General Trans bathroom thread, incl. target, federal involvement and more

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.

**cuda1179**

No, I'm not advocating for that at all. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of many people's beliefs.

No solution to the trans issues will please everybody. I don't feel that Trans people should be excluded, and the world needs to bend a little for them. On the other hand I don't feel like the rest of the world need to go completely out of their way to accommodate them, just reasonable accommodation.

Fix bathrooms so they are more private and I'm fine with any trans person using them. If a trans person is fully reassigned, I'm fine with them using communal showers.

I just think that it is reasonable to ask them to NOT expose themselves until the transition is complete. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

**Peregrine**

cuda1179 wrote:
No, I'm not advocating for that at all. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of many people's beliefs.

Except there is no hypocrisy. Why do you keep ignoring the posts where I have pointed out the significant difference between the two situations? If two cases are fundamentally different then it is not hypocrisy to have different answers for each case.

No solution to the trans issues will please everybody.

Well yes, this is obvious. No solution is going to please the people who think that transgender people are filthy sinners who should be killed and sent to their eternal torture in hell. The real question is now how to please everyone, it's why we should give a

about the people a given solution doesn't please.

**cuda1179**

Peregrine wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Some people do claim that they feel like they were born into the wrong race. They have NEVER identified with their own race.

The very obvious difference is that someone who believes they shouldn't have legs is going to be at a significant functional disadvantage if their wish is granted. You can look at that situation and say very clearly that they'd be better off if they could fix their mental "map" of their body and accept it with everything intact. But with transgender people we can't say that they're better off in their current body. The changes they seek are all superficial ones, with little or no functional impact. They aren't going to be disabled and unable to walk, for example, they're just going to look different.

The other relevant issue here is that gender is a massive part of how we define ourselves. If you change a person's mental gender you're changing who that person is, so trying to treat their gender identity issues as a mental illness is getting dangerously close to "killing" the old person and overwriting it with a new one. So ideally you want to keep their identity intact and fix their body to match it. But things like "how many limbs do I have" are much less likely to be a core part of a person's identity, and getting someone to accept their existing body in that case is a lot less likely to involve serious re-writing of who they are.

Many people with BID have "forced" the amputation issue by starting it themselves. Afterwards most of them have reported a drastic increase in their long term self image and happiness. As long as they are consenting, informed adults and are aware of their reduced ability why should they not have that option? I would say that these self-inflicted wounds should not be able to get handicapped status though. Some might argue that having or not having legs or and arm is every bit as much an issue to how these people "define" themselves as trans people. People with BID do suffer from identity issues and that is part of the problem.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
No, I'm not advocating for that at all. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of many people's beliefs.

Well yes, this is obvious. The real question is now how to please everyone, it's why we should give a about the people a given solution doesn't please.

I hate to point this out.....but this is the exact same logic used by people that want trans school students to use the "nurse bathroom" or "outside changing area" instead of changing with the cis girls. This is a solution to the problem as well, but just not good enough to please trans people that sue for discrimination.

**Peregrine**

cuda1179 wrote:
Many people with BID have "forced" the amputation issue by starting it themselves. Afterwards most of them have reported a drastic increase in their long term self image and happiness. As long as they are consenting, informed adults and are aware of their reduced ability why should they not have that option? I would say that these self-inflicted wounds should not be able to get handicapped status though. Some might argue that having or not having legs or and arm is every bit as much an issue to how these people "define" themselves as trans people. People with BID do suffer from identity issues and that is part of the problem.

At this point I'm not sure what argument you think you're having. I never said that people with BID should not be allowed to have the option of removing their unwanted body parts (as if such a law would be ethical or enforceable). I simply pointed out that there are differences between gender identity issues and BID, so the two situations don't necessarily have the same answers.

I hate to point this out.....but this is the exact same logic used by people that want trans school students to use the "nurse bathroom" or "outside changing area" instead of changing with the cis girls. This is a solution to the problem as well, but just not good enough to please trans people that sue for discrimination.

Yes, this is the exact same logic. That was the whole point here. No solution can possibly please everyone because some of the positions are mutually contradictory. The question then becomes which group gets to be left unhappy. And there is a pretty compelling argument that transgender people should not be that group, while there isn't much of an argument for caring what the "Jesus hates you, burn in hell" crowd has to say about anything.

**cuda1179**

Peregrine wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Many people with BID have "forced" the amputation issue by starting it themselves. Afterwards most of them have reported a drastic increase in their long term self image and happiness. As long as they are consenting, informed adults and are aware of their reduced ability why should they not have that option? I would say that these self-inflicted wounds should not be able to get handicapped status though. Some might argue that having or not having legs or and arm is every bit as much an issue to how these people "define" themselves as trans people. People with BID do suffer from identity issues and that is part of the problem.

At this point I'm not sure what argument you think you're having. I never said that people with BID should not be allowed to have the option of removing their unwanted body parts (as if such a law would be ethical or enforceable). I simply pointed out that there are differences between gender identity issues and BID, so the two situations don't necessarily have the same answers.

I hate to point this out.....but this is the exact same logic used by people that want trans school students to use the "nurse bathroom" or "outside changing area" instead of changing with the cis girls. This is a solution to the problem as well, but just not good enough to please trans people that sue for discrimination.

Yes, this is the exact same logic. That was the whole point here. No solution can possibly please everyone because some of the positions are mutually contradictory. The question then becomes which group gets to be left unhappy. And there is a pretty compelling argument that transgender people should not be that group, while there isn't much of an argument for caring what the "Jesus hates you, burn in hell" crowd has to say about anything.

Frankly I'd say that one person having discomfort by having to shower by themselves is much less of an evil than an entire room of women feeling discomfort from having an exposed penis flopping around in front of them.

I would like to say that I DO NOT think that a trans person should be forced to change or shower with a gender that they don't think they are. That would be cruel.

**Dreadwinter**

cuda1179 wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Many people with BID have "forced" the amputation issue by starting it themselves. Afterwards most of them have reported a drastic increase in their long term self image and happiness. As long as they are consenting, informed adults and are aware of their reduced ability why should they not have that option? I would say that these self-inflicted wounds should not be able to get handicapped status though. Some might argue that having or not having legs or and arm is every bit as much an issue to how these people "define" themselves as trans people. People with BID do suffer from identity issues and that is part of the problem.

At this point I'm not sure what argument you think you're having. I never said that people with BID should not be allowed to have the option of removing their unwanted body parts (as if such a law would be ethical or enforceable). I simply pointed out that there are differences between gender identity issues and BID, so the two situations don't necessarily have the same answers.

I hate to point this out.....but this is the exact same logic used by people that want trans school students to use the "nurse bathroom" or "outside changing area" instead of changing with the cis girls. This is a solution to the problem as well, but just not good enough to please trans people that sue for discrimination.

Yes, this is the exact same logic. That was the whole point here. No solution can possibly please everyone because some of the positions are mutually contradictory. The question then becomes which group gets to be left unhappy. And there is a pretty compelling argument that transgender people should not be that group, while there isn't much of an argument for caring what the "Jesus hates you, burn in hell" crowd has to say about anything.

Frankly I'd say that one person having discomfort by having to shower by themselves is much less of an evil than an entire room of women feeling discomfort from having an exposed penis flopping around in front of them.

I would like to say that I DO NOT think that a trans person should be forced to change or shower with a gender that they don't think they are. That would be cruel.

Oh boy, here we go again. It is more of an "evil" to have a transgender person shower alone because an entire group of women feel discomfort, because there is no evidence to show that transgenders use the bathroom to perform sexual attacks on people. That comes out of peoples prejudice towards transgenders. So are we letting prejudice or facts dictate the laws being made?

**TheMeanDM**

The same can be said for your argument, Dreadwinter...are you letting facts direct your argument or emotion?

Plain and simple, no person should be forced to be exposed to the genitalia of anyone they do not wish to be in view of while in a *locker* room.

That is a basic human right, if you ask me.

**Spinner**

TheMeanDM wrote:
The same can be said for your argument, Dreadwinter...are you letting facts direct your argument or emotion?

Plain and simple, no person should be forced to be exposed to the genitalia of anyone they do not wish to be in view of while in a *locker* room.

That is a basic human right, if you ask me.

That's a really great argument for locker rooms with private changing areas for everyone. I don't want to walk into a locker room and get a surprise look at anyone's junk.

The concept always struck me as odd, really. "Here! We've made a nice separate area for you to change in! By the way, it's a big communal thing. Go ahead and drop trou next to that old guy right there!"

**Peregrine**

TheMeanDM wrote:
Plain and simple, no person should be forced to be exposed to the genitalia of anyone they do not wish to be in view of while in a *locker* room.

That is a basic human right, if you ask me.

Well, I really don't want to be exposed to the genitalia of other men in a *locker* room, so all other men must be banned from my locker room. Women are fine though, I guess.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
To be fair, if the United States would somehow manage to join the rest of the western world when it comes to attitude about nudity we wouldn't have any of these problems.

What if the western world joins the rest of the world about nudity? Your views are incthe minority around the globe.

**Buttery Commissar**

cuda1179 wrote:
feeder wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:

So what if it was a photoshop? The point still stands that a VAST majority of transsexuals are NOT passable in any way. I could have done better, but looking for a bad Let's ensure we steer clear of offensive language, thanks pic that wasn't NSFW was kind of hard.

So your point is there is transwomen out there that are still fairly masculine? Is that it? I'm struggling to understand. You're only okay with transpersons if they are cute enough for you?

edit: derp fix

The argument was made that women would be extremely uncomfortable with very manly looking (in other worded VERY passable) trans-men being forced into the ladies locker rooms. I'm just saying that the number of trans-people that look as convincing as those shown are fairly slim. The number of extremely passable trans-men is less than the number of non-passable trans women. If we are setting the standards of who-goes-where, then I say go with option that causes the least panic, even if it is imperfect.

What you're saying here is that you believe you can identify trans people on sight.
Here's the thing: If a transgender person is passing, you don't notice at all. You don't have a trans-dar or special ability.
You could, and will have, met trans women and men that you didn't spot.
Saying more fail to pass than succeed is absolutely impossible to prove.

But don't let me stop you from making up statistics.

**Kilkrazy**

TheMeanDM wrote:
The same can be said for your argument, Dreadwinter...are you letting facts direct your argument or emotion?

Plain and simple, no person should be forced to be exposed to the genitalia of anyone they do not wish to be in view of while in a *locker* room.

That is a basic human right, if you ask me.

Maybe look the other way?

**Dreadwinter**

TheMeanDM wrote:
The same can be said for your argument, Dreadwinter...are you letting facts direct your argument or emotion?

Plain and simple, no person should be forced to be exposed to the genitalia of anyone they do not wish to be in view of while in a *locker* room.

That is a basic human right, if you ask me.

Listen man, if you don't want to see it, don't look at it. Nobody is forcing you to look. Pretty easy concept.

**TheMeanDM**

So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.

**Ustrello**

TheMeanDM wrote:
So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.

Better not go to a gym ever then because you will see enough wrinkly units to scar you for life.

**Hordini**

TheMeanDM wrote:
So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.

If you're that concerned about it, I would recommend not taking yourself or your children into a locker room. Locker rooms are for changing.

**Spinner**

TheMeanDM wrote:
So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.

Again. Great argument for a changing/locker room that has private areas for everyone, as well as private showers. I'm all for it! Let's lobby for that!

**Dreadwinter**

TheMeanDM wrote:
So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.

Do not want your kids to see other peoples genitals, don't take them to places where they can see other peoples genitals.

I am just a simple man, somebody hangs dong and I look the other way.

**Ashiraya**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
To be fair, if the United States would somehow manage to join the rest of the western world when it comes to attitude about nudity we wouldn't have any of these problems.

What if the western world joins the rest of the world about nudity? Your views are incthe minority around the globe.

So? Sexism is also prevalent in the global majority of countries, that does not make it good.

**Buttery Commissar**

TheMeanDM wrote:
So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.

And marginalising an already vulnerable group rather than face answering a few awkward questions from your own kids, is no solution either.
Also I query why any children would be both fixated by and terrified of said genitals. Unlike adults, they have to be taught that those are naughty parts.

**d-usa**

Your boy likes looking at penises?

**Frazzled**

Ashiraya wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
To be fair, if the United States would somehow manage to join the rest of the western world when it comes to attitude about nudity we wouldn't have any of these problems.

What if the western world joins the rest of the world about nudity? Your views are incthe minority around the globe.

So? Sexism is also prevalent in the global majority of countries, that does not make it good.

you are getting on a holier than thou shtick when you are the minority. careful with that. the rest of the world is going the other way.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
To be fair, if the United States would somehow manage to join the rest of the western world when it comes to attitude about nudity we wouldn't have any of these problems.

What if the western world joins the rest of the world about nudity? Your views are incthe minority around the globe.

I don't have a source, but I'm feeling pretty safe saying that you are completely wrong.

The majority of the world has no qualms with nudity the way we do.

**Hordini**

Frazzled wrote:
Ashiraya wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
To be fair, if the United States would somehow manage to join the rest of the western world when it comes to attitude about nudity we wouldn't have any of these problems.

What if the western world joins the rest of the world about nudity? Your views are incthe minority around the globe.

So? Sexism is also prevalent in the global majority of countries, that does not make it good.

you are getting on a holier than thou shtick when you are the minority. careful with that. the rest of the world is going the other way.

Since when have we cared which way the rest of the world was going?

**d-usa**

The majority hates America, maybe frazzled wants us to hate America too?

**Buttery Commissar**

The daughter of America’s most famous evangelical preacher has claimed that God let the September 11 attacks happen because he was angered by transgender people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/13/god-let-911-happen-in-anger-at-transgender-silliness-says-americ/

Whoops.

Paired with the fact gay weddings cause floods I'm surprised that there are any landmasses left intact.

**insaniak**

TheMeanDM wrote:
So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.

Yeah, I think your 'right' to not see naked people goes away when you walk into a room designed for people to take their clothes off in...

**Psienesis**

TheMeanDM wrote:
So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.

Show me in the Constitution where you are expressly, or even by implication, given that right.

**Spinner**

Buttery Commissar wrote:
The daughter of America’s most famous evangelical preacher has claimed that God let the September 11 attacks happen because he was angered by transgender people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/13/god-let-911-happen-in-anger-at-transgender-silliness-says-americ/

Whoops.

Paired with the fact gay weddings cause floods I'm surprised that there are any landmasses left intact.

Today I learned that Billy Graham's daughter believes God would rather pull for suicide-bombing terrorists than transgender people who need to take a leak.

What an interesting theological viewpoint. You know, I'm pretty sure the suicide-bombing terrorists have the same thought!

On a slightly lighter note, I like how some people think God's a bored sadist playing a Sims game. "Okay...okay, cool, they're making computers or some crap, whateveWHAT? They're getting gay married? Where's the toggle for that - oh, screw it. I'll just play with the weather slider and cause a few floods every time it happens. They'll figure it out."

**cuda1179**

Psienesis wrote:
TheMeanDM wrote:
So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.

Show me in the Constitution where you are expressly, or even by implication, given that right.

The courts have rules that a combination of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments together create a right to privacy without undue burden. A great many people in this country would consider that and undue burden.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadwinter wrote:
TheMeanDM wrote:
The same can be said for your argument, Dreadwinter...are you letting facts direct your argument or emotion?

Plain and simple, no person should be forced to be exposed to the genitalia of anyone they do not wish to be in view of while in a *locker* room.

That is a basic human right, if you ask me.

Listen man, if you don't want to see it, don't look at it. Nobody is forcing you to look. Pretty easy concept.

I've debated this concept with people in person before, including some pretty hard-core feminists. After they claim this I ask if they truly believe it. When they affirm that they do I challenge them to change their cloths and take a communal show WITH ME. They have all either stormed off or acted repulsed. I guess they really can't put their money where their mouth is.