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.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats horse gak and it won;t wash in the real world.

It is washing in the real world... you guys are debating an issue which is already legal and solved in multiple states for close to a decade with ZERO harm. TRANS-PANIC is made up.

nkelsch wrote:

You are not a stakeholder in what bathroom a transgender person uses any more than you are a stakeholder by seeing an interracial couple or homosexual couple kiss in public. If everyone who 'might see it and feel icky' is a stakeholder, then we would be able to ban virtually anything by majority rule and abuse virtually any civil right.

The law is the law, this state simply has crappy ones which allow individual situations like this to make news.

The Feds already have standards and many states have laws.
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3795.pdf

That's not how public schools work; everyone in the community is a stakeholder and all parents are stakeholders in decisions that affect their children.

OSHA is great but students are not employees (as your document applies to), unless there's been some behind the scenes child labor thing going on that I don't know about and OSHA jurisdiction doesn't extend to every state as some have adopted alternate, compliant standards in required areas. While your OSHA regulation will apply to school employees, it does nothing for students, that's why there's a Department of Education which houses an individual Office of Civil Rights. Fun fact, they don't even have hard-fast rules on transgender issues as long as the school is a) providing an education and b) performing due diligence in preventing bullying/harassment.

NEA, an actual education organization, has some best practices regarding transgender issues but nothing that addresses locker rooms. Even states that have adopted outright regulations pertinent to K-12 education (MN, NJ) only address bathroom assignment.

Edit: messed up my quoting.

nkelsch wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats horse gak and it won;t wash in the real world.

It is washing in the real world... you guys are debating an issue which is already legal and solved in multiple states for close to a decade with ZERO harm. TRANS-PANIC is made up.

again please cite the schools that require girls change and shower with swinging dicks in their locker room.

 Frazzled wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I
Don't go down the harm road, please, don't. If you don't see the irony in saying that 200+ teenagers are all faking harm while telling everyone else to 100% trust anyone who has the slightest of gender issues you won't succeed. Full stop.

We have millions of people in states currently getting by without issue. What makes those 200 students more 'harmed' by being in Missouri except of a fake perception put there by their parents?

If there is evidence of harm, please present it outside of manufactured scenarios which don't exist. I have provided evidence from the states with transgender laws which show there are zero incidents of people abusing gender identity to commit crimes or breach people's rights.

Please show me the millions of people in states where public school girls are forced to be disrobed in a gym with a swinging dick. Besides your Porkiesesque fantasy that dog don't hunt.

I posted it earlier. 26 states have laws which allow gender identity choice for bathrooms and locker rooms. Most have been on the books for 5-10 years.

Those states have public schools where girls are forced to disrobe in a locker room with a trans student if they so choose. No one cares, it isn't an issue. No one has been harmed, no one has been raped by a pervert in a wig, no one has fallen into a shock-based coma due to seeing a penis, no one has had PTSD or become mentally scarred from seeing one.

Most times no one sees anyone's genitals in the bathroom/locker room. I been going to public gyms for 20 years as an adult and never seen another man's junk.

It is a non-issue.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats horse gak and it won;t wash in the real world.

It is washing in the real world... you guys are debating an issue which is already legal and solved in multiple states for close to a decade with ZERO harm. TRANS-PANIC is made up.

again please cite the schools that require girls change and shower with swinging dicks in their locker room.

Every public school in every state with transgender protection laws. To deny access to the locker room of the gender identity is illegal so it isn't done. And the world keeps spinning, horses are not eating each other.

nkelsch: "those 200 people who take issue don't exist"


Well glad we cleared that up.

Nkelsch, again, because you seem to have missed my last reply: what is the prerequisite for a child to be treated as (i.e. gain use of facilities designated for) a different gender to that they were given at birth?

 -Shrike- wrote:
Nkelsch, again, because you seem to have missed my last reply: what is the prerequisite for a child to be treated as (i.e. gain use of facilities designated for) a different gender to that they were given at birth?

The same as an adult... Chosen Gender identity. Same with Sexual orientation. There is no legal litmus test or surgery requirement.

nkelsch wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
Nkelsch, again, because you seem to have missed my last reply: what is the prerequisite for a child to be treated as (i.e. gain use of facilities designated for) a different gender to that they were given at birth?

The same as an adult... Chosen Gender identity. Same with Sexual orientation. There is no legal litmus test or surgery requirement.

So it is literally a case of telling everyone that you are a different gender?

 Crablezworth wrote:
nkelsch: "those 200 people who take issue don't exist"


Well glad we cleared that up.

They exist, their claim of having their rights infringed upon are false and based upon nothing.

California has had zero problems with gender-identity bathrooms/locker rooms for children.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/31/one-month-later-how-californias-transgender-stu/197864

Hundreds of schools all over the country have these policies in place to comply with state laws and no one is harmed.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
Nkelsch, again, because you seem to have missed my last reply: what is the prerequisite for a child to be treated as (i.e. gain use of facilities designated for) a different gender to that they were given at birth?

The same as an adult... Chosen Gender identity. Same with Sexual orientation. There is no legal litmus test or surgery requirement.

So it is literally a case of telling everyone that you are a different gender?

Why wouldn't it be? Who are you to tell someone what their own body feels.

Given that children under 18 have zero capability to make any legal decisions, I would say they don't have the ability to make that decision. Their parents, if anyone, would have to be the ones making the decision.

The article doesn't actually says that. just that the administration thinks the policy is awesomesauce.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/31/one-month-later-how-californias-transgender-stu/197864

Has anyone actually used opposite sex locker rooms?

 Frazzled wrote:
The article doesn't actually says that. just that the administration thinks the policy is awesomesauce.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/31/one-month-later-how-californias-transgender-stu/197864

Has anyone actually used opposite sex locker rooms?

But the policy is in place isn't it? Just like it is all over multiple states... Provide all evidence of legitimate harm resulting from these widespread transgender laws since if it existed, it would be super easy to find considering how wide-spread these policies already are in the united states.

No boys wearing wigs to peep.
No girls being mentally damaged due to seeing wangs.
Horses have not begun eating each other.

Criminals are criminals, to try to claim that all transexuals have to have their rights oppressed because someone *MIGHT* break a law... well that is a terrible slope to slide down when applied to other situations.

nkelsch wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
nkelsch: "those 200 people who take issue don't exist"


Well glad we cleared that up.

They exist, their claim of having their rights infringed upon are false and based upon nothing.

So what metric or evidence lead you to the conclusion that 200 are lying and 1 person is beyond even basic skepticism?

nkelsch wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The article doesn't actually says that. just that the administration thinks the policy is awesomesauce.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/31/one-month-later-how-californias-transgender-stu/197864

Has anyone actually used opposite sex locker rooms?

But the policy is in place isn't it? Just like it is all over multiple states... Provide all evidence of legitimate harm resulting from these widespread transgender laws since if it existed, it would be super easy to find considering how wide-spread these policies already are in the united states.

No boys wearing wigs to peep.
No girls being mentally damaged due to seeing wangs.
Horses have not begun eating each other.

Criminals are criminals, to try to claim that all transexuals have to have their rights oppressed because someone *MIGHT* break a law... well that is a terrible slope to slide down when applied to other situations.

It doesn't actually say the policy is in place, no. Not for locker rooms where no physical change has occurred.

As for the rest of your ranting, this is the California public school system. They are ranked nearly dead last in the nation, so no I wouldn't take them on anything other than how not to run something. A better question might be, how many students knifed or shot other students, if you're looking at the California system.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. Maybe this is the first case.

Again, what if the following situation occurred.

You get a 15 year old boy, naturally being a 15 year old boy, and he's horny. He hears about this policy where you can just use any bathroom you want if you claim you are transgendered, with no burden of proof. Your parents don't even have to be asked. So he starts using the Girls bathroom to snap panty shots, and if he's caught he'll just claim he's transgendered.

I don't know about you, but 15 year old me and my friends would think this is a genius plan worthy of Napoleon.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. Maybe this is the first case.

Again, what if the following situation occurred.

You get a 15 year old boy, naturally being a 15 year old boy, and he's horny. He hears about this policy where you can just use any bathroom you want if you claim you are transgendered, with no burden of proof. Your parents don't even have to be asked. So he starts using the Girls bathroom to snap panty shots, and if he's caught he'll just claim he's transgendered.

I don't know about you, but 15 year old me and my friends would think this is a genius plan worthy of Napoleon.

I'm not even going there. Lets just assume everyone is on good faith here. "Ann" wants to use the locker room but still has male pattern baldness as it were. The other women object to man parts in their locker room. Please show me why they should be forced into this, when all of society says thats a bad and often criminal endeavor.

nkelsch wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
Nkelsch, again, because you seem to have missed my last reply: what is the prerequisite for a child to be treated as (i.e. gain use of facilities designated for) a different gender to that they were given at birth?

The same as an adult... Chosen Gender identity. Same with Sexual orientation. There is no legal litmus test or surgery requirement.

So it is literally a case of telling everyone that you are a different gender?

Why wouldn't it be? Who are you to tell someone what their own body feels.

See, in the UK, it's a bit more strict than that. From Wikipedia:

In contrast to some systems elsewhere in the world, the Gender Recognition process does not require applicants to be post-operative. They need only demonstrate that they have suffered gender dysphoria, and have lived as "your new gender" for two years, and intend to continue doing so until death.

So that's why I asked. There's a slightly higher burden of proof than simply telling everyone "I'm X, accept it!", but without placing undue restrictions on transgender individuals.

Out of curiosity, what happens if the transgendered person stops living as their chosen sex? And what is the definition of that?

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
What do white Christians have to do with...

Indeed. But hey, you were the one who brought up the "victim class"

You may want to look up facetious irony. The comment was also mostly addresses a number of other posters in the threadd.

girls not wanting to be exposed to penises while they are in various states of undress themselves? And you are giving lectures on straw men and appeals to emotion?

Speaking if which, another great example makes itself known!

Where is the straw man? People are advancing the argument that biological males should be allowed in locations where they and biological females are likely to be in various stages of undress, and that those who don't want to be in that situation are bigots who need to grow up.

The point is that "biologically" the sex, gender and sexuality of a person are significantly more complex than two genders divided by what they keep in their trousers. Failure to even attempt to undersand this while arguing that "boy is a boy is a boy - cos biology! Now go get changed with the other boys" tilts you towards being a bigot...

Changing and answering the call of nature are among our most private moments. People do feel vulnerable in those moments. The number of people who would feel violated by having someone with a penis around at those times easily exceeds hundreds, and is much larger than the number of people who have gender identity issues.

And many people felt the same way when talking about getting changed in mixed race changing rooms too...

As mentioned earlier, I work with patients and often have to examine them in various states of undress. Many of these patients are cinsidered vulnerable. I am well aware of how people can feel when there is someone they dont know interacting with them, however peripherally, especially when at a time they are vulnerable.

Hell, I am not a huge fan of changing in front of people; when scrubbing up, when at the gym, playing football, whatever. However, they have the right to change, as I do. My minor discomfort at exposing my body for that brief time in no way outweighs their right to change in an appropriate facility. Even in situations where genders and sexualities are mixed, I still change in exactly the same way and have done for as long as I can remember.

That I've highlighted the ultimate effect of the argument in concise terms is not the creation of a straw man.

Hmmmm.... not really...

The entire premise of the side that you support in based on speak to emotion not logic, so please spare me the appeal to emotion handwringing.

Really?

Logically this girl acts and looks like (as far as possible) a girl and considers herself one. In so far as gender identity goes, she is a girl. As far as most recent psychology/medical information says, she is a girl. Therefore, should she not be treated as a girl by society?

I don't recall saying that millions of poor girls will be corrupted by the fact that she changes in with them. That their lives will be ruined and parents wishes violated equally as their precious daughters undergo forced tea bagging whenever they enter or exit the changing rooms...

It is suggested that the boy (that's what cold logical biological reality says he is)

Except, you know... it doesnt...

who is the starting point for this discussion wishes to ignore reality (that he is a boy) and expects everyone to do the same treating him as a girl when he is in fact a boy.

Except, you know... she isnt...

Why should we do this?

Because she is a girl? You know, unless you want to ignore all the research and positional papers on the subject... oh, wait... that is what you want to do...

Ok, if that's the case then how about caring about the emotions of people who don't want to be exposed to a penis? You can't have it both ways.

We do care about the feelings of others. Hence the discussion over the best course of action. But if the main point one side raises is "girls should not see penises unless daddy says its ok"... well... the whole argument falls a little flat.

One telling demonstration over how this is all a massive argument to emotion is the utter lack of consideration for girls who are boys, and people not being fussed about him getting changed with other boys. I've seen comments to the effect of "serves her right if she gets abused".

Awesome.

Is anyone here suggesting trying to harm Lila or other similar persons?

Yes. Quite a few people itt are sugesting causing quite considerable psychological harm. And the internet as a whole (and real life) are suggesting much more direct harm.

Yet when people say let's protect the girls that don't want to be around a penis, words like "bigot", "ignorant", "segregationist", or your pejorative use of "white Christian" start getting tossed around liberally.

Possibly because there is a huge difference between equitable treatment and protection and most of the suggestions and talk being bandied about here...

Curiously you, an apparent champion of logic, aren't bothered by, and are even willing to dabble in the use of these logically fallacious ploys.

Note the use of irony...

segregationists (an emotional appeal using a loaded word you haven't bothered to correct)

And unlike anything you have said, accurate, and fitting both in the literal and philisophical use. Plus in the UK such terminology is not emotionally loaded...

The rest of your post just repeats itself and has been addressed elsewhere in this post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that children under 18 have zero capability to make any legal decisions, I would say they don't have the ability to make that decision. Their parents, if anyone, would have to be the ones making the decision.

I don't know what the law is like in the US, however in the UK children can be deemed to have capacity to make medical treatment decisions on their own.

nkelsch wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
nkelsch: "those 200 people who take issue don't exist"


Well glad we cleared that up.

They exist, their claim of having their rights infringed upon are false and based upon nothing.

So if they feel uncomfortable about this it doesn't matter, but if the transgendered felt uncomfortable well better get out of their way.

 n0t_u wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
nkelsch: "those 200 people who take issue don't exist"


Well glad we cleared that up.

They exist, their claim of having their rights infringed upon are false and based upon nothing.

So if they feel uncomfortable about this it doesn't matter, but if the transgendered felt uncomfortable well better get out of their way.

Minorities are always right and trump common sense. You're late to the PC party, my friend!

nkelsch wrote:

Most times no one sees anyone's genitals in the bathroom/locker room. I been going to public gyms for 20 years as an adult and never seen another man's junk.

Wow, really? I must only go to gay gyms then because I have always seen guys with their junk out in the open (I usually just glance down real quick--you know, for comparison purposes. Science.). And I only go in there to pee. I don't change clothes or shower at the gym.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I don't know what the law is like in the US, however in the UK children can be deemed to have capacity to make medical treatment decisions on their own.

For transgender individuals, they can have hormone blockers to prevent the onset of sexual characteristics during puberty, can take cross-sex hormones from the age of 16, and can consider surgery from the age of 18. At least, that's how it works in the UK, I've got no idea about the US.

 Sigvatr wrote:


Minorities are always right and trump common sense. You're late to the PC party, my friend!

'Common sense' said dark-skinned people were property and women couldn't vote or own property because of biological truths.

nkelsch wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


Minorities are always right and trump common sense. You're late to the PC party, my friend!

'Common sense' said dark-skinned people were property and women couldn't vote or own property because of biological truths.

Interesting, since there is no right here, would nkelsch defend the one holdout bigot from saying she can't be in either the boy's or girls bathroom because...feelings?

 Frazzled wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


Minorities are always right and trump common sense. You're late to the PC party, my friend!

'Common sense' said dark-skinned people were property and women couldn't vote or own property because of biological truths.

Interesting, since there is no right here, would nkelsch defend the one holdout bigot from saying she can't be in either the boy's or girls bathroom because...feelings?

Doubtful, because "tolerant" people generally aren't tolerant of those with a different opinion.

 Alex C wrote:


Doubtful, because "tolerant" people generally aren't tolerant of those with a different opinion.

That's it in a nutshell. Being scared of new things can be harmful, but it's also part of being human and growing up. It just takes a special kind of delusion to see 200 people walk out of a school and say :"no one has a problem, nothing to see here, show's over folks" .

 Alex C wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


Minorities are always right and trump common sense. You're late to the PC party, my friend!

'Common sense' said dark-skinned people were property and women couldn't vote or own property because of biological truths.

Interesting, since there is no right here, would nkelsch defend the one holdout bigot from saying she can't be in either the boy's or girls bathroom because...feelings?

Doubtful, because "tolerant" people generally aren't tolerant of those with a different opinion.

Here you go, have an exalt. Could not have said it better myself.

 Alex C wrote:
Doubtful, because "tolerant" people generally aren't tolerant of those with a different opinion.

This is one of those statements that sounds really clever and deep, but actually misses the point.

Tolerance of differences in identity are based on the idea that each person should be included in society, regardless of any identity they have. so, we should be tolerant of races, religions, disabilities, sexual orientations, etc. This is based on the idea that identity, even when not immutable, is a right. A person has the right to be who they are, and still be allowed in all aspects of society. Essentially, tolerance is based on the idea that all races, creeds, genders, etc. have the same value.

Tolerance of opinions is a different story. Opinions, or their more emotive relatives, beliefs, are not all the same in terms of value. There are areas where all opinions are valid (is Tom Brady better than Joe Montana), and there are areas where not all opinions are considered equally valid (Was Ryan Leaf a better quarterback than Peyton Manning).

In polite society, when the stakes are not particularly low, it is polite to allow all people their opinions. It is, in fact, a pretty big aspect of civility. Of course, civility has a pretty conservative (in the broadest, least political sense) streak to it, in that civility concedes that barring anything critical, the status quo is fine. After all, it's not particularly civil to question a person's status, or rights.

An opinion that, say, Transgender people aren't really their new gender, is an opinion. You have the right to say it. But its an opinion that many find offensive, others find inconsistent with their own experiences, and plenty of people find inconsistent with expert opinions and decades of evidence. It's a bad opinion. If you decide to wade into a debate with that opinion, be prepared to get smacked down.

 Polonius wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Doubtful, because "tolerant" people generally aren't tolerant of those with a different opinion.

This is one of those statements that sounds really clever and deep, but actually misses the point.

Tolerance of differences in identity are based on the idea that each person should be included in society, regardless of any identity they have. so, we should be tolerant of races, religions, disabilities, sexual orientations, etc. This is based on the idea that identity, even when not immutable, is a right. A person has the right to be who they are, and still be allowed in all aspects of society. Essentially, tolerance is based on the idea that all races, creeds, genders, etc. have the same value.

Tolerance of opinions is a different story. Opinions, or their more emotive relatives, beliefs, are not all the same in terms of value. There are areas where all opinions are valid (is Tom Brady better than Joe Montana), and there are areas where not all opinions are considered equally valid (Was Ryan Leaf a better quarterback than Peyton Manning).

In polite society, when the stakes are not particularly low, it is polite to allow all people their opinions. It is, in fact, a pretty big aspect of civility. Of course, civility has a pretty conservative (in the broadest, least political sense) streak to it, in that civility concedes that barring anything critical, the status quo is fine. After all, it's not particularly civil to question a person's status, or rights.

An opinion that, say, Transgender people aren't really their new gender, is an opinion. You have the right to say it. But its an opinion that many find offensive, others find inconsistent with their own experiences, and plenty of people find inconsistent with expert opinions and decades of evidence. It's a bad opinion. If you decide to wade into a debate with that opinion, be prepared to get smacked down.

I am going to have to agree with you about "Tolerant people" because that is what they are supposed to be. Unfortunately those that claim to be tolerant are only tolerant so long as you agree to the same thing. So you have the actual definition and then you have the real world application which leaves much to be desired.

In this case specifically the transgender person was tolerated, was accepted into society and then that person wanted their 5 minutes of fame and fethed up the whole situation to make a big stink out of which bathroom he/she got to use. Tolerance means you TOLERATE it doesn't mean you have to kowtow to them.