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.

Genitals =/= Sex or gender. ITs more confusing than that

 d-usa wrote:
We have reached the usual genitals = gender deadlock, Frazzled arguing that somebody changing in a locker room is a criminal, this thread is only going to end in red text so we should just shut it down while we are ahead.

Can we agree that the Superbowl needs to move to Oklahoma first? Thats all I am asking for? Traffic is already a nightmare.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
For a lot of people, people using the wrong bathroom is a serious issue. So some rights are better than other rights?

So, Marginilized groups dont deserve rights because the Majority think they dont..........

If you're permanently overexaggerating everything and taking everything to the highest drama level, you're making a fool both of yourself and your cause.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
For a lot of people, people using the wrong bathroom is a serious issue. So some rights are better than other rights?

So, Marginilized groups dont deserve rights because the Majority think they dont..........

Needs of the many > Needs of the few

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Genitals =/= Sex or gender. ITs more confusing than that

Restroom for people with a penis and Restroom for people with a vagina. No need to bring sex or gender into it at all since those seem to be so subjective. Wouldn't want folks to be confused.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
For a lot of people, people using the wrong bathroom is a serious issue. So some rights are better than other rights?

So, Marginilized groups dont deserve rights because the Majority think they dont..........

If you're permanently overexaggerating everything and taking everything to the highest drama level, you're making a fool both of yourself and your cause.

Are you friends with several Trans people? did you live with one for an entire year? Are you dating someone who is part of the trans-right commitee on campus?
Im not exagerating anything. its an issue because they feel as if they cannot permanently change without that.

Nope, I don't. Neither do I have to. You are coming from an extremely emotionally involved micro level. I look at everyone involved. It's a conflict of interest and pushing agendas doesn't help. It was a democractic vote and it was clear. Very clear. That's the best that can happen. Period.

They are not being visually assaulted. they are sharing a locker room with their fellow women, maybe one has a penis.

if its not an issue then they can stay in the men's locker room no?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Using the opposite gender's locker room isn't a basic right. Almost 2/3 spoke out against that decision, which makes the case pretty darn clear. Vocal minority doesn't always work.

LOL, sure we should have left slavery, civil rights & womens rights up to a popular vote.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
For a lot of people, people using the wrong bathroom is a serious issue. So some rights are better than other rights?

So, Marginilized groups dont deserve rights because the Majority think they dont..........

If you're permanently overexaggerating everything and taking everything to the highest drama level, you're making a fool both of yourself and your cause.

Are you friends with several Trans people? did you live with one for an entire year? Are you dating someone who is part of the trans-right commitee on campus?
Im not exagerating anything. its an issue because they feel as if they cannot permanently change without that.

Sounds like an overexageration

 Sigvatr wrote:
It was a democractic vote and it was clear. Very clear.

So was Hitler!

That's the best that can happen. Period.

But Hitler...

Are you friends with several Trans people?

I have offered the protection of my house and family to one, against their own parents if need be. And?

Personally I don't really care in a restroom context, but I don't really have the right to say because my right is not being impinged, and there are methods around that. This of course is part fo the problem as no law was needed, unless you're looking for someone to sue.
I do care more about the locker/shower situation.

I'm kinda curious as to why sharing a restroom with someone automatically seems to indicate that you'll see their genitals. How are they supposedly laid out? There's stalls, right? Like, with doors? People don't just walk in and drop their pants in front of everyone, right?

...have I been doing it wrong this entire time?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Using the opposite gender's locker room isn't a basic right. Almost 2/3 spoke out against that decision, which makes the case pretty darn clear. Vocal minority doesn't always work.

LOL, sure we should have left slavery, civil rights & womens rights up to a popular vote.

We did.

Slavery: Lincoln elected.

Civil and Women's Rights: 1960s civil rights legislation based on previously done post ACW amendments (see Lincoln above).

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Using the opposite gender's locker room isn't a basic right. Almost 2/3 spoke out against that decision, which makes the case pretty darn clear. Vocal minority doesn't always work.

LOL, sure we should have left slavery, civil rights & womens rights up to a popular vote.

We did.

Slavery: Lincoln elected.

Civil and Women's Rights: 1960s civil rights legislation based on previously done post ACW amendments (see Lincoln above).

Lincoln: Shot

JFK: Shot

... That is a weird coincidence

 Frazzled wrote:

They are not being visually assaulted. they are sharing a locker room with their fellow women, maybe one has a penis.

if its not an issue then they can stay in the men's locker room no?

No, don't forget the the assaults/sexual assaults against trans people, just because they're trans. They are less safe in mens locker rooms.

Should we give them their own trains to ride in as well?

"Today, in news that’ll make you want to repeatedly poke yourself in the eye with a coffee stirrer: A video of two transgender women getting physically assaulted on an Atlanta train has gone viral, the GA Voice reports. The stomach-turning video shows the women being attacked by two men while onlookers record the incident on their phone and cheer."
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/trans-assault-video/

 Spinner wrote:
I'm kinda curious as to why sharing a restroom with someone automatically seems to indicate that you'll see their genitals. How are they supposedly laid out? There's stalls, right? Like, with doors? People don't just walk in and drop their pants in front of everyone, right?

...have I been doing it wrong this entire time?

I don't get that as much either. I think the issue not actually about trans there, but people using the law to cover for illicit activities. Then again I don't hang out in women's restrooms, so I am not sure about states of undress.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Using the opposite gender's locker room isn't a basic right. Almost 2/3 spoke out against that decision, which makes the case pretty darn clear. Vocal minority doesn't always work.

LOL, sure we should have left slavery, civil rights & womens rights up to a popular vote.

We did.

Slavery: Lincoln elected.

Civil and Women's Rights: 1960s civil rights legislation based on previously done post ACW amendments (see Lincoln above).

Lincoln: Shot

JFK: Shot

... That is a weird coincidence

What does JFK have t do with it? The only civil right he pushed was with Marilyn Monroe. Yea baby!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

They are not being visually assaulted. they are sharing a locker room with their fellow women, maybe one has a penis.

if its not an issue then they can stay in the men's locker room no?

No, don't forget the the assaults/sexual assaults against trans people, just because they're trans. They are less safe in mens locker rooms.

Should we give them their own trains to ride in as well?

"Today, in news that’ll make you want to repeatedly poke yourself in the eye with a coffee stirrer: A video of two transgender women getting physically assaulted on an Atlanta train has gone viral, the GA Voice reports. The stomach-turning video shows the women being attacked by two men while onlookers record the incident on their phone and cheer."
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/trans-assault-video/

If only they had been friends with Messers Smith and Wesson. next problem?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Are you dating someone who is part of the trans-right commitee on campus?

Dear god man. I hope you are up on your patriarchy, toxic masculinity and POC otherwise you're in for a special level of hell. Hmmmm, maybe you are there already. Does she happen to have red hair and horn-rimmed glasses?

Um.....what?

Presidents get shot during civil rights stuff...

Easy solution: one locker room, one bathroom, etc, that everyone uses regardless of gender.

Don't spam the forum

And I see the usual "SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS RUIN EVERYTHING" zero-content posting is here, right on schedule.

The idea that some particularly creepy dude is going to go through all the trouble of having his reputation, identity and family relations ruined by faking being transsexual so he can he maybe get a load some titties in his school locker room strikes me as silly. It's just not worth the costs no matter how creepy you are, and you can see all the titties you want on the internet. I mean further if they're that determined they're probably going to go about it in a way that garners them less scrutiny from both the locker-room goers and community at large. They'd load in a hidden camera, or just find some place to hide like all creeps do.

If we keep the transsexuals out of their preferred bathrooms, we'll keep the creeps pretending to be transsexual for jollies out just strikes me as anti-tiger rock levels of reasoning. You're just taking preventative measures against a threat that isn't there in the first place.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because, for many Trans-people, using the bathroom of their chosen sex is part of the process of that transition.

That isn't the issue. The issue is you are REQUIRING all women to participate in this regardless of their views/beliefs/etc. Being allowed to transition is a libertarian issue. It's your choice to do so. Requiring women in this city to allow you to use their restroom to benefit your self image issues is an imposition on them and brings the force of law down on their heads if they refuse to participate.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Presidents get shot during civil rights stuff...

Who?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Spoiler:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
I'm kinda curious as to why sharing a restroom with someone automatically seems to indicate that you'll see their genitals. How are they supposedly laid out? There's stalls, right? Like, with doors? People don't just walk in and drop their pants in front of everyone, right?

...have I been doing it wrong this entire time?

I don't get that as much either. I think the issue not actually about trans there, but people using the law to cover for illicit activities. Then again I don't hang out in women's restrooms, so I am not sure about states of undress.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Using the opposite gender's locker room isn't a basic right. Almost 2/3 spoke out against that decision, which makes the case pretty darn clear. Vocal minority doesn't always work.

LOL, sure we should have left slavery, civil rights & womens rights up to a popular vote.

We did.

Slavery: Lincoln elected.

Civil and Women's Rights: 1960s civil rights legislation based on previously done post ACW amendments (see Lincoln above).

Lincoln: Shot

JFK: Shot

... That is a weird coincidence

What does JFK have t do with it? The only civil right he pushed was with Marilyn Monroe. Yea baby!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

They are not being visually assaulted. they are sharing a locker room with their fellow women, maybe one has a penis.

if its not an issue then they can stay in the men's locker room no?

No, don't forget the the assaults/sexual assaults against trans people, just because they're trans. They are less safe in mens locker rooms.

Should we give them their own trains to ride in as well?

"Today, in news that’ll make you want to repeatedly poke yourself in the eye with a coffee stirrer: A video of two transgender women getting physically assaulted on an Atlanta train has gone viral, the GA Voice reports. The stomach-turning video shows the women being attacked by two men while onlookers record the incident on their phone and cheer."
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/trans-assault-video/

If only they had been friends with Messers Smith and Wesson. next problem?

Presidents get shot during civil rights stuff...

Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Kennedy wasn't a part of it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Easy solution: one locker room, one bathroom, etc, that everyone uses regardless of gender.

I think you missed theo whole point of the objection. Women objecting to being around men in a locker room situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:
The idea that some particularly creepy dude is going to go through all the trouble of having his reputation, identity and family relations ruined by faking being transsexual so he can he maybe get a load some titties in his school locker room strikes me as silly. It's just not worth the costs no matter how creepy you are, and you can see all the titties you want on the internet. I mean further if they're that determined they're probably going to go about it in a way that garners them less scrutiny from both the locker-room goers and community at large. They'd load in a hidden camera, or just find some place to hide like all creeps do.

If we keep the transsexuals out of their preferred bathrooms, we'll keep the creeps pretending to be transsexual for jollies out just strikes me as anti-tiger rock levels of reasoning. You're just taking preventative measures against a threat that isn't there in the first place.

And you've been given the right to speak on behalf of women from who?

 Chongara wrote:
The idea that some particularly creepy dude is going to go through all the trouble of having his reputation, identity and family relations ruined by faking being transsexual so he can he maybe get a load some titties in his school locker room strikes me as silly. It's just not worth the costs no matter how creepy you are, and you can see all the titties you want on the internet. I mean further if they're that determined they're probably going to go about it in a way that garners them less scrutiny from both the locker-room goers and community at large. They'd load in a hidden camera, or just find some place to hide like all creeps do.

If we keep the transsexuals out of their preferred bathrooms, we'll keep the creeps pretending to be transsexual for jollies out just strikes me as anti-tiger rock levels of reasoning. You're just taking preventative measures against a threat that isn't there in the first place.

After watching interviews and documentaries on criminals etc it's clear people who publicly flash or stalk and so on usually do it for the thrill that cannot be sated through mere images. Without trying to sound like one of them... this makes sense to me. If all they wanted was to see boobs then yes they could look on the net. Kind of like thrill seekers but perverted in a way.

 Frazzled wrote:
I think you missed theo whole point of the objection. Women objecting to being around men in a locker room situation.

No, I get the point. It's just a ridiculous point.

 Frazzled wrote:
I think you missed theo whole point of the objection. Women objecting to being around men in a locker room situation.

Which one could argue stems from the fact we have separate bathrooms in the first place. Abolish the practice and objections would drop off sharply inside a decade and all but vanish (at least in polite society) inside a generation. Separate bathrooms for men and women is a mostly arbitrary cultural practice we have like any other separation of classes. It's not like our ancestors climbed down from the trees stark naked and suddenly started gaking behind different bushes.

There was a ton of objection to racially integrated anything back in the day up to and including bathrooms. Sexually integrating the few things that are separate is probably a smaller hurdle to be jumped in terms of getting past people's discomfort, all things told. Not that I'm really advocating for ditching this particular bit of segregation really, but I mean let's see for it for what it is.

 Swastakowey wrote:
After watching interviews and documentaries on criminals etc it's clear people who publicly flash or stalk and so on usually do it for the thrill that cannot be sated through mere images. Without trying to sound like one of them... this makes sense to me. If all they wanted was to see boobs then yes they could look on the net. Kind of like thrill seekers but perverted in a way.

And if someone is in a locker room flashing people, regardless of their sex/gender relative to what sign is on the door, you can do something about that. So what you really mean is that someone could be in there discreetly looking at people they find sexually appealing, while trying not to get noticed and get kicked out. And I fail to see how this is a reasonable objection. After all, gay people exist and are allowed to share locker rooms with their preferred gender.