A woman got banned for complaining about a man who claims to identify as a woman in the female locker room. I think her solution was reasonable, myself.
I read this this my morning. Gonna be interesting to see how they legitimately distinguish between those that are actually transgendered and those that are Pervy.
cincydooley wrote: I read this this my morning. Gonna be interesting to see how they legitimately distinguish between those that are actually transgendered and those that are Pervy.
Don't get any ideas HSM.
......I only go to the locker room to weigh myself. I live a 30 min walk from my gym(actually shorter, I just take a scenic route) and take a shower at home....
Relapse wrote: A woman got banned for complaining about a man who claims to identify as a woman in the female locker room. I think her solution was reasonable, myself.
"Cormier told the paper she feels the gym could provide a third set of changing stalls for transgendered people."
Doesn't that defeat the point of changing your physical gender? If you were born a man and are now a woman and want to live as a woman, why should you be forced to use a separate (but equal ) room and broadcast your life decisions to everyone?
Relapse wrote: A woman got banned for complaining about a man who claims to identify as a woman in the female locker room. I think her solution was reasonable, myself.
"Cormier told the paper she feels the gym could provide a third set of changing stalls for transgendered people."
Doesn't that defeat the point of changing your physical gender? If you were born a man and are now a woman and want to live as a woman, why should you be forced to use a separate (but equal ) room and broadcast your life decisions to everyone?
Sienisoturi wrote: I see no reason why trangender people couldn't use the changing room according to their anatomical gender?
You mean sex, gender is in the mind.
Below the shoulders is sex, above the shoulders is gender.
And why? Because they are a women, they want to be treated as a women, and they want society to treat them as a women.
http://www.glaad.org/transgender/allies
Sienisoturi wrote: I see no reason why trangender people couldn't use the changing room according to their anatomical gender?
Because:
1) Doing that is telling someone that their gender identity is wrong. If you're a woman and someone says "go change with all the other men" that's incredibly insulting and just adds one more bit of poor treatment to a group of people that already has to deal with way too much of it.
2) It puts them in serious danger. Maybe it would be a solution in some ideal world where nobody is ever attacked for being different, but there have been way too many cases where people have violently attacked someone they didn't feel was a "real" man/woman.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote: Time for me to identify as a woman and go peep at people in the women's locker room.
I locker rooms should be divided according to biological sex, not sexual identity. I mean it sounds harsh, but you can identify as the opposite sex all you want, that really is not going to change the fact that you have the body of a man and should therefore (IMO) use the men's locker room.
Slarg232 wrote: Time for me to identify as a woman and go peep at people in the women's locker room.
I think there are easier ways to get free porn.
Yeah, but watching naked women in RL is better than watching them on the internet. Now point me towards the nearest girl's locker room, I suddenly feel like a girl
But in all seriousness, transgender people are a serious matter and should be accommodated as much as possible, but when other people feel really uncomfortable about their presence it would be nice if they also respected others.
Iron_Captain wrote: I locker rooms should be divided according to biological sex, not sexual identity.
I mean it sounds harsh, but you can identify as the opposite sex all you want, that really is not going to change the fact that you have the body of a man and should therefore (IMO) use the men's locker room.
But what if they are intersex? or hermaphoditic. I'm sorry, but to these people, they ARE the opposite sex, they where just given the wrong body. Who are you to tell them they are not//////////
Sienisoturi wrote: I see no reason why trangender people couldn't use the changing room according to their anatomical gender?
Because:
1) Doing that is telling someone that their gender identity is wrong. If you're a woman and someone says "go change with all the other men" that's incredibly insulting and just adds one more bit of poor treatment to a group of people that already has to deal with way too much of it.
2) It puts them in serious danger. Maybe it would be a solution in some ideal world where nobody is ever attacked for being different, but there have been way too many cases where people have violently attacked someone they didn't feel was a "real" man/woman.
1) I am fairly certain that trangender people can understand why they should use the same restroom as other people that share the same anatomical features, so i doubt that they will perceive it as an insult. Although I can understand why some of them might feel insulted, but then again, wouldn't parents feel insulted if their children were forced to see stuff they should not at that age?
2) Do you have any examples of such events occuring? Also, removing that danger would then again create another danger, as abusers could abuse this ruling to acces changing rooms they were not intendet to enter.
Sienisoturi wrote: I see no reason why trangender people couldn't use the changing room according to their anatomical gender?
Because:
1) Doing that is telling someone that their gender identity is wrong. If you're a woman and someone says "go change with all the other men" that's incredibly insulting and just adds one more bit of poor treatment to a group of people that already has to deal with way too much of it.
2) It puts them in serious danger. Maybe it would be a solution in some ideal world where nobody is ever attacked for being different, but there have been way too many cases where people have violently attacked someone they didn't feel was a "real" man/woman.
1) I am fairly certain that trangender people can understand why they should use the same restroom as other people that share the same anatomical features, so i doubt that they will perceive it as an insult. Although I can understand why some of them might feel insulted, but then again, wouldn't parents feel insulted if their children were forced to see stuff they should not at that age?
2) Do you have any examples of such events occuring? Also, removing that danger would then again create another danger, as abusers could abuse this ruling to acces changing rooms they were not intendet to enter.
1: it is just genetalia, noting mystical or bad. we all have it.
2:http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/general-news/20150227/uc-santa-cruz-lgbtq-community-calls-for-change-after-attack-on-gay-student
Sienisoturi wrote: 1) I am fairly certain that trangender people can understand why they should use the same restroom as other people that share the same anatomical features, so i doubt that they will perceive it as an insult.
People who are actually transgendered and have to experience that insult disagree with you. And perhaps instead of just assuming that everyone agrees with you about the importance about using the "right" restroom you could explain why it's such a big deal? Maybe I'm just really strange, but when I'm in a public restroom I'm there to do my business and get out, I'm not going around inspecting what everyone else is doing.
Although I can understand why some of them might feel insulted, but then again, wouldn't parents feel insulted if their children were forced to see stuff they should not at that age?
Here's a better idea: stop acting like seeing naked people is the worst possible thing that can happen to a child, especially since they're already in a whole room full of naked people and have probably seen their opposite-sex parent naked.
2) Do you have any examples of such events occuring?
Also, removing that danger would then again create another danger, as abusers could abuse this ruling to acces changing rooms they were not intendet to enter.
It doesn't create a danger because the danger already exists. A sign saying "men/women only" does not stop abusers from ignoring the sign and entering.
Iron_Captain wrote: I locker rooms should be divided according to biological sex, not sexual identity.
I mean it sounds harsh, but you can identify as the opposite sex all you want, that really is not going to change the fact that you have the body of a man and should therefore (IMO) use the men's locker room.
Slarg232 wrote: Time for me to identify as a woman and go peep at people in the women's locker room.
I think there are easier ways to get free porn.
Yeah, but watching naked women in RL is better than watching them on the internet. Now point me towards the nearest girl's locker room, I suddenly feel like a girl
But in all seriousness, transgender people are a serious matter and should be accommodated as much as possible, but when other people feel really uncomfortable about their presence it would be nice if they also respected others.
Yeah but there are people who will try and kill you for that, you being transgender (male to female) and change with men, a lot of men aren't kind to their plight...
But at what point do you draw that line of "this person makes me feel uncomfortable"
hotsauceman1 wrote: But what if they are intersex? or hermaphoditic. I'm sorry, but to these people, they ARE the opposite sex, they where just given the wrong body. Who are you to tell them they are not
I am not the one telling them they are not the opposite sex, the thing dangling between their legs is. I don't think you can say anybody can be given the 'wrong' body. That would imply someone giving out bodies and having made a mistake. The issue is with the brains, not the body. Even if you identify as female, your biological sex will always remain male. That is something believing otherwise can't fix, only with a complete sex change operation can you actually become female.
Although I can understand why some of them might feel insulted, but then again, wouldn't parents feel insulted if their children were forced to see stuff they should not at that age?
Here's a better idea: stop acting like seeing naked people is the worst possible thing that can happen to a child, especially since they're already in a whole room full of naked people and have probably seen their opposite-sex parent naked.
That is one of the things about Western culture I will probably never understand. Why are naked people bad and how could it be wrong for children to see naked people? It is just normal people, right?
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, but watching naked women in RL is better than watching them on the internet.
Then go to a strip club.
Now point me towards the nearest girl's locker room, I suddenly feel like a girl
Sure, just as soon as you start living as a woman, take female hormones, change your legal name and sex, etc. But I suspect you like your current male identity and aren't going to make those changes just so you can go stare awkwardly at people (most of whom are probably not attractive to you anyway).
But in all seriousness, transgender people are a serious matter and should be accommodated as much as possible, but when other people feel really uncomfortable about their presence it would be nice if they also respected others.
Kind of like how gay people should "respect others" and never give any public hint that they're gay, just in case someone might be upset about it? Should interracial couples feel an obligation to never show any public signs of being a couple just in case they encounter a racist who might be offended?
Iron_Captain wrote: [quote=hotsauceman1 638947 7650800 a5e13e449251b6793214a73b78416d30.jpgBut what if they are intersex? or hermaphoditic. I'm sorry, but to these people, they ARE the opposite sex, they where just given the wrong body. Who are you to tell them they are not
I am not the one telling them they are not the opposite sex, the thing dangling between their legs is. I don't think you can say anybody can be given the 'wrong' body. That would imply someone giving out bodies and having made a mistake. The issue is with the brains, not the body. Even if you identify as female, your biological sex will always remain male. That is something believing otherwise can't fix, only with a complete sex change operation can you actually become female.
If the God of the Bible is real then I'd say yeah I totally believe he messed up, he's made a lot of failures (in terms of creatures)
if you buy into that stuff...
1: it is just genetalia, noting mystical or bad. we all have it.
Using this logic, we should have unisex locker rooms.....
Not saying we shouldn't/bad idea in general, just saying might as well go the full nine yards.
Rainbow Dash wrote:
Yeah but there are people who will try and kill you for that, you being transgender (male to female) and change with men, a lot of men aren't kind to their plight...
But at what point do you draw that line of "this person makes me feel uncomfortable"
1) If someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back!
2) Considering that only one woman (That we know of) had an objection to the transexual transvestite from Transylvania being in the woman's locker room, people seem to be less likely to try to kill people over that these days. Sure you will always find bigots, but still.
I'm just really disappointed the article didn't specify which stage in her transition the calprite was in; if it was right at the beginning where she still had male genitals, I could see some reason to cause alarm.
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't think you can say anybody can be given the 'wrong' body. That would imply someone giving out bodies and having made a mistake. The issue is with the brains, not the body.
No, the issue is with the body, just like we wouldn't tell someone who was born with only one leg "sorry, your belief that you should have two legs is a problem with your brain, just accept who you are".
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, but watching naked women in RL is better than watching them on the internet.
Then go to a strip club.
Now point me towards the nearest girl's locker room, I suddenly feel like a girl
Sure, just as soon as you start living as a woman, take female hormones, change your legal name and sex, etc. But I suspect you like your current male identity and aren't going to make those changes just so you can go stare awkwardly at people (most of whom are probably not attractive to you anyway).
And just enjoy the best thing about the gym itself. Yoga Pants
Sienisoturi wrote: I see no reason why trangender people couldn't use the changing room according to their anatomical gender?
Because:
1) Doing that is telling someone that their gender identity is wrong. If you're a woman and someone says "go change with all the other men" that's incredibly insulting and just adds one more bit of poor treatment to a group of people that already has to deal with way too much of it.
2) It puts them in serious danger. Maybe it would be a solution in some ideal world where nobody is ever attacked for being different, but there have been way too many cases where people have violently attacked someone they didn't feel was a "real" man/woman.
1) I am fairly certain that trangender people can understand why they should use the same restroom as other people that share the same anatomical features, so i doubt that they will perceive it as an insult. Although I can understand why some of them might feel insulted, but then again, wouldn't parents feel insulted if their children were forced to see stuff they should not at that age?
2) Do you have any examples of such events occuring? Also, removing that danger would then again create another danger, as abusers could abuse this ruling to acces changing rooms they were not intendet to enter.
1: it is just genetalia, noting mystical or bad. we all have it.
2:http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/general-news/20150227/uc-santa-cruz-lgbtq-community-calls-for-change-after-attack-on-gay-student
1) By that logic showing extremely violent videos to children publicly should be legal, as we all have internal organs and there is nothing mystical or bad in them.
2) That case really has almost nothing to do with the current topic.
Slarg232 wrote: Using this logic, we should have unisex locker rooms.....
You're right, we should. We should stop making such a big deal about naked bodies and/or just have locker rooms where each person gets an enclosed space to change in and nobody has to look at naked people.
1) If someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back!
So because you can try to fight back (without any guarantee of success) it's ok to put people into dangerous situations?
2) Considering that only one woman (That we know of) had an objection to the transexual transvestite from Transylvania being in the woman's locker room, people seem to be less likely to try to kill people over that these days. Sure you will always find bigots, but still.
But it only takes one violent bigot, and we know that the risk is non-trivial.
If it is impossible to distinguish between a man who says the words "I am a woman" and a MtF transsexual who says the same thing, the gym needs to acknowledge that. Either forbid both from entering the women's locker room, or refurbish the locker rooms such that it doesn't matter.
Iron_Captain wrote: I locker rooms should be divided according to biological sex, not sexual identity.
I mean it sounds harsh, but you can identify as the opposite sex all you want, that really is not going to change the fact that you have the body of a man and should therefore (IMO) use the men's locker room.
But what if they are intersex? or hermaphoditic. I'm sorry, but to these people, they ARE the opposite sex, they where just given the wrong body. Who are you to tell them they are not//////////
They may feel they're something different, but the things between their legs speak the truth. That is the most fair way to handle this. If you've got a penis, you use the mens room. If you've got a vagina, you use the womens room.
1: it is just genetalia, noting mystical or bad. we all have it.
Using this logic, we should have unisex locker rooms.....
Not saying we shouldn't/bad idea in general, just saying might as well go the full nine yards.
Rainbow Dash wrote:
Yeah but there are people who will try and kill you for that, you being transgender (male to female) and change with men, a lot of men aren't kind to their plight...
But at what point do you draw that line of "this person makes me feel uncomfortable"
1) If someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back!
2) Considering that only one woman (That we know of) had an objection to the transexual transvestite from Transylvania being in the woman's locker room, people seem to be less likely to try to kill people over that these days. Sure you will always find bigots, but still.
I'm just really disappointed the article didn't specify which stage in her transition the calprite was in; if it was right at the beginning where she still had male genitals, I could see some reason to cause alarm.
Is there an option where no one tries to murder me?
You could say that about any reason when it comes to bigotry, but a lot of people never deal with bigotry so nonsense like that is often a suggestion.
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't think you can say anybody can be given the 'wrong' body. That would imply someone giving out bodies and having made a mistake. The issue is with the brains, not the body.
No, the issue is with the body, just like we wouldn't tell someone who was born with only one leg "sorry, your belief that you should have two legs is a problem with your brain, just accept who you are".
That is a different issue. A normal human body has 2 legs, a body with a single leg is dysfunctional. A transgender has a perfectly normal, functional body. It is just of the opposite sex that he/she feels he/she should be.
With the missing leg, something was messed up in the formation of the body, while with a transgender, something went wrong in the formation of the brain (transgenders basically have a female brain in a male body or vice versa, right?)
Iron_Captain wrote: I locker rooms should be divided according to biological sex, not sexual identity.
I mean it sounds harsh, but you can identify as the opposite sex all you want, that really is not going to change the fact that you have the body of a man and should therefore (IMO) use the men's locker room.
But what if they are intersex? or hermaphoditic. I'm sorry, but to these people, they ARE the opposite sex, they where just given the wrong body. Who are you to tell them they are not//////////
They may feel they're something different, but the things between their legs speak the truth. That is the most fair way to handle this. If you've got a penis, you use the mens room. If you've got a vagina, you use the womens room.
Black and white.
Not to them. What if they are pre-]op and have yet to be able to afford the treatments?
OR, because many Trans-men dont have thier vaginas sewed shut, they actually cant qualify as a man.
Sienisoturi wrote: 1) By that logic showing extremely violent videos to children publicly should be legal, as we all have internal organs and there is nothing mystical or bad in them.
Do you understand the difference between showing extreme violence, something we all agree is morally wrong in the real world, to people who are still developing their sense of fantasy vs. reality, and seeing non-sexual nudity? When you answer this question please remember that the hypothetical child is already in a room full of naked people.
Sienisoturi wrote: I see no reason why trangender people couldn't use the changing room according to their anatomical gender?
Because:
1) Doing that is telling someone that their gender identity is wrong. If you're a woman and someone says "go change with all the other men" that's incredibly insulting and just adds one more bit of poor treatment to a group of people that already has to deal with way too much of it.
2) It puts them in serious danger. Maybe it would be a solution in some ideal world where nobody is ever attacked for being different, but there have been way too many cases where people have violently attacked someone they didn't feel was a "real" man/woman.
1) I am fairly certain that trangender people can understand why they should use the same restroom as other people that share the same anatomical features, so i doubt that they will perceive it as an insult. Although I can understand why some of them might feel insulted, but then again, wouldn't parents feel insulted if their children were forced to see stuff they should not at that age?
2) Do you have any examples of such events occuring? Also, removing that danger would then again create another danger, as abusers could abuse this ruling to acces changing rooms they were not intendet to enter.
1: it is just genetalia, noting mystical or bad. we all have it.
2:http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/general-news/20150227/uc-santa-cruz-lgbtq-community-calls-for-change-after-attack-on-gay-student
1) By that logic showing extremely violent videos to children publicly should be legal, as we all have internal organs and there is nothing mystical or bad in them.
2) That case really has almost nothing to do with the current topic.
Whoops, that is the other case that happened this week on campus, i got confused.
But no, genetalia is all something we have and is not anything to worry about. All you are argueing is in favor of rigig puritanical beliefs.
Grey Templar wrote: Well if you're pre-op you're still whatever you are before the surgery. Simple.
Nothing about this is simple, life isn't black and white, and it just proves what I just said, people who have no idea what they're talking about always give nonsense opinions like they're experts or something...
Iron_Captain wrote: That is a different issue. A normal human body has 2 legs, a body with a single leg is dysfunctional.
Yes, and a normal human body has a physical sex that matches the mental gender and "body map". So a body that doesn't have that match is dysfunctional.
A transgender has a perfectly normal, functional body. It is just of the opposite sex that he/she feels he/she should be.
Do you see the contradiction between these two sentences? If their body doesn't match what their brain thinks it should be then they don't have a normal, functional body.
With the missing leg, something was messed up in the formation of the body, while with a transgender, something went wrong in the formation of the brain (transgenders basically have a female brain in a male body or vice versa, right?)
You do know that the brain is part of the body, right?
Grey Templar wrote: Well if you're pre-op you're still whatever you are before the surgery. Simple.
But again, not to them. They are women. They are not "A guy who thinks they are a women" they are a women and should be treated as such. Heck is these women are old enough to have a gym membership, they should be old enough to know what a penis is and not care.
Stop mystifying genitals.
Iron_Captain wrote: That is a different issue. A normal human body has 2 legs, a body with a single leg is dysfunctional.
Yes, and a normal human body has a physical sex that matches the mental gender and "body map". So a body that doesn't have that match is dysfunctional.
A transgender has a perfectly normal, functional body. It is just of the opposite sex that he/she feels he/she should be.
Do you see the contradiction between these two sentences? If their body doesn't match what their brain thinks it should be then they don't have a normal, functional body.
With the missing leg, something was messed up in the formation of the body, while with a transgender, something went wrong in the formation of the brain (transgenders basically have a female brain in a male body or vice versa, right?)
You do know that the brain is part of the body, right?
Yeah, but I was talking about the body apart from the brain. The rest of the body is normal and functional, it is the brain that is the problem.
Nope. IT is society. They are not the ones liking something that doesnt fit the binary gender/sex system. And I for one and happy the gym revoked this womens membership.
Remember, Genetalia is just something genetic, like hair and foot size, and we dont discriminate agains red haired people and say they must use a certain facility
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, but I was talking about the body apart from the brain. The rest of the body is normal and functional, it is the brain that is the problem.
Yes, but "the body apart from the brain" makes no sense. Your body is your body, there's no reason to draw arbitrary lines between which parts of it are legitimate problems and which aren't.
cincydooley wrote: I read this this my morning. Gonna be interesting to see how they legitimately distinguish between those that are actually transgendered and those that are Pervy.
Don't get any ideas HSM.
well, we dont ban pervy women from going into the womens change room, so why ban pervy men or transgenders? We dont have a lesbian + female bathroom or gay + male bathroom.
uni sex everything, put up all stalls and a couple urinals, do it in a stall if you are so self concious about others.
Is there an option where no one tries to murder me?
You could say that about any reason when it comes to bigotry, but a lot of people never deal with bigotry so nonsense like that is often a suggestion.
At what time do you go to the gym? Go during the day, grab a friend to go with you, be in a crowded gym.
Unless you're dealing with a crazy radical, no one is going to try something in the middle of the day when people could walk in at any moment.
Once again, this article was about one woman in the entire gym getting freaked out by someone's mantanea. I hate to break it to you, but most people just. don't. care.
Is there an option where no one tries to murder me?
You could say that about any reason when it comes to bigotry, but a lot of people never deal with bigotry so nonsense like that is often a suggestion.
At what time do you go to the gym? Go during the day, grab a friend to go with you, be in a crowded gym.
Unless you're dealing with a crazy radical, no one is going to try something in the middle of the day when people could walk in at any moment.
Once again, this article was about one woman in the entire gym getting freaked out by someone's mantanea. I hate to break it to you, but most people just. don't. care.
Just an example, didn't quite know how to respond to that whole "just try and kill them back" it was one of the dumbest things I have heard.
Side note, read the comments, they are surprisingly tame for a Fox news article. Athough the thing about a man killing any guy who goes into the womens changing room just upset me more than it should. Hey guys, want to know something funny? Iran is more accepting of trans people that america. IRAN!!!!!! Even the clergy say it is ok. Go the 7;20
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, but I was talking about the body apart from the brain. The rest of the body is normal and functional, it is the brain that is the problem.
Yes, but "the body apart from the brain" makes no sense. Your body is your body, there's no reason to draw arbitrary lines between which parts of it are legitimate problems and which aren't.
That makes sense.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Nope. IT is society. They are not the ones liking something that doesnt fit the binary gender/sex system. And I for one and happy the gym revoked this womens membership.
Remember, Genetalia is just something genetic, like hair and foot size, and we dont discriminate agains red haired people and say they must use a certain facility
Genitals are different from foot size or hair colour because at one point in history mankind decided that was so.
How can society be wrong? Society is made up of the cumulative values and opinions of mankind, if you disagree with that it is your problem, not that of society.
Sienisoturi wrote: 1) I am fairly certain that trangender people can understand why they should use the same restroom as other people that share the same anatomical features, so i doubt that they will perceive it as an insult.
People who are actually transgendered and have to experience that insult disagree with you. And perhaps instead of just assuming that everyone agrees with you about the importance about using the "right" restroom you could explain why it's such a big deal? Maybe I'm just really strange, but when I'm in a public restroom I'm there to do my business and get out, I'm not going around inspecting what everyone else is doing.
A. The current phycological census is that seeing naked adults with opposite anatomical features can be harmful for the child. B. Do you have any evidence that transgender people feel insulted by that?
Although I can understand why some of them might feel insulted, but then again, wouldn't parents feel insulted if their children were forced to see stuff they should not at that age?
Here's a better idea: stop acting like seeing naked people is the worst possible thing that can happen to a child, especially since they're already in a whole room full of naked people and have probably seen their opposite-sex parent naked.
That that it is not the worst thing does not remove the fact that it is bad. Also age matters, children generally stop seeing their parents naked at the age of 4-8
2) Do you have any examples of such events occuring?
No reason to be aggressive. You make a statement, you provide the evidence.
Also, removing that danger would then again create another danger, as abusers could abuse this ruling to acces changing rooms they were not intendet to enter.
It doesn't create a danger because the danger already exists. A sign saying "men/women only" does not stop abusers from ignoring the sign and entering.
Yes, but then it reduces the danger if only people with the same anatomical features are allowed in one changing room.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, but I was talking about the body apart from the brain. The rest of the body is normal and functional, it is the brain that is the problem.
Yes, but "the body apart from the brain" makes no sense. Your body is your body, there's no reason to draw arbitrary lines between which parts of it are legitimate problems and which aren't.
That makes sense.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Nope. IT is society. They are not the ones liking something that doesnt fit the binary gender/sex system. And I for one and happy the gym revoked this womens membership.
Remember, Genetalia is just something genetic, like hair and foot size, and we dont discriminate agains red haired people and say they must use a certain facility
Genitals are different from foot size or hair colour because at one point in history mankind decided that was so.
How can society be wrong? Society is made up of the cumulative values and opinions of mankind, if you disagree with that it is your problem, not that of society.
and when American society felt for a long time that black people were less and didn't see a problem in them getting lynched... that wasn't societies problem?
mankind has terrible values and terrible opinions, humans are terrible to eachother.
society can easily be wrong.
they are wrong.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, but I was talking about the body apart from the brain. The rest of the body is normal and functional, it is the brain that is the problem.
Yes, but "the body apart from the brain" makes no sense. Your body is your body, there's no reason to draw arbitrary lines between which parts of it are legitimate problems and which aren't.
That makes sense.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Nope. IT is society. They are not the ones liking something that doesnt fit the binary gender/sex system. And I for one and happy the gym revoked this womens membership.
Remember, Genetalia is just something genetic, like hair and foot size, and we dont discriminate agains red haired people and say they must use a certain facility
Genitals are different from foot size or hair colour because at one point in history mankind decided that was so.
How can society be wrong? Society is made up of the cumulative values and opinions of mankind, if you disagree with that it is your problem, not that of society.
Just like they said at one point black people where inferior. Societies change, and this one needs to.
Is there an option where no one tries to murder me?
You could say that about any reason when it comes to bigotry, but a lot of people never deal with bigotry so nonsense like that is often a suggestion.
At what time do you go to the gym? Go during the day, grab a friend to go with you, be in a crowded gym.
Unless you're dealing with a crazy radical, no one is going to try something in the middle of the day when people could walk in at any moment.
Once again, this article was about one woman in the entire gym getting freaked out by someone's mantanea. I hate to break it to you, but most people just. don't. care.
Just an example, didn't quite know how to respond to that whole "just try and kill them back" it was one of the dumbest things I have heard.
It's a quote from firefly; this lady was saying if she goes back to her home planet unwed, she'ed be killed. The main character was telling her if someone tries to kill her just try to kill them right back.
I wouldn't want my daughters or son in a vulnerable position with someone who claims to identify as a woman or man but is really just looking for easy victims.
I would venture 95 of parents believe the same way.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, but I was talking about the body apart from the brain. The rest of the body is normal and functional, it is the brain that is the problem.
Yes, but "the body apart from the brain" makes no sense. Your body is your body, there's no reason to draw arbitrary lines between which parts of it are legitimate problems and which aren't.
That makes sense.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Nope. IT is society. They are not the ones liking something that doesnt fit the binary gender/sex system. And I for one and happy the gym revoked this womens membership.
Remember, Genetalia is just something genetic, like hair and foot size, and we dont discriminate agains red haired people and say they must use a certain facility
Genitals are different from foot size or hair colour because at one point in history mankind decided that was so.
How can society be wrong? Society is made up of the cumulative values and opinions of mankind, if you disagree with that it is your problem, not that of society.
and when American society felt for a long time that black people were less and didn't see a problem in them getting lynched... that wasn't societies problem?
mankind has terrible values and terrible opinions, humans are terrible to eachother.
society can easily be wrong.
they are wrong.
Right and wrong are subjective and always change. In our present-day Western society, discrimation of black people is considered wrong. But in American society of that time, it was not wrong. It only became wrong when Americans decided it was so. (which from what I learnt about it was a very long gradual process)
Society can not be wrong by its own standards. If you think society is wrong, you essentially are already part of a different society. "Society" in general can not be wrong.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, but I was talking about the body apart from the brain. The rest of the body is normal and functional, it is the brain that is the problem.
Yes, but "the body apart from the brain" makes no sense. Your body is your body, there's no reason to draw arbitrary lines between which parts of it are legitimate problems and which aren't.
That makes sense.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Nope. IT is society. They are not the ones liking something that doesnt fit the binary gender/sex system. And I for one and happy the gym revoked this womens membership.
Remember, Genetalia is just something genetic, like hair and foot size, and we dont discriminate agains red haired people and say they must use a certain facility
Genitals are different from foot size or hair colour because at one point in history mankind decided that was so.
How can society be wrong? Society is made up of the cumulative values and opinions of mankind, if you disagree with that it is your problem, not that of society.
and when American society felt for a long time that black people were less and didn't see a problem in them getting lynched... that wasn't societies problem?
mankind has terrible values and terrible opinions, humans are terrible to eachother.
society can easily be wrong.
they are wrong.
Right and wrong are subjective and always change. In our present-day Western society, discrimation of black people is considered wrong. But in American society of that time, it was not wrong. It only became wrong when Americans decided it was so. (which from what I learnt about it was a very long gradual process)
Society can not be wrong by its own standards. If you think society is wrong, you essentially are already part of a different society. "Society" in general can not be wrong.
Yes it can, if it was right then we'd all be on the same page.
Relapse wrote: I wouldn't want my daughters or son in a vulnerable position with someone who claims to identify as a woman or man but is really just looking for easy victims.
I would venture 95 of parents believe the same way.
And at some point parents didn't want their white daughter with a black man who said he was nice but who was really just looking for easy victims.
Relapse wrote: I wouldn't want my daughters or son in a vulnerable position with someone who claims to identify as a woman or man but is really just looking for easy victims.
I would venture 95 of parents believe the same way.
why are your kids in a locker room at the gym anyway? Or locker rooms at all At thatvage.
d-usa wrote: And at some point parents didn't want their white daughter with a black man who said he was nice but who was really just looking for easy victims.
It's not even slightly the same. That black man wasn't claiming to be/dressed as a white woman.
d-usa wrote: And at some point parents didn't want their white daughter with a black man who said he was nice but who was really just looking for easy victims.
It's not even slightly the same. That black man wasn't claiming to be/dressed as a white woman.
d-usa wrote: And at some point parents didn't want their white daughter with a black man who said he was nice but who was really just looking for easy victims.
It's not even slightly the same. That black man wasn't claiming to be/dressed as a white woman.
They are exactly the same. People reacting to threats that they fabricated in their heads, pedophile on disguise/abusive black man, instead of reacting to what is actually happening.
d-usa wrote: And at some point parents didn't want their white daughter with a black man who said he was nice but who was really just looking for easy victims.
It's not even slightly the same. That black man wasn't claiming to be/dressed as a white woman.
They are exactly the same. People reacting to threats that they fabricated in their heads, pedophile on disguise/abusive black man, instead of reacting to what is actually happening.
Also, who is to say the guy in the male locker room isnt praying aswell.
I always preferred King of the Hill
I went to Texas once, I was unprepared for the accents some people had.
King of the Hill gets points for the subtlety, but I have a hard time dealing with the fact that people like that actually exist.
Ehh, Hank, I liked hank. He was actually a good person and what I imagine most real republicans are like. Decent people, helpful and just concerned about his family, their well being and about his lawn.
He could get devious and evil sometimes though with his revenge.
Relapse wrote: I wouldn't want my daughters or son in a vulnerable position with someone who claims to identify as a woman or man but is really just looking for easy victims.
I would venture 95 of parents believe the same way.
And at some point parents didn't want their white daughter with a black man who said he was nice but who was really just looking for easy victims.
Relapse wrote: I wouldn't want my daughters or son in a vulnerable position with someone who claims to identify as a woman or man but is really just looking for easy victims.
I would venture 95 of parents believe the same way.
why are your kids in a locker room at the gym anyway? Or locker rooms at all At thatvage.
Sienisoturi wrote: A. The current phycological census is that seeing naked adults with opposite anatomical features can be harmful for the child.
Citation needed. And please remember to pay attention to the difference between "X is inherently harmful" and "X is harmful because we treat it as a shameful thing", as well as the fact that not all societies share the US attitude towards non-sexual nudity and yet still have children that don't suffer from serious psychological damage.
B. Do you have any evidence that transgender people feel insulted by that?
You mean besides the transgender people saying "'bathroom laws' are incredibly stupid and offensive"?
Also age matters, children generally stop seeing their parents naked at the age of 4-8
Except when their parents bring them into a locker room full of naked people and then take off all of their own clothes? Or did we forget that we're talking about a situation where a parent has already brought their child into a place where naked people are expected?
No reason to be aggressive. You make a statement, you provide the evidence.
No, there's a reason to be aggressive, because you clearly didn't even take a few seconds to do a google search for attacks on transgendered people.
Yes, but then it reduces the danger if only people with the same anatomical features are allowed in one changing room.
No it doesn't, because a person who is looking for a victim to abuse is already breaking the law. Do you honestly think that a potential rapist (or whatever other abuser you want to consider) is going to say "well, guess I can't do this, the sign says I'm not allowed in here"? It's a sign, not a magic one-sex force field.
I have always figured change stalls should be part of a change room, it avoids all the issues including cell phone cameras.
Individual shower stalls can be done rather than communal ones.
Call me a prude but any means of avoiding seeing anyone's junk keeps things civil.
The unisex change room is not what people typically like but may need to be a necessity.
Like a Men's or ladies only club: good luck with that.
Relapse wrote: I wouldn't want my daughters or son in a vulnerable position with someone who claims to identify as a woman or man but is really just looking for easy victims.
I would venture 95 of parents believe the same way.
Oh good, this thread wouldn't have been complete without the "what about the rapists" argument. I guess we're just going to ignore the fact that they're already in a vulnerable position, since abusers can also be looking for easy same-sex victims?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ime, gyms and locker rooms(excluding those from High Schools)+ do not allow those under 18 to go into them.
They do here.
Ok then. I again ask the problem. How is someone that identifies as a women harmful to kids?
I would wager they have the capacity to be harmful to children as much as anyone else.
Ok than, why is letting Transpeople allowed in a bathroom/changing room bad?
Or is it that is is not and this is fear mongering related our fear of the systematic breakdown on how we see sex and gender?
Ok than, why is letting Transpeople allowed in a bathroom/changing room bad?
Or is it that is is not and this is fear mongering related our fear of the systematic breakdown on how we see sex and gender?
To answer that, I'd need to understand why we have separate restrooms for both genders to begin with?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ime, gyms and locker rooms(excluding those from High Schools)+ do not allow those under 18 to go into them.
They do here.
Ok then. I again ask the problem. How is someone that identifies as a women harmful to kids?
I had cause to work closely with CPS a few years ago as well as had several talks with a cousin who worked children's cases for 30 years.
There are a fair number of ways that someone who claims to identify as a different gender can harm children. Rape is the first thing that comes to mind, injury, both physical and mental, is another.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ime, gyms and locker rooms(excluding those from High Schools)+ do not allow those under 18 to go into them.
They do here.
Ok then. I again ask the problem. How is someone that identifies as a women harmful to kids?
I would wager they have the capacity to be harmful to children as much as anyone else.
Ok than, why is letting Transpeople allowed in a bathroom/changing room bad?
Or is it that is is not and this is fear mongering related our fear of the systematic breakdown on how we see sex and gender?
I think the fear is more of my first comment in the thread; not of people whom identify as women/men, but as those who use said identifying to just cheat the system.
Say, less the Woman Trapped in a Man's Body wanting to be in the female bathroom with kids, but the Male Child Molester who "Identifies" as a woman to get into the female bathroom with kids.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ime, gyms and locker rooms(excluding those from High Schools)+ do not allow those under 18 to go into them.
They do here.
Ok then. I again ask the problem. How is someone that identifies as a women harmful to kids?
I would wager they have the capacity to be harmful to children as much as anyone else.
Ok than, why is letting Transpeople allowed in a bathroom/changing room bad?
Or is it that is is not and this is fear mongering related our fear of the systematic breakdown on how we see sex and gender?
I think the fear is more of my first comment in the thread; not of people whom identify as women/men, but as those who use said identifying to just cheat the system.
Say, less the Woman Trapped in a Man's Body wanting to be in the female bathroom with kids, but the Male Child Molester who "Identifies" as a woman to get into the female bathroom with kids.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ime, gyms and locker rooms(excluding those from High Schools)+ do not allow those under 18 to go into them.
They do here.
Ok then. I again ask the problem. How is someone that identifies as a women harmful to kids?
I had cause to work closely with CPS a few years ago as well as had several talks with a cousin who worked children's cases for 30 years.
There are a fair number of ways that someone who claims to identify as a different gender can harm children. Rape is the first thing that comes to mind, injury, both physical and mental, is another.
There is also a fair number of ways someone who is cisgendered to harm your kids. That guy who just got done working on the tennis court could be a predator. that is a legitimate fear, but do you stop your son from going in the locker room(Hypothetically speaking, I dont know anything about you).
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ime, gyms and locker rooms(excluding those from High Schools)+ do not allow those under 18 to go into them.
They do here.
Ok then. I again ask the problem. How is someone that identifies as a women harmful to kids?
I had cause to work closely with CPS a few years ago as well as had several talks with a cousin who worked children's cases for 30 years.
There are a fair number of ways that someone who claims to identify as a different gender can harm children. Rape is the first thing that comes to mind, injury, both physical and mental, is another.
Then I am sure you are well aware that the family member in the same dressing room is more of a risk to the child than any stranger regardless of gender identification.
I wonder what they do when a trans wants to join at women's only place like curves.
We had a guy get banned at our gym because he was completely naked and jerking it in the sauna while making direct eye contact with several over people in the locker room. Police got called to remove him from the place and he got banned.
stanman wrote: I wonder what they do when a trans wants to join at women's only place like curves.
We had a guy get banned at our gym because he was completely naked and jerking it in the sauna while making direct eye contact with several over people in the locker room. Police got called to remove him from the place and he got banned.
I fail to see how the latter has anything to do with this conversation.
stanman wrote: I wonder what they do when a trans wants to join at women's only place like curves.
We had a guy get banned at our gym because he was completely naked and jerking it in the sauna while making direct eye contact with several over people in the locker room. Police got called to remove him from the place and he got banned.
I fail to see how the latter has anything to do with this conversation.
You don't need to be in the opposite sexes locker room to be inappropriate.
Relapse wrote: I had cause to work closely with CPS a few years ago as well as had several talks with a cousin who worked children's cases for 30 years.
There are a fair number of ways that someone who claims to identify as a different gender can harm children. Rape is the first thing that comes to mind, injury, both physical and mental, is another.
That's an explanation of how rapists and abusers can harm children, not how merely being aware that someone's gender isn't black and white can harm them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote: Say, less the Woman Trapped in a Man's Body wanting to be in the female bathroom with kids, but the Male Child Molester who "Identifies" as a woman to get into the female bathroom with kids.
So why aren't we terrified of the male who identifies as a man and abuses male children? Why not, instead of worrying about transgendered people, fix the problem directly by making a separate locker room where no adults of any sex/gender are allowed?
d-usa wrote: Bigotry is bigotry, people will defend it. Next generation some other form of bigotry will be defended.
I keep hoping the next bigotry will be against humanxmachine relationships
That's my future wife you're talking about. A robotic woman who's happy to stay at home naked in the kitchen to make me a sandwich
Let's hope the next bigotry is against bigots
Bravo to the gym, it's nice to see how decent people handle sensitive issues.
Once again, we don't know at what stage of Trans the person was in; was she mostly a woman? Did she still have a penis?
I fail to see how that is an issue.
I dunno about anyone, but I'd be rather surprised if I walked into the men's locker room and a full bodied woman was naked in it. If he in that case had a penis/reduced breasts it's one thing, but what is essentially a normal woman in the men's locker room? That would be slightly more than awkward.
1 person going to the opposite sex's locker room with 3 people = 1 person inconveniencing 3 people.
1 person going in his own sex's locker room despite person thinking he's not male / female = 1 inconvenienced person.
Do the math.
Seriously, though, before the golden social justice shower comes raining down again: in a locker room, nobody gives a poo about what you think you are. If you look like a man to others, you're man to them. If you look like a woman to others, you're a woman to them. If you purposefully mix that up, then it's you purposefully causing trouble. If you feel that not setting people up would let you fall into a deep existential crisis, then you have extremely serious problems.
If you feel, for whatever reason, oppressed, then the proper way is to adress the studio owner / your major etc. and make a call for unisex dressing rooms or any similar reason. Trying to force your opionion / ideas upon others is just poor behavior. Yes, it might be that others are just bigots, but provoking them by purposefully setting them up and thus causing negative experiences is the worst way to handle the issue.
If you feel, for whatever reason, oppressed, then the proper way is to adress the studio owner / your major etc. and make a call for unisex dressing rooms or any similar reason. Trying to force your opionion / ideas upon others is just poor behavior. Yes, it might be that others are just bigots, but provoking them by purposefully setting them up and thus causing negative experiences is the worst way to handle the issue.
So you agree that the woman that was kicked out of the gym was in the wrong, and that if she felt oppressed then the proper way was for her to adress the studio owner / her major etc and make a call for unisex dressing room or any similar reason. Her trying to force her opinion / ideas on others (including the other women in the gym) was just poor behavior. Yes, it might be that others are just bigots, but her provoking the person by purposefully setting up opposition to her sharing the dressing room and thus causing negative experiences is the worst way to handle the issue.
Again, read thoroughly and stop jumping to conclusions. Point out to the exact point where I said the woman was in the right. Do it. Please.
You can't? I'm surprised. Read throughly. Ask if ye don't understand.
The woman was obviously misbehaving. She signed the contract and thus agreed with the no-discrimination part. So she never had any right to complain to begin with. Secondly, she kept slandering about the person in question which is downright poor behavior. The best way, for her, would have been to talk to the management and then live with the management's decision. It's their facility and they decide the rules...she was well aware of.
Incorrect for the very most part. Most transgender are born with one sex, either male or female, and are thus either man or woman. They can then decide what they want to identify themselves as. Objectively, they still are a man / woman identifying with the same or opposite gender...or anything else they want to. There is a very small portion of the population where there's no clear sex at birth, but for most, the former is the case. Anything beyond that is your opinion coming in.
d-usa wrote: Bigotry is bigotry, people will defend it. Next generation some other form of bigotry will be defended.
I keep hoping the next bigotry will be against humanxmachine relationships
That's my future wife you're talking about. A robotic woman who's happy to stay at home naked in the kitchen to make me a sandwich
Let's hope the next bigotry is against bigots
Bravo to the gym, it's nice to see how decent people handle sensitive issues.
Once again, we don't know at what stage of Trans the person was in; was she mostly a woman? Did she still have a penis?
I fail to see how that is an issue.
I dunno about anyone, but I'd be rather surprised if I walked into the men's locker room and a full bodied woman was naked in it. If he in that case had a penis/reduced breasts it's one thing, but what is essentially a normal woman in the men's locker room? That would be slightly more than awkward.
Maybe for you. As everything about this is speculation, let's assume when this person signed up for a gym membership showed their state issued ID, under sex: "F" She signs up for a membership and brings it up, making sure the gym knows about it. The gym says, that's cool.
someone gets offended, makes a big stick out of it, the gym does the right thing.
The person would not even have to do this. Article says that everyone can identify as male / female based on self-information, so e.g. even just when the issue comes up, you could say you identify as male / female and you would be good. Having that very open attitude has its ups and down though. On the one hand, it grants great freedom and safety to anyone identifying with any gender, on the other hand, it's a blanket allowance for pervs. Yet the former definitely outweights the latter.
d-usa wrote: Bigotry is bigotry, people will defend it. Next generation some other form of bigotry will be defended.
I keep hoping the next bigotry will be against humanxmachine relationships
That's my future wife you're talking about. A robotic woman who's happy to stay at home naked in the kitchen to make me a sandwich
Let's hope the next bigotry is against bigots
Bravo to the gym, it's nice to see how decent people handle sensitive issues.
Once again, we don't know at what stage of Trans the person was in; was she mostly a woman? Did she still have a penis?
I fail to see how that is an issue.
I dunno about anyone, but I'd be rather surprised if I walked into the men's locker room and a full bodied woman was naked in it. If he in that case had a penis/reduced breasts it's one thing, but what is essentially a normal woman in the men's locker room? That would be slightly more than awkward.
Maybe for you. As everything about this is speculation, let's assume when this person signed up for a gym membership showed their state issued ID, under sex: "F" She signs up for a membership and brings it up, making sure the gym knows about it. The gym says, that's cool.
someone gets offended, makes a big stick out of it, the gym does the right thing.
If the Gym is cool with it, you would think at the very least they would do one of two things;
1) Post signs about being more open minded about certain things; heads up is never a bad thing, especially when, worst case scenario, it's a predator or perv going into the wrong bathroom. to look for prey/whatever. That at least lets people make the decision beforehand if they want to take a shower there or wait till they get home.
2) designate a unisex bathroom for everyone who wants private changing. Quite a few gyms have these already.
If the Gym is cool with it, you would think at the very least they would do one of two things;
1) Post signs about being more open minded about certain things; heads up is never a bad thing, especially when, worst case scenario, it's a predator or perv going into the wrong bathroom. to look for prey/whatever. That at least lets people make the decision beforehand if they want to take a shower there or wait till they get home.
2) designate a unisex bathroom for everyone who wants private changing. Quite a few gyms have these already.
1. I'm sure it's in their contract that you have to sign when you become a member.
2. all locker rooms have stalls, if your that bashful you can change in one of them.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Or unisex, and everyone can shut the feth up about it.
I just don't think that would fly in a lot of the United States. Culturally, we're still pretty conservative as a whole regarding people being naked around each other, especially when we don't know them.
"Cormier told the paper she feels the gym could provide a third set of changing stalls for transgendered people."
Doesn't that defeat the point of changing your physical gender? If you were born a man and are now a woman and want to live as a woman, why should you be forced to use a separate (but equal ) room and broadcast your life decisions to everyone?
Some of us don't want to get dragged into gender debates that go nowhere every time we need a pee or to change our clothes.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Or unisex, and everyone can shut the feth up about it.
I just don't think that would fly in a lot of the United States. Culturally, we're still pretty conservative as a whole regarding people being naked around each other, especially when we don't know them.
But why? Why seperate from those who have balls from those who have ovaries. They are both Gonads.
I want to know, other then protecting them from harm because they hurt when hurt, why do genitals matter so much and who has which one?
hotsauceman1 wrote: [
Hmmm nope. Its like having seperate bathrooms or locker rooms for skin or hair color. It is just something determined by genetics.
It really isn't.
Also, I think old guys in the locker room that do that gak are disgusting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: But why? Why seperate from those who have balls from those who have ovaries. They are both Gonads.
I want to know, other then protecting them from harm because they hurt when hurt, why do genitals matter so much and who has which one?
Because for those of us that have regular sex, we're able to see, first hand, the very real differences between the sex organs.
Sigvatr wrote: 1 person going to the opposite sex's locker room with 3 people = 1 person inconveniencing 3 people.
1 person going in his own sex's locker room despite person thinking he's not male / female = 1 inconvenienced person.
Do the math.
Seriously, though, before the golden social justice shower comes raining down again: in a locker room, nobody gives a poo about what you think you are. If you look like a man to others, you're man to them. If you look like a woman to others, you're a woman to them. If you purposefully mix that up, then it's you purposefully causing trouble. If you feel that not setting people up would let you fall into a deep existential crisis, then you have extremely serious problems.
If you feel, for whatever reason, oppressed, then the proper way is to adress the studio owner / your major etc. and make a call for unisex dressing rooms or any similar reason. Trying to force your opionion / ideas upon others is just poor behavior. Yes, it might be that others are just bigots, but provoking them by purposefully setting them up and thus causing negative experiences is the worst way to handle the issue.
I'm a trans woman who goes to the gym. There's a neutral private room I use. I'm too scared of rapists and Roseannes to use either shared room.
1 trans woman going into female locker room with 3 people = maybe three people inconvenienced by their misconceptions, maybe one person inconvenienced by bigots. (Us "social justice shower" try our best to dispel some of those misconceptions by challenging guys who joke about 'I'm going to claim to identify as a woman to get in the ladies locker room', though criticising rape culture is a sure fire way to get yourself denounced as a 'feminazi'; we just can't win)
1 trans woman going into male locker room = 1 person absolutely bloody terrified of real and significant danger.
When women freak out about trans women, they report us to the bathroom police. When men freak out about trans women, they murder us. Your maths use binary 'yes/no' conditions for 'is someone disturbed' without taking into account the scale of the situations involved.
Alex C wrote: locker rooms differentiate by this genetic trait, so if you have balls it's probably advisable to use the one intended for people with balls.
If some people with balls who are happy about having balls could stop murdering people with balls who aren't happy about having balls, that'd help.
Alex C wrote: locker rooms differentiate by this genetic trait, so if you have balls it's probably advisable to use the one intended for people with balls.
If some people with balls who are happy about having balls could stop murdering people with balls who aren't happy about having balls, that'd help.
Sorry, I had no idea that men murdering transexuals in locker rooms was such a large and consistent problem.
lindsay40k wrote: I'm too scared of rapists and Roseannes to use either shared room.
I won't claim to know what a "Roseanne" is, but I think this says more about you than it does about other people. Walking around constantly afraid of rape? Get counselling.
Alex C wrote: locker rooms differentiate by this genetic trait, so if you have balls it's probably advisable to use the one intended for people with balls.
If some people with balls who are happy about having balls could stop murdering people with balls who aren't happy about having balls, that'd help.
Sorry, I had no idea that men murdering transexuals in locker rooms was such a large and consistent problem.
I'm out.
It's not, because if a trans women actually goes in a men's room after transitioning, it's probably because she's in a male prison. And in that environment, attackers generally have other things on their mind than murder.
lindsay40k wrote: I'm too scared of rapists and Roseannes to use either shared room.
I won't claim to know what a "Roseanne" is, but I think this says more about you than it does about other people. Walking around constantly afraid of rape? Get counselling.
Refers to Roseanne Barr, who during her presidential campaign decided to kick trans women under the bus.
The third comment in this thread was "time for me to identify as a woman and go peep at people in the women's locker room" and I'm the one who is being advised to seek counselling
The third comment in this thread was "time for me to identify as a woman and go peep at people in the women's locker room" and I'm the one who is being advised to seek counselling
lindsay40k wrote: The third comment in this thread was "time for me to identify as a woman and go peep at people in the women's locker room" and I'm the one who is being advised to seek counselling
You seem to be seeing rapists behind every corner. You've mentioned it in damn near every post you've made so far.
Change/locker/bath rooms are separated by sex, not gender. While your gender may be that of a woman/man, if you are transgender pre-op (so sexually male/female respectively) you should use that room (and therefore post-op use the female/male respectively)
In the current system (which I'm not saying is right or wrong) if a transwoman was using a female room pre-op, they were in the wrong as sexually they would still be male, and therefore should have been using the male room.
That said, it may be time for unisex change/locker/bath rooms to be the norm, if only so stupid stuff like this doesn't come up.
Actually, they're generally separated by an icon of a person wearing a skirt and an icon of a person wearing trousers, with the minutiae of what exactly this means being down to the organisation running the venue and the law of the land.
Which, in this case, produces the result of 'if you're a woman you don't have to go into the trousers room regardless of how your gender was assigned at birth'.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But why? Why seperate from those who have balls from those who have ovaries. They are both Gonads.
I want to know, other then protecting them from harm because they hurt when hurt, why do genitals matter so much and who has which one?
Because for those of us that have regular sex, we're able to see, first hand, the very real differences between the sex organs.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You seem to be seeing rapists behind every corner.
Welcome to womanhood.
Um, no.
That's a whole lot of bs.
If you see that around every corner, that's on you. Not womanhood.
It's a good thing your life spent as a women has given you the clarity to make that claim.
I don't have to be woman to know that someone calling it "womanhood" is fething bs.
Obviously we don't have enough women here to support that, but I know plenty of women that would attest that they don't go walking around worried that the next rapist is around the corner.
I think the gym made the right call. The lady that was upset is free to vote with her dollars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: [Obviously we don't have enough women here to support that, but I know plenty of women that would attest that they don't go walking around worried that the next rapist is around the corner.
The unintended irony of this is that it comes on the heels of many, many people ITT claiming that trans people going into locker rooms are potential child molesters or peeping toms. I mean, that "fear of molestation" has been a pretty 2 way street in this thread.
The unintended irony of this is that it comes on the heels of many, many people ITT claiming that trans people going into locker rooms are potential child molesters or peeping toms. I mean, that "fear of molestation" has been a pretty 2 way street in this thread.
Has anyone actually claimed that?
I know when I make a similar comment it was entirely in the context of creepy ass perverts taking advantage of it.
cincydooley wrote: I don't have to be woman to know that someone calling it "womanhood" is fething bs.
Obviously we don't have enough women here to support that, but I know plenty of women that would attest that they don't go walking around worried that the next rapist is around the corner.
No, walking around ever-worried about rape is not a key part to being a woman. In normal situations, there is no need to be afraid.
OTOH there's very easy indeed to be a privileged (yes I used that word, deal with it) man and wave off concerns from transpeople, since very few of you are part of one of the (if not -the-) most disprivileged group in society.
The biggest fairy tale ITT seems to be the villainous 'fake transgender' - sure, those who abuse the help and respect given to transgender people exist (and that really does not help the transpeople's cause) but honestly, what's the actual risk of one of the transgender bogeymen peeping on your butt? The attention it is given by media is not proportional to its actual representation. Seems like a trivial thing, really, when considered in the context of the debate.
The unintended irony of this is that it comes on the heels of many, many people ITT claiming that trans people going into locker rooms are potential child molesters or peeping toms. I mean, that "fear of molestation" has been a pretty 2 way street in this thread.
Has anyone actually claimed that?
I know when I make a similar comment it was entirely in the context of creepy ass perverts taking advantage of it.
Which actually raises the question, what about those who are both creepy ass perverts and transgender?
They are, after all, people like us, who vary between heroes and creeps. One does not exclude the other.
Although I guess that would be picking at the minority of an already tiny minority. So you can consider this just a questioning of the mutual exclusivity. At least in theory. In practice, it's quite possible that if you are a serious transgender you've seen enough gak to realise that jeopardising what you so tenously have is really not a good idea. Either way, blanket statement is blanket.
Because for those of us that have regular sex, we're able to see, first hand, the very real differences between the sex organs.
Wow, I thought we where having a civil argument. And you bust out an insult against my person. Jeez dude.
And to answer your statement. So? There is a different in function between curly and Straight her, light and dark skin, so why dont we seperate them?
Why doe what someone has between their legs and on their chest honestly matter so much?
Because for those of us that have regular sex, we're able to see, first hand, the very real differences between the sex organs.
Now I am reminded of those people, you know, who have identifiable genders in terms of normal appearance traits but are born with (and keep) unidentifiable sex organs. Which sex are they and why? Could such a person use either locker room freely at any time depending on their chosen identity? Why/why not?
I think if women want equal rights (Sports announcer woman forcing the teams to let her into the mens lockerooms and whatnot) that it opens the door for this kind of thing. I understand that some people will say that she was 'just doing her job' and while that is true it does force it into the limelight that we talk about being equals, but in most cases do not practice being equals.
I find it rather disturbing that when a man smacks a woman, he gets to go to jail. When a woman smacks a man, he gets to suck it up. It is far from fair and hardly equal. This is going to sound really f'd up but women want men to treat them equal when it suits them, and for men to be chivalrous when it suits them for that as well.
This situation is really an odd one for me to handle to be honest. I do not know how I would react to a woman wanting to use the men's lockeroom. I probably would not give two gaks tbh, except that she could get all cray cray and say that all the guys in there were pervs for flashing her or whatever. I think this woman went about it the wrong way, she should have just left and never returned IMO.
OIIIIIIO wrote: This is going to sound really f'd up but women want men to treat them equal when it suits them, and for men to be chivalrous when it suits them for that as well.
Some do. No two doubts about that.
Women in general don't, though. Most of us really just want fairness, and that will require pushing in one direction more than the other.
OIIIIIIO wrote: This is going to sound really f'd up but women want men to treat them equal when it suits them, and for men to be chivalrous when it suits them for that as well.
Some do. No two doubts about that.
Women in general don't, though. Most of us really just want fairness, and that will require pushing in one direction more than the other.
OIIIIIIO wrote: This is going to sound really f'd up but women want men to treat them equal when it suits them, and for men to be chivalrous when it suits them for that as well.
Some do. No two doubts about that.
Women in general don't, though. Most of us really just want fairness, and that will require pushing in one direction more than the other.
Your version of fairness, you mean.
You believe women have more and greater privileges than men currently?
cincydooley wrote: Like Ouze said, family court is the one major outlier.
Which is why a lot of father's rights groups have started to pop up.
Remember when people said it was a surprise the Brittany Spears lost rights to the kids from family court.
My sister had a mother that was messed up, drugs and so forth, and the still rewarded her to the mother because my father worked and she didnt.
You have to feth up BAD to loose your kids as a mother.
We should probably get back to the topic though. There is really no way we can discuss this tangent without it getting ugly, or really long, or probably both.
Ouze wrote: We should probably get back to the topic though. There is really no way we can discuss this tangent without it getting ugly, or really long, or probably both.
Ouze wrote: The immediate answer is going to be "family court", and in this one specific venue, he won't be wrong, at least in the US.
I should point out that this sense of unfairness can be somewhat misleading. For example, the commonly-cited statistics about women getting custody of children much more often than men are heavily influenced by the large number of cases where the father doesn't seek custody at all. If you instead only look at the cases where the father asks for custody then the chances of getting at least joint custody go up considerably.
Is the person in question pre-op or post-op though? I understand they're expected to undergo a pre-op period of living as the eventual gender, which i'm guessing is what happened here. The problem with assigning a different set of restrooms for transgender people is you just can't lump the transgender males in with the transgender females, you'd end up needing an additional pair of restrooms to cater for them. Transgender rights is a struggle that has gone on since the roman times, i sincerely doubt it will be resolved anytime soon.
Ashiraya wrote: You believe women have more and greater privileges than men currently?
The immediate answer is going to be "family court", and in this one specific venue, he won't be wrong, at least in the US.
Well, when you look at the actual numbers, that kind of isn't the case. At this point it's become one of those things that just gets said so often that everyone just assumes it's true.
motyak wrote: The thread is already teetering on the verge of being beyond saving...
To tell the truth, I thought the story a novelty item and didn't think it would generate the amount of response it did.
Really? You didn't think a story about transgenders and a person feeling put out by them would prompt a whole mess in the OT forum? You've been here long enough to know better ha
motyak wrote: The thread is already teetering on the verge of being beyond saving...
To tell the truth, I thought the story a novelty item and didn't think it would generate the amount of response it did.
Really? You didn't think a story about transgenders and a person feeling put out by them would prompt a whole mess in the OT forum? You've been here long enough to know better ha
Not really. I've seen similar stories fall off the radar in the past, such as the man who had the operation to look like a female super model.
motyak wrote: The thread is already teetering on the verge of being beyond saving...
To tell the truth, I thought the story a novelty item and didn't think it would generate the amount of response it did.
Really? You didn't think a story about transgenders and a person feeling put out by them would prompt a whole mess in the OT forum? You've been here long enough to know better ha
Not really. I've seen similar stories fall off the radar in the past, such as the man who had the operation to look like a female super model.
That is not even close to the same level of potential disagree-ness.
Because for those of us that have regular sex, we're able to see, first hand, the very real differences between the sex organs.
And to answer your statement. So? There is a different in function between curly and Straight her, light and dark skin, so why dont we seperate them?
Why doe what someone has between their legs and on their chest honestly matter so much?
Do you seriously expect an answer to that question? That is one of the basic things of human behaviour, it has been that way for all of human history.
Sienisoturi wrote: A. The current phycological census is that seeing naked adults with opposite anatomical features can be harmful for the child.
Citation needed. And please remember to pay attention to the difference between "X is inherently harmful" and "X is harmful because we treat it as a shameful thing", as well as the fact that not all societies share the US attitude towards non-sexual nudity and yet still have children that don't suffer from serious psychological damage.
Can you please provide a source for your latter statement?
B. Do you have any evidence that transgender people feel insulted by that?
You mean besides the transgender people saying "'bathroom laws' are incredibly stupid and offensive"?
Citation needed.
Also age matters, children generally stop seeing their parents naked at the age of 4-8
Except when their parents bring them into a locker room full of naked people and then take off all of their own clothes? Or did we forget that we're talking about a situation where a parent has already brought their child into a place where naked people are expected?
Taking a look at the pdf above it is true that seeing naked adults is harmful regardless of the gender, but seeing the opposite gender is then again more harmful. These private lockers that some members have mentioned seem like the best solution.
No reason to be aggressive. You make a statement, you provide the evidence.
No, there's a reason to be aggressive, because you clearly didn't even take a few seconds to do a google search for attacks on transgendered people.
What is the reason to become agressive when asked to follow common argumentative ethicet?
Yes, but then it reduces the danger if only people with the same anatomical features are allowed in one changing room.
No it doesn't, because a person who is looking for a victim to abuse is already breaking the law. Do you honestly think that a potential rapist (or whatever other abuser you want to consider) is going to say "well, guess I can't do this, the sign says I'm not allowed in here"? It's a sign, not a magic one-sex force field.
Again, having rules like that makes it easier to control, as then in the scenario that somebody would ignore the sign and go to the opposite gender changing room with abusive thoughts, then they could be immediately noticed and action taken.
Sienisoturi wrote: A. The current phycological census is that seeing naked adults with opposite anatomical features can be harmful for the child.
Citation needed. And please remember to pay attention to the difference between "X is inherently harmful" and "X is harmful because we treat it as a shameful thing", as well as the fact that not all societies share the US attitude towards non-sexual nudity and yet still have children that don't suffer from serious psychological damage.
Can you please provide a source for your latter statement?
Wow. They seriously research something like that? Those people have got some pretty serious issues...
That research sounds so weird on so many levels it made me really laugh. Some of the most hilarious parts:
Approximately 47% of respondents favored intervention in cases in which a mother “often” kissed her 10-year-old son on the lips when leaving for work
(Wut? Kissing is wrong now as well? My mother still kisses me and I am 15...)
giving hugs until 8.6 years of age.
(Parents should not hug their 9 year old child anymore? That is so weird)
A limitation of this study is that the educational level of the respondents is high compared to the general population, and all of the participants are child protective service workers
(Great way to do an unbiased research XD)
Should the mother be sleeping with her 8-year-old son?
(Okay, this one doesn't count but it is really funny when you take it out of context )
I still fail to see how nudity can be harmful. It does become embarrasing in some circumstances (with strangers for example) and after a certain age (when you get into puberty), but this research makes it sound like it is something dangerous.
I think it maybe also depends on culture. For example, when you go to the beach with friends in the Netherlands, everyone has already changed into their swimming pants beforehand and wears their pants on top of it. After swimming they just pull their pants on again on top of their still wet swimming pants If you go the beach with friends in Slovenia, you just change into your swimming pants on the beach, and replace them with normal pants again after swimming.
I think it is all very confusing.
As for Peregrine's second statement, I would like to invite you to visit Russia (or any Slavic nation for that matter). People in the West are so hilariously prude. I think seeing naked people is not harmful in any way for kids. I saw plenty of naked adults in the banya or on the beach when I was little and it did not harm me. I also know someone who grew up in a nudist family and he is perfectly normal too.
That article seemed to focus purely on what several people felt appropriate practices to be. These are people whose view will be skewed by their experiences as CPS workers and the like. There was no investigation through fMRI or TMI or anything to see if areas associated with arousal were showing activity when bathing children, kissing them on the mouth or anything of the kind, it was purely based on 'feelings' of professionals whose job, when you get down to it, is to assume the worst.
I disagree with her methodology and believe that, if she were to have put this paper forward as her very first paper, without the weight of her name attached to it, it wouldn't have been published in its current form.
Sienisoturi wrote: A. The current phycological census is that seeing naked adults with opposite anatomical features can be harmful for the child.
Citation needed. And please remember to pay attention to the difference between "X is inherently harmful" and "X is harmful because we treat it as a shameful thing", as well as the fact that not all societies share the US attitude towards non-sexual nudity and yet still have children that don't suffer from serious psychological damage.
Can you please provide a source for your latter statement?
Wow. They seriously research something like that? Those people have got some pretty serious issues...
That research sounds so weird on so many levels it made me really laugh. Some of the most hilarious parts:
Approximately 47% of respondents favored intervention in cases in which a mother “often” kissed her 10-year-old son on the lips when leaving for work
(Wut? Kissing is wrong now as well? My mother still kisses me and I am 15...)
Note the lips part.
giving hugs until 8.6 years of age.
(Parents should not hug their 9 year old child anymore? That is so weird)
Depends probably on the type of hug.
A limitation of this study is that the educational level of the respondents is high compared to the general population, and all of the participants are child protective service workers
(Great way to do an unbiased research XD)
This study probably does have a bias, but considering that we do know the bias, it is easy to see where the bias is, so as such it can be interpereted that this study is too worried about these things, but that does not mean that it does not show how most professionals in this field tend to agree that too much contact might be harmful, especially in the case of seeing naked adults.
Also adding to this study and what we can interperet from it, it seems to be the only official study on the subject. and I doubt that more objective studies will ever be made, so it effectively is the only thing that we have now. It however is true that it has a bias and that some of its results seem a bit funny, but it is easy to understand when you consider that these professionals tend to follow the policy that it is better to be too safe than not safe enough. So therefore as they are the professionals on the matter, I would say that they do speak the truth, although a biased truth. Also, adding further to this discussion it might be true that it is not terribly harmful for children to see naked adults, but it might be slightly harmful for some of them, so it is better to be safe than sorry.
PS, I would be glad to read a study that shows how seeing naked adults is not harmful for children.
Sienisoturi wrote: Also adding to this study and what we can interperet from it, it seems to be the only official study on the subject. and I doubt that more objective studies will ever be made, so it effectively is the only thing that we have now.
Sorry, but this is a terrible argument. If the only study we have is one done with laughably poor methods then the conclusion is NOT "well, that's the best we have, so we'd better use it", it's "I guess we aren't getting any useful information from formal academic studies".
Also, adding further to this discussion it might be true that it is not terribly harmful for children to see naked adults, but it might be slightly harmful for some of them, so it is better to be safe than sorry.
Ok, so what you're saying is that children should be banned from locker rooms (a place where naked adults are often seen). Great! Now we no longer have the "think of the children" excuse to justify forcing transgendered people to act against their gender identity.
Taking a look at the pdf above it is true that seeing naked adults is harmful regardless of the gender, but seeing the opposite gender is then again more harmful. These private lockers that some members have mentioned seem like the best solution.
Research into childhood exposure to parental and other adult nudity has provided neutral or mixed results, or results open to interpretation, but have not indicated that it has dire aftereffects on children
How do you go from no dire after effects to being harmful?
How is this thread still open? Are the mods just all eating popcorn and laughing? I know I am!!
Personal thought is that if the gym posted rules saying this is allowed in the locker room, and they're a private entity, they can respond as their policy allows. Gym-goers are free to vote with their wallets, same as we do with GW.
If it walks like duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
If it dresses like a woman, identifies itself as a woman, lives like a woman, and has a Club membership as a woman, I think it's safe to treat her like a woman.
1) By that logic showing extremely violent videos to children publicly should be legal, as we all have internal organs and there is nothing mystical or bad in them.
In the United States, violence and simulated violence are considered much less of a concern than sexual situations.
Children are allowed to watch heroes murder hordes of bad guys, but not the hero having sex.
Throw in anything sexual related that a religious conservative at all would object to like a female masturbating, or transgedered anything and it's going to be restricted to adults only. There are documentaries on how messed up this situation is.
By contrast, the nudity, language, and sexual situations of foreign TV shows are often edited before being aired on American TV.
FFS, Gay Marriage is still only legal in 37 out of 50 states.
adamsouza wrote: If it walks like duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
If it dresses like a woman, identifies itself as a woman, lives like a woman, and has a Club membership as a woman, I think it's safe to treat her like a woman.
The duck metaphor falls short in this case though. Not sure how short, though, don't know the guy
adamsouza wrote: If it walks like duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
If it dresses like a woman, identifies itself as a woman, lives like a woman, and has a Club membership as a woman, I think it's safe to treat her like a woman.
The duck metaphor falls short in this case though. Not sure how short, though, don't know the guy
Unless you are planning to play with what they have in their pants, I just don't see why the difference matters.
If I'm at the Gym, and the chubby bearded guy changing his clothes next to me appears to be a eunuch I'm not going to be offended.
If he starts rubbing his vagina in my face, then that's a matter of innapropriate behavior, and overstepping boundries.
MrDwhitey wrote: One person worries about kids being raped. People ignore/agree (or accurately point out the flaws with said persons thoughts).
One person worries about being raped, told they desperately need counselling, by men.
Nice.
Yep. Happy International Working Women's Day, everyone :/
Didn't even know it was a thing.
We have so many "celebratory" days lately, it's hard to keep track.
My wife didn't know either.
You stopped caring about something that has been recognized for over 100 years before it was cool, right?
I stopped caring about made up socialist holidays quite a while ago too. Then again, I stopped caring about made up holidays in general quite a while ago. There are a million goddamned holidays just about every day of the year; I don't have time for that garbage. There are four holidays worth remembering; Yule, Ēostre, the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, and Halloween. Everything else is just made up junk.
Ouze wrote: I myself only care for the 4th of July, because of fireworks, and Thanksgiving, because I eat like a pig.
America Day and Eat Too Much Day are also nice, but I feel like they are days to be enjoyed on a pure selfish level and thus not to be overly celebrated. Also on this list are Drink Way Too Much Because I Kind Of Like The Color Green Day and Bribe My Girlfriend With Gifts Because I Lack Personality But I Want Sex Day.
MrDwhitey wrote: One person worries about kids being raped. People ignore/agree (or accurately point out the flaws with said persons thoughts).
One person worries about being raped, told they desperately need counselling, by men.
Nice.
One form of silliness managing to work it's crazy ass under the radar doesn't mean another form of silliness is any less nuts.
As to the what the feth we should do about letting transsexuals into whatever bathroom the want, just let them. Why? Because the alternative is exhausting and will only end with 9000 social justice knights making it their personal mission to make you feel, and appear to everyone else, as the lowest form of gak on the planet. That, and ultimately, it doesn't really hurt anyone to let them, and it might even make a few people who live a comparatively difficult life feel just a little better, which is always nice. Besides, if it makes you feel unconformable, just don't look at them. It will be less effort in the long run.
As far as the worried about rapists getting your kids thing, come the feth off it. One, your kid shouldn't be more than a few feet from you at any given time, anyway, and two, in the case of young boys, they're already in a room filled with naked dudes. Lets face it, you should already be a DEFCON 2.
EDIT: feth it, I give up on spelling. It's too late and I'm too tired.
Frankly this is a non-issue.
1. The odds are really really rare.
2. Put on your big girl underpants and deal. No one is surreptitiously checking you out. if they are take it as a complement.
3. The fungi in the showers are much more of a concern. I know. I put it there...
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I'm looking forward to April the 15th, which is both the Day of Silence AND the Day of Dialogue. Someone is bound to be disappointed
That's "being married" day. She talks and you better listen.
Good news, everyone. We've got a big one coming up on March 21. Poetry, Down Syndrome, AND Forest and Tree day!
What a bunch of sexists, where are men days? I count at least 5 days just for women, without the corresponding day for men. ie a second mothers day with no recognized fathers day. Where's the diversity?
What a bunch of sexists, where are men days? I count at least 5 days just for women, without the corresponding day for men. ie a second mothers day with no recognized fathers day. Where's the diversity?
Who the hell cares for those "special days"? What does that day mean to you? There's a day for pets, men, women, children etc. So what's the deal? They have zero significance to the population as a whole and I guarantee you that neither do most men care about men's day nor do most women care about women's day. Or even know that there is such a thing. Lord. If you want to celebrate, then do it.
Sigvatr wrote: Who the hell cares for those "special days"? What does that day mean to you? There's a day for pets, men, women, children etc. So what's the deal? They have zero significance to the population as a whole and I guarantee you that neither do most men care about men's day nor do most women care about women's day. Or even know that there is such a thing. Lord. If you want to celebrate, then do it.
You could just as easily apply that to Christmas or whatever.
Where is the limit on how few people can celebrate a day before it becomes superflous?
Sigvatr wrote: Who the hell cares for those "special days"? What does that day mean to you? There's a day for pets, men, women, children etc. So what's the deal? They have zero significance to the population as a whole and I guarantee you that neither do most men care about men's day nor do most women care about women's day. Or even know that there is such a thing. Lord. If you want to celebrate, then do it.
You could just as easily apply that to Christmas or whatever.
Where is the limit on how few people can celebrate a day before it becomes superflous?
Well, there is a pretty significant difference, at least in the US. Christmas is a federal holiday, and when just about every institution in a country recognizes it, and has something to do with it, you can't just as easily apply that logic to it.
Sigvatr wrote: Who the hell cares for those "special days"? What does that day mean to you? There's a day for pets, men, women, children etc. So what's the deal? They have zero significance to the population as a whole and I guarantee you that neither do most men care about men's day nor do most women care about women's day. Or even know that there is such a thing. Lord. If you want to celebrate, then do it.
You could just as easily apply that to Christmas or whatever.
Where is the limit on how few people can celebrate a day before it becomes superflous?
Well, there is a pretty significant difference, at least in the US. Christmas is a federal holiday, and when just about every institution in a country recognizes it, and has something to do with it, you can't just as easily apply that logic to it.
Grey Templar wrote: Well if you're pre-op you're still whatever you are before the surgery. Simple.
That is the truth of it right there. Someone brought up earlier that they were scared a pre op that identified as the opposite gender would get beaten up if they were in a locker room related to what their pre op sex was. Has anyone here even considered the far more likely scenario of some boyfriend either alone or group of boyfriends going animal on a guy that is in the women's locker room with his/ their girlfriend(s) when he leaves the gym?
A concern that was mentioned to me by both men and women I work with is that an individual who claims to "identify" as a woman, could be just some stalker or rapist scouting out a victim to attack somewhere else.
Relapse wrote: A concern that was mentioned to me by both men and women I work with is that an individual who claims to "identify" as a woman, could be just some stalker or rapist scouting out a victim to attack somewhere else.
Which is different from scumbags of the same gender as their intended victims because...?
Relapse wrote: A concern that was mentioned to me by both men and women I work with is that an individual who claims to "identify" as a woman, could be just some stalker or rapist scouting out a victim to attack somewhere else.
Which is different from scumbags of the same gender as their intended victims because...?
I don't know what it's like in your country, but here a man is far more likely to rape a woman than a woman is.
Relapse wrote: That is the truth of it right there. Someone brought up earlier that they were scared a pre op that identified as the opposite gender would get beaten up if they were in a locker room related to what their pre op sex was. Has anyone here even considered the far more likely scenario of some boyfriend either alone or group of boyfriends going animal on a guy that is in the women's locker room with his/ their girlfriend(s) when he leaves the gym?
The difference is that if they go into they're in the locker room that matches their gender identity they can go into a private area to change their clothes, hold a towel in front of them while they're changing, etc, and keep anyone from ever realizing that they aren't just another person of that gender. If, on the other hand, they go into the other room then they just walked in wearing the "wrong" clothing, using the "wrong" name, etc, and broadcast a "I'M TRANSGENDERED" sign to anyone who might react badly to that fact.
A concern that was mentioned to me by both men and women I work with is that an individual who claims to "identify" as a woman, could be just some stalker or rapist scouting out a victim to attack somewhere else.
Why is this "scouting" more effective in a locker room where someone hanging out watching people instead of changing their clothes and leaving is going to be suspicious, and the people they're watching may or may not just go straight to their car without ever being an easy target? Why wouldn't this potential rapist watch for victims in a place where spending excessive time is normal, or wait in a parking lot or whatever where they plan to attack someone? And why would they be willing to draw attention to themselves by claiming a fake gender identity (they're certainly not going to be good at their act) instead of doing everything they can to stay anonymous?
Also, let's not forget that in most rape cases the victim already knew the attacker, so "scouting" for victims isn't usually going to involve anonymous locker room strangers.
Okay. So on the one hand, we have the rights of an already horribly marginalised group. On the other, we have a vague imagined threat that seems totally pointless. Everyone seems to agree a dude is not going to use the policy to attack someone, because the little woman picture on the door does not actually prevent dudes from just walking in if they want to. So now it's devolved into... they might use it to "monitor" someone they're stalking.
I mean, you realise how silly that is? They can just stand outside the door if they want to "monitor" someone. And really, you think some dude is going to pretend to be part of possibly the most misunderstood and maligned group in our society when they can just stand outside the door? And this is so likely it's worth stamping on people who are already stamped on constantly?
I mean, the threats being concocted are so unlikely that the only way I can imagine them amounting to something in the mental arithmetic is if the rights of trans people are given no consideration at all.
I can't stress enough that the rights of actual people should be given far more weight than imagined threats with no evidence behind them.
cincydooley wrote: Except for the rights of the woman that reported a man in the woman's dressing room, right?
What rights? The right to remain a member of a private club, despite ignoring their requests to stop behaving badly on their property?
Also, let's no pretend that it was just one report. She didn't say "I think there's a man in there" and drop the issue when they told her what was going on, she kept complaining and "warning" other customers.
I think you missed the point there. The actual point was that if a man is raped then the rapist is more likely to be another man than a woman. So, if you're sincerely concerned about preventing rape with statistics then you need to keep men out of locker rooms and other situations where other men could be available as victims.
I think you missed the point there. The actual point was that if a man is raped then the rapist is more likely to be another man than a woman. So, if you're sincerely concerned about preventing rape with statistics then you need to keep men out of locker rooms and other situations where other men could be available as victims.
Not much to talk about between the two sides at this point, really, since neither appears like they are going to convince the other.
If your "side" is that trans women are men until they've had genital surgery, you're quite simply wrong and missing the whole point of why people are trans. They are not trans because they thought it would be fun, or because they really like frilly dresses and want to be able to wear them, or because they prefer the activities typically associated with the other sex, or because they realised that women have it better in our modern society and they want to join the winning team. They are trans because the part of their brain that determines their gender says that they are the other sex. This does not really seem to be something that changes - it seems to be set at birth.
This is why people are trans - because their brain gender is not in alignment with the rest of their body. The only question is what they will choose to do about it.
On top of that, we know that denying people's gender expression is pretty terrible. Trans people as a group have close to a 50% suicide rate. They need all the support they can get, which includes being treated as the correct gender and not told to do ridiculous things that you would never ask a non-trans person to do, like use the other gender's changing room or bathroom.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: If your "side" is that trans women are men until they've had genital surgery, you're quite simply wrong and missing the whole point of why people are trans.
That would depend on HOW one defines 'man' and 'woman'. Typically, in America, the terms are defined as fully mature males or females, and are determined by biological and physiological characteristics, specifically primary and secondary sexual characteristics, so he isn't technically wrong. Unfortunately, though, those definitions don't leave much wiggle room for transgender individuals.
That being said, the argument could be made that we (Americans) should look into attempting to change the way we view such thing and how we teach small children about sex (not the act), gender roles, and perhaps how we view 'man' and 'woman'.
Genuine interest, why would it specifically list it as rape when the study said it included things as unwanted kissing?
That seems bizarre as hell to me. To me, rape would be sexual assault, intercourse, with a form of penetration (I could be completely wrong here, quite happy to admit my knowledge in this area is lacking).
Actually looking into it that's a pretty piss poor idea of rape, considering it would exclude completely female on male (yay for wikipedia I guess).
No, she said it was a man. Who determines when a person is a man or woman?
To me, this is determined by the body. But others may have different standards that I find hard to understand.
Relapse wrote:[ concern that was mentioned to me by both men and women I work with is that an individual who claims to "identify" as a woman, could be just some stalker or rapist scouting out a victim to attack somewhere else.
Oh, my friend. Let me point you back to further in the thread
H.B.M.C. wrote:Walking around constantly afraid of rape? Get counselling.
H.B.M.C. wrote:[You seem to be seeing rapists behind every corner. You've mentioned it in damn near every post you've made so far.
Sigvatr wrote:Yes. If you fear rapists around every corner, you're extremely paranoid and should immediately get professional help.
So, I think their concerns actually indicate a a problem with their worldview, at least according to this thread. You should refer them to counseling
hotsauceman1 wrote: But why? Why seperate from those who have balls from those who have ovaries. They are both Gonads.
I want to know, other then protecting them from harm because they hurt when hurt, why do genitals matter so much and who has which one?
Exactly why not just have one locker room for both sexes to use. But then again that's the point - we separate the locker rooms by sex so people feel comfortable.
Gender identity is defined by the reproductive organs you have (you could argue chromosomes but we now have the power to surgically change that). If you want to be a woman, have your manly parts removed and replaced with womanly parts. Until you have the surgery, your gender has not been reassigned.
It's time people just grew up and started behaving like adults. A gym locker rom is a place to gak, shower, and shave after a work out. Most of the gyms I've been to have shower stalls and bathroom stalls. Want to be private, go there. Want to change quickly, do it by your locker. Nobody is checking anyone out in the locker room whether they are gay or straight.
boyd wrote: Exactly why not just have one locker room for both sexes to use.
I feel like just having cubbies or stalls might be the best way to address that, honestly. The truth is, I'd sort of prefer not to have anyone see me changing regardless of what is or is not dangling from their undercarriage unless they are Mrs. Ouze, and then as little as possible.
Spoiler:
Stonebeard wrote: One, your kid shouldn't be more than a few feet from you at any given time, anyway, and two, in the case of young boys, they're already in a room filled with naked dudes. Lets face it, you should already be a DEFCON 2.
Going back to this for a moment, I found this to be one of the more amusing posts ITT. Well done.
The gym I go to has unisex changing rooms. It's glorious.
Anyway, I just skimmed this thread, so here's my thoughts. I am a man, I will go in the men's room. If you come in here and you have boobs, I will stare at them, and that's your problem. If you're either repulsed or attracted to my junk, that's also your problem.
I don't expect the reverse to be true in the other locker room, because women nowadays are being taught to fear all men. So I guess Trans of all types should just go in the men's room if they want to keep the peace.
boyd wrote: Exactly why not just have one locker room for both sexes to use.
I feel like just having cubbies or stalls might be the best way to address that, honestly. The truth is, I'd sort of prefer not to have anyone see me changing regardless of what is or is not dangling from their undercarriage unless they are Mrs. Ouze, and then as little as possible.
I agree - locker rooms are only split that way because people feel more comfortable. I feel that teenagers should be split because of raging hormones but when you get older, it shouldn't be a big deal. Nobody goes into a locker room to hook up - it may be a huge porn fantasy but it's really a smelly place and if someone has athletes foot, you may catch it somewhere you don't want it.
I've been a member of 4 different gyms in the last 8 years and all of them have private showers. If you're afraid of people seeing your gribbly bits, then put your under garments on when you finish drying from your shower and come out.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: If your "side" is that trans women are men until they've had genital surgery, you're quite simply wrong and missing the whole point of why people are trans.
That would depend on HOW one defines 'man' and 'woman'. Typically, in America, the terms are defined as fully mature males or females, and are determined by biological and physiological characteristics, specifically primary and secondary sexual characteristics, so he isn't technically wrong. Unfortunately, though, those definitions don't leave much wiggle room for transgender individuals.
That being said, the argument could be made that we (Americans) should look into attempting to change the way we view such thing and how we teach small children about sex (not the act), gender roles, and perhaps how we view 'man' and 'woman'.
I think this is a weird argument, because if you look at a person then your impression of their gender is not going to be based on their genital configuration. Much of your gender presentation is not made up of any physiological characteristic. This makes the discussion really strange, because if you ask people what defines a man or a woman then, yes, many will instantly say "their genitals", but that isn't actually how people identify gender.
But you're right that we should probably think about gender differently. Part of increasing acceptance for trans peeps is increasing awareness that people can be whatever gender without meeting arbitrary biological standards.
What I was trying to point out, though, is what actually makes you a man or a woman. A lot of people think it is the genitals, and it's not. The key to understanding trans people (and I apologise if you already know this, but numerous people in the thread do not and I think the world would be improved if they understood) is that what makes you a man or a woman is not your genitals, it's your brain. Somehow, your brain knows your gender. For most people, that does align with their genitals, so they can end up thinking the genitals are what make them a man or a woman, but it's not correct. Sometimes your actual gender is not the same as your body, but in our society we assign people genders at birth based on their bodies, and that's how we end up with trans people.
If you, person reading this, turned into the opposite sex tomorrow, you'd almost certainly end up in a great deal of distress, because your mind would know what you are, even though your body would be different. This is something that's happened to people before - the one from memory is a child who had an accident after they were born - IIRC, he was a boy, and something happened soon after birth that destroyed his penis and the parents decided to raise him as a girl. It did not work, causing him a lot of suffering, and when he was 16 or so he started living as a man.
This all gets confused a bit because we don't really have a concept for it in the language.
Ouze wrote: So, I think their concerns actually indicate a a problem with their worldview, at least according to this thread. You should refer them to counseling
While masculinity and femininity (gender) is based on the brain, male and female (sex) is based on genitals. While you can be whatever gender you want, you can't just say "I'm now female" if you have male genitalia (or "I'm now male" if you have female genitalia).
Most of them time I've been getting the impression that people have been talking about sex, not gender, but not making that entirely clear (though I could be wrong about that).
I've been a member of 4 different gyms in the last 8 years and all of them have private showers. If you're afraid of people seeing your gribbly bits, then put your under garments on when you finish drying from your shower and come out.
Pfft nuts to that. How can I go around telling golf stories in the gym to anyone, at inappropriately close distances? You're just taking the fun right out of it.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: While masculinity and femininity (gender) is based on the brain, male and female (sex) is based on genitals. While you can be whatever gender you want, you can't just say "I'm now female" if you have male genitalia (or "I'm now male" if you have female genitalia).
Most of them time I've been getting the impression that people have been talking about sex, not gender, but not making that entirely clear (though I could be wrong about that).
From the other thread, Im going to quote this again:
The whole issue seems to be nothing to do with sex or gender, and everything to do with social morals. The woman who complained didn't like someone she perceived as being a man in the changing room with her because her social morals tell her it is wrong. It's not about being raped, or sexual assault, but the same thing that keeps women only gym time going. I find it all very odd, given that there is far more likely to be someone who is lesbian than someone who is trans in the changing room with her.
Why do we have separate changing rooms for men and women? Nothing more than social morals and puritanism. Personally I think all gyms and swimming pools should have unisex, individual changing cubicals. Having to be naked in front of people puts the people who need to exercise off most.
I'm still baffled at how backwards the UK/US is in regards to sex/nudity compared to the rest of the world, whilst being just as backwards about violence.
This wouldn't be an issue in, say, Germany or Eastern Europe, or India.
It would in Japan, but even they have a lot of unisex baths.
Herzlos wrote: I'm still baffled at how backwards the UK/US is in regards to sex/nudity compared to the rest of the world, whilst being just as backwards about violence.
This wouldn't be an issue in, say, Germany or Eastern Europe, or India.
It would in Japan, but even they have a lot of unisex baths.
Wait, people in Europe take baths? I'd think you'd have a problem in India. It would be a problem in the Americas and Africa. And if it were in certain parts of the ME, it wouldn't be an issue either as the unfortunate would have already been pitched off a roof.
Herzlos wrote: I'm still baffled at how backwards the UK/US is in regards to sex/nudity compared to the rest of the world, whilst being just as backwards about violence.
This wouldn't be an issue in, say, Germany or Eastern Europe, or India.
It would in Japan, but even they have a lot of unisex baths.
Wait, people in Europe take baths?
I'd think you'd have a problem in India. It would be a problem in the Americas and Africa.
And if it were in certain parts of the ME, it wouldn't be an issue either as the unfortunate would have already been pitched off a roof.
It's bizarre - in the UK/US - Nudity is seriously taboo but violence is fine, but in Germany/Japan nudity is no big deal at all but violence is censored.
Herzlos wrote: I'm still baffled at how backwards the UK/US is in regards to sex/nudity compared to the rest of the world, whilst being just as backwards about violence.
This wouldn't be an issue in, say, Germany or Eastern Europe, or India.
It would in Japan, but even they have a lot of unisex baths.
Parts of Eastern Europe maybe, but I imagine that transgender individuals would just be lumped in with homosexual individuals and not treated very nicely at all.
Having been in a park in Berlin and seen people, shall we say, "hanging out", you're probably ok with Germany.
Steve steveson wrote: The whole issue seems to be nothing to do with sex or gender, and everything to do with social morals. The woman who complained didn't like someone she perceived as being a man in the changing room with her because her social morals tell her it is wrong. It's not about being raped, or sexual assault, but the same thing that keeps women only gym time going. I find it all very odd, given that there is far more likely to be someone who is lesbian than someone who is trans in the changing room with her.
Why do we have separate changing rooms for men and women? Nothing more than social morals and puritanism. Personally I think all gyms and swimming pools should have unisex, individual changing cubicals. Having to be naked in front of people puts the people who need to exercise off most.
Either this, or age-segregate them. Either way, lets avoid having to watch flabby 50-somethings stroll around in the buff.
There are naked college-age boobies everywhere and you pretend not to see them while you change. It is somewhat of an ordeal.
Good lord, that would be exhausting. I'd rather not have to walk around the, staring at the floor, repeating the mantra "don't get a boner, don't get a boner, don't get a boner.' feth, that sounds like high school all over again!
Herzlos wrote: Every other month, whether we need one or not.
It's bizarre - in the UK/US - Nudity is seriously taboo but violence is fine, but in Germany/Japan nudity is no big deal at all but violence is censored.
Thats what happens when you get the kicked out of you by the Mighty US of HURR!!
Herzlos wrote: I'm still baffled at how backwards the UK/US is in regards to sex/nudity compared to the rest of the world, whilst being just as backwards about violence.
This wouldn't be an issue in, say, Germany or Eastern Europe, or India.
It would in Japan, but even they have a lot of unisex baths.
Ah, yes. India. That noted bastion of women's rights.
Herzlos wrote: I'm still baffled at how backwards the UK/US is in regards to sex/nudity compared to the rest of the world, whilst being just as backwards about violence.
This wouldn't be an issue in, say, Germany or Eastern Europe, or India.
It would in Japan, but even they have a lot of unisex baths.
Ah, yes. India. That noted bastion of women's rights.
Yeah, I read that and snickered. I have a hard time considering a country with legalized marital rape as forward-thinking on sexuality.
I think there's something to be said for the woman here... most of this thread has been somewhat focused on the purportedly "trans" person...
I would imagine that if I were a woman and a member of a gym with locker rooms, and I walked in to shower/change before/after my workout and saw a real life penis hanging out for the "world" to see, I'd probably be a bit freaked out too. Obviously, there's the bit about how Western society apparently brain washes women into believing that if there's ever a man in a changing room he has ill intent, or that people are out to get them; But aside from that, I think there's got to be a bit of the "Surprise!" factor going on.
Anyone seen the youtube clips of the bathroom prank? (a guy walks into the "mens" restroom, and someone outside swaps the signs... the guy who's walked in is "visually assaulted" by women in towels, bathing suits etc., so he walks out, looks at the sign, and embarrassedly walks into the other room, for it to be repeated)
Think of that, only a bit more extreme (due to our Puritan obsession with skin being so icky)
Personally, I am with the actual woman who complained here. I've seen so many articles online about "decency" and modesty" everything from mothers in the US breastfeeding in public to this gym thing, and the common comment is "cover up because it respects OTHERS" Well, if it's really about respect, then perhaps Trans folks should "respect" others and not change in a semi-public place, or do so in such a way that NO ONE is any the wiser.
The gym I go to has no changing room per se. It has two restrooms that are "single occupant" (though there's space for more people) of a similar size to many roadside gas station restrooms, so roughly... 6x8? 8x10? I go straight from school to the gym, change in the restroom, and i go straight home after working out... so really there could be very little problem with this sort of situation in the OP.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I would imagine that if I were a woman and a member of a gym with locker rooms, and I walked in to shower/change before/after my workout and saw a real life penis hanging out for the "world" to see, I'd probably be a bit freaked out too.
Sure, but that's not all she did. She complained to the local management, and they told her what the situation was. The problem was that, instead of dropping the issue there, she insisted on escalating her complaint to people higher up the chain as well as "warning" other customers.
I've seen so many articles online about "decency" and modesty" everything from mothers in the US breastfeeding in public to this gym thing, and the common comment is "cover up because it respects OTHERS"
That's one point of view, but it's not the only one. Some of us think that the "COVER UP OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN" reaction is entirely inappropriate and it's not a big deal if a breastfeeding mother isn't quite 100% out of sight.
Well, if it's really about respect, then perhaps Trans folks should "respect" others and not change in a semi-public place, or do so in such a way that NO ONE is any the wiser.
So where are they supposed to go, if there isn't a private single-person area to use?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I would imagine that if I were a woman and a member of a gym with locker rooms, and I walked in to shower/change before/after my workout and saw a real life penis hanging out for the "world" to see, I'd probably be a bit freaked out too.
Sure, but that's not all she did. She complained to the local management, and they told her what the situation was. The problem was that, instead of dropping the issue there, she insisted on escalating her complaint to people higher up the chain as well as "warning" other customers.
Sorry mate, but "don't judge" is NOT an appropriate response to the situation, which from everything I've personally read, is exactly what Planet Fitness did... And further, rather than investigating the matter as most other places would do to validate/invalidate the woman's claims, they simply got rid of her paid membership because she broke the rule of "not judging people"
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Sorry mate, but "don't judge" is NOT an appropriate response to the situation, which from everything I've personally read, is exactly what Planet Fitness did...
Why not? Do you actually have any evidence that there was any inappropriate behavior happening, or are you just assuming that there needs to be judgement for the sake of judgement?
And further, rather than investigating the matter as most other places would do to validate/invalidate the woman's claims, they simply got rid of her paid membership because she broke the rule of "not judging people"
You're right, she broke the rule. She went beyond voicing her concern about an unexpected situation and crossed the line into judging people. And the gym decided that her violation of the rule was enough to justify declining to do business with her. So what exactly is the problem here?
Personally, I am with the actual woman who complained here. I've seen so many articles online about "decency" and modesty" everything from mothers in the US breastfeeding in public to this gym thing, and the common comment is "cover up because it respects OTHERS" Well, if it's really about respect, then perhaps Trans folks should "respect" others and not change in a semi-public place, or do so in such a way that NO ONE is any the wiser.
How is it respecting others? I don't like seeing fat people or ugly people (I don't actually feel this way, just making a point). Perhaps they should wear a balaclava or ban fat people from wearing Lycra int he gym so I don't have to see it? (Again, I don't actually care, just making a point).
It is not about respecting others, but arbitrary lines people have made in what should and should not be seen in public. If there is an objective reason then fine. "I don't want to see that" is not objective. I'm borderline on public nudity, but in a gym changing room? Welcome to the modern world where transsexuals exist.
Sorry mate, but "don't judge" is NOT an appropriate response to the situation, which from everything I've personally read, is exactly what Planet Fitness did... And further, rather than investigating the matter as most other places would do to validate/invalidate the woman's claims, they simply got rid of her paid membership because she broke the rule of "not judging people"
No they wouldn't. Most businesses would do exactly what this gym did. Tell the woman making the complaint that she was wrong then throw her out if she carried on making a fuss. I don't know the details of US law, but it wouldn't surprise me if discrimination laws also affected this.
No they wouldn't. Most businesses would do exactly what this gym did. Tell the woman making the complaint that she was wrong then throw her out if she carried on making a fuss. I don't know the details of US law, but it wouldn't surprise me if discrimination laws also affected this.
Please show me the discrimination law she violated.
The other side is that, yep they got good press for people who are disposed to the issue, but they also got bad press for everyone else.
No they wouldn't. Most businesses would do exactly what this gym did. Tell the woman making the complaint that she was wrong then throw her out if she carried on making a fuss. I don't know the details of US law, but it wouldn't surprise me if discrimination laws also affected this.
Please show me the discrimination law she violated.
The other side is that, yep they got good press for people who are disposed to the issue, but they also got bad press for everyone else.
More people are uneasy with this situation.
Exactly.
I know a transgender, a male who identifies as female, and now says that they are a lesbian. So, they have all the body parts, and sexual inclination of a heterosexual male, but something in their head says they are female.
Why should other women be comfortable about this? Simply because people say they should be? Your a bad person if you don't just shut up, and accept that a man can be in the locker room with you? I don't buy it.
Now that being said, what do we do about it? The transgender person has as much right as anyone to use a gym locker room. I can't come up with a perfect fix. Maybe some privacy stalls could be put in place.
unisex changing rooms with privacy stalls and you're sorted. Or even just privacy stalls in split-sex rooms, though to be fair they usually have shower cubicles and that won't do much for anyone elses unease.
No they wouldn't. Most businesses would do exactly what this gym did. Tell the woman making the complaint that she was wrong then throw her out if she carried on making a fuss. I don't know the details of US law, but it wouldn't surprise me if discrimination laws also affected this.
Please show me the discrimination law she violated.
The other side is that, yep they got good press for people who are disposed to the issue, but they also got bad press for everyone else.
More people are uneasy with this situation.
It a almost like you are just grandstanding and don't know that "laws" are different from "agreements" and "contracts".
She agreed to terms, she violated these terms, the agreement was terminated. She is now free to join a gym that keeps trans women out of her locker room. Hurray free market and minimal government regulations.
No they wouldn't. Most businesses would do exactly what this gym did. Tell the woman making the complaint that she was wrong then throw her out if she carried on making a fuss. I don't know the details of US law, but it wouldn't surprise me if discrimination laws also affected this.
Please show me the discrimination law she violated.
The other side is that, yep they got good press for people who are disposed to the issue, but they also got bad press for everyone else.
More people are uneasy with this situation.
It a almost like you are just grandstanding and don't know that "laws" are different from "agreements" and "contracts".
She agreed to terms, she violated these terms, the agreement was terminated. She is now free to join a gym that keeps trans women out of her locker room. Hurray free market and minimal government regulations.
You're not good at reading this morning. The post stated he thought she might have violated discrimination laws.
Apology accepted.
You're not good at reading this morning. The post stated he thought she might have violated discrimination laws.
Apology accepted.
No it didn't. Perhaps before being passive aggressive about reading you should make sure you have understood what was written correctly.
I didn't say she had broken discrimination laws, I said "discrimination laws may have affected this". I was referring specifically to the actions of the gym, not her actions. With US law being such a complex mix of federal, state county and city law I don't know exactly what the discrimination laws are where the gym is, just postulating that there is a chance that discrimination laws may make it illegal for the gym to force a trans person to use a changing room other than the one that matches their gender identity. In some US jurisdictions there are laws in place protecting a trans gender persons right to use the bathroom (which would be an equivalent situation) that matches their gender identity, in others there is not. No idea about Michigan.
d-usa wrote: Hurray free market and minimal government regulations.
Which does nothing more than enforce the views of the majority and allow discrimination.
You're not good at reading this morning. The post stated he thought she might have violated discrimination laws. Apology accepted.
No it didn't. Perhaps before being passive aggressive about reading you should make sure you have understood what was written correctly.
I didn't say she had broken discrimination laws, I said "discrimination laws may have affected this". I was referring specifically to the actions of the gym, not her actions. With US law being such a complex mix of federal, state county and city law I don't know exactly what the discrimination laws are where the gym is, just postulating that there is a chance that discrimination laws may make it illegal for the gym to force a trans person to use a changing room other than the one that matches their gender identity. In some US jurisdictions there are laws in place protecting a trans gender persons right to use the bathroom (which would be an equivalent situation) that matches their gender identity, in others there is not. No idea about Michigan.
d-usa wrote: Hurray free market and minimal government regulations.
Which does nothing more than enforce the views of the majority and allow discrimination.
EDIT: Good point. I did not see that.
To your point: What law? What violation? "AH there's a man in the girl's room! Call the police!" Is not a violation of anything.
d-usa wrote: Hurray free market and minimal government regulations.
Which does nothing more than enforce the views of the majority and allow discrimination.
It's hard to argue that the free market and minimal government regulation enforces the views of the majority and allows discrimination when you are making that argument in a thread that is the result of exactly the opposite happening.
What law? What violation?
"AH there's a man in the girl's room! Call the police!"
Is not a violation of anything.
In Maryland, it would be illegal to ask a transgendered person to use a different bathroom or locker room than their gender identity.
If a place feels strongly and wants an exemption, they would have to:
If an establishment that is a place of public accommodation has a private facility on its premises that they want to be exempt, such as a locker room, the establishment is required to provide “equivalent space” for transgender patrons. This is defined as a space that is “functionally equivalent to the space made available to other users.”
And for the chicken little people who are using the spectre of mass rape or stalking by transgender to justify bigotry.
Does this mean that men will be able to dress up as women and use the women’s room?
No. This law does not entitle a person whose core identity is male to use the women’s room, or whose core identity is female to use the men’s room. Even if a man dresses up as woman, if his sincerely held, core identity is male, he cannot use the women’s room. This Act does not change that.
Moreover, this law does not change or weaken Maryland’s criminal laws in any way. If someone goes into a restroom to ogle or expose themselves or harass or assault someone, what they are doing is illegal and they will be prosecuted – regardless of how they are dressed or what their sex is or what their gender identity is.
Under this law, will girls be exposed to male genitalia in the bathroom?
No. This law does not change the current criminal laws in our state. It is already illegal for a man to come into a women’s bathroom and expose his penis. That would continue to be the case. Most transgender women (whose assigned sex at birth was male) currently use the women’s bathroom. We want people to be able to use the bathroom that matches how they look on the outside. This is what makes sense and is safest for the transgender person and the other people using the bathrooms. There is no evidence of any incident like this happening either here in Maryland or elsewhere in the country.
So at least in my state, it would have been illegal for the Gym to make the transgender woman use the male bathroom, and it would have been illegal for them to ban her from the gym. And as soon as the woman was making a 'scene' she was justifiably thrown out. If she actually had an issue like someone intentionally waving their genitals around or assaulting her, she would be able to file criminal charges... But since none of that happened and nothing the transgendered woman did was illegal, sounds like everything is working as intended.
Most of the 'oogies' people in this thread express and actions they suggest by forcing people to 'go where their parts say' is already illegal and discrimination in many states.
Frazzled wrote: I'd proffer there might be less than you think. The "T" portion of GLBT rights have been substantially less served (being a subgroup of a sub group).
And at times the T faces as much opposition from the GLB as they do from the groups not included in any of the letters.
Frazzled wrote: Please list the number of states where its illegal. This should be interesting in its brevity.
Transgendered allowed to use Gender Identity Lockerroom: Inclusive-no medical hormones or surgery required
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Vermont
Washington
District of Columbia
Transgendered allowed to use Gender Identity Lockerroom: Needs Surgical Reassignment or government documentation of gender (usually a doctors note and beginning of hormones)
Arizona
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Michigan
Missouri
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Transgendered allowed to use Gender Identity Lockerroom based upon discrestion of the establishment: No law for or against
Alaska
Arkansas
Delaware
Hawaii
Indiana
Lousiana
Mississippi
Nebraska
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Transgendered NOT allowed to use Gender Identity Lockerroom, Requires birth certificate Gender:
Alabama
Georgia
Kentucky
Montana
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Virginia
Frazzled wrote: I'd proffer there might be less than you think. The "T" portion of GLBT rights have been substantially less served (being a subgroup of a sub group).
And at times the T faces as much opposition from the GLB as they do from the groups not included in any of the letters.
Frazzled wrote: I'd proffer there might be less than you think. The "T" portion of GLBT rights have been substantially less served (being a subgroup of a sub group).
And at times the T faces as much opposition from the GLB as they do from the groups not included in any of the letters.
Frazzled wrote: Please list the number of states where its illegal. This should be interesting in its brevity.
Transgendered allowed to use Gender Identity Lockerroom: Inclusive-no medical hormones or surgery required
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Vermont
Washington
District of Columbia
Transgendered allowed to use Gender Identity Lockerroom: Needs Surgical Reassignment or government documentation of gender (usually a doctors note and beginning of hormones)
Arizona
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Michigan
Missouri
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Transgendered allowed to use Gender Identity Lockerroom based upon discrestion of the establishment: No law for or against
Alaska
Arkansas
Delaware
Hawaii
Indiana
Lousiana
Mississippi
Nebraska
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Transgendered NOT allowed to use Gender Identity Lockerroom, Requires birth certificate Gender:
Alabama
Georgia
Kentucky
Montana
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Virginia
So fifteen. Admittedly thats more than I thought there'd be. but that doesn't make it illegal to complain about it, and you'll have to cite if those actually mandate those restrooms.
Frazzled wrote: I'd proffer there might be less than you think. The "T" portion of GLBT rights have been substantially less served (being a subgroup of a sub group).
And at times the T faces as much opposition from the GLB as they do from the groups not included in any of the letters.
Frazzled wrote: Please list the number of states where its illegal. This should be interesting in its brevity.
Spoiler:
Transgendered allowed to use Gender Identity Lockerroom: Inclusive-no medical hormones or surgery required
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Vermont
Washington
District of Columbia
Transgendered allowed to use Gender Identity Lockerroom: Needs Surgical Reassignment or government documentation of gender (usually a doctors note and beginning of hormones)
Arizona
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Michigan
Missouri
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Transgendered allowed to use Gender Identity Lockerroom based upon discrestion of the establishment: No law for or against
Alaska
Arkansas
Delaware
Hawaii
Indiana
Lousiana
Mississippi
Nebraska
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Transgendered NOT allowed to use Gender Identity Lockerroom, Requires birth certificate Gender:
Alabama
Georgia
Kentucky
Montana
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Virginia
So fifteen. Admittedly thats more than I thought there'd be. but that doesn't make it illegal to complain about it, and you'll have to cite if those actually mandate those restrooms.
It couldn't be illegal to complain about it? That would be a violation of protected speech, wouldn't?
Content warning: medically explicit description of genitalia function.
Grey Templar wrote: Well if you're pre-op you're still whatever you are before the surgery. Simple.
Right.
Transsexual blokes, who have been on testosterone for years and grown massive beards and muscles, should use the women's toilets and locker rooms if they haven't yet - or do not intend to - had genital reconstruction surgery.
Even if their HRT has grown their
Spoiler:
clitoris
into a
Spoiler:
micropenis
that can
Spoiler:
get erect
and
Spoiler:
penetrate
a
Spoiler:
vagina
.
They've not had a surgeon's knife on their junk, so they should take their beard and penis and bald spot and always wash them in a communal women's shower, apologising in their booming broken voices for the smell of their sweat and cologne.
Gaze upon the world you have wrought, genital inquisitors. Truly, you have made the locker room and toilet a place where cisgender people can feel comfortable and safe.
Until intersex people cone along and ruin everything for the binary enforcers by existing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honestly, a lot of this sort of nonsense could be avoided if more people listened more to the minority groups they're trying to accommodate into policy.
You may have the most logical and rational mind in the world, but if you're feeding into it data derived from like a half-remember drag queen fight on Jerry Springer and a bunch of sensationalist Fox headlines, you're going to talk yourself into a very silly position.
A few years ago I attended a private convention where due to the high number of cross-dress cosplayers, trans and gender-ambiguous attendees, a security guard took it upon himself to be the literal Toilet Police.
Just let that ferment in your head a little. Someone cared so much about the two or three minutes of the day that everyone needs to attend to, that he invaded the privacy of people out to have a great time.
Back then I didn't know my rights, didn't know what to say, and just stammered when I was asked whether I was heading into the right room or not. These days I'd love to say I'd let go at such idiocy with righteous fury, but honestly I can't swear by it. This sort of action really disarms you, over such a "minor" thing.
Transgendered allowed to use Gender Identity Lockerroom: Needs Surgical Reassignment or government documentation of gender (usually a doctors note and beginning of hormones)
Arizona
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Michigan
Missouri
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
So based on this list here, in the OP there's only one of two options:
The person being complained about broke the law because they clearly had not had reassignment surgery (seriously, how else would an average person recognize a "male" from a "female" in most cases?)
OR
The person being complained about reported their "status" with whatever Michigan's "government documentation of gender" is to the gym in question.
In the latter case, it would seem that the gym wasn't explicit/clear enough to the complainer that their hands were tied. As I said earlier "don't judge" isn't a valid argument when receiving a complaint. A more appropriate response would be, "The person in question furnished this establishment with State issued documentation entitling them to use of the facility in question."
Ultimately though, I dislike Planet "Fitness" about as much as I dislike crossfit, so I hope that the lady goes to an actual gym and gets some actual health benefits out of it, instead of monthly pizza/doughnut parties and dumb crap like that.
She looks kinda out of place doesn't she? If anything I'd say she's in significant danger being forced to use the bathroom of her birth sex.
Doesn't help that the Texans have put a bounty on individuals using the "wrong" bathroom. A member of the Texas GOP (as in an official, not just some random yahoo) even said to a friend of mine regarding trans and intersex people...
" However, if they and you think you can intimidate the human race into bowing down to your perverse agenda, you had better guess again. ... WE are the human race and you are tolerated only to a point.,"
Charming really. So are the concerns about molesters and terrible people using this so called loophole well founded? Watson! The evidence!
Sooooo.... decade plus on a lot of those laws, and nothing. Nada. Zilch. It's interesting to note that this push back on trans rights and inclusiveness is happening nationwide right now as a defeated GOP struggles for a fear issue after most of the country figured out two blokes getting married wasn't exactly a bad thing, and the Supreme Court set to hand down a devastating courtroom defeat to the religious right. There's current anti-trans legislation in Texas (Five bills!), Minnesota, Arkansas, Kansas (the lite version of the former?), Florida, Alabama and Kentucky.
I guess they figure they can get away with it this time because large portions of the LGB part of the LGBT is quickly tossing the T under the bus in a bid for stronger social acceptability, especially as they finish off "their" goals. (not that this is new behavior in the LGBT sphere) and Trans/Intersex people are extremely uncommon, and with the relatively complex set of medical and psychological issues that make up the group, far more alien than liking people of the same gender, making the latest group the religious right wants to pick on even more to the fringe and marginal then the last.
I'd love to see some of these donkey caves talk this trash to someone like Senior Chief Petty officer and Navy SEAL Kristen Beck in person. I feel like the cognitive dissonance of insulting a vet with a purple heart and impeccable military record would make some heads pop.
Please show where Texas has put a " bounty" on someone using the wrong bathroom. Do you know what a bounty is?
The only legislation I know of was fighting legislation in Houston that would have mandated three different bathrooms because the cost is...stupid. There are lots of bills posted at the state level but very little of anything passes (its designed like that), which is good because I share your notation that the "redneck" quotient is a bit high in a lot of the bills in general.
I'd love to see some of these donkey caves talk this trash to someone like Senior Chief Petty officer and Navy SEAL Kristen Beck in person. I feel like the cognitive dissonance of insulting a vet with a purple heart and impeccable military record would make some heads pop.
I like how you would resort to violence against people who disagree with you. Stay classy.
Frazzled wrote: Please show where Texas has put a " bounty" on someone using the wrong bathroom. Do you know what a bounty is?
The only legislation I know of was fighting legislation in Houston that would have mandated three different bathrooms because the cost is...stupid. There are lots of bills posted at the state level but very little of anything passes (its designed like that), which is good because I share your notation that the "redneck" quotient is a bit high in a lot of the bills in general.
I'd love to see some of these donkey caves talk this trash to someone like Senior Chief Petty officer and Navy SEAL Kristen Beck in person. I feel like the cognitive dissonance of insulting a vet with a purple heart and impeccable military record would make some heads pop.
I like how you would resort to violence against people who disagree with you. Stay classy.
Line 21 is the bounty part. If your a student who sues (and wins) under this statute you are awarded an extra $2000 this is on top of any actual damages.
(One of the confusing part of this bill is that is says schools should provided a bathroom, but then a few lines down says they aren't required to build or maintain a bathroom.)
Frazzled wrote: Not seeing the issue. Its actually the three bathroom rule.
I'm completely for it.
It doesn't mandate a third bathroom though. Right in subsection c of the first part. They don't have to build maintain of modify any room in order to have that third bathroom, so how are they going to provided a bathroom?
Frazzled wrote: Please show where Texas has put a " bounty" on someone using the wrong bathroom. Do you know what a bounty is?
The only legislation I know of was fighting legislation in Houston that would have mandated three different bathrooms because the cost is...stupid. There are lots of bills posted at the state level but very little of anything passes (its designed like that), which is good because I share your notation that the "redneck" quotient is a bit high in a lot of the bills in general.
I'd love to see some of these donkey caves talk this trash to someone like Senior Chief Petty officer and Navy SEAL Kristen Beck in person. I feel like the cognitive dissonance of insulting a vet with a purple heart and impeccable military record would make some heads pop.
I like how you would resort to violence against people who disagree with you. Stay classy.
Bounty is as quoted.
And when did I suggest resorting to violence against any one? Being amused by the thought of small minded idiots being unable to process a decorated SEAL and trans women is hardly suggesting anything violent should happen to them. Get your reading glasses checked Frazz.
I do find it interesting that you're down for the expensive, government interference option though Frazz, as opposed to say... the way things have been, which were fine for everyone, except you know, aforementioned small minority of small minded bigots and a political faction desperate for a new scare tactic.
However, this mess HAS revealed an actual threat. Apparently there is a real danger of people going into women's restrooms and videoing those in them.
Christian groups are sending in video teams into womens restrooms to show how their own privacy is being violated by those women and children they suspect of being Trans. They then publish the videos online, after suitable editing.
Frazzled wrote: Not seeing the issue. Its actually the three bathroom rule.
I'm completely for it.
It doesn't mandate a third bathroom though. Right in subsection c of the first part. They don't have to build maintain of modify any room in order to have that third bathroom, so how are they going to provided a bathroom?
yes I looked at that as well as it contravened (aka you're right). Close off an existing bathroom.
Sorry we're talking teens and pre-teens here, not adults. We have separate locker rooms for a reason (because Grll bathrooms are frankly disgusting-don't believe me? Clean one some time)
Well you did say you'd like them to say it in front of a former SEAL. While I think its funny too (I have this image of Church Chat lady beating up a politician with her purse-wow I just dated myself) violence doesn't work against bigotry.
I do find it interesting that you're down for the expensive, government interference option though Frazz, as opposed to say... the way things have been, which were fine for everyone, except you know, aforementioned small minority of small minded bigots and a political faction desperate for a new scare tactic.
Lets separate out the "small minded bigots" and everyone who is uncomfortable with this. I'm fine as adults in a private enterprise.
If accommodation is made then I am ok with the law as we are dealing with minors.
Frazzled wrote: Not seeing the issue. Its actually the three bathroom rule.
I'm completely for it.
It doesn't mandate a third bathroom though. Right in subsection c of the first part. They don't have to build maintain of modify any room in order to have that third bathroom, so how are they going to provided a bathroom?
yes I looked at that as well as it contravened (aka you're right). Close off an existing bathroom.
Sorry we're talking teens and pre-teens here, not adults. We have separate locker rooms for a reason (because Grll bathrooms are frankly disgusting-don't believe me? Clean one some time)
I don't know how to fix the bathroom thing, or if it is even broken as it is now.
Frazzled wrote: Well you did say you'd like them to say it in front of a former SEAL. While I think its funny too (I have this image of Church Chat lady beating up a politician with her purse-wow I just dated myself) violence doesn't work against bigotry.
If Chief Beck feels like she needs to punch someone's throat in, I'm sure it'll be justified. Like I said, I just want to see Team Rah Rah Support The Troops/Moral Majority Nutters brains seize up when coming face to face with a combat decorated spec ops veteran, who is also part of the group they're working to crucify this week.
I was unwillingly subjected to viewing somebody else's junk in a bathroom last week, drunk guy was in the bar's bathroom with pants around his ankles trying to piss in the urinal from about 3 ft away.
It's a bit less common to see somebody nude in a bathroom than in a locker room, but it does happen.
Frazzled wrote: Not seeing the issue. Its actually the three bathroom rule.
I'm completely for it.
It doesn't mandate a third bathroom though. Right in subsection c of the first part. They don't have to build maintain of modify any room in order to have that third bathroom, so how are they going to provided a bathroom?
yes I looked at that as well as it contravened (aka you're right). Close off an existing bathroom.
Sorry we're talking teens and pre-teens here, not adults. We have separate locker rooms for a reason (because Grll bathrooms are frankly disgusting-don't believe me? Clean one some time)
I don't know how to fix the bathroom thing, or if it is even broken as it is now.
In the real world its a very statistically limited issue.
Frazzled wrote: Well you did say you'd like them to say it in front of a former SEAL. While I think its funny too (I have this image of Church Chat lady beating up a politician with her purse-wow I just dated myself) violence doesn't work against bigotry.
If Chief Beck feels like she needs to punch someone's throat in, I'm sure it'll be justified. Like I said, I just want to see Team Rah Rah Support The Troops/Moral Majority Nutters brains seize up when coming face to face with a combat decorated spec ops veteran, who is also part of the group they're working to crucify this week.
) room and broadcast your life decisions to everyone?
)
kicked out of you by the Mighty US of HURR!!
Someone cared so much about the two or three minutes of the day that everyone needs to attend to, that he invaded the privacy of people out to have a great time.
