nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Thats because the parent is the controller of that child.

The parent should have the right to restrict the possibility that his child may see a penis. Anything within their control. And school activities should be included in that.

Just because nobody does a junk check doesn't mean that isn't what the room is for. You're being thick and obtuse.

You do have the right, you can remove your child. If I am a mother changing my son in the locker room, and you are in there with your daughter and you don't want her to see it, you be a parent and remove your daughter... Or tell her not to look... or put what she saw into context. What you cannot do is make a scene and have the mother and her son thrown out.

In school, if you don't like something, like the content of an assembly, sex ed, religious stuff, seeing gay people, being in a class is someone with AIDS or possibly being exposed to transgender students... you can opt-out for your child. You cannot have those other things removed from the school.

More being thick and obtuse. I shouldn't have to remove my child from the school to prevent this. Especially since it will be occurring in the locker room, which you will use after PE which not an optional activity like an assembly.

The trans student can use a sex neutral facility OR use the one for his biological sex. This is the best solution. Raising a stink beyond this makes the trans person the one in the wrong here.

 Grey Templar wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Thats because the parent is the controller of that child.

The parent should have the right to restrict the possibility that his child may see a penis. Anything within their control. And school activities should be included in that.

Just because nobody does a junk check doesn't mean that isn't what the room is for. You're being thick and obtuse.

You do have the right, you can remove your child. If I am a mother changing my son in the locker room, and you are in there with your daughter and you don't want her to see it, you be a parent and remove your daughter... Or tell her not to look... or put what she saw into context. What you cannot do is make a scene and have the mother and her son thrown out.

In school, if you don't like something, like the content of an assembly, sex ed, religious stuff, seeing gay people, being in a class is someone with AIDS or possibly being exposed to transgender students... you can opt-out for your child. You cannot have those other things removed from the school.

More being thick and obtuse. I shouldn't have to remove my child from the school to prevent this. Especially since it will be occurring in the locker room, which you will use after PE which not an optional activity like an assembly.

The trans student can use a sex neutral facility OR use the one for his biological sex. This is the best solution. Raising a stink beyond this makes the trans person the one in the wrong here.

If your child has a problem with it, they can use the sex neutral facility. It's a "sex neutral facility"--anyone can use it.

Because guess what? We're talking about HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS here. Not elementary school students or middle school students. Anyone pretending that high school students cannot handle the concepts being discussed in this thread is in fact the person being "thick and obtuse", seeing as how the students apparently understand the concept enough to walk out of school as a protest.

Oh sure, thats a good solution. Have the children who don't want to see opposite sex parts use the facility where that is guaranteed.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh sure, thats a good solution. Have the children who don't want to see opposite sex parts use the facility where that is guaranteed.

Seeing as how the transgendered teen wanted to use the girls' locker room, it solves the problem pretty handily.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh sure, thats a good solution. Have the children who don't want to see opposite sex parts use the facility where that is guaranteed.

Seeing as how the transgendered teen wanted to use the girls' locker room, it solves the problem pretty handily.

Given how many girls don't want to see a penis, I think its not a good solution. Those 200 girls will overcrowd the gender neutral facility.

I think the trans student is being an attention grabbing jerk. He was offered a very reasonable compromise, and has decided not to take it.

And as pointed out, he's rejected the "compromise"(which amounts to "You're not a boy, you're not a girl so have your own special bathroom which singles you out as being different") in favor of making a statement.

Just like these students made a statement by walking out of school.

Oh, and while we're at it?
Nowhere does it say that it was "200 girls" who walked out. The article refers to "students", and makes a mention of a number of parents of students holding protests--including parents of male students, one of whom is cited in the article with this:

Tammy Sorden, whose son goes to Hillsboro High School, believes it’s not right to give Lila special treatment “while the girls just have to suck it up.”

“The girls have rights, and they shouldn’t have to share a bathroom with a boy,” she told the Post-Dispatch.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh sure, thats a good solution. Have the children who don't want to see opposite sex parts use the facility where that is guaranteed.

Seeing as how the transgendered teen wanted to use the girls' locker room, it solves the problem pretty handily.

Given how many girls don't want to see a penis, I think its not a good solution. Those 200 girls will overcrowd the gender neutral facility.

How many people didn't want to see brown skin in their locker room? I already know that this will just result in your "this is not a civil rights issue" canned response, but it is still the case. The good thing about rights and the constitution is that it doesn't give a feth what you or anyone else doesn't like, it focuses on the law. That's why gay people can now get married in Oklahoma despite the vast majority of folks in my state still thinking that two penises don't belong together.

I think the trans student is being an attention grabbing jerk. He was offered a very reasonable compromise, and has decided not to take it.

The history of the SCOTUS is full of rulings in favor of "attention grabbing jerks" who stood up for their rights and no longer accepted "reasonable compromises".

I don't think he has a reasonable expectation for girls to be ok with a man changing next to them. He's not being a very considerate or reasonable person. Obviously he is uncomfortable changing in the men's room. Ok, but you changing in the women's room would make them very uncomfortable as well(something he should sympathize with). The compromise is a third facility.

He's making a statement for sure. And that statement is "I'm an unreasonable person!"

Oh dear God! Someone's CHANGING THEIR CLOTHES NEXT TO ME!

Jesus Christ preserve me, I might catch a flash of something that I've seen at a public swimming pool!

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh sure, thats a good solution. Have the children who don't want to see opposite sex parts use the facility where that is guaranteed.

Seeing as how the transgendered teen wanted to use the girls' locker room, it solves the problem pretty handily.

Given how many girls don't want to see a penis, I think its not a good solution. Those 200 girls will overcrowd the gender neutral facility.

How many people didn't want to see brown skin in their locker room? I already know that this will just result in your "this is not a civil rights issue" canned response, but it is still the case. The good thing about rights and the constitution is that it doesn't give a feth what you or anyone else doesn't like, it focuses on the law. That's why gay people can now get married in Oklahoma despite the vast majority of folks in my state still thinking that two penises don't belong together.

I think the trans student is being an attention grabbing jerk. He was offered a very reasonable compromise, and has decided not to take it.

The history of the SCOTUS is full of rulings in favor of "attention grabbing jerks" who stood up for their rights and no longer accepted "reasonable compromises".

Examples of Judicial Activism.

Even if this is a civil rights issue, why is the 3rd facility not a reasonable compromise? Given that separate male and female facilities aren't under fire for existing I think its ok to offer that.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh sure, thats a good solution. Have the children who don't want to see opposite sex parts use the facility where that is guaranteed.

Seeing as how the transgendered teen wanted to use the girls' locker room, it solves the problem pretty handily.

Given how many girls don't want to see a penis, I think its not a good solution. Those 200 girls will overcrowd the gender neutral facility.

I think the trans student is being an attention grabbing jerk. He was offered a very reasonable compromise, and has decided not to take it.

Pronouns. They're not difficult. If you could manage to use 'she' it really would make you look less ignorant.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh sure, thats a good solution. Have the children who don't want to see opposite sex parts use the facility where that is guaranteed.

Seeing as how the transgendered teen wanted to use the girls' locker room, it solves the problem pretty handily.

Given how many girls don't want to see a penis, I think its not a good solution. Those 200 girls will overcrowd the gender neutral facility.

How many people didn't want to see brown skin in their locker room? I already know that this will just result in your "this is not a civil rights issue" canned response, but it is still the case. The good thing about rights and the constitution is that it doesn't give a feth what you or anyone else doesn't like, it focuses on the law. That's why gay people can now get married in Oklahoma despite the vast majority of folks in my state still thinking that two penises don't belong together.

I think the trans student is being an attention grabbing jerk. He was offered a very reasonable compromise, and has decided not to take it.

The history of the SCOTUS is full of rulings in favor of "attention grabbing jerks" who stood up for their rights and no longer accepted "reasonable compromises".

Examples of Judicial Activism.

Even if this is a civil rights issue, why is the 3rd facility not a reasonable compromise? Given that separate male and female facilities aren't under fire for existing I think its ok to offer that.

Having a water fountain for blacks and a water fountain for whites was considered "a reasonable compromise", y'know.

But seriously--it's entirely dependent upon whether or not the "third facility" really was a reasonable compromise or if it's just one of the existing bathrooms with a sign on it.
Or it could entirely be predicated upon the fact that the school outed a transgendered minor without their consent.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Even if this is a civil rights issue, why is the 3rd facility not a reasonable compromise? Given that separate male and female facilities aren't under fire for existing I think its ok to offer that.

If a primary part of your identity is "I am female" and there is a bathroom "This is for Females", another "This is for Males" and a third "This is for anyone" and you're allowed in the 2nd or the 3rd, but not the first the only conclusions you can draw about what your authority structure is saying about you is

"You are not female"
or
"You are male"
or
"You are neither male nor female"

None of which match your primary identification of "I am female". This because not being allowed in the "This is for Females" has the rational implication that of however you may be classified, female is not one of them.

Even if you disagree with their right to identify that way or what their identity may or may not entitle them to, you must be able to see that in plain logical fashion that the 3rd "Gender Neutral" option in no way accommodates their wishes or affirms their identity any more than being strictly confined to the male bathroom*, which is why it would be unacceptable given their desires (again, whatever you may think of them). There is no rational way to think that a Gender Neutral 3rd option is any way an accommodation or compromise.

EDIT.
* Which would be "You are male" obviously, which is no closer or further to their identity than "You are not female" or "You are neither male nor female" they're equally worthless.

When female is defined as having a vagina, No, this person is not a female.

What if we define being male and female as needing both mental and physical parts to match? Then this person is neither male nor female. Thus they would need a 3rd facility.

Either way, getting a 3rd facility is the only reasonable option.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Examples of Judicial Activism.

Even if this is a civil rights issue, why is the 3rd facility not a reasonable compromise? Given that separate male and female facilities aren't under fire for existing I think its ok to offer that.

Because "separate but equal" is NEVER equal.

And because most of the 'valid concerns' are anything but valid as shown via the statistics of the states where it has already been enacted. Besides, most schools have policies which include administrator notification, counselor confirmation and staff supervision which protects both the transgender student as well as the rest of the students from actual harm which renders an isolated bathroom unnecessary. If done right, most students will never know the student is transgender at all.

If you think a student can go from BOY to helicoptering his junk in the girls locker room in a wig in one day. In this specific case, it is a multi-year supervised transition. It is anything but attention grabbing selfishness.

And many of the articles show large numbers of the students doing the walk out were in SUPPORT of the transgender girl using the girls locker room. somewhere around 50-60 of the students.

It is a civil rights issue, pure and simple. The same way AIDS discrimination was socially acceptable and homsexuality discrimination was socially acceptable and institutionally enforced before court challenges and legislature solutions 20+ years ago.

All I'm saying is that you should have to wait till you've had your operation to use the opposite sex's facilities. At least in a setting where minors are the main users of that facility.

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Examples of Judicial Activism.

Even if this is a civil rights issue, why is the 3rd facility not a reasonable compromise? Given that separate male and female facilities aren't under fire for existing I think its ok to offer that.

Because "separate but equal" is NEVER equal.

Are you claiming that men and women are not equal because they use different bathrooms?

 Grey Templar wrote:
When female is defined as having a vagina, No, this person is not a female.

What if we define being male and female as needing both mental and physical parts to match? Then this person is neither male nor female. Thus they would need a 3rd facility.

Either way, getting a 3rd facility is the only reasonable option.

Then, that's your definition. Which is strictly opposed and entirely incompatibility with their view. A compromise means something that gives and takes from both sides and finds something that partially accomdates both views. However since your entire view is "They are not female" and their entire view is "I am female" there can be no compromise. As I outlined it's irrational to think the 3rd facility would be acceptable to them, so presenting it as a "Reasonable Option" is nonsensical since it's by definition a non-option to the other party. You may as well offer them a bathroom where "We won't let Gorillas come in with you" it's got nothing to do with their desires.

There can be no "Reasonable Option" between someone holding your views and someone holding their views, the only thing that can happen is for one of your views to be disregarded the other affirmed, one party left satisfied and the other left entirely dissatisfied.

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
When female is defined as having a vagina, No, this person is not a female.

What if we define being male and female as needing both mental and physical parts to match? Then this person is neither male nor female. Thus they would need a 3rd facility.

Either way, getting a 3rd facility is the only reasonable option.

Then, that's your definition. Which is strictly opposed and entirely incompatibility with their view. A compromise means something that gives and takes from both sides and finds something that partially accomdates both views. However since your entire view is "They are not female" and their entire view is "I am female" there can be no compromise. As I outlined it's irrational to think the 3rd facility would be acceptable to them, so presenting it as "Reasonable Option" is nonsensical since it's a non-option to the other party. You may as well offer them a bathroom where "We won't let Gorillas come in with you" it's got nothing to do with their desires.

There can be no "Reasonable Option" between someone holding your views and someone holding their views, the only thing that can happen is for one of your views to be disregarded the other affirmed, one party left satisfied and the other left entirely satisfied.

In which case, it seems that going with the majority is the best option.

 Grey Templar wrote:

It wouldn't be nothing. Go ahead, tack a picture of a penis and vagina over a public restroom's signs. You'd probably get arrested.

Unless it was a photograph, or a very realistic drawing, I highly doubt that.

And yes, it wouldn't be nothing in the sense that overly sensitive people might take offense, but making something out of nothing is what overly sensitive people do.

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Maybe not, but no less of a good argument than a Trans person has of saying he has the right to use the facility of the gender he identifies with.

Actually it seems to me that the trans person has a much better argument, given that it is grounded in something which is usually considered a basic human right: equality.

Of course this person has the right to equality. That is not denied by saying if you have a penis you can't use the women's locker room.

Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex, and legally she can choose her gender, and the girls gender is female, she has every right to use the locker room which matches her gender identity.

False bs argument. They are based on body parts.

Segregation is wrong, the civil rights movement proved that, we should stop segregating by sex. It's time to end separate but equal.


it's time for progress people




And just for the record, if you suffer any mental harm on account of being in the presence of all genders naked, you're a bigot and your feelings dont matter, please leave society.

Progress for all! (who matter)

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

It wouldn't be nothing. Go ahead, tack a picture of a penis and vagina over a public restroom's signs. You'd probably get arrested.

Unless it was a photograph, or a very realistic drawing, I highly doubt that.

And yes, it wouldn't be nothing in the sense that overly sensitive people might take offense, but making something out of nothing is what overly sensitive people do.

I know a lot of people who are far from being close to sensitive who would definitely take issue with that.

Go ahead and do it. You'll get in trouble. Even if its a stylized representation.

Relapse wrote:
There's been more talk of penises and vaginas in this thread than your average porn production. All that's needed is a bow chicka wow sound track and we're off to the races!

Way ahead of you. I've been getting strange looks for some time, so I had to switch to Muskrat Love.

 Grey Templar wrote:
All I'm saying is that you should have to wait till you've had your operation to use the opposite sex's facilities. At least in a setting where minors are the main users of that facility.

And the law says that view is wrong because SEX and Gender are not the same thing and changing ones gender doesn't always require a change in your sex organs. It also doesn't accommodate medical needs of minors who have valid reasons to be a different gender but not have the actual surgery until adulthood because simply hormone treatment can grow/shrink body parts without the need for surgery to a point.

Are you claiming that men and women are not equal because they use different bathrooms?

Since we still have inequity between the sexes across society due to biases, it does seem like we still have more work to do before we can declare 'everything fixed, gender equality is here'.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
When female is defined as having a vagina, No, this person is not a female.

What if we define being male and female as needing both mental and physical parts to match? Then this person is neither male nor female. Thus they would need a 3rd facility.

Either way, getting a 3rd facility is the only reasonable option.

Then, that's your definition. Which is strictly opposed and entirely incompatibility with their view. A compromise means something that gives and takes from both sides and finds something that partially accomdates both views. However since your entire view is "They are not female" and their entire view is "I am female" there can be no compromise. As I outlined it's irrational to think the 3rd facility would be acceptable to them, so presenting it as "Reasonable Option" is nonsensical since it's a non-option to the other party. You may as well offer them a bathroom where "We won't let Gorillas come in with you" it's got nothing to do with their desires.

There can be no "Reasonable Option" between someone holding your views and someone holding their views, the only thing that can happen is for one of your views to be disregarded the other affirmed, one party left satisfied and the other left entirely satisfied.

In which case, it seems that going with the majority is the best option.

Well in the end history will be the judge of that.

However as has Polonius pointed out the first pages of this thread it seems the tides man already flowing. If I was a betting man, I'd wager in 20 years their views will have won out. Your side will be seen as more of histories bigots, their side as yet another minority that carved out a place that was unjustly denied to them. Rather than your side being seen as the just defenders against improper intruders, and them as stubborn deviants or selfish weirdos.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh dear God! Someone's CHANGING THEIR CLOTHES NEXT TO ME!

Jesus Christ preserve me, I might catch a flash of something that I've seen at a public swimming pool!

Are you a teenage girl?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh dear God! Someone's CHANGING THEIR CLOTHES NEXT TO ME!

Jesus Christ preserve me, I might catch a flash of something that I've seen at a public swimming pool!

Are you a teenage girl?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Once again: STUDENTS WALKED OUT.
Not just girls.

And PARENTS went and protested as well. Are they teenage girls?

 Kanluwen wrote:


And PARENTS went and protested as well. Are they teenage girls?

Only the fun ones, I would assume

 Kanluwen wrote:


And PARENTS went and protested as well. Are they teenage girls?

Sometimes! If things haven't gone terribly well for them.

 Frazzled wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Maybe not, but no less of a good argument than a Trans person has of saying he has the right to use the facility of the gender he identifies with.

Actually it seems to me that the trans person has a much better argument, given that it is grounded in something which is usually considered a basic human right: equality.

Of course this person has the right to equality. That is not denied by saying if you have a penis you can't use the women's locker room.

Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex, and legally she can choose her gender, and the girls gender is female, she has every right to use the locker room which matches her gender identity.

False bs argument. They are based on body parts.

The law is clearly on the side of the transgender individual here. You can keep saying that restrooms are based on body parts, but your government does not agree with you. It has been made quite clear that the trans individual has the right to use the restroom that aligns with her gender identity. Ergo, restrooms are based on gender, not body parts.

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
When female is defined as having a vagina, No, this person is not a female.

What if we define being male and female as needing both mental and physical parts to match? Then this person is neither male nor female. Thus they would need a 3rd facility.

Either way, getting a 3rd facility is the only reasonable option.

Then, that's your definition. Which is strictly opposed and entirely incompatibility with their view. A compromise means something that gives and takes from both sides and finds something that partially accomdates both views. However since your entire view is "They are not female" and their entire view is "I am female" there can be no compromise. As I outlined it's irrational to think the 3rd facility would be acceptable to them, so presenting it as "Reasonable Option" is nonsensical since it's a non-option to the other party. You may as well offer them a bathroom where "We won't let Gorillas come in with you" it's got nothing to do with their desires.

There can be no "Reasonable Option" between someone holding your views and someone holding their views, the only thing that can happen is for one of your views to be disregarded the other affirmed, one party left satisfied and the other left entirely satisfied.

In which case, it seems that going with the majority is the best option.

Well in the end history will be the judge of that.

However as has Polonius pointed out the first pages of this thread it seems the tides man already flowing. If I was a betting man, I'd wager in 20 years their views will have won out. Your side will be seen as more of histories bigots, their side as yet another minority that carved out a place that was unjustly denied to them. Rather than your side being seen as the just defenders against improper intruders, and them as stubborn deviants or selfish weirdos.

Ahh, the old "Call someone a Bigot so I don't have to deal with their actual argument" strategy.

 Grey Templar wrote:

I know a lot of people who are far from being close to sensitive who would definitely take issue with that.

If they take issue with something like heavily stylized pictures of male or female genitalia in public places, then they're overly sensitive regarding at least sexuality.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Go ahead and do it. You'll get in trouble. Even if its a stylized representation.

If by "trouble" you mean "given a stern talking to." then sure, probably. But arrested? No way in hell.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

I know a lot of people who are far from being close to sensitive who would definitely take issue with that.

If they take issue with something like heavily stylized pictures of male or female genitalia in public places, then they're overly sensitive regarding at least sexuality.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Go ahead and do it. You'll get in trouble. Even if its a stylized representation.

If by "trouble" you mean "given a stern talking to." then sure, probably. But arrested? No way in hell.

Depends on the local laws, but at the very least you might be looking at a fine. But in a lot of places you might end up on the sex offender registry.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh dear God! Someone's CHANGING THEIR CLOTHES NEXT TO ME!

Jesus Christ preserve me, I might catch a flash of something that I've seen at a public swimming pool!

Are you a teenage girl?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Once again: STUDENTS WALKED OUT.
Not just girls.

And PARENTS went and protested as well. Are they teenage girls?

It means you're speaking for a group of people you have no clue about.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh dear God! Someone's CHANGING THEIR CLOTHES NEXT TO ME!

Jesus Christ preserve me, I might catch a flash of something that I've seen at a public swimming pool!

Are you a teenage girl?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Once again: STUDENTS WALKED OUT.
Not just girls.

And PARENTS went and protested as well. Are they teenage girls?

It means you're speaking for a group of people you have no clue about.

So what are you doing speaking for teenage girls everywhere?

Right, you're not. You're speaking on behalf of PARENTS of teenage girls.


All seriousness though, once again, it's not something which couldn't have potentially been seen at a public swimming pool.

Interestingly, I imagine if this situation had not changed, that gym as a class would have ended there, making the point moot.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Depends on the local laws, but at the very least you might be looking at a fine. But in a lot of places you might end up on the sex offender registry.

I have a hard time believing I would be fined for vandalism over what essentially amounts to putting a sticker on a sign.

As to the sex offender registry: what crime could I be charged with that would carry such a penalty?

The law is clearly on the side of the transgender individual here. You can keep saying that restrooms are based on body parts, but your government does not agree with you. It has been made quite clear that the trans individual has the right to use the restroom that aligns with her gender identity. Ergo, restrooms are based on gender, not body parts.

Again oh foreigner, please show me where courts in the US have mandated that public schools be forced to allow some with male parts be allowed into the women's locker and shower rooms.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Depends on the local laws, but at the very least you might be looking at a fine. But in a lot of places you might end up on the sex offender registry.

I have a hard time believing I would be fined for vandalism over what essentially amounts to putting a sticker on a sign.

As to the sex offender registry: what crime could I be charged with that would carry such a penalty?

It depends on where you are and the local laws. Things like public urination, indecent exposure, and public indecency can land you on it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

It depends on where you are and the local laws. Things like public urination, indecent exposure, and public indecency can land you on it.

Those all involve conduct which directly reveal the genitalia of the acting individual. I guess you could argue that putting up a picture of human genitalia that is stylized to the extent that a common bathroom caricature is constitutes the distribution of pornography to minors, but that seems like a massive stretch.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

It depends on where you are and the local laws. Things like public urination, indecent exposure, and public indecency can land you on it.

Those all involve conduct which directly reveal the genitalia of the acting individual. I guess you could argue that putting up a picture of human genitalia that is stylized to the extent that a common bathroom caricature is constitutes the distribution of pornography to minors, but that seems like a massive stretch.

I don't know how much of a stretch it would be.

Better just to do bathroom signs having zero involvement with the sex organs in imagery. Maybe just the male and female words.

I wonder if most if any of the people in this thread have actually been to an unisex bath- / locker room. I mean...reading the thread, you could get the idea that some think when entering those, they got wild vaginas and penises thrown right at their face with no chance to escape the endless horror of genitalia everywhere. Slightly overexaggerated of course.

It's...just like any regular bathroom, really. People don't like to show others their genitalia. Why would they suddenly start caring to do so? There are a lot of cabins to use and one less open part for men that holds an urinal. You go in...option 1 or 2...wash your hands...leave. If anything, men are suddenly starting to wash their hands more often due to female presence. Yes, it's a thing....and really, anyone who doesn't wash their hands is really disgusting. Urks.

 Frazzled wrote:

The law is clearly on the side of the transgender individual here. You can keep saying that restrooms are based on body parts, but your government does not agree with you. It has been made quite clear that the trans individual has the right to use the restroom that aligns with her gender identity. Ergo, restrooms are based on gender, not body parts.

Again oh foreigner, please show me where courts in the US have mandated that public schools be forced to allow some with male parts be allowed into the women's locker and shower rooms.

US Department of Education, title IX clarifications (April 29, 2014) ruled that sex-discrimination laws extend to transgendered individuals and the gender identity of their choosing.

This extends to changing facilities (and has been proven to in the court cases where it has been put to test against specific trans people).

Of course, it doesn't say anything specifically about changing rooms in schools, but that's not how laws work.

If you would like anything else googling, please ask.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
When female is defined as having a vagina, No, this person is not a female.

What if we define being male and female as needing both mental and physical parts to match? Then this person is neither male nor female. Thus they would need a 3rd facility.

Either way, getting a 3rd facility is the only reasonable option.

Then, that's your definition. Which is strictly opposed and entirely incompatibility with their view. A compromise means something that gives and takes from both sides and finds something that partially accomdates both views. However since your entire view is "They are not female" and their entire view is "I am female" there can be no compromise. As I outlined it's irrational to think the 3rd facility would be acceptable to them, so presenting it as "Reasonable Option" is nonsensical since it's a non-option to the other party. You may as well offer them a bathroom where "We won't let Gorillas come in with you" it's got nothing to do with their desires.

There can be no "Reasonable Option" between someone holding your views and someone holding their views, the only thing that can happen is for one of your views to be disregarded the other affirmed, one party left satisfied and the other left entirely satisfied.

In which case, it seems that going with the majority is the best option.

Well in the end history will be the judge of that.

However as has Polonius pointed out the first pages of this thread it seems the tides man already flowing. If I was a betting man, I'd wager in 20 years their views will have won out. Your side will be seen as more of histories bigots, their side as yet another minority that carved out a place that was unjustly denied to them. Rather than your side being seen as the just defenders against improper intruders, and them as stubborn deviants or selfish weirdos.

Ahh, the old "Call someone a Bigot so I don't have to deal with their actual argument" strategy.

Grey Templar, first off I did address your actual arguments. I showed plainly how your endorsement of the 3rd-bathroom option is absurd can't function as compromise and doesn't give even the barest cursory consideration to their basic request. In response to "majority rules" I said history would be the judge and it will, though the winds already seem to be blowing in a particular direction.

Second, Grey Templar I didn't call you a bigot. I said that if I was I betting man I'd wager that in 20 years you'd be seen as one. I'm honestly not so invested in their side of it that I can't see where the resistance is coming from and bigot is probably a stronger word than I'd choose to use at this time. However the arrow of progress seems pointed along a certain path and I think we'll wind up there.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

It depends on where you are and the local laws. Things like public urination, indecent exposure, and public indecency can land you on it.

Those all involve conduct which directly reveal the genitalia of the acting individual. I guess you could argue that putting up a picture of human genitalia that is stylized to the extent that a common bathroom caricature is constitutes the distribution of pornography to minors, but that seems like a massive stretch.

I don't know how much of a stretch it would be.

Better just to do bathroom signs having zero involvement with the sex organs in imagery. Maybe just the male and female words.

Just leave it as proper American: "hombres" and "senioritas".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The law is clearly on the side of the transgender individual here. You can keep saying that restrooms are based on body parts, but your government does not agree with you. It has been made quite clear that the trans individual has the right to use the restroom that aligns with her gender identity. Ergo, restrooms are based on gender, not body parts.

Again oh foreigner, please show me where courts in the US have mandated that public schools be forced to allow some with male parts be allowed into the women's locker and shower rooms.

US Department of Education, title IX clarifications (April 29, 2014) ruled that sex-discrimination laws extend to transgendered individuals and the gender identity of their choosing.

This extends to changing facilities (and has been proven to in the court cases where it has been put to test against specific trans people).

Of course, it doesn't say anything specifically about changing rooms in schools, but that's not how laws work.

If you would like anything else googling, please ask.

AGAIN, please show me an actual fething court case where the courts have ruled that public schools may be forced to allow some with male parts be allowed into women's locker and shower rooms.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I wonder if most if any of the people in this thread have actually been to an unisex bath- / locker room. I mean...reading the thread, you could get the idea that some think when entering those, they got wild vaginas and penises thrown right at their face with no chance to escape the endless horror of genitalia everywhere. Slightly overexaggerated of course.

It's...just like any regular bathroom, really. People don't like to show others their genitalia. Why would they suddenly start caring to do so? There are a lot of cabins to use and one less open part for men that holds an urinal. You go in...option 1 or 2...wash your hands...leave. If anything, men are suddenly starting to wash their hands more often due to female presence. Yes, it's a thing....and really, anyone who doesn't wash their hands is really disgusting. Urks.

I think part of what you are seeing is just the big difference between Europe and the US.

When we were visiting family in Germany I was able to just pack a couple of swim-diapers in my daughters diaper bag and if we were anywhere with some sort of water feature (zoo, Europa Park, Playmobile Funland) we did what every other parent with a child did. Strip our daughter naked in public, put on a swim diaper, let her play, then strip her naked again and put her regular clothes back on. Public beaches all had a "snail" where boys/girls/women/men changed their clothes one after another.

Meanwhile, at my gym here in the US, men are sitting in the sauna in their bathing suit or full workout outfit.

Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

[Group of people 1] say I don't identify with [group of people 2], I identify with [group of people 3]. Response: that's fine, you shouldn't be forced to be with a group of people you don't identify with, go with group of people 3 who you do identify with.

[Group of people 3] say I don't identify with group of people 1. Response too bad, you have to share facilities with them.

[Group of people 1] get to choose who they share facilities with. Groups 2 and 3 don't. This is equality.

This is not analogous to racial segregation. To advance an analogous situation you would have to argue for gender/sex public facility segregation to end. With sex we have long had a separate but equal segregation that is happily accepted by almost all who are so segregated. The party who's rights are said to be aggrieved is even happy with the segregation and wants it, but only on that party's terms. That party gets to segregate as desired but other parties don't. This is equal.

We are told that gender is largely a social construct that doesn't mean much and we shouldn't pigeonhole kids into one or the other. We are told there are many different genders. But we are also told that unless we pigeonhole someone into one of two supposed meaningless social constructs we are doing something wrong. Got that. Gender matters except it doesn't. It is a meaningless social construct, but it isn't. One person's identity matters, another's doesn't.

One person is uncomfortable with one group and gets to leave. Other persons are uncomfortable with a group, they don't.

--

Arguments that "it is the law therefore it is right" (not a direct quote, but a concise description of the argument that has been advanced here) need to stop. I am almost certain that those advancing the argument didn't support criminalization of homosexuality, denial of marriage to same sex couples, laws they seem regressive regarding transperson (not sure if this is the right, neutral term, no offense intended) rights, or would support slavery if it became legal. They would argue the law to be unjust and in need of changing. To then argue, "too bad it is the law" is hypocritical.

 d-usa wrote:

Meanwhile, at my gym here in the US, men are sitting in the sauna in their bathing suit or full workout outfit.

That's the younger guys, there's typically the out of shape, super hairy, naked dude in his 50's sitting around in there with his sack poised just right to make sure that there's no escaping it visually as you walk in.

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

Extreme graphic violence ok, but naughty bits, everyone loses their minds

Yep. Or, shoot, take Facebook for example.

Shirtless man with his nipples and moobs all out? No problem!
Shirtless woman shows her nipples? BAN IT! BAN IT ALL!

Cover woman's nipples with man's nipples through the magic of Photoshop (or MS Paint)? Oh, ok, that's fine, go ahead.

...
What?

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

Extreme graphic violence ok, but naughty bits, everyone loses their minds

And in Europe its the opposite. So what?

I don't think the kid honestly even cares, he's figured out he can get a reaction from people and is doing it for the attention. He has a grin ear to ear while being interviewed because it's amusing to him and he's enjoying be a douchebag and he knows he's pissing everyone off.

It boils down to a massive sense of entitlement:

trans student: I don't feel comfortable changing in the mens room, I feel threatened and intimidated so I want to be in the womens.

school: Umm... we get that you're uncomfortable, but by allowing that it will also make the girls pretty uncomfortable.

trans student: So?

school: How about we give you a separate room so that you don't have to change with the men and won't be making the girls uncomfortable?

trans student: No! this is about my feelings, the girls don't matter,

school: That's not really being considerate of your classmates...

trans student: Feth those other kids, it's all about me and only me.

school: Facepalms

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

That's not how schizophrenia works.

 Grey Templar wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

Extreme graphic violence ok, but naughty bits, everyone loses their minds

And in Europe its the opposite. So what?

Only Germany, really.

We don't panic much about either in Sweden.

 Grey Templar wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

Extreme graphic violence ok, but naughty bits, everyone loses their minds

And in Europe its the opposite. So what?

There's an argument to be made that violence is objectively much worse. Violence hurts people, causes pain, kills people any situation is better absent violence than it is with violence. In contrast genitals have many fun, enjoyable uses and one vital reproductive one. A culture that embraces violence but shuns genitals is arguably embracing something that simply isn't as good. From a practical standpoint most people just don't have any great cause for violence in their day to day lives, we don't seek to hurt others and more of us won't be victims of violence than will be. In contrast most of us are going to use our genitals at some point, having a broader range of open imaginary, ideas, and open conversation can be useful. Not to mention genitals are just body parts we have, while violence is a specific conscious act we have to visit upon another.

Sex Organs and the sex with have with them are just all around better than violence, no matter how you measure it.

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

Extreme graphic violence ok, but naughty bits, everyone loses their minds

And in Europe its the opposite. So what?

There's an argument to be made that violence is objectively much worse. Violence hurts people, causes pain, kills people any situation is better absent violence than it is with violence. In contrast genitals have many fun, enjoyable uses and one vital reproductive one. A culture that embraces violence but shuns genitals is arguably embracing something that simply isn't as good. From a practical standpoint most people just don't have any great cause for violence in their day to day lives, we don't seek to hurt others and more of us won't be victims of violence than will be. In contrast most of us are going to use our genitals at some point, having a broader range of open imaginary, ideas, and open conversation can be useful.

Sex Organs and the sex with have with them are just all around better than violence, no matter how you measure it.

Yes, but there is an appropriate age for those things. And we believe that children shouldn't be exposed to sexual material till their parents deem it appropriate. We believe its a very private matter on top of that, not something that should be flaunted.

Violence on the other might be worse, but its also something that can and should be addressed at an earlier age.

On top of it all, we do still have rating systems in place. People should probably follow them a little more.

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

Extreme graphic violence ok, but naughty bits, everyone loses their minds

And in Europe its the opposite. So what?

There's an argument to be made that violence is objectively much worse. Violence hurts people, causes pain, kills people any situation is better absent violence than it is with violence. In contrast genitals have many fun, enjoyable uses and one vital reproductive one. A culture that embraces violence but shuns genitals is arguably embracing something that simply isn't as good. From a practical standpoint most people just don't have any great cause for violence in their day to day lives, we don't seek to hurt others and more of us won't be victims of violence than will be. In contrast most of us are going to use our genitals at some point, having a broader range of open imaginary, ideas, and open conversation can be useful. Not to mention genitals are just body parts we have, while violence is a specific unconscious act we have to visit upon another.

Sex Organs and the sex with have with them are just all around better than violence, no matter how you measure it.

The other argument could be "Europe acting stupid doesn't cancel out USA doing something stupid, and vice versa".

I work with someone who's sibling identifies as male despite female biology. The sibling uses faculty restrooms not wanting to use either the boy's or girl's room. Makes me wonder several things...

Should this child be forced into the men's room since that is how the child identifies? Banned from the girl's room if the child wants to use it at some point in the future? Not be given special privledges since they are victimizing the child with an "other" designation (the child may not understand the victimization is happening) and because it isn't equal. If a girl/boy can have a neutral facility and it be an acceptable solution, why can't the same solution be acceptable for a boy/girl? If you identify as something other than your apparent sex, do you get to choose where to go, but if you don't identify as something other than your apparent sex are you not afforded that opportunity? If someone identifies as truely neutral and has neutral physiology as well should they be forced to choose in the binary system, be given free reign to move from one to the other, or perhaps be given a third option. Would the last be victimizing?

Maybe binary designations and treatment isn't really that great an idea.

 dogma wrote:
If we're talking about preventing young women from being forced to deal with body image issues, then shouldn't the argument be that any instance in which they are forced to expose their bodies in front of another person be avoided? The same goes for young men, of course, as they also frequently suffer from body image issues and the sexual assaults triggers that Stanman mentioned.

Indeed, what about the possibility of lesbian girls in the class?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 dogma wrote:
If we're talking about preventing young women from being forced to deal with body image issues, then shouldn't the argument be that any instance in which they are forced to expose their bodies in front of another person be avoided? The same goes for young men, of course, as they also frequently suffer from body image issues and the sexual assaults triggers that Stanman mentioned.

Indeed, what about the possibility of lesbian girls in the class?

What about it?

a lesbian probably wouldnt have a diddly doo hanging down there.

 stanman wrote:
I don't think the kid honestly even cares, he's figured out he can get a reaction from people and is doing it for the attention. He has a grin ear to ear while being interviewed because it's amusing to him and he's enjoying be a douchebag and he knows he's pissing everyone off.

It boils down to a massive sense of entitlement:

trans student: I don't feel comfortable changing in the mens room, I feel threatened and intimidated so I want to be in the womens.

school: Umm... we get that you're uncomfortable, but by allowing that it will also make the girls pretty uncomfortable.

trans student: So?

school: How about we give you a separate room so that you don't have to change with the men and won't be making the girls uncomfortable?

trans student: No! this is about my feelings, the girls don't matter,

school: That's not really being considerate of your classmates...

trans student: Feth those other kids, it's all about me and only me.

school: Facepalms

We get to make up the interviews now?

This kind of post doesn't help further either side of the argument at all.

And the pronouns are 'she'.

Crystal-Maze. Looks at one side of the coin exclusively. "It's heads"
Stanman. Looks at the other side exclusively. "Its tails".
Both are right in a way neither captures the whole picture.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commenting on the her/his etc comment.

 Desubot wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 dogma wrote:
If we're talking about preventing young women from being forced to deal with body image issues, then shouldn't the argument be that any instance in which they are forced to expose their bodies in front of another person be avoided? The same goes for young men, of course, as they also frequently suffer from body image issues and the sexual assaults triggers that Stanman mentioned.

Indeed, what about the possibility of lesbian girls in the class?

What about it?

a lesbian probably wouldnt have a diddly doo hanging down there.

Is the problem the chance of someone seeing a penis? Well, a girl seeing a penis. People don't seem to be worried about boys seeing penises.

Crystal-Maze wrote:


And the pronouns are 'she'.

He, she, it, ze, unicorn, call them whatever you want. Addressing somebody with a penis as male isn't some sort of crime.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 dogma wrote:
If we're talking about preventing young women from being forced to deal with body image issues, then shouldn't the argument be that any instance in which they are forced to expose their bodies in front of another person be avoided? The same goes for young men, of course, as they also frequently suffer from body image issues and the sexual assaults triggers that Stanman mentioned.

Indeed, what about the possibility of lesbian girls in the class?

What about it?

a lesbian probably wouldnt have a diddly doo hanging down there.

Is the problem the chance of someone seeing a penis? Well, a girl seeing a penis. People don't seem to be worried about boys seeing penises.

They dont worry about it in the boys bathroom no. because thats where its expected.

 stanman wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:


And the pronouns are 'she'.

He, she, it, ze, unicorn, call them whatever you want. Addressing somebody with a penis as male isn't some sort of crime.

If you can't be bothered to treat the other side of the debate with a little human decency, don't bother participating. 'Them' is not some nebulous group who are out there but not encountered in real life.
There are trans users on dakka, and its users like you that make them feel unwelcome.

Its not a crime, but most manners are not legislated. Its a basic mark of respect. Use the pronouns people choose for themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Crystal-Maze. Looks at one side of the coin exclusively. "It's heads"
Stanman. Looks at the other side exclusively. "Its tails".
Both are right in a way neither captures the whole picture.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commenting on the her/his etc comment.

Why is it right to adress someone with the pronouns they didn't choose? (Referring to the 'both are right' bit)

I would like to link to this post explaining trans people reasonably briefly again because it is important for people to understand it to participate meaningfully in the discussion.

Also, misgendering people is actually not very Polite.

 Desubot wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 dogma wrote:
If we're talking about preventing young women from being forced to deal with body image issues, then shouldn't the argument be that any instance in which they are forced to expose their bodies in front of another person be avoided? The same goes for young men, of course, as they also frequently suffer from body image issues and the sexual assaults triggers that Stanman mentioned.

Indeed, what about the possibility of lesbian girls in the class?

What about it?

a lesbian probably wouldnt have a diddly doo hanging down there.

Is the problem the chance of someone seeing a penis? Well, a girl seeing a penis. People don't seem to be worried about boys seeing penises.

They dont worry about it in the boys bathroom no. because thats where its expected.

Why aren't penises expected to be seen in the girls' bathroom? Because the bathrooms are segregated because circular argument.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Also, misgendering people is actually not very Polite.

Know what else isn't polite? taking a penis into a girls locker room.

The entire issue here is created because one person feels that they are more important than the rest of the school and feels that they are entitled to walk roughshod over the feelings and objections of their classmates simply to prove a point.

Why should I show respect towards a person who's already firmly demonstrated that they have no respect for the concerns of anyone else? (speaking specifically of Lila Perry and not other persons on here)

 Grey Templar wrote:
Depends on the local laws, but at the very least you might be looking at a fine. But in a lot of places you might end up on the sex offender registry.

Hmmm... better not put these bad boys on display then...



They are apparently based off astrological signs but they sure do look like man and girl parts!

Also, the male and female silhouettes are obviously naked under their clothes... hope all the bathrooms in the country aren't shut down for this horrifically vile assault on our modesty!

Crystal-Maze wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Crystal-Maze. Looks at one side of the coin exclusively. "It's heads"
Stanman. Looks at the other side exclusively. "Its tails".
Both are right in a way neither captures the whole picture.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commenting on the her/his etc comment.

Why is it right to adress someone with the pronouns they didn't choose? (Referring to the 'both are right' bit)

The English language doesn't have different pronouns for sex and gender. So one uses the pronoun she focusing on gender and is appropriate in using it. The other uses the pronoun he focusing on sex and is appropriate in using it.

Turning your question back to you, why is it right to insist someone say things they don't believe?

If Lila is able to impregnate a woman, there is a valid, rational reason to use masculine pronouns when referring to him/her.

 stanman wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Also, misgendering people is actually not very Polite.

Know what else isn't polite? taking a penis into a girls locker room.

The entire issue here is created because one person feels that they are more important than the rest of the school and feels that they are entitled to walk roughshod over their feelings and objections simply to prove a point.

Why should I show respect towards a person who's already firmly demonstrated that they have no respect for the concerns of anyone else? (speaking specifically of Lila Perry and not other persons on here)

She's a girl, so she uses the girls' locker room. That's really how simple it is.

When you act like her gender is conditional, what you are saying is the gender of all trans people is conditional on whether you feel they are acting appropriately. That is an act of violence against all trans people and it is not OK.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I would like to link to this post explaining trans people reasonably briefly again because it is important for people to understand it to participate meaningfully in the discussion.

Also, misgendering people is actually not very Polite.

Well that blogger tried to make out having extra chromosomes is normal and people with extra chromosomes are misgendered (I think women with 3X chromosomes are the only case where having extra chromosomes does not physically deform you). The blogger is also unable to understand why most people are men and women and not something else (nobody understands why men are men and women are women in 99.99% of cases apparently).

I would take anything this blogger says with a grain of salt. I didn't know down syndrome was a gender...

I mean come on:

Chromosomes, too, vary. If you thought “XX” and “XY” were the only two possible combinations, you have some serious googling to do. In addition to variations like XXY, XXYY, or X, sometimes cis people find out that they are genetically the “opposite” of what they though they were– that is, a ‘typical’ cis man can be XX, a ‘normal’ cis woman can be XY.

People with Y always come out male, people with no Y always come out female (with obvious incredibly rare anomalies, but anomalies happen with everything). All the Chromosomes the person wrote about above are... deformities and still conform to Y = Male (in various combinations all ending in deformity except XY) and Female = XX (anything else also has physical deformities except XXX).

Please do not read this article as anything other than a bloggers opinion.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Crystal-Maze. Looks at one side of the coin exclusively. "It's heads"
Stanman. Looks at the other side exclusively. "Its tails".
Both are right in a way neither captures the whole picture.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commenting on the her/his etc comment.

Why is it right to adress someone with the pronouns they didn't choose? (Referring to the 'both are right' bit)

The English language doesn't have different pronouns for sex and gender. So one uses the pronoun she focusing on gender and is appropriate in using it. The other uses the pronoun he focusing on sex and is appropriate in using it.

Turning your question back to you, why is it right to insist someone say things they don't believe?

If Lila is able to impregnate a woman, there is a valid, rational reason to use masculine pronouns when referring to him/her.

You use "her" for the same reason people shouldn't be called bigots, because it's disrespectful and not polite.

Also you use "her" because if you don't you are being disrespectful to every other transgender person reading this thread.

Maybe you can use "her" just so that you can feel like you can be a bigger and better person than the disrespectful penis owner.

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

Um, who in America says it's ok to send picture of junk to strangers on Twitter and Instagram? Last I heard people get in trouble for that if they're found out unless laws have changed.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

She's a girl, so she uses the girls' locker room. That's really how simple it is.

When you act like her gender is conditional, what you are saying is the gender of all trans people is conditional on whether you feel they are acting appropriately. That is an act of violence against all trans people and it is not OK.

Here's where your deliberately missing the point, I am not addressing him by gender I am addressing him by his sex, which is also where I feel the line should be drawn in who uses which locker room. If you are of the male sex and have a penis then you use the mens room, if you are of the female sex and have vagina you use the womens room. Outside of that I don't care one bit about what trans people do outside of the locker rooms.

The refusal to acknowledge sex as having any meaning is as irrational as the refusal to acknowledge gender as having any meaning. It is not, despite your protestations to the contrary, a simple matter of what a person says there are they are. Just because one thinks of oneself as a boy doesn't mean one ceases menstruating or can impregnate a woman. Those functions remain distinct biological functions reserved for one sex or the other and what your brain tells you has nothing to do with it. Doesn't mean the girl that thinks she's a boy should be forced to wear pink dresses. There is nuance here. Ignoring it doesn't change that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Why aren't penises expected to be seen in the girls' bathroom? Because the bathrooms are segregated because circular argument.

Circular argument?

Its a Designated bathroom for girls because it was designated as such by the community that wants it that way.

its entirely expected and reasonable for girls within a girls bathroom to not have to see a penis.
its entirely expected and reasonable for boys within a boys bathroom to not have to see a vagina.
its entirely expected and reasonable for boys and girls to see both parts in a unisex/Neutral bathroom.

its why its designated in the first place.

 Chongara wrote:

Sex Organs and the sex with have with them are just all around better than violence, no matter how you measure it.

I saw what you did there!

 Desubot wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Why aren't penises expected to be seen in the girls' bathroom? Because the bathrooms are segregated because circular argument.

Circular argument?

Its a Designated bathroom for girls because it was designated as such by the community that wants it that way.

its entirely expected and reasonable for girls within a girls bathroom to not have to see a penis.
its entirely expected and reasonable for boys within a boys bathroom to not have to see a vagina.
its entirely expected and reasonable for boys and girls to see both parts in a unisex/Neutral bathroom.

its why its designated in the first place.

It's a girls' bathroom because we say it's a girl's bathroom.

Why do we say it is a girls' bathroom? Because it is for girls.

Relapse wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

Um, who in America says it's ok to send picture of junk to strangers on Twitter and Instagram? Last I heard people get in trouble for that if they're found out unless laws have changed.

It's rude, not illegal.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


It's a girls' bathroom because we say it's a girl's bathroom.

Why do we say it is a girls' bathroom? Because it is for girls.

So you are saying its reasonable and expected for a penis to walk into a girls bathroom for all the girls to see?

 Swastakowey wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I would like to link to this post explaining trans people reasonably briefly again because it is important for people to understand it to participate meaningfully in the discussion.

Also, misgendering people is actually not very Polite.

Well that blogger tried to make out having extra chromosomes is normal and people with extra chromosomes are misgendered (I think women with 3X chromosomes are the only case where having extra chromosomes does not physically deform you). The blogger is also unable to understand why most people are men and women and not something else (nobody understands why men are men and women are women in 99.99% of cases apparently).

I would take anything this blogger says with a grain of salt. I didn't know down syndrome was a gender...

I mean come on:

Chromosomes, too, vary. If you thought “XX” and “XY” were the only two possible combinations, you have some serious googling to do. In addition to variations like XXY, XXYY, or X, sometimes cis people find out that they are genetically the “opposite” of what they though they were– that is, a ‘typical’ cis man can be XX, a ‘normal’ cis woman can be XY.

People with Y always come out male, people with no Y always come out female (with obvious incredibly rare anomalies, but anomalies happen with everything). All the Chromosomes the person wrote about above are... deformities and still conform to Y = Male (in various combinations all ending in deformity except XY) and Female = XX (anything else also has physical deformities except XXX).

Some of them are pretty rare and some aren't, with incidences of e.g. one in five hundred. Some of these "defects," again, are people who do not even know they have any kind of condition at all. You have interacted with them and never known it.

 stanman wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

She's a girl, so she uses the girls' locker room. That's really how simple it is.

When you act like her gender is conditional, what you are saying is the gender of all trans people is conditional on whether you feel they are acting appropriately. That is an act of violence against all trans people and it is not OK.

Here's where your deliberately missing the point, I am not addressing him by gender I am addressing him by his sex, which is also where I feel the line should be drawn in who uses which locker room. If you are of the male sex and have a penis then you use the mens room, if you are of the female sex and have vagina you use the womens room. Outside of that I don't care one bit about what trans people do outside of the locker rooms.

We don't address people by their sex, we address them by their gender. That's why, for example, I don't need to look in your pants to know what to call you.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
The refusal to acknowledge sex as having any meaning is as irrational as the refusal to acknowledge gender as having any meaning. It is not, despite your protestations to the contrary, a simple matter of what a person says there are they are. Just because one thinks of oneself as a boy doesn't mean one ceases menstruating or can impregnate a woman. Those functions remain distinct biological functions reserved for one sex or the other and what your brain tells you has nothing to do with it. Doesn't mean the girl that thinks she's a boy should be forced to wear pink dresses. There is nuance here. Ignoring it doesn't change that.

And you don't stop calling someone "she" because she has a hysterectomy, and you don't stop calling someone "he" if he's infertile, because those things are irrelevant to a person's gender.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


It's a girls' bathroom because we say it's a girl's bathroom.

Why do we say it is a girls' bathroom? Because it is for girls.

So you are saying its reasonable and expected for a penis to walk into a girls bathroom for all the girls to see?

I would be very disturbed if I was in the bathroom and saw a penis walk in.

 Desubot wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


It's a girls' bathroom because we say it's a girl's bathroom.

Why do we say it is a girls' bathroom? Because it is for girls.

So you are saying its reasonable and expected for a penis to walk into a girls bathroom for all the girls to see?

No, absolutely not. What I am saying is that the reasons why we are against that are due to social prejudices resulting from sexual hangups, not because boys catch cooties from seeing a girl's pubis, or girls get pregnant from seeing a boy's penis.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I would like to link to this post explaining trans people reasonably briefly again because it is important for people to understand it to participate meaningfully in the discussion.

Also, misgendering people is actually not very Polite.

Well that blogger tried to make out having extra chromosomes is normal and people with extra chromosomes are misgendered (I think women with 3X chromosomes are the only case where having extra chromosomes does not physically deform you). The blogger is also unable to understand why most people are men and women and not something else (nobody understands why men are men and women are women in 99.99% of cases apparently).

I would take anything this blogger says with a grain of salt. I didn't know down syndrome was a gender...

I mean come on:

Chromosomes, too, vary. If you thought “XX” and “XY” were the only two possible combinations, you have some serious googling to do. In addition to variations like XXY, XXYY, or X, sometimes cis people find out that they are genetically the “opposite” of what they though they were– that is, a ‘typical’ cis man can be XX, a ‘normal’ cis woman can be XY.

People with Y always come out male, people with no Y always come out female (with obvious incredibly rare anomalies, but anomalies happen with everything). All the Chromosomes the person wrote about above are... deformities and still conform to Y = Male (in various combinations all ending in deformity except XY) and Female = XX (anything else also has physical deformities except XXX).

Some of them are pretty rare and some aren't, with incidences of e.g. one in five hundred. Some of these "defects," again, are people who do not even know they have any kind of condition at all. You have interacted with them and never known it.

Actually most of these defects have physical traits (with XXX women being the exception), of course some are more severe than others. But the blogger is still very incorrect about chromosomes. A Y is still going to be male, and no Y is still going to be female, no matter the combination. To argue otherwise shows what kind of person this blogger is (a hint, not someone to listen to).

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

When you act like her gender is conditional, what you are saying is the gender of all trans people is conditional on whether you feel they are acting appropriately. That is an act of violence against all trans people and it is not OK.

Extremely rude and wrong, yes, but an act of violence? I am curious as to how?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


It's a girls' bathroom because we say it's a girl's bathroom.

Why do we say it is a girls' bathroom? Because it is for girls.

So you are saying its reasonable and expected for a penis to walk into a girls bathroom for all the girls to see?

No, absolutely not. What I am saying is that the reasons why we are against that are due to social prejudices resulting from sexual hangups, not because boys catch cooties from seeing a girl's pubis, or girls get pregnant from seeing a boy's penis.

Well of course not, don't be silly. But what if they touch a towel that was used to dry a penis? That's a one way ticket baby city. It's just a risk you can't take, especially since once one girl gets pregnant they rest are sure to catch it. Once that stuff goes airborne, it just doesn't stop until you've got a whole nursery full of little ones.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Actually most of these defects have physical traits (with XXX women being the exception), of course some are more severe than others. But the blogger is still very incorrect about chromosomes. A Y is still going to be male, and no Y is still going to be female, no matter the combination. To argue otherwise shows what kind of person this blogger is (a hint, not someone to listen to).

The Intersex Society of North America disagrees with you, as does wikipedia and, apparently, medical science.

Thanks for reading the link, by the way.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

When you act like her gender is conditional, what you are saying is the gender of all trans people is conditional on whether you feel they are acting appropriately. That is an act of violence against all trans people and it is not OK.

Extremely rude and wrong, yes, but an act of violence? I am curious as to how?

We all know the word here is being used to mean "To aggressively cause harm" here with the harm is societal and emotional, which is a mostly appropriate application of the word even if it falls outside the usual general usage. Let's not play semantics because we want to spring a "Gotcha!" on it not involving punching anyone in the face.

 Chongara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


It's a girls' bathroom because we say it's a girl's bathroom.

Why do we say it is a girls' bathroom? Because it is for girls.

So you are saying its reasonable and expected for a penis to walk into a girls bathroom for all the girls to see?

No, absolutely not. What I am saying is that the reasons why we are against that are due to social prejudices resulting from sexual hangups, not because boys catch cooties from seeing a girl's pubis, or girls get pregnant from seeing a boy's penis.

Well of course not, don't be silly. But what if they touch a towel that was used to dry a penis? That's a one way ticket baby city. It's just a risk you can't take, especially since once one girl gets pregnant they rest are sure to catch it. Once that stuff goes airborne, it just doesn't stop until you've got a whole nursery full of little ones.

The only solution might be to take off and nuke the site from orbit.

It's spelled "babby" and, above, we have an otherwise clear description of how they get formed.

 Chongara wrote:

We all know the word here is being used to mean "To aggressively cause harm" here with the harm is societal and emotional, which is a mostly appropriate application of the word even if it falls outside the usual general usage. Let's not play semantics because we want to spring a "Gotcha!" on it not involving punching anyone in the face.

No gotcha, I just personally don't associate "violence" with non physical harm. I can see why it would be used that way with your explanation.

I would agree that continuously insisting to call a transgender person the wrong pronoun would be likely to cause harm, which is why I said it's extremely wrong and rude.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


It's a girls' bathroom because we say it's a girl's bathroom.

Why do we say it is a girls' bathroom? Because it is for girls.

So you are saying its reasonable and expected for a penis to walk into a girls bathroom for all the girls to see?

No, absolutely not. What I am saying is that the reasons why we are against that are due to social prejudices resulting from sexual hangups, not because boys catch cooties from seeing a girl's pubis, or girls get pregnant from seeing a boy's penis.

Well of course not, don't be silly. But what if they touch a towel that was used to dry a penis? That's a one way ticket baby city. It's just a risk you can't take, especially since once one girl gets pregnant they rest are sure to catch it. Once that stuff goes airborne, it just doesn't stop until you've got a whole nursery full of little ones.

The only solution might be to take off and nuke the site from orbit.

Are you really willing to take the 33% chance it'll just cause send the pregnancy cloud into the jet stream and go global? Can you really stand the the thought of having to put all the poor fathers through hearing the news their daughter is pregnant? That's just the kind of news that ruins your evening ball game, whatever country you're in or whatever sport you may be watching and I'm sure it's the championships a lot of places too. The risk just too big. Also it might kind of effect the girls who get pregnant too, if you wanna dig into the details.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Actually most of these defects have physical traits (with XXX women being the exception), of course some are more severe than others. But the blogger is still very incorrect about chromosomes. A Y is still going to be male, and no Y is still going to be female, no matter the combination. To argue otherwise shows what kind of person this blogger is (a hint, not someone to listen to).

The Intersex Society of North America disagrees with you, as does wikipedia and, apparently, medical science.

Thanks for reading the link, by the way.

As I said there are anomalies as there are with everything.

So now we have genes on the Y that can turn females with XX chromosomes into males and genes on the X that can turn males with XY chromosomes into females… wow! Maleness and femaleness are NOT determined by having an X or a Y, since switching a couple of genes around can turn things upside down.

XX male syndrome occurs when there has been a recombination in the formation of the male gametes, causing the SRY-portion of the Y chromosome to move to the X chromosome. When such an X chromosome contributes to the child, the development will lead to a male, because of the SRY gene.

So in other words, Y is always present in males except an incredibly small minority. But even then the "SRY portion of the Y (see... the Y here) to move to the X chromosome... will lead to a male".

Pretty simple right? Just your article seems to try twist it to make out Y and X means nothing when talking about sex... when in fact it pretty much means everything. XX males still have Y in them.

I read the blog yesterday, slept on it, and then replied today after another painful read.

 Chongara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


It's a girls' bathroom because we say it's a girl's bathroom.

Why do we say it is a girls' bathroom? Because it is for girls.

So you are saying its reasonable and expected for a penis to walk into a girls bathroom for all the girls to see?

No, absolutely not. What I am saying is that the reasons why we are against that are due to social prejudices resulting from sexual hangups, not because boys catch cooties from seeing a girl's pubis, or girls get pregnant from seeing a boy's penis.

Well of course not, don't be silly. But what if they touch a towel that was used to dry a penis? That's a one way ticket baby city. It's just a risk you can't take, especially since once one girl gets pregnant they rest are sure to catch it. Once that stuff goes airborne, it just doesn't stop until you've got a whole nursery full of little ones.

But i agree Kill. its this way in the US because the US has some strange hangups about sexuality. However it doesn't mean you should take a sledge to the established bathroom system especially such an institutionalized country.
though like my first post i wouldnt mind unisex bathrooms at all. maybe the horrable body image of everyone seeing everything will make people start working out more

 Swastakowey wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Actually most of these defects have physical traits (with XXX women being the exception), of course some are more severe than others. But the blogger is still very incorrect about chromosomes. A Y is still going to be male, and no Y is still going to be female, no matter the combination. To argue otherwise shows what kind of person this blogger is (a hint, not someone to listen to).

The Intersex Society of North America disagrees with you, as does wikipedia and, apparently, medical science.

Thanks for reading the link, by the way.

As I said there are anomalies as there are with everything.

So now we have genes on the Y that can turn females with XX chromosomes into males and genes on the X that can turn males with XY chromosomes into females… wow! Maleness and femaleness are NOT determined by having an X or a Y, since switching a couple of genes around can turn things upside down.

XX male syndrome occurs when there has been a recombination in the formation of the male gametes, causing the SRY-portion of the Y chromosome to move to the X chromosome. When such an X chromosome contributes to the child, the development will lead to a male, because of the SRY gene.

So in other words, Y is always present in males except an incredibly small minority. But even then the "SRY portion of the Y (see... the Y here) to move to the X chromosome... will lead to a male".

Pretty simple right? Just your article seems to try twist it to make out Y and X means nothing when talking about sex... when in fact it pretty much means everything. XX males still have Y in them.

It's not saying they "mean nothing." It's saying that the picture of "women are XX, men are XY" is not actually the biological reality, which is actually much more complicated.

It also seems awfully complicated to check their chromosomes every time you want to adress someone.

Seems easier to just call them what they want to be called.

If they want to be called a dragon I might refuse...

 Chongara wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

When you act like her gender is conditional, what you are saying is the gender of all trans people is conditional on whether you feel they are acting appropriately. That is an act of violence against all trans people and it is not OK.

Extremely rude and wrong, yes, but an act of violence? I am curious as to how?

We all know the word here is being used to mean "To aggressively cause harm" here with the harm is societal and emotional, which is a mostly appropriate application of the word even if it falls outside the usual general usage. Let's not play semantics because we want to spring a "Gotcha!" on it not involving punching anyone in the face.

Just to add, trans people are murdered at a far higher rate than the general population, commit suicide a staggering proportion of the time (like close to 50%), and are at extreme risk of living in poverty. From the best available evidence, this is all caused by prejudice against trans people.

When people invalidate trans people's identities, act like they are just insane and freakish and wrong, hurting them not just emotionally, but socially, creating a culture where they are dismissed and ostracised, they are building the conditions that cause trans people to be murdered, to commit suicide, to be harassed out of their jobs, to not be hired at all.

ETA: I want to add also that almost all the murdered trans people are trans women, and a very disproportionate number of the murdered trans women are people of colour.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
If they want to be called a dragon I might refuse...

I identify as a A-10 warthog and i demand to be acknowledged as such

 d-usa wrote:


You use "her" for the same reason people shouldn't be called bigots, because it's disrespectful and not polite.

Also you use "her" because if you don't you are being disrespectful to every other transgender person reading this thread.

Maybe you can use "her" just so that you can feel like you can be a bigger and better person than the disrespectful penis owner.

Wrong. It's that arrogance that causes a lot of confusion that then leads to anger. If you want to identify as something different than what you are, then YOU are asking a favor FROM others. You ask THEM to behave differently just because YOU want it to be that way. Forcing your decision on others and ignoring their very own judgement just because YOU want it that way is wht's incredibly arrogant and rude here. If he wants to be called a she, then ask people to do so. If they do, great for you, if they don't, it's their decision and you either have to respect it or be hyper hypocrite.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
We don't address people by their sex, we address them by their gender. That's why, for example, I don't need to look in your pants to know what to call you.

Who is "we"? As in you? a group you are part of? or are you trying to claim "we" as society as a whole? Because there's thousands of years of western history that used sex as a basis for addressing people as their gender. (sex=gender). You may disagree with it, but that doesn't invalidate the view of people who see it that way.

How do you determine what to address me as if you don't first make an assumption based on outwardly apparent physical sex?

Clothes don't determine ones gender nor are they always reflective of their physical sex. About the best you can do is take your best guess based on their physical features and toss either a he or she verbage out there and make a correction if the person asks to be addressed otherwise.

Sometimes you just can't tell. ("It's Pat" comes to mind)

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Actually most of these defects have physical traits (with XXX women being the exception), of course some are more severe than others. But the blogger is still very incorrect about chromosomes. A Y is still going to be male, and no Y is still going to be female, no matter the combination. To argue otherwise shows what kind of person this blogger is (a hint, not someone to listen to).

The Intersex Society of North America disagrees with you, as does wikipedia and, apparently, medical science.

Thanks for reading the link, by the way.

As I said there are anomalies as there are with everything.

So now we have genes on the Y that can turn females with XX chromosomes into males and genes on the X that can turn males with XY chromosomes into females… wow! Maleness and femaleness are NOT determined by having an X or a Y, since switching a couple of genes around can turn things upside down.

XX male syndrome occurs when there has been a recombination in the formation of the male gametes, causing the SRY-portion of the Y chromosome to move to the X chromosome. When such an X chromosome contributes to the child, the development will lead to a male, because of the SRY gene.

So in other words, Y is always present in males except an incredibly small minority. But even then the "SRY portion of the Y (see... the Y here) to move to the X chromosome... will lead to a male".

Pretty simple right? Just your article seems to try twist it to make out Y and X means nothing when talking about sex... when in fact it pretty much means everything. XX males still have Y in them.

It's not saying they "mean nothing." It's saying that the picture of "women are XX, men are XY" is not actually the biological reality, which is actually much more complicated.

Its not though, because it's not what the Y looks like, but what is contained in the Y that matters. If a Male has XX he still has XY because one X has the Y contents in it to make him Male. It's not complicated at all. And to top it off this is a minor defect and not a general rule of the population. The Y, even if during the creation of the child, the Y mixes with an X... still creates a male. Why? Well because of the Y (well the SRY) really. There is no way to go around it.

A male with XX does not have XX chromosomes he has X and then a and X with the Y in the X. Females do not have a Y in their second X.

Has someone here studied genetics academically? Because all sources besides transgender ones say Y = Male and it is also what I was educated to believe and what my kids will be educated to know as well but if it is not true by some long shot I would like to know from an unbiased source.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


You use "her" for the same reason people shouldn't be called bigots, because it's disrespectful and not polite.

Also you use "her" because if you don't you are being disrespectful to every other transgender person reading this thread.

Maybe you can use "her" just so that you can feel like you can be a bigger and better person than the disrespectful penis owner.

Wrong. It's that arrogance that causes a lot of confusion that then leads to anger. If you want to identify as something different than what you are, then YOU are asking a favor FROM others. You ask THEM to behave differently just because YOU want it to be that way. Forcing your decision on others and ignoring their very own judgement just because YOU want it that way is wht's incredibly arrogant and rude here. If he wants to be called a she, then ask people to do so. If they do, great for you, if they don't, it's their decision and you either have to respect it or be hyper hypocrite.

They aren't "asking to be addressed as something different to what they are." They are asking you to address them as what they are. Their gender isn't any more chosen than yours.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

And you don't stop calling someone "she" because she has a hysterectomy, and you don't stop calling someone "he" if he's infertile, because those things are irrelevant to a person's gender.

First, I'm not talking about gender I'm talking about sex. Second your examples are irrelevant to what I said. I didn't say you are a man only if you can impregnate. All who can impregnate are men, but not all men can impregnate. Same concept with women. If you can impregnate, you are a man. You may feel like a woman, but you are a man. If you can be impregnated, you are a woman, though yes not all women can be impregnated.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I would like to link to this post explaining trans people reasonably briefly again because it is important for people to understand it to participate meaningfully in the discussion.

Also, misgendering people is actually not very Polite.

Well that blogger tried to make out having extra chromosomes is normal and people with extra chromosomes are misgendered (I think women with 3X chromosomes are the only case where having extra chromosomes does not physically deform you). The blogger is also unable to understand why most people are men and women and not something else (nobody understands why men are men and women are women in 99.99% of cases apparently).

I would take anything this blogger says with a grain of salt. I didn't know down syndrome was a gender...

I mean come on:

Chromosomes, too, vary. If you thought “XX” and “XY” were the only two possible combinations, you have some serious googling to do. In addition to variations like XXY, XXYY, or X, sometimes cis people find out that they are genetically the “opposite” of what they though they were– that is, a ‘typical’ cis man can be XX, a ‘normal’ cis woman can be XY.

People with Y always come out male, people with no Y always come out female (with obvious incredibly rare anomalies, but anomalies happen with everything). All the Chromosomes the person wrote about above are... deformities and still conform to Y = Male (in various combinations all ending in deformity except XY) and Female = XX (anything else also has physical deformities except XXX).

Some of them are pretty rare and some aren't, with incidences of e.g. one in five hundred. Some of these "defects," again, are people who do not even know they have any kind of condition at all. You have interacted with them and never known it.

Actually most of these defects have physical traits (with XXX women being the exception), of course some are more severe than others. But the blogger is still very incorrect about chromosomes. A Y is still going to be male, and no Y is still going to be female, no matter the combination. To argue otherwise shows what kind of person this blogger is (a hint, not someone to listen to).

If you've been reading the posts in this thread, androgen insensitivity syndrome has already been mentioned. It means that the XY individual will develop (in most cases) genitals and secondary characteristics which would be assigned female. It affects 1 in 20000 births, which makes it somewhat rare, but its still a large number of people when one considers the fact that the population is around 7 billion.

So 'Y always comes out male' only works if you define Y as always being male. Which is circular.

 stanman wrote:

How do you determine what to address me as if you don't first make an assumption based on outwardly apparent physical sex?

I would look at someone, see what they look like and address them as that. They would then accept this or tell me "I'm actually [...]". Whereupon I would go "Sorry, didn't realise", and address them as that from then on.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

They aren't "asking to be addressed as something different to what they are." They are asking you to address them as what they are. Their gender isn't any more chosen than yours.

Nonsense. Your extremely strong bias aside, they want to be adressed differently than what you would call them based on what they are. You look / sound like a woman, you get adressed as one. Vice versa for male. You are either born a man or a woman and anything else is pure fantasy. Gender is a social construct that some people feel to have in order to feel more comfortable - which is fine as long as you don't tread around like a walrus in an underwater porcelain store. Respect goes both ways. Trying to shove your own agender (hah!) down people's throats without consent is about as disrespectful as you can be. If you want to be different, then, by all means, do so. Don't force yourself on others, though, and expect to be treated as you want just because you ask it to be that way.

If anyone nicely asked someone else to adress him / her as she / he, then I doubt that most people would not conform. It's that "OH MY GOD YOU CIS-SCUM DON'T RESPECT MAH FEELINGZ IMMA POST DAT ON TUMBLR ASAP" attitude that poisons the entire debate / issue, more than any tea party member ever could.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


You use "her" for the same reason people shouldn't be called bigots, because it's disrespectful and not polite.

Also you use "her" because if you don't you are being disrespectful to every other transgender person reading this thread.

Maybe you can use "her" just so that you can feel like you can be a bigger and better person than the disrespectful penis owner.

Wrong. It's that arrogance that causes a lot of confusion that then leads to anger. If you want to identify as something different than what you are, then YOU are asking a favor FROM others. You ask THEM to behave differently just because YOU want it to be that way. Forcing your decision on others and ignoring their very own judgement just because YOU want it that way is wht's incredibly arrogant and rude here. If he wants to be called a she, then ask people to do so. If they do, great for you, if they don't, it's their decision and you either have to respect it or be hyper hypocrite.

They aren't "asking to be addressed as something different to what they are." They are asking you to address them as what they are. Their gender isn't any more chosen than yours.

They're still only the opposite sex in their mind. Just because you are convinced you are something doesn't mean its true.

Society has decided that its harmless to think you are the opposite sex, and on the spectrum of mental problems it is harmless, especially since we can actually change some of the physical characteristics. But till that happens, its only in your mind. And your mind =/= reality. If it was, people with mental disorders wouldn't be out of touch with reality. Just because someone with Alzheimers thinks its currently 50 years in the past doesn't make it so.

You may indeed think you are a female. And you can get your body altered to fit that belief. But till that happens, and IMO even then, you really aren't a female. You are a man who thinks he is a women.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 stanman wrote:

How do you determine what to address me as if you don't first make an assumption based on outwardly apparent physical sex?

I would look at someone, see what they look like and address them as that. They would then accept this or tell me "I'm actually [...]". Whereupon I would go "Sorry, didn't realise", and address them as that from then on.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

They aren't "asking to be addressed as something different to what they are." They are asking you to address them as what they are. Their gender isn't any more chosen than yours.

Nonsense. Your extremely strong bias aside, they want to be adressed differently than what you would call them based on what they are. You look / sound like a woman, you get adressed as one. Vice versa for male. You are either born a man or a woman and anything else is pure fantasy. Gender is a social construct that some people feel to have in order to feel more comfortable - which is fine as long as you don't tread around like a walrus in an underwater porcelain store. Respect goes both ways. Trying to shove your own agender (hah!) down people's throats without consent is about as disrespectful as you can be. If you want to be different, then, by all means, do so. Don't force yourself on others, though, and expect to be treated as you want just because you ask it to be that way.

If anyone nicely asked someone else to adress him / her as she / he, then I doubt that most people would not conform. It's that "OH MY GOD YOU CIS-SCUM DON'T RESPECT MAH FEELINGZ" attitude that poisons the entire debate / issue, more than any tea party member ever could.

Again, your gender is just as chosen (and just as real) as theirs. They are just men and women, too.

If you tell me your name is Mike, then I will call you Mike. I won't call you Bob just because I think you look like a Bob, or a jerk because I think you are acting like a jerk, or Donald because you sound like a Donald.

You tell me your identity, I refer to you as that identity.

Super simple stuff really.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


You use "her" for the same reason people shouldn't be called bigots, because it's disrespectful and not polite.

Also you use "her" because if you don't you are being disrespectful to every other transgender person reading this thread.

Maybe you can use "her" just so that you can feel like you can be a bigger and better person than the disrespectful penis owner.

Wrong. It's that arrogance that causes a lot of confusion that then leads to anger. If you want to identify as something different than what you are, then YOU are asking a favor FROM others. You ask THEM to behave differently just because YOU want it to be that way. Forcing your decision on others and ignoring their very own judgement just because YOU want it that way is wht's incredibly arrogant and rude here. If he wants to be called a she, then ask people to do so. If they do, great for you, if they don't, it's their decision and you either have to respect it or be hyper hypocrite.

She is identifying as what she is (a girl). Your argument runs on the predicate that gender=sex, which is being left behind by most of society. You can hold onto it if you like, but its going the way of the dodo.

'Forcing the decision on others' is like forcing them to use the name you introduce yourselfself by. Sure, you can call a person whatever the hell name you want, but if you expect an answer when you call Fred 'Dick' you'll be dreadfully surprised when what you get is a kick in the teeth.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Again, your gender is just as chosen (and just as real) as theirs.

Sure it is. They just chose to identify with a different than their natural gender. It's your very own personal opinion, not more, not less.

 d-usa wrote:
If you tell me your name is Mike, then I will call you Mike. I won't call you Bob just because I think you look like a Bob, or a jerk because I think you are acting like a jerk, or Donald because you sound like a Donald.

You tell me your identity, I refer to you as that identity.

Super simple stuff really.

I got beaten to the punch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Again, your gender is just as chosen (and just as real) as theirs.

Sure it is. They just chose to identify with a different gender than their sex.

fixed that little slip up for you

 d-usa wrote:
If you tell me your name is Mike, then I will call you Mike. I won't call you Bob just because I think you look like a Bob, or a jerk because I think you are acting like a jerk, or Donald because you sound like a Donald.

You tell me your identity, I refer to you as that identity.

Super simple stuff really.

Names aren't comparable to your sex. Names are chosen, your sex is not.

 d-usa wrote:
If you tell me your name is Mike, then I will call you Mike.

I remember popping out of my mom's vagoo and everyone was like "That's a Mike! It's a Mike!"

I remember popping out of my mother and everyone screaming "That's a straight, a straight!"

 Grey Templar wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


You use "her" for the same reason people shouldn't be called bigots, because it's disrespectful and not polite.

Also you use "her" because if you don't you are being disrespectful to every other transgender person reading this thread.

Maybe you can use "her" just so that you can feel like you can be a bigger and better person than the disrespectful penis owner.

Wrong. It's that arrogance that causes a lot of confusion that then leads to anger. If you want to identify as something different than what you are, then YOU are asking a favor FROM others. You ask THEM to behave differently just because YOU want it to be that way. Forcing your decision on others and ignoring their very own judgement just because YOU want it that way is wht's incredibly arrogant and rude here. If he wants to be called a she, then ask people to do so. If they do, great for you, if they don't, it's their decision and you either have to respect it or be hyper hypocrite.

They aren't "asking to be addressed as something different to what they are." They are asking you to address them as what they are. Their gender isn't any more chosen than yours.

They're still only the opposite sex in their mind. Just because you are convinced you are something doesn't mean its true.

Society has decided that its harmless to think you are the opposite sex, and on the spectrum of mental problems it is harmless, especially since we can actually change some of the physical characteristics. But till that happens, its only in your mind. And your mind =/= reality. If it was, people with mental disorders wouldn't be out of touch with reality. Just because someone with Alzheimers thinks its currently 50 years in the past doesn't make it so.

You may indeed think you are a female. And you can get your body altered to fit that belief. But till that happens, and IMO even then, you really aren't a female. You are a man who thinks he is a women.

We are truly fortunate then, because most of society, most psychologists and the legislators in both of our countries think that what you think is tosh.

So after we got names checked on the bad analogies list, go ahead and add sexual orientation to it!

Heads up!

"FTFY" is a major no-go here.

Thanks!

 Sigvatr wrote:
So after we got names checked on the bad analogies list, go ahead and add sexual orientation to it!

Sex is a bad analogy for gender, if we're making lists.

No, what I said lines up with what they say. They say they are genuinely mentally female. This can be true, but it doesn't change the fact their body is 100% male. Or vice verse.

Your sex is your sex. You cannot change it(all you can do is snip off the offending parts and alter them to physically appear and function like the real deal. But it doesn't change your biological sex). Everyone I know refers to males by the pronoun "He". Everyone I know refers to females by the pronoun "She".

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


It's a girls' bathroom because we say it's a girl's bathroom.

Why do we say it is a girls' bathroom? Because it is for girls.

So you are saying its reasonable and expected for a penis to walk into a girls bathroom for all the girls to see?

No, absolutely not. What I am saying is that the reasons why we are against that are due to social prejudices resulting from sexual hangups, not because boys catch cooties from seeing a girl's pubis, or girls get pregnant from seeing a boy's penis.

Well of course not, don't be silly. But what if they touch a towel that was used to dry a penis? That's a one way ticket baby city. It's just a risk you can't take, especially since once one girl gets pregnant they rest are sure to catch it. Once that stuff goes airborne, it just doesn't stop until you've got a whole nursery full of little ones.

The only solution might be to take off and nuke the site from orbit.

iu


Comedy gold as it is, this thread might be needing to be nuked from orbit.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, what I said lines up with what they say. They say they are genuinely mentally female. This can be true, but it doesn't change the fact their body is 100% male. Or vice verse.

Your sex is your sex. You cannot change it(all you can do is snip off the offending parts and alter them to physically appear and function like the real deal. But it doesn't change your biological sex). We refer to males by the pronoun "He". We refer to females by the pronoun "She".

We refer to people who are mentally (identify as) female as 'she'. Its a thing. Compare a few news articles about Laverne Cox - sure, you might find the occasional 'he', particularly if you follow Fox news etc., but the vast majority run with 'she'

Because 'we' don't actually refer to people by the junk they were born with - we refer to them with sexed pronouns until they're able to tell us the pronouns they want.

 Bob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you tell me your name is Mike, then I will call you Mike.

I remember popping out of my mom's vagoo and everyone was like "That's a Mike! It's a Mike!"

they were wrong.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, what I said lines up with what they say. They say they are genuinely mentally female. This can be true, but it doesn't change the fact their body is 100% male. Or vice verse.

Your sex is your sex. You cannot change it(all you can do is snip off the offending parts and alter them to physically appear and function like the real deal. But it doesn't change your biological sex). We refer to males by the pronoun "He". We refer to females by the pronoun "She".

We refer to people who are mentally (identify as) female as 'she'. Its a thing. Compare a few news articles about Laverne Cox - sure, you might find the occasional 'he', particularly if you follow Fox news etc., but the vast majority run with 'she'

Because 'we' don't actually refer to people by the junk they were born with - we refer to them with sexed pronouns until they're able to tell us the pronouns they want.

Speaking for the whole world are we?

 Grey Templar wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, what I said lines up with what they say. They say they are genuinely mentally female. This can be true, but it doesn't change the fact their body is 100% male. Or vice verse.

Your sex is your sex. You cannot change it(all you can do is snip off the offending parts and alter them to physically appear and function like the real deal. But it doesn't change your biological sex). We refer to males by the pronoun "He". We refer to females by the pronoun "She".

We refer to people who are mentally (identify as) female as 'she'. Its a thing. Compare a few news articles about Laverne Cox - sure, you might find the occasional 'he', particularly if you follow Fox news etc., but the vast majority run with 'she'

Because 'we' don't actually refer to people by the junk they were born with - we refer to them with sexed pronouns until they're able to tell us the pronouns they want.

Speaking for the whole world are we?

Nope, just the majority of the media. And the majority of people I meet - can't speak beyond that.

However, please note your use of 'we' in the first post I quoted in this line of argument ("We refer to males by the pronoun "He"") - if I'm speaking for the world, we both are. And we're saying very different things.

You are correct. My bad on that.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, what I said lines up with what they say. They say they are genuinely mentally female. This can be true, but it doesn't change the fact their body is 100% male. Or vice verse.

Your sex is your sex. You cannot change it(all you can do is snip off the offending parts and alter them to physically appear and function like the real deal. But it doesn't change your biological sex). Everyone I know refers to males by the pronoun "He". Everyone I know refers to females by the pronoun "She".

But it's incredibly rude if you refer to trans-sexuals as their birth gender, you're supposed to refer to them with the gender pronoun they prefer. M2F is "she", F2M is "he".

 Psienesis wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, what I said lines up with what they say. They say they are genuinely mentally female. This can be true, but it doesn't change the fact their body is 100% male. Or vice verse.

Your sex is your sex. You cannot change it(all you can do is snip off the offending parts and alter them to physically appear and function like the real deal. But it doesn't change your biological sex). Everyone I know refers to males by the pronoun "He". Everyone I know refers to females by the pronoun "She".

But it's incredibly rude if you refer to trans-sexuals as their birth gender, you're supposed to refer to them with the gender pronoun they prefer. M2F is "she", F2M is "he".

You won't mind if I wait till they've actually had their operation. I would feel very incorrect to use the pronouns like that if it hadn't happened yet.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


You use "her" for the same reason people shouldn't be called bigots, because it's disrespectful and not polite.

Also you use "her" because if you don't you are being disrespectful to every other transgender person reading this thread.

Maybe you can use "her" just so that you can feel like you can be a bigger and better person than the disrespectful penis owner.

Wrong. It's that arrogance that causes a lot of confusion that then leads to anger. If you want to identify as something different than what you are, then YOU are asking a favor FROM others. You ask THEM to behave differently just because YOU want it to be that way. Forcing your decision on others and ignoring their very own judgement just because YOU want it that way is wht's incredibly arrogant and rude here. If he wants to be called a she, then ask people to do so. If they do, great for you, if they don't, it's their decision and you either have to respect it or be hyper hypocrite.

I think I'll start referring to you as a turnip, then. After all, if turnip doesn't like being called a turnip, that's turnip's problem, and turnip is demanding that I accommodate turnip.

What I mind or don't is irrelevant, since you won't be addressing me. What the trans-sexual individual you'd be addressing minds, that's a different story entirely.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


You use "her" for the same reason people shouldn't be called bigots, because it's disrespectful and not polite.

Also you use "her" because if you don't you are being disrespectful to every other transgender person reading this thread.

Maybe you can use "her" just so that you can feel like you can be a bigger and better person than the disrespectful penis owner.

Wrong. It's that arrogance that causes a lot of confusion that then leads to anger. If you want to identify as something different than what you are, then YOU are asking a favor FROM others. You ask THEM to behave differently just because YOU want it to be that way. Forcing your decision on others and ignoring their very own judgement just because YOU want it that way is wht's incredibly arrogant and rude here. If he wants to be called a she, then ask people to do so. If they do, great for you, if they don't, it's their decision and you either have to respect it or be hyper hypocrite.

I think I'll start referring to you as a turnip, then. After all, if turnip doesn't like being called a turnip, that's turnip's problem, and turnip is demanding that I accommodate turnip.

made me LOL a bit, have an exalt. But where did you come up with Turnip, wouldnt Parsnip be better?

We're done here, nothing valuable coming out of it any more, and too many people toeing the line