HILLSBORO, Mo. (CBS St. Louis) – Over 150 Missouri high school students voiced their displeasure about a transgender teen using the girls’ locker room by walking out of class.
Students at Hillsboro High School staged a two-hour walkout Monday over 17-year-old Lila Perry, a student who has identified as a female since she was 13, using the girls’ locker room during gym class.
The school offered Perry a gender-neutral bathroom, which she turned down. St. Louis attorney Timm Schowalter says, “All students have a right, under Title 9, to access the bathroom of their choice.”
Family members of high school students were also holding a protest.
“Boys need to have their own locker room. Girls need to have their own locker room, and if somebody has mixed feelings where they are, they need to have their own also,” protester Jeff Childs told KMOV. Childs was holding a “Girls Rights Matter” sign.
Tammy Sorden, whose son goes to Hillsboro High School, believes it’s not right to give Lila special treatment “while the girls just have to suck it up.”
“The girls have rights, and they shouldn’t have to share a bathroom with a boy,” she told the Post-Dispatch.
Schowalter has worked with many corporations in gender equality and transgender issues. On KMOX Wednesday morning, the attorney was asked where he thought the situation would end up.
“It’s going to end up in court. And that’s where most of these issues are decided,” Schowalter says. “You have the administrative agencies – OSHA, EEOC, and the Department of Education clashing with the courts. Most of the times … the court, when the issue gets there, will not enforce those guidelines.”
Lila has dropped out of gym class for safety concerns, but she still plans on using the girl’s bathroom.
Well, this could be interesting, especially as she refused the gender-neutral bathroom. I presume, for all intents and purposes, she still looked like a boy? (i.e. limited hormone therapy, no operation, etc.)
Interesting. It seems like a bit of an overreaction, because nothing says "You're not wanted" than 150 people staging a protest, but this is going to end the same way it's ended everywhere else.
Virtually every adjudicator has held that sexual identity is not based on physical characteristics, and that a bona fide identity as one gender is enough to be classified as that gender.
The question is: can a person decide their gender. I don't mean on a whim, but can a person make the statement "I'm a female" and hold others to it? The answer increasingly seems to be yes, they can.
Frazzled wrote: I haven't seen anything one way or the other. Its a sad situation all around.
It is, because when you read the link Whembly posted, its clear that people are use the Locker room issue to kind of get at a deeper fear and dislike of trans individuals:
“This needs to stop before it goes too far,” said Childs, who has a niece and a nephew who go to an elementary school in Hillsboro. “I’m not trying to be ignorant, but (the transgender student) is bringing it out in public for everybody else to deal with.”
Here, his problem is that the trans person is making everybody else "deal" with her gender. Which is true, but something we all do. Everybody has to deal with me being male, whether they like it or not.
I'm not insensitive to the issue here. I think it's natural to have a kneejerk, "rooster in the henhouse" type concern about a trans individual in the locker room. I'm not even sure to what extent we should allow minors to make identity choices. That all said, this seems pretty mean spirited over a fairly minor issue.
Timm Schowalter says, “All students have a right, under Title 9, to access the bathroom of their choice.”
Wish this existed while I was in school:
"Principal Brown, according to Title 9, I choose to use the girl's bathroom instead of the boys."
"Why?"
"Well, I hear it's nicer and I can hopefully catch a peak of some boobies. It's my choice!"
Not saying that's what's happening here. At all. Just that the lawyer opened up that particular possibility with his choice of wording.
-Shrike- wrote: Well, this could be interesting, especially as she refused the gender-neutral bathroom. I presume, for all intents and purposes, she still looked like a boy? (i.e. limited hormone therapy, no operation, etc.)
Depending on the law, she potentially has every right to refuse isolation as in states with anti-discrimination laws for transgender where you use the public facility based upon your identity, it doesn't matter at what stage you are in regards to transition.
But it is a state-by-state issue.
Missouri is rated 'very bad' for transgender legislation.
Missouri includes gender identity in its hate-crime laws — but that’s pretty much it. However, there have been some small but encouraging stories of progress throughout the state. The University of Missouri just announced that its main campus in Columbia will start offering gender-neutral housing for nonconforming students. And, The Advocate reported last year on a trans elementary student whose transition was handled with comparative grace by his school’s administrators. Parents "received a letter Friday informing them that one of the students — formerly known as Adam — was transgender, and would be returning to school as a girl who wanted to be known by a different name from that point forward. The letter also included a note apparently intended to discourage bullying, reminding students to treat everyone ‘as they would like to be treated.’”
Basically, there is no anti-discrimination laws in regards to transgender and for the most part in that state it is totally up to the location to decide how they want to handle bathroom and locker rooms.
Bigots need to grow up. Penises don't spontaneously raping people in locker rooms. There is no 'danger' especially in a close community where everyone knows the specific person doing it and is aware of their situation... This is not opening the door for the football team to all wear wigs and harass women in the locker room.
Sadly for this girl, the law is not on her side in this state and it really is at the total discretion of the school there which means it can be impacted by public opinion. If the laws were on the books already, the protesters wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Polonius wrote: I'm not even sure to what extent we should allow minors to make identity choices.
Is it a choice?
You choose to identify as something other than the sex you were born with. In (hopefully) the majority of cases, your brain chemistry will support your claim, but I'm sure that's not true in all cases.
There seems to be a lot of repeating of history. Students used to walk out because they had to share facilities with other races, or shut down public services because of desegregation. We got through it then, we will get through it now.
d-usa wrote: There seems to be a lot of repeating of history. Students used to walk out because they had to share facilities with other races, or shut down public services because of desegregation. We got through it then, we will get through it now.
I disagree...
The female sex is more than a wig and wearing a dress.
The female sex is more than fake boobs and lipstick.
You can't easily change your skin color anymore that you can change if you have twigs & berries.
Don't you think that these girls have a right to 'bodily privacy'?
Furthermore, *he* also doesn't get to determine what's best for hundreds of young girls nor 'judge' their reaction.
This school is in a no win situation here and requiring a trans to use a unisex private bathroom is the best compromise here.
whembly wrote: Until we have that 'Starship Trooper Shower' scene as culturally accepted (every young boy's wet dream)...
This will always be an issue.
Seems to me that the gender-neutral bathroom is the best solution.
Which was available.
To an extent, a question that has to be asked is whether or not the facilities would be up to code--or if it's just a case of taking a gym teacher's private bathroom and slapping "gender neutral" on it.
As well there's an issue of what could be considered a form of segregation--"You say you're not a boy, but you're not a girl either so go shuffle off to this 'private' bathroom".
From my perspective, if gender reassignment has taken place and the individual resembles the female sex, seems fine. If somone is willing to undergo that transformation I 100% support them.
It's the other silly crap that I find exhausting. the third gender stuff, its murkier water, harder to tell if people are sincere or takin a piss. I really do think if we get to the point that all some hormone addled teen has to do is declare themselves gender fluid to get a peek at the opposite sex's naughty bits, we're in for either a bad time or at the very least a bad adam sandler comedy.
Don't you think that these girls have a right to 'bodily privacy'?
That's an interesting question, given that we are presumably discussing group facilities. Should all students be granted access to individual facilities?
o an extent, a question that has to be asked is whether or not the facilities would be up to code--or if it's just a case of taking a gym teacher's private bathroom and slapping "gender neutral" on it.
As well there's an issue of what could be considered a form of segregation--"You say you're not a boy, but you're not a girl either so go shuffle off to this 'private' bathroom".
Indeed. Its a hard situation all around. Imagine being the principal...
As well there's an issue of what could be considered a form of segregation--"You say you're not a boy, but you're not a girl either so go shuffle off to this 'private' bathroom".
We already segregate by gender, creating a third gender shouldn't make some more equal than others. Declaring myself a potato shouldn't allow me to change in the kitchen in addition to either lockeroom.
Crablezworth wrote: From my perspective, if gender reassignment has taken place and the individual resembles the female sex, seems fine. If somone is willing to undergo that transformation I 100% support them.
It's the other silly crap that I find exhausting. the third gender stuff, its murkier water, harder to tell if people are sincere or takin a piss. I really do think if we get to the point that all some hormone addled teen has to do is declare themselves gender fluid to get a peek at the opposite sex's naughty bits, we're in for either a bad time or at the very least a bad adam sandler comedy.
This is, IMO, the best stance to take on the situation.
The concept of the "third gender" is one that is still a bit "under construction" in Western society. It's difficult to tell if/when someone is serious, but I do think a measure of rational thought should be made---I can't envision someone seriously trying to play this as a way to get to see some boob in high school.
It's the other silly crap that I find exhausting. the third gender stuff, its murkier water, harder to tell if people are sincere or takin a piss. I really do think if we get to the point that all some hormone addled teen has to do is declare themselves gender fluid to get a peek at the opposite sex's naughty bits, we're in for either a bad time or at the very least a bad adam sandler comedy.
The same arguments of 'what if' scenarios which will never happen are the same reason people discriminated against AIDS patients too. To basically treat all transgender people as perverts and rapists as default is insane, when the actual chances of a pervert or rapist abusing transgender legislation is virtually node.
Lots of states have been doing it for years... We haven't had outbreaks of people pretending to be transgender to watch people gak.
whembly wrote: I realize that trans issues a big thing now... but, where's the consideration for these other girls?
The question is, and I'm not being rhetorical, "how are they harmed?"
And I'm not sure. I've never been a high school girl, and I'm not sure to what extent they are harmed by this.
How are they not harmed. There are separate facilities for a reason. Like it or not he's still a bio he. Fix that and I can't see an issue.
That's not good enough. How, specifically, is a girl harmed by having a biologically male, but female identifying, individual in her locker room? I get that she might see a penis, but is that harmful?
The flip side is asking what harm there is in having a trans individual use a third, individual room, assuming it's properly constructed. (locker rooms tend to have showers)
Toss in the modern reality of homosexual students, and I'm curious what the harm is.
As well there's an issue of what could be considered a form of segregation--"You say you're not a boy, but you're not a girl either so go shuffle off to this 'private' bathroom".
We already segregate by gender, creating a third gender shouldn't make some more equal than others. Declaring myself a potato shouldn't allow me to change in the kitchen in addition to either lockeroom.
Here's my issue with what is otherwise a good stance to take:
Do you truly believe that someone needs to undergo sex reassignment surgery if they feel they were attracted to the same sex and identify as the opposite sex?
So if a boy is born a boy, identifies as female and is attracted to only males--do they need to undergo sex reassignment surgery?
"Third gender" is a concept which has been around for a fairly long time, just never really been accepted.
whembly wrote: I realize that trans issues a big thing now... but, where's the consideration for these other girls?
The question is, and I'm not being rhetorical, "how are they harmed?"
And I'm not sure. I've never been a high school girl, and I'm not sure to what extent they are harmed by this.
How are they not harmed. There are separate facilities for a reason. Like it or not he's still a bio he. Fix that and I can't see an issue.
That's not good enough. How, specifically, is a girl harmed by having a biologically male, but female identifying, individual in her locker room? I get that she might see a penis, but is that harmful?
If we're all mature people... no, it's not harmful.
But, lemme ask you a questions: Do you believe that the trials and tribulations of normal girls are unique to boys? And vice versa?
whembly wrote: This school is in a no win situation here and requiring a trans to use a unisex private bathroom is the best compromise here.
I somewhat agree, but only in practice.
In theory, I agree with the idea that making a transfemale use a unisex bathroom is a very public statement by the school that she isn't a girl. Toss in the bushels of baggage that tend to go with being trans, such as increased harassment, bullying, and sexual assault, its really crappy to be told that you're different and not really what you think you are.
In practice, I really hate when people make principled stands instead of taking a pretty decent compromise. (And yes, I'm checking my privilege) The student is making a legal case out of something that frankly, she could have dealt with. Now, the response by the student body, which is super crappy, makes me feel more sympathetic, but this isn't going to end well for anybody.
As well there's an issue of what could be considered a form of segregation--"You say you're not a boy, but you're not a girl either so go shuffle off to this 'private' bathroom".
We already segregate by gender, creating a third gender shouldn't make some more equal than others. Declaring myself a potato shouldn't allow me to change in the kitchen in addition to either lockeroom.
Here's my issue with what is otherwise a good stance to take:
Do you truly believe that someone needs to undergo sex reassignment surgery if they feel they were attracted to the same sex and identify as the opposite sex?
So if a boy is born a boy, identifies as female and is attracted to only males--do they need to undergo sex reassignment surgery?
"Third gender" is a concept which has been around for a fairly long time, just never really been accepted.
I'm all for no segregation at all. I don't really care. That one big shower for starship troopers? Bring it on! Gender is either entirely a social construct, or it has some pretty specific biological underpinnings. I would tend towards the biology side of things. I'm sure in this future utopia, hr departments and complaints of sexual harassment will be things of the past. Biology likely also explains homosexuality, and that's good, because it shoves it in the face of all those ignorant hyper religious bastards that who you love and who you are attracted to is not a choice.
There is no need for a 3rd 'sex' bathroom, she identifies as female, not a 3rd gender.
Those who object to sharing with her should overcome their prejudices or stop using the facilities. Same as those who objected to sharing facilities with people of different skin color or ethnicity.
'being this way is much more than a wig and a dress' - totally, it's about personal identification according to how you feel, rather than ostracizing this young woman because how she feels is different to the majority viewpoint.
If we're all mature people... no, it's not harmful.
But, lemme ask you a questions: Do you believe that the trials and tribulations of normal girls are unique to boys? And vice versa?
I'm not sure what you're asking there, and you may have used the wrong term.
That the challenges of a genetic-girl growing up is different than the challenges of a genetic-male growing up?
Puberty is distinctly different...
Social Pressures is distinctly different...
Then add the additional challenges of being trans.
IMO, this isn't a case where the school is maliciously "segregating" a trans, ala Jim Crowisms.
That's all great. I totally get that.
What is the harm?
Look, I want to nip this in the bud. I don't want a wang chilling my a girl's locker room. But I've got plenty of evidence that denying a person their identity is harmful, so my question has to become: is there a harm to cis-women changing with a trans-woman?
If we're all mature people... no, it's not harmful.
But, lemme ask you a questions: Do you believe that the trials and tribulations of normal girls are unique to boys? And vice versa?
I'm not sure what you're asking there, and you may have used the wrong term.
Like you I have never been a teenage girl, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn overnight. However, in light of the cost and expense of separate facilities across the country nad the many jurisdictions where there is potential criminal liability for snooping on such, I'd proffer there is a historically recognized harm here.
If we're all mature people... no, it's not harmful.
But, lemme ask you a questions: Do you believe that the trials and tribulations of normal girls are unique to boys? And vice versa?
I'm not sure what you're asking there, and you may have used the wrong term.
That the challenges of a genetic-girl growing up is different than the challenges of a genetic-male growing up?
Puberty is distinctly different...
Social Pressures is distinctly different...
Then add the additional challenges of being trans.
IMO, this isn't a case where the school is maliciously "segregating" a trans, ala Jim Crowisms.
That's all great. I totally get that.
What is the harm?
Look, I want to nip this in the bud. I don't want a wang chilling my a girl's locker room. But I've got plenty of evidence that denying a person their identity is harmful, so my question has to become: is there a harm to cis-women changing with a trans-woman?
To answer you question: The Hilsboro girls seems to think so. Do they have any say?
Is it me, that this is the same as Tropic Thunder's Kirk Lazarus getting his skin chemically tinted and acting like understand what it’s like to be black?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: There is no need for a 3rd 'sex' bathroom, she identifies as female, not a 3rd gender.
Those who object to sharing with her should overcome their prejudices or stop using the facilities. Same as those who objected to sharing facilities with people of different skin color or ethnicity.
'being this way is much more than a wig and a dress' - totally, it's about personal identification according to how you feel, rather than ostracizing this young woman because how she feels is different to the majority viewpoint.
So the rights of the many are obliterated by the one. Spock would not be happy with you.
If we're all mature people... no, it's not harmful.
But, lemme ask you a questions: Do you believe that the trials and tribulations of normal girls are unique to boys? And vice versa?
I'm not sure what you're asking there, and you may have used the wrong term.
Like you I have never been a teenage girl, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn overnight. However, in light of the cost and expense of separate facilities across the country nad the many jurisdictions where there is potential criminal liability for snooping on such, I'd proffer there is a historically recognized harm here.
"Harm" or "traditional standards of modesty"...?
If the gender neutral facilities exist, but only one student is using them are they truly gender neutral?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: There is no need for a 3rd 'sex' bathroom, she identifies as female, not a 3rd gender.
Those who object to sharing with her should overcome their prejudices or stop using the facilities. Same as those who objected to sharing facilities with people of different skin color or ethnicity.
'being this way is much more than a wig and a dress' - totally, it's about personal identification according to how you feel, rather than ostracizing this young woman because how she feels is different to the majority viewpoint.
Shouldn't we just get rid of segregation of sexes entirely? I mean, it seems so antiquated.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: There is no need for a 3rd 'sex' bathroom, she identifies as female, not a 3rd gender.
Those who object to sharing with her should overcome their prejudices or stop using the facilities. Same as those who objected to sharing facilities with people of different skin color or ethnicity.
'being this way is much more than a wig and a dress' - totally, it's about personal identification according to how you feel, rather than ostracizing this young woman because how she feels is different to the majority viewpoint.
So the rights of the many are obliterated by the one. Spock would not be happy with you.
Spock would logically concede that on certain occasions, the many are a pack of scum...
whembly wrote: [
To answer you question: The Hilsboro girls seems to think so. Do they have any say?
They do, as long as there is a harm, and not simply a preference. It's not like teenagers ever exaggerate their problems or anything.
Look, I want to be on the side of the school. I want to say, "hey, we're sorry, but having you change with the girls won't work for us, because..." I just need the "because." I'll admit that I'm weirded out by transsexuality. It's icky. But I also know that it beats the alternative, which is having people live in an identity they don't relate to, which comes with a high psychological toll. I'm, through force of will alone, trying to be an ally to trans people. So I really can see both sides here.
What I'd like, is some tangible, actual reason to disallow a transwoman from changing in the girls locker room.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: There is no need for a 3rd 'sex' bathroom, she identifies as female, not a 3rd gender.
Those who object to sharing with her should overcome their prejudices or stop using the facilities. Same as those who objected to sharing facilities with people of different skin color or ethnicity.
'being this way is much more than a wig and a dress' - totally, it's about personal identification according to how you feel, rather than ostracizing this young woman because how she feels is different to the majority viewpoint.
Shouldn't we just get rid of segregation of sexes entirely? I mean, it seems so antiquated.
If we're all mature people... no, it's not harmful.
But, lemme ask you a questions: Do you believe that the trials and tribulations of normal girls are unique to boys? And vice versa?
I'm not sure what you're asking there, and you may have used the wrong term.
Like you I have never been a teenage girl, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn overnight. However, in light of the cost and expense of separate facilities across the country nad the many jurisdictions where there is potential criminal liability for snooping on such, I'd proffer there is a historically recognized harm here.
"Harm" or "traditional standards of modesty"...?
If the gender neutral facilities exist, but only one student is using them are they truly gender neutral?
I'd say harm as I am not in a position to judge, and frankly I doubt any of us are.
Here's the problem: what's going to stop straight guys by identifying as females so that they can hang out in the girls locker room and bathroom? I would definitely not put this past some of the kids I went to high school with if all it took was a wig and a declaration. If I was a parent of a female, I'd be disturbed.
That aside, call me old fashioned, but I think penises in one room and vaginas in another make the most sense.
It would seem asking the kid with a penis to change/shower with other kids with penises makes that one kid uncomfortable. Allowing the kid with a penis to change/shower with a bunch of kids with vaginas makes a bunch of kids uncomfortable.
Seems making it clear 'This is the shower room for kids with a penis, and this is the shower room for kids with a vagina' is not that hard to do. There are likely kids belonging in both rooms that, at this age, are uncomfortable with their bodies/bodies of others. At least keeping the body parts allowed in each room consistent is gonna help a lot more of them.
I'd say harm as I am not in a position to judge, and frankly I doubt any of us are.
And that's fair. The context of separate facilities, especially for bathrooms, makes sense because the plumbing is different.
The idea that there are anti-peeping laws makes sense, although I'm curious why its okay for a girl to change next to girls with vaginas, but not a girl with a penis.
Polonius wrote: Can we also do something about the idea that anybody is supposed to "comfortable" while changing in a high school locker room?
I'm a biological male that identifies as a male, and it was not exactly a picnic for me.
Agreed, and I could even argue that it would expand the alpha's pool of potential bullying victims. But I don't foresee a lack of incidents because there was plenty of drama and abuse without the social/sexual political minefield being tossed in. But really, it might be a positive for the fat kids, everyone will be too busy picking on the kid that made everyone take a sensitivity workshop.
CptJake wrote: It would seem asking the kid with a penis to change/shower with other kids with penises makes that one kid uncomfortable. Allowing the kid with a penis to change/shower with a bunch of kids with vaginas makes a bunch of kids uncomfortable.
Seems making it clear 'This is the shower room for kids with a penis, and this is the shower room for kids with a vagina' is not that hard to do. There are likely kids belonging in both rooms that, at this age, are uncomfortable with their bodies/bodies of others. At least keeping the body parts allowed in each room consistent is gonna help a lot more of them.
I think this is probably the clearest boiling down of the issue, with the fairly major exception of not taking into account the students identity. You also have the reality that transwomen are sexually assaulted (by men) at a shockingly high rate, while transwomen do not sexually assault ciswomen very much at all.
I have developed a strategy to insure this is not the case. Upon entering any gym I strip down and immediately assume the Morgan Pirate stance, preferably with glass of grog, thus blinding all around with my overly large, overly pale self. In fact I don't actually work out. I just hang in the locker room waiting to scare unsuspecting gym patrons. Er...too much?
CptJake wrote: It would seem asking the kid with a penis to change/shower with other kids with penises makes that one kid uncomfortable. Allowing the kid with a penis to change/shower with a bunch of kids with vaginas makes a bunch of kids uncomfortable.
Seems making it clear 'This is the shower room for kids with a penis, and this is the shower room for kids with a vagina' is not that hard to do. There are likely kids belonging in both rooms that, at this age, are uncomfortable with their bodies/bodies of others. At least keeping the body parts allowed in each room consistent is gonna help a lot more of them.
I would tend to agree with this, however, like I've stated earlier, if the teenager in question has undergone gender reassignment surgery and their bits match up with everyone else's in the locker room, I'm all for it. It will help separate the van wilders/american pie types from those who are actually transexual.
Crablezworth wrote: It will help separate the van wilders/american pie types from those who are actually transexual.
I've seen this pop up a few times, and I'm shocked that it's not a joke.
Boys that decide to identify as women are 100% not doing it to try to sneak into the girls locker room. That's criminally dumb to think. "Yes, I want to wear uncomfortable clothes that don't fit right, get bullied, become a pariah, and have substantial mental health issues. But I'll get to see bewbs!"
Please.
Most transsexuals don't get surgery. Many use hormone therapy, but gender reassignment surgery isn't all that common, because the side effects and potential complications are horrible, and the upside is pretty marginal. (plastic surgeons are good, but not that good).
Polonius wrote: Interesting. It seems like a bit of an overreaction, because nothing says "You're not wanted" than 150 people staging a protest, but this is going to end the same way it's ended everywhere else.
Virtually every adjudicator has held that sexual identity is not based on physical characteristics, and that a bona fide identity as one gender is enough to be classified as that gender.
The question is: can a person decide their gender. I don't mean on a whim, but can a person make the statement "I'm a female" and hold others to it? The answer increasingly seems to be yes, they can.
In my Experiance, Yes, that is how many people belive it is, the second you decide you are another gender, you are entitled to all the other things the opposite sex deserves.
Heck, I kno people who decide they are Neutral and suddenly demands to be called "Zie"
Polonius wrote: with the fairly major exception of not taking into account the students identity.
My hope would be a professional took a long hard look at said identity and judged it genuine though. My problem is giving everyone the benefit of the doubt out of fear or being made out to be the bad guy/bully/bigot. I also am suspicious of any teenage truly knowing who they are yet. For every self assured old soul you'll have some where it may have been more of a phase. Confusion may seem cliche'd but speaking only for myself I didn't really know who I was until my early 20's.
Polonius wrote: with the fairly major exception of not taking into account the students identity.
My hope would be a professional took a long hard look at said identity and judged it genuine though. My problem is giving everyone the benefit of the doubt out of fear or being made out to be the bad guy/bully/bigot. I also am suspicious of any teenage truly knowing who they are yet. For every self assured old soul you'll have some where it amy have been more of a phase. Confusion may seem cliche'd but speaking only for myself I didn't really know who I was until my early 20's.
I don't know much about child transsexuality. Okay, I don't know anything. But from everything I've seen, people generally don't come back from going Trans. it's usually a one way trip.
don't confuse it with dressing like a freak/goth/emo/glam/whatever kids are doing today. That can (and should) be a phase. But 16 year olds that think they're gay, or actually a woman? Probably are.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tacking onto Crablezworth's point: would people's view changed if the student in question had seen a psychologist, who verified that gender reassignment was appropriate, and that being treated as a boy would be psychologically harmful?
I'd say harm as I am not in a position to judge, and frankly I doubt any of us are.
And that's fair. The context of separate facilities, especially for bathrooms, makes sense because the plumbing is different.
The idea that there are anti-peeping laws makes sense, although I'm curious why its okay for a girl to change next to girls with vaginas, but not a girl with a penis.
Its not a girl with a penis. Its a boy who is claiming he is a girl.
This person may be genuinely confused and think he is a member of the opposite sex, but that doesn't change the fact that he is still a boy. I can self identify as a watermelon, but that doesn't make me a watermelon. The only way to be completely unbiased is to separate everyone by what is actually between your legs. Whats that? You say you are uncomfortable changing in the guys locker room? Well too bad, 90% of the other boys are uncomfortable with it too. I'd rather you just be uncomfortable than deal with the problem of opening up the girl's locker room to any boy who wants to claim he's actually a girl, giving him free reign to get some panty shots, or vice verse.
This is truly one of those situations where I honestly am not sure how to go about it and all sides come out fine with the decision. The school offering her a private room is what I think would be the best course of action. However that also excludes the girl and singles her out because she's transgendered.
And it gets even worse since she chose not to use the private room. I'm just going to put my hands up and calmly walk away lol
Most transsexuals don't get surgery. Many use hormone therapy, but gender reassignment surgery isn't all that common, because the side effects and potential complications are horrible, and the upside is pretty marginal. (plastic surgeons are good, but not that good).
And not all transgender people are a choice. There are dozens of recognized syndromes which someone is biologically between genders or even the wrong gender.
I grew up with a kid who was male in all respects but due to Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, his body couldn't absorb testosterone in the womb so he had a vagina. While his young childhood was hard, they identified it early and he did most of his school years as a boy. When he hit puberty he filled out as a male like you wouldn't believe. His doctor was right and did more than the 'you have a vagina, put a bow on it' treatment so many people get.
Based on 'junk-checks', he would be forced to shower in the girls locker room even though he was a man who was attracted to women.
He got through it because literally 'no one cared', and he kept his privates 'private' in the bathroom. I still talk to him once in a while, and while he never thought of himself as transgender, due to the ramp-up in bigotry, he has had to identify more due to the gross ignorance and bigotry out there against people who fall between the cracks and have medical issues with their gender. Not everyone is choosing a gender identity. 1/20000 have Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. And that is simply one out of dozens of syndromes out there which impact people in the Transgender community.
CptJake wrote: It would seem asking the kid with a penis to change/shower with other kids with penises makes that one kid uncomfortable. Allowing the kid with a penis to change/shower with a bunch of kids with vaginas makes a bunch of kids uncomfortable.
Seems making it clear 'This is the shower room for kids with a penis, and this is the shower room for kids with a vagina' is not that hard to do. There are likely kids belonging in both rooms that, at this age, are uncomfortable with their bodies/bodies of others. At least keeping the body parts allowed in each room consistent is gonna help a lot more of them.
I think this is probably the clearest boiling down of the issue, with the fairly major exception of not taking into account the students identity. You also have the reality that transwomen are sexually assaulted (by men) at a shockingly high rate, while transwomen do not sexually assault ciswomen very much at all.
It does take into account the kid's identity. It is 'kid with a penis'. There may be kids with a penis attracted to other kids with a penis, and there may be kids with a vagina attracted to kids with a vagina, and there may be kids with a penis that wish they had a vagina and vice versa. Makes no difference. 'This is the room where kids with a penis change/shower, and this is the room kids with a vagina change/shower' treats them ALL equally and with respect on a policy level, and admittance to the appropriate room is based on an easily verifiable parameter. It is no worse to tell Kid with a Penis to deal with other kids with penises than it is to tell kids with vaginas to deal with this particular Kid With a Penis.
The 'Kid With A Penis may be bullied' is a cop out. The school should be preventing bullying or punishing it when they cannot. Kid with a tiny penis probably worries about being bullied too. He has to deal with it and the school has to protect him, as it must protect all the kids. Letting Kid With A Penis be a special butterfly at the expense of the comfort of kids with vaginas is NOT gonna lessen the probability of bullying, and I suspect, based on the fact it is pissing people off enough they are protesting, will exacerbate the bullying tendencies of others.
Grey Templar wrote: The only way to be completely unbiased is to separate everyone by what is actually between your legs.
Too bad Medical science has proven you 100% totally wrong with all of the people born in-between genders or with opposite genitals to their gender. Real medical conditions based upon real science.
KingCracker wrote: This is truly one of those situations where I honestly am not sure how to go about it and all sides come out fine with the decision. The school offering her a private room is what I think would be the best course of action. However that also excludes the girl and singles her out because she's transgendered.
And it gets even worse since she chose not to use the private room. I'm just going to put my hands up and calmly walk away lol
Grey Templar wrote: The only way to be completely unbiased is to separate everyone by what is actually between your legs.
Too bad Medical science has proven you 100% totally wrong with all of the people born in-between genders or with opposite genitals to their gender. Real medical conditions based upon real science.
I suppose we should always make accommodations to the freak accidents that only occur extremely rarely? You don't base decisions on the needs of a minority that is so freakishly rare that 95% of people will never even hear about, much less actually have to deal with.
KingCracker wrote: This is truly one of those situations where I honestly am not sure how to go about it and all sides come out fine with the decision. The school offering her a private room is what I think would be the best course of action. However that also excludes the girl and singles her out because she's transgendered.
And it gets even worse since she chose not to use the private room. I'm just going to put my hands up and calmly walk away lol
You and me both.
Indeed.
Maybe we need Trump to make that private bathroom so Luxurious™ and So Fantastic™, that everyone would want to use it.
I truly think the solution is one change room, with many stalls with individual showers. Problem solved, no one gets to see anyone's bits. The world turns.
Crablezworth wrote: I truly think the solution is one change room, with many stalls with individual showers. Problem solved, no one gets to see anyone's bits. The world turns.
I give that solution 5 seconds before you have angry parents of all the girls at school who get their showers video taped by the boy showering next to them.
That just creates an even bigger problem than you solved.
Crablezworth wrote: I truly think the solution is one change room, with many stalls with individual showers. Problem solved, no one gets to see anyone's bits. The world turns.
I give that solution 5 seconds before you have angry parents of all the girls at school who get their showers video taped by the boy showering next to them.
That just creates an even bigger problem than you solved.
Yes but it could also be someone of an undefined gender doing the taping or being taped, so it's progress. Or something.
Maybe some sort of locking mechanism on the door could solve this dilemma.
More like regression just so a tiny insignificant portion of the population can feel slightly better about not being normal, while the overwhelming majority is negatively impacted.
My YT embedding skills seem to be off today, so here's the link to it, you can see some coverage and the student in question as well as opinions of the community:
Grey Templar wrote: More like regression just so a tiny insignificant portion of the population can feel slightly better about not being normal, while the overwhelming majority is negatively impacted.
If I ever make anyone uncomfortable, I just make sure to call them a bigot. Reducing people is an important step in ignoring how they feel.
Depends what the 'private bathroom' was. Typically, the only such bathrooms are disabled toilets, and maybe it's understandable why you may not feel that appropriate as a changing room.
I find it suspect that some 'family members' of the children had joined the protest. What's their involvement? Who actually incited this protest? This child has identified as female for four years yet now it's an issue to protest?
It's my experience that children can be very accepting of different people, especially the younger ones. Intolerance really does land at the feet of parents. Though I do feel that there are obvious reasons as to why teenage girls don't like to be seen undressed by boys, and simply saying 'but this boy identifies as a woman' doesn't make that much easier. It doesn't make them bigots either, lots of people are not comfortable with being seen naked when they feel at their most vulnerable, especially children. There are biological and social reasons why being seen naked, especially by members of the opposite sex is intimidating or worrying, in a way you can't just switch off in your head because someone tells you they are female when you eyes tell you they are male.
Grey Templar wrote: The only way to be completely unbiased is to separate everyone by what is actually between your legs.
Too bad Medical science has proven you 100% totally wrong with all of the people born in-between genders or with opposite genitals to their gender. Real medical conditions based upon real science.
I suppose we should always make accommodations to the freak accidents that only occur extremely rarely? You don't base decisions on the needs of a minority that is so freakishly rare that 95% of people will never even hear about, much less actually have to deal with.
Nice... compound exposed ignorance of sweeping statements based upon bigotry and what you get is further discounting of minorities and abusing of rights for no apparent reason.
Nice for you to determine what god-created medical syndromes count as 'freak accidents' with your medical training. How do you tell someone they don't belong in society due to a 'freak accident'.
Discounting and marginalizing minority populations based upon no legitimate reason is a bad thing in society and leads to lots of bad consequences...
Crablezworth wrote: I truly think the solution is one change room, with many stalls with individual showers. Problem solved, no one gets to see anyone's bits. The world turns.
Like camp restrooms at a state park (or somewhat like BSG's rooms eh?) . I could see that, if it really became an issue.
I never said you don't belong in society. Nobody is marginalizing you. You are the one demanding that society make concessions, and haven't given any good reason as to why.
And yes, they are freak accidents of biology. I really do feel sympathy for someone who got screwed by some random mutation that ruined such an important part of being human. But demanding that society's normal gender divisions make accommodation for you is silly. This isn't comparable to racial segregation, stop trying to make it so. Its not anywhere close to the same level.
Crablezworth wrote: I truly think the solution is one change room, with many stalls with individual showers. Problem solved, no one gets to see anyone's bits. The world turns.
Like camp restrooms at a state park (or somewhat like BSG's rooms eh?) . I could see that, if it really became an issue.
Grey Templar wrote: This isn't comparable to racial segregation, stop trying to make it so. Its not anywhere close to the same level.
Too bad the courts disagree with you and a majority of states have already resolved the issue by protecting the minority instead of marginalizing them. In this story, this particular state is behind the times... sounds like time for another supreme court decision for states which can't handle being part of civilized society to have a federal ruling to force them in line.
And nothing bad has happened and no one is upset about it... except bigots.
Crablezworth wrote: I truly think the solution is one change room, with many stalls with individual showers. Problem solved, no one gets to see anyone's bits. The world turns.
Like camp restrooms at a state park (or somewhat like BSG's rooms eh?) . I could see that, if it really became an issue.
Apparently, it is an issue.
i like the idea actually. That would help with a lot of the Jr. High angst, and helps keep people like me from roaming the hall smacking people with our overly large bellies undtil they give us their money.
Anyone not believing this women is suffering is a monster and a bigot and a misogynist, the only acceptable thing for society to do is classify skepticism and criticism as bullying and harassment. The end.
Grey Templar wrote: This isn't comparable to racial segregation, stop trying to make it so. Its not anywhere close to the same level.
Too bad the courts disagree with you and a majority of states have already resolved the issue by protecting the minority instead of marginalizing them. In this story, this particular state is behind the times... sounds like time for another supreme court decision for states which can't handle being part of civilized society to have a federal ruling to force them in line.
And nothing bad has happened and no one is upset about it... except bigots.
You just love to assume everyone who opposes you is a bigot. Just lets you shut down the argument. Likely because you are afraid you'll have to make some concessions.
Grey Templar wrote: This isn't comparable to racial segregation, stop trying to make it so. Its not anywhere close to the same level.
Too bad the courts disagree with you and a majority of states have already resolved the issue by protecting the minority instead of marginalizing them. In this story, this particular state is behind the times... sounds like time for another supreme court decision for states which can't handle being part of civilized society to have a federal ruling to force them in line.
And nothing bad has happened and no one is upset about it... except bigots.
Because everyone knows that the Federal Government is always correct.
The teenage girls who have to share a bathroom with a guy with a penis are bigots? Interesting.
Grey Templar wrote: This isn't comparable to racial segregation, stop trying to make it so. Its not anywhere close to the same level.
Too bad the courts disagree with you and a majority of states have already resolved the issue by protecting the minority instead of marginalizing them. In this story, this particular state is behind the times... sounds like time for another supreme court decision for states which can't handle being part of civilized society to have a federal ruling to force them in line.
And nothing bad has happened and no one is upset about it... except bigots.
You just love to assume everyone who opposes you is a bigot. Just lets you shut down the argument. Likely because you are afraid you'll have to make some concessions.
Indeed, I'm the same. thats why, if I start to lose an argument I just throw a wiener dog at them.
As well there's an issue of what could be considered a form of segregation--"You say you're not a boy, but you're not a girl either so go shuffle off to this 'private' bathroom".
We already segregate by gender, creating a third gender shouldn't make some more equal than others. Declaring myself a potato shouldn't allow me to change in the kitchen in addition to either lockeroom.
That depends on if you look and act like a potato doesn't it?
As well there's an issue of what could be considered a form of segregation--"You say you're not a boy, but you're not a girl either so go shuffle off to this 'private' bathroom".
We already segregate by gender, creating a third gender shouldn't make some more equal than others. Declaring myself a potato shouldn't allow me to change in the kitchen in addition to either lockeroom.
That depends on if you look and act like a potato doesn't it?
So, basically, as a parent of a daughter who doesn't want his little girl exposed to physical manifestations of male genitalia at X age, I have no say in what happens. The student with boy parts gets to saunter through the changing/bathroom with his/her boy parts swinging in the breeze in the presence of my underage daughter. Yay, progress is so great. :(
agnosto wrote: So, basically, as a parent of a daughter who doesn't want his little girl exposed to physical manifestations of male genitalia at X age, I have no say in what happens. The student with boy parts gets to saunter through the changing/bathroom with his/her boy parts swinging in the breeze in the presence of my underage daughter. Yay, progress is so great. :(
It appears you have two options:
1. Deal with it.
2. Deal with it and be a bigot.
agnosto wrote: So, basically, as a parent of a daughter who doesn't want his little girl exposed to physical manifestations of male genitalia at X age, I have no say in what happens. The student with boy parts gets to saunter through the changing/bathroom with his/her boy parts swinging in the breeze in the presence of my underage daughter. Yay, progress is so great. :(
agnosto wrote: So, basically, as a parent of a daughter who doesn't want his little girl exposed to physical manifestations of male genitalia at X age, I have no say in what happens. The student with boy parts gets to saunter through the changing/bathroom with his/her boy parts swinging in the breeze in the presence of my underage daughter. Yay, progress is so great. :(
It appears you have two options:
1. Deal with it.
2. Deal with it and be a bigot.
The choice is yours.
I fail to see how exposing my child to opposite sex genitalia before I, as a parent, decide that it is appropriate makes me a bigot but, ok, if you feel that way.
I get to decide if my child participates in school sponsored sex-ed classes but somehow my right as a parent to limit exposure of the male anatomy in front of my child evaporates. I care not one iota how this child identifies; to me, as a parent, the child has male genitalia, full stop. I don't care if it has nothing to do with sex or sensuality or anything else someone can think up, the simple fact is that I don't want my daughter in the same room as an exposed penis, in the school no less.
agnosto wrote: So, basically, as a parent of a daughter who doesn't want his little girl exposed to physical manifestations of male genitalia at X age, I have no say in what happens. The student with boy parts gets to saunter through the changing/bathroom with his/her boy parts swinging in the breeze in the presence of my underage daughter. Yay, progress is so great. :(
It appears you have two options:
1. Deal with it.
2. Deal with it and be a bigot.
The choice is yours.
Option 3. The girls go on strike and take no showers, thus turning the school into the hell of smelly girl armpits. Think it won't happen? Thats what they said about Mussolini.
agnosto wrote: So, basically, as a parent of a daughter who doesn't want his little girl exposed to physical manifestations of male genitalia at X age, I have no say in what happens. The student with boy parts gets to saunter through the changing/bathroom with his/her boy parts swinging in the breeze in the presence of my underage daughter. Yay, progress is so great. :(
It appears you have two options:
1. Deal with it.
2. Deal with it and be a bigot.
The choice is yours.
I fail to see how exposing my child to opposite sex genitalia before I, as a parent, decide that it is appropriate makes me a bigot but, ok, if you feel that way.
I don't. You're totally crapping on my joke here, but I forgive you.
agnosto wrote: So, basically, as a parent of a daughter who doesn't want his little girl exposed to physical manifestations of male genitalia at X age, I have no say in what happens. The student with boy parts gets to saunter through the changing/bathroom with his/her boy parts swinging in the breeze in the presence of my underage daughter. Yay, progress is so great. :(
It appears you have two options:
1. Deal with it.
2. Deal with it and be a bigot.
The choice is yours.
Option 3. The girls go on strike and take no showers, thus turning the school into the hell of smelly girl armpits. Think it won't happen? Thats what they said about Mussolini.
lol. An army of unshave, unkempt females; foul humored from being in said condition is one hell that I care not to visit.
agnosto wrote: So, basically, as a parent of a daughter who doesn't want his little girl exposed to physical manifestations of male genitalia at X age, I have no say in what happens. The student with boy parts gets to saunter through the changing/bathroom with his/her boy parts swinging in the breeze in the presence of my underage daughter. Yay, progress is so great. :(
It appears you have two options:
1. Deal with it.
2. Deal with it and be a bigot.
The choice is yours.
I fail to see how exposing my child to opposite sex genitalia before I, as a parent, decide that it is appropriate makes me a bigot but, ok, if you feel that way.
I don't. You're totally crapping on my joke here, but I forgive you.
Yeah, sorry, whole thing just struck me the wrong way.
Grey Templar wrote: Or, say boys stay in the boys room and girls stay in the girls room. People that got a problem with that can deal with it.
If I'm a bigot for saying that I am ok with that.
I think we're all okay with that. What's an issue is determining who is a boy, and who is a girl. An issue that is incredibly straight forward until you make the slightest bit of effort to look into it, and then it gets... complex. Particularly in a society that is increasingly aware of gender alignment being detached from physical manifestation.
agnosto wrote: So, basically, as a parent of a daughter who doesn't want his little girl exposed to physical manifestations of male genitalia at X age, I have no say in what happens. The student with boy parts gets to saunter through the changing/bathroom with his/her boy parts swinging in the breeze in the presence of my underage daughter. Yay, progress is so great. :(
As I'm sure you know, being a man yourself, you might have less say on when you're daughter's are exposed than you might desire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: How about we draw the line at the physical manifestation? That will cover 99.9999999999999% of situations.
What about people that are legally one gender, with the physical manifestations of another? If their driver's license says female, but they still have a penis, do they have to use the men's room?
agnosto wrote: So, basically, as a parent of a daughter who doesn't want his little girl exposed to physical manifestations of male genitalia at X age, I have no say in what happens. The student with boy parts gets to saunter through the changing/bathroom with his/her boy parts swinging in the breeze in the presence of my underage daughter. Yay, progress is so great. :(
As I'm sure you know, being a man yourself, you might have less say on when you're daughter's are exposed than you might desire.
While that's true, at least it's going to happen on her terms. And, probably, not in the locker room with a total stranger.
agnosto wrote: So, basically, as a parent of a daughter who doesn't want his little girl exposed to physical manifestations of male genitalia at X age, I have no say in what happens. The student with boy parts gets to saunter through the changing/bathroom with his/her boy parts swinging in the breeze in the presence of my underage daughter. Yay, progress is so great. :(
As I'm sure you know, being a man yourself, you might have less say on when you're daughter's are exposed than you might desire.
Possibly, but ultimately I hope that it is her choice when she's ready and it's not school sponsored/endorsed/condoned/enforced when she's not.
Edit:
This is like the government and school saying, "We've decided it's high time your daughters saw an actual penis and we don't care if you disagree."
agnosto wrote: So, basically, as a parent of a daughter who doesn't want his little girl exposed to physical manifestations of male genitalia at X age, I have no say in what happens. The student with boy parts gets to saunter through the changing/bathroom with his/her boy parts swinging in the breeze in the presence of my underage daughter. Yay, progress is so great. :(
I dont know about you but I think I went through my entire time at school without exposing my junk when changing for sports/other things where you have to change. Or indeed seeing other people's Most English Parts. Even swimming
Working with (often vulnerable) men and women (I don't think I have seen any alternative gender identities), and having to see and interact with them, often in various states of undress, I understand the hang ups some people have about their personal space and how people of the same and other genders interact with it; it is natural to have reservations.
The point being that "physical sex" and gender identity can be extremely different in all sorts of ways; sexuality also rears its head.
Ultimately facilities should be gender appropriate; the gender that a person feels to be, and/or facilities should be appropriate to match the privicy requirements of the people who use them. One can mix genders and sexualities in facilities that offer appropriate privicy.
A coming together of all the genders and sexualities promotes understanding.
Possibly, but ultimately I hope that it is her choice when she's ready and it's not school sponsored/endorsed/condoned/enforced when she's not.
Edit:
This is like the government and school saying, "We've decided it's high time your daughters saw and actual penis and we don't care if you disagree."
I think that's the best argument to be made here. I'm really not certain this is a question of harm as much as it is one of control (I mean, how is anybody hurt by seeing genitals?), but I think you can make the argument that this does cross some sort of line. I'd buy it.
Grey Templar wrote: How about we draw the line at the physical manifestation? That will cover 99.9999999999999% of situations.
What about people that are legally one gender, with the physical manifestations of another? If their driver's license says female, but they still have a penis, do they have to use the men's room?
Well, I think that we probably shouldn't have that situation in the first place. You should only be legally a female once you have an actual vagina.
Of course I think gender reconstruction should only be for people who are unfortunate enough to be born with screwed up reproductive organs. Not for people who think they're the opposite gender, but have the blessing of a perfectly healthy and normal body. It would be better to get psychological counseling to accept that you are in fact a man/women and not a women/man. I also think plastic surgery should be reserved for people who have their bodies destroyed in accidents or are disfigured in some way.
d-usa wrote: If people are running through the restroom with their genitals hanging out you have bigger problems then what those genitals actually are.
I don't think rest rooms (where you piss or take a dump) are really the problem... but, how open most locker rooms tend to be:
And nothing bad has happened and no one is upset about it... except bigots.
You're throwing that word around far too much here.
I don't think it's unreasonable that high school students would be uncomfortable changing and showering with someone of a different biological gender. Doesn't make them bigots.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, I think that we probably shouldn't have that situation in the first place. You should only be legally a female once you have an actual vagina.
Of course I think gender reconstruction should only be for people who are unfortunate enough to be born with screwed up reproductive organs. Not for people who think they're the opposite gender, but have the blessing of a perfectly healthy and normal body. It would be better to get psychological counseling to accept that you are in fact a man/women and not a women/man. I also think plastic surgery should be reserved for people who have their bodies destroyed in accidents or are disfigured in some way.
I am extremely glad that you have no power over healthcare and represent a steadily declining section of society. Speaking as a healthcare professional. And a human being.
d-usa wrote: If people are running through the restroom with their genitals hanging out you have bigger problems then what those genitals actually are.
Locker room. Bathrooms are too small to run in. You'll hit the wall.
agnosto wrote: So, basically, as a parent of a daughter who doesn't want his little girl exposed to physical manifestations of male genitalia at X age, I have no say in what happens. The student with boy parts gets to saunter through the changing/bathroom with his/her boy parts swinging in the breeze in the presence of my underage daughter. Yay, progress is so great. :(
I dont know about you but I think I went through my entire time at school without exposing my junk when changing for sports/other things where you have to change. Or indeed seeing other people's Most English Parts. Even swimming
Working with (often vulnerable) men and women (I don't think I have seen any alternative gender identities), and having to see and interact with them, often in various states of undress, I understand the hang ups some people have about their personal space and how people of the same and other genders interact with it; it is natural to have reservations.
The point being that "physical sex" and gender identity can be extremely different in all sorts of ways; sexuality also rears its head.
Ultimately facilities should be gender appropriate; the gender that a person feels to be, and/or facilities should be appropriate to match the privicy requirements of the people who use them. One can mix genders and sexualities in facilities that offer appropriate privicy.
A coming together of all the genders and sexualities promotes understanding.
I played football so I lived pretty much every gag about towels and locker rooms. And really, my concern is with locker rooms because most female restrooms have stalls BUT some schools have removed stall doors for various reasons so my objection would be case by case I suppose.
Another factor of consideration is the age group. Generally high school students are afforded more privacy in restrooms and changing areas than middle and elementary age students; is there a line? I shiver at the thought of my daughter being 9 and confused about the girl in her bathroom with different parts. I'll be back, I need to go breathe into a paper bag.
Only five states refuse to alter a person's birth certificate, while 18 states will alter a trans person's birth certificate without surgery.
. It would be better to get psychological counseling to accept that you are in fact a man/women and not a women/man.
Except the psychological community disagrees with you, pretty handily. Sure, some people can stay closeted, but most trans people benefit from transitioning. The medicine ain't on your side.
hink plastic surgery should be reserved for people who have their bodies destroyed in accidents or are disfigured in some way.
Another potential minefield is when religion becomes involved.
Islam;
Judaism;
Hinduism;
Buddhism
and even certain Christian sects strongly believe in gender separation.
agnosto wrote: Another potential minefield is when religion becomes involved.
Islam;
Judaism;
Hinduism;
Buddhism
and even certain Christian sects strongly believe in gender separation.
So...which trumps which?
I thought about that one as well. Few fundamentalist religions could possibly have an actual stance on transgender people, as that wasn't something that really existed even 75 years ago. I wouldn't want to be the school district attorney dealing with a first amendment claim on it though.
My gut reaction is that religious taboos don't set policy in the long run. I think it would be easier to quietly reassign people to different class periods.
agnosto wrote: Another potential minefield is when religion becomes involved. Islam; Judaism; Hinduism; Buddhism and even certain Christian sects strongly believe in gender separation.
So...which trumps which?
I thought about that one as well. Few fundamentalist religions could possibly have an actual stance on transgender people, as that wasn't something that really existed even 75 years ago. I wouldn't want to be the school district attorney dealing with a first amendment claim on it though.
My gut reaction is that religious taboos don't set policy in the long run. I think it would be easier to quietly reassign people to different class periods.
I would proffer the issue won't be gender, it would be wrong biological parts in the wrong area. islam, Hindu, and conservative Christianity can be EXTREMELY hardcore about such.
Respect and decency should be a two way street. Unfortunately certain members of the victim class don't see it that way. No compromise is acceptable. You must accept everything about me on my terms or you are a bad person to be crushed.
So hundreds must be violated in their most private and vulnerable moments to make one a bit happier. Reasonable compromise in the form of providing an additional neutral environment available to all is unacceptable, and to propose the same is to expose one's self as a monster. All must conform in thought, word and deed. Those who do not should be second class citizens at best.
Glad to see you can see the evidence, ignore it and spout rubbish all at the same time. If you keep on believing maybe one day it will be true!!!!1111pi.
Glad to see you can see the evidence, ignore it and spout rubbish all at the same time. If you keep on believing maybe one day it will be true!!!!1111pi.
Evidence doesn't make something right or wrong. I think you are a little confused.
Glad to see you can see the evidence, ignore it and spout rubbish all at the same time. If you keep on believing maybe one day it will be true!!!!1111pi.
Evidence doesn't make something right or wrong. I think you are a little confused.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Unfortunately certain members of the victim class don't see it that way.
Yes, the "white Christians" can be a tricky bunch, demanding special treatment and respect while not in any way realising they are not returning the favour.
No compromise is acceptable.
Not every compromise is acceptable. Or indeed even a compromise.
So hundreds must be violated in their most private and vulnerable moments to make one a bit happier.
Strawman and appeal to emotion.
Reasonable compromise in the form of providing an additional neutral environment available to all is unacceptable, and to propose the same is to expose one's self as a monster.
It remains to be seen that the proposed compromise was reasonable. Certainly there are many issues with providing a segregated changing and toileting area for people that some people don't feel belong in with other groups. There are many potential solutions and compromises possible in these types of situations; some better than others. Suggesting one does not make you a monster (appeal to emotion); stacking the suggestion and argument to unduely harm one or more of the involved parties makes you a monster, as does utterly refusing to inform yourself of the situation.
All must conform in thought, word and deed. Those who do not should be second class citizens at best.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Respect and decency should be a two way street. Unfortunately certain members of the victim class don't see it that way. No compromise is acceptable. You must accept everything about me on my terms or you are a bad person to be crushed.
Interestingly, that's more of less the mentality of every successful person I've encountered. I'm not sure it's much an aspect of victim culture, as it is former victims acting like winners.
So hundreds must be violated in their most private and vulnerable moments to make one a bit happier.
I'm going to call this, right here, the hyperbole of the day, if that's okay with everybody.
Reasonable compromise in the form of providing an additional neutral environment available to all is unacceptable, and to propose the same is to expose one's self as a monster. All must conform in thought, word and deed. Those who do not should be second class citizens at best.
You're confusing moral weight with social value. Bigots are generally not second class citizens, if anything, they tend to received disproportionate respect and benefit from the state.
There's an argument to be made that a person that is a non-biological female should be treated fully as female. Other than "OMG a girl might see a penis" there seems to be no real harm to this, and it makes our society more inclusive of even those that are on the fringes. That's not a bad thing.
On the whole, I agree that the private bathroom isn't a terrible compromise. It's one year, it's high school, it's going to suck no matter what... get through it and move on. (This is usually where some would argue that I speak from privilege, which is undeniably true.)
What bugs me here is the same thing that bugs me with a lot of cases like this: the argument about a policy (where do trans people change) is very highly colored with plenty of thoughts about the merits and value of trans people. The hard part is sifting through the emotional reactions, and actually figuring out what makes the most sense.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Respect and decency should be a two way street. Unfortunately certain members of the victim class don't see it that way. No compromise is acceptable. You must accept everything about me on my terms or you are a bad person to be crushed.
So hundreds must be violated in their most private and vulnerable moments to make one a bit happier. Reasonable compromise in the form of providing an additional neutral environment available to all is unacceptable, and to propose the same is to expose one's self as a monster. All must conform in thought, word and deed. Those who do not should be second class citizens at best.
Pretending that "you are not a girl, now go to the restroom for 'things'" is a compromise is an interesting tactic.
Grey Templar wrote: You're trying to use science to create ethics, when science has nothing to do with ethics. That way leads to eugenics and genocide.
Riiight. In the same way that guns lead to killing people I guess?
And religion leads to peace and harmony and flowers and fluffy bunnies?
Grey Templar wrote: You're trying to use science to create ethics, when science has nothing to do with ethics. That way leads to eugenics and genocide.
Whoah.. .what?
Science can tell us if being transgender is healthier than being closeted.
It can't tell us if people should be transgender, but any public policy that requires people to be less healthy probably isn't the best in the long run.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Respect and decency should be a two way street. Unfortunately certain members of the victim class don't see it that way. No compromise is acceptable. You must accept everything about me on my terms or you are a bad person to be crushed.
So hundreds must be violated in their most private and vulnerable moments to make one a bit happier. Reasonable compromise in the form of providing an additional neutral environment available to all is unacceptable, and to propose the same is to expose one's self as a monster. All must conform in thought, word and deed. Those who do not should be second class citizens at best.
Pretending that "you are not a girl, now go to the restroom for 'things'" is a compromise is an interesting tactic.
Wait don't get uppity. I think the entire state of California just mandated that as a concession for persons of different unsure persuasions. SouthPark even had an awesome episode about it.
d-usa wrote: Pretending that "you are not a girl, now go to the restroom for 'things'" is a compromise is an interesting tactic.
Well, part of this is that we don't really have a good way to track when people switch, and any real threshold to show when a person is male or female. It's clearly not just a matter of declaration, but it's a fuzzy and grey subject. Plenty of people in this thread don't see transgender people as their identified gender unless there is surgery (or even then), so as a society, this isn't a terrible compromise. It's not a good one, but it's one that at least allows her some dignity.
d-usa wrote: Pretending that "you are not a girl, now go to the restroom for 'things'" is a compromise is an interesting tactic.
Well, part of this is that we don't really have a good way to track when people switch, and any real threshold to show when a person is male or female. It's clearly not just a matter of declaration, but it's a fuzzy and grey subject. Plenty of people in this thread don't see transgender people as their identified gender unless there is surgery (or even then), so as a society, this isn't a terrible compromise. It's not a good one, but it's one that at least allows her some dignity.
And can we get away from the "you disagree so you're a bigot/freak" nonsense? As in the above, one reason for the push for three rooms (Houston municipal has that I think now too) is that it offers a safe place to avoid discrimination and potential physical assault issues.
Look, there's no good way here, its all grey. And before anyone calls me a bigot, they should realize the person they're calling that has opened up his house-and the implicit promise of safety that entails- to someone in this situation.
Frazzled wrote: Look, there's no good way here, its all grey. And before anyone calls me a bigot, they should realize the person they're calling that has opened up his house-and the implicit promise of safety that entails- to someone in this situation.
Realising the difficulty of the situation, examining the evidence and "solutions"/solutions developed to deal with similar issues, and working towards acceptable compromise is pretty much the opposite of "bigot".
Frazzled wrote: Look, there's no good way here, its all grey. And before anyone calls me a bigot, they should realize the person they're calling that has opened up his house-and the implicit promise of safety that entails- to someone in this situation.
Realising the difficulty of the situation, examining the evidence and "solutions"/solutions developed to deal with similar issues, and working towards acceptable compromise is pretty much the opposite of "bigot".
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Respect and decency should be a two way street. Unfortunately certain members of the victim class don't see it that way. No compromise is acceptable. You must accept everything about me on my terms or you are a bad person to be crushed.
Interestingly, that's more of less the mentality of every successful person I've encountered. I'm not sure it's much an aspect of victim culture, as it is former victims acting like winners.
So hundreds must be violated in their most private and vulnerable moments to make one a bit happier.
I'm going to call this, right here, the hyperbole of the day, if that's okay with everybody.
Reasonable compromise in the form of providing an additional neutral environment available to all is unacceptable, and to propose the same is to expose one's self as a monster. All must conform in thought, word and deed. Those who do not should be second class citizens at best.
You're confusing moral weight with social value. Bigots are generally not second class citizens, if anything, they tend to received disproportionate respect and benefit from the state.
There's an argument to be made that a person that is a non-biological female should be treated fully as female. Other than "OMG a girl might see a penis" there seems to be no real harm to this, and it makes our society more inclusive of even those that are on the fringes. That's not a bad thing.
On the whole, I agree that the private bathroom isn't a terrible compromise. It's one year, it's high school, it's going to suck no matter what... get through it and move on. (This is usually where some would argue that I speak from privilege, which is undeniably true.)
What bugs me here is the same thing that bugs me with a lot of cases like this: the argument about a policy (where do trans people change) is very highly colored with plenty of thoughts about the merits and value of trans people. The hard part is sifting through the emotional reactions, and actually figuring out what makes the most sense.
I don't think characterizing 150 people who take issue as simply "hyperbole" helps. Likely because it's only as simple as judging every single one of those girls as small minded xenophobic bigots. If we plan on transcending binaries we have to assume some spectrum/gradient to why these girls take issue.
The more I educate myself on trans issues, the more I realize it's just socio-political minefield of everyone assuming the worst, myself included.
Frazzled wrote: Look, there's no good way here, its all grey. And before anyone calls me a bigot, they should realize the person they're calling that has opened up his house-and the implicit promise of safety that entails- to someone in this situation.
Realising the difficulty of the situation, examining the evidence and "solutions"/solutions developed to deal with similar issues, and working towards acceptable compromise is pretty much the opposite of "bigot".
Something that Lila needs to learn.
I'm not aware of her calling people who are not doing this "bigots"...
I think a third room should be an option, but it should not be mandatory IMO and then you can still end up with fights about who goes to the third bathroom as well.
I also agree that there are lots of grey areas. Do you take everyone that declares as x/y at face value? Do you start when people start to transition (although not all people choose to transition)? Do you go by when people are diagnosed (do trans people get diagnosed with gender identity disorder)? Do you go by surgery, which would exclude minors?
I do think that court is going to be the best way to resolve instead of having thousands of districts make up their own rules.
Frazzled wrote: Look, there's no good way here, its all grey. And before anyone calls me a bigot, they should realize the person they're calling that has opened up his house-and the implicit promise of safety that entails- to someone in this situation.
Realising the difficulty of the situation, examining the evidence and "solutions"/solutions developed to deal with similar issues, and working towards acceptable compromise is pretty much the opposite of "bigot".
Something that Lila needs to learn.
Find me any teenager willing to compromise or be unselfish.
Frazzled wrote: Look, there's no good way here, its all grey. And before anyone calls me a bigot, they should realize the person they're calling that has opened up his house-and the implicit promise of safety that entails- to someone in this situation.
Realising the difficulty of the situation, examining the evidence and "solutions"/solutions developed to deal with similar issues, and working towards acceptable compromise is pretty much the opposite of "bigot".
Something that Lila needs to learn.
Find me any teenager willing to compromise or be unselfish.
Lt. Coldfire wrote: Here's the problem: what's going to stop straight guys by identifying as females so that they can hang out in the girls locker room and bathroom? I would definitely not put this past some of the kids I went to high school with if all it took was a wig and a declaration. If I was a parent of a female, I'd be disturbed.
That aside, call me old fashioned, but I think penises in one room and vaginas in another make the most sense.
In order to somebody to identify as female and get girls bathroom privilages I'd expect them to act and dress as a female at all times both in and out of school (and probably for a qualifying period of a few months first)
so while a straight non trans boy might give it a go, I really, really doubt they'd stick the grief it would give them
Lt. Coldfire wrote: Here's the problem: what's going to stop straight guys by identifying as females so that they can hang out in the girls locker room and bathroom? I would definitely not put this past some of the kids I went to high school with if all it took was a wig and a declaration. If I was a parent of a female, I'd be disturbed.
That aside, call me old fashioned, but I think penises in one room and vaginas in another make the most sense.
In order to somebody to identify as female and get girls bathroom privilages I'd expect them to act and dress as a female at all times both in and out of school (and probably for a qualifying period of a few months first)
so while a straight non trans boy might give it a go, I really, really doubt they'd stick the grief it would give them
Great, now we need transgender police to make sure these people are conforming and not secretly dressing up as guys in their spare time. At a certain point, this could get confusing.
Frazzled wrote: Look, there's no good way here, its all grey. And before anyone calls me a bigot, they should realize the person they're calling that has opened up his house-and the implicit promise of safety that entails- to someone in this situation.
Realising the difficulty of the situation, examining the evidence and "solutions"/solutions developed to deal with similar issues, and working towards acceptable compromise is pretty much the opposite of "bigot".
Something that Lila needs to learn.
I'm not aware of her calling people who are not doing this "bigots"...
The school offered the compromise... the 3rd bathroom/changing room.
They certainly, nor should they, force Lila to only use male-only restroom/locker rooms.
d-usa wrote: I also agree that there are lots of grey areas. Do you take everyone that declares as x/y at face value? Do you start when people start to transition (although not all people choose to transition)? Do you go by when people are diagnosed (do trans people get diagnosed with gender identity disorder)? Do you go by surgery, which would exclude minors?
This, right here, is one of the problems I think a lot people have. Nobody (I hope) particularly cares about the girl who used to be a guy, but then got girl bits, took things to make her more like a girl, and dresses and looks like a girl as well. Things start to break down everywhere when the only way people can tell if you're a girl is either a bit of paper, or you're dressed up like one (in which case you could just be Scottish... ). To be perfectly honest, I don't have a solution. I'm an adult, and I probably won't have children of my own for a while, so I don't have much of a dog in this fight either.
I do think that court is going to be the best way to resolve instead of having thousands of districts make up their own rules.
Probably for the best, although any compromise will piss a lot of people off. That's life, I suppose.
And can we get away from the "you disagree so you're a bigot/freak" nonsense?
Well, some of the opinions shared here are pretty closed minded. One person straight up said that he disagreed with the legal, medical, and social determinations that people can be trans.
Is that bigotry? I'm not sure it's worth using that term, but when your point clearly comes from a place of contempt for a class of people... should we call them on it?
And keep in mind that society changes fast. 20 years ago, it was almost unthinkable in most places that a gay person could be in the Scouts, or organized sports, or the military. Now, young men are sharing tents and showers with young gay men every day, and its... fine. Casual homophobia was completely okay then, and it's basically unthinkable now.
Is trans acceptance different enough to not go down the same road? I'm thinking no. I think the revulsion about sex change is natural, if only because most people have more fluid sexuality than gender identity. Kinsey found, and there's little reason to doubt, that few people are 100% straight. Essentially, the idea of homosexual sex is more relatable to most people than a gender switch. I think if we set up a poll: "Would you rather switch your gender or your sexual orientation" orientation would win by a country mile.
Girls should not be *forced* to look upon male genitalia. Plain and simple. Nor should boys be forced to look upon female genitalia.
There are still some parents who instill in their children to try to stay away from those kinds of situations until marriage. And there are those young adults that embrace those ideas.
It may be old fashioned, but does not mean it is wrong to not want to see all sorts of T&A or C&B....and there is no legitimate reason to force anyone to do so.
Until he has gender reassignment surgery....he is a he.
And if you want to get all science-y and stuff....he will never be a she because you can't change genetics.
Do you deny that, no matter how many hormone treatments someone has, no matter how much flesh is snipped, tucked, or sewn on, that person will always at the basic core of their genes, be what they were born as?
Grey Templar wrote: Do you deny that, no matter how many hormone treatments someone has, no matter how much flesh is snipped, tucked, or sewn on, that person will always at the basic core of their genes, be what they were born as?
There is no need to deny that since I'm not pretending that a quick peek at their crotch lets me know what they are genetically born as.
Wasn't there a fully functional female with all the working gizmos that some how had male chromosomes? i think i saw it on the discovery channel at one point.
(edit: mis remembering but maybe she didn't have fully functional components. i dont recall)
TheMeanDM wrote: So genetics is not good enough of a science for you?
Are you simply trolling....?
Mmmm kay...tell that to your chromosomes.
Just because you either don't understand the science or don't know the science doesn't mean that I am trolling. It simply means that you are ignorant on the subject, which can be fixed with education if one is willing to pursue the knowledge about a particular subject.
Sometimes peoples genetics are gender ambiguous what with chromosomal abnormalities.
Gender reassignment is about altering the physical body to match the mind. The alternative is to alter the mind to match the physical body. Why is it that some feel the need to point out that when altering the body you are changing it from something genetically determined? Surely you could say the same about altering the mind. Or is it easier to forget the role of genetics in forming the mind there because it's not a physical attribute?
But that aside people change things about themselves all the time to make them something their genetics are not. Some people dye their hair. My genetics have made me short sighted but I'm going to correct my vision with glasses rather than choose to hold things much closer to my face to see them, as by genetics seems to have determined I don't need to see more than 6 inches away.
Frazzled wrote: Look, there's no good way here, its all grey. And before anyone calls me a bigot, they should realize the person they're calling that has opened up his house-and the implicit promise of safety that entails- to someone in this situation.
Realising the difficulty of the situation, examining the evidence and "solutions"/solutions developed to deal with similar issues, and working towards acceptable compromise is pretty much the opposite of "bigot".
Something that Lila needs to learn.
I'm not aware of her calling people who are not doing this "bigots"...
Howard A Treesong wrote: Sometimes peoples genetics are gender ambiguous what with chromosomal abnormalities.
Gender reassignment is about altering the physical body to match the mind. The alternative is to alter the mind to match the physical body. Why is it that some feel the need to point out that when altering the body you are changing it from something genetically determined? Surely you could say the same about altering the mind. Or is it easier to forget the role of genetics in forming the mind there because it's not a physical attribute?
But that aside people change things about themselves all the time to make them something their genetics are not. Some people due their hair. My genetics have made me short sighted but I'm going to correct my vision with glasses rather than choose to hold things much closer to my face to see them, as by genetics seems to have determined I don't need to see more than 6 inches away.
Good post.
I think it may also help that there are two separate issues in the story here.
One is that people need to come to grips with their ignorance in what gender is and how genetics affects more then just the part between your legs and that gender, as developed due to your genetics, is not binary and that trans individuals are not just boys/girls acting like girls/boys the same way one might decide to be goth or any other phase that they are going through.
Separate from accepting that being transgender is a real thing, people then need to learn how to deal with the fact that transgender people exist and society will have to learn to adapt to one another.
Lt. Coldfire wrote: Here's the problem: what's going to stop straight guys by identifying as females so that they can hang out in the girls locker room and bathroom? I would definitely not put this past some of the kids I went to high school with if all it took was a wig and a declaration. If I was a parent of a female, I'd be disturbed.
That aside, call me old fashioned, but I think penises in one room and vaginas in another make the most sense.
In order to somebody to identify as female and get girls bathroom privilages I'd expect them to act and dress as a female at all times both in and out of school (and probably for a qualifying period of a few months first)
so while a straight non trans boy might give it a go, I really, really doubt they'd stick the grief it would give them
Females can dress in any way they choose, why must you be so bigoted as to impliy females must dress a certain way?
Its 2015, women can wear the same clothes as men, little children can identify as women and still wear whatever clothes they want in whatever appearance they want.
All that matters is that they say they identify a certain way and we should just run with that.
There are only a very limited # of true hermaphroditic human beings.
There are pseudo-hermaphrodites.
"Such conditions are extremely rare in humans. In true gonadal intersex (or true hermaphroditism), an individual has both ovarian and testicular tissue. The ovarian and testicular tissue may be separate, or the two may be combined in what is called an ovotestis. Affected individuals have sex chromosomes showing male-female mosaicism (where one individual possesses both the male XY and female XX chromosome pairs). Most often, but not always, the chromosome complement is 46,XX, and in every such individual there also exists evidence of Y chromosomal material on one of the autosomes (any of the 22 pairs of chromosomes other than the sex chromosomes). Individuals with a 46,XX chromosome complement usually have ambiguous external genitalia with a sizable phallus and are therefore often reared as males. However, they develop breasts during puberty and menstruate and in only rare cases actually produce sperm. In 46,XX intersex (female pseudohermaphroditism), individuals have male external genitalia but the chromosomal constitution and reproductive organs of a female. In 46,XY (male pseudohermaphroditism), individuals have ambiguous or female external genitalia but the chromosomal constitution and reproductive organs of a male, though the testes may be malformed or absent."
Just to clarify: true hermaphrodites have equally developed and equally functioning sexual organs.
Only one place I saw gave an estimated % of "true" hermaphroditic humans, and that was less than 10%....that is..... less than 10% of patients that have some kind of extra dangly bits....which is already extremely rare.
Desubot wrote: Wasn't there a fully functional female with all the working gizmos that some how had male chromosomes? i think i saw it on the discovery channel at one point.
(edit: mis remembering but maybe she didn't have fully functional components. i dont recall)
I think I remember this. IIRC she had all the parts, but they weren't quite properly developed. And ovulation was messed up too IIRC.
As I recall, everyone's genetics has all the info to have a functioning set of either version of the sex organ. It depends on what hormone mixture you are subjected to while developing that determines which set of organs develops, this is determined by your actual chromosomes normally. But outside sources, or genetic defects, can cause the organ to improperly develop or for the wrong set to develop. And naturally you also need proper hormone's during puberty to have proper sex drive regulation, and just to make sure you have a functional set.
To use an example from animals, if you have a cow pregnant with twins, one male and one female, the male will very often have malformed sex organs or sometimes have female organs due to exposure to estrogen from the female twin. For some reason the opposite effect isn't true, at least for cows. Now this exact situation is, unlike in cows, not going to happen with humans because of the differences between us. But you could have another source of hormone, or maybe some imbalances caused by something happening with the pregnant mother, that could cause malformation.
There are only a very limited # of true hermaphroditic human beings.
There are pseudo-hermaphrodites.
"Such conditions are extremely rare in humans. In true gonadal intersex (or true hermaphroditism), an individual has both ovarian and testicular tissue. The ovarian and testicular tissue may be separate, or the two may be combined in what is called an ovotestis. Affected individuals have sex chromosomes showing male-female mosaicism (where one individual possesses both the male XY and female XX chromosome pairs). Most often, but not always, the chromosome complement is 46,XX, and in every such individual there also exists evidence of Y chromosomal material on one of the autosomes (any of the 22 pairs of chromosomes other than the sex chromosomes). Individuals with a 46,XX chromosome complement usually have ambiguous external genitalia with a sizable phallus and are therefore often reared as males. However, they develop breasts during puberty and menstruate and in only rare cases actually produce sperm. In 46,XX intersex (female pseudohermaphroditism), individuals have male external genitalia but the chromosomal constitution and reproductive organs of a female. In 46,XY (male pseudohermaphroditism), individuals have ambiguous or female external genitalia but the chromosomal constitution and reproductive organs of a male, though the testes may be malformed or absent."
Just to clarify: true hermaphrodites have equally developed and equally functioning sexual organs.
Only one place I saw gave an estimated % of "true" hermaphroditic humans, and that was less than 10%....that is..... less than 10% of patients that have some kind of extra dangly bits....which is already extremely rare.
So we are talking the rarest of the already rare.
Good think that hermaphrodite doesn't equal transgender.
So its OK for the transgender individual to *force* everyone to look at their wang or their twang in the locker room....but its not ok for everyone to say "I don't want to see your wang or twang, please take it somewhere else."
The human body isn't supposed to support two sets reproductive organs which is why they don't work fully and the individual is not a true hermaphrodite in the biological sense, such as worms. There are all sorts of complications that arise from chromosome nondisjunction or transposition that mean the genes don't work as you'd expect them to. But that doesn't mean the individual doesn't posess genetic material both male and female which places them on a spectrum between the two sexes.
Psienesis wrote: You know that most public high schools don't actually have, like, active showers and the sort, right?
I mean, there's... not group-nudity involved in schools these days, hasn't been for like 40 years.
You don't know much about high schools then or how old they are it the concept of a locker room. I'm sure there are rich schools with separate changing areas for each individual but none that I'm aware of in my state.
Psienesis wrote: You know that most public high schools don't actually have, like, active showers and the sort, right?
I mean, there's... not group-nudity involved in schools these days, hasn't been for like 40 years.
You don't know much about high schools then or how old they are it the concept of a locker room. I'm sure there are rich schools with separate changing areas for each individual but none that I'm aware of in my state.
This particular case deals with a restroom though, not a locker room. She dropped gym to avoid the locker room issue.
Psienesis wrote: You know that most public high schools don't actually have, like, active showers and the sort, right?
I mean, there's... not group-nudity involved in schools these days, hasn't been for like 40 years.
You don't know much about high schools then or how old they are it the concept of a locker room. I'm sure there are rich schools with separate changing areas for each individual but none that I'm aware of in my state.
I graduated high school over 20 years ago, and my experience was then (and shared by others I've met over the subsequent 20+ years) that showering and such simply didn't happen. You changed into whatever uniform you were required for gym class (generally shorts and a t-shirt), did whatever you did in class, changed back and went to your next class. The most you might chance to see is someone's underwear, if you were (for whatever reason) paying attention to something other than the locker in front of you.
In the 70s and prior? Yeah, showering after gym class was a near universal thing. Hence "like 40 years" since the 70s were (surprise!) 40 years ago. Now, if you're on a school athletic team (baseball, football, soccer, etc) then, yeah, you're going to be hitting the shower with the team... but that's not what this topic pertains to.
I graduated in 92 and we showered after gym class. *shrug*
Rage....bwahaha..aren't you cute :-D
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
This particular case deals with a restroom though, not a locker room. She dropped gym to avoid the locker room issue.
Did you read the article?
" Over 150 Missouri high school students voiced their displeasure about a transgender teen using the girls’ locker room by walking out of class.
Students at Hillsboro High School staged a two-hour walkout Monday over 17-year-old Lila Perry, a student who has identified as a female since she was 13, using the girls’ locker room during gym class.
The school offered Perry a gender-neutral bathroom, which she turned down. "
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Unfortunately certain members of the victim class don't see it that way.
Yes, the "white Christians" can be a tricky bunch, demanding special treatment and respect while not in any way realising they are not returning the favour.
What do white Christians have to do with girls not wanting to be exposed to penises while they are in various states of undress themselves? And you are giving lectures on straw men and appeals to emotion?
So hundreds must be violated in their most private and vulnerable moments to make one a bit happier.
Strawman and appeal to emotion.
Where is the straw man? People are advancing the argument that biological males should be allowed in locations where they and biological females are likely to be in various stages of undress, and that those who don't want to be in that situation are bigots who need to grow up. Changing and answering the call of nature are among our most private moments. People do feel vulnerable in those moments. The number of people who would feel violated by having someone with a penis around at those times easily exceeds hundreds, and is much larger than the number of people who have gender identity issues. That I've highlighted the ultimate effect of the argument in concise terms is not the creation of a straw man.
The entire premise of the side that you support in based on speak to emotion not logic, so please spare me the appeal to emotion handwringing. It is suggested that the boy (that's what cold logical biological reality says he is) who is the starting point for this discussion wishes to ignore reality (that he is a boy) and expects everyone to do the same treating him as a girl when he is in fact a boy. Why should we do this? Because he will feel better if we do. Why should we care how he feels? Because caring about people's emotions is the right thing to do. Ok, if that's the case then how about caring about the emotions of people who don't want to be exposed to a penis? You can't have it both ways.
Reasonable compromise in the form of providing an additional neutral environment available to all is unacceptable, and to propose the same is to expose one's self as a monster.
It remains to be seen that the proposed compromise was reasonable. Certainly there are many issues with providing a segregated changing and toileting area for people that some people don't feel belong in with other groups. There are many potential solutions and compromises possible in these types of situations; some better than others. Suggesting one does not make you a monster (appeal to emotion); stacking the suggestion and argument to unduely harm one or more of the involved parties makes you a monster, as does utterly refusing to inform yourself of the situation.
Is anyone here suggesting trying to harm Lila or other similar persons? Yet when people say let's protect the girls that don't want to be around a penis, words like "bigot", "ignorant", "segregationist", or your pejorative use of "white Christian" start getting tossed around liberally. Curiously you, an apparent champion of logic, aren't bothered by, and are even willing to dabble in the use of these logically fallacious ploys.
All must conform in thought, word and deed. Those who do not should be second class citizens at best.
So sayeth the LORD!
Oh, wait...
(Strawman, hyperbole and appeal to emotion).
Not really. Here in this thread those who say let the biological females keep privacy from biological males have been called bigots, segregationists (an emotional appeal using a loaded word you haven't bothered to correct) . I see posts that fail to accept views that vaginas shouldn't have to be in the same room as penises when clothes are going to be removed as reasonable or acceptable. You dismiss them as uniformed. It has been said here that if a biological female doesn't want to use the facility with a biological male, the female shouldn't get to use it at all. Sounds like second class citizen status to me. The take away is the idea of "accept whatever we tell you to and no we won't accept anything else". In other words conform in word, thought and deed or we will label you or do other bad stuff like not let you pee.
Psienesis wrote: You know that most public high schools don't actually have, like, active showers and the sort, right?
I mean, there's... not group-nudity involved in schools these days, hasn't been for like 40 years.
You don't know much about high schools then or how old they are it the concept of a locker room. I'm sure there are rich schools with separate changing areas for each individual but none that I'm aware of in my state.
I graduated high school over 20 years ago, and my experience was then (and shared by others I've met over the subsequent 20+ years) that showering and such simply didn't happen. You changed into whatever uniform you were required for gym class (generally shorts and a t-shirt), did whatever you did in class, changed back and went to your next class. The most you might chance to see is someone's underwear, if you were (for whatever reason) paying attention to something other than the locker in front of you.
In the 70s and prior? Yeah, showering after gym class was a near universal thing. Hence "like 40 years" since the 70s were (surprise!) 40 years ago. Now, if you're on a school athletic team (baseball, football, soccer, etc) then, yeah, you're going to be hitting the shower with the team... but that's not what this topic pertains to.
You still need to change clothes, ideally leaving underwear on.
@d-usa, I'm a dressing the larger point, not just the story as this sort of issue is becoming more commonplace throughout the US in recent years. It's interesting to see how schools juggle the wishes of both sides in attempting to find common ground. For the most part, invested parties seem willing to work out a compromise; however, in this situation, the aggrieved individual seems less inclined to accept alternatives to her desires. So, whose concerns are paramount? The wishes of students and parents who do not wish for students to be nude or near nude in the presence of someone with opposite sex equipment or the person who identifies themselves as another gender? When one party is unwilling to negotiate, the result is bad press for all. I'm all for someone fighting for their rights but as a father I am most certainly able to see the other point of view as well.
Odd thought. I suppose it's possible for someone to identify as female and consider themselves bisexual or homosexual or whatever Hannah Montana says she is.
TheMeanDM wrote: I graduated in 92 and we showered after gym class. *shrug*
Rage....bwahaha..aren't you cute :-D
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
This particular case deals with a restroom though, not a locker room. She dropped gym to avoid the locker room issue.
Did you read the article?
" Over 150 Missouri high school students voiced their displeasure about a transgender teen using the girls’ locker room by walking out of class.
Students at Hillsboro High School staged a two-hour walkout Monday over 17-year-old Lila Perry, a student who has identified as a female since she was 13, using the girls’ locker room during gym class.
The school offered Perry a gender-neutral bathroom, which she turned down. "
It's the last sentence:
Lila has dropped out of gym class for safety concerns, but she still plans on using the girl’s bathroom.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Respect and decency should be a two way street. Unfortunately certain members of the victim class don't see it that way. No compromise is acceptable. You must accept everything about me on my terms or you are a bad person to be crushed.
So hundreds must be violated in their most private and vulnerable moments to make one a bit happier. Reasonable compromise in the form of providing an additional neutral environment available to all is unacceptable, and to propose the same is to expose one's self as a monster. All must conform in thought, word and deed. Those who do not should be second class citizens at best.
Pretending that "you are not a girl, now go to the restroom for 'things'" is a compromise is an interesting tactic.
If there is any "pretending" going on it is by the person with a penis saying he is a girl. Just because your brain tells you X is Y doesn't make it so. I'm not saying force everyone with a penis to in all circumstances act like the prototypical male and prevent them from taking any actions deemed feminine either. Brain chemistry and biological equipment don't always match up. I get that and I'm not trying to attack people that have issue. They may not want to go in the men's room dressed as a woman and forcing them to do so doesn't seem right. But forcing people with vaginas to have a penis around when taking care of business doesn't seem right either.
As spock always says, the needs of an incredibly small and specific few always outweigh the needs of the many. Because you can just assassinate the character of the many, poison the well and boom everyone has to agree with you, because if they don't they're bigoted, small minded, racist and or misogynist.
I think it goes something like that.
At least now it's only an issue about the proper bathroom and no one can argue that lila is forcing them, in that context, to look at her penis. Pretty sure the women's bathroom is 100% stalls. Would it kill people to tolerate her using the bathroom? Probably not, does it help her win sympathy when she labels 1/5th of her school as bigots? Probably not.
Is it insensitive to not describe me as a chicken if I identify, partially or fully, as a chicken? I really wish this was hyperbole. I'll grant this, it's not nearly as common as garden variety gender issues.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: If there is any "pretending" going on it is by the person with a penis saying he is a girl.
I must admit that this pretty much sums up my opinion. You want to use the girls locker room? Go post-op or GTFO. Otherwise it's sexual harassment pure and simple.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: If there is any "pretending" going on it is by the person with a penis saying he is a girl.
I must admit that this pretty much sums up my opinion. You want to use the girls locker room? Go post-op or GTFO. Otherwise it's sexual harassment pure and simple.
Someone get this published in a peer reviewed journal, we just canceled out decades of scientific research!
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: If there is any "pretending" going on it is by the person with a penis saying he is a girl.
I must admit that this pretty much sums up my opinion. You want to use the girls locker room? Go post-op or GTFO. Otherwise it's sexual harassment pure and simple.
Someone get this published in a peer reviewed journal, we just canceled out decades of scientific research!
What are your thoughts on those who identify as gender fluid or gender queer?
as defined by google:
having an overlap of, or indefinite lines between, gender identity; having two or more genders (being bigender, trigender, or pangender); having no gender (being agender, nongendered, genderless, genderfree or neutrois); moving between genders or having a fluctuating gender identity (genderfluid); or.
gen·der·queer
ˈjendərˌkwi(ə)r/
adjective
adjective: gender-queer
1.
denoting or relating to a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders.
"the genderqueer community"
noun
noun: gender-queer
1.
a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders.
"a younger generation of self-proclaimed genderqueers explicitly reject ‘transgender’ as an identifier"
I think it's a bit of a trope at this point to put all the hate squarely on conservative shoulders. I'm the most liberal guy on the planet and this stuff leaves me very confused at best, it's hard to tell who is serious and who is taking a piss. I think I'm off the boat once we hit third genders or new pronouns, that's about where we get off the tolerance train and enter "are you fething kidding me?" land
@D-usa
What are you even saying? All I got from that was "yeah, no 'cause science". What exactly are you claiming science says? And what specifically is wrong about whatever thought it is that you disagree with.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: If there is any "pretending" going on it is by the person with a penis saying he is a girl.
I must admit that this pretty much sums up my opinion. You want to use the girls locker room? Go post-op or GTFO. Otherwise it's sexual harassment pure and simple.
Someone get this published in a peer reviewed journal, we just canceled out decades of scientific research!
What are your thoughts on those who identify as gender fluid or gender queer?
as defined by google:
having an overlap of, or indefinite lines between, gender identity; having two or more genders (being bigender, trigender, or pangender); having no gender (being agender, nongendered, genderless, genderfree or neutrois); moving between genders or having a fluctuating gender identity (genderfluid); or.
My thought, based on my understanding of the research that I have been exposed to, is that while there may well be people who "choose" to be gender fluid for various reasons, the majority of people who identify as a gender other than the one represented by their external sex characteristics do so because of hormonal and genetic differences leading their brain to have an identify that is different from the gender they express. There are many factors that result in separate gender development in different parts of the body which cause a person to look like a certain gender but who has a brain that really does not match up with that gender. Those people do not choose to be a different gender anymore than a person chooses to have depression. It is not a mental illness by any means, it's just a case where the brain does not match the body.
And while I am guilty of mixing the two issues at times in this thread myself, I do think that we would make progress if people could at least accept that being transgender is actually a real thing with a biological cause even if we disagree on how the school and other parts of society should deal with it.
The issue is (and was) the utilization of the LOCKER ROOM by this person.
They were wanting to use the locker room before or after gym class.
Depending on the type of restroom...that wouldnt be an issue necessarily.
I am thinking that the dropping of gym class came *after* the protests (therefore in response to)....why else would the protestors and students would be quoted talking about the need for separate locker rooms (specifically) and *not* restrooms?
The only mention of restrooms came when 1) the school offered a restroom for this person to change in and 2) this person said they would ointinue using the girls' restroom for their toileting.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: @D-usa
What are you even saying? All I got from that was "yeah, no 'cause science". What exactly are you claiming science says? And what specifically is wrong about whatever thought it is that you disagree with.
See above.
There are two issues that I disagree with.
One is the "well, unless you cut of your penis you are a guy" mindset and the possible related "transgender isn't a thing" issue. There is a definite biological cause of the brain not matching up to the body and no matter how we feel about how they look or, nothing will make the brain feel different.
The other is how we should deal with transgender people as a society (as in should they be able to shower and participate in things with other members of the gender that they identify as).
I am of the"separate but equal" camp opinion in this matter.
It protects all parties.
The TG student avoids opportunities for additional harassment, for example. Do you recall what it was like as a teen boy in the locker rooms....towel snapping...for example...lol.
It also protects other students from being forced to observe genitalia that they do not want to see.
d-usa wrote: they be able to shower and participate in things with other members of the gender that they identify as).
The gender they identify as, today...
Like I said, while there may well be some individuals who are a "girl" today as much as they are a "goth" today or a lifelong fan of "insert random crappy band" today the vast majority identify as their gender for the same reason that you identify as yours. A combination of their physical appearance together with their lifelong exposure to hormones produced by their body due to genetics as well as the body of their mother (with some research even pointing to hormone levels at the time that sperm are produced having an impact) and maybe even environmental hormones all of which have acted on their brain and body to cause a person to form that particular identity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: I am of the"separate but equal" camp opinion in this matter.
It protects all parties.
The TG student avoids opportunities for additional harassment, for example. Do you recall what it was like as a teen boy in the locker rooms....towel snapping...for example...lol.
It also protects other students from being forced to observe genitalia that they do not want to see.
On the other hand the student that just moved into the school district, who due to age and/or hormone treatment has the external appearance of the gender that they identify as except for their genitals, and who would simply go into the [gender] bathroom, close the bathroom stall, sit down and do their business, cover their genital areas with clothing, and then exit the bathroom without exposing their genitalia and without being exposed to anyone else's genitalia, is now exposed as a transgender person because he is forced to use the transgender bathroom and which creates the opportunity for harassment that wouldn't have existed if no other student would have known that the person is transgender.
Creating a transgender restroom can create more risks than it removes.
TheMeanDM wrote: I am curious to know what research you have looked at which shows that TG people are different biologically and genetically.
Honestly, lots. I know that is not a great answer and I apologize for that. It's just lots of different papers that I have come across during the past decade between school and work as well as just keeping up with various journals for professional development.
There are risks and benefits to BOTH your position and mine.
I would be VERY curious to know the extended history of this person and what they did in the past.
Since 13 they have identified as a girl.
How have they gotten along with other students up until this point? Has there been mostly support or mostly ridicule?
Is this the first year they took gym?
Has there been a precedent of this person in the same-sex locker room over the past 4 years?
I wish we could dig deeper.
Because of this person has been changing in the LOCKER ROOM all these 4 years...then why the fuss now?
I suspect that this has never happened before though. That this person has not changed in the same pocker room. Perhaps used the same bathroom...but I bet dollars to donuts that they are stalls with doors.
TheMeanDM wrote: There are risks and benefits to BOTH your position and mine.
Agreed.
I would be VERY curious to know the extended history of this person and what they did in the past.
Since 13 they have identified as a girl.
How have they gotten along with other students up until this point? Has there been mostly support or mostly ridicule?
I would wonder if up until 13 there really was that much difference between being a boy or a girl to her or the friends. Kids know that there are difference between boy or girls, but prior to the traditional puberty age I wonder if anyone really had much of their identify associated with it. But 13 seems prime puberty age, where sexuality and gender usually start to become an issue and things get "weird" for pretty much everyone.
Is this the first year they took gym?
Has there been a precedent of this person in the same-sex locker room over the past 4 years?
Good question.
I wish we could dig deeper.
Because of this person has been changing in the LOCKER ROOM all these 4 years...then why the fuss now?
It doesn't say in the story, but I wonder if maybe they changed schools? I would think it would mention it in the story if she did, but it seems like this could be the right age to jump from middle school to high school, or junior high to senior high. And the timing seems prime for "just started class what the hell is going on with this kid" scenarios if nobody else has ever dealt with this.
"Lila Perry, the 17-year-old at the center of the debate, reportedly identified as a gay male until she was 13 and publicly came out as transgender in February. She previously used a gender-neutral faculty bathroom but began changing in the girls’ locker room this school year before her physical education class."
d-usa wrote: There is a definite biological cause of the brain not matching up to the body and no matter how we feel about how they look or, nothing will make the brain feel different.
You know where else biology comes into play? A person's body. I could say I'm a wiener dog but that doesn't make it so. Why? Biology.
d-usa wrote: The other is how we should deal with transgender people as a society (as in should they be able to shower and participate in things with other members of the gender that they identify as).
Identity =/= biology no matter how you try to distort the issue. If a man wants to call himself a woman and dress in women's' clothes and wear makeup, that's his prerogative. Still, I am not in any way obligated to participate in the charade - and that's where the crux of the problem is, isn't it? Either I participate or the force of law be brought down upon me like God smiting the unbeliever. The answer is no.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: @D-usa
What are you even saying? All I got from that was "yeah, no 'cause science". What exactly are you claiming science says? And what specifically is wrong about whatever thought it is that you disagree with.
See above.
There are two issues that I disagree with.
One is the "well, unless you cut of your penis you are a guy" mindset and the possible related "transgender isn't a thing" issue. There is a definite biological cause of the brain not matching up to the body and no matter how we feel about how they look or, nothing will make the brain feel different.
The other is how we should deal with transgender people as a society (as in should they be able to shower and participate in things with other members of the gender that they identify as).
Your previous post makes sense and I largely agree with what you are saying there. I tried to make clear in my post that I believe, accept as true and don't challenge the assertion that a person's brain chemestry can cause them to identify as a gender that is different from their biological sex. What I was saying is that "if" someone is pretending something, it is more the person who says my penis doesn't mean something, that the person who says it does. This isn't to say that the person is in fact pretending, just trying to draw a contrast. Their brain is telling them that they are a girl even though they are able to produce sperm and procreate as a male rather than as a female, and have male chromosomes rather than female chromosomes or in other words every cell in their body has male not female characteristics. To say this person is not male, but female is at best an oversimplification.
Telling people that they are wrong, biggoted or irrational (not saying those are your words or position) because they accept as true that which is in fact true, i.e. that the person's body is that of a male is not a rationally supportable position as far as I'm concerned. The physiology does impact who they are, what they can do and how their body functions and people shouldn't be asked to pretend otherwise. Their brain chemestry has an affect as well, and people should be sensitive to that. Saying 'you're a boy, deal with it" isn't a real effective or humane response.
Males (by sex) who identify as males (by gender) are not treated the same in every situation as women (by sex) who identify as women (by gender). Other people fall into neither of these categories and trying to shoehorn them into one or the other in every situation deferring only to their desires is not an appropriate solution. Restrooms are tricky because if we expand beyond male/female where does that stop? We need one for boys who identify as girls, one for girls who identify as boys, one for boys who identify as boys, one for girls who identify as girls, one for girls who identify as neither, one for girls who identify as both... Where does that end? Two solutions seem to me most practical. First have restrooms and showers give three options, (1) boys (gender & sex), (2) girls (gender & sex) and (3) inclusive (anyone who isn't bogged down by one category or the other). This lets people support the people who don't fit neatly in one specific category and protects the privacy of people who don't want to mix in that setting. If you don't want to sit next to a transgender in class, too bad. The other solution is just have every stall, shower, etc totally enclosed and available to anyone. No privacy problems for anyone and the transgender persons aren't forced into an awkward situation. I don't like this last solution as it is wildly inefficient (men with man bits get in and out much faster than ladies with lady parts and significantly more space would be required).
Making girls be in a situation where someone with a penis gets to see their boobies, ass and lady nest and expose them to his (using the pronoun referring to sex not gender) penis is not a decent solution.
As far as surgery as some sort of litmus test, I would not support that. My position is that anyone who takes steps to adopt an appearance that matches their gender, and mask their sex should inform people who may be in some sort of intimate situation about their physiological origins. To hide this and allow that person to expose themselves in some intimate way is a violation of that person's privacy and should be completely unacceptable. People get this if a boy who really likes girls dresses up as a girl to get access to them when they otherwise would not allow it. And hey, if the girls don't know he's a boy and never find out, no harm, no foul right. But if the boy doesn't like girls and instead thinks of himself as one, it is now ok the see them undressed without their voluntary knowing consent. Not buying that. Outside of limited, intimate situations though it shouldn't matter whether they have had surgery or haven't, are taking horomones or aren't, dress like one gender or another or don't.
Women don't dissolve into a puddle of goo upon seeing a penis. I promise. Their bodily integrity will remain intact, even if for some reason they're snooping under the stalls with their phones or whatever.
Most of the rest of this stuff stems from people trying to invalidate her identity in one way or another. That is pretty messed up, as that stuff is behind a lot of violence committed against trans people - the notion that they are "really" the other gender. A lot of it ties into misogyny, homophobia and fragile masculinity in really interesting ways.
I don't know if it's worth touching on this, but your genitals don't really have anything significant to do with your gender. For example, I have gone wargaming with a whole bunch of guys. I know they are guys because of how they present their gender to me. For the most part I haven't seen their genitals, yet I am still able to determine that they are guys.
What is funny is the thread has the threat precisely backwards. Girls are not going to dissolve upon seeing the penis of another girl. That girl, though, would now be at risk of having her gender identity invalidated, positioning her as either really a boy or as an inhuman "thing," "it," subject to ostracisation, violence or murder. The one who is actually at risk here is the trans girl, and she's the one who needs protection.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Most of the rest of this stuff stems from people trying to invalidate her identity in one way or another. That is pretty messed up, as that stuff is behind a lot of violence committed against trans people - the notion that they are "really" the other gender. A lot of it ties into misogyny, homophobia and fragile masculinity in really interesting ways.
Misogyny, haha. Sure it all ties down to hatred of women, suuuuuuuuure.
We had some trans kids at school and it was not the "masculine men" who attacked them but petty girls. It was also girls who were responsible for all the suicides that occurred when I was at school. It has nothing to do with masculinity, or a hatred of women at all.
Please explain how a hatred of women has anything to do with transsexuals? All the girls who tried to be guys at school got made fun of by other girls. Did those girls hate themselves?
Google "fragile masculinity" and it floods your screen with tumblr links. You may want to lay off that site for anything worth learning.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Most of the rest of this stuff stems from people trying to invalidate her identity in one way or another. That is pretty messed up, as that stuff is behind a lot of violence committed against trans people - the notion that they are "really" the other gender. A lot of it ties into misogyny, homophobia and fragile masculinity in really interesting ways.
Misogyny, haha. Sure it all ties down to hatred of women, suuuuuuuuure.
We had some trans kids at school and it was not the "masculine men" who attacked them but petty girls. It was also girls who were responsible for all the suicides that occurred when I was at school. It has nothing to do with masculinity, or a hatred of women at all.
Please explain how a hatred of women has anything to do with transsexuals? All the girls who tried to be guys at school got made fun of by other girls. Did those girls hate themselves?
Google "fragile masculinity" and it floods your screen with tumblr links. You may want to lay off that site for anything worth learning.
I don't use tumblr.
Anyway, it's a complex topic. A lot of transphobia stems from gender essentialism. Part of this is the notion that men are the universal combatant and women are the universal non-combatant. Then, since trans girls are "really" boys, they're actually the universal combatant pretending to be the universal non-combatant - they're the fox in the henhouse. You'll notice this hoopla doesn't occur over trans men using the men's bathroom.
You should get an inkling that something is up just from how much attention gets paid to trans women vs trans men. Why would a man want to be a woman? It doesn't make sense. Our society glorifies the masculine over the feminine - it "makes sense" for a woman to want to be like a man, even if we regard it as somewhat pitiable at the same time. When a man wants to "be like" a woman it makes a lie of the whole system.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Women don't dissolve into a puddle of goo upon seeing a penis. I promise. Their bodily integrity will remain intact, even if for some reason they're snooping under the stalls with their phones or whatever.
Most of the rest of this stuff stems from people trying to invalidate her identity in one way or another. That is pretty messed up, as that stuff is behind a lot of violence committed against trans people - the notion that they are "really" the other gender. A lot of it ties into misogyny, homophobia and fragile masculinity in really interesting ways.
I don't know if it's worth touching on this, but your genitals don't really have anything significant to do with your gender. For example, I have gone wargaming with a whole bunch of guys. I know they are guys because of how they present their gender to me. For the most part I haven't seen their genitals, yet I am still able to determine that they are guys.
What is funny is the thread has the threat precisely backwards. Girls are not going to dissolve upon seeing the penis of another girl. That girl, though, would now be at risk of having her gender identity invalidated, positioning her as either really a boy or as an inhuman "thing," "it," subject to ostracisation, violence or murder. The one who is actually at risk here is the trans girl, and she's the one who needs protection.
And if girls, as in this case, have a problem, what then? Kind of shoots down your theory about the being about men and their silly ways. Or are you saying the girls only feel that way because men told them to thereby contradicting yourself by suggesting that they are in fact weak and unable to think for themselves. No one is suggesting women will melt into a pile of goo and I doubt anyone really thinks that. Women are objecting as they do when men who identify as men try to enter their restrooms and showers. For them your identity isn't as important as your bits and if you want to invade what is supposed to be a semi-private secure place for them when they don't want it, you are the problem. I don't want a woman that identifies as a man using the same restrooms and showers as I do at the same time as I use them. And it isn't because I'm afraid I'll be attracted to her/him or she/he to me. For me, in my head, my gender and the girl by sex boy by gender don't have the same gender because for me it is a combination of sex and gender. So why does her/his head cannon (to borrow some nerd/gaming lingo) have more validity than mine. Why am I forced to accept an invasion of my privacy especially if there is an alternative available where no one's privacy is invaded?
Saying that because you aren't a prototypical boy or girl is not saying you are therefore a thing. People have all sorts of different ways of identifying themselves that don't fit neatly into one of two categories. So focus on expanding ideas to there being other options instead of pigeonholing people into categories that don't make a lot of sense like this person with a penis is actually a girl, end of discussion. At minimum you have sex and identity which may or may not match. In other cases you have indeterminate sex and identity and have characteristics of biological males and females and identify as both as well. That don't fit neatly into a box, but such a person is still a human being worthy of dignity and respect. Plenty of people will be fine with honesty and openness about it. Its when people start saying you must accept my version of reality as your version of reality and say I'm a girl and treat me as one in every situation even if there are some where that doesn't work for you, that widespread resentment, non-acceptance or whatever will manifest.
--
I use her/him, he/she etc not to be derogatory but to speak about both sex and gender at the same time as they are both relevant to the point being made.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Most of the rest of this stuff stems from people trying to invalidate her identity in one way or another. That is pretty messed up, as that stuff is behind a lot of violence committed against trans people - the notion that they are "really" the other gender. A lot of it ties into misogyny, homophobia and fragile masculinity in really interesting ways.
Misogyny, haha. Sure it all ties down to hatred of women, suuuuuuuuure.
We had some trans kids at school and it was not the "masculine men" who attacked them but petty girls. It was also girls who were responsible for all the suicides that occurred when I was at school. It has nothing to do with masculinity, or a hatred of women at all.
Please explain how a hatred of women has anything to do with transsexuals? All the girls who tried to be guys at school got made fun of by other girls. Did those girls hate themselves?
Google "fragile masculinity" and it floods your screen with tumblr links. You may want to lay off that site for anything worth learning.
I don't use tumblr.
Anyway, it's a complex topic. A lot of transphobia stems from gender essentialism. Part of this is the notion that men are the universal combatant and women are the universal non-combatant. Then, since trans girls are "really" boys, they're actually the universal combatant pretending to be the universal non-combatant - they're the fox in the henhouse. You'll notice this hoopla doesn't occur over trans men using the men's bathroom.
You should get an inkling that something is up just from how much attention gets paid to trans women vs trans men. Why would a man want to be a woman? It doesn't make sense. Our society glorifies the masculine over the feminine - it "makes sense" for a woman to want to be like a man, even if we regard it as somewhat pitiable at the same time. When a man wants to "be like" a woman it makes a lie of the whole system.
I had a really long answer based of my experiences growing up and recently leaving education (dad saw no gays/lesbians growing up, I can count more than 10 not including those who change their gender, very different trends today) etc but it is all anecdotal. I will scrap it, have a read and maybe come back. Nice answer to my snarky reply though (sorry about that).
I do disagree it has anything to do with a hatred of women. I find it hard to believe anyone who is a man can hate a women. In fact i disagree with most of what you just said, but I will come back after some reading.
You should get an inkling that something is up just from how much attention gets paid to trans women vs trans men. Why would a man want to be a woman? It doesn't make sense. Our society glorifies the masculine over the feminine - it "makes sense" for a woman to want to be like a man, even if we regard it as somewhat pitiable at the same time. When a man wants to "be like" a woman it makes a lie of the whole system.
Interesting that I was typing that I would object to that very thing of a female with male gender identity using the facilities with me as you posted this.
You should get an inkling that something is up just from how much attention gets paid to trans women vs trans men. Why would a man want to be a woman? It doesn't make sense. Our society glorifies the masculine over the feminine - it "makes sense" for a woman to want to be like a man, even if we regard it as somewhat pitiable at the same time. When a man wants to "be like" a woman it makes a lie of the whole system.
Interesting that I was typing that I would object to that very thing of a female with male gender identity using the facilities with me as you posted this.
Yes, our school allowed girls trying to be guys to wear pants, but still had to use girls restrooms and changing rooms. It worked both ways.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: And if girls, as in this case, have a problem, what then? Kind of shoots down your theory about the being about men and their silly ways.
Sorry, I'm trying to process what you're meaning here. It seems like you have the impression that misogyny is something inflicted on women by men. Generally speaking, misogynistic ideas exist in and are transmitted by our culture, which more or less exists in all of us, men and women.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Women are objecting as they do when men who identify as men try to enter their restrooms and showers. For them your identity isn't as important as your bits and if you want to invade what is supposed to be a semi-private secure place for them when they don't want it, you are the problem.
I don't actually see anything wrong with a guy using the next stall over from me. They are stalls.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: I don't want a woman that identifies as a man using the same restrooms and showers as I do at the same time as I use them. And it isn't because I'm afraid I'll be attracted to her/him or she/he to me. For me, in my head, my gender and the girl by sex boy by gender don't have the same gender because for me it is a combination of sex and gender. So why does her/his head cannon (to borrow some nerd/gaming lingo) have more validity than mine. Why am I forced to accept an invasion of my privacy especially if there is an alternative available where no one's privacy is invaded?
Well, these are shared facilities. They are broken down on pretty arbitrary lines. Here we have decided that men will use this room and women will use this one. We could break them down in any number of ways. At present, we have chosen to break them down in this way. As trans men are men and trans women are women, they use the men's and women's rooms respectively. It is pretty straightforwards.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Saying that because you aren't a prototypical boy or girl is not saying you are therefore a thing. People have all sorts of different ways of identifying themselves that don't fit neatly into one of two categories. So focus on expanding ideas to there being other options instead of pigeonholing people into categories that don't make a lot of sense like this person with a penis is actually a girl, end of discussion. At minimum you have sex and identity which may or may not match. In other cases you have indeterminate sex and identity and have characteristics of biological males and females and identify as both as well. That don't fit neatly into a box, but such a person is still a human being worthy of dignity and respect. Plenty of people will be fine with honesty and openness about it. Its when people start saying you must accept my version of reality as your version of reality and say I'm a girl and treat me as one in every situation even if there are some where that doesn't work for you, that widespread resentment, non-acceptance or whatever will manifest.
I'm glad you're open to treating all people with dignity and respect. Unfortunately, when you say "you are not a girl, you are really a boy and will be treated like a boy" you are not treating the person with respect and you are reinforcing a wider culture that treats trans people as jokes, freaks, others. They are not any of these things. They are just men and women who want to be able to go about living their lives, just like you and me. There does not have to be a big deal made about it.
If it's not a big deal they can use the bathroom others ask them to. It's not a big deal after all. And again why is their mental perception more valid than someone else's? Or put differently, if others have to accept reality as it is in their heads, why shouldn't they have to accept reality as it is in other's heads.
Regarding the misogyny...
So women are mistreating someone they perceive to be a man and it is because society taught them not to value themselves as women or something. And those or women just don't see how they are really just hating their own sex or gender or whatever.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: If it's not a big deal they can use the bathroom others ask them to. It's not a big deal after all. And again why is their mental perception more valid than someone else's? Or put differently, if others have to accept reality as it is in their heads, why shouldn't they have to accept reality as it is in other's heads.
Well, for example, I agree you are a man because you say you are a man. My agreement is not based on your genitalia, but on what you say you are. I apply this same standard to other people, including trans people. It's not about what you think "versus" what I think. What I think doesn't come into play, because I am not you. What I think matters for my gender, not yours.
I said them using the correct bathroom for their gender is not a big deal. It would be a bigger deal the other way around, because then you would have actual men who are attracted to women in the women's bathroom, for instance.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Regarding the misogyny...
So women are mistreating someone they perceive to be a man and it is because society taught them not to value themselves as women or something. And those or women just don't see how they are really just hating their own sex or gender or whatever.
If you're interested, check out the book I linked in my earlier post (Whipping Girl by Julia Serano). It's pretty good and goes into it in some detail. It's a reasonably complex topic.
TheMeanDM wrote: I am of the"separate but equal" camp opinion in this matter.
It protects all parties.
The TG student avoids opportunities for additional harassment, for example. Do you recall what it was like as a teen boy in the locker rooms....towel snapping...for example...lol.
It also protects other students from being forced to observe genitalia that they do not want to see.
MY GOD, it is a penis. It just is used for making babies and going to the bathroom. Nothing else. It doesnt shoot poison, it doesnt insult you and it isnt a hidden weapon.
It is literally a body-part that is no different from your nose, your finger, you bicep or anything else.
It is a penis, we all have one here and we know how unharmful it is.
TheMeanDM wrote: I am of the"separate but equal" camp opinion in this matter.
It protects all parties.
The TG student avoids opportunities for additional harassment, for example. Do you recall what it was like as a teen boy in the locker rooms....towel snapping...for example...lol.
It also protects other students from being forced to observe genitalia that they do not want to see.
MY GOD, it is a penis. It just is used for making babies and going to the bathroom. Nothing else. It doesnt shoot poison, it doesnt insult you and it isnt a hidden weapon.
It is literally a body-part that is no different from your nose, your finger, you bicep or anything else.
It is a penis, we all have one here and we know how unharmful it is.
I don't know what you're talking about, mine can cut diamond and has a high voltage warning
Just throwing this out but would it make sense to ban kids from making these kind of life changing decisions until they are old enough to appreciate them? I mean, in the US your not allowed to join the military until you are a certain age so you can make a responsible decision, you aren't allowed to go to a bar and order a drink until your 21. So why are you allowed to say "im a Girl" or "Im a boy" when you are 10 or even younger?
I understand that this would cause other problems but realistically I don't think a person is capable of making such a life changing decision until they are at least almost completely done developing their brains say 18 or 20. (Age 25 is when the brain is fully matured according to research)
Ghazkuul wrote: Just throwing this out but would it make sense to ban kids from making these kind of life changing decisions until they are old enough to appreciate them? I mean, in the US your not allowed to join the military until you are a certain age so you can make a responsible decision, you aren't allowed to go to a bar and order a drink until your 21. So why are you allowed to say "im a Girl" or "Im a boy" when you are 10 or even younger?
Research frankly. Many many people that young feel that way
Don't you think that these girls have a right to 'bodily privacy'?
That's an interesting question, given that we are presumably discussing group facilities. Should all students be granted access to individual facilities?
I was thinking the same myself.
Public swimming pools in the UK generally have individual cubicles for changing, though the male and female areas are segregated.
Of course teenagers are a lot more worried about their bodies and sexuality than mature adults.
Ghazkuul wrote: Just throwing this out but would it make sense to ban kids from making these kind of life changing decisions until they are old enough to appreciate them? I mean, in the US your not allowed to join the military until you are a certain age so you can make a responsible decision, you aren't allowed to go to a bar and order a drink until your 21. So why are you allowed to say "im a Girl" or "Im a boy" when you are 10 or even younger?
I understand that this would cause other problems but realistically I don't think a person is capable of making such a life changing decision until they are at least almost completely done developing their brains say 18 or 20. (Age 25 is when the brain is fully matured according to research)
I am of the same mind. Like we as a society freely admit that children's brains are too full of stupid to make certain decisions. It's why we have a driving age, a smoking age, a drinking age, an age of majority, all of that. On average, we have come up with the idea that a person under that age simply cannot make a rational decision and so we make a decision for them.
However, if someone decides they are actually a girl at age 13 we are supposed to respect that and shut up? If someone wants to be emancipated before they are 18 to gain the power to take personal responsibility and sign legal binding contracts we make them go to court to prove it, right?
If someone goes to an actual doctor and is diagnosed as having some sort of chromosomal screw up, sure I'd be willing to play ball; but we should not be letting people under 18 self diagnose themselves for things of such magnitude. Let alone a 13 year old. When I was 13 I would probably have self identified as an autobot.
Its not a girl with a penis. Its a boy who is claiming he is a girl.
This person may be genuinely confused and think he is a member of the opposite sex, but that doesn't change the fact that he is still a boy. I can self identify as a watermelon, but that doesn't make me a watermelon. The only way to be completely unbiased is to separate everyone by what is actually between your legs. Whats that? You say you are uncomfortable changing in the guys locker room? Well too bad, 90% of the other boys are uncomfortable with it too. I'd rather you just be uncomfortable than deal with the problem of opening up the girl's locker room to any boy who wants to claim he's actually a girl, giving him free reign to get some panty shots, or vice verse.
What.
Do you have anything at all indicating that someone would actually pretend to be a transperson just to go peeping, or is it like lightning destroying your aircraft? (That is, something that pretty much doesn't happen).
Looks like an appeal to emotion.
Spoiler:
Swastakowey wrote: I do disagree it has anything to do with a hatred of women. I find it hard to believe anyone who is a man can hate a women.
Spoilered because this is slightly OT. Sorry guys, but I simply must adress this.
Just out of curiousity, Swastakowey, are you sure no men hate women? Is this love and respect? If all men in your country were subjected to this treatment, do you think it would be justified to call it misandry?
This issue isn't black and white at all. On one hand, if the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has the capacity to make and enforce the law that people can use the facilities that meet their (perceived) gender, then frankly the parents/students haven't got a leg to stand on.
On the other hand, these sorts of issues always tend to ignore how everyone else feels. What if the trans-woman is a 6 foot 3 and built like a brick gak house. How's the 5 foot nothing waif of a cheerleader going to feel about having this apparent girl getting changed next to her? How is her father going to feel?
It's not cut and dry and there is no easy answer.
Maybe Spock has the answer though: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of he few, or the one.
Its not a girl with a penis. Its a boy who is claiming he is a girl.
This person may be genuinely confused and think he is a member of the opposite sex, but that doesn't change the fact that he is still a boy. I can self identify as a watermelon, but that doesn't make me a watermelon. The only way to be completely unbiased is to separate everyone by what is actually between your legs. Whats that? You say you are uncomfortable changing in the guys locker room? Well too bad, 90% of the other boys are uncomfortable with it too. I'd rather you just be uncomfortable than deal with the problem of opening up the girl's locker room to any boy who wants to claim he's actually a girl, giving him free reign to get some panty shots, or vice verse.
What.
Do you have anything at all indicating that someone would actually pretend to be a transperson just to go peeping, or is it like lightning destroying your aircraft? (That is, something that pretty much doesn't happen).
Looks like an appeal to emotion.
Do you remember being 13? I can accept almost any adult who self-identifies as something other than what they appear to be, but I have a slightly harder job believing children, especially if they self identify and there is no psychological assessment (i.e. checking that the facts line up).
In fact, I'm just going to quote Bromsy, because he's already made the same point.
We as a society freely admit that children's brains are too full of stupid to make certain decisions. It's why we have a driving age, a smoking age, a drinking age, an age of majority, all of that. On average, we have come up with the idea that a person under that age simply cannot make a rational decision and so we make a decision for them.
That's not to say that I agree with Grey Templar, merely that I disagree that taking the word of a child at face value is something we should automatically do.
Swastakowey wrote: I do disagree it has anything to do with a hatred of women. I find it hard to believe anyone who is a man can hate a women.
Spoilered because this is slightly OT. Sorry guys, but I simply must adress this.
Just out of curiousity, Swastakowey, are you sure no men hate women? Is this love and respect? If all men in your country were subjected to this treatment, do you think it would be justified to call it misandry?
You point to how women are treated over there but how many men got butchered by that group? Hint, more than women, I have seen endless videos of Taliban and similar groups killing men in all manner of ways and they specifically went on massacres of civilians (when they don't mention women and children in these massacres it means men are the victims). That is not women hatred but another kind of hatred based on more than just gender (since they do not only target women,, surely the hatred is based on something else yes?). So no I would not call it misandry.
Is male only conscription misandry? No, its just sensible if you want your country to survive a conflict. You can point to examples where a gender has issues but this does not equal a hatred of women or men. In fact, from their perspective they could very well be trying to do whats best (in their view) for people. I find it hard to believe anyone can hate a women.
Look at the synonyms for hate:
loathe, detest, dislike greatly, abhor, abominate, despise, execrate, feel aversion towards, feel revulsion towards, feel hostile towards, be repelled by, be revolted by, regard with disgust, not be able to bear/stand, be unable to stomach, find intolerable, shudder at, recoil from, shrink from
I doubt any man or woman could ever feel this way towards the opposite sex. Maybe against a specific person or group, but a whole gender? Well they would likely die a virgin because how can you sleep with something you feel "revulsion" to? It goes against the nature of a species that breeds.
Just some of the few sick things the Taliban has done to people:
The “castration” of the former Afghan president, Najibullah in 1996. The Taliban “dragged his body behind a jeep for several rounds of the palace and then shot him dead”. The 1998 massacre of 600 Uzbeks in the province of Faryab. “Western aid workers… said civilians were dragged from their homes, lined up and shot.” Other reports include accounts from refugees and human rights groups of the beating of infants, killing of children and hanging of bodies from lampposts. 8,000 people died by the following: hundreds of people were packed into containers where they suffocated when the doors were locked in the searing midday heat. Men, women and children were shot in their homes and on the street, and hospital patients were murdered in their beds.Mazar-e-Sharif was overrun by the Taliban, who have imposed the world's most extreme interpretation of Islam, barring women from education, banning television and forcing men to wear beards. The Taliban fighters swept through the city, firing heavy machineguns mounted on pickup trucks. One man described how the streets were covered with bodies and blood. The Taliban, he said, forbade anyone to bury the corpses for six days.On the second day, according to numerous witnesses, the Taliban began a house-to-house search for Hazara men. Hazaras, descended from Mongols, are easy to recognise by their distinctive Asiatic features compared with the ethnic Pashtuns who make up the ranks of the Taliban. They share their Shia faith with Iran, while the Taliban are Sunni Muslims.A witness whose testimony is described as "extremely reliable" by aid officials said most of the victims had been shot in the head, the chest and the testicles. Others had been slaughtered in what he called "the halal way" - by having their throats slit. Men not murdered on the spot were "stuffed into containers after being badly beaten", said another witness. He saw the doors opened on a container after all the men inside had died from suffocation.
There is more, but that does not sound like a group that "hates women", sounds like a group that hates many people regardless of gender.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Unfortunately certain members of the victim class don't see it that way.
Yes, the "white Christians" can be a tricky bunch, demanding special treatment and respect while not in any way realising they are not returning the favour.
What do white Christians have to do with girls not wanting to be exposed to penises while they are in various states of undress themselves? And you are giving lectures on straw men and appeals to emotion?
So hundreds must be violated in their most private and vulnerable moments to make one a bit happier.
Strawman and appeal to emotion.
Where is the straw man? People are advancing the argument that biological males should be allowed in locations where they and biological females are likely to be in various stages of undress, and that those who don't want to be in that situation are bigots who need to grow up. Changing and answering the call of nature are among our most private moments. People do feel vulnerable in those moments. The number of people who would feel violated by having someone with a penis around at those times easily exceeds hundreds, and is much larger than the number of people who have gender identity issues. That I've highlighted the ultimate effect of the argument in concise terms is not the creation of a straw man.
The entire premise of the side that you support in based on speak to emotion not logic, so please spare me the appeal to emotion handwringing. It is suggested that the boy (that's what cold logical biological reality says he is) who is the starting point for this discussion wishes to ignore reality (that he is a boy) and expects everyone to do the same treating him as a girl when he is in fact a boy. Why should we do this? Because he will feel better if we do. Why should we care how he feels? Because caring about people's emotions is the right thing to do. Ok, if that's the case then how about caring about the emotions of people who don't want to be exposed to a penis? You can't have it both ways.
Reasonable compromise in the form of providing an additional neutral environment available to all is unacceptable, and to propose the same is to expose one's self as a monster.
It remains to be seen that the proposed compromise was reasonable. Certainly there are many issues with providing a segregated changing and toileting area for people that some people don't feel belong in with other groups. There are many potential solutions and compromises possible in these types of situations; some better than others. Suggesting one does not make you a monster (appeal to emotion); stacking the suggestion and argument to unduely harm one or more of the involved parties makes you a monster, as does utterly refusing to inform yourself of the situation.
Is anyone here suggesting trying to harm Lila or other similar persons? Yet when people say let's protect the girls that don't want to be around a penis, words like "bigot", "ignorant", "segregationist", or your pejorative use of "white Christian" start getting tossed around liberally. Curiously you, an apparent champion of logic, aren't bothered by, and are even willing to dabble in the use of these logically fallacious ploys.
All must conform in thought, word and deed. Those who do not should be second class citizens at best.
So sayeth the LORD!
Oh, wait...
(Strawman, hyperbole and appeal to emotion).
Not really. Here in this thread those who say let the biological females keep privacy from biological males have been called bigots, segregationists (an emotional appeal using a loaded word you haven't bothered to correct) . I see posts that fail to accept views that vaginas shouldn't have to be in the same room as penises when clothes are going to be removed as reasonable or acceptable. You dismiss them as uniformed. It has been said here that if a biological female doesn't want to use the facility with a biological male, the female shouldn't get to use it at all. Sounds like second class citizen status to me. The take away is the idea of "accept whatever we tell you to and no we won't accept anything else". In other words conform in word, thought and deed or we will label you or do other bad stuff like not let you pee.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: @D-usa
What are you even saying? All I got from that was "yeah, no 'cause science". What exactly are you claiming science says? And what specifically is wrong about whatever thought it is that you disagree with.
See above.
There are two issues that I disagree with.
One is the "well, unless you cut of your penis you are a guy" mindset and the possible related "transgender isn't a thing" issue. There is a definite biological cause of the brain not matching up to the body and no matter how we feel about how they look or, nothing will make the brain feel different.
The other is how we should deal with transgender people as a society (as in should they be able to shower and participate in things with other members of the gender that they identify as).
No the argument is, mentally you can be what you want, biologically you are still a male.
Wow... This thread is growing so quickly! I can't read it all.
In any case, to me the solution seems simple. Just say that the changing rooms are divided by biological sex, not by gender. Problem solved and no need for "gender-neutral" nonsense which imo solves nothing (what the hell is 'gender-neutral' supposed to be anyway?)
Also, how come this transgender thing seems to be such an issue in the US but not in the Netherlands or most other European countries?
You can fix being ignorant about a subject. But when people just keep on repeating the same thing over and over again after you try to explain how something actually works it usually means that it is time to abandon the thread and let the echo chamber continue.
Iron_Captain wrote: Wow... This thread is growing so quickly! I can't read it all.
In any case, to me the solution seems simple. Just say that the changing rooms are divided by biological sex, not by gender. Problem solved and no need for "gender-neutral" nonsense which imo solves nothing (what the hell is 'gender-neutral' supposed to be anyway?)
Also, how come this transgender thing seems to be such an issue in the US but not in the Netherlands or most other European countries?
Its because we evolving into a higher form of life. To the Stars!
Iron_Captain wrote: Wow... This thread is growing so quickly! I can't read it all.
Topics like this tend to grow very quickly around the time most of the American users are online. I don't know why, it's just something I've noticed.
In any case, to me the solution seems simple. Just say that the changing rooms are divided by biological sex, not by gender.
Then you end up with some people who look like boys/girls but wearing girl/boy clothes getting changed around a bunch of boys/girls. Bullying ensues, as well as psychological problems in most cases. Toilets are a different issue, as they should all have enclosed stalls.
Problem solved and no need for "gender-neutral" nonsense which imo solves nothing (what the hell is 'gender-neutral' supposed to be anyway?)
Starship Troopers shower scene. No, just kidding (don't google that at school). Gender-neutral in the context of locker/changing rooms generally means that instead of dividing two open rooms by gender, having one larger room with enclosed individual changing facilities, which is increasingly common in modern swimming pools. It basically gets rid of the young teenager anxiety problems of changing in front of other people, and apart from the space required, is a better solution.
Also, how come this transgender thing seems to be such an issue in the US but not in the Netherlands or most other European countries?
Not a clue. Probably because in Europe, we don't tend to have such a stark bipartisan divide along political lines. Kind of like how most of Europe doesn't care too much about abortion, in America, it's something that the two political extremes can fight over.
Not a clue. Probably because in Europe, we don't tend to have such a stark bipartisan divide along political lines. Kind of like how most of Europe doesn't care too much about abortion, in America, it's something that the two political extremes can fight over.
Be happy. if we're not fighting each other, we tend to try to take bits of the rest of the world. Onward...to Belgium!
d-usa wrote: You can fix being ignorant about a subject. But when people just keep on repeating the same thing over and over again after you try to explain how something actually works it usually means that it is time to abandon the thread and let the echo chamber continue.
I can understand something and still not be comfortable with it. As a parent, I can understand and empathize with what the child is going through and still not want her penis near my daughter in a school district encouraged capacity. I'm not woefully ignorant enough to assume that this person is just a pervert wanting to be near girls but that doesn't preclude the fact that she possesses a sexual organ that I only want my daughter exposed to after we have discussed the issue completely as a family, when we're ready, not when someone else thinks we should do it.
Again, I have the legal right to opt my child out of sex-ed classes but apparently have no legal rights when it comes to penises in the girls' bathroom and locker room at school; there's a dissonance there.
So, where do you draw the line? Is there a line between individual liberty and the collective rights of families to decide if and when their children learn about opposite sex genitalia? What about the religious rights of those who practice Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and conservative Christianity and how these religions teach gender differences?
This is not a giant community, there is one school per grade span and the HS only has 60 teachers and their freshman class looks to be about 60 students. If 150 girls walked out, that's a non-inconsequential percentage of the female student body.
I feel for the Principal of the school and district administration because there are no good options here.
Again I reiterate, we have rules in place to stop "Children" from making certain decisions and from doing certain things until they reach a certain age. Why is it that we allow minors to decide which gender they are?
I am all for equal rights and opportunity, but why can't these individuals just wait until they are 18 to make that decision? If at 18 you still feel you are a girl trapped in a boys body or vice versa, then by all means feel free to go to your local government office, county clerk or whatever, and have a doctors note with you as well, and then have them give you a photo ID legally making you a woman or a man. I am also strongly against ANYONE male or female, identifying as the opposite sex without first having gone to a Psychiatrist/psychologist to get proof that this is in fact the case. This isn't because I think everyone is faking it, but more to stop those handful of perverts who exist in our world from taking advantage of a loop hole so they can better get their "Fix". Because realistically I can definitely see some of these jerks taking advantage of equal rights transgender rules to go peak in on the opposite sex in public bathrooms/gyms/changing areas.
And on a related note, if the idea of making someone wait until 18 to "identify" is to long, keep in mind I am not saying they have to stop personally identifying as the opposite sex, And if Bullying is a concern because of gender Identity, I would simply tell them to report bullies and crack down on schools that refuse to address bullying because that is a far bigger concern to me then gender identity.
Because fething up a person for 18 years simply because other people don't know or believe that it is not just a case of simply choosing gender like its the flavor of the month is stupid.
There are many valid discussions about how to help transgender kids and normal kids integrate together and how we deal with that as a society, and that's fine. But forcing a guy to be a girl or a girl to be a guy for 18 years because you don't believe it is a thing is not a solution, it is damaging.
d-usa wrote: Because fething up a person for 18 years simply because other people don't know or believe that it is not just a case of simply choosing gender like its the flavor of the month is stupid.
There are many valid discussions about how to help transgender kids and normal kids integrate together and how we deal with that as a society, and that's fine. But forcing a guy to be a girl or a girl to be a guy for 18 years because you don't believe it is a thing is not a solution, it is damaging.
I just specifically said they can self identify all they want, I don't feel children are mature enough to make that kind of decision yet. Researchers have said that the Human brain doesn't fully develop until around 25, we haven't even finished developing yet and people are talking about making that kind of a decision.
How can you tell me it is ok for a 8-12 year old to self identify as a female regardless of the fact that they were Born a boy, but it is not ok for them to do other tasks such as drinking/smoking/voting/military service/driving a car? We have age restrictions on everything, 99% of the time for safety or because we as a society have rules we adhere to, but these kids are ok to make decisions which could literally kill them later on (Transgender have the HIGHEST attempted suicide rate of any gender identity "41%")
Ghazkuul wrote: (Transgender have the HIGHEST attempted suicide rate of any gender identity "41%")
Well yes, I can imagine that being a girl but wrongly getting a boy's body and being called a boy constantly by others, even if you try to look as stereotypically girly as you can, is rather depressing in the long run. Not to mention gak like people pointing fingers at you and saying you just want to go in the other locker room to watch boobies, or women telling you that you are trying to 'infiltrate' them, or being made into a porn fetish online...
Thank feth I have never been forced to suffer all those things, but I have talked with enough people who have to know that it is horrific. I can imagine that the above person being told that they can't decide their gender until X years ahead and for now you will have to live with the gender we want to refer to you as/no gender at all is not going to make things better.
A young girl telling her parents that she is not a girl, but a boy, is not as dreadful as it sounds. If a few years pass and, after so much thinking and experience, she decides she was mistaken, she can always just go back.
Now, an age limit on hormone therapy, surgery etc. I fully support, because that is way harder to reverse.
Ghazkuul wrote: (Transgender have the HIGHEST attempted suicide rate of any gender identity "41%")
Well yes, I can imagine that being a girl but wrongly getting a boy's body and being called a boy constantly by others, even if you try to look as stereotypically girly as you can, is rather depressing in the long run. Not to mention gak like people pointing fingers at you and saying you just want to go in the other locker room to watch boobies, or women telling you that you are trying to 'infiltrate' them, or being made into a porn fetish online...
Thank feth I have never been forced to suffer all those things, but I have talked with enough people who have to know that it is dreadful. I can imagine that the above person being told that they can't decide their gender until X years ahead and for now you will have to live with the gender we want to refer to you as/no gender at all is not going to make things better.
A young girl telling her parents that she is not a girl, but a boy, is not as dreadful as it sounds. If a few years pass and, after so much thinking and experience, she decides she was mistaken, she can always just go back.
Now, an age limit on hormone therapy, surgery etc. I fully support, because that is way harder to reverse.
That is what I was saying Ash, however, I also support either a gender neutral bathroom/locker room for transgender people or make them go to the locker rooms/bathrooms that their gender says they should be in. Like I said this isn't because THEY are perverts but that some might use this to take advantage of the system as we all know they would.
I support a gender neutral locker room/etc. because it helps reduce conflict and awkwardness (believe me, many transpeople feel awkward with either locker room, albeit for different reasons).
I doubt people 'taking advantage of the system' is really going to be a thing beyond one of those once-every-three-years scandals we see plastered all over the headlines.
Iron_Captain wrote: Wow... This thread is growing so quickly! I can't read it all.
In any case, to me the solution seems simple. Just say that the changing rooms are divided by biological sex, not by gender. Problem solved and no need for "gender-neutral" nonsense which imo solves nothing (what the hell is 'gender-neutral' supposed to be anyway?)
Also, how come this transgender thing seems to be such an issue in the US but not in the Netherlands or most other European countries?
This really, just make a third one. And murica is just really sensitive lately, you don't understand how it feels!
Ashiraya wrote: I support a gender neutral locker room/etc. because it helps reduce conflict and awkwardness (believe me, many transpeople feel awkward with either locker room, albeit for different reasons).
I doubt people 'taking advantage of the system' is really going to be a thing beyond one of those once-every-three-years scandals we see plastered all over the headlines.
I thin you underestimate peoples willingness to circumvent the system. I can't tell you how many people "Became" gay so they could marry a buddy and go live off base and receive BAH. Don't get me wrong, not many of the Gay marriages in the military were for BAH benefits but enough were questionable at best to make me hate how people take advantage of the system.
Ashiraya wrote: I support a gender neutral locker room/etc. because it helps reduce conflict and awkwardness (believe me, many transpeople feel awkward with either locker room, albeit for different reasons).
I doubt people 'taking advantage of the system' is really going to be a thing beyond one of those once-every-three-years scandals we see plastered all over the headlines.
The issue in this story is that the student was offered and accepted a gender-neutral option and utilized it for some time and then, this year, decided that she no longer felt it was sufficient to her needs for whatever reason. The school treated her with dignity and respect but she chose to make an issue of it later and then on TV say that anyone who has an issue is a bigot. This situation has "cry for attention" written all over it.
Where the district dropped the ball is in failing to communicate the change from previous years accommodations to this year's with the rest of the concerned stakeholders. This has been shown to be successful to one extent or another in similar cases around the country. Lack of communication creates mountains out of mole-hills and schools do not have the luxury of working in silos.
How can you tell me it is ok for a 8-12 year old to self identify as a female regardless of the fact that they were Born a boy, but it is not ok for them to do other tasks such as drinking/smoking/voting/military service/driving a car? We have age restrictions on everything, 99% of the time for safety or because we as a society have rules we adhere to, but these kids are ok to make decisions which could literally kill them later on (Transgender have the HIGHEST attempted suicide rate of any gender identity "41%")
Children shouldn't be having sex before being 18 in my personal belief system, therefor they should ban homosexuality in children because I know for a fact they are not old enough to 'know' if they choose to be gay... It is a choice right? I know more about their body and their brain chemistry than they do. If they only live by my rules everyone is ok right?
All this talk of separate locker rooms was the same excuses when people believed all homosexuals were sexual deviants and perverts and they were afraid of showering with a guy who might be attracted to their junk. Considering a majority of states already have court-affirmed legislation in place preventing discrimination and allowing transgender people to use the bathroom they identify with regardless of surgery, and we haven't had mass raping or pervert peepers going into locker rooms, can you all realize youa re just regurgitating the same failed lies which are done whenever a majority wants to oppress a minority? It was done with race, it was done with gender, it was done with sexual preference and it was found out to be ILLEGAL and made up worries based upon lies in every case.
And every case people said "no, this time it is different!" and in every case they were wrong.
And the total lack of understanding of gender vs sex vs genetics is staggering... along with the 'we know everything' attitude when there is so much unknown.
Guess what? There is more than XX and XY
Guess what? 1/2000 people with Chromosomes have opposite genitals to their genetic code. Most never know unless they get a genetic test as it doesn't impact them.
Guess what? 1/20000 people have something other than XX and XY and are genetically neither or both.
Guess what? You guys keep saying 'bioligically male' but the brain is part of a persons biology and there is so much we don't know, especially in the 'nature vs nurture' debate as well as sexual preference. So much of what makes us people is hardcoded in our gentics and we barley even know a tiny percentage of it. To make absolute statements about 'biology makes you *THIS*' when there is so many KNOWN exceptions to that rule and so much unknown makes peopel look ignorant. Much how people KNEW that African Americans were sub-human based on known science at the time.
The law is going the way of 'gender identity', not 'junk test', not 'separate but equal'.
Where the district dropped the ball is in failing to communicate the change from previous years accommodations to this year's with the rest of the concerned stakeholders. This has been shown to be successful to one extent or another in similar cases around the country. Lack of communication creates mountains out of mole-hills and schools do not have the luxury of working in silos.
You are not a stakeholder in what bathroom a transgender person uses any more than you are a stakeholder by seeing an interracial couple or homosexual couple kiss in public. If everyone who 'might see it and feel icky' is a stakeholder, then we would be able to ban virtually anything by majority rule and abuse virtually any civil right.
The law is the law, this state simply has crappy ones which allow individual situations like this to make news.
d-usa wrote: Because fething up a person for 18 years simply because other people don't know or believe that it is not just a case of simply choosing gender like its the flavor of the month is stupid.
There are many valid discussions about how to help transgender kids and normal kids integrate together and how we deal with that as a society, and that's fine. But forcing a guy to be a girl or a girl to be a guy for 18 years because you don't believe it is a thing is not a solution, it is damaging.
I just specifically said they can self identify all they want, I don't feel children are mature enough to make that kind of decision yet. Researchers have said that the Human brain doesn't fully develop until around 25, we haven't even finished developing yet and people are talking about making that kind of a decision.
How can you tell me it is ok for a 8-12 year old to self identify as a female regardless of the fact that they were Born a boy, but it is not ok for them to do other tasks such as drinking/smoking/voting/military service/driving a car? ...
These are different things.
I really don't think you can make children not think about their developing sexuality, it's a normal part of growing up.
d-usa wrote: Because fething up a person for 18 years simply because other people don't know or believe that it is not just a case of simply choosing gender like its the flavor of the month is stupid.
There are many valid discussions about how to help transgender kids and normal kids integrate together and how we deal with that as a society, and that's fine. But forcing a guy to be a girl or a girl to be a guy for 18 years because you don't believe it is a thing is not a solution, it is damaging.
I just specifically said they can self identify all they want, I don't feel children are mature enough to make that kind of decision yet. Researchers have said that the Human brain doesn't fully develop until around 25, we haven't even finished developing yet and people are talking about making that kind of a decision.
How can you tell me it is ok for a 8-12 year old to self identify as a female regardless of the fact that they were Born a boy, but it is not ok for them to do other tasks such as drinking/smoking/voting/military service/driving a car? We have age restrictions on everything, 99% of the time for safety or because we as a society have rules we adhere to, but these kids are ok to make decisions which could literally kill them later on (Transgender have the HIGHEST attempted suicide rate of any gender identity "41%")
Not to be an ass, but not being able to smoke or vote is not going to feth you up psychologically, but being forced to live as one gender when you are another will.
I know that it is not your intention, but a lot of your posts are very dismissive and insulting to the problems and realities of being transgender. The suicide rate is a problem, but it is fixed by helping transgender people address their problems early. Basically going "I couldn't smoke until I was 18, why do you think you should be able to choose what gender you are" isn't helping with fixing the atmosphere that contributes to suicides, especially since it ignores the reality that someone doesn't choose at 18, they lived that reality for 18 years before that.
I don't think we would argue that veteran suicides are up, so we should maybe keep people from identifying as veterans so early.
d-usa wrote: Because fething up a person for 18 years simply because other people don't know or believe that it is not just a case of simply choosing gender like its the flavor of the month is stupid.
There are many valid discussions about how to help transgender kids and normal kids integrate together and how we deal with that as a society, and that's fine. But forcing a guy to be a girl or a girl to be a guy for 18 years because you don't believe it is a thing is not a solution, it is damaging.
I just specifically said they can self identify all they want, I don't feel children are mature enough to make that kind of decision yet. Researchers have said that the Human brain doesn't fully develop until around 25, we haven't even finished developing yet and people are talking about making that kind of a decision.
How can you tell me it is ok for a 8-12 year old to self identify as a female regardless of the fact that they were Born a boy, but it is not ok for them to do other tasks such as drinking/smoking/voting/military service/driving a car? We have age restrictions on everything, 99% of the time for safety or because we as a society have rules we adhere to, but these kids are ok to make decisions which could literally kill them later on (Transgender have the HIGHEST attempted suicide rate of any gender identity "41%")
Not to be an ass, but not being able to smoke or vote is not going to feth you up psychologically, but being forced to live as one gender when you are another will.
I know that it is not your intention, but a lot of your posts are very dismissive and insulting to the problems and realities of being transgender. The suicide rate is a problem, but it is fixed by helping transgender people address their problems early. Basically going "I couldn't smoke until I was 18, why do you think you should be able to choose what gender you are" isn't helping with fixing the atmosphere that contributes to suicides, especially since it ignores the reality that someone doesn't choose at 18, they lived that reality for 18 years before that.
I don't think we would argue that veteran suicides are up, so we should maybe keep people from identifying as veterans so early.
Just out of interest, what are the laws about identifying as a different gender (especially as a child)? Is there any kind of psychological/genetic testing, or is it a case of taking them at their word?
You know what the biggest difference is here though? Most little kids don't identify as "Gay" or "Straight" until they get into middle school at the earliest, why? because they haven't hit that part of their development where sexual orientation has even become known to them. But for some reason you have little kids who are identifying as the opposite sex they were born even before they can even understand it.
Also comparing Segregation to this is ridiculous and you really shouldn't throw that out here. Nobody is taking away rights or anything of the sort. If anything this will limit the bullying that will happen and keep children (because they are children) from seeing the opposite gender's genitalia until they reach a certain age (Hopefully high school or later). And, people WILL mess with the system and try to abuse it because that is human nature, that is why earlier I suggested that people not be allowed to self identify as the opposite gender until they are evaluated by a psychologist to prove that they do indeed suffer from gender dysphoria. Lastly, this wouldn't continue onward into adult life, this is just a stop gap until children develop to a certain maturity level and can make this kind of decision on their own without outside influence.
Just out of interest, what are the laws about identifying as a different gender (especially as a child)? Is there any kind of psychological/genetic testing, or is it a case of taking them at their word?
You going to legislate parenting? You going to make it illegal for a girl to wear pants and a ninja turtles shirt without genetic testing?
Guess what? Parents handle it how they want to, and many do take them in for genetic testing and counseling, especially around puberty when they begin missing certain benchmarks.
But most laws are based upon how they identify, no junk checks, and the 'trans panic' people have spread around is an urban myth with zero incidents to back it up.
Colorado
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2008. In 2008, Colorado expanded its Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, to include sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class. [The Denver Post, 5/29/08]
Coalition Against Sexual Assault: Opponents Of Protections Are Creating "Unsubstantiated Fear." Alexa M. Priddy, director of training and communications at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, reported no problems as a result of her state's non-discrimination law. In an email to Media Matters, she wrote:
Denying equal rights is yet another form of discrimination against transgender individuals, which is pervasive within our society and institutions. Such criticisms of this law and ads [that] invoke what we see as "trans panic," an attempt to create fear of transgender people and a false label of trans individuals as sexual predators.
CCASA would love to see the real focus be on the realities that transgender people are far too often targeted for sexual violence, and if they seek support through victim services or the criminal justice system in the aftermath, they often face continued discrimination from the very people who are there to help. Sexual assault is already an under-reported crime, and we see this increase with marginalized communities. We want to focus on creating safety for transgender survivors and not on creating unsubstantiated fear. [Email exchange, 3/8/14]
Connecticut
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2011. In 2011, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed into law legislation prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity or expression. [Bay Windows, 7/6/11]
State Commission On Human Rights: "Unaware Of Any Sexual Assault." In an email to Media Matters, Jim O'Neill, legislative liaison and spokesman for the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights in Opportunities, reported no problems as a result of the state's non-discrimination law:
I am unaware of any sexual assault as the result of the CT gender identity or expression law. I'm pretty sure it would have come to our attention. [Email exchange, 3/6/14]
Hawaii
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2006. In 2006, Hawaii expanded its non-discrimination laws to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. [Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, accessed 3/12/14]
State Civil Rights Commission: Non-Discrimination Law "Has Not Resulted In Increase[d] Sexual Assault Or Rape." William Hoshijo, executive director of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, told Media Matters in an email:
In Hawai`i, the protection against discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sex, including gender identity or expression, has not resulted in increase sexual assault or rape in women's restrooms. The HCRC is not aware of any incidents of sexual assault or rape causally related or attributed to the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. (In contrast to anecdotal reports of transgender students being harassed and bullied in school restrooms when forced to use an assigned restroom inconsistent with their gender identity.) [Email exchange, 3/6/14]
Iowa
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2007. In 2007, the Iowa Civil Rights Act was expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations. [Iowa Civil Rights Commission, accessed 3/14/14]
Des Moines Police Department: "We Have Not Seen That." In an interview with Media Matters, Des Moines Police Department spokesman Jason Halifax stated that he hadn't seen cases of sexual assault related to the state's non-discrimination ordinance:
We have not seen that. I doubt that's gonna encourage the behavior. If the behavior's there, [sexual predators are] gonna behave as they're gonna behave no matter what the laws are. [Phone interview, 3/13/14]
Maine
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2005. In 2005, Maine adopted legislation prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. [GLAD, 2/25/14]
State Human Rights Commission: "No Factual Basis" For Sexual Assault Fears. In an email to Media Matters, Executive Director Amy Sneirson of the Maine Human Rights Commission said that the state's non-discrimination law hadn't led to increased sexual assault or rape:
I know that this concern persists but I personally have not seen any factual basis for it.
I am not aware of any increased sexual assault or rape in women's restrooms as a result of Maine's 2005 adoption of protections in the Maine Human Rights Act for sexual orientation (which, in Maine, includes "a person's actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression"). [Email exchange, 3/7/14]
Massachusetts
Cambridge Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 1997. In 1997, the city of Cambridge expanded its non-discrimination ordinance to prohibit discrimination against transgender people in public accommodations. [National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, July 2008]
Cambridge Police Superintendent: "No Incidents" Of Transgender Protections Being Abused. Police Superintendent Christopher Burke told Media Matters in an email:
Back in 1984 Cambridge enacted an ordinance that established the Human Rights Commission. The purpose of the ordinance was to protect the human rights of all citizens of the City. In 1997 this ordinance was amended to specifically include gender identity and expression. Much like the Transgender Equal Rights Bill proposal, the City of Cambridge sought to offer protection to transgender individuals from being harassed, fired from a job, denied access to a public place, or denied or evicted from housing. Since this 1997 amendment there have been no incidents or issues regarding persons abusing this ordinance or using them as a defense to commit crimes. Specifically, as was raised as a concern if the bill were to be passed, there have been no incidents of men dressing up as women to commit crimes in female bathrooms and using the city ordinance as a defense. [Email exchange, 3/7/14, emphasis added]
State Victims' Advocacy Group: Fears About Transgender Protections Are "Beyond Specious." Toni Troop, spokeswoman for the statewide sexual assault victims organization Jane Doe Inc., told Media Matters in an email:
The argument that providing transgender rights will result in an increase of sexual violence against women or men in public bathrooms is beyond specious. The only people at risk are the transgender men and women whose rights to self-determination, dignity and freedom of violence are too often denied. We have not heard of any problems since the passage of the law in Massachusetts in 2011, nor do we expect this to be a problem. While cases of stranger rape and sexual violence occur, sexual violence is most often perpetrated by someone known to the victim and not a stranger in the bush or the bathroom. [Email exchange, 3/7/14, emphasis added]
Minnesota
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 1993. In 1993, Minnesota amended its Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination against transgender people in public accommodations. [OutFront Minnesota, accessed 3/13/14]
Minneapolis Police Department: Fears About Sexual Assault "Not Even Remotely" A Problem. Minneapolis police spokesman John Elder told Media Matters in an interview that sexual assaults stemming from Minnesota's 1993 transgender non-discrimination law have been "not even remotely" a problem. Based on his experience, the notion of men posing as transgender women to enter women's restrooms to commit sex crimes "sounds a little silly," Elder said. According to Elder, a police department inquiry found "nothing" in the way of such crimes in the city. [Phone interview, 3/11/14]
Nevada
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2011. In 2011, Nevada enacted three transgender non-discrimination laws, including a law explicitly prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations. [National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 6/2/11]
Las Vegas Police Department: No Problems Since Passage Of Non-Discrimination Law. Asked whether Nevada's 2011 gender identity law had fueled a rise in sex crimes, Las Vegas Police Department spokesman Jesse Roybal told Media Matters, "the answer would be no." After the department's lieutenant for sexual assault ran a check of crimes since 2011, Roybal told Media Matters that the department had not "had any incidents involving transgender suspects." [Phone interview, 3/6/14, 3/11/14]
New Mexico
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2003. In 2003, New Mexico amended its Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations. [The Williams Institute, September 2009]
Albuquerque Police Department: "Unaware Of Any Cases Of Assault" Due To Non-Discrimination Law. Officer Tasia Martinez, Public Information Officer for the Albuquerque Police Department, told Media Matters in an email:
We are unaware of any cases of assault in our city as a result of transgendered [sic] accommodations. [Email exchange, 3/13/14]
Oregon
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2007. In 2007, Oregon enacted the Oregon Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. [Lambda Legal, accessed 3/13/14]
Bureau of Labor And Industries: "Zero Allegations" Of Assault Due To 2007 Law. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries spokesman Charlie Burr told Media Matters in an email:
The Oregon Equality Act protects the rights of LGBT Oregonians in employment, housing and public places and has done so without any incidents of LGBT assaults on women in public restrooms that we're aware of. Our agency has encountered zero allegations of LGBT assault related to this public accommodation protection. [Email exchange, 3/7/14]
Portland Police Department: "I Have Never Heard Of Any Issues Like This." Portland Police Department spokesman Peter Simpson wrote in an email to Media Matters:
I have never heard of any issues like this in Portland. We have a very low rate of sexual assault/rape crimes here overall. [Email exchange, 3/7/14]
Rhode Island
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2001. In 2001, Rhode Island explicitly prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression in public accommodations. [GLAD, 2/25/14]
State Commission for Human Rights: No Increase In Sex Crimes Due To Non-Discrimination Law. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights Executive Director Michael D. Evora told Media Matters in an email:
The Commission for Human Rights has not taken in any cases alleging gender identity discrimination in respect to bathroom usage in public facilities since the law was amended to prohibit such discrimination. In addition, we are not aware of any affect the passage of the law has had on incidents of assault in public restrooms. [Email exchange, 3/7/14]
Vermont
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2007. In 2007, Vermont explicitly prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity in public accommodations. [GLAD, 3/4/14]
State Human Rights Commission: "We Are Not Aware" Of Any Problems From Non-Discrimination Law. In an email to Media Matters, the Vermont Human Rights Commission's Karen Richards said:
I have only been here a short time so was checking with my staff to find out if they were aware of any issues. ... We are not aware of any other issues or problems similar to this caused by prohibiting discrimination against those who are transgendered. [Email exchange, 3/7/14]
Montpelier Police Department: No Complaints. Montpelier Police Chief Tony Facos responded to an email inquiry about whether the state's non-discrimination law had led to incidents of rape or sexual assault in women's restrooms, stating, "We do not have any complaints related to this issue." [Email exchange, 3/10/14]
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: Nobody is taking away rights or anything of the sort.
The federal government disagrees with you, the courts disagree with you and a majority of states disagree with you.
And your 'human nature' is an urban myth based upon ignorant panic not based on facts. There have been laws ont he books for close to 10 years and the rate of people abusing gender identity to commit crimes is zero.
d-usa wrote: Because fething up a person for 18 years simply because other people don't know or believe that it is not just a case of simply choosing gender like its the flavor of the month is stupid.
There are many valid discussions about how to help transgender kids and normal kids integrate together and how we deal with that as a society, and that's fine. But forcing a guy to be a girl or a girl to be a guy for 18 years because you don't believe it is a thing is not a solution, it is damaging.
I just specifically said they can self identify all they want, I don't feel children are mature enough to make that kind of decision yet. Researchers have said that the Human brain doesn't fully develop until around 25, we haven't even finished developing yet and people are talking about making that kind of a decision.
How can you tell me it is ok for a 8-12 year old to self identify as a female regardless of the fact that they were Born a boy, but it is not ok for them to do other tasks such as drinking/smoking/voting/military service/driving a car? We have age restrictions on everything, 99% of the time for safety or because we as a society have rules we adhere to, but these kids are ok to make decisions which could literally kill them later on (Transgender have the HIGHEST attempted suicide rate of any gender identity "41%")
Not to be an ass, but not being able to smoke or vote is not going to feth you up psychologically, but being forced to live as one gender when you are another will.
I know that it is not your intention, but a lot of your posts are very dismissive and insulting to the problems and realities of being transgender. The suicide rate is a problem, but it is fixed by helping transgender people address their problems early. Basically going "I couldn't smoke until I was 18, why do you think you should be able to choose what gender you are" isn't helping with fixing the atmosphere that contributes to suicides, especially since it ignores the reality that someone doesn't choose at 18, they lived that reality for 18 years before that.
I don't think we would argue that veteran suicides are up, so we should maybe keep people from identifying as veterans so early.
I am not "Dismissive" or "insulting" towards gender dysphoria, I just don't want my children going to school and being exposed to seeing the opposite gender naked in bathrooms/locker rooms until a certain age. If your ok with mixing gender bathrooms/locker rooms then just get rid of the entire semblance of segregation between the genders at schools and the work place. No more Mens rooms/womans rooms it is just the bathroom. But if your not ok with that then you need to realize that this is why people have a problem with this issue.
Just out of interest, what are the laws about identifying as a different gender (especially as a child)? Is there any kind of psychological/genetic testing, or is it a case of taking them at their word?
You going to legislate parenting? You going to make it illegal for a girl to wear pants and a ninja turtles shirt without genetic testing?
The irony of that is breathtaking as that is what you are recommending, not just for parenting, but for all of society, and then pretty much slamming them as being bigots because they don't hop to.
So far the school has offered:
* a separate facility. * the use of same sex facilities.
I don't see how you can reasonably ask for more and in any way countenance that, guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.
The person can partiicpate in all activities in whatever role they desire.
d-usa wrote: Because fething up a person for 18 years simply because other people don't know or believe that it is not just a case of simply choosing gender like its the flavor of the month is stupid.
There are many valid discussions about how to help transgender kids and normal kids integrate together and how we deal with that as a society, and that's fine. But forcing a guy to be a girl or a girl to be a guy for 18 years because you don't believe it is a thing is not a solution, it is damaging.
I just specifically said they can self identify all they want, I don't feel children are mature enough to make that kind of decision yet. Researchers have said that the Human brain doesn't fully develop until around 25, we haven't even finished developing yet and people are talking about making that kind of a decision.
How can you tell me it is ok for a 8-12 year old to self identify as a female regardless of the fact that they were Born a boy, but it is not ok for them to do other tasks such as drinking/smoking/voting/military service/driving a car? We have age restrictions on everything, 99% of the time for safety or because we as a society have rules we adhere to, but these kids are ok to make decisions which could literally kill them later on (Transgender have the HIGHEST attempted suicide rate of any gender identity "41%")
Not to be an ass, but not being able to smoke or vote is not going to feth you up psychologically, but being forced to live as one gender when you are another will.
I know that it is not your intention, but a lot of your posts are very dismissive and insulting to the problems and realities of being transgender. The suicide rate is a problem, but it is fixed by helping transgender people address their problems early. Basically going "I couldn't smoke until I was 18, why do you think you should be able to choose what gender you are" isn't helping with fixing the atmosphere that contributes to suicides, especially since it ignores the reality that someone doesn't choose at 18, they lived that reality for 18 years before that.
I don't think we would argue that veteran suicides are up, so we should maybe keep people from identifying as veterans so early.
I am not "Dismissive" or "insulting" towards gender dysphoria, I just don't want my children going to school and being exposed to seeing the opposite gender naked in bathrooms/locker rooms until a certain age. If your ok with mixing gender bathrooms/locker rooms then just get rid of the entire semblance of segregation between the genders at schools and the work place. No more Mens rooms/womans rooms it is just the bathroom. But if your not ok with that then you need to realize that this is why people have a problem with this issue.
I know you don't mean to be insulting, that's why I even mentioned it.
But comparing gender identity to choosing to smoke or getting a tattoo does exactly that. It is dismissive and it is insulting, but I don't think that you are doing it with any mean intend.
I'm not mentioning it to criticize you for it, I'm mentioning it to help you realize you are doing it.
Frazzled wrote: guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.
Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.
Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.
Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...
Frazzled wrote: guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.
Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.
Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.
Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around them in a state of undress, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violating multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub. You're not talking bathrooms, you are talking dressing rooms, with open nudity.
And quite with the snarky bs boigot comments. You're just trying to shut everything down and its as pathetic as it is sad.
Frazzled wrote: guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.
Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.
Wow, you're really bad at convincing people of stuff. You basically just wrote "because feth you that's why". I also can't help but notice you left out about 200 people "being impacted" who likely have some gradient to what they think and what they feel. But by the playbook put forward. screw those other 200 hundred students, they're all bigoted and any issue or discomfort they have can simply be generalized as bigotry, and boom we don't have to care about what they think, they're the other.
This is the social justice warrior crap people feel is tired. I hear plenty of parents who aren't monsters, who want to be empathetic and pragmatic, they just don't want their teenager seeing wang, and from the sounds of it, that's no longer an issue. Imagine that, those bigots being pragmatic enough to rationalize the difference between a bathroom and a change room.
We all remember that lovely morgan freeman quote about how he doesn't like the word homophobia because he feels people aren't scared of gays, they're just donkey-caves. I would tend to agree with him for the most part, however there genuinely are people of religious faith who are genuinely believing this stuff and suffer real emotions. I just find it odd we're to give them no benefit of the doubt but must trust anyone of any age about their gender and put aside all potential discomfort or emotional distress or possibly religious conflict. It's difficult to distinguish the far left from the far right at this point, they both power trip on authoritarianism.
Frazzled wrote: guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.
Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.
Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.
Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...
Equality for all not for some. The best solution is a third room that's set out as well as any other, they were offered their own private room and used it for a year before deciding it was inadequate. It solves the issue for everyone without having to decide who is just going to have to "deal with it".
I support them if they want to make that change, I know people in the process of and who want to make that change. But I do not appreciate it when people feel the need to take a decision they made by themselves and decide to push it onto others saying "deal with it it's not fair to me" when it should be fair to both people. It's that pushy SJW crap that is the real issue, because you are not pushing equality at that point you're pushing one group ahead of others just because of something that makes them different. Which somewhat should be seen as insulting to that group as well as they would need to be treated like delicate snowflakes instead of as people like everyone else, yet which isn't complained about because there isn't a perceived negative to it for them.
Frazzled wrote: guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.
Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.
Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.
Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around them in a state of undress, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And quite with the snarky bs boigot comments. You're just trying to shut everything down and its as pathetic as it is sad.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other races, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other genders, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other sexual orientations, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
*Social norms change, and rightly so because many of them are bigoted and abusive.
*Religions control on the populations have been scaled back as they have been found to violate people's human rights when forced upon people who don't practice the religion. When someone has an religious exception, they can REMOVE THEMSELVES, not require others be removed.
*Some parents don't believe in interracial dating or homosexuality... Do they have the right to ban those things from visible society because they want to raise their children a certain way? Your rights end when you try to apply your parenting to other people's kids. You don't like it you remove your child, or parent them by setting context.
Frazzled wrote: guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.
Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.
Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.
Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...
Equality for all not for some. The best solution is a third room that's set out as well as any other, they were offered their own private room and used it for a year before deciding it was inadequate. It solves the issue for everyone without having to decide who is just going to have to "deal with it".
Except many courts have found that to be a violation of people's rights, while using your identified gender violates no ones rights.
Frazzled wrote: guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.
Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.
Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.
Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around them in a state of undress, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And quite with the snarky bs boigot comments. You're just trying to shut everything down and its as pathetic as it is sad.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other races, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other genders, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other sexual orientations, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
*Social norms change, and rightly so because many of them are bigoted and abusive.
*Religions control on the populations have been scaled back as they have been found to violate people's human rights when forced upon people who don't practice the religion. When someone has an religious exception, they can REMOVE THEMSELVES, not require others be removed.
*Some parents don't believe in interracial dating or homosexuality... Do they have the right to ban those things from visible society because they want to raise their children a certain way? Your rights end when you try to apply your parenting to other people's kids. You don't like it you remove your child, or parent them by setting context.
Frazzled wrote: guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.
Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.
Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.
Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...
Equality for all not for some. The best solution is a third room that's set out as well as any other, they were offered their own private room and used it for a year before deciding it was inadequate. It solves the issue for everyone without having to decide who is just going to have to "deal with it".
Except many courts have found that to be a violation of people's rights, while using your identified gender violates no ones rights.
I'm glad you can dismiss a debate over to "but the courts said so" like the extremely religious spend hours throwing segments of a book at each other instead of actually thinking and making discussion. You can use support to make your point, but your support alone is not a point.
Just out of interest, what are the laws about identifying as a different gender (especially as a child)? Is there any kind of psychological/genetic testing, or is it a case of taking them at their word?
You going to legislate parenting? You going to make it illegal for a girl to wear pants and a ninja turtles shirt without genetic testing?
Tone down the fething snark. I was genuinely interested in what I asked about. To make it clear: what is the prerequisite for a child to be treated as (i.e. gain use of facilities designated for) a different gender to that they were given at birth?
Guess what? Parents handle it how they want to, and many do take them in for genetic testing and counseling, especially around puberty when they begin missing certain benchmarks.
But most laws are based upon how they identify, no junk checks, and the 'trans panic' people have spread around is an urban myth with zero incidents to back it up.
n0t_u wrote: The best solution is a third room that's set out as well as any other, they were offered their own private room and used it for a year before deciding it was inadequate. It solves the issue for everyone without having to decide who is just going to have to "deal with it".
It may be a solution in a resource unconstrained environment, unfortunately in the real world, sometimes folks operate in a resource constrained environment. Making a 3rd shower/locker room costs $$$. Many counties are struggling as is. If the numbers someone posted above are close to accurate (1:20,000 and 1:2,000 or .005% and .05% ) then expending those resources makes very little sense.
As a matter of fact, a boy used the girl's locker room. Period. That's mostly likely against school policy. Refusing a gender-neutral restroom shows merely one thing: he wants to stir people up instead of getting a solution that benefits everyone, i.e. unisex room.
Transcending a binary by presenting a binary does no one any favours. This is the cross progressives will die on because it's about as intellectually stimulating as "ur with us or ur with da terrorists".
Science has proven the 37th time you label someone a bigot they drop all ltheier personal beliefs and embrace yours, which is of course synonymous with progress and in no way subjective.
n0t_u wrote: The best solution is a third room that's set out as well as any other, they were offered their own private room and used it for a year before deciding it was inadequate. It solves the issue for everyone without having to decide who is just going to have to "deal with it".
It may be a solution in a resource unconstrained environment, unfortunately in the real world, sometimes folks operate in a resource constrained environment. Making a 3rd shower/locker room costs $$$. Many counties are struggling as is. If the numbers someone posted above are close to accurate (1:20,000 and 1:2,000 or .005% and .05% ) then expending those resources makes very little sense.
True I hadn't actually thought of them and it would be insulting to tell them to use the handicapped toilet as well (since those seem to generally be gender neutral).
n0t_u wrote: The best solution is a third room that's set out as well as any other, they were offered their own private room and used it for a year before deciding it was inadequate. It solves the issue for everyone without having to decide who is just going to have to "deal with it".
It may be a solution in a resource unconstrained environment, unfortunately in the real world, sometimes folks operate in a resource constrained environment. Making a 3rd shower/locker room costs $$$. Many counties are struggling as is. If the numbers someone posted above are close to accurate (1:20,000 and 1:2,000 or .005% and .05% ) then expending those resources makes very little sense.
1:20,000 is the one you want to look at. 1:2,000 is the one where nobody notices without genetic testing. D-usa had a good explanation a while back.
I'm glad you can dismiss a debate over to "but the courts said so" like the extremely religious spend hours throwing segments of a book at each other instead of actually thinking and making discussion. You can use support to make your point, but your support alone is not a point.
When other people 'debate' by making up fake 'harm' and exercising fake 'rights' and rely mostly on a manufactured trans-panic which has no stats or evidence to back it up, it makes it hard to take them seriously.
I think legal precedent and the track-record of zero harm caused to these so-called 'stakeholders' by states who have instituted protections for transgender much more convincing. I find actual evidence, much better than made up mumbo jumbo based upon an array of questionable motivations.
I''ve decided I'm a gir todayl - I'll take your word for it
Undressing around the opposite sex causes me emotional distress, a form of mental harm - you're lying, you bigot!
Don't go down the harm road, please, don't. If you don't see the irony in saying that 200+ teenagers are all faking harm while telling everyone else to 100% trust anyone who has the slightest of gender issues you won't succeed. Full stop.
Frazzled wrote: guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.
Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.
Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.
Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around them in a state of undress, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And quite with the snarky bs boigot comments. You're just trying to shut everything down and its as pathetic as it is sad.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other races, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other genders, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other sexual orientations, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
*Social norms change, and rightly so because many of them are bigoted and abusive.
*Religions control on the populations have been scaled back as they have been found to violate people's human rights when forced upon people who don't practice the religion. When someone has an religious exception, they can REMOVE THEMSELVES, not require others be removed.
*Some parents don't believe in interracial dating or homosexuality... Do they have the right to ban those things from visible society because they want to raise their children a certain way? Your rights end when you try to apply your parenting to other people's kids. You don't like it you remove your child, or parent them by setting context.
Frazzled wrote: guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.
Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.
Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.
Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...
Equality for all not for some. The best solution is a third room that's set out as well as any other, they were offered their own private room and used it for a year before deciding it was inadequate. It solves the issue for everyone without having to decide who is just going to have to "deal with it".
Except many courts have found that to be a violation of people's rights, while using your identified gender violates no ones rights.
SO...
No one is saying hey be what you want.
No one is saying hey take the PE class you want.
No one is saying you have to be x or y.
All they are saying is, the girls don't want a swinging dick in their locker.
Yea good luck finding a court case that mandates that. frankly you're the bigot here. You're demanding that everyone kowtow beyond areas of common decency. Thats horse gak and it won;t wash in the real world.
Crablezworth wrote: I
Don't go down the harm road, please, don't. If you don't see the irony in saying that 200+ teenagers are all faking harm while telling everyone else to 100% trust anyone who has the slightest of gender issues you won't succeed. Full stop.
We have millions of people in states currently getting by without issue. What makes those 200 students more 'harmed' by being in Missouri except of a fake perception put there by their parents?
If there is evidence of harm, please present it outside of manufactured scenarios which don't exist. I have provided evidence from the states with transgender laws which show there are zero incidents of people abusing gender identity to commit crimes or breach people's rights.
I'm glad you can dismiss a debate over to "but the courts said so" like the extremely religious spend hours throwing segments of a book at each other instead of actually thinking and making discussion. You can use support to make your point, but your support alone is not a point.
When other people 'debate' by making up fake 'harm' and exercising fake 'rights' and rely mostly on a manufactured trans-panic which has no stats or evidence to back it up, it makes it hard to take them seriously.
I think legal precedent and the track-record of zero harm caused to these so-called 'stakeholders' by states who have instituted protections for transgender much more convincing. I find actual evidence, much better than made up mumbo jumbo based upon an array of questionable motivations.
Yes I agree actually. I'm looking at it this way really, no matter the solution here you're basically going to be impacting on someone's rights somewhat. The third room solution while needing the most resources to enact would be the most neutral and least likely to impact on anyone's rights. Most of this debate like the gay marriage one seems to mostly be more based on people's religious beliefs than worrying about rights all that much. Sure they need to be treated better, but not at the expense of others.
As for the track record; there's obviously going to be evidence to support male on male and female on female violence withing their toilets as well which compared to the zero harm caused by the transgender can only then by that logic lead to one conclusion; males shouldnt be allowed to use the male toilets and females shouldn't be allowed to use the female toilets; they both should have to use a third gender neutral room where there would currently be safest when compared to these statistics, then the transgendered would be free to use which they identify with.
Crablezworth wrote: I
Don't go down the harm road, please, don't. If you don't see the irony in saying that 200+ teenagers are all faking harm while telling everyone else to 100% trust anyone who has the slightest of gender issues you won't succeed. Full stop.
We have millions of people in states currently getting by without issue. What makes those 200 students more 'harmed' by being in Missouri except of a fake perception put there by their parents?
If there is evidence of harm, please present it outside of manufactured scenarios which don't exist. I have provided evidence from the states with transgender laws which show there are zero incidents of people abusing gender identity to commit crimes or breach people's rights.
Please show me the millions of people in states where public school girls are forced to be disrobed in a gym with a swinging dick. Besides your Porkiesesque fantasy that dog don't hunt.
Frazzled wrote: Thats horse gak and it won;t wash in the real world.
It is washing in the real world... you guys are debating an issue which is already legal and solved in multiple states for close to a decade with ZERO harm. TRANS-PANIC is made up.
You are not a stakeholder in what bathroom a transgender person uses any more than you are a stakeholder by seeing an interracial couple or homosexual couple kiss in public. If everyone who 'might see it and feel icky' is a stakeholder, then we would be able to ban virtually anything by majority rule and abuse virtually any civil right.
The law is the law, this state simply has crappy ones which allow individual situations like this to make news.
That's not how public schools work; everyone in the community is a stakeholder and all parents are stakeholders in decisions that affect their children.
OSHA is great but students are not employees (as your document applies to), unless there's been some behind the scenes child labor thing going on that I don't know about and OSHA jurisdiction doesn't extend to every state as some have adopted alternate, compliant standards in required areas. While your OSHA regulation will apply to school employees, it does nothing for students, that's why there's a Department of Education which houses an individual Office of Civil Rights. Fun fact, they don't even have hard-fast rules on transgender issues as long as the school is a) providing an education and b) performing due diligence in preventing bullying/harassment.
NEA, an actual education organization, has some best practices regarding transgender issues but nothing that addresses locker rooms. Even states that have adopted outright regulations pertinent to K-12 education (MN, NJ) only address bathroom assignment.
Frazzled wrote: Thats horse gak and it won;t wash in the real world.
It is washing in the real world... you guys are debating an issue which is already legal and solved in multiple states for close to a decade with ZERO harm. TRANS-PANIC is made up.
again please cite the schools that require girls change and shower with swinging dicks in their locker room.
Crablezworth wrote: I
Don't go down the harm road, please, don't. If you don't see the irony in saying that 200+ teenagers are all faking harm while telling everyone else to 100% trust anyone who has the slightest of gender issues you won't succeed. Full stop.
We have millions of people in states currently getting by without issue. What makes those 200 students more 'harmed' by being in Missouri except of a fake perception put there by their parents?
If there is evidence of harm, please present it outside of manufactured scenarios which don't exist. I have provided evidence from the states with transgender laws which show there are zero incidents of people abusing gender identity to commit crimes or breach people's rights.
Please show me the millions of people in states where public school girls are forced to be disrobed in a gym with a swinging dick. Besides your Porkiesesque fantasy that dog don't hunt.
I posted it earlier. 26 states have laws which allow gender identity choice for bathrooms and locker rooms. Most have been on the books for 5-10 years.
Those states have public schools where girls are forced to disrobe in a locker room with a trans student if they so choose. No one cares, it isn't an issue. No one has been harmed, no one has been raped by a pervert in a wig, no one has fallen into a shock-based coma due to seeing a penis, no one has had PTSD or become mentally scarred from seeing one.
Most times no one sees anyone's genitals in the bathroom/locker room. I been going to public gyms for 20 years as an adult and never seen another man's junk.
Frazzled wrote: Thats horse gak and it won;t wash in the real world.
It is washing in the real world... you guys are debating an issue which is already legal and solved in multiple states for close to a decade with ZERO harm. TRANS-PANIC is made up.
again please cite the schools that require girls change and shower with swinging dicks in their locker room.
Every public school in every state with transgender protection laws. To deny access to the locker room of the gender identity is illegal so it isn't done. And the world keeps spinning, horses are not eating each other.
Nkelsch, again, because you seem to have missed my last reply: what is the prerequisite for a child to be treated as (i.e. gain use of facilities designated for) a different gender to that they were given at birth?
-Shrike- wrote: Nkelsch, again, because you seem to have missed my last reply: what is the prerequisite for a child to be treated as (i.e. gain use of facilities designated for) a different gender to that they were given at birth?
The same as an adult... Chosen Gender identity. Same with Sexual orientation. There is no legal litmus test or surgery requirement.
-Shrike- wrote: Nkelsch, again, because you seem to have missed my last reply: what is the prerequisite for a child to be treated as (i.e. gain use of facilities designated for) a different gender to that they were given at birth?
The same as an adult... Chosen Gender identity. Same with Sexual orientation. There is no legal litmus test or surgery requirement.
So it is literally a case of telling everyone that you are a different gender?
-Shrike- wrote: Nkelsch, again, because you seem to have missed my last reply: what is the prerequisite for a child to be treated as (i.e. gain use of facilities designated for) a different gender to that they were given at birth?
The same as an adult... Chosen Gender identity. Same with Sexual orientation. There is no legal litmus test or surgery requirement.
So it is literally a case of telling everyone that you are a different gender?
Why wouldn't it be? Who are you to tell someone what their own body feels.
Given that children under 18 have zero capability to make any legal decisions, I would say they don't have the ability to make that decision. Their parents, if anyone, would have to be the ones making the decision.
Has anyone actually used opposite sex locker rooms?
But the policy is in place isn't it? Just like it is all over multiple states... Provide all evidence of legitimate harm resulting from these widespread transgender laws since if it existed, it would be super easy to find considering how wide-spread these policies already are in the united states.
No boys wearing wigs to peep.
No girls being mentally damaged due to seeing wangs.
Horses have not begun eating each other.
Criminals are criminals, to try to claim that all transexuals have to have their rights oppressed because someone *MIGHT* break a law... well that is a terrible slope to slide down when applied to other situations.
Has anyone actually used opposite sex locker rooms?
But the policy is in place isn't it? Just like it is all over multiple states... Provide all evidence of legitimate harm resulting from these widespread transgender laws since if it existed, it would be super easy to find considering how wide-spread these policies already are in the united states.
No boys wearing wigs to peep. No girls being mentally damaged due to seeing wangs. Horses have not begun eating each other.
Criminals are criminals, to try to claim that all transexuals have to have their rights oppressed because someone *MIGHT* break a law... well that is a terrible slope to slide down when applied to other situations.
It doesn't actually say the policy is in place, no. Not for locker rooms where no physical change has occurred.
As for the rest of your ranting, this is the California public school system. They are ranked nearly dead last in the nation, so no I wouldn't take them on anything other than how not to run something. A better question might be, how many students knifed or shot other students, if you're looking at the California system.
Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. Maybe this is the first case.
Again, what if the following situation occurred.
You get a 15 year old boy, naturally being a 15 year old boy, and he's horny. He hears about this policy where you can just use any bathroom you want if you claim you are transgendered, with no burden of proof. Your parents don't even have to be asked. So he starts using the Girls bathroom to snap panty shots, and if he's caught he'll just claim he's transgendered.
I don't know about you, but 15 year old me and my friends would think this is a genius plan worthy of Napoleon.
Grey Templar wrote: Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. Maybe this is the first case.
Again, what if the following situation occurred.
You get a 15 year old boy, naturally being a 15 year old boy, and he's horny. He hears about this policy where you can just use any bathroom you want if you claim you are transgendered, with no burden of proof. Your parents don't even have to be asked. So he starts using the Girls bathroom to snap panty shots, and if he's caught he'll just claim he's transgendered.
I don't know about you, but 15 year old me and my friends would think this is a genius plan worthy of Napoleon.
I'm not even going there. Lets just assume everyone is on good faith here. "Ann" wants to use the locker room but still has male pattern baldness as it were. The other women object to man parts in their locker room. Please show me why they should be forced into this, when all of society says thats a bad and often criminal endeavor.
-Shrike- wrote: Nkelsch, again, because you seem to have missed my last reply: what is the prerequisite for a child to be treated as (i.e. gain use of facilities designated for) a different gender to that they were given at birth?
The same as an adult... Chosen Gender identity. Same with Sexual orientation. There is no legal litmus test or surgery requirement.
So it is literally a case of telling everyone that you are a different gender?
Why wouldn't it be? Who are you to tell someone what their own body feels.
See, in the UK, it's a bit more strict than that. From Wikipedia:
In contrast to some systems elsewhere in the world, the Gender Recognition process does not require applicants to be post-operative. They need only demonstrate that they have suffered gender dysphoria, and have lived as "your new gender" for two years, and intend to continue doing so until death.
So that's why I asked. There's a slightly higher burden of proof than simply telling everyone "I'm X, accept it!", but without placing undue restrictions on transgender individuals.
Indeed. But hey, you were the one who brought up the "victim class"
You may want to look up facetious irony. The comment was also mostly addresses a number of other posters in the threadd.
girls not wanting to be exposed to penises while they are in various states of undress themselves? And you are giving lectures on straw men and appeals to emotion?
Speaking if which, another great example makes itself known!
Where is the straw man? People are advancing the argument that biological males should be allowed in locations where they and biological females are likely to be in various stages of undress, and that those who don't want to be in that situation are bigots who need to grow up.
The point is that "biologically" the sex, gender and sexuality of a person are significantly more complex than two genders divided by what they keep in their trousers. Failure to even attempt to undersand this while arguing that "boy is a boy is a boy - cos biology! Now go get changed with the other boys" tilts you towards being a bigot...
Changing and answering the call of nature are among our most private moments. People do feel vulnerable in those moments. The number of people who would feel violated by having someone with a penis around at those times easily exceeds hundreds, and is much larger than the number of people who have gender identity issues.
And many people felt the same way when talking about getting changed in mixed race changing rooms too...
As mentioned earlier, I work with patients and often have to examine them in various states of undress. Many of these patients are cinsidered vulnerable. I am well aware of how people can feel when there is someone they dont know interacting with them, however peripherally, especially when at a time they are vulnerable.
Hell, I am not a huge fan of changing in front of people; when scrubbing up, when at the gym, playing football, whatever. However, they have the right to change, as I do. My minor discomfort at exposing my body for that brief time in no way outweighs their right to change in an appropriate facility. Even in situations where genders and sexualities are mixed, I still change in exactly the same way and have done for as long as I can remember.
That I've highlighted the ultimate effect of the argument in concise terms is not the creation of a straw man.
Hmmmm.... not really...
The entire premise of the side that you support in based on speak to emotion not logic, so please spare me the appeal to emotion handwringing.
Really?
Logically this girl acts and looks like (as far as possible) a girl and considers herself one. In so far as gender identity goes, she is a girl. As far as most recent psychology/medical information says, she is a girl. Therefore, should she not be treated as a girl by society?
I don't recall saying that millions of poor girls will be corrupted by the fact that she changes in with them. That their lives will be ruined and parents wishes violated equally as their precious daughters undergo forced tea bagging whenever they enter or exit the changing rooms...
It is suggested that the boy (that's what cold logical biological reality says he is)
Except, you know... it doesnt...
who is the starting point for this discussion wishes to ignore reality (that he is a boy) and expects everyone to do the same treating him as a girl when he is in fact a boy.
Except, you know... she isnt...
Why should we do this?
Because she is a girl? You know, unless you want to ignore all the research and positional papers on the subject... oh, wait... that is what you want to do...
Ok, if that's the case then how about caring about the emotions of people who don't want to be exposed to a penis? You can't have it both ways.
We do care about the feelings of others. Hence the discussion over the best course of action. But if the main point one side raises is "girls should not see penises unless daddy says its ok"... well... the whole argument falls a little flat.
One telling demonstration over how this is all a massive argument to emotion is the utter lack of consideration for girls who are boys, and people not being fussed about him getting changed with other boys. I've seen comments to the effect of "serves her right if she gets abused".
Awesome.
Is anyone here suggesting trying to harm Lila or other similar persons?
Yes. Quite a few people itt are sugesting causing quite considerable psychological harm. And the internet as a whole (and real life) are suggesting much more direct harm.
Yet when people say let's protect the girls that don't want to be around a penis, words like "bigot", "ignorant", "segregationist", or your pejorative use of "white Christian" start getting tossed around liberally.
Possibly because there is a huge difference between equitable treatment and protection and most of the suggestions and talk being bandied about here...
Curiously you, an apparent champion of logic, aren't bothered by, and are even willing to dabble in the use of these logically fallacious ploys.
Note the use of irony...
segregationists (an emotional appeal using a loaded word you haven't bothered to correct)
And unlike anything you have said, accurate, and fitting both in the literal and philisophical use. Plus in the UK such terminology is not emotionally loaded...
The rest of your post just repeats itself and has been addressed elsewhere in this post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Given that children under 18 have zero capability to make any legal decisions, I would say they don't have the ability to make that decision. Their parents, if anyone, would have to be the ones making the decision.
I don't know what the law is like in the US, however in the UK children can be deemed to have capacity to make medical treatment decisions on their own.
Most times no one sees anyone's genitals in the bathroom/locker room. I been going to public gyms for 20 years as an adult and never seen another man's junk.
Wow, really? I must only go to gay gyms then because I have always seen guys with their junk out in the open (I usually just glance down real quick--you know, for comparison purposes. Science.). And I only go in there to pee. I don't change clothes or shower at the gym.
SilverMK2 wrote: I don't know what the law is like in the US, however in the UK children can be deemed to have capacity to make medical treatment decisions on their own.
For transgender individuals, they can have hormone blockers to prevent the onset of sexual characteristics during puberty, can take cross-sex hormones from the age of 16, and can consider surgery from the age of 18. At least, that's how it works in the UK, I've got no idea about the US.
Minorities are always right and trump common sense. You're late to the PC party, my friend!
'Common sense' said dark-skinned people were property and women couldn't vote or own property because of biological truths.
Interesting, since there is no right here, would nkelsch defend the one holdout bigot from saying she can't be in either the boy's or girls bathroom because...feelings?
Minorities are always right and trump common sense. You're late to the PC party, my friend!
'Common sense' said dark-skinned people were property and women couldn't vote or own property because of biological truths.
Interesting, since there is no right here, would nkelsch defend the one holdout bigot from saying she can't be in either the boy's or girls bathroom because...feelings?
Doubtful, because "tolerant" people generally aren't tolerant of those with a different opinion.
Doubtful, because "tolerant" people generally aren't tolerant of those with a different opinion.
That's it in a nutshell. Being scared of new things can be harmful, but it's also part of being human and growing up. It just takes a special kind of delusion to see 200 people walk out of a school and say :"no one has a problem, nothing to see here, show's over folks" .
Minorities are always right and trump common sense. You're late to the PC party, my friend!
'Common sense' said dark-skinned people were property and women couldn't vote or own property because of biological truths.
Interesting, since there is no right here, would nkelsch defend the one holdout bigot from saying she can't be in either the boy's or girls bathroom because...feelings?
Doubtful, because "tolerant" people generally aren't tolerant of those with a different opinion.
Here you go, have an exalt. Could not have said it better myself.
Alex C wrote: Doubtful, because "tolerant" people generally aren't tolerant of those with a different opinion.
This is one of those statements that sounds really clever and deep, but actually misses the point.
Tolerance of differences in identity are based on the idea that each person should be included in society, regardless of any identity they have. so, we should be tolerant of races, religions, disabilities, sexual orientations, etc. This is based on the idea that identity, even when not immutable, is a right. A person has the right to be who they are, and still be allowed in all aspects of society. Essentially, tolerance is based on the idea that all races, creeds, genders, etc. have the same value.
Tolerance of opinions is a different story. Opinions, or their more emotive relatives, beliefs, are not all the same in terms of value. There are areas where all opinions are valid (is Tom Brady better than Joe Montana), and there are areas where not all opinions are considered equally valid (Was Ryan Leaf a better quarterback than Peyton Manning).
In polite society, when the stakes are not particularly low, it is polite to allow all people their opinions. It is, in fact, a pretty big aspect of civility. Of course, civility has a pretty conservative (in the broadest, least political sense) streak to it, in that civility concedes that barring anything critical, the status quo is fine. After all, it's not particularly civil to question a person's status, or rights.
An opinion that, say, Transgender people aren't really their new gender, is an opinion. You have the right to say it. But its an opinion that many find offensive, others find inconsistent with their own experiences, and plenty of people find inconsistent with expert opinions and decades of evidence. It's a bad opinion. If you decide to wade into a debate with that opinion, be prepared to get smacked down.
Alex C wrote: Doubtful, because "tolerant" people generally aren't tolerant of those with a different opinion.
This is one of those statements that sounds really clever and deep, but actually misses the point.
Tolerance of differences in identity are based on the idea that each person should be included in society, regardless of any identity they have. so, we should be tolerant of races, religions, disabilities, sexual orientations, etc. This is based on the idea that identity, even when not immutable, is a right. A person has the right to be who they are, and still be allowed in all aspects of society. Essentially, tolerance is based on the idea that all races, creeds, genders, etc. have the same value.
Tolerance of opinions is a different story. Opinions, or their more emotive relatives, beliefs, are not all the same in terms of value. There are areas where all opinions are valid (is Tom Brady better than Joe Montana), and there are areas where not all opinions are considered equally valid (Was Ryan Leaf a better quarterback than Peyton Manning).
In polite society, when the stakes are not particularly low, it is polite to allow all people their opinions. It is, in fact, a pretty big aspect of civility. Of course, civility has a pretty conservative (in the broadest, least political sense) streak to it, in that civility concedes that barring anything critical, the status quo is fine. After all, it's not particularly civil to question a person's status, or rights.
An opinion that, say, Transgender people aren't really their new gender, is an opinion. You have the right to say it. But its an opinion that many find offensive, others find inconsistent with their own experiences, and plenty of people find inconsistent with expert opinions and decades of evidence. It's a bad opinion. If you decide to wade into a debate with that opinion, be prepared to get smacked down.
I am going to have to agree with you about "Tolerant people" because that is what they are supposed to be. Unfortunately those that claim to be tolerant are only tolerant so long as you agree to the same thing. So you have the actual definition and then you have the real world application which leaves much to be desired.
In this case specifically the transgender person was tolerated, was accepted into society and then that person wanted their 5 minutes of fame and fethed up the whole situation to make a big stink out of which bathroom he/she got to use. Tolerance means you TOLERATE it doesn't mean you have to kowtow to them.
