at the thought would still be there.
Yeah, it's hard to not compare this to a lot of discussions about racial segregation. The fact that equal treatment would make some people uncomfortable is not a very good justification for discrimination.
I am done with this conversation because you will not change my mind, nor are you willing to see my point of view.
I don't think it's so much that people aren't willing to see your point of view as that they understand your point of view but disagree with it.
Genitals are just body parts. As a society, we've decided that certain, completely arbitrary body parts are something that we should be embarrassed and ashamed about having and/or seeing, and it simply doesn't make sense.
Children (IMO) would be far better served by being taught that even the bits of our bodies that have a sexual function are ultimately just body parts, and not something to be scared of, rather than to be taught that they need to hide themselves away in case someone sees then naked and is traumatised as a result... The latter is a horrible thing to plug into a developing intellect, but we've been doing it for generations. It's absurd.
How many people here look at nudie magazines? If it's just body parts, then why the attraction in the general population, if we're all so sophisticated, with paying money to see people naked?
Relapse wrote: If it's just body parts, then why the attraction in the general population, if we're all so sophisticated, with paying money to see people naked?
Because nudity is a taboo, so seeing someone nude is a thrill.
Which is also why public breastfeeding still causes controversy. Some people are just completely incapable of separating the body part from the sexual imagery that their brain assigns to it as the result of a lifetime of being told that nipples are rude bits.
TheMeanDM wrote: Apparently the majority of women and many of us men who feel that we would rather not change and shower with trans individuals are not allowed to feel uncomfortabl. We just need to suck it up.
In all honesty I just feel that you need to examine why it makes you uncomfortable.
The presence of a penis in the women's changing room or lack of one in the men's doesn't mean the person attached to it is no longer a person, with the same intentions as you: Get changed, get out.
Plus, a trans individual us much more likely to be self conscious and getting changed subtly (or at home) than most people.
Chances are you wouldn't be seeing things where you believe they're misplaced, because the human they belong to would rather die than be seen.
I am totally for anti-discrimination laws for all members of the LGBT community. I support gay marriage, gay adoption, anti-harassment policy, and allowing trans individuals the use of adequately private bathrooms. I agree that the "naught body parts" taboo is somewhat silly. I also realize that this is a major concern for many people, one that has actually been held up as a constitutional privacy right by the US constitution, which is why men's rooms and ladies rooms are legal in the first place. Until the day when someone is totally fine being in a totally co-ed shower room then they are a little hypocritical about supporting trans issues in locker rooms and shower rooms.
d-usa wrote: Considering that it's a stupid argument I don't blame them.
Exactly how is this a stupid argument? Anything to back that up?
If I'm not supposed to be uncomfortable with a transsexual in the room (or more to my worry, my wife and daughter) then why can they worry about showering with me?
Just because you don't see why it's stupid, doesn't mean it's not stupid.
Can I send you a picture of my soaped up man-tackle right now?
Go ahead, send me a pic of your soaped junk. It wouldn't really bother me. In fact I dare you. That being said, kind of an apples or oranges comparison
Yeah, the disgust by how creepy you are being about it. There is a difference between random other people at the gym in the locker room and the guy who wants to shower naked with you to try and prove some sort of point.
I am done with this conversation because you will not change my mind, nor are you willing to see my point of view.
I don't think it's so much that people aren't willing to see your point of view as that they understand your point of view but disagree with it.
Genitals are just body parts. As a society, we've decided that certain, completely arbitrary body parts are something that we should be embarrassed and ashamed about having and/or seeing, and it simply doesn't make sense.
Children (IMO) would be far better served by being taught that even the bits of our bodies that have a sexual function are ultimately just body parts, and not something to be scared of, rather than to be taught that they need to hide themselves away in case someone sees then naked and is traumatised as a result... The latter is a horrible thing to plug into a developing intellect, but we've been doing it for generations. It's absurd.
How many people here look at nudie magazines? If it's just body parts, then why the attraction in the general population, if we're all so sophisticated, with paying money to see people naked?
A porn mag is not simply a naked body-part catalogue.
Personally a bunch of disembodied naked body-parts on paper isn't going to do it for me.
It's about context. The setting, the person, the posing the small bits of information included.
The large piece of information included in a changing room is that this person is changing their clothes. This is not in the majority of cases a sexy activity. It's very difficult to look sexy while trying to take off socks.
So I am not going to keep banging my head against a wall that is obviously never going to, nor willing to, take ten seconds and try to see things from my point of view.....that being a parent and father.
I am a "parent and a father".... and I disagree with you.
As others have pointed out, we in the US have some really absurd notions of what is considered decent. While not entirely directly related, I see a lot of the same crowd arguing against public breastfeeding of infants. Really? It's a boob. It's a food source. Get the feth over it.
I think that the best argument I have ever heard from a women on why she would support Trans women in the locker room, but not want men in there was something along the lines of "but men are sexually attracted to women, and I'd be afraid that they'd be perving on me".
She then looked rather perplexed when I asked if she was a homophobe that wanted to ban homosexuals from locker rooms as well. (by the way I do NOT support gay bans at locker rooms).
How many people here look at nudie magazines? If it's just body parts, then why the attraction in the general population, if we're all so sophisticated, with paying money to see people naked?
TheMeanDM wrote: Apparently the majority of women and many of us men who feel that we would rather not change and shower with trans individuals are not allowed to feel uncomfortabl. We just need to suck it up.
I am done with this conversation because you will not change my mind, nor are you willing to see my point of view.
I have already met "your side" half way by stating individual chamging room and insiviidual showers would be fine.
But no....not good enough for you.
So I am not going to keep banging my head against a wall that is obviously never going to, nor willing to, take ten seconds and try to see things from my point of view.....that being a parent and father.
Men and women have probably had trans or gender dismorphic individuals or whatever they are changing or wizzing next to them already...And they never even knew...how horrible*
Dreadwinter wrote: Yeah, the disgust by how creepy you are being about it. There is a difference between random other people at the gym in the locker room and the guy who wants to shower naked with you to try and prove some sort of point.
Okay.... So if I had asked them to shower with some totally random guy you think they'd have gone for it?
So I am not going to keep banging my head against a wall that is obviously never going to, nor willing to, take ten seconds and try to see things from my point of view.....that being a parent and father.
I am a "parent and a father".... and I disagree with you.
As others have pointed out, we in the US have some really absurd notions of what is considered decent. While not entirely directly related, I see a lot of the same crowd arguing against public breastfeeding of infants. Really? It's a boob. It's a food source. Get the feth over it.
Last year we went on vacation to Germany to visit family. While there we visited lakes, public pools, and theme parks.
The lakes, with minimal public changing facilities, had people either change in one of the snail-things that I have previously posted (it's what I used) or just change right there on the beach. Almost all kids changed out of their swimsuits out in the open.
At the pool they had communal locker rooms with individual stalls to change in as well as the snails. Kids usually still just changed out in the open on the lawn surrounding the pool. Places with saunas had man/women/kids nude while using the sauna and walking around the sauna facilities.
At the theme parks they had water features for kids to play in. We had our 2 year old daughter strip naked right then and there out in the open, put on a swim-diaper, and play in the water. After she was done she stripped naked out in the open again, dried off, and changed back into her clothes. Every other parent did the same with their child.
The last time we vacationed in Italy people were nude on the beach and nobody cared.
The problem isn't nudity and who sees what. The problem is that we have a population that thinks nudity = sex and nudity = bad.
cuda1179 wrote: Until the day when someone is totally fine being in a totally co-ed shower room then they are a little hypocritical about supporting trans issues in locker rooms and shower rooms.
It's not hypocritical to recognise that society's attitude towards something needs to change, even if one hasn't yet managed to make that change oneself...
cuda1179 wrote: Until the day when someone is totally fine being in a totally co-ed shower room then they are a little hypocritical about supporting trans issues in locker rooms and shower rooms.
It's not hypocritical to recognise that society's attitude towards something needs to change, even if one hasn't yet managed to make that change oneself...
I've never been a fan of the "one rule for thee, another for me" line of logic.
TheMeanDM wrote: Apparently the majority of women and many of us men who feel that we would rather not change and shower with trans individuals are not allowed to feel uncomfortabl. We just need to suck it up.
I am done with this conversation because you will not change my mind, nor are you willing to see my point of view.
I have already met "your side" half way by stating individual chamging room and insiviidual showers would be fine.
But no....not good enough for you.
So I am not going to keep banging my head against a wall that is obviously never going to, nor willing to, take ten seconds and try to see things from my point of view.....that being a parent and father.
In an effort to dial it back a bit and understand where you are coming from, I have a question. I'm not trying to be overly pedantic or make fun or be condescending, I'm asking in good faith.
Imagine the situation we are talking about: A parent and child goes into a locker room to change. There is someone else in the locker room changing. The parent and child momentarily see the person's genitals during the act of changing. The person finishes and leaves. The parent and child change and leave. For the sake of discussion, we can imagine that in one case, the biological sex of the person whose genitals are seen is the same as the parent and child, and in the other case, the biological sex of the person is the opposite.
In either case, what is the major concern that you have with this situation? That the parent and the child's day will be ruined by this inadvertent viewing? That the child's life will be ruined? That the child will be confused and ask a question? That the child will be curious and ask a question? Or something else? Does it vary, based on the type of genitals seen?
I will admit, from my point of view it is very difficult for me to see what the problem would be with the situation I described, so I am legitimately curious as to why it seems like such a problematic situation for you. Where does your concern or worry lie? Or am I mischaracterizing your concern and there is something else that you are worried about?
If anyone else feels similarly and wants to chime in, feel free as well.
cuda1179 wrote: Until the day when someone is totally fine being in a totally co-ed shower room then they are a little hypocritical about supporting trans issues in locker rooms and shower rooms.
It's not hypocritical to recognise that society's attitude towards something needs to change, even if one hasn't yet managed to make that change oneself...
I've never been a fan of the "one rule for thee, another for me" line of logic.
I'm not saying that people should hold themselves and other people to different standards. I'm saying that preconceptions instilled over the course of a lifetime can take time to change, even when someone recognises that they need to change.
The fact that someone refused your noble offer to shower with them doesn't mean that they don't recognise that nudity taboos are silly... it just means that they were put off by your offer to shower with them.
My wife and I work opposite shifts. Which means that quote often I am the person doing stuff with my toddler. She loves the pool and we often go to the YMCA to swim. After we swim, we go to the changing rooms and change. Our Y has a men's locker room, a woman's locker room, and a family locker room where the lockers are out in a communal area with individual changing rooms with showers in them. My daughter sees me naked while we change, just as she sees me naked when she watches me go to the bathroom at home. At no point have I ever been concerned about what she sees. I am more concerned that we life in a society where there might be people watching me go into a changing room with my toddler who think that I might be up to something.
Hordini wrote: Does it vary, based on the type of genitals seen?
Yes. It does vary by anatomy.
My 12yo daughter would not (and does not) have questions about changing with other females.
Call me old fashioned, christian, out dated, a relic, a fossil...whatever....but I believe that children (under 18)are already so over exposed to sex in our western culture (perhaps even eastern, but not sure).
They are having sex and sexuality FORCED upon them everywhere they go in all manner of media.
About the only places that you don't see it on tv are Nickelodeon, Cartoon network, and PBS. And even then, they have TeenNick.
Anyways....
I simply want my kids to grow up with the *choice* of when they want to take interest in the opposite sex and when they choose to view the opposite sex as sexual partners.
I feel that exposing developing kids to the genitalia of the opposite sex before they are mature enough mentally, socially, and behaviorally is opening them up to a pandora's box of things that kids should not have to start dealing with, considerimg all the other crap that they are dealing with in the first place.
A 2yo changing on the beach is one thing. A 12yo girl who is developing into a young woman is completely different. They are already experiencing insecurities anout their changing body, so why make things more comolicated or harder for them and make them change in front of developing boys (who may claim to feel like a girl)....?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: My wife and I work opposite shifts. Which means that quote often I am the person doing stuff with my toddler.
I simply want my kids to grow up with the *choice* of when they want to take interest in the opposite sex and when they choose to view the opposite sex as sexual partners.
Do you commonly choose sexual partners from amongst random people you encounter in locker rooms?
That's a serious question. You seem to viewing 'nudity' and 'sex' as the same thing.
A 2yo changing on the beach is one thing. A 12yo girl who is developing into a young woman is completely different. They are already experiencing insecurities anout their changing body, so why make things more comolicated or harder for them and make them change in front of developing boys (who may claim to feel like a girl)....?
Because the main reason the 12 year old is feeling insecure about her body is that you've spent the previous 12 years teaching her that her body is something that needs to be hidden away, and thus something to be ashamed of.
cuda1179 wrote: Until the day when someone is totally fine being in a totally co-ed shower room then they are a little hypocritical about supporting trans issues in locker rooms and shower rooms.
It's not hypocritical to recognise that society's attitude towards something needs to change, even if one hasn't yet managed to make that change oneself...
I've never been a fan of the "one rule for thee, another for me" line of logic.
I'm not saying that people should hold themselves and other people to different standards. I'm saying that preconceptions instilled over the course of a lifetime can take time to change, even when someone recognises that they need to change.
The fact that someone refused your noble offer to shower with them doesn't mean that they don't recognise that nudity taboos are silly... it just means that they were put off by your offer to shower with them.
OR.......they absolutely refuse to consider EVER showering with men in a coed setting. If that is the case then yes, they are hypocrites.
you. You have no idea what I am teaching my daughter or son or how I am raising my kids.
Maybe you should take an adolescent psych class and learn about the mental, physical, behavioral and hormonal changes that they go through instead of trying to paint me with your idiotic brush.
I simply want my kids to grow up with the *choice* of when they want to take interest in the opposite sex and when they choose to view the opposite sex as sexual partners.
I feel that exposing developing kids to the genitalia of the opposite sex before they are mature enough mentally, socially, and behaviorally is opening them up to a pandora's box of things that kids should not have to start dealing with, considerimg all the other crap that they are dealing with in the first place.
I think this quote illustrates the root of the issue, if I am understanding you correctly. Would it be correct to say that you feel that any exposure to the opposite sex genitalia would be a problem, even if it is a non-sexual context (such as while changing)? Or does context matter? I'm thinking most teens will have, at the very least, seen an image of genitalia in a health textbook at school, and quite possibly online as well. How much does the context matter? Or does it not matter to you when it comes to genitalia?
To be clear, I'm not trying to goad you or paint you with any brush. It's pretty obvious that there are a significant amount of people in this country who feel similarly to you, and I think it would be helpful if both sides fully understood where each other was coming from, rather than just ascribing some negative quality, ill intent, or general buffoonery to those on the other side.
For a MOD, I'm going to have to say that sounded suspiciously like an attack on someone's personal beliefs, parenting ability, and possibly religion. Can MODs ban themselves?
I simply want my kids to grow up with the *choice* of when they want to take interest in the opposite sex and when they choose to view the opposite sex as sexual partners.
I feel that exposing developing kids to the genitalia of the opposite sex before they are mature enough mentally, socially, and behaviorally is opening them up to a pandora's box of things that kids should not have to start dealing with, considerimg all the other crap that they are dealing with in the first place.
I think this quote illustrates the root of the issue, if I am understanding you correctly. Would it be correct to say that you feel that any exposure to the opposite sex genitalia would be a problem, even if it is a non-sexual context (such as while changing)? Or does context matter? I'm thinking most teens will have, at the very least, seen an image of genitalia in a health textbook at school, and quite possibly online as well. How much does the context matter? Or does it not matter to you when it comes to genitalia?
Well, the courts don't seem to see much of a difference, even without it being a sexual nature. Recently in the news a high school football player got cheeky. He had the tip of his penis out the top of his pants during the team photo for the yearbook. No one noticed unit after the book was issued. He is now being charged with dozens of counts of dissemination of indecent material to minors (one for each book given to an underage person), even though there was nothing sexual about it.
TheMeanDM wrote: you. You have no idea what I am teaching my daughter or son or how I am raising my kids..
No, I don't. And my comment possibly came across seeming a little more directly aimed than it was intended to be. The 'you' I was referring to there was more of a generic thing that aimed specifically at you.
Because to some extent, I suspect that most of us actually do this to some extent, whether because of our preconceptions about modesty and sex, or simply in an effort to keep our children safe in a world where other people will take advantage of our children if they put themselves out there...
Our society has some screwed up ideas about nudity and how best to deal with that is something that every parent is going to have to figure out for themselves. My apologies if I came across more harshly than I intended.
cuda1179 wrote: For a MOD, I'm going to have to say that sounded suspiciously like an attack on someone's personal beliefs, parenting ability, and possibly religion. Can MODs ban themselves?
I simply want my kids to grow up with the *choice* of when they want to take interest in the opposite sex and when they choose to view the opposite sex as sexual partners.
I feel that exposing developing kids to the genitalia of the opposite sex before they are mature enough mentally, socially, and behaviorally is opening them up to a pandora's box of things that kids should not have to start dealing with, considerimg all the other crap that they are dealing with in the first place.
I think this quote illustrates the root of the issue, if I am understanding you correctly. Would it be correct to say that you feel that any exposure to the opposite sex genitalia would be a problem, even if it is a non-sexual context (such as while changing)? Or does context matter? I'm thinking most teens will have, at the very least, seen an image of genitalia in a health textbook at school, and quite possibly online as well. How much does the context matter? Or does it not matter to you when it comes to genitalia?
Well, the courts don't seem to see much of a difference, even without it being a sexual nature. Recently in the news a high school football player got cheeky. He had the tip of his penis out the top of his pants during the team photo for the yearbook. No one noticed unit after the book was issued. He is now being charged with dozens of counts of dissemination of indecent material to minors (one for each book given to an underage person), even though there was nothing sexual about it.
That's not really the same as changing in a locker room though, is it?
Well, the courts don't seem to see much of a difference, even without it being a sexual nature. Recently in the news a high school football player got cheeky. He had the tip of his penis out the top of his pants during the team photo for the yearbook. No one noticed unit after the book was issued. He is now being charged with dozens of counts of dissemination of indecent material to minors (one for each book given to an underage person), even though there was nothing sexual about it.
Actually, that's a prime example of context mattering.
He got in trouble because he flashed himself in a public setting, and that setting was one that would result in minors seeing it. The ridiculous thing about that is that if he had simply had his tackle out in a locker room, it would have been fine legally, even if those same minors had been in the room.
The fact that he was doing it specifically for the titillation makes a difference, but it would be less of a difference if we didn't all have these massive hang-ups drummed into us about any sight of a penis being a traumatic experience.
Just out of curiosity, and just Devil's advocate here and not being serious.
Hypothetically let's say there is a private health club that disagrees with anti-trans inclusion laws. Is there anything that necessitates them having their facilities labeled "male" and "female"? What if they had custom signs that said "have a penis" and "lack a penis"? Could they then force this issue despite the law?
TheMeanDM wrote: you. You have no idea what I am teaching my daughter or son or how I am raising my kids.
Maybe you should take an adolescent psych class and learn about the mental, physical, behavioral and hormonal changes that they go through instead of trying to paint me with your idiotic brush.
Yes because one class makes you understand absolutely everything.
TheMeanDM wrote: I feel that exposing developing kids to the genitalia of the opposite sex before they are mature enough mentally, socially, and behaviorally is opening them up to a pandora's box of things that kids should not have to start dealing with, considerimg all the other crap that they are dealing with in the first place.
Right then. Looks like it's time for me to copy and past this post from the last thread we had on this subject, because, as per normal, people are being idiots.
See that person? That person has a vagina. You are saying that you want him to be in the changing room with your daughter.
This person also has a vagina. You're saying that he should be in the changing room with your daughter as well.
TheMeanDM wrote: I simply want my kids to grow up with the *choice* of when they want to take interest in the opposite sex and when they choose to view the opposite sex as sexual partners.
Why are you assuming that your kids will take interest in the opposite sex? What if they turn out to be gay? How can you justify opening Pandora's box of naked same-sex people and risking the possibility that they will have to deal with their same-sex attraction before they are ready?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: Well, the courts don't seem to see much of a difference, even without it being a sexual nature. Recently in the news a high school football player got cheeky. He had the tip of his penis out the top of his pants during the team photo for the yearbook. No one noticed unit after the book was issued. He is now being charged with dozens of counts of dissemination of indecent material to minors (one for each book given to an underage person), even though there was nothing sexual about it.
There's a huge difference between the two:
Flashing people involves bringing nudity into a context where the people seeing it don't expect nudity. In fact, the whole point is to surprise/shock/horrify/etc them with the unexpected nudity. They don't want to see it, they can't avoid it, and it's really funny/sexy to make them look.
Locker rooms involve nudity in a context where nudity is expected. If you go into a locker room you expect to see naked people showering, and brief glimpses of parts of naked bodies when people are changing clothes. Nobody is trying to shock an unwanted observer, they're just naked because they're doing something that requires their clothes to be off. And if you don't want to see naked people changing or showering you're free to stay out of locker rooms.
Now, I should add that facing criminal charges for a stupid prank like this is obviously ridiculous, but it's very clearly two different situations.
Maybe you should take an adolescent psych class and learn about the mental, physical, behavioral and hormonal changes that they go through instead of trying to paint me with your idiotic brush.
I have taken that class (and a few others related). All things being equal, sexual trauma generally occurs after the first sexual encounter, and it doesn't happen just because "the kid wasn't ready". As weird as that sound, children and young adolescent have naturally a much more carefree approach to nudity and sexuality than adults.
Maybe you should take an adolescent psych class and learn about the mental, physical, behavioral and hormonal changes that they go through instead of trying to paint me with your idiotic brush.
I have taken that class (and a few others related). All things being equal, sexual trauma generally occurs after the first sexual encounter, and it doesn't happen just because "the kid wasn't ready". As weird as that sound, children and young adolescent have naturally a much more carefree approach to nudity and sexuality than adults.
Not to mention the fact that sexual trauma is, in the vast majority of cases, inflicted on the victim by someone they know, and not a random stranger in a bathroom or locker room.
dogma wrote: What is strange to me is that there are troughs, actual troughs, at Wrigley into which men urinate next to children. No one has a problem with this, apparently.
Luckily, I have thusfar avoided having to pee into a trough, not being a fan of either baseball or particularly seedy bars. I've heard they're pretty damn gross, though.
Troughs are reasonably common in the UK, especially in older buildings. They are usually OK as long as they are cleaned reasonably often; otherwise (and I am not sure how people are this bad at aiming, but most of them are in pubs so that may have something to do with it...) the floor is often not the cleanest so you have to pee long distance if you don't want to track wizz around with your shoes...
See, I just have an innate problem with a multi-million dollar stadium offering me the same style of facility as my local county fair where 10-year old carny kids are walking around smoking. I don't have a problem being in a stall next to a transvestite who's pooping, or peeing in a trough next to other dudes, but c'mon, man. If you are charging 5 bucks for a pepsi that's half full of ice to screw me over, at least use some of that money to buy a couple of urinals.
This just in- most of the guys I know are far too busy demolishing the plumbing in a bathroom to be preying on women. If anything, the audio/nasal disaster is the true assault on the opposite gender.
The problem isn't nudity and who sees what. The problem is that we have a population that thinks nudity = sex and nudity = bad.
That's basically what I was saying... the "common line" in American thought, is a really fethed up view on nudity. We apparently need to live in fear of who's peeing next to us, who may be changing near us, and heaven forbid, a woman uses her breasts for what evolution intended them for!!
My time in Germany was quite similar to yours, only, because of my own aversion to beaches and water, we didn't go to many beaches I seriously cannot tell you how many times my daughter was breastfed in the open, in public when we were there. She absolutely HATED being covered up, no matter what the temperature was outside.
I simply want my kids to grow up with the *choice* of when they want to take interest in the opposite sex and when they choose to view the opposite sex as sexual partners.
.
So... it's not OK if they take an interest in the same sex, or view the same sex as a potential sexual partner... Well, can't say I'm surprised there.
So... it's not OK if they take an interest in the same sex, or view the same sex as a potential sexual partner... Well, can't say I'm surprised there.
Never said that, thanks!
I know, it's such a massive leap of logic, especially when you specified "Opposite sex" twice in one sentence. How dare he assume that you chose your words on purpose.
So... it's not OK if they take an interest in the same sex, or view the same sex as a potential sexual partner... Well, can't say I'm surprised there.
Never said that, thanks!
Then why word it the specific way you did? You could just as easily have worded it as to say when your kids become interested in sexual partners, or romance.
I am done with this conversation because you will not change my mind, nor are you willing to see my point of view.
I don't think it's so much that people aren't willing to see your point of view as that they understand your point of view but disagree with it.
Genitals are just body parts. As a society, we've decided that certain, completely arbitrary body parts are something that we should be embarrassed and ashamed about having and/or seeing, and it simply doesn't make sense.
Children (IMO) would be far better served by being taught that even the bits of our bodies that have a sexual function are ultimately just body parts, and not something to be scared of, rather than to be taught that they need to hide themselves away in case someone sees then naked and is traumatised as a result... The latter is a horrible thing to plug into a developing intellect, but we've been doing it for generations. It's absurd.
How many people here look at nudie magazines? If it's just body parts, then why the attraction in the general population, if we're all so sophisticated, with paying money to see people naked?
A porn mag is not simply a naked body-part catalogue.
Personally a bunch of disembodied naked body-parts on paper isn't going to do it for me.
It's about context. The setting, the person, the posing the small bits of information included.
The large piece of information included in a changing room is that this person is changing their clothes. This is not in the majority of cases a sexy activity. It's very difficult to look sexy while trying to take off socks.
I don't buy the context angle, simply because I well remember my high school days and the kids in my daughters school don't appear any different from then.
Relapse wrote: I don't buy the context angle, simply because I well remember my high school days and the kids in my daughters school don't appear any different from then.
I do... There are a number of magazines that are basically trade publications, or academic journals for artists.... many times their subjects, be it photograph or sculpture (as in, a photograph of a sculpture done by an artist... since it is a magazine afterall ) or painting or pencil drawing, etc, were nude human forms.
There's art, and then there's porn. IMO, they are two completely different things.
Kids these days don't even know what it was like when the only reliable way to see a titty was a dog-eared National Geographic from the school library.
TheMeanDM wrote: Apparently the majority of women and many of us men who feel that we would rather not change and shower with trans individuals are not allowed to feel uncomfortabl. We just need to suck it up.
I am done with this conversation because you will not change my mind, nor are you willing to see my point of view.
I have already met "your side" half way by stating individual chamging room and insiviidual showers would be fine.
But no....not good enough for you.
So I am not going to keep banging my head against a wall that is obviously never going to, nor willing to, take ten seconds and try to see things from my point of view.....that being a parent and father.
You are going to have to start coming to that conclusion to alot of people who deal with the politcally correct types come to. Their beliefs are set in stone, it does not matter what you say or do, they will not change their mind. To avoid creating conflict its better to just ignore them if possible and carry on in life.
Steve steveson wrote: 1) "employees and guests". Please tell me they are not referring to customers as guests.
Since coming to the US I've encountered many businesses that refer to their customers as "guests". I found it odd at first too, but I suppose they're just trying to make customers feel more welcome and encourage employees to take better care of them. Meh, whatever, marketing shenanigans at work...
I would consider myself a prisoner in a Target, not a guest lol
cuda1179 wrote: Just out of curiosity, and just Devil's advocate here and not being serious.
Hypothetically let's say there is a private health club that disagrees with anti-trans inclusion laws. Is there anything that necessitates them having their facilities labeled "male" and "female"? What if they had custom signs that said "have a penis" and "lack a penis"? Could they then force this issue despite the law?
As I understand the NC law, this would not exempt them from the law, but if they put up signs that said For Men and Women, and For Women and Men, they would be exempt.
cuda1179 wrote: Just out of curiosity, and just Devil's advocate here and not being serious.
Hypothetically let's say there is a private health club that disagrees with anti-trans inclusion laws. Is there anything that necessitates them having their facilities labeled "male" and "female"? What if they had custom signs that said "have a penis" and "lack a penis"? Could they then force this issue despite the law?
As I understand the NC law, this would not exempt them from the law, but if they put up signs that said For Men and Women, and For Women and Men, they would be exempt.
So XX and XY bathrooms would solve the whole issue?
North Carolina have attempted to solve the problem of transexual people going into lavatories by bringing in a law that prohibits them from going into the lavatory marked "Women" unless they are genetically a woman or in the case of a transexual man, having had complete gender reassignment surgery.
If you are a Phil who wants to become a Phyllis, but haven't yet got there, this law requires you to go into the room marked "Men".
However if the sign on the door says "Men and Women" there isn't a problem.
cuda1179 wrote: Just out of curiosity, and just Devil's advocate here and not being serious.
Hypothetically let's say there is a private health club that disagrees with anti-trans inclusion laws. Is there anything that necessitates them having their facilities labeled "male" and "female"? What if they had custom signs that said "have a penis" and "lack a penis"? Could they then force this issue despite the law?
As I understand the NC law, this would not exempt them from the law, but if they put up signs that said For Men and Women, and For Women and Men, they would be exempt.
So XX and XY bathrooms would solve the whole issue?
You run into the problem with people with XXY, XXX, and XYY.
I keep a stache around my house for when the internet goes out.
what does facial hair have to do with internet outtages?? And, hopefully it's a good one, like Burt Reynolds or Tom Skerrit, or heck, even Jeff Bridges
TheMeanDM wrote: Apparently the majority of women and many of us men who feel that we would rather not change and shower with trans individuals are not allowed to feel uncomfortabl. We just need to suck it up.
I am done with this conversation because you will not change my mind, nor are you willing to see my point of view.
I have already met "your side" half way by stating individual chamging room and insiviidual showers would be fine.
But no....not good enough for you.
So I am not going to keep banging my head against a wall that is obviously never going to, nor willing to, take ten seconds and try to see things from my point of view.....that being a parent and father.
You are going to have to start coming to that conclusion to alot of people who deal with the politcally correct types come to. Their beliefs are set in stone, it does not matter what you say or do, they will not change their mind. To avoid creating conflict its better to just ignore them if possible and carry on in life.
Well, that is a brilliant way to look at things. Even though his statement is pretty wrong considering we have tried to see it from his side multiple times but we still understand that bathrooms are for using the bathroom, not political grandstanding and segregation.
He can keep saying the same thing over and over and trying to use fear as a reason to legislate. We will continue to use facts to shut him down.
We are fortunate that the politically incorrect types have the open mind to look at all the facts and evidence (not feelings based, of course) and come to the best decision on everyone's behalf.
I keep a stache around my house for when the internet goes out.
what does facial hair have to do with internet outtages?? And, hopefully it's a good one, like Burt Reynolds or Tom Skerrit, or heck, even Jeff Bridges
Ron Jeremy . Staches have a lot to do with the internet being out.
No one finds it a bit dangerous to allow teenage hormones together in the same public place in a state of undress with no supervision or recourse?
Transgenders are not necessarily homosexual, and I personally don't think a teenage transgender female in a female's locker room can avoid the inevitable arousal when looking at the female form. How do you propose to handle this?
Also, a teenage Transgender Male exposes "his" female anatomy to virile hormone laced teenage boys in the Men's Locker Room isn't a problem for anyone?
That being said the issue with sexual based crime continually is not addressed. No one is worried about Transgenders being the aggressors here. People are concerned with sexual predators posing as Transgenders to gain "legal" access, which right now they can't.
MY OPINIONS OF THESE ISSUES ARE IRRELEVANT, SO DON"T RIP ME A NEW ONE. I AM ASKING QUESTIONS.
No one finds it a bit dangerous to allow teenage hormones together in the same public place in a state of undress with no supervision or recourse?
Transgenders are not necessarily homosexual, and I personally don't think a teenage transgender female in a female's locker room can avoid the inevitable arousal when looking at the female form. How do you propose to handle this?
Also, a teenage Transgender Male exposes "his" female anatomy to virile hormone laced teenage boys in the Men's Locker Room isn't a problem for anyone?
That being said the issue with sexual based crime continually is not addressed. No one is worried about Transgenders being the aggressors here. People are concerned with sexual predators posing as Transgenders to gain "legal" access, which right now they can't.
MY OPINIONS OF THESE ISSUES ARE IRRELEVANT, SO DON"T RIP ME A NEW ONE. I AM ASKING QUESTIONS.
Well, considering that hetero and homo sexuals exist, A) no one should be getting it on in the shower/locker room, be they boy/girl/lizard creature/half-orcs. Showers and locker rooms are for that only. B) I think the age old "If it bothers you, don't look" carries well, and no one should be touching anyone
Mdlbuildr wrote: No one finds it a bit dangerous to allow teenage hormones together in the same public place in a state of undress with no supervision or recourse?
We already do this. Or did you forget that gay people, including gay teenagers, exist?
Transgenders are not necessarily homosexual, and I personally don't think a teenage transgender female in a female's locker room can avoid the inevitable arousal when looking at the female form. How do you propose to handle this?
How do you propose to handle the inevitable arousal when a gay man looks at the male form?
Also, a teenage Transgender Male exposes "his" female anatomy to virile hormone laced teenage boys in the Men's Locker Room isn't a problem for anyone?
I suppose it could be a problem, but the solution is to punish the people who behave badly instead of blaming the victim.
People are concerned with sexual predators posing as Transgenders to gain "legal" access, which right now they can't.
And those concerns are just plain ridiculous. Everything those sexual predators would want to do is already either illegal or grounds for removal and permanent banning, so adding another thing to be guilty of isn't going to change anything. Predators are going to prey on isolated victims where it doesn't matter what sign is on the door, nobody is going to be there to help them. The myth of a man coming into the women's bathroom, groping/filming/etc people, and saying "you can't stop me, I identify as a woman" has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
You can ask questions all you want, all they will do is keep taking every word you say and question you have and blowing it completely and utterly out of proportion-- not to mention twisting your words and inserting opinions that you have not brought forth or voiced (ex: not once did I ever mention concerns about predators. ex: I said opposite sex, and immediatelyI am vilified for not being "generic" in my language, and therefore I am called a homophobe...when nobody has any knowledge of me or my experiences with LGBT people).
As much as they claim to be trying to see an opposite point of view, they really arent, merely saying so to try and make themselves look like the good guys....nor is there any intention of compromise...it's all or nothing...to hell with the majority female population...to hell with any concerns that a parent may have....to hell with anybody that disagrees with them on any grounds, really.
TheMeanDM wrote: You can ask questions all you want, all they will do is keep taking every word you say and question you have and blowing it completely and utterly out of proportion-- not to mention twisting your words and inserting opinions that you have not brought forth or voiced (ex: not once did I ever mention concerns about predators. ex: I said opposite sex, and immediatelyI am vilified for not being "generic" in my language, and therefore I am called a homophobe...when nobody has any knowledge of me or my experiences with LGBT people).
As much as they claim to be trying to see an opposite point of view, they really arent, merely saying so to try and make themselves look like the good guys....nor is there any intention of compromise...it's all or nothing...to hell with the majority female population...to hell with any concerns that a parent may have....to hell with anybody that disagrees with them on any grounds, really.
You don't speak for the majority female population, nor have the majority female population actually been polled so you have no data to refer to.
Mdlbuildr wrote: No one finds it a bit dangerous to allow teenage hormones together in the same public place in a state of undress with no supervision or recourse?
We already do this. Or did you forget that gay people, including gay teenagers, exist?
Transgenders are not necessarily homosexual, and I personally don't think a teenage transgender female in a female's locker room can avoid the inevitable arousal when looking at the female form. How do you propose to handle this?
How do you propose to handle the inevitable arousal when a gay man looks at the male form?
Also, a teenage Transgender Male exposes "his" female anatomy to virile hormone laced teenage boys in the Men's Locker Room isn't a problem for anyone?
I suppose it could be a problem, but the solution is to punish the people who behave badly instead of blaming the victim.
People are concerned with sexual predators posing as Transgenders to gain "legal" access, which right now they can't.
And those concerns are just plain ridiculous. Everything those sexual predators would want to do is already either illegal or grounds for removal and permanent banning, so adding another thing to be guilty of isn't going to change anything. Predators are going to prey on isolated victims where it doesn't matter what sign is on the door, nobody is going to be there to help them. The myth of a man coming into the women's bathroom, groping/filming/etc people, and saying "you can't stop me, I identify as a woman" has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
You have completely missed the point:
A gay man aroused at another man in a men's bathroom is nothing like a Transgender Female who is not homosexual having an erection in a locker room full of teen females. Do you see how this could be a problem?
A naked Transgender Male in a locker room full of males can be easily overcome by the males in the same locker room. Do you think they will care that this "Male" with female genitalia feels like a Male?
You saying something is ridiculous is your opinion and NOT the opinion of the masses. Hence the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: You can ask questions all you want, all they will do is keep taking every word you say and question you have and blowing it completely and utterly out of proportion-- not to mention twisting your words and inserting opinions that you have not brought forth or voiced (ex: not once did I ever mention concerns about predators. ex: I said opposite sex, and immediatelyI am vilified for not being "generic" in my language, and therefore I am called a homophobe...when nobody has any knowledge of me or my experiences with LGBT people).
As much as they claim to be trying to see an opposite point of view, they really arent, merely saying so to try and make themselves look like the good guys....
I feel much like you do. Especially when trying to have a discussion with many of the people in these forums.
TheMeanDM wrote: You can ask questions all you want, all they will do is keep taking every word you say and question you have and blowing it completely and utterly out of proportion-- not to mention twisting your words and inserting opinions that you have not brought forth or voiced (ex: not once did I ever mention concerns about predators. ex: I said opposite sex, and immediatelyI am vilified for not being "generic" in my language, and therefore I am called a homophobe...when nobody has any knowledge of me or my experiences with LGBT people).
As much as they claim to be trying to see an opposite point of view, they really arent, merely saying so to try and make themselves look like the good guys....nor is there any intention of compromise...it's all or nothing...to hell with the majority female population...to hell with any concerns that a parent may have....to hell with anybody that disagrees with them on any grounds, really.
Can you just, please show us a source or something. Like a poll, that would be good. Show us a poll where the majority of the female population has been polled specifically about this issue.
A naked Transgender Male in a locker room full of males can be easily overcome by the males in the same locker room. Do you think they will care that this "Male" with female genitalia feels like a Male?
Hwhat? What do you think happens to kids when they go through puberty? I definitely never considered raping or gang raping anybody during it. I believe I could speak for most of my classmates in also saying that never crossed their minds.
Mdlbuildr wrote: No one finds it a bit dangerous to allow teenage hormones together in the same public place in a state of undress with no supervision or recourse?
We already do this. Or did you forget that gay people, including gay teenagers, exist?
Transgenders are not necessarily homosexual, and I personally don't think a teenage transgender female in a female's locker room can avoid the inevitable arousal when looking at the female form. How do you propose to handle this?
How do you propose to handle the inevitable arousal when a gay man looks at the male form?
Also, a teenage Transgender Male exposes "his" female anatomy to virile hormone laced teenage boys in the Men's Locker Room isn't a problem for anyone?
I suppose it could be a problem, but the solution is to punish the people who behave badly instead of blaming the victim.
People are concerned with sexual predators posing as Transgenders to gain "legal" access, which right now they can't.
And those concerns are just plain ridiculous. Everything those sexual predators would want to do is already either illegal or grounds for removal and permanent banning, so adding another thing to be guilty of isn't going to change anything. Predators are going to prey on isolated victims where it doesn't matter what sign is on the door, nobody is going to be there to help them. The myth of a man coming into the women's bathroom, groping/filming/etc people, and saying "you can't stop me, I identify as a woman" has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
You have completely missed the point:
A gay man aroused at another man in a men's bathroom is nothing like a Transgender Female who is not homosexual having an erection in a locker room full of teen females. Do you see how this could be a problem?
A naked Transgender Male in a locker room full of males can be easily overcome by the males in the same locker room. Do you think they will care that this "Male" with female genitalia feels like a Male?
You saying something is ridiculous is your opinion and NOT the opinion of the masses. Hence the problem.
Do you think this actually happens? I'm a straight male, and somehow, some way, I am able to keep myself from attacking women in bathing suits. I'm pretty sure I could go to a nude beach and not resort to sexually assaulting women. Something something brain > hormones.
A gay man aroused at another man in a men's bathroom is nothing like a Transgender Female who is not homosexual having an erection in a locker room full of teen females
Please explain how it's different.
. Do you see how this could be a problem?
Can you find any reports of women in change rooms being assaulted by Transgender people before
before now?
Transgender people have been getting changed and going to the bathroom for an awful long time now. If this was going to be an actual issue, it would have come up long before this discussion started happening.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As I explained above, Dreadwinter, my reasoning for including it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yes it says 57% support gender, but inly of 1000 people...and they do not give the breakdown of # of women polled from what I can tell.
The Reutwrs poll is, in my opinion, more accurate and detailed.
Hwhat? What do you think happens to kids when they go through puberty? I definitely never considered raping or gang raping anybody during it. I believe I could speak for most of my classmates in also saying that never crossed their minds.
A Transgender Male has female anatomy and is genetically a female.
- A group of teenage males is changing and one of them disrobes and has breast and a vagina. At 16 years old, I would bet that one of the males gets sexually aroused.
A Transgender Female has male anatomy and is genetically male.
- A group of females are changing and one of them has male genitalia and is not homosexual. At 16 years I would bet that that Transgender Female will get sexually aroused around all these naked women. As a physically more powerful individual, this could present an issue. At 16, it may not be so easy to control the arousal state, as any male who has been 16 can tell you.
A Transgender Male has female anatomy and is genetically a female.
- A group of teenage males is changing and one of them disrobes and has breast and a vagina. At 16 years old, I would bet that one of the males gets sexually aroused.
A Transgender Female has male anatomy and is genetically male.
- A group of females are changing and one of them has male genitalia and is not homosexual. At 16 years I would bet that that Transgender Female will get sexually aroused around all these naked women. As a physically more powerful individual, this could present an issue. At 16, it may not be so easy to control the arousal state, as any male who has been 16 can tell you.
Replace the trans in your examples with gays, and toy have exactly what's been happening in change rooms for as long as there have been change rooms.
So, again, what issue are you complaining about, exactly?
d-usa wrote: So how is Europe dealing with all these rapes?
It has nothing to do with rape, sir. It has to do with an individuals rights to privacy and the laws on "lewd behavior".
Then what's the point of bring up, over and over again, that the man with the erection is able to overpower the women but not the men?
If I, as a non transgender, would go into a women's bathroom right now with an erection and expose it to a female, in most state, I can be arrested.
If this should happen to a Transgender Female in a women's locker, what does the Law state?
You, as a non-transgender, can be arrested for walking around the men's bathroom with an erection that you are exposing to males. The same laws that keep you from shaking your erect penis in my face RIGHT NOW also keep you from shaking your erect penis in the face of anybody else, regardless of gender.
Are we seriously pretending that it's legal for me to walk around the restroom at Target with my penis hanging out of my pants, or that it's legal for me to walk around the locker room at my YMCA with an erection pointing at everybody in the room?
I don't know what kind of gym you are going to, but it needs to be investigated if you guys are just hanging out with your Johnson out.
Replace the trans in your examples with gays, and toy have exactly what's been happening in change rooms for as long as there have been change rooms.
So, again, what issue are you complaining about, exactly?
Gays are the same gender biologically.
Men are more powerful than women. A Transgender Female has male hormones (for the most part) and is not biologically a female. Therefore they can, and in some instances will overpower someone they may feel they can. It even happens in same gender situations.
I'm not complaining. I'm presenting an argument. Do not make this into a personal attack. If we can't have a discussion and not resort to "stop complaining", then it's not a very reasonable discussion. You are attempting to shut down my argument because you don't agree or understand it.
Replace the trans in your examples with gays, and toy have exactly what's been happening in change rooms for as long as there have been change rooms.
So, again, what issue are you complaining about, exactly?
Gays are the same gender biologically.
Men are more powerful than women. A Transgender Female has male hormones (for the most part) and is not biologically a female. Therefore they can, and in some instances will overpower someone they may feel they can. It even happens in same gender situations.
I'm not complaining. I'm presenting an argument. Do not make this into a personal attack. If we can't have a discussion and not resort to "stop complaining", then it's not a very reasonable discussion. You are attempting to shut down my argument because you don't agree or understand it.
So how is Europe dealing with the pandemic or women being overpowered in bathrooms?
I suspect they treat them (if they have happened) much like the other sexual assaults (1/3 of women surveyed) and sexual harassment (55% of women surveyed) in europe....they go largely unreported.
So how is Europe dealing with the pandemic or women being overpowered in bathrooms?
You are not making any attempt to understand the argument, sir. Either that, or you don't understand the issue altogether.
The potential is there.
There is the potential of you being a rapist as well
There are examples.
Awesome, can't wait to see the statistics of how Europe has been impacted by these potential women being potentially overpowered.
Discounting the possibility of it doesn't negate that possibility.
Discounting the possibility of you being a rapist doesn't negate the possibility of you being a rapist.
If you are comfortable painting transgender males as potential rapists, then you surely won't mind joining them in the potential rapist category.
Or we could stop pretending that a sign on a bathroom is going to stop anyone that wants to expose his erect penis to a woman before overpowering her and doing whatever men with erect penises do to women once they are overpowered.
Men are more powerful than women. A Transgender Female has male hormones (for the most part) and is not biologically a female. Therefore they can, and in some instances will overpower someone they may feel they can. It even happens in same gender situations.
By this logic, no woman is ever safe from attack by any man in her vicinity who happens to be aroused by her.
I'm not sure about where you live, but around here most people don't actually assault everyone around then who they feel that they can overpower...
I'm also a little dubious about the logic of claiming that guys won't get assaulted by Gays because they can overpower them. I've met a few gay guys I sure as hell wouldn't want to go up against in a fight...
I'm not complaining. I'm presenting an argument. Do not make this into a personal attack. If we can't have a discussion and not resort to "stop complaining", then it's not a very reasonable discussion. You are attempting to shut down my argument because you don't agree or understand it.
There is nothing personal in any of my responses. I'm disagreeing with your argument. That's how discussion works.
TheMeanDM wrote: I suspect they treat them (if they have happened) much like the other sexual assaults (1/3 of women surveyed) and sexual harassment (55% of women surveyed) in europe....they go largely unreported.
And you should be asking "Why are they so under reported?"
To add to your point, sir, there have been many reports of crimes not being recorded by Authorities to keep certain quotas. For funding reasons, etc. These are well documented. All of Europe, Australia and Japan.
TheMeanDM wrote: I suspect they treat them (if they have happened) much like the other sexual assaults (1/3 of women surveyed) and sexual harassment (55% of women surveyed) in europe....they go largely unreported.
I am slowly beginning to think that Mdlbuildr believes all men are animals and cannot/should not be trusted around women and children without supervision.
TheMeanDM wrote: I suspect they treat them (if they have happened) much like the other sexual assaults (1/3 of women surveyed) and sexual harassment (55% of women surveyed) in europe....they go largely unreported.
And you should be asking "Why are they so under reported?"
To add to your point, sir, there have been many reports of crimes not being recorded by Authorities to keep certain quotas. For funding reasons, etc. These are well documented. All of Europe, Australia and Japan.
So how is Europe dealing with the pandemic or women being overpowered in bathrooms?
You are not making any attempt to understand the argument, sir. Either that, or you don't understand the issue altogether.
The potential is there.
There is the potential of you being a rapist as well
There are examples.
Awesome, can't wait to see the statistics of how Europe has been impacted by these potential women being potentially overpowered.
Discounting the possibility of it doesn't negate that possibility.
Discounting the possibility of you being a rapist doesn't negate the possibility of you being a rapist.
If you are comfortable painting transgender males as potential rapists, then you surely won't mind joining them in the potential rapist category.
Or we could stop pretending that a sign on a bathroom is going to stop anyone that wants to expose his erect penis to a woman before overpowering her and doing whatever men with erect penises do to women once they are overpowered.
Ad hominem attacks rather than presenting a reasonable argument. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Dreadwinter wrote: I am slowly beginning to think that Mdlbuildr believes all men are animals and cannot/should not be trusted around women and children without supervision.
Thank you for attacking me and not reading what I wrote initially. I am presenting an argument. Whether these are my opinions are irrelevant to this discussion.
However....it also reeks to me of a perv taking advantage of the law.
Which is exactly the point. The argument isn't that Transgender will rape or will do harm. It is that it will give license to those that will who aren't Transgenders.
Dreadwinter wrote: I am slowly beginning to think that Mdlbuildr believes all men are animals and cannot/should not be trusted around women and children without supervision.
Thank you for attacking me and not reading what I wrote initially. I am presenting an argument. Whether these are my opinions are irrelevant to this discussion.
However....it also reeks to me of a perv taking advantage of the law.
Which is exactly the point. The argument isn't that Transgender will rape or will do harm. It is that it will give license to those that will who aren't Transgenders.
That has been the whole point all along.
Seeing how fervently you and DM are trying to defend said positions it is pretty easy to say that those are your positions
There is nothing personal in any of my responses. I'm disagreeing with your argument. That's how discussion works.
By saying "what are complaining about?", you aren't giving validity to the argument. It is not a complaint. It is point of discussion. You are passive aggressively trying to "win" an argument by minimizing an opinion.
Ad hominem attacks rather than presenting a reasonable argument. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Making a bunch of claims without backing any of them up. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting an entire gender as being helpless and needing protection. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting all transgender men as being a potential thread to women. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Pointing out over and over again that men with penises can overpower women, but then claiming it has nothing to do with the discussion and that it's all about privacy. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
We could go on of course, but that wouldn't be a very interesting way to have a discussion.
Seeing how fervently you and DM are trying to defend said positions it is pretty easy to say that those are your positions
I am presenting a different point of view. If you've ever been on a debate team you will know that you don't always get to argue the side you favor. You still argue none the less.
Instead of making it personal, as some already have here, just take the point at face value.
Dreadwinter wrote: I am slowly beginning to think that Mdlbuildr believes all men are animals and cannot/should not be trusted around women and children without supervision.
Thank you for attacking me and not reading what I wrote initially. I am presenting an argument. Whether these are my opinions are irrelevant to this discussion.
However....it also reeks to me of a perv taking advantage of the law.
Which is exactly the point. The argument isn't that Transgender will rape or will do harm. It is that it will give license to those that will who aren't Transgenders.
That has been the whole point all along.
No, it hasn't No matter what law is passed, those people can still find ways to do those things. They are criminals with problems. You don't understand that punishing transgenders for something non-transgenders did is wrong.
Ad hominem attacks rather than presenting a reasonable argument. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Making a bunch of claims without backing any of them up. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting an entire gender as being helpless and needing protection. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting all transgender men as being a potential thread to women. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Pointing out over and over again that men with penises can overpower women, but then claiming it has nothing to do with the discussion and that it's all about privacy. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
We could go on of course, but that wouldn't be a very interesting way to have a discussion.
The difference is I've not attacked you personally. Now you are being argumentative because that's how you roll.
Seeing how fervently you and DM are trying to defend said positions it is pretty easy to say that those are your positions
I am presenting a different point of view. If you've ever been on a debate team you will know that you don't always get to argue the side you favor. You still argue none the less.
Instead of making it personal, as some already have here, just take the point at face value.
Except this isn't a debate team and you are free to post your own opinion instead of hiding behind the devils advocate role.
Mdlbuildr wrote: [
Which is exactly the point. The argument isn't that Transgender will rape or will do harm. It is that it will give license to those that will who aren't Transgenders.
Well, then the solution is simple.
If we can all agree that this sign has been the main reason why women don't have erect penises shoved in their faces:
Then we just post a new plastic sign on all the doors saying "don't be a pervert & don't be a rapist".
The power of plastic sings when it comes to stopping crime is amazing. What's next, no gun signs?
Ad hominem attacks rather than presenting a reasonable argument. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Making a bunch of claims without backing any of them up. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting an entire gender as being helpless and needing protection. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting all transgender men as being a potential thread to women. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Pointing out over and over again that men with penises can overpower women, but then claiming it has nothing to do with the discussion and that it's all about privacy. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
We could go on of course, but that wouldn't be a very interesting way to have a discussion.
The difference is I've not attacked you personally. Now you are being argumentative because that's how you roll.
Ustrello wrote: Except this isn't a debate team and you are free to post your own opinion instead of hiding behind the devils advocate role.
Especially the number of times I've seen users on these fora play the role of devil's advocate.... Generally speaking, when those users go into devil's advocate mode, they begin their post with something like "Just to play Devil's Advocate....."
No, it hasn't No matter what law is passed, those people can still find ways to do those things. They are criminals with problems. You don't understand that punishing transgenders for something non-transgenders did is wrong.
That is your opinion and for you it is valid. That does not invalidate my argument.
That being said, that is the way of the world. The actions of a few dictate the laws for the rest of us.
Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.
But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.
Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.
But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a distinct possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area because today they "identify" as a woman (or man).
Ad hominem attacks rather than presenting a reasonable argument. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Making a bunch of claims without backing any of them up. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting an entire gender as being helpless and needing protection. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting all transgender men as being a potential thread to women. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Pointing out over and over again that men with penises can overpower women, but then claiming it has nothing to do with the discussion and that it's all about privacy. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
We could go on of course, but that wouldn't be a very interesting way to have a discussion.
The difference is I've not attacked you personally. Now you are being argumentative because that's how you roll.
Typical Ad Hominem tactic.
"I didn't call you a potential rapist, only thousands of other people."
TheMeanDM wrote: Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.
But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.
Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.
But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area.
So if a guy sports an erection while staring at my junk as I am toweling off in the locker room, I don't the ability to say and do something about it?
TheMeanDM wrote: Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.
But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.
Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.
But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a distinct possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area because today they "identify" as a woman (or man).
Thank you for that very concise and logical statement.
Mdlbuildr wrote: The actions of a few dictate the laws for the rest of us.
See, in some instances this makes sense.... People committing suicide, or attempting to by jumping off an overpass into oncoming freeway traffic: let's put a fence up. People throwing large trash items, or large rocks off an overpass, causing wrecks and breaking windshields, etc: let's put an angle on the fence so as to make it more difficult to throw things. a small group of people owning the lion-share of a business sector, pushing out competition, so we legislate against that. People get drunk, get in their car and drive, get into a wreck... so we legislate against drunk driving.
Tell me, what "crime" have trans people committed that we need to legislate against them going to the bathroom?
TheMeanDM wrote: Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.
But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.
Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.
But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area.
So if a guy sports an erection while staring at my junk as I am toweling off in the locker room, I don't the ability to say and do something about it?
Yes, that is exactly what can happen. Right now they can be charged with lewd behavior.
TheMeanDM wrote: Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.
But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.
Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.
But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a distinct possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area because today they "identify" as a woman (or man).
Okay, you do not get to kick somebody out because they make you feel uncomfortable. Maybe you are just misinterpreting them or maybe you are just a prejudice crazy person. You can have somebody kicked out if they are harrassing people in the bathroom, like filming, assaulting, and taking photos. But you don't get to kick somebody out just because they make you uncomfortable. Just leave.
TheMeanDM wrote: Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.
But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.
Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.
But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area.
So if a guy sports an erection while staring at my junk as I am toweling off in the locker room, I don't the ability to say and do something about it?
Yes, that is exactly what can happen. Right now they can be charged with lewd behavior.
And what part of unisex bathrooms suddenly takes away the ability to charge them with lewd behavior?
Okay, you do not get to kick somebody out because they make you feel uncomfortable. Maybe you are just misinterpreting them or maybe you are just a prejudice crazy person. You can have somebody kicked out if they are harrassing people in the bathroom, like filming, assaulting, and taking photos. But you don't get to kick somebody out just because they make you uncomfortable. Just leave.
A transgender female gets an erection in the women's locker room and all the women are supposed to leave?
Okay, you do not get to kick somebody out because they make you feel uncomfortable. Maybe you are just misinterpreting them or maybe you are just a prejudice crazy person. You can have somebody kicked out if they are harrassing people in the bathroom, like filming, assaulting, and taking photos. But you don't get to kick somebody out just because they make you uncomfortable. Just leave.
A transgender female gets an erection in the women's locker room and all the women are supposed to leave?
What do you do when another man gets an erection in the locker room with you?
I would recommend actually reading an article before presenting it as evidence...
How so?
I asked you if you had any examples of trans people assaulting women in change rooms.
You linked an article that listed 5 examples of people claiming to be trans in order to assault women.
Not actually the same thing.
Mdlbuildr wrote: Which is exactly the point. The argument isn't that Transgender will rape or will do harm. It is that it will give license to those that will who aren't Transgenders.
That has been the whole point all along.
Then you've been making that point fairly badly, as you've been specifically talking about trans people in changing rooms getting aroused and being incapable of not assaulting people as a result...
By saying "what are complaining about?", you aren't giving validity to the argument. It is not a complaint. It is point of discussion. You are passive aggressively trying to "win" an argument by minimizing an opinion.
No, by asking 'what are you complaining about' I am asking you to clarify what you are complaining about, because at that point in the discussion it wasn't entirely clear.
Okay, you do not get to kick somebody out because they make you feel uncomfortable. Maybe you are just misinterpreting them or maybe you are just a prejudice crazy person. You can have somebody kicked out if they are harrassing people in the bathroom, like filming, assaulting, and taking photos. But you don't get to kick somebody out just because they make you uncomfortable. Just leave.
A transgender female gets an erection in the women's locker room and all the women are supposed to leave?
No, you do the same thing when a man gets an erection in front of you. Have them removed from the facilities for indecently exposing their erect penis to you.
Sir, you called me a potential rapist. I have nothing further to discuss with you.
Sir, you called me a potential rapist because I was once 16 years old. However, I see how ridiculous that statement is and I have gotten on with it to continue the discussion.
TheMeanDM wrote: Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.
But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.
Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.
But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area.
So if a guy sports an erection while staring at my junk as I am toweling off in the locker room, I don't the ability to say and do something about it?
The question is: what do you *think* you can do about it that will get him to stop?
A guy in a guy's locker room is a-ok by the law...just so we are all on the same page.
He happens to be looking at you and he gets an erection.
You ask him to not look at you. Does that mean he has to stop? Nope. He is just looking.
Are you going to threaten him if he doesn't stop looking? Go ahead and do that and he has a case against you in a court of law (it is illegal to threaten bodily harm).
So all you can do is report him to the manager/whatever...but you need to prove he was harassing you or whatever...because while sporting wood in a guys locker room is against the bro code and general manners of locker rooms...there isnt anything illegal about it.
So beyond that...take and cover up your uncomfortable self, or leave the locker room.
Now....if he were leering, jeering, choking the bishop, or otherwise making it obvious he was doing the viewing on purpose...that is a different situation.
TheMeanDM wrote: Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.
But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.
Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.
But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area.
So if a guy sports an erection while staring at my junk as I am toweling off in the locker room, I don't the ability to say and do something about it?
The question is: what do you *think* you can do about it that will get him to stop?
A guy in a guy's locker room is a-ok by the law...just so we are all on the same page.
He happens to be looking at you and he gets an erection.
You ask him to not look at you. Does that mean he has to stop? Nope. He is just looking.
Are you going to threaten him if he doesn't stop looking? Go ahead and do that and he has a case against you in a court of law (it is illegal to threaten bodily harm).
So all you can do is report him to the manager/whatever...but you need to prove he was harassing you or whatever...because while sporting wood in a guys locker room is against the bro code and general manners of locker rooms...there isnt anything illegal about it.
So beyond that...take and cover up your uncomfortable self, or leave the locker room.
Now....if he were leering, jeering, choking the bishop, or otherwise making it obvious he was doing the viewing on purpose...that is a different situation.
Presidents have been elected with *less* than a 50% majority popular vote.
Majority does not necessarily equal 50%. Yes, a simple majority does...but its not always that simple.
(Bush v Gore, Clinton v Dole, Clinton v Bush, Nixon v Humphrey....as examples)
Presidents have been elected with *less* than a 50% majority popular vote.
Majority does not necessarily equal 50%. Yes, a simple majority does...but its not always that simple.
(Bush v Gore, Clinton v Dole, Clinton v Bush, Nixon v Humphrey....as examples)
IIRC, the term there is plurality... It is the largest single portion of a given population without being the majority.
TheMeanDM wrote: Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.
But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.
Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.
But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area.
So if a guy sports an erection while staring at my junk as I am toweling off in the locker room, I don't the ability to say and do something about it?
Yes, that is exactly what can happen. Right now they can be charged with lewd behavior.
In one of your previous posts, I believe you said that maybe I'm a rapist.
Ad Hominem attack incarnate.
Are you a male capable of having an erection who is physically able to overpower women?
Doesn't that fit your own definition of the type of person that is a potential threat to women?
Sir, you called me a potential rapist. I have nothing further to discuss with you.
He just used your own definition of a potential rapist on you and found you met the definition. If that bothers you maybe you should stop accusing all transgenders of being potential rapists.
And I would say that ALOT would change for women especially if laws are changed, d-usa.
Right now, if they see some shady looking dude dressed as a lady *go into* a locker room or bathroom...women who have concerns can report him. Managment/police come and they can investigate.
If you make access open and easier, same shady dude looking like a lady can freely come and go and nobody can complain about him because "I feel like a woman today".
Guess what I am trying to say, simply, is that right now problems can be more easily prevented, reported, and investigated because biological men are not supposed to be in the biological female areas....women are more on guard when they see a dude like that enter their space (in my opinion).
Ok, I just want to know something....
People here are honestly arguing that
1: Allowing men into womens bathrooms will result in more rapes of women.
2: A child seeing the genetalia of the opposite sex will scar them for life.
my respone
1: Ummm, why are you not concerned for the opposite? Men raping boys?
2: What damn locker rooms where adults change with the kids?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, I just want to know something....
People here are honestly arguing that
1: Allowing men into womens bathrooms will result in more rapes of women.
(I have never said that..that is Md)
2: A child seeing the genetalia of the opposite sex will scar them for life.
(Extreme over generalization and never once did I say or infer that)
my respone
1: Ummm, why are you not concerned for the opposite? Men raping boys?
2: What damn locker rooms where adults change with the kids?
No....I said that adolescents are already dealing with enough bodily, hormonal, emotional changes of their own...on top of all the sexuality that society throws upon them.
I never inferred any such "scarring"...not once.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You want to say I inferred it because it supports your position...but that is dirty pool and a misrepresentation of what I actually DID say and have clarified any number of times.
If you make access open and easier, same shady dude looking like a lady can freely come and go and nobody can complain about him because "I feel like a woman today".
Of course they could still complain.
The street out front of my house is a public space. I can still call the police to come and check out someone 'shady-looking' loitering out there.
Allowing people to use the bathroom doesn't negate anyone's right to report anything dodgy.
TheMeanDM wrote: No....I said that adolescents are already dealing with enough bodily, hormonal, emotional changes of their own...on top of all the sexuality that society throws upon them.
I never inferred any such "scarring"...not once..
Ok, than tell me this.
What do you think will happen to your 12yr if you think she sees a penis?
TheMeanDM wrote: No....I said that adolescents are already dealing with enough bodily, hormonal, emotional changes of their own...on top of all the sexuality that society throws upon them.
So you are afraid a girl can't handle the slim chance of a woman in the woman's bathroom that has a penis...
But see no problem with the a confused, pubescent boy seeing a woman in the man's bathroom where he will undoubtedly be paying attention to an 'out of place' person, and then being 'confused' or 'having sex thrown upon him' by seeing a woman with a penis... That is just fine for you?
Again, you seem to be thinking possibly seeing a genital as having sexuality 'thrown' onto them when that is not the case at all... If you want to reduce the exposure, then people should go into the bathroom where they are inconspicuous as no one will see their genitals as no one is expecting to see anything different.
This has always been a non-issue. This is so bigots can force transgender people all into the males bathroom where they can be victims of harassment and abuse. They don't want 'male-looking females' in the women's room, they don't want penises in the women's room. They want them all in the men's room where they can get what they deserve. Violence against transgenders is supported by statistics... unlike strangers raping children in bathrooms which is not supported. Parents and family members are more likely to rape their own children than a stranger is. Maybe we need laws to prevent parents from being in bathrooms/lockerrooms with their own kids? It follows the same logic and is actually supported by data.
After researching that and teading more, I thought that this was interesting, and supports my idea that sometimes a majority does not necessarily = 50%:
This theory spread rapidly and became the foundation of political liberalism. Rousseau adopted it, with the important refinement that he specifically indicated that the support of more than a bare majority for all important political decisions should be insisted upon, unless the urgency of reaching a decision dictated otherwise [seeRousseau].
Presidents have been elected with *less* than a 50% majority popular vote.
Majority does not necessarily equal 50%. Yes, a simple majority does...but its not always that simple.
(Bush v Gore, Clinton v Dole, Clinton v Bush, Nixon v Humphrey....as examples)
Actually, that would be a plurality, not a majority.
Actually, that would be a plurality, not a majority.
I believe that's the case in US English. In British English, 'majority' can mean either 'more than every other group combined', or 'the largest single group within the whole'... So 40% could be a majority if no other group makes up a greater percentage.
Crops up all the time in 40K rules discussions, because GW use the word 'majority' in a way that most Americans don't...
Having said that, when used in the context here, the former meaning would be the more commonly read one.
TheMeanDM wrote: If you make access open and easier, same shady dude looking like a lady can freely come and go and nobody can complain about him because "I feel like a woman today".
So what? What is this man actually going to do? Doing anything but using the bathroom/locker room normally is going to get someone called, and "I feel like a woman today" is not going to be an excuse if they're caught with a hidden camera/blatantly exposing themselves to other people/etc. So what exactly are you scared of?
As much as they claim to be trying to see an opposite point of view, they really arent, merely saying so to try and make themselves look like the good guys....nor is there any intention of compromise...it's all or nothing...to hell with the majority female population...to hell with any concerns that a parent may have....to hell with anybody that disagrees with them on any grounds, really.
This is true. LIke most issues, the vast majority are ok if everyone is accommodated, but the fanatics don't want that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You don't speak for the majority female population, nor have the majority female population actually been polled so you have no data to refer to.
Replace the trans in your examples with gays, and toy have exactly what's been happening in change rooms for as long as there have been change rooms.
So, again, what issue are you complaining about, exactly?
Gays are the same gender biologically.
Men are more powerful than women. A Transgender Female has male hormones (for the most part) and is not biologically a female. Therefore they can, and in some instances will overpower someone they may feel they can. It even happens in same gender situations.
I'm not complaining. I'm presenting an argument. Do not make this into a personal attack. If we can't have a discussion and not resort to "stop complaining", then it's not a very reasonable discussion. You are attempting to shut down my argument because you don't agree or understand it.
So how is Europe dealing with the pandemic or women being overpowered in bathrooms?
Like they treated the assaults in Cologne which helped spark the right wing push back in German speaking countries?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
By this logic, no woman is ever safe from attack by any man in her vicinity who happens to be aroused by her.
Thats actually the view of one group of feminists, and reality. There is always a risk. Keep your eyes open.
Are the current signs on bathroom and changing room doors some kind of magic sigil that keep society in check and repel ne'r do wells?
Do 'normals' keep a look out for rogue junk?
If I think of the children am I statistically more or less likely to attack them than family members or close family friends?
Does needing to number one or number two mean I am a psychopath?
Its a weird thread. Its a weird issue, and frankly an extremely rare one. Politicians and SJWs have seized upon it to get their various groups angry, because we need to distract from real issues facing the US and the globe. In reality people will do what they did before this arose. As noted, T's have been among us and have the same rights as everyone else. This will fade like everything else with the next political issue.
Word to the wise harassers, my daughter has short (really green) hair. Mess with her and she will burn your eyes out with mace. She's a proper Texas girl.
Frazzled wrote: Its a weird thread. Its a weird issue, and frankly an extremely rare one. Politicians and SJWs have seized upon it to get their various groups angry, because we need to distract from real issues facing the US
I believe this might be the first time that various conservative administrations pushing these laws have been referred to as SJW's. Truly, when I think of social justice, the first states that come to mind are Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and so on.
Frazzled wrote: Its a weird thread. Its a weird issue, and frankly an extremely rare one. Politicians and skeletons have seized upon it to get their various groups angry, because we need to distract from real issues facing the US
I believe this might be the first time that various conservative administrations pushing these laws have been referred to as skeleton's. Truly, when I think of social justice, the first states that come to mind are Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and so on.
I've got to say, I have the SJW to skeleton chrome extension installed, and this thread has been an absolute goldmine.
Either way, I would suggest that maybe my friends being treated as lesser than other citizens qualifies as a real issue for me? Just a wacky theory.
Frazzled wrote: Its a weird thread. Its a weird issue, and frankly an extremely rare one. Politicians and SJWs have seized upon it to get their various groups angry, because we need to distract from real issues facing the US
I believe this might be the first time that various conservative administrations pushing these laws have been referred to as SJW's. Truly, when I think of social justice, the first states that come to mind are Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and so on.
At the risk of derailing were these states doubly outraged at the lifting of segregation as well?
Truly I can imagine some in this thread outraged at the thought of starring at different coloured junk...
I believe this might be the first time that various conservative administrations pushing these laws have been referred to as SJW's. Truly, when I think of social justice, the first states that come to mind are Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and so on.
Both Houston and Charlotte passed laws mandating protections for Ts. Recent court cases also mandated that Ts could use the same locker rooms as women. The rest is politicain inspired blowback. Now the DOJ is threatening all school districts everywhere to get with the program.
Either way, I would suggest that maybe my friends being treated as lesser than other citizens qualifies as a real issue for me? Just a wacky theory.
How are they treated as less than citizens? I do note you completely ignore any concerns of women, which is joyously typical of the normal paternalistic culture. They need to just get with the program eh?
I believe this might be the first time that various conservative administrations pushing these laws have been referred to as SJW's. Truly, when I think of social justice, the first states that come to mind are Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and so on.
At the risk of derailing were these states doubly outraged at the lifting of segregation as well?
Truly I can imagine some in this thread outraged at the thought of starring at different coloured junk...
I do not believe Arizona, Nevada, or South Dakota ever had Jim Crow segregation. Its like, someone made a statement before looking at a map.
Either way, I would suggest that maybe my friends being treated as lesser than other citizens qualifies as a real issue for me? Just a wacky theory.
How are they treated as less than citizens? I do note you completely ignore any concerns of women, which is joyously typical of the normal paternalistic culture. They need to just get with the program eh?
Funny you should mention that considering in this case I was talking about an FtM friend, so he would be going into the Mens' toilets. So I guess in that case it's pretty okay to ignore the concerns of women, because they're entirely uninvolved with the process!
As to the "treated less than other citizens" point, when was the last time you had to justify to strangers as to why you wanted to use a specific toilet? When was the last time that thousands of people (including those on this forum) referred to you as part of a group of objects rather than a group of people (specifically the use of the term "it")? When was the last time that you had to completely update all of your documentation to match your legal name-change, only to have people randomly refer to you using your old name? Have people asked you which genitals you have recently? Advocated that you should have your children confiscated? Argued that you caused 9/11 because god was angry at your existence?
To try and argue that trans people are treated as equal to everyone else either in the eyes of the law or the general population is, quite frankly, laughable.
Frazzled wrote: if she FTM is she comfortable going into a men's locker room?
When was the last time you had a schlong and wanted to change in the women's locker room?
Okay, I specifically used the pronoun "HE", as in, HE would be using the MEN's toilets. He identifies as a dude, so he would, I assume, be more comfortable using the men's toilets than going into the women's whilst presenting as a guy.
I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make with that second sentence.
I've not wanted to change in the women's locker room, because I was born as, and identify as, a guy. I have a dick, I use the men's toilets/locker room/whatever.
Frazzled wrote: if she FTM is she comfortable going into a men's locker room?
When was the last time you had a schlong and wanted to change in the women's locker room?
Okay, I specifically used the pronoun "HE", as in, HE would be using the MEN's toilets. He identifies as a dude, so he would, I assume, be more comfortable using the men's toilets than going into the women's whilst presenting as a guy.
I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make with that second sentence.
I've not wanted to change in the women's locker room, because I was born as, and identify as, a guy. I have a dick, I use the men's toilets/locker room/whatever.
*Its not difficult. Did your friend, while still having female parts, use the men's locker room in a school?
*Why are you ok with someone who still has male parts, using the female locker room in a school?
I could care less what restroom they use, thats up to them. The issue I have for consideration is locker rooms, primarily in public schools which are open environments for changing and showering, and nonvoluntary.
He still has male parts. There's something like a 3 year waiting list, so he would be using the men's locker room with female junk even now.
Because the majority of trans people that I know aren't going to want to draw attention to themselves, so they'll get changed from their women's day clothes into their women's sports equipment in as subtle a way as possible. They aren't walking around slapping people round the face with their dick, they're trying to get changed without being beaten up for wearing a dress.
Its a weird thread. Its a weird issue, and frankly an extremely rare one. Politicians and SJWs have seized upon it to get their various groups angry,
Yeah, it's not the Religious Right whatsoever.
Which leaves us in the odd situation where they'll be protesting/restricting where Caitlyn Jenner at el can get dressed/undressed whilst Dennis Hastert will be fine and dandy to ...welll perhaps come and go isn't the best phrase here ...
Frazzled wrote: [ The issue I have for consideration is locker rooms, primarily in public schools which are open environments for changing and showering, and nonvoluntary.
how many transgender people of that age are there ?
Goliath wrote: He still has male parts. There's something like a 3 year waiting list, so he would be using the men's locker room with female junk even now.
Because the majority of trans people that I know aren't going to want to draw attention to themselves, so they'll get changed from their women's day clothes into their women's sports equipment in as subtle a way as possible. They aren't walking around slapping people round the face with their dick, they're trying to get changed without being beaten up for wearing a dress.
How has that been received? I take it that person does not use communal showers (showers there may not be communal). Any persons brought up an issue there?
This is what I am really looking for-has it been an issue? If so, where locationally? My dad was an engineer and I have a good bit of that -where's the problem and lets fix it as inexpensively as possible.
This is my personal view. I'd bet good money no woman has made a beef of it. (pardon the pun). I further think with minimum effort some simple curtains can be installed on existing locker rooms/showers to add privacy such that all issues are addressed. Thats my beef, that if there's an issue here, it can be easily fixed, but everyone's using this as an excuse to get indignant and butthurt, and not solving the potential issues.
I think there are separate issues for F to M in a locker room situation too that should be addressed, but that doesn't seem to be coming up. I have safety concerns for that person. Men and boys are pigs and violent ones at that. If we are going to do this, the additional safety concerns need to be reviewed as well. Frankly, on the men's side they need to be reviewed in the same context to better address bullying.
He just used your own definition of a potential rapist on you and found you met the definition. If that bothers you maybe you should stop accusing all transgenders of being potential rapists.
Please quote specifically where I am accusing any Transgenders of being potential rapists. Thank you.
I am not responsible for what people imply from statements or what they assume from them.
The reading comprehension in this thread is atrocious.I have said time and time again that non-transgenders will use the transgender laws to justify being somewhere they shouldn't be. This was the stated purpose of the article I posted. I don't get how this is such a hard concept to grasp. Clearly it is.
He just used your own definition of a potential rapist on you and found you met the definition. If that bothers you maybe you should stop accusing all transgenders of being potential rapists.
Please quote specifically where I am accusing any Transgenders of being rapists. Thank you.
I am not responsiblefor what people imply from statements or what they assume from them.
You're right, you're not responsible for what people imply, but don't be surprised when a majority of people infer you're calling all able bodied men rapists and then get pissed at you.
He just used your own definition of a potential rapist on you and found you met the definition. If that bothers you maybe you should stop accusing all transgenders of being potential rapists.
Please quote specifically where I am accusing any Transgenders of being rapists. Thank you.
Uh, OK?
Mdlbuildr wrote: Men are more powerful than women. A Transgender Female has male hormones (for the most part) and is not biologically a female. Therefore they can, and in some instances will overpower someone they may feel they can.
Unless you're going to move the goalposts from what Skyth posted you accurately said ("potential rapists") to what you're now saying "rapists". I mean, that would be incredibly intellectually dishonest so I apologize for even thinking you might do that.
I believe this might be the first time that various conservative administrations pushing these laws have been referred to as SJW's. Truly, when I think of social justice, the first states that come to mind are Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and so on.
Both Houston and Charlotte passed laws mandating protections for Ts. Recent court cases also mandated that Ts could use the same locker rooms as women. The rest is politicain inspired blowback. Now the DOJ is threatening all school districts everywhere to get with the program.
....
I was reading an article on that well-known haunt of SJWism The Grauniad that said North Carolina actually is a pretty relaxed, non-SIW state on the whole but that since the rise of the Tea Party, the state's otherwise laid-back Republicans had for their own survival been forced to take up the cudgels on this type of actually fairly unpopular and irrelevant social issue.
As you say, the ironic result of bringing in this legislation has been not to crush the evil wave of miscegevacuation, but to provoke a nuclear response from the Federal Govt that will ram through everywhere the opposite of what the SIW legislators wanted.
Kilkrazy wrote: As you say, the ironic result of bringing in this legislation has been not to crush the evil wave of miscegevacuation, but to provoke a nuclear response from the Federal Govt that will ram through everywhere the opposite of what the SIW legislators wanted.
Ah, the ol "SJW double fakeout". A classic.
Mdlbuildr wrote: Please quote specifically where I am accusing any Transgenders of being rapists. Thank you.
Mdlbuildr wrote: Men are more powerful than women. A Transgender Female has male hormones (for the most part) and is not biologically a female. Therefore they can, and in some instances will overpower someone they may feel they can.
Oh it is. Don't get me started on the groups that seems to suddenly have discovered 'pervs." More importantly its politicians have seized on this as their moral issue of the moment to maintain their popularity. Inversely we have activiists in the DOJ pushing a massive cultural change by fiat. Thats a major issue to me, far more relevant than this topic-but no one will discuss that one...
Which leaves us in the odd situation where they'll be protesting/restricting where Caitlyn Jenner at el can get dressed/undressed whilst Dennis Hastert will be fine and dandy to ...welll perhaps come and go isn't the best phrase here ...
Interesting that C Jenner is now considering "changing back." Lets not go there as I think literally everyone in that family is doing everything they can to stay in the media spotlight.
Frazzled wrote: [ The issue I have for consideration is locker rooms, primarily in public schools which are open environments for changing and showering, and nonvoluntary.
how many transgender people of that age are there ?
Very few. Which leads to the question, why is this suddenly an issue. However, a better question should be, in light of that, how do we address the issues as inexpensively as possible while addressing others' concerns. I'd start with new schools or ones undergoing retrofit redesign with full use of curtains and FREAKING MORE PRIVATE RESTROOMS FOR EVERYONE. Seriously, we are decades by Da COmmies here. MR. PRESIDENT WE CANNOT FALL BEHIND THE ROOSKIES AND HAVE A STRATEGIC RESTROOM DOOR GAP!!!
For existing ones, a minimal retrofit of showers with individual curtains and perhaps some curtain sectioning in the locker area would do it as well. Plus for those who are self conscious with body issues-this would be a boon.
Hwhat? What do you think happens to kids when they go through puberty? I definitely never considered raping or gang raping anybody during it. I believe I could speak for most of my classmates in also saying that never crossed their minds.
- A group of females are changing and one of them has male genitalia and is not homosexual. At 16 years I would bet that that Transgender Female will get sexually aroused around all these naked women. As a physically more powerful individual, this could present an issue. At 16, it may not be so easy to control the arousal state, as any male who has been 16 can tell you.
Mdlbuildr wrote: Men are more powerful than women. A Transgender Female has male hormones (for the most part) and is not biologically a female. Therefore they can, and in some instances will overpower someone they may feel they can. It even happens in same gender situations.
Emphasis mine.
If one points out that green people are much stronger than blue people, and that stronger people are known to overpower others, it is not in the slightest bit strange to assume that they are implying that green people are liable to overpower blue people. *Especially* when you then literally say the words "In some cases they will overpower someone they may feel they can".
Quit your false outrage and make better arguments. Your current method of "Oh, I'm not *actually* arguing that, you're just assuming I am! How dare you say that I implied that!" has gotten tedious.
As you say, the ironic result of bringing in this legislation has been not to crush the evil wave of miscegevacuation, but to provoke a nuclear response from the Federal Govt that will ram through everywhere the opposite of what the SIW legislators wanted.
Yep. But they like that too. Now they can rail against the federal government and Evilz Obama. Its a twoffer for them. Remember, its not about doing something. Its that faux (or even better real) outrage keeps you elected.
EDIT: Goliath can you go back to my earlier post as I had questions on how that person was being treated.
Goliath wrote: He still has male parts. There's something like a 3 year waiting list, so he would be using the men's locker room with female junk even now.
Because the majority of trans people that I know aren't going to want to draw attention to themselves, so they'll get changed from their women's day clothes into their women's sports equipment in as subtle a way as possible. They aren't walking around slapping people round the face with their dick, they're trying to get changed without being beaten up for wearing a dress.
How has that been received? I take it that person does not use communal showers (showers there may not be communal). Any persons brought up an issue there?
This is what I am really looking for-has it been an issue? If so, where locationally? My dad was an engineer and I have a good bit of that -where's the problem and lets fix it as inexpensively as possible.
This is my personal view. I'd bet good money no woman has made a beef of it. (pardon the pun). I further think with minimum effort some simple curtains can be installed on existing locker rooms/showers to add privacy such that all issues are addressed. Thats my beef, that if there's an issue here, it can be easily fixed, but everyone's using this as an excuse to get indignant and butthurt, and not solving the potential issues.
I think there are separate issues for F to M in a locker room situation too that should be addressed, but that doesn't seem to be coming up. I have safety concerns for that person. Men and boys are pigs and violent ones at that. If we are going to do this, the additional safety concerns need to be reviewed as well. Frankly, on the men's side they need to be reviewed in the same context to better address bullying.
Honestly, I don't know. I haven't seen them in person for a few months whilst I'm on placement, so we haven't talked about a huge amount other than occasionally discussing movies or One Piece.
How are they drawing attention to themselves by having a conversation? How does that even make sense when it comes to pushing increased civil rights? You by nature have to draw attention to yourself.
Further, I don't think anyone has said anything negative about Ts on this thread. Admittedly I tend to often skim posts.
Frazzled wrote: How are they drawing attention to themselves by having a conversation? How does that even make sense when it comes to pushing increased civil rights? You by nature have to draw attention to yourself.
Further, I don't think anyone has said anything negative about Ts on this thread. Admittedly I tend to often skim posts.
Well when you got people calling you a rapist, a perv, not your true gender etc I am sure it gets to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It hasn't been said forthright but you can tell some people have implied a disdain for them.
Ustrello wrote: I doubt a trans person would want to draw attention to themselves especially after some of the things posted in here by people
Yet, as a group, Transgenders are at the top of just about every headline for the past while. Yet Bruce Jenner posts that he used the women's bathroom at Trump Tower in NYC on Twitter and it makes national headlines.
The attention this issue is garnering is unprecedented.
Just the fact that on a Forum for miniature wargaming, there is one full thread being dedicated to this topic in the Off Topic section is a testament to the popularity of this topic.
Ustrello wrote: I doubt a trans person would want to draw attention to themselves especially after some of the things posted in here by people
Yet, as a group, Transgenders are at the top of just about every headline for the past while. Yet Bruce Jenner posts that he used the women's bathroom at Trump Tower in NYC on Twitter and it makes national headlines.
The attention this issue is garnering is unprecedented.
Just the fact that on a Forum for miniature wargaming, there is one full thread being dedicated to this topic in the Off Topic section is a testament to the popularity of this topic.
Sure but then again we got people like you calling her bruce and a he so...
I think there are separate issues for F to M in a locker room situation too that should be addressed, but that doesn't seem to be coming up. I have safety concerns for that person. Men and boys are pigs and violent ones at that. If we are going to do this, the additional safety concerns need to be reviewed as well. Frankly, on the men's side they need to be reviewed in the same context to better address bullying.
See, this is the crux of the issue... No one cares about FtM because those who have problems with Transgender people in general like FtM in the men's bathroom where they can get harassed and violenced 'like they deserve'. None of these advocates of these 'junk-check' positions are doing so out of the concern for transgender people.
The harassment of 'male-looking women' breaking out all over is showing the true attitude is:
*All women who look like men need to be in the MENs room.
*All men who look like women need to be in the MENs room.
Basically, all people who are different need to go to the MENs room for doling out of locker-room justice.
The world was just fine when people minded their business and wasn't junk-checking people in the bathroom. People were held responsible for actions they did, not potential actions they could possibly due as if their genitals had minds of their own. If someone was raping, peeping, harassing, you call the police, and if those people were talking dumps and peeing, they go about their business. It seems funny that people who are calling police or attacking people are doing so when the person LOOKS male in the women's bathroom... But they advocate Junk Check. If the person LOOKED FEMALE I suspect they would have let them go about their business.
This has never been about protecting transgender people or children. It has always been about causing hardship for a group who wants equal rights through fear, boogeymen and making it easier to target them with backlash violence.
I think there are separate issues for F to M in a locker room situation too that should be addressed, but that doesn't seem to be coming up. I have safety concerns for that person. Men and boys are pigs and violent ones at that. If we are going to do this, the additional safety concerns need to be reviewed as well. Frankly, on the men's side they need to be reviewed in the same context to better address bullying.
See, this is the crux of the issue... No one cares about FtM because those who have problems with Transgender people in general like FtM in the men's bathroom where they can get harassed and violenced 'like they deserve'. None of these advocates of these 'junk-check' positions are doing so out of the concern for transgender people.
The harassment of 'male-looking women' breaking out all over is showing the true attitude is:
*All women who look like men need to be in the MENs room.
*All men who look like women need to be in the MENs room.
Basically, all people who are different need to go to the MENs room for doling out of locker-room justice.
The world was just fine when people minded their business and wasn't junk-checking people in the bathroom. People were held responsible for actions they did, not potential actions they could possibly due as if their genitals had minds of their own. If someone was raping, peeping, harassing, you call the police, and if those people were talking dumps and peeing, they go about their business. It seems funny that people who are calling police or attacking people are doing so when the person LOOKS male in the women's bathroom... But they advocate Junk Check. If the person LOOKED FEMALE I suspect they would have let them go about their business.
This has never been about protecting transgender people or children. It has always been about causing hardship for a group who wants equal rights through fear, boogeymen and making it easier to target them with backlash violence.
I was with you on this rant until you said "junk check." Maybe its the fact I deal with a bunch of hockey loving Canadians but that took me out of the topic and into a painful high (or low in this case) stick maneuver on the ice. OWIE!
We have to disagree on part of that. I think there is a definite group of women who might have an issue (or not) but have not been asked, and of course the legal aspects of the DOJ attempting to cram a major social shift by fiat. There is also the religious aspect of persons who CANNOT be around members of the opposite sex in a nude context in any manner, or even alone with members of the opposite sex. As there are at least two growing religious groups in the country with that (Mormons and Muslims), that is an issue that has to be addressed as well.
Because I have a strict policy about googling the Kardassians. Cardassians, however I googled just last week. 'Wait how does one have hunger and food shortages, but able to have a multiyear war with an organization that uses replicators for food and manufacturing-aka a post scarcity economy? You should have had your keisters handed to you." Things Frazzled gets confused by.
I think it was on GMA yesterday (took the day off).
Care to quote that, because I am not recalling ever reading that.
I do however recall the discussion about *straight* men dressing in drag (and some not even going that far) going into changing rooms/bathrooms under the false pretense of claiming they have a right to be there....and carrying out perverted activities.
TheMeanDM wrote: Care to quote that, because I am not recalling ever reading that.
I do however recall the discussion about *straight* men dressing in drag (and some not even going that far) going into changing rooms/bathrooms under the false pretense of claiming they have a right to be there....and carrying out perverted activities.
It's been quoted several times in the last page alone that transgender people are potential rapists.
Mdlbuildr wrote: Men are more powerful than women. A Transgender Female has male hormones (for the most part) and is not biologically a female. Therefore they can, and in some instances will overpower someone they may feel they can.
I'm sure I can find more instances of such sweeping generalizations over the last 17 odd pages, but you don't seem to be reading like, the last 2 hours, so why waste my time? I mean, I can lead you to water, but I can't make you thirsty... that doesn't mean the water isn't there.
TheMeanDM wrote: Care to quote that, because I am not recalling ever reading that.
I do however recall the discussion about *straight* men dressing in drag (and some not even going that far) going into changing rooms/bathrooms under the false pretense of claiming they have a right to be there....and carrying out perverted activities.
It's been quoted several times in the last page alone that transgender people are potential rapists.
Mdlbuildr wrote: Men are more powerful than women. A Transgender Female has male hormones (for the most part) and is not biologically a female. Therefore they can, and in some instances will overpower someone they may feel they can.
I'm sure I can find more instances of such sweeping generalizations over the last 17 odd pages, but you don't seem to be reading like, the last 2 hours, so why waste my time? I mean, I can lead you to water, but I can't make you thirsty... that doesn't mean the water isn't there.
According to D-USA we are all potential rapists.
I have no idea what you mean with your water anology.
Very few. Which leads to the question, why is this suddenly an issue.
However, a better question should be, in light of that, how do we address the issues as inexpensively as possible while addressing others' concerns. I'd start with new schools or ones undergoing retrofit redesign with full use of curtains and FREAKING MORE PRIVATE RESTROOMS FOR EVERYONE. Seriously, we are decades by Da COmmies here. MR. PRESIDENT WE CANNOT FALL BEHIND THE ROOSKIES AND HAVE A STRATEGIC RESTROOM DOOR GAP!!!
For existing ones, a minimal retrofit of showers with individual curtains and perhaps some curtain sectioning in the locker area would do it as well. Plus for those who are self conscious with body issues-this would be a boon.
IMO, the reason why it's suddenly an issue is because, prior to this spate of laws being introduced and passed, we had the "old" bathroom laws. AFAIK, those laws were very loose and held people to a standard which they'd be held to outside of a public restroom. There was really nothing to stop a manly man from entering the women's room and while a store may ask that person to leave, often times, no real law was broken right? Now, if that same situation occurs, but instead of merely entering the women's room because the men's is full up and hopping into a stall, that man has his snake out and it doing the Running Man and generally helicoptering or gyrating in the direction of women in there.... he's broken laws in that case.
Under these older laws, Trans people were generally "safe" from reprisal because as others have noted, they are in an extremely vulnerable position, socially. They could generally use what I call the "Duck Rule" (If it looks like a duck and talks like a duck...) and enter the facilities that they best looked like.
Ohh... and to answer a random question from a few pages back: the last time I, as a male, wanted to enter a women's locker room was in/around high school.... However, I will caveat this by saying that this desire was gained from watching a particular variety of film, if ya know what I mean I think it goes without saying that I never did follow through on that. Well, except for those times when I was on the football team, and we'd be the visiting team... they always stuck us in the girls locker rooms, but by that point they were empty of everyone else but us.
1. Don't be a satirical website.
2. Don't be a story that uses a satirical website as the primary source.
3. Don't be an editorial.
As a start.
This. Also, anything that ends in .com should be taken with a grain of salt. .org is generally okay, although double check their content/sources for bias too.
Alpharius wrote: I'd have thought all of that would be obvious, but now that we've got THAT out of the way, hopefully we can move forward?
Someone criticized one of my sources because it was FOX News.
Then someone said that what I posted was debunked at which point I posted a couple of article back when sources and Bruce himself said he was not transitioning to a woman. And then he did.
Now he is denying that he is transitioning back to being a man according to some people here because of their sources.
I've been told here that because I call Bruce Jenner, Bruce (since, as far as I read, he is indeed going to be Bruce again), everything there is to know about me is on the table and I have an agenda.
1. Don't be a satirical website.
2. Don't be a story that uses a satirical website as the primary source.
3. Don't be an editorial.
As a start.
This. Also, anything that ends in .com should be taken with a grain of salt. .org is generally okay, although double check their content/sources for bias too.
Sorry, I have D-USA on ignore...
And that is far from any help as per what someone said about Fox News...
MrDwhitey wrote: You're either being massively dishonest, or things I can't say due to rule #1.
Give it a rest.
Sorry, pal.
I am being called out on all kinds of things and am trying to have a reasonable discussion. There is an ignore function. Feel free to use it if you don't want to read what I have to say.
I am not being rude, impolite or offending anyone with what I am saying. I am trying to understand the rules of engagement here. It is very difficult.
Well when you got people calling you a rapist, a perv, not your true gender etc I am sure it gets to you.
Thats why they need to share their stories.
Hi.
It's not fun.
It makes me feel disconnected from the rest of you and that the words "people" and "folks" when they come after the word "trans" don't mean those things to the people writing them.
You know how when you're reading a news article about a generalised un-named person, and it's okay to make fun or mock them, or speculate on their reasoning...
it makes me feel like that person. A discussion topic, not an actual human who's just trying to do the same as everyone else.
This is why I don't speak for others outside of talking about facts or general statements, nor do I pretend I have ideas how to keep both sides happy.
Your anti Transgender agenda. Seeing how you have called them rapists, called a famous transgender woman a he and by her old name and kept trying to defend debunked sources along with satire sources. It's pretty easy to see, but you wanted to make a big deal about it.
Frazzled wrote: BC, have you had issues in locker rooms or bathrooms? If so how would a change in law have helped (or other policy).
obviously you don't have to answer.
EDIT: with that new avatar I'm going to have to start calling you MM the Manic Machete!
I have not encountered hostility or legal issue in a locker room. I have been ejected from my biological gender restroom on occasion due to being mistaken. I have never tried to attend either matching my identity, as I tend to travel alone, and the prospect of being seen and jumped by angry men frightens me.
So far as lockers go, mixed sex, private and family changing areas are more common here. I'll be the one scuttling into somewhere with a door, and trying to avoid anyone on the way in or out. When given no alternative, I find it frightening and one of the very few times I do experience body dysphoria to change in close proximity to my biological matches. There is a sensation of being "found out" as trans which is ridiculous as physically I look identical to those around me (albeit with some unrelated large torso scars).
So far as the bathroom goes, I managed to find it amusing. There are a lot of things I don't get upset by, else I'd spend my entire life upset.
Your anti Transgender agenda. Seeing how you have called them rapists, called a famous transgender woman a he and by her old name and kept trying to defend debunked sources along with satire sources. It's pretty easy to see, but you wanted to make a big deal about it.
Oh my!!
Please quote a post where I called Transgenders rapists. Where I used those words specifically.
I am calling Bruce Jenner by his old and soon to be new name again. I wonder what the Transgender community will think when he *officially* announces his detransitioning?I wonder how much support he will get from them then? I suppose they will shun him and say he wasn't a "real" Transgender.
I am not Anti-Transgender. We are merely having a discussion and you are resorting to name calling because you don't like my opinions. Your intolerance for anyone's opinions but yours are terrible.
Frazzled wrote: BC, have you had issues in locker rooms or bathrooms? If so how would a change in law have helped (or other policy).
obviously you don't have to answer.
EDIT: with that new avatar I'm going to have to start calling you MM the Manic Machete!
I have not encountered hostility or legal issue in a locker room.
I have been ejected from my biological gender restroom on occasion due to being mistaken. I have never tried to attend either matching my identity, as I tend to travel alone, and the prospect of being seen and jumped by angry men frightens me.
So far as lockers go, mixed sex, private and family changing areas are more common here. I'll be the one scuttling into somewhere with a door, and trying to avoid anyone on the way in or out.
When given no alternative, I find it frightening and one of the very few times I do experience body dysphoria to change in close proximity to my biological matches. There is a sensation of being "found out" as trans which is ridiculous as physically I look identical to those around me (albeit with some unrelated large torso scars).
So far as the bathroom goes, I managed to find it amusing. There are a lot of things I don't get upset by, else I'd spend my entire life upset.
Intriguing. What suggestions would be helpful in this area?
Frazzled wrote: BC, have you had issues in locker rooms or bathrooms? If so how would a change in law have helped (or other policy).
obviously you don't have to answer.
EDIT: with that new avatar I'm going to have to start calling you MM the Manic Machete!
I have not encountered hostility or legal issue in a locker room.
I have been ejected from my biological gender restroom on occasion due to being mistaken. I have never tried to attend either matching my identity, as I tend to travel alone, and the prospect of being seen and jumped by angry men frightens me.
So far as lockers go, mixed sex, private and family changing areas are more common here. I'll be the one scuttling into somewhere with a door, and trying to avoid anyone on the way in or out.
When given no alternative, I find it frightening and one of the very few times I do experience body dysphoria to change in close proximity to my biological matches. There is a sensation of being "found out" as trans which is ridiculous as physically I look identical to those around me (albeit with some unrelated large torso scars).
So far as the bathroom goes, I managed to find it amusing. There are a lot of things I don't get upset by, else I'd spend my entire life upset.
Intriguing. What suggestions would be helpful in this area?
I'm sincerely uncertain. I can no more speak for how to solve that for everyone, than a parent could speak for every other parent.
I will say that this idea, of people glimpsing someone's body when changing and being surprised, is laughable to the majority of trans friends I have conversed with.
We are the ones who are often expressly avoiding the prospect of nudity around ourselves and other people. The person striding into the gym already in gear and then leaving, is more likely to be trans than someone accidentally exposing their pickle in the ladies room.
We are the ones venturing into the "wrong" bathroom with friends stood by the door in case someone wanders in. Or slinking ashamedly out of the disabled bathroom because we had to go somewhere.
Your anti Transgender agenda. Seeing how you have called them rapists, called a famous transgender woman a he and by her old name and kept trying to defend debunked sources along with satire sources. It's pretty easy to see, but you wanted to make a big deal about it.
Oh my!!
Please quote a post where I called Transgenders rapists. Where I used those words specifically.
Right here:
Mdlbuildr wrote:
Men are more powerful than women. A Transgender Female has male hormones (for the most part) and is not biologically a female. Therefore they can, and in some instances will overpower someone they may feel they can.
Perhaps not technically used that specific word (rapist), but the spectre of a FtM rapist is exactly what you put across.
Your anti Transgender agenda. Seeing how you have called them rapists, called a famous transgender woman a he and by her old name and kept trying to defend debunked sources along with satire sources. It's pretty easy to see, but you wanted to make a big deal about it.
Oh my!!
Please quote a post where I called Transgenders rapists. Where I used those words specifically.
I am calling Bruce Jenner by his old and soon to be new name again. I wonder what the Transgender community will think when he *officially* announces his detransitioning?I wonder how much support he will get from them then? I suppose they will shun him and say he wasn't a "real" Transgender.
I am not Anti-Transgender. We are merely having a discussion and you are resorting to name calling because you don't like my opinions. Your intolerance for anyone's opinions but yours are terrible.
Men are more powerful than women. A Transgender Female has male hormones (for the most part) and is not biologically a female. Therefore they can, and in some instances will overpower someone they may feel they can.
You mean that quote people have been pointing out to you for pages now?
I am calling Bruce Jenner by his old and soon to be new name again. I wonder what the Transgender community will think when he *officially* announces his detransitioning?I wonder how much support he will get from them then? I suppose they will shun him and say he wasn't a "real" Transgender.
At has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was a FAKE story from day one, never true, The fake source found out and admitted it to be false, confirmed by multiple sources including Jenner directly, and is generally seen as spreading this false rumor as a way to justify hate and violence against transgender people under the stance of 'See? it is just a phase, just like homosexuality...'
Maybe since it is confirmed this is a fake story with ZERO TRUTH, you can stop calling Caitlyn Genner a HE or BRUCE? Or are you incapable of abandoning your agenda that you need to propagate a false story to back your position because you are either grossly ignorant or intellectually dishonest? (neither of which is a great thing to be when attempting to discuss issues with others)
And your comments on 'Potential rapists' have been re-quoted plenty of times and is pretty clear.
Perhaps not technically used that specific word (rapist), but the spectre of a FtM rapist is exactly what you put across.
I did not call anyone a rapist. People's interpretation of my words are beyond my control.
So you bring up points of sexual assaults in bathrooms and then put that doozie out there? yeah you were calling them rapists you are just angry because people are calling you out on that fear mongering crap
Yeah, that quote is absurd. The history of violence against transgender people demonstrates pretty well that they have way more to fear from society as a whole than society has reasons to fear them.
He has avoided answering that question for pages now, maybe we should stop trying to overpowering him for an answer. What he says and doesn't say makes his intend clear enough.
He has avoided answering that question for pages now, maybe we should stop trying to overpowering him for an answer. What he says and doesn't say makes his intend clear enough.
Pretty much what I've been saying. His intentions that is.
Mdlbuildr wrote: Someone criticized one of my sources because it was FOX News.
That is because, by and large, Fox News isn't a reliable source for anything other than propaganda. Even in the politics thread, some of the people who happen to agree with the article they are posting from that site caveat with "This is from Fox News so.."
Independent fact checking organizations routinely find that Fox, out of all of the American news networks, is the most dishonest. This dishonesty can range from ideological twisting or omission of fact, to quite simply making things up.
Using this, you can understand why so many of us on these forums don't react positively when you post from Fox News. You can roll with it, and put a caveat in front of your post, as some people do, or find more legitimate sources who have a more trustworthy perception.
Alpharius wrote: I'd have thought all of that would be obvious, but now that we've got THAT out of the way, hopefully we can move forward?
Someone criticized one of my sources because it was FOX News.
This is kind of a fun fakeout you have going. Yes, people get called out for posting Fox News links all the time, because Fox News has a tendency to slant stories to paint them towards their bias. I do believe you when you say you did that, and it happened to you. Look, now we're arguing about if Fox News is reliable or not!
But that's not what happened HERE. What happened HERE was you made a ludicrous claim, and when called on to source it, you supplied 3 URLS: one from a site that literally doesn't say what you claim it does in any way, one from someone selling a tell-all book about the Kardashians and it's an anonymous source, and one from a satirical website which literally says nothing on this page is true.
So, saying someone called you out on your Fox News posting is probably true, but also totally not relevant to this thread in any way.
If you don't understand what an average person considers to be a fairly reliable source, then you have issues beyond the assistance of a wargaming forum.
If you don't understand what an average person considers to be a fairly reliable source, then you have issues beyond the assistance of a wargaming forum.
I feel that I need to add here, that when we are calling on a "reliable source," we're not asking for reliable scholarly evidence... this isn't an academic debate or discussion, as Ouze points out... this is a wargaming forum, pretty much all of us here love some form of table top gaming that involves the use of models.
He has avoided answering that question for pages now, maybe we should stop trying to overpowering him for an answer. What he says and doesn't say makes his intend clear enough.
I think it's quite obvious. He's saying, "Now, these transgendered MtF would be enabled to go into women's bathrooms and, once in there, be able to overpower women and perform an act that may or may not be rape but I did not make a conclusive statement either way. And such we must not allow transgenders into women's bathrooms so that they may or may not perform an act that may or may not be rape but I didn't say anything to either effect".
How dare you all twist his words and allege that he's calling transgendered people rapists.
Heh, looking around some of those links, reportquickly.com has a headline that says "Man Tried To Trade Kidnapped Baby For 15 Big Macs". I'd say them reporting the Jenner thing is all the evidence I need to call it fake.
TheWaspinator wrote: Heh, looking around some of those links, reportquickly.com has a headline that says "Man Tried To Trade Kidnapped Baby For 15 Big Macs". I'd say them reporting the Jenner thing is all the evidence I need to call it fake.
You mean that as a rational adult, you can use your common sense to decide that a website that runs stories such as "Study Proves 80% Of Atlanta’s African American Population Is Gay", "Chicago Teen Arrested After Calling 911 Asking “Where The Hoes At?", "Eminem, Dead at 43", "Paula Deen: “I Love Watermelons, Tacos and Guacamole Too Much To Be Racist”", and "Donald Trump Says Cecil The Lion’s Life Was More Valuable Than Most Blacks" might not be accurate reporting?
I don't understand how any reasonable person could come to that conclusion without scrolling to the bottom of each page and reading "Please note that articles written on this site are for entertainment and satirical purposes only."
That is gold, pure gold. I commend you sir and your hard-hitting fact-based news site. Truly 'Totally Trustworthy News' is the news we deserve. I can only hope it lives on to provide more fair and balanced articles to the hardworking people of Dakka in the future.
I regret that I cannot in fact manifest actual exalts to lay at your feet whenever you step out of the house, so that you may never have to sully your footwear with the outside world again.
Interesting article in the New York Times, including the views of both sides and specifically a trans guy that is actually being affected by this debate.
The New York Times wrote:
CHESTER, Vt. — The way A J Jackson tells it, he kept his head ducked down and pretended to fiddle with his cellphone as he walked into the boys’ bathroom and headed for a stall at Green Mountain Union High School here.
But the way some of his classmates see it, A J was still Autumn Jackson, a girl in boys’ clothing, who had violated an intimate sanctum, while two boys were standing at a urinal, their private parts exposed.
“It’s like me going into a girls’ bathroom wearing a wig,” Tanner Bischofberger, 15, a classmate of A J Jackson’s, who was not one of those in the bathroom, said this week. “It’s just weird.”
A complaint about Mr. Jackson’s using the boys’ bathroom set off a protest by students advocating the right of their transgender classmate to use the bathroom of his choice. On Thursday, the schools superintendent announced a new practice at the high school allowing transgender students to use the sex-specific bathroom of their choice, rather than being encouraged to use a gender-neutral bathroom. The announcement came a day before the Obama administration’s national directive was announced.
But this week, there was a counterprotest by students like Mr. Bischofberger wearing T-shirts showing the male and female figures commonly used to label bathrooms, over the words “Straight Pride.”
Mariah Lique and Tanner Bischofberger, who are dating, wore “Straight Pride” T-shirts in opposing the new policy at Green Mountain Union High School of allowing transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice. Credit Hilary Swift for The New York Times
Like much of the country, this rural school of 300 students in seventh through 12th grade, where everyone insists there were never any cliques, is divided over the bathroom issue, with the teenagers here carrying out a proxy culture war for their parents and the country. Still struggling to form opinions about what makes a civil society, they openly quote what they have heard their parents say about the merits or demerits of transgender bathrooms.
And the dispute has driven apart young people who grew up together and were once friends.
Some say the new rule opens the door to sexual predators disguised as someone they are not. Others say it just violates tradition. A society has rules for a reason, and this is one of those rules, that’s just the way it is, they say.
But on a more basic level, students at Green Mountain are complaining that a small vocal minority of gay, lesbian and, as far as they know, one — or maybe two — transgender students among them are trampling on the rights of the majority to decide what the rules of conduct should be.
That idea of a minority’s ruling unfairly is what motivated the father of one student to order the “Straight Pride” T-shirts online last week and send them to school with his daughter, who declined to be interviewed.
The T-shirt-wearing students say gay people are being celebrated at the expense of straight people.
“I just want to be clear: I accept everybody being proud,” said Daniel Baldwin, a 17-year-old junior. Sitting at a table in the school hallway, a copy of “The Catcher in the Rye” open in front of him, he wore a “Straight Pride” shirt pulled over a shirt dedicated to Slayer, a thrash-metal band. “Everybody has the right to be who they are.”
Mr. Baldwin said he thought people should use male or female bathrooms depending on what was written on their birth certificates. But he also said he would defend A J if someone tried to bully him for being transgender, or even for using the boys’ bathroom. “I would step up for A J,” he said. “We’re Americans. We’re supposed to be civil.”
Listening to him, Mr. Jackson said he was dismayed by how they had been torn apart. “Oh, my God, we used to talk for hours about music,” he said.
More broadly, the issue here has pitted resident against resident, often along social and economic lines. This is a place where big-city transplants wearing Birkenstocks and artsy jewelry mingle with working-class people in dirt-encrusted boots who know how to handle a shotgun and proudly inhabit the homes of their ancestors. Despite Vermont’s image as a place of bucolic egalitarianism, home of the avowedly socialist candidate for president, tensions over privilege and tradition simmer just under the surface, and the bathroom wars have brought them to the fore.
“I go in and do my thing and leave, but I have a concern about child molesters and pedophiles,” Joe Kopacz, 48, who runs a rock-crushing operation, said as he stopped into Lisai’s Chester Market.
Society does not change on a dime, especially small-town society, said Deb Brown, a member of the Green Mountain Union High School board, speaking in MacLaomainn’s, a pub and popular gathering spot that she owns with her husband. For people like her daughter, who was on girls’ sports teams with A J when he was Autumn, this is intensely personal, not just philosophical.
“As we move forward as a community, there has to be compassion on both sides,” Ms. Brown said. “He needs to understand that this has been 15 years that students have known him one way. It’s obviously his choice, but maybe he should have respect for his classmates right now.”
Mr. Jackson has gradually been making the transition from a vivacious girl with a big smile and long wavy locks to a husky boy with chopped hair dyed several shades of green, snakebite piercings in his lips and gauges embedded in his earlobes. His chest is visibly bound, and because he has not yet started taking male hormones — he plans to do that, and also to have “top surgery,” he says — his face is smooth and still has feminine contours. He once thought he was lesbian, and is still attracted to girls.
His mother, Tracy, a case manager for children with developmental disabilities, and his father, Scott, a mechanical engineer, came to Vermont from Connecticut to try it out 20 years ago and stayed. They brought up A J and his older brother in a log cabin in the woods, where they raise chickens and ducks, including a duck named Bernie, for you know who.
“A typical American family,” his mother said, smiling.
He was in sixth grade when he realized he was meant to be a boy, he said, and came out to the school last year in ninth grade, sending emails to teachers. When he entered Green Mountain in seventh grade, “I was using the female bathroom because, I really don’t know, I was still kind of back and forth about my identity,” Mr. Jackson said. “This year is the year I started using the men’s bathroom, because I already felt like way more comfortable in who I was.”
There were practical issues. When he had his period, he wondered if he should revert to the girls’ bathroom, because there was no place to throw away his used tampons. But he had started feeling like an intruder in the girls’ bathroom, and the single bathrooms were so far out of the way it was hard to get to class on time.
So he stuck with the boys’ bathroom.
“I use a stall, and I wait till everybody’s gone to get up and leave,” Mr. Jackson said. “The guys, they look at me like I’m some kind of freak, or they’re concerned or scared.”
The only classmate who talks to him when he sees him in the bathroom is his childhood friend Connor Rose, a leader of the school’s gay-straight alliance.
Mr. Jackson feels safe in the boys’ bathroom at school, he said, whereas in public places, like Dunkin’ Donuts, he is afraid to go to the men’s restroom for fear of being attacked by straight men.
He said he understood the concerns of some of his classmates.
“There probably are some transgender people that are bad people, just like there are probably a whole bunch of gay people or straight people that are bad,” he said.
He had been using the boys’ bathrooms for less than a month — trying to go in during lunch or recess when he would not be noticed — when someone complained. No one knows for sure who complained, but a widespread rumor holds that it was a middle schooler.
Hank Mauti, a school board member and retired sawmill worker from Andover, said he wondered why Mr. Jackson would feel compelled to use a boys’ bathroom when there were six single-use gender-neutral bathrooms in the school.
“What about the little boy that reported it?” asked Mr. Mauti’s wife, Wanda, repeating the rumor, in an interview in their home, under a trophy of a moose that Mr. Mauti shot. “As far as I can tell, his discomfort hasn’t been addressed.”
Tom Ferenc, the principal, called Mr. Jackson’s mother the night of the complaint and told her that he was going to ask A J to use the gender-neutral bathroom, she recalled. The next Monday, A J and about 30 supporters walked out of the school in protest. Three days later, the district announced the new policy.
Mr. Ferenc was happy to get some “clarity” about the proper policy, as he put it, and proud of his school. “It reminded me of Rosa Parks, honestly,” he said.
Besides the “Straight Pride” T-shirt counterprotest, the decision has set off a storm of discussion, sometimes nasty on both sides, on Facebook. Also, someone taped a sign to a trash can this week that said, “Reserved for Mariah and Tanner,” referring to Mariah Lique and Mr. Bischofberger, two student leaders of the counterprotest, who are dating.
Ms. Lique said that she and Mr. Bischofberger were just saying what a lot of other students think but are afraid to say because if they did, “you’d get hated.”
“We’re considered more conservative,” she said. “Because we’re outspoken,” Mr. Bischofberger interjected, finishing her sentence.
Two of their favorite teachers are openly gay, they said, and the students misunderstand where they are coming from. “They see us as …” Mr. Bischofberger began, “hating their sexuality,” Ms. Lique finished.
But that is not true, they said. Part of what troubles them is that Mr. Jackson is still anatomically female. “Autumn, A J, whatever you call them, hasn’t had any hormone or sex change yet,” Mr. Bischofberger said. “This opens up opportunities for other kids to do stuff they’re not supposed to.”
While everyone seems to sympathize with the gay students, they seem to have a license to make him feel ostracized and attacked, and it hurts, Mr. Bischofberger said: “They’re calling me a cisgendered, hypocritical homophobe.”
I find it funny that they're asking about addressing the middle school boy's discomfort. A) AJ looks like a boy, and if he identifies as one, so what? B) He's a middle schooler. I doubt he's that discomforted, he was probably trying to start gak
Yeah, that's the bit that annoys me as well. Looking at the photo he looks like any other guy with cool hair and piercings (Side note: Am totally planning on stealing that colour pattern).
I can only imagine that the middle schooler either knew that he was trans and wanted to make a point (dick move), or has been raised/told to treat trans people as their birth gender and was weirded out because "Eww, a girl", in which case it's also a dick move, but slightly more understandable than just purposely being an donkey-cave.
Goliath wrote: Yeah, that's the bit that annoys me as well. Looking at the photo he looks like any other guy with cool hair and piercings (Side note: Am totally planning on stealing that colour pattern).
I can only imagine that the middle schooler either knew that he was trans and wanted to make a point (dick move), or has been raised/told to treat trans people as their birth gender and was weirded out because "Eww, a girl", in which case it's also a dick move, but slightly more understandable than just purposely being an donkey-cave.
What bothers me is my sister in law is trans and looks like that almost down to a T. Unless she's obviously dressing a sa girl, it's hard to tell. I really think the middle schooler was being a jerk on purpose.
Goliath wrote: Yeah, that's the bit that annoys me as well. Looking at the photo he looks like any other guy with cool hair and piercings (Side note: Am totally planning on stealing that colour pattern).
I can only imagine that the middle schooler either knew that he was trans and wanted to make a point (dick move), or has been raised/told to treat trans people as their birth gender and was weirded out because "Eww, a girl", in which case it's also a dick move, but slightly more understandable than just purposely being an donkey-cave.
I agree with you here... I saw a guy in the picture, but when they said that his school has 300 students ranging from grades 7-12, I was like, "ohh feth... small town gak, here we come"
I think that for those who are acting (IMO) poorly here, it's somewhat understandable because they are literally watching the transition from step 0. Pretty much every trans person I know (and that isn't many) I've met at some point after the transition has started, so there's not really any weirdness.
Because I'm not entirely sure a Trans 101 topic would survive in OT unless we had a lifeguard on hand, I figure I'll share some day to day.
Yesterday I finalised changing my name by deedpoll. Two of my coworkers signed it, and I gave a copy to the college assessor who came in for my apprenticeship paperwork.
Because of how much fuss and bad feeling there is around pronouns, names and such, I was extremely shy about the entire thing. I'm actually very very relaxed about it all. If I know you, or you are my friend, I know you're not trying to harm me, so you get a free pass.
But it has meant I'm feeling almost inconvenient and rude to ask people to stop calling me by a name I don't want.
Goliath wrote: Yeah, that's the bit that annoys me as well. Looking at the photo he looks like any other guy with cool hair and piercings (Side note: Am totally planning on stealing that colour pattern).
I can only imagine that the middle schooler either knew that he was trans and wanted to make a point (dick move), or has been raised/told to treat trans people as their birth gender and was weirded out because "Eww, a girl", in which case it's also a dick move, but slightly more understandable than just purposely being an donkey-cave.
I agree with you here... I saw a guy in the picture, but when they said that his school has 300 students ranging from grades 7-12, I was like, "ohh feth... small town gak, here we come"
I think that for those who are acting (IMO) poorly here, it's somewhat understandable because they are literally watching the transition from step 0. Pretty much every trans person I know (and that isn't many) I've met at some point after the transition has started, so there's not really any weirdness.
From what I read in the article, it seems most of the backlash is coming from the parents or adults, not the kids themselves. Not sure what the straight pride is about. I mean, I get it, but what are you doing other than saying "I'm special too!" I feel like it's just ostracizing the LGBT crowd even more. I've never felt pressured or fearful of a LGBT crowd.
Whoops. By deed poll. Sorry, my grasp of grammar when typing on the train is tenuous at best!
I also changed title to Mx rather than Mr or Miss, which is generally recognised in the UK as someone on the bench. Banks, councils and many legal services accept it.
I am not up to facing queries over swapping the title just yet.
Unfortunately my boss doesn't know what it is, and I had to both go and get my contract revised, and explain in embarrassing detail what Mx meant.
I've personally always gone on the rule of addressing someone as what they look like, and if they then say "I prefer to be ...", I will try to use that. It's an easy politeness that can make people feel more welcome.
Insisting on calling someone who transitioned to female from male, as "male", in my mind, is a pretty insulting thing to do. Only witches do it.
Buttery Commissar wrote: Whoops. By deed poll. Sorry, my grasp of grammar when typing on the train is tenuous at best!
I also changed title to Mx rather than Mr or Miss, which is generally recognised in the UK as someone on the bench. Banks, councils and many legal services accept it.
I am not up to facing queries over swapping the title just yet.
Unfortunately my boss doesn't know what it is, and I had to both go and get my contract revised, and explain in embarrassing detail what Mx meant.
Interesting that there is an official nomenclature (the MX) you have to put down. I don't think we have that in employment any more due to the EEOC, but I could be wrong.
I realise my post read like I don't wish to discuss "Mx". I meant that I couldn't pass well enough to swap to the opposite title of my existing one.
And I think Mx has existed since the 80s, it's just never been formally accepted by such places.
My work have been accidentally quite invasive on several matters, and I've not objected due to the Stockholm syndrome of being gainfully employed.
So you automatically dismiss a "middle schooler" as being imcapable of feeling uncomfortable...and instead just declare them as bigoted or whatever buzzword you want to insert...because there is zero chance of anyone that age actually having real feelings on the matter....gotcha.
TheMeanDM wrote: So you automatically dismiss a "middle schooler" as being imcapable of feeling uncomfortable...and instead just declare them as bigoted or whatever buzzword you want to insert...because there is zero chance of anyone that age actually having real feelings on the matter....gotcha.
Pretty narrow minded...to say the least.
TheMeanDM, I'm trying not to break Rule #1 here, I'd appreciate the same. And yes, given most middle schoolers, given that this kid has gone to this school for however long and went to the bathrooms for a month before someone reported it? Yeah, I'd argue it's most likely the middle schooler being a jerk. If he is uncomfortable? Er, sorry? The trans person is question is probably using closed stalls, so I'm not sure where the discomfort comes from.
TheMeanDM wrote: So you automatically dismiss a "middle schooler" as being imcapable of feeling uncomfortable...and instead just declare them as bigoted or whatever buzzword you want to insert...because there is zero chance of anyone that age actually having real feelings on the matter....gotcha.
Pretty narrow minded...to say the least.
TheMeanDM, I'm trying not to break Rule #1 here, I'd appreciate the same. And yes, given most middle schoolers, given that this kid has gone to this school for however long and went to the bathrooms for a month before someone reported it? Yeah, I'd argue it's most likely the middle schooler being a jerk. If he is uncomfortable? Er, sorry? The trans person is question is probably using closed stalls, so I'm not sure where the discomfort comes from.
I mean, this is of course all coming down to the fact that we're discussing a "rumored" middle-schooler.... No one seems to know who actually filed a report, just that someone's saying, "My birds have been telling me interesting things"
TheMeanDM wrote: So you automatically dismiss a "middle schooler" as being imcapable of feeling uncomfortable...and instead just declare them as bigoted or whatever buzzword you want to insert...because there is zero chance of anyone that age actually having real feelings on the matter....gotcha.
Pretty narrow minded...to say the least.
TheMeanDM, I'm trying not to break Rule #1 here, I'd appreciate the same. And yes, given most middle schoolers, given that this kid has gone to this school for however long and went to the bathrooms for a month before someone reported it? Yeah, I'd argue it's most likely the middle schooler being a jerk. If he is uncomfortable? Er, sorry? The trans person is question is probably using closed stalls, so I'm not sure where the discomfort comes from.
I mean, this is of course all coming down to the fact that we're discussing a "rumored" middle-schooler.... No one seems to know who actually filed a report, just that someone's saying, "My birds have been telling me interesting things"
Birds? If I'm going to talk to animals, it's cats. Vicious, scheming little guys
TheMeanDM wrote: So you automatically dismiss a "middle schooler" as being imcapable of feeling uncomfortable...and instead just declare them as bigoted or whatever buzzword you want to insert...because there is zero chance of anyone that age actually having real feelings on the matter....gotcha.
Pretty narrow minded...to say the least.
TheMeanDM, I'm trying not to break Rule #1 here, I'd appreciate the same. And yes, given most middle schoolers, given that this kid has gone to this school for however long and went to the bathrooms for a month before someone reported it? Yeah, I'd argue it's most likely the middle schooler being a jerk. If he is uncomfortable? Er, sorry? The trans person is question is probably using closed stalls, so I'm not sure where the discomfort comes from.
I mean, this is of course all coming down to the fact that we're discussing a "rumored" middle-schooler.... No one seems to know who actually filed a report, just that someone's saying, "My birds have been telling me interesting things"
Birds? If I'm going to talk to animals, it's cats. Vicious, scheming little guys
TheMeanDM wrote: So you automatically dismiss a "middle schooler" as being imcapable of feeling uncomfortable...and instead just declare them as bigoted or whatever buzzword you want to insert...because there is zero chance of anyone that age actually having real feelings on the matter....gotcha.
Pretty narrow minded...to say the least.
TheMeanDM, I'm trying not to break Rule #1 here, I'd appreciate the same. And yes, given most middle schoolers, given that this kid has gone to this school for however long and went to the bathrooms for a month before someone reported it? Yeah, I'd argue it's most likely the middle schooler being a jerk. If he is uncomfortable? Er, sorry? The trans person is question is probably using closed stalls, so I'm not sure where the discomfort comes from.
Student 1: Wants to use the bathroom which is their gender identity which is the law of the land in many places (including Vermont where this story is from)
Student 2: Wants Student 1 not to use their bathroom because it makes them feel 'ickypoo'.
Last time I checked, there is no 'right' to not feel ickypoo. So denying someone else's civil rights based upon 'not wanting to feel ickypoo' isn't justified and would make one a bigot and advocating breaking the law.
So it doesn't actually matter if they have 'real feelings' on it because those feelings are immaterial. If he has a deep seeded personal belief, he has the right to SELF RESTRICT his own actions. Student 2 may avoid the bathroom at the same time as Student 1. Student 2 may go to the nurse's office. Student 2 may wear a diaper and poo his pants. What Student 2 may not do is restrict Student 1's actions and deny them their freedoms to make Student 2 feel better.
TheMeanDM wrote: So you automatically dismiss a "middle schooler" as being imcapable of feeling uncomfortable...and instead just declare them as bigoted or whatever buzzword you want to insert...because there is zero chance of anyone that age actually having real feelings on the matter....gotcha.
Pretty narrow minded...to say the least.
TheMeanDM, I'm trying not to break Rule #1 here, I'd appreciate the same. And yes, given most middle schoolers, given that this kid has gone to this school for however long and went to the bathrooms for a month before someone reported it? Yeah, I'd argue it's most likely the middle schooler being a jerk. If he is uncomfortable? Er, sorry? The trans person is question is probably using closed stalls, so I'm not sure where the discomfort comes from.
Quite early on it says that AJ is using stalls, and also trying to go when nobody else is present.
TheMeanDM wrote: So you automatically dismiss a "middle schooler" as being imcapable of feeling uncomfortable...and instead just declare them as bigoted or whatever buzzword you want to insert...because there is zero chance of anyone that age actually having real feelings on the matter....gotcha.
Pretty narrow minded...to say the least.
TheMeanDM, I'm trying not to break Rule #1 here, I'd appreciate the same. And yes, given most middle schoolers, given that this kid has gone to this school for however long and went to the bathrooms for a month before someone reported it? Yeah, I'd argue it's most likely the middle schooler being a jerk. If he is uncomfortable? Er, sorry? The trans person is question is probably using closed stalls, so I'm not sure where the discomfort comes from.
I mean, this is of course all coming down to the fact that we're discussing a "rumored" middle-schooler.... No one seems to know who actually filed a report, just that someone's saying, "My birds have been telling me interesting things"
Birds? If I'm going to talk to animals, it's cats. Vicious, scheming little guys
Lol, that was a GoT reference to Varus
Sorry, I'm so behind in pop culture I literally have not seen a single episode of Breaking Bad or GoT, a damnable offence I know
TheMeanDM wrote: So you automatically dismiss a "middle schooler" as being imcapable of feeling uncomfortable...and instead just declare them as bigoted or whatever buzzword you want to insert...because there is zero chance of anyone that age actually having real feelings on the matter....gotcha.
Pretty narrow minded...to say the least.
TheMeanDM, I'm trying not to break Rule #1 here, I'd appreciate the same. And yes, given most middle schoolers, given that this kid has gone to this school for however long and went to the bathrooms for a month before someone reported it? Yeah, I'd argue it's most likely the middle schooler being a jerk. If he is uncomfortable? Er, sorry? The trans person is question is probably using closed stalls, so I'm not sure where the discomfort comes from.
Quite early on it says that AJ is using stalls, and also trying to go when nobody else is present.
Hence why I sided with AJ, as I genuinely feel bad for him.
TheMeanDM wrote: So you automatically dismiss a "middle schooler" as being imcapable of feeling uncomfortable...and instead just declare them as bigoted or whatever buzzword you want to insert...because there is zero chance of anyone that age actually having real feelings on the matter....gotcha.
Pretty narrow minded...to say the least.
TheMeanDM, I'm trying not to break Rule #1 here, I'd appreciate the same. And yes, given most middle schoolers, given that this kid has gone to this school for however long and went to the bathrooms for a month before someone reported it? Yeah, I'd argue it's most likely the middle schooler being a jerk. If he is uncomfortable? Er, sorry? The trans person is question is probably using closed stalls, so I'm not sure where the discomfort comes from.
Student 1: Wants to use the bathroom which is their gender identity which is the law of the land in many places (including Vermont where this story is from)
Student 2: Wants Student 1 not to use their bathroom because it makes them feel 'ickypoo'.
Last time I checked, there is no 'right' to not feel ickypoo. So denying someone else's civil rights based upon 'not wanting to feel ickypoo' isn't justified and would make one a bigot and advocating breaking the law.
So it doesn't actually matter if they have 'real feelings' on it because those feelings are immaterial. If he has a deep seeded personal belief, he has the right to SELF RESTRICT his own actions. Student 2 may avoid the bathroom at the same time as Student 1. Student 2 may go to the nurse's office. Student 2 may wear a diaper and poo his pants. What Student 2 may not do is restrict Student 1's actions and deny them their freedoms to make Student 2 feel better.
I agree with the end results of what you're saying, I don't agree that diminishing the feelings of a child is particularly helpful. If someone in the middle of their own pubescent armaggedon expresses discomfort at changes to the bathroom situation, then it needs to be the start of a conversation to help them become comfortable. It shouldn't be met with "Deal with it bigot!".
Regardless or sexual orientation or gender I'd hope we can all agree that it's an incredibly difficult time in someones life.
Please don't play The Martyr card....it is not very becoming.
I pointed out that your (and others, I may add) statements and opinion squarely espouse the belief that:
1) a middle schooler is just "being a jerk"
--were you there?
-- are you in this student's head?
-- do you have some first hand omnipotent knowledge about their feelings or intentions that we do not?
2) that you cannot, or will not, admit that a complaint could be anything other than malicious..it just HAS to be the way you WANT it to be
There are (at least) two sides to the story..... but it would seem your belief system, and the system of others that voice the same opinion, apparently makes you incapable of seeing that distinct facet of the situation....
So excuse me for calling people out on their narrow mindedness when it comes to this situation. I vertainly didn't intend to hurt your feelings by pointing out the fallacy of your argument.
Mea culpa
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes...AJ was, as he says, trying to use the stalls and doing so when others weren't in there. Good on him for that.
However.....obviously he knew that his presence could/would make some kids uncomfortable (or else why make the extra effort to avoid people?).
It seems, to me, like a case of gojng into the bathroom when there just happened to be someone in there who was one of those people who felt uncomfortable with him in there---which is their right. Everyone has a right to their feelings....you cannot dictate to someone how they should or should not feel.
you. You have no idea what I am teaching my daughter or son or how I am raising my kids.
This person also has a vagina. You're saying that he should be in the changing room with your daughter as well.
I think it goes without saying that I never did follow through on that. Well, except for those times when I was on the football team, and we'd be the visiting team... they always stuck us in the girls locker rooms, but by that point they were empty of everyone else but us.
