Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not sure what the solution is. Obviously with Co-ed Dorms its alot simpler. But in the case where I went there were only two officially co-ed. One was purely for Upper Classmen, and the other was Dean List students.

However, the problem with a Purely transgender dorm (aside from the fact that well they shouldnt get special treatment/exclusion) Do you seriously think that there are that many transgender students at any one University that would be able to fill a Dorm, assuming in the first place that they even wanted to stay there?

I understand where the Asst. AG is coming from, but he is a complete idiot for attacking the problem the way he did. Unless he was just looking to cause a firestorm. However, I highly doubt he is that smart.

Though, sure this has already been discussed. Skipped half the thread to avoid the needless American Government class the OP is going to get in a few years anyway.

Comintern wrote:However, the problem with a Purely transgender dorm

A purely Transgender dorm has never been the argument. I suppose to show how twisted away from the original point this thread has gotten that a ficticious dorm is now the focus. A gender blind (aka coed) dorm was what was being presented.

with the primary intent of benefiting transgendered people iirc

Wait now you people want a twisted dorm? Thats going to play hell with the architecture. Back in my day we had the ass end of a cave, and were glad we had it (when the wolves were outside).

AbaddonFidelis wrote:with the primary intent of benefiting transgendered people iirc

That would be an incorrect recollection. Of course, maybe I am not recalling correctly either.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:with the primary intent of benefiting transgendered people iirc

Well, the point with transgendered people is that they are transgendered people who are psychologically their own opposite sex. This is of course, rather awkward if they only have the choice between a boys-only dorm ("but I am a girl!") or a girls-only dorm ("but I'm a boy!"). Having a mixed dorm eliminates that, for transgendered people awkward choice, so yes, it benefits them because it makes life easier.

For non-transgendered students, mixed dorms have other advantages, like a better social relationship with the opposite sex. Romance and sexytimes are only a possibility here. From mixed-gender student housing experience I'd say the average chance on getting it on with roommates of the opposite sex is 1/10. I have not tried to get it on with the same sex because I am pretty much preoccupied by the opposite sex, me being a heterosexual and all.
Given that there are a lot fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals, it might actually be harder.

It appears I am quite preoccupied with the sex motivation here, but I think that an conservative stance on sexuality is at the core of the one-sex-only dorm system.

Frazzled wrote:Wait now you people want a twisted dorm? Thats going to play hell with the architecture. Back in my day we had the ass end of a cave, and were glad we had it (when the wolves were outside).

you... are... awesome

I don't see a problem with primarily benefiting transgendered people, as long as it does not unfairly disadvantage non-transgendered people.

Which it doesn't.

imo there needs to be a more compelling reason to reshuffle the system than to benefit a tiny minority of students. the proposal isnt inherently unreasonable - but the student government guy needs to make a better case than "it will help transgendered people adjust." there just arent enough of them to merit special consideration.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's perfectly reasonable to say, transgender people can room with other people as long as the other people are accepting of the situation, and if no-one wants to do it, then I'm sorry but there aren't any available rooms this year.

Eh? What if a transgender person can't find someone willing to share with them then they are the one out of luck and unable to have a room? I don't see that someone should be left without a room because of the prejudices of others. Have I read that right?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:imo there needs to be a more compelling reason to reshuffle the system than to benefit a tiny minority of students. the proposal isnt inherently unreasonable - but the student government guy needs to make a better case than "it will help transgendered people adjust." there just arent enough of them to merit special consideration.

Then it could depend on the strictness of the on-sex-only dorm policy. If it is actively enforced with curfews and strict rules about opposite-sex guests and demerits or even expulsions for breaking them, the motivation for gender-blind dorms is different. In that case it's about the social development of young adults in dealing with the opposite sex, the fact that college students are at an age where they could be trusted to make responsible decisions and the plain idiocy for failing classes or being expelled for being in love.

My earlier remark of a one-sex-only dorm policy being islamist, is because radical/fundamentalist/taliban Islam views on man-woman relations are like this: "women are seductive whores, if a man and a woman meet each other, they are immediately going to have sex, all the time"

AbaddonFidelis wrote:imo there needs to be a more compelling reason to reshuffle the system than to benefit a tiny minority of students. the proposal isnt inherently unreasonable - but the student government guy needs to make a better case than "it will help transgendered people adjust." there just arent enough of them to merit special consideration.

There's an old rule of thumb about such statements. You reapply it to Jews, or black people, or disabled people, and see if it sounds fair and reasonable.

But Kilkrazy, think of all the young women who will be raped in gender blind housing!

jews, black people, and disabled people are sizable minorities. I dont have a problem with government accomodation to their demonstrated needs. protection from racism in the 1st two cases, the americans with disabilities act in the other. Unless a group can demonstrate that their fundamental human or constitutional rights are being violated by not receiving special attention, then it really is just about the numbers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rusy. that pic is the awesome. love it.

Ahtman wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:with the primary intent of benefiting transgendered people iirc

That would be an incorrect recollection. Of course, maybe I am not recalling correctly either.

Yeah, it's weird. Suddenly this has turned from mixed-sex dorms, in which gay guys can live with straight girls (which is, I'm guessing, the most likely situation to arise from this proposal), to the captain of the football team suddenly being FORCED to live with a hairy-armed tranny!


OT FORUM I LOVE YOU.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
It is happening but its not necessarily a waste of breath. Laws are written through a participatory process and I'm participating in it.

Then its not a slippery slope, and there is no necessary connection between granting concessions to one group, and not others.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Handi-capped people have a far better claim to special treatment than transgendered people do - they have a physical disability that is not based on choice and prevents them from getting basic access to institutions that their tax dollars help fund. On that basis the law ought to be rewritten. Transgendered people have a psychological condition that may or may not be based on choice and does not in any case prevent them from doing anything but feeling better about themselves. The university doesn't owe them any special favors.

Its not a matter of being owed anything. The university doesn't owe handicapped people anything either as they didn't cause their handicap. After all, you already argued that it would be absurd to make concessions for midgets, and they are most definitely handicapped. The point is that the university has an incentive to accommodate potential students in order to attract more of them.

Also, as regards transgendered people, its not 'may or may not be based on choice', its not based on choice. The decision to undergor surgery is based on choice, the decision to be transgendered is not based on choice. There is literally no evidence to support that idea.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
maybe we shouldn't be. thats for individual universities to decide based on the needs of their students.

That's exactly what's going on here with respect to student governance, and you've already said that you're against it.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the original theory as I understand it was to get students to concentrate on their studies rather than sex. If thats what university administrators decide helps them run a more efficient school, great. that's in the interests of the institution and therefor permissible

So no university could ever conclude that its in their best interests to accommodate as many different lifestyles as possible?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
- its not a special favor to a couple maladjusted people.

So, you're problem is that you can't consider this in any light other than a normative one? Yeah, that explains pretty much everything.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If you have a specific disagreement lets hear it - but criticizing the language I'm using as "bad form" is silly. It doesnt have anything to do with anything - other than your personal sensibilities.

I already explained my specific criticism. You're being overly general without announcing that fact, and that is bad form in all cases. I noted this in my first post regarding this particular facet of the debate.

Moreover, you've previously argued from the perspective of possible objections to a blanket policy vis a vis concerns over rape. You did not, however, suppose that rape might occur more frequently amongst homosexual couples forced to live in same sex dormitories. This is trange to me, as you seem to be sensitive to one set of minority concerns, and not another set; especialyl as evidenced by your comment regarding the joy homosexuals feel at being surrounded by potential sexual partners.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
he sounded like a radical activist to me. The AG was a moron but that doesn't mean the student government guy wasn't.

Of course he did, you don't agree with what he wants. Simply defining radicalism as that which one does not agree with really isn't particularly useful, as its simply left as a eupehmism for "I don't like him." The changes he is requesting are hardly radical in that they represent a mass departure from current school policy. It isn't like he's asking for people to be forced to live with members of the opposite sex.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
no we would not blame him for being autistic. but we would recognize that he has a condition for which he is not responsible and on that basis try to keep him out of situations where his presence would be a problem. there is no moral component to autism - its not chosen anymore than baldness lefthandedness or skin color is, and is therefore not subject to moral judgment.

To blame is to find fault. It is the autistic person's fault that they are autistic. That doesn't mean they caused their autism, it means that they possess the fault of autism in situations where autism is a fault. As such, they are blameworthy in those situations. That doesn't mean they are the only blameworthy individuals in such situations, but they would certainly be among those to be blamed.

Even if we suppose that no one can be blamed for things that they cannot control, we must still acknowledge that there is a moral component to autism in that it would have to modify what a person could reasonably be blamed for. You can't simply pull morality out of it, since morality necessarily deals with the actions of individuals, and autism affects the capacity of a person to act.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:imo there needs to be a more compelling reason to reshuffle the system than to benefit a tiny minority of students. the proposal isnt inherently unreasonable - but the student government guy needs to make a better case than "it will help transgendered people adjust." there just arent enough of them to merit special consideration.

I disagree. Why should housing stay the same to benefit the small minority of people who have a problem with this?

frgsinwntr wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:imo there needs to be a more compelling reason to reshuffle the system than to benefit a tiny minority of students. the proposal isnt inherently unreasonable - but the student government guy needs to make a better case than "it will help transgendered people adjust." there just arent enough of them to merit special consideration.

I disagree. Why should housing stay the same to benefit the small minority of people who have a problem with this?

because it doesnt cost any money to keep things the same. It does cost money to change it.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
It is happening but its not necessarily a waste of breath. Laws are written through a participatory process and I'm participating in it.

Then its not a slippery slope, and there is no necessary connection between granting concessions to one group, and not others.

the connection is obvious. if you dont see it I cant explain it to you.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Handi-capped people have a far better claim to special treatment than transgendered people do - they have a physical disability that is not based on choice and prevents them from getting basic access to institutions that their tax dollars help fund. On that basis the law ought to be rewritten. Transgendered people have a psychological condition that may or may not be based on choice and does not in any case prevent them from doing anything but feeling better about themselves. The university doesn't owe them any special favors.

Its not a matter of being owed anything. The university doesn't owe handicapped people anything either as they didn't cause their handicap. After all, you already argued that it would be absurd to make concessions for midgets, and they are most definitely handicapped. The point is that the university has an incentive to accommodate potential students in order to attract more of them.

the university administrators appear to have decided that it's not worth the fuss just to attract a few extra midget/transgendered people to their system. doubtless they wouldnt have rearranged their facilities to suit handicapped people either, except the law makes them do it.

Also, as regards transgendered people, its not 'may or may not be based on choice', its not based on choice. The decision to undergor surgery is based on choice, the decision to be transgendered is not based on choice. There is literally no evidence to support that idea.

I dont know what its based on and you dont either. thats why I said may or may not. transgendered people are not in any way disbarred by government action, or lack thereof, from living rich and meaningful lives. on that basis the government doesnt have to rearrange things just to suit them. it is up to them, if they *choose* to go through life as a different gender than they were born, to accomodate *themselves* to the social norms that surround them, as long as those norms do not violate their human or constitutional rights. How they *feel* about their gender identity and their physical gender is something for them to resolve in their personal lives; it does not create any government obligations.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
maybe we shouldn't be. thats for individual universities to decide based on the needs of their students.

That's exactly what's going on here with respect to student governance, and you've already said that you're against it.

yes. exactly. I support the university administrators in their decision to ignore this one fruit cake radical. I agree with that decision. I disagree with their decision to segregate their students into little tribes of like minded people, but if they choose to do it, then that's their call.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the original theory as I understand it was to get students to concentrate on their studies rather than sex. If thats what university administrators decide helps them run a more efficient school, great. that's in the interests of the institution and therefor permissible

So no university could ever conclude that its in their best interests to accommodate as many different lifestyles as possible?

ofcourse they could.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
- its not a special favor to a couple maladjusted people.

So, you're problem is that you can't consider this in any light other than a normative one? Yeah, that explains pretty much everything.

whether you think its a problem or not depends on whether you're a left wing wackjob or not. if people choose to pursue lifestyles that are outside of the norm then they're free to do it - they are not free to waste my tax dollars in order to better accomodate their lifestyle choices. as long as their constitutional and human rights are upheld, I don't give a feth about them and I don't care how the feth they feel about the rest of society. pretty clear, I hope.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If you have a specific disagreement lets hear it - but criticizing the language I'm using as "bad form" is silly. It doesnt have anything to do with anything - other than your personal sensibilities.

I already explained my specific criticism. You're being overly general without announcing that fact, and that is bad form in all cases. I noted this in my first post regarding this particular facet of the debate.

whatever.

dogma wrote:
Moreover, you've previously argued from the perspective of possible objections to a blanket policy vis a vis concerns over rape. You did not, however, suppose that rape might occur more frequently amongst homosexual couples forced to live in same sex dormitories. This is trange to me, as you seem to be sensitive to one set of minority concerns, and not another set; especialyl as evidenced by your comment regarding the joy homosexuals feel at being surrounded by potential sexual partners.

homosexual rape might occur in single sex dorms. is it occurring, though? idk. if it is, and there's reason to believe that single sex dorms are a major contributing factor, then maybe we should look at making coed housing standard, if real benefits in terms of reducing rapes across all categories can reasonably be expected from that policy. obviously the university has an interest in seeing that its students arent raped whether it occurs in a hetero or a homosexual context.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
he sounded like a radical activist to me. The AG was a moron but that doesn't mean the student government guy wasn't.

Of course he did, you don't agree with what he wants. Simply defining radicalism as that which one does not agree with really isn't particularly useful, as its simply left as a eupehmism for "I don't like him." The changes he is requesting are hardly radical in that they represent a mass departure from current school policy. It isn't like he's asking for people to be forced to live with members of the opposite sex.

radicalism in this context means someone who is on the fringe left (a reactionary would be on the fringe right.) just because a person is a radical doesn't mean they're wrong - what it does mean is that they need to do a better job of arguing for their particular point of view. I don't know whether I like him or not. It doesnt have anything to do with anything.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
no we would not blame him for being autistic. but we would recognize that he has a condition for which he is not responsible and on that basis try to keep him out of situations where his presence would be a problem. there is no moral component to autism - its not chosen anymore than baldness lefthandedness or skin color is, and is therefore not subject to moral judgment.

To blame is to find fault. It is the autistic person's fault that they are autistic.

what? are you serious? It's not at all their fault. what are you talking about?

dogma wrote:
That doesn't mean they caused their autism

yeah exactly. that's why it's not their fault.

dogma wrote:
it means that they possess the fault of autism in situations where autism is a fault. As such, they are blameworthy in those situations.

whether you think its a problem or not depends on whether you're a left wing wackjob or not. if people choose to pursue lifestyles that are outside of the norm then they're free to do it - they are not free to waste my tax dollars in order to better accomodate their lifestyle choices. as long as their constitutional and human rights are upheld, I don't give a feth about them and I don't care how the feth they feel about the rest of society. pretty clear, I hope.

Mmm...I see we have a new member for Frazzled gang of angry bitter pills. the weiner dogs will set another place at the table.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the connection is obvious. if you dont see it I cant explain it to you.

You're not getting it. You're arguing that we can't offer gender blind housing because if we do, then we'll have to offer other sorts of housing. I'm point out that, for that argument to hold, any campus that has more than one type of housing must offer other type of housing. Since that plainly isn't the case, the argument from a slippery slope is fallacious.

More specifically, University of Michigan has more than one type of housing. If any type of housing beyond one type of housing necessarily requires all other types of housing to be built, then the slippery slope holds water. Since it doesn't, as you've demonstrated by noting that decisions are made by agents, it is not s a slippery slope.

Also, if you can't explain something its probably because you don't have an explanation, not because the explanation is obvious.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the university administrators appear to have decided that it's not worth the fuss just to attract a few extra midget/transgendered people to their system. doubtless they wouldnt have rearranged their facilities to suit handicapped people either, except the law makes them do it.

I doubt that, honestly. It isn't as though the law makes them construct co-ed dorms.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I dont know what its based on and you dont either.

Actually, having studied neuroscience for a good chunk of my life, particularly as it relates to gender constructs, I'm pretty confident that I do know what its based on. You can argue from universal ignorance all you like, but then your earlier argument from 'its obvious' starts to look quite poor.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
transgendered people are not in any way disbarred by government action, or lack thereof, from living rich and meaningful lives. on that basis the government doesnt have to rearrange things just to suit them.

First of all, the state has very little to do with the housing policy at a public university.

Second, you can't conclude that transgendered people aren't being prevented from leading rich and meaningful lives on the basis that you say so.

Third, the government rearranges things based on the preferences of its citizens all the time, and most of the time its not because their rights were being violated. If the state didn't do that, it wouldn't be the state for particularly long.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
it is up to them, if they *choose* to go through life as a different gender than they were born,

That's not what being transgender entails. You are born with a certain sex; male, female, or transsexual. You acquire your gender as your body matures, and your brain develops subconscious preferences in accordance with external stimuli. There is nothing approaching even the bound sort of choice discussed by soft determinism.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
to accomodate *themselves* to the social norms that surround them, as long as those norms do not violate their human or constitutional rights. How they *feel* about their gender identity and their physical gender is something for them to resolve in their personal lives; it does not create any government obligations.

Again, why are you mentioning the government, or obligations? No one has brought up either the state, or obligation.

Moreover, considering the massive impact that gender has on someones personal life, and how tightly woven personal lives are into daily interaction within the public sphere, the idea that it has no bearing on anyone but them is patently absurd. Indeed, the very fact that you're arguing from a stance of 'keep it toy yourself' implies that it necessarily effects you, as you're here to have input on it.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
whether you think its a problem or not depends on whether you're a left wing wackjob or not. if people choose to pursue lifestyles that are outside of the norm then they're free to do it - they are not free to waste my tax dollars in order to better accomodate their lifestyle choices. as long as their constitutional and human rights are upheld, I don't give a feth about them and I don't care how the feth they feel about the rest of society. pretty clear, I hope.

So, yeah, you can't consider this from any position that isn't normative.

What I find hilarious is that you're leaping to the conclusion that this will have anything to do with your tax dollars. Even if it does increase university costs, it isn't as though students don't pay tuition.

Either you're being irrational, or you've got an ax to grind with people living alternative lifestyles. Given the conversations that we've had about social norms in the past, I think its the latter.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
homosexual rape might occur in single sex dorms. is it occurring, though? idk. if it is, and there's reason to believe that single sex dorms are a major contributing factor, then maybe we should look at making coed housing standard, if real benefits in terms of reducing rapes across all categories can reasonably be expected from that policy. obviously the university has an interest in seeing that its students arent raped whether it occurs in a hetero or a homosexual context.

Coeducational housing still forces people to live in the same room with people of the same sex. Single sex housing reserves the whole building for people of the same sex. Gender blind housing, what the 'radical' was proposing is the option that allows people to live in the same room with members of the opposite sex.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
radicalism in this context means someone who is on the fringe left (a reactionary would be on the fringe right.) just because a person is a radical doesn't mean they're wrong - what it does mean is that they need to do a better job of arguing for their particular point of view. I don't know whether I like him or not. It doesnt have anything to do with anything.

I can tell you right now that, from what I've read aboutthis kid, he's not that fringe. Gender blind housing is not really a radical concept on the left.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
what? are you serious? It's not at all their fault. what are you talking about?

Of course its their fault. The person is autistic, and so the autism is theirs. In circumstances where autism is a fault, it would be their fault.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
yeah exactly. that's why it's not their fault.

Possession of a fault does not imply that the possessor caused the fault.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the connection is obvious. if you dont see it I cant explain it to you.

You're not getting it. You're arguing that we can't offer gender blind housing because if we do, then we'll have to offer other sorts of housing. I'm point out that, for that argument to hold, any campus that has more than one type of housing must offer other type of housing. Since that plainly isn't the case, the argument from a slippery slope is fallacious.

More specifically, University of Michigan has more than one type of housing. If any type of housing beyond one type of housing necessarily requires all other types of housing to be built, then the slippery slope holds water. Since it doesn't, as you've demonstrated by noting that decisions are made by agents, it is not s a slippery slope.

it doesnt necessarily require all different types of housing. but it does create (or continue, in this case) bad precedents that can be used for other small groups of people to support their special claims to the general injury of the community. it does not require, of necessity, that the arguments of those groups be accepted by university or state administrators - but it does make it more likely. As you pointed out, the university already considers the housing preferences of christians as opposed to other religious groups, and makes an effort to accomodate them. so when this sg guy starts his petition, he can point to the christians and say "if you did it for them, why not us?" and he's right. the university shouldn't be doing it for anybody just to suit their preferences. it should be based on averting real dangers, not making people feel better -whether they're christian or transgendered or midgets or whatever.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the university administrators appear to have decided that it's not worth the fuss just to attract a few extra midget/transgendered people to their system. doubtless they wouldnt have rearranged their facilities to suit handicapped people either, except the law makes them do it.

I doubt that, honestly. It isn't as though the law makes them construct co-ed dorms.

co-ed dorms don't require bathrooms accessible to handicapped people or ramps outside of buildings etc. these things cost money to build so naturally administrators are reluctant to do it if there isn't a law around. co-ed dorms cost money too, but alot less.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I dont know what its based on and you dont either.

Actually, having studied neuroscience for a good chunk of my life, particularly as it relates to gender constructs, I'm pretty confident that I do know what its based on. You can argue from universal ignorance all you like, but then your earlier argument from 'its obvious' starts to look quite poor.

I dont believe people choose to feel like they're a man trapped in a woman's body or vice versa. but the decision to undergo the surgical changes is obviously voluntary. you don't have to be a neuroscientist to see that. There is no more consensus about what causes trans-gender among scientists than there is among lay people. The most you can possibly have, as a result of your training, no matter how extensive it is, is a plausible guess. My argument is only based on ignorance in so much as I admit that I don't know what causes people to be transgendered. You are the one who is claiming knowledge. What I am pointing out is that the decision to make physical alterations - clothing, mannerisms, surgery - to better suit one's own gender self-image is a conscious decision, and that is, in fact, obvious.

So just leave out the bluster, k?

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
transgendered people are not in any way disbarred by government action, or lack thereof, from living rich and meaningful lives. on that basis the government doesnt have to rearrange things just to suit them.

First of all, the state has very little to do with the housing policy at a public university.

that would qualify as "lack thereof"

dogma wrote:Second, you can't conclude that transgendered people aren't being prevented from leading rich and meaningful lives on the basis that you say so.

no more can you conclude that they are because you say so. you're really good at these double standards, dogma. you call my opinions ignorance, but provide no facts. you say I'm making blanket assertions, but you provide no grounding whatever for your opinions. I conclude that transgendered people are not being prevented from living rich and fulfilling by the government because laws exist to protect them from hate-crimes because laws exist to protect them from discrimination and because those laws are enforced what is it about this situation that you find unsatisfactory?

dogma wrote:
Third, the government rearranges things based on the preferences of its citizens all the time, and most of the time its not because their rights were being violated. If the state didn't do that, it wouldn't be the state for particularly long.

sure, if there are enough of them. that's voting. the state also regularly ignores the preferences of tiny fractions of its populations because they are not able to present a compelling case that the laws/procedures/whatever should be rearranged. that's exactly what's happening here - transgendered people are too small a minority of people and have too weak a case for either the state or the university to change their policies. don't like it? tough. that's democracy. maybe they should organize a little better hmmmm?

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
it is up to them, if they *choose* to go through life as a different gender than they were born,

That's not what being transgender entails. You are born with a certain sex; male, female, or transsexual. You acquire your gender as your body matures, and your brain develops subconscious preferences in accordance with external stimuli. There is nothing approaching even the bound sort of choice discussed by soft determinism.

just out of curiosity, do you think there's such a thing as free choice at all? the arguments you're making about trans-gender could easily be applied to any sort of behavior pattern whatever.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
to accomodate *themselves* to the social norms that surround them, as long as those norms do not violate their human or constitutional rights. How they *feel* about their gender identity and their physical gender is something for them to resolve in their personal lives; it does not create any government obligations.

Again, why are you mentioning the government, or obligations? No one has brought up either the state, or obligation.

Moreover, considering the massive impact that gender has on someones personal life, and how tightly woven personal lives are into daily interaction within the public sphere, the idea that it has no bearing on anyone but them is patently absurd. Indeed, the very fact that you're arguing from a stance of 'keep it toy yourself' implies that it necessarily effects you, as you're here to have input on it.

the university is a state funded organization. changing its policies is a form of state action.
It has bearing on other peoples lives. but that bearing is not very significant. it isn't absurd at all to think that a tiny fraction of the population would be responsible for a tiny fraction of what's going on in the social sphere.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
whether you think its a problem or not depends on whether you're a left wing wackjob or not. if people choose to pursue lifestyles that are outside of the norm then they're free to do it - they are not free to waste my tax dollars in order to better accomodate their lifestyle choices. as long as their constitutional and human rights are upheld, I don't give a feth about them and I don't care how the feth they feel about the rest of society. pretty clear, I hope.

So, yeah, you can't consider this from any position that isn't normative.

have zero interest in the specific viewpoint of transgendered people. that's right.

dogma wrote:
Either you're being irrational, or you've got an ax to grind with people living alternative lifestyles. Given the conversations that we've had about social norms in the past, I think its the latter.

whatever.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
homosexual rape might occur in single sex dorms. is it occurring, though? idk. if it is, and there's reason to believe that single sex dorms are a major contributing factor, then maybe we should look at making coed housing standard, if real benefits in terms of reducing rapes across all categories can reasonably be expected from that policy. obviously the university has an interest in seeing that its students arent raped whether it occurs in a hetero or a homosexual context.

Coeducational housing still forces people to live in the same room with people of the same sex. Single sex housing reserves the whole building for people of the same sex. Gender blind housing, what the 'radical' was proposing is the option that allows people to live in the same room with members of the opposite sex.

because it will make transgendered people feel better. great.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
radicalism in this context means someone who is on the fringe left (a reactionary would be on the fringe right.) just because a person is a radical doesn't mean they're wrong - what it does mean is that they need to do a better job of arguing for their particular point of view. I don't know whether I like him or not. It doesnt have anything to do with anything.

I can tell you right now that, from what I've read aboutthis kid, he's not that fringe. Gender blind housing is not really a radical concept on the left.

specifically to suit transgendered people? sure it is. practically all trans-gendered based politics coming out of the left is radical. It has to be, because the number of people affected is so small. which is a point I keep trying to drive home for you, apparently without success.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
what? are you serious? It's not at all their fault. what are you talking about?

Of course its their fault. The person is autistic, and so the autism is theirs. In circumstances where autism is a fault, it would be their fault.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
yeah exactly. that's why it's not their fault.

Possession of a fault does not imply that the possessor caused the fault.

This conversation about autism is obviously absurd. I'm not going to entertain it any longer.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
it doesnt necessarily require all different types of housing. but it does create (or continue, in this case) bad precedents that can be used for other small groups of people to support their special claims to the general injury of the community. it does not require, of necessity, that the arguments of those groups be accepted by university or state administrators - but it does make it more likely.

No it doesn't. The decision to have one type of housing does not make it more likely for another type to be created. It might indicate that the decision making body is more open to that sort of thing, but it does not, itself, influence the probability of any other event.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
As you pointed out, the university already considers the housing preferences of christians as opposed to other religious groups, and makes an effort to accomodate them. so when this sg guy starts his petition, he can point to the christians and say "if you did it for them, why not us?"

And the university can simply say that they like Christians more. The fact that he can say something given a certain set of circumstances only matters if the administrators care about those circumstance in a motile fashion.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
and he's right. the university shouldn't be doing it for anybody just to suit their preferences. it should be based on averting real dangers, not making people feel better -whether they're christian or transgendered or midgets or whatever.

Why is it bad to make people feel better? After all, the only reason we try to avert rape is because it makes people feel better. If we were only concerned with 'physical' crimes, then we would have stopped at murder.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
co-ed dorms don't require bathrooms accessible to handicapped people or ramps outside of buildings etc. these things cost money to build so naturally administrators are reluctant to do it if there isn't a law around. co-ed dorms cost money too, but alot less.

But they still cost money, so administrators should be reluctant to have them. In fact, housing costs money, so administrators should be reluctant to have that. Teachers cost money too, so it seems like they would be reluctant to employ them. Hell, it seems like they should be reluctant to have a school at all.

Theoretical reluctance is not sufficient to explain behavior.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I dont believe people choose to feel like they're a man trapped in a woman's body or vice versa. but the decision to undergo the surgical changes is obviously voluntary.

Yes, but no one is presuming that transgendered people are undergoing surgery in their fancy new dormitories.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
There is no more consensus about what causes trans-gender among scientists than there is among lay people. The most you can possibly have, as a result of your training, no matter how extensive it is, is a plausible guess.

Yeah, that's how all knowledge works. You can only make a plausible guess, for example, that you won't fall through the Earth and into space.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
My argument is only based on ignorance in so much as I admit that I don't know what causes people to be transgendered. You are the one who is claiming knowledge. What I am pointing out is that the decision to make physical alterations - clothing, mannerisms, surgery - to better suit one's own gender self-image is a conscious decision, and that is, in fact, obvious.

No, it isn't obvious. Do you make conscious decisions to put on clothes in order to suit your own gender self image? Do you carefully consider what people of your gender should wear?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
So just leave out the bluster, k?

What bluster? I'm claiming knowledge. That's what happens in the course of argument.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
that would qualify as "lack thereof"

Then why are you bringing up the government at all? If it isn't relevant, then it isn't support for any argument.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
no more can you conclude that they are because you say so. you're really good at these double standards, dogma. you call my opinions ignorance, but provide no facts. you say I'm making blanket assertions, but you provide no grounding whatever for your opinions.

I'm grounding my statements in yours. My only controversial points, that aren't minimalist (and therefore not requiring support) have been based on what you are arguing (or basic definitions). Its a sort of RAA argument.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I conclude that transgendered people are not being prevented from living rich and fulfilling by the government because laws exist to protect them from hate-crimes because laws exist to protect them from discrimination and because those laws are enforced what is it about this situation that you find unsatisfactory?

The fact that laws exist to protect someone does not indicate that they are sufficiently protected. If it did, then there would be no murder. Moreover. no law exists to protect people due to their gender. Sex and gender are not the same.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the state also regularly ignores the preferences of tiny fractions of its populations because they are not able to present a compelling case that the laws/procedures/whatever should be rearranged. that's exactly what's happening here - transgendered people are too small a minority of people and have too weak a case for either the state or the university to change their policies. don't like it? tough. that's democracy. maybe they should organize a little better hmmmm?

Well, its not actually democracy. Democracy would imply that the body politic, the students, could vote. They can't, they can only appeal to their overlords.

As far as making cses go, isn't that what we're doing by arguing? You seem more concerned with shutting this down than actually concluding what is correct.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
just out of curiosity, do you think there's such a thing as free choice at all? the arguments you're making about trans-gender could easily be applied to any sort of behavior pattern whatever.

What do you mean by 'free choice'?

I think that peopel a free to choose those options that are available to them, but I don't think choice is 'free' in the classical sense. You can't choose to be a bird, for example.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the university is a state funded organization. changing its policies is a form of state action.

Not really, if state funding were sufficient to indicate state action, then all recipients of welfare would be acting at the behest of the state.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
It has bearing on other peoples lives. but that bearing is not very significant. it isn't absurd at all to think that a tiny fraction of the population would be responsible for a tiny fraction of what's going on in the social sphere.

Yes, that's what I said. But that's not what you said. You said that their dealings with gender were personal.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
have zero interest in the specific viewpoint of transgendered people. that's right.

No, that's not what normative means. The notion that you are operating according to norms indicates that you aren't interested in what is occurring, only how what is occurring makes you feel. That's ironic, really, given that you seem to believe feelings means nothing.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
because it will make transgendered people feel better. great.

Not having transgendered housing seems to be what would make you feel better. Why are your feeling more important?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
specifically to suit transgendered people? sure it is. practically all trans-gendered based politics coming out of the left is radical. It has to be, because the number of people affected is so small. which is a point I keep trying to drive home for you, apparently without success.

Maybe you should argue with greater clarity. Why must something involving a minority be radical?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
This conversation about autism is obviously absurd. I'm not going to entertain it any longer.
AF

No, its not obviously absurd. I don't think its absurd, so it, at the very least, seems to lack the necessary self-evidence to qualify for obviousness.

You should know that my description of blame places us in exactly the same place that you seem to want to be in, its simply that my description better deals with determinism.

And the university can simply say that they like Christians more. The fact that he can say something given a certain set of circumstances only matters if the administrators care about those circumstance in a motile fashion.

That would violate federal nondiscriminatory legislation actually.

Not really, if state funding were sufficient to indicate state action, then all recipients of welfare would be acting at the behest of the state.

Actually state run institutions do act under color of state law and are subject to such. Just pointing that out.

Frazzled wrote:
That would violate federal nondiscriminatory legislation actually.

You should inform Brigham Young, Texas Christian, and SMU.

Frazzled wrote:
Actually state run institutions do act under color of state law and are subject to such. Just pointing that out.

I'm using state in the general sense, not the US sense; ie. state as opposed to nation.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
That would violate federal nondiscriminatory legislation actually.

You should inform Brigham Young, Texas Christian, and SMU.

As soon as they are PUBLIC schools I will.

Frazzled wrote:
Actually state run institutions do act under color of state law and are subject to such. Just pointing that out.

I'm using state in the general sense, not the US sense; ie. state as opposed to nation.

Frazzled wrote:
As soon as they are PUBLIC schools I will.

They all take state funding and, like all private schools, must comply with federal regulations in order to qualify for that funding. They're almost exactly like state universities, with the exception of territoriality.

Frazzled wrote:
Doesn't matter. they are effectively under color of law to being a state actor.

They're not, actually. State universities are corporatist institutions. They have their own culture and legislative stances despite being heavily subsidized, well, in most cases anyway. The nearest popular analogue is Fanny/Freddy pre-bailout.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
As soon as they are PUBLIC schools I will.

They're almost exactly like state universities, with the exception of territoriality.

But they aren't. They are private insitutions. Therte is a substantial difference under the law.

Frazzled wrote:
Doesn't matter. they are effectively under color of law to being a state actor.

They're not, actually. State universities are corporatist institutions. They have their own culture and legislative stances despite being heavily subsidized, well, in most cases anyway. The nearest popular analogue is Fanny/Freddy pre-bailout.

Frazzled wrote:
But they aren't. They are private insitutions. Therte is a substantial difference under the law.

Yes, they are private. My argument is that state schools are not state institutions in the sense of something like the IRS. They were founded by the state, and are funded by the state, but they are not governed by the state in the sense that their policies are left open to legislative debate.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
But they aren't. They are private insitutions. Therte is a substantial difference under the law.

Yes, they are private. My argument is that state schools are not state institutions in the sense of something like the IRS. They were founded by the state, and are funded by the state, but they are not governed by the state in the sense that their policies are left open to legislative debate.

State legislatures often are the controlling entities in regards to state schools, depending on the actual state.

But yea, if its a state its a state entity, just like a public school.

I disagree. It is a contentious issue, as we should both note in regards to second amendment considerations (among others).

Given that I don't really want to start citing case law or anything of that sort, I think we need to agree to disagree.