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.

Tolerating an opinion one perceives as bad is exactly what is being asked of these 200 individuals it would seem. What's not up for debate is the physical presence of penis and testicles. Something which may be glimpsed when in a locker room.

If the same 200 people took just as much issue with simply sharing a female bathroom that is 100% stalls, well. yeah. I think a reasonable person would conclude they doth protest too much. (still likely doesn't change the emotional reality for some/all)

 Ghazkuul wrote:
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.

Well, for starters, it's considered a big part of proper respect in any society to use the proper pronouns when discussing a person. She's a she, not a he/she.

Tolerance doesn't mean you stop kicking the gak of out them for being different. It means actually accepting them, for who they are, and who they present as.

Not allowing a female to use the female change room is intolerant. Whether it's justifiably intolerant is a different story. (Compare, for example, allowing a Jew to wear a skullcap despite a no-hats policy with disallowing a Sikh from bringing a dagger unto an airplane).

We're days into this discussion, and the absolute worst harm that anybody has come up with from allowing her to change with girls is that another girl might see a penis. Which seems at the outmost limits of what could be considered harmful to a high school aged woman. So, I don't see it as kowtowing, because it's not asking people to really put with much, other than her existence.

Now, I agree that she doubled down here, and made this a bigger mess than was needed, but that's also how you get social change.

Tolerance doesn't mean you stop kicking the gak of out them for being different. It means actually accepting them, for who they are, and who they present as.

No thats acceptance. Tolerance indeeds mean you don't commit crimes against them.

 Polonius wrote:

Not allowing a female to use the female change room is intolerant.

Yes and you miss the point. It's no a female using a female change room, i's a man identifying as a woman using a woman's locker room. That's a huge difference. Whether you'd be offended by that is another issue, as no kids were involved. I mean...would you, as an adult, flip out if a man changed clothes in a women's locker room? I'll just assume that most people are familiar with the looks of male genitalia at that point and wouldn't make a hassle out of it. Meh. In this very case, he could have just used the men's locker room or agreed to a neutral one. Being a drama queen...king all about it tells us more about his personality than necessary.

Forced acceptance isn't really as tasty as genuine acceptance. Call me zie you bigot.

For now she has to make do with the wig and likely will grow out her hair to take the place of the wig, the artificial boobs with hormone therapy will be real, the last hurdle is the most expensive and difficult to have done actually, and likely will require surgery out of country as they have surgeons in other lands able to totally re sculpt genitals so that they can have a sensitive and functional vagina and still be more than a human barbie down there. Hormone therapy will also help her with facial hair, (electrolysis is also useful, but I hear hurts).

Biologically we males are sporting the same equipment, it is our ovary parts are testicles instead, and the penis(OMG he said Penis, and earlier Vagina< scandal!) is pretty much an out hanging vaginal ovipositor to ensure delivery of the genetic materials to a females' ovaries is all. It is just that once the body is given certain codes, it locks those parts one way, or the other, and breast tissue is a later in life thing.

As a reincarnation believer, I think the issue is that a soul reborn to a new body well, with the birth thing, they forget that they may have chosen to try life as a different gender, and then feel the way their old body used to be, and the new one feels "wrong" this can also happen with ethnicity, but seems the most pronounced with a gender change, and the person really decides they wish to be what they were in that past life body/shell.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Tolerating an opinion one perceives as bad is exactly what is being asked of these 200 individuals it would seem.

Except the opinion that transwomen, even pre-op, can change with ciswomen isn't a fringe, crazy opinion. it's a pretty well supported one, and its growing.

Remember, back in the mists of time, when we were discussing gay rights? Remember when society went berserk trying to explain that they tolerated gay people, they just didn't want them married, or in the military, or in the Boy Scouts, or really doing anything gay at all?

This is the same issue. It's a bit ickier, because trans status is less relatable, but since the Stonewall riots, the gay rights movement basically made the argument that they should be treated fully as people, despite their orientation. Mainstream society spent 45 years arguing that, no, gay rights had nothing to do with racial civil rights, and if we gave gay people rights this time society really would explode.

Has society exploded?

Look, I get that progress is scary. I don't envy people, that are none too sophisticated to begin with, being asked to comprehend issues like gender identity and whatnot. it's tough overcoming a lifetime of ingrained biases and prejudices. But we've done this before! We all been on this ride, with Black rights, women's rights, gay rights. We're getting there on immigration rights. What is considered almost unthinkably bizarre now will seem laughably regressive in a generation.

So if I want to go into the womens locker room - all I gotta do is pretend to be trans for a few minutes? Nice to know.

 Xenomancers wrote:
So if I want to go into the womens locker room - all I gotta do is pretend to be trans for a few minutes? Nice to know.

Seems like it. And nobody can really demand any proof either.

 Xenomancers wrote:
So if I want to go into the womens locker room - all I gotta do is pretend to be trans for a few minutes? Nice to know.

and that is why I think this is a dumb rule/law. I have to prove everything else in my life but apparently I don't have to prove im transgender when I want to walk into the opposite sex bathroom/locker room.

And for the love of god stop posting that same line "But nobody has complained yet!" yeah you know why? they would get ostracized by bigots like you who would then rush to defend the pervert and to hell with whom ever was offended or sexually harassed.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
So if I want to go into the womens locker room - all I gotta do is pretend to be trans for a few minutes? Nice to know.

Seems like it. And nobody can really demand any proof either.

And you wonder why we think your bigots. Because you continually make really stupid jokes about being trans. That has been rebutted multiple times.

You have the right to refuse to accept that a person wants to alter their gender. But making jokes about it? That's hateful, and frankly a sign of bigotry.

This is no joke dude.

We're talking about giving someone who isn't trans a free pass to enter the opposite sex bathroom. Because they can just claim they are trans and get away with it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
This is no joke dude.

We're talking about giving someone who isn't trans a free pass to enter the opposite sex bathroom. Because they can just claim they are trans and get away with it.

Except they can't. I mean, you know that, right? The woman in this case had been dressing and identifying as a woman for a year prior to this.

It's usually policy that a person outwardly identify as the transition gender for a while before anything official recognizes them.

The people doing this are liberals. Do you really think they wouldn't have a regulatory structure in place?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
So if I want to go into the womens locker room - all I gotta do is pretend to be trans for a few minutes? Nice to know.

Seems like it. And nobody can really demand any proof either.

Frankly no one should even ask if you are transgendered. It would be bigoted to question why you chose to use a locker room that does not seemingly match what is physically between your legs. Unless you break some law/sexually harass the other occupants they should just accept it.

 CptJake wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
So if I want to go into the womens locker room - all I gotta do is pretend to be trans for a few minutes? Nice to know.

Seems like it. And nobody can really demand any proof either.

Frankly no one should even ask if you are transgendered. It would be bigoted to question why you chose to use a locker room that does not seemingly match what is physically between your legs. Unless you break some law/sexually harass the other occupants they should just accept it.

I think in an institutional environment like a school, there's enough structure, given guidance counselors and the like, to facilitate some sort of oversight.

If nothing else, to prevent people from wearing drag one day and conducting a panty raid.

What I'm saying is there are some very good reasons for not letting a pre-op tranny use the opposite sex bathroom. Namely it opens the door for allowing perverts and sex offenders another way to do what they do.

At the very least, you should be required to be post-op before you are allowed to use the opposite sex bathroom.

I feel like the word "bigot" has been thrown around so much in this thread that it has completely lost it's meaning.

 Grey Templar wrote:
. Namely it opens the door for allowing perverts and sex offenders another way to do what they do.

How?

And what public high schools have sex offenders as students?

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
I feel like the word "bigot" has been thrown around so much in this thread that it has completely lost it's meaning.

They're too used to using it to shut down opposing arguments they don't know what to do when it doesn't work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
. Namely it opens the door for allowing perverts and sex offenders another way to do what they do.

How?

And what public high schools have sex offenders as students?

Did you miss the "pervert" part of my sentence? And this applies beyond just schools, I think it highlights a problem that could extend to the larger public.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
I feel like the word "bigot" has been thrown around so much in this thread that it has completely lost it's meaning.

its a small greek fishing boat right?

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
This is no joke dude.

We're talking about giving someone who isn't trans a free pass to enter the opposite sex bathroom. Because they can just claim they are trans and get away with it.

Except they can't. I mean, you know that, right? The woman in this case had been dressing and identifying as a woman for a year prior to this.

It's usually policy that a person outwardly identify as the transition gender for a while before anything official recognizes them.

The people doing this are liberals. Do you really think they wouldn't have a regulatory structure in place?

Pol, can you go back and look to the original article linked in the first post? The lawyer involved worded it so that anyone can go in and claim to be trans. I made a comment about it early in the thread. While I agree that's not RAI, it is RAW here.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Did you miss the "pervert" part of my sentence? And this applies beyond just schools, I think it highlights a problem that could extend to the larger public.

So, you think a pervert is going to publicly announce a change in gender, dress in that gender, and live that new gender for months. All to gain access to the locker room?

 Polonius wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Tolerating an opinion one perceives as bad is exactly what is being asked of these 200 individuals it would seem.

Except the opinion that transwomen, even pre-op, can change with ciswomen isn't a fringe, crazy opinion. it's a pretty well supported one, and its growing.

Remember, back in the mists of time, when we were discussing gay rights? Remember when society went berserk trying to explain that they tolerated gay people, they just didn't want them married, or in the military, or in the Boy Scouts, or really doing anything gay at all?

This is the same issue. It's a bit ickier, because trans status is less relatable, but since the Stonewall riots, the gay rights movement basically made the argument that they should be treated fully as people, despite their orientation. Mainstream society spent 45 years arguing that, no, gay rights had nothing to do with racial civil rights, and if we gave gay people rights this time society really would explode.

Has society exploded?

Look, I get that progress is scary. I don't envy people, that are none too sophisticated to begin with, being asked to comprehend issues like gender identity and whatnot. it's tough overcoming a lifetime of ingrained biases and prejudices. But we've done this before! We all been on this ride, with Black rights, women's rights, gay rights. We're getting there on immigration rights. What is considered almost unthinkably bizarre now will seem laughably regressive in a generation.

Actually thats not the argument, nor the issue. people aren't aren't arguing she's not what she wants to be.
People are arguing forcing high school girls to be around a swinging dick reaks of all kinds of violations of cutlure for no reason, and may in fact violate the constitute and criminal laws.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Pol, can you go back and look to the original article linked in the first post? The lawyer involved worded it so that anyone can go in and claim to be trans. I made a comment about it early in the thread. While I agree that's not RAI, it is RAW here.

that's his argument, probably not the one that I'd make. But I'm also not certain she has a legal right to use the locker room.

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Did you miss the "pervert" part of my sentence? And this applies beyond just schools, I think it highlights a problem that could extend to the larger public.

So, you think a pervert is going to publicly announce a change in gender, dress in that gender, and live that new gender for months. All to gain access to the locker room?

Now you're being sexist and bigoted. Thats not a pervert. Thats a misunderstood induvisual exploring all gender options and merely seeking greater education on those options.
With a camera.

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Did you miss the "pervert" part of my sentence? And this applies beyond just schools, I think it highlights a problem that could extend to the larger public.

So, you think a pervert is going to publicly announce a change in gender, dress in that gender, and live that new gender for months. All to gain access to the locker room?

no we dont polonius, but according to the stupid law that has been cited a few times, they don't have to. All they have to do is walk into the bathroom/dressing room and if anyone questions them they can sue for infringing on their rights as a transgender person. Please show me where in the US laws it says the person has to be publicly transgender for months and has lived as trans gender for months?

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
I feel like the word "bigot" has been thrown around so much in this thread that it has completely lost it's meaning.

It now means a type of bad pastry. It derives from the French beignet, which is awesomesauce, but is its crappier, spoiled older brother who drinks too much and has cigarette breath.

 Frazzled wrote:

Actually thats not the argument, nor the issue. people aren't aren't arguing she's not what she wants to be.
People are arguing forcing high school girls to be around a swinging dick reaks of all kinds of violations of cutlure for no reason, and may in fact violate the constitute and criminal laws.

And let me assure you: people made the same half assed, weak tea arguments for the problems behind desegregation and gay marriage.

I'm not saying you're 100% wrong. I'm saying that in 20 years, or 30, you will be seen as being 100% wrong.

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
. Namely it opens the door for allowing perverts and sex offenders another way to do what they do.

How?

And what public high schools have sex offenders as students?

Many. My district houses a Juvenile Affairs contracted facility dedicated to housing just those underage students who have committed sex crimes. Once they leave these facilities, they must be allowed admittance into the regular school unless they were convicted of a violent crime. The end result is that current federal and state law requires districts open access to all but the most violent offenders. Peeping Toms, even convicted, must be provided with the same education, in the same environment as all students.

Apparently California law doesn't even keep the violent offenders out:
http://www.kcra.com/investigates/are-sex-offenders-attending-your-childs-school-its-legal/32674776

http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/190081/15/Investigator-Do-juvenile-sex-offenders-attend-your-school

http://kdvr.com/2013/11/11/hundreds-of-sex-offenders-inside-schools-across-colorado/

http://www.kgw.com/story/news/investigations/2014/10/30/sex-offenders-on-campus-in-oregon/18156437/

No. But they can lie and say they've been doing that. Are you going to ask for photographic proof and character witnesses?

As for dressing that gender, given that there are a lot of clothing that are gender neutral now, along with haircuts, can you honestly say someone's dress and style means anything in this? I see dozens of women wearing pants, t-gaks, and having short hair. Heck, I know women who have shorter hair than I have, and they are definitely not trannys(or lesbians if that matters)

Lets say a new student transfers to the school. They are genuinely a tranny. They want to use the opposite sex restroom. You have zero evidence one way or the other on this person. Are you going to require them to attend school for X period of time before you allow them to use the opposite sex bathroom? What if someone just begins to claim they are tranny?

Putting a time requirement on stuff doesn't close this potential loophole.