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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
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.

Dude, please stop using "tranny" that's a hateful word.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 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?

What law? There isn't really a law here.

Do you think it's illegal to walk into a woman's locker room? It's not. It's illegal to intrude on privacy, willfully and knowingly. But it'd be just as much true if I walked into a men's locker room and started inappropriately staring at the naked men, or exposing myself to the men there.

 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?

So hang on - now you can tell me how to dress and be trans at the same time? Are you the fashion police? Come on man - this is a load of crap. It should only be treated seriously with sarcasm. In the united states if you have penis you use a mens room and likewise a vagina uses the womens room. If you have both - you go to the room that your birth certificate tells you to. That is our culture. It's worked fine for hundreds of years. Now get over it. You want to go to the womans room - go turn your penis into a vagina - it's so simple.

I guarantee you, if I walked into a womens restroom and never looked at or did anything inappropriate I would still get arrested. Even if all I was doing was something totally legal. Like say I sat down in a corner and started reading War and Peace. I'd still get in massive trouble.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Putting a time requirement on stuff doesn't close this potential loophole.

there's a concept in a lot of civil rights stuff called "sincere belief." Usually it's a religious issue, but I can see it applying here.

A decision maker doesn't need to determine if the legitimacy of a claim, but the sincerity. Yes, you can check and see if this person is being sincere in their identity and how they carry themselves.

Or you just trust your fellow human to be honest, and if they do violate that trust, you make them regret it.

 Polonius wrote:

 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.

Really? So every segregated locker room is "half assed, weak tea arguments?" Must be rarefied air up there on that sacred mountain top all alone.
In fact, one could argue its actually a sex crime-the public display of genitals to the opposite sex without their consent. You don't want to see her on a sex offender list do?

 Ghazkuul 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.

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.

How would you demand someone prove it?

 Grey Templar wrote:
What I'm saying is there are some very good reasons for not letting a pre-op tranny use the opposite sex bathroom.

I'm doing my best not to brutally oppress and censor you by saying this, but would you mind not using the word "tranny"? It comes across, to me at least, as being rude and dismissive.

 agnosto wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
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.

Dude, please stop using "tranny" that's a hateful word.

Well since you say it is hateful - it must be hateful. Well make sure not to abbreviate any words while you are on watch so as not to offend anyone.

You know what offends me? When the media uses the phrase "people of color" I find it extremely offensive. It suggest we are un-colorful which has a negative connotation - as in heartless - un emotional - lifeless. I also find it offensive that such a term exist specifically. Is there even a term of it's type that excludes only one race and accepts all others?

 Polonius wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 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?

What law? There isn't really a law here.

Do you think it's illegal to walk into a woman's locker room? It's not. It's illegal to intrude on privacy, willfully and knowingly. But it'd be just as much true if I walked into a men's locker room and started inappropriately staring at the naked men, or exposing myself to the men there.

How many of those people would be underage? Not exactly the best choice in analogy. I promise you that if an adult male walked into a girls bathroom, there'd be trouble or if an adult man exposed himself to a group of underage males, there'd be jail time and you know it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I guarantee you, if I walked into a womens restroom and never looked at or did anything inappropriate I would still get arrested. Even if all I was doing was something totally legal. Like say I sat down in a corner and started reading War and Peace. I'd still get in massive trouble.

You might get arrested, but even then only if you refused to leave.

I wouldn't recommend it, but lets assume you walked into the women's restroom, dressed as a man, went into a stall, did your business, flushed, washed your hands, and left.

What, exactly, do you think would happen? Maybe somebody gets a manager or something. Odds are, they'd be happy you left.

How long ago has it been that people were sincerely arguing that it is wrong for gay guys to be in the same locker room as straight guys because they are just going to fantasize about all the naked guys and it puts the other people at risk because the gay guys might not been able to restrain themselves?

Has "gay on straight locker room sexual assault" become the pandemic that it was claimed to be?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well since you say it is hateful - it must be hateful. Well make sure not to abbreviate any words while you are on watch so as not to offend anyone.

Yeah, it's never used for being rude against you, so how could anyone be offended by it?

 Elemental wrote:

 Ghazkuul 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.

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.

How would you demand someone prove it?

 Grey Templar wrote:
What I'm saying is there are some very good reasons for not letting a pre-op tranny use the opposite sex bathroom.

I'm doing my best not to brutally oppress and censor you by saying this, but would you mind not using the word "tranny"? It comes across, to me at least, as being rude and dismissive.

If you had bothered to read my earlier posts you would have seen that I said they should have to go to a psychologist and be diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria. And even after that I would still rather them use a gender neutral bathroom for changing and things like that. I don't understand why my daughters should have to view a transgender Penis in highschool just to pass gym class.

Apologies if I used an offensive word. I was only using it to abbreviate because Transexual(or whatever the proper word is) is a long word.

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Putting a time requirement on stuff doesn't close this potential loophole.

there's a concept in a lot of civil rights stuff called "sincere belief." Usually it's a religious issue, but I can see it applying here.

A decision maker doesn't need to determine if the legitimacy of a claim, but the sincerity. Yes, you can check and see if this person is being sincere in their identity and how they carry themselves.

Ok, how are you going to test the sincerity?

Lets use the bar for religion. I don't have to tell you that the bar for sincerity is really really low. I could put Pastafarian(worship of the flying spaghetti monster) on a form, there really wouldn't be much you could do to say I'm not one.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 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.

Really? So every segregated locker room is "half assed, weak tea arguments?" Must be rarefied air up there on that sacred mountain top all alone.
In fact, one could argue its actually a sex crime-the public display of genitals to the opposite sex without their consent. You don't want to see her on a sex offender list do?

Exposing yourself isn't a crime. Exposing yourself for sexual gratification, or exposing yourself to a child less than fifteen years of age under circumstances in which he or she knows that his or her conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the child is, at least in Missouri.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56600000832.html

Quietly changing in the corner doesn't qualify. BTW, these rules are not gender specific, meaning that if a boy exposed himself to a boy in a way that would cause affront, that's a sex crime.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Transvestite

Transvestites are not the subject of the thread.

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I guarantee you, if I walked into a womens restroom and never looked at or did anything inappropriate I would still get arrested. Even if all I was doing was something totally legal. Like say I sat down in a corner and started reading War and Peace. I'd still get in massive trouble.

You might get arrested, but even then only if you refused to leave.

I wouldn't recommend it, but lets assume you walked into the women's restroom, dressed as a man, went into a stall, did your business, flushed, washed your hands, and left.

What, exactly, do you think would happen? Maybe somebody gets a manager or something. Odds are, they'd be happy you left.

My wife routinely drags me to some arts/crafts/whatever show at the fair park with the end result being 5,000 women and 200 men. Every single time I go there are women using the men's bathroom because it is usually empty. When I go in and use the urinal they usually look pretty embarrassed when they come out of the stall and run towards the door.

Maybe I should start demanding a police escort to the bathroom to arrest them all on sight...

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Transvestite

Transvestites are not the subject of the thread.

Derp, wrong word. Too confusing. Words need to be easier.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Apologies if I used an offensive word. I was only using it to abbreviate because Transvestite is a long word.

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Putting a time requirement on stuff doesn't close this potential loophole.

there's a concept in a lot of civil rights stuff called "sincere belief." Usually it's a religious issue, but I can see it applying here.

A decision maker doesn't need to determine if the legitimacy of a claim, but the sincerity. Yes, you can check and see if this person is being sincere in their identity and how they carry themselves.

Ok, how are you going to test the sincerity?

Lets use the bar for religion. I don't have to tell you that the bar for sincerity is really really low. I could put Pastafarian(worship of the flying spaghetti monster) on a form, there really wouldn't be much you could do to say I'm not one.

You have them sit with a guidance counselor, who are trained in adolescent psychology. You interview them, the family. This isn't mind bogglingly difficult.

 d-usa wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I guarantee you, if I walked into a womens restroom and never looked at or did anything inappropriate I would still get arrested. Even if all I was doing was something totally legal. Like say I sat down in a corner and started reading War and Peace. I'd still get in massive trouble.

You might get arrested, but even then only if you refused to leave.

I wouldn't recommend it, but lets assume you walked into the women's restroom, dressed as a man, went into a stall, did your business, flushed, washed your hands, and left.

What, exactly, do you think would happen? Maybe somebody gets a manager or something. Odds are, they'd be happy you left.

My wife routinely drags me to some arts/crafts/whatever show at the fair park with the end result being 5,000 women and 200 men. Every single time I go there are women using the men's bathroom because it is usually empty. When I go in and use the urinal they usually look pretty embarrassed when they come out of the stall and run towards the door.

Maybe I should start demanding a police escort to the bathroom to arrest them all on sight...

Now switch the genders around, woman would in fact call the cops on you for that. So whats your point?

 d-usa wrote:
How long ago has it been that people were sincerely arguing that it is wrong for gay guys to be in the same locker room as straight guys because they are just going to fantasize about all the naked guys and it puts the other people at risk because the gay guys might not been able to restrain themselves?

And they all have a penis. So why can't Kid With Penis also use the locker room allocated to people with penises? Can't the other people with penises be able to restrain themselves from what ever it is that makes this particular Kid With Penis worried?


Or does the argument only work in one direction?

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Apologies if I used an offensive word. I was only using it to abbreviate because Transvestite is a long word.

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Putting a time requirement on stuff doesn't close this potential loophole.

there's a concept in a lot of civil rights stuff called "sincere belief." Usually it's a religious issue, but I can see it applying here.

A decision maker doesn't need to determine if the legitimacy of a claim, but the sincerity. Yes, you can check and see if this person is being sincere in their identity and how they carry themselves.

Ok, how are you going to test the sincerity?

Lets use the bar for religion. I don't have to tell you that the bar for sincerity is really really low. I could put Pastafarian(worship of the flying spaghetti monster) on a form, there really wouldn't be much you could do to say I'm not one.

You have them sit with a guidance counselor, who are trained in adolescent psychology. You interview them, the family. This isn't mind bogglingly difficult.

What if they refuse? Could they not claim that nobody else has to prove their gender, why should they?

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I guarantee you, if I walked into a womens restroom and never looked at or did anything inappropriate I would still get arrested. Even if all I was doing was something totally legal. Like say I sat down in a corner and started reading War and Peace. I'd still get in massive trouble.

You might get arrested, but even then only if you refused to leave.

I wouldn't recommend it, but lets assume you walked into the women's restroom, dressed as a man, went into a stall, did your business, flushed, washed your hands, and left.

What, exactly, do you think would happen? Maybe somebody gets a manager or something. Odds are, they'd be happy you left.

My wife routinely drags me to some arts/crafts/whatever show at the fair park with the end result being 5,000 women and 200 men. Every single time I go there are women using the men's bathroom because it is usually empty. When I go in and use the urinal they usually look pretty embarrassed when they come out of the stall and run towards the door.

Maybe I should start demanding a police escort to the bathroom to arrest them all on sight...

Now switch the genders around, woman would in fact call the cops on you for that. So whats your point?

Care to cite a single case of a guy being arrested for using the woman's bathroom?

I know its People of Walmart, but still. http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/man-dressed-in-skirt-arrested-in-women%E2%80%99s-bathroom/

 d-usa wrote:
How long ago has it been that people were sincerely arguing that it is wrong for gay guys to be in the same locker room as straight guys because they are just going to fantasize about all the naked guys and it puts the other people at risk because the gay guys might not been able to restrain themselves?

Has "gay on straight locker room sexual assault" become the pandemic that it was claimed to be?

That's not my problem. My problem is with my underage daughter being exposed to male genitalia in the locker room at school without my knowledge so that I could, as a parent, discuss the matter with her. It's effectively taking control away from parents/families and giving the big middle finger to people who might disagree. Lesbians have the same equipment as other women, gay men have the same equipment as men, as long as there's no hanky-panky, I have no problem but we're talking about mis-matched equipment sharing space in the same room.

There's a reason why streakers go to jail or people who flash their genitalia at minors are labeled sex offenders; it has and continues to be societies stance that people of one sex do not need to be forced to look upon or be subjected to the presence of the opposite sex's naked genitalia. There are multiple reasons for this particular mores in society and to just ignore it all and say, "tough, deal with it" is ignoring that there is a perfectly legitimate argument against it.

Obviously, if the school's stalls have doors, I have no problem with this young lady using the women's restroom; it's the locker room that I take issue with.

 Grey Templar wrote:
What if they refuse? Could they not claim that nobody else has to prove their gender, why should they?

That's called "tough."

schools have every right to be fair, and to make sure that people are protected. I don't want somebody going through a phase swapping locker rooms like shoes.

I just think that it's possible to determine that a person is sincerely trans, and that schools can (and possibly should) treat them fully as their declared gender.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well since you say it is hateful - it must be hateful. Well make sure not to abbreviate any words while you are on watch so as not to offend anyone.

Yeah, it's never used for being rude against you, so how could anyone be offended by it?

Words mean different things depending on who is saying them and the words around them. It's clear he wasn't trying to be offensive is my point. Pointing out something like this when someone clearly ins't trying to be offensive just goes to show you how cooky political correctness has gotten. Which is in line with this topic. PC is so messed up a man can now walk into a women's restroom and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How long ago has it been that people were sincerely arguing that it is wrong for gay guys to be in the same locker room as straight guys because they are just going to fantasize about all the naked guys and it puts the other people at risk because the gay guys might not been able to restrain themselves?

And they all have a penis. So why can't Kid With Penis also use the locker room allocated to people with penises? Can't the other people with penises be able to restrain themselves from what ever it is that makes this particular Kid With Penis worried?


Or does the argument only work in one direction?

Because the gay guy is a boy, that's why he uses the boys locker room. And despite the fact that everyone used to think that this will lead to sexual perversions it hasn't.
And a girl is a girl, what's why she uses the girls locker room. And again everybody is thinking that it will lead to sexual perversions, which it won't.

Am I the only one who sees "tranny" and sees "transmission" I feel so old now.

How many of those people would be underage? Not exactly the best choice in analogy. I promise you that if an adult male walked into a girls bathroom, there'd be trouble or if an adult man exposed himself to a group of underage males, there'd be jail time and you know it.

Exactly. Thats what I am referring to. This is actually potentially criminal.