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.

I have a sneaking suspicion you don't dress like a whore or act like one tho...

 Frazzled wrote:

Really?

Yes, really. Is there some right to not be in the presence of exposed genitalia? I mean, if you're already disrobing in a facility where others can see you disrobe it seems like you've already consciously forfeited a certain reasonable expectation of privacy.

 trexmeyer wrote:

When parents don't enforce any discipline they end up like one of my ex's...

Spoiler:

an 18 year old girl with a history of drug abuse that flip flopped between being straight/bi/les every month or so and had both nipples pierced by the time she was 17...now if you want your daughter sleeping around with a guy 9 years older than her that suffers from mental health issues than by all means don't both with any discipline

You don't see the distinction between allowing a certain freedom in how a child dresses and "no discipline at all"?

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Really?

Yes, really. Is there some right to not be in the presence of exposed genitalia? I mean, if you're already disrobing in a facility where others can see you disrobe it seems like you've already consciously forfeited a certain reasonable expectation of privacy.

I think in a women's locker room you'd have a very reasonable expectation not to be exposed to male genitalia. And vice verse in a men's locker room.

 CptJake wrote:
I know I have often discouraged inappropriate (to the situation/function/place) clothing for my kids (both Son1 and Son2 and now daughter). And I do think parents SHOULD do so.

Be glad your children live such a cut and dry life. Imagine having your son born with what appears to be a vagina with an overdeveloped clitoris, and you choose to 'assign' him the gender of female by having that penis-shaped object cut off at birth.

And imagine years later your little daughter which you have been forcing into dresses is physically maturing and is clearly a boy and going to develop into one at puberty, and if only you had left his body alone at birth, hormone treatments could have helped his penis grow and become a mostly intact boy.

Now regardless of any treatment, because of a snap judgement at birth, that boy will have a vagina even though he is not genetically a woman and could have grown a reasonably functional penis if he hadn't been mutilated as a child.

*Are you going to yell at him and make him wear girl clothes and go to the girls bathroom because you 'discourage' it probably causing irrevocable harm to your child.
*Are you going to let him function in all possible ways as normally as he can as a boy and simply tell him to go into the boys room and be discreet while meeting privately with his school to make sure they understand his situation?

It is a lot easier to make up trans-panic and oppress people's rights opposed to treat people as human and realize that no one is harming your kids by pissing next to them in a bathroom or discreetly changing in a locker room.

And I would love to know what 'rights' people think they have in public locker rooms... If they actually had rights, they would have lawsuits... but guess what? The only right they have is to remove themselves from society if they disagree with giving people equal protection under the law. They can have their scared girl opt-out of the girls locker room out of fear of wang.

 Grey Templar wrote:

I think in a women's locker room you'd have a very reasonable expectation not to be exposed to male genitalia. And vice verse in a men's locker room.

So your argument is similar to the one behind indecent exposure? Because no one has the right to not see something.

200 people should accomodate 1 person, it should only ever be one way and if the 200 don't like it, they' can remove themselves from society.... solid

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Really?

Yes, really. Is there some right to not be in the presence of exposed genitalia? I mean, if you're already disrobing in a facility where others can see you disrobe it seems like you've already consciously forfeited a certain reasonable expectation of privacy.

I think in a women's locker room you'd have a very reasonable expectation not to be exposed to male genitalia. And vice verse in a men's locker room.

Please provide evidence of this right. I can't really find it in the constitution... And I don't think you know what 'privacy' means as there is zero expectation of privacy in PUBLIC restroom and locker rooms. Privacy has to do with identity, not pissing while being comfortable and alone so no one hears your loud poops.

The people who have the right to privacy are the transgender people who don't have to answer your damn questions or provide proof of 'junk check' to use the facilities because in most states they have a legally protected right to be there. Basically, Mind your own business.

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Really?

Yes, really. Is there some right to not be in the presence of exposed genitalia? I mean, if you're already disrobing in a facility where others can see you disrobe it seems like you've already consciously forfeited a certain reasonable expectation of privacy.

I think in a women's locker room you'd have a very reasonable expectation not to be exposed to male genitalia. And vice verse in a men's locker room.

Please provide evidence of this right. I can't really find it in the constitution... And I don't think you know what 'privacy' means as there is zero expectation of privacy in PUBLIC restroom and locker rooms. Privacy has to do with identity, not pissing while being comfortable and alone so no one hears your loud poops.

The people who have the right to privacy are the transgender people who don't have to answer your damn questions or provide proof of 'junk check' to use the facilities because in most states they have a legally protected right to be there. Basically, Mind your own business.

Ok, if you are pulling the Constitution angle, where does it say transgender people have the right to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with?

And again, what about the rights of the very very large majority here?

 Crablezworth wrote:
200 people should accomodate 1 person, it should only ever be one way and if the 200 don't like it, they' can remove themselves from society.... solid

Yeah, that is what the civil rights movement was when those bigots in Mississippi had 200 people who were not comfortable with a black girl going to their school. Those 200 people had to accommodate her legal protected rights to be there and if they didn't like it they could always opt out of society.

And from the news reports, it seems a bunch of the people 'walking out' supported the transgender girls right to use the female locker room. Stop recycling this 200 people when it was no where close to that number against the student.

nkelsch wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
200 people should accomodate 1 person, it should only ever be one way and if the 200 don't like it, they' can remove themselves from society.... solid

Yeah, that is what the civil rights movement was when those bigots in Mississippi had 200 people who were not comfortable with a black girl going to their school. Those 200 people had to accommodate her legal protected rights to be there and if they didn't like it they could always opt out of society.

And from the news reports, it seems a bunch of the people 'walking out' supported the transgender girls right to use the female locker room. Stop recycling this 200 people when it was no where close to that number against the student.

Please don't compare civil rights with this. Its not even close to the same situation. Black people were not exposing themselves to the opposite sex.

200 people against 39 for, I love how you're telling me not to present evidence lol

 Crablezworth wrote:
200 people should accomodate 1 person, it should only ever be one way and if the 200 don't like it, they' can remove themselves from society.... solid

It can only ever be one way at a time. Anyone who doesn't like that way is free to dissent, of course, and its likely that dissent will produce discourse. This might lead to change, or it might not; that's how society works.

I don't know where you're getting this whole "Love it or leave it." thing from, as in no way is that a part of my argument.

 Grey Templar wrote:

And again, what about the rights of the very very large majority here?

Again, what are those rights?

 Grey Templar wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Really?

Yes, really. Is there some right to not be in the presence of exposed genitalia? I mean, if you're already disrobing in a facility where others can see you disrobe it seems like you've already consciously forfeited a certain reasonable expectation of privacy.

I think in a women's locker room you'd have a very reasonable expectation not to be exposed to male genitalia. And vice verse in a men's locker room.

Please provide evidence of this right. I can't really find it in the constitution... And I don't think you know what 'privacy' means as there is zero expectation of privacy in PUBLIC restroom and locker rooms. Privacy has to do with identity, not pissing while being comfortable and alone so no one hears your loud poops.

The people who have the right to privacy are the transgender people who don't have to answer your damn questions or provide proof of 'junk check' to use the facilities because in most states they have a legally protected right to be there. Basically, Mind your own business.

Ok, if you are pulling the Constitution angle, where does it say transgender people have the right to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with?

And again, what about the rights of the very very large majority here?

The part about basic human rights and the non discrimination parts.

And as the courts fight it out, we find those rights affirmed, and as the states work it out we find those rights legislated in anti discriminated laws, and eventually the feds will force it nation wide with a supreme court ruling.

I have posted the laws in this thread multiple times which clearly state where it is illegal to discriminate and transgender people have the right to use gender identity facilities.

Yet there is zero right or legal precident to have the 'right' to be segregated apart from people you feel ooogy next too.

Ok, basic human rights that are not explicitly defined.

Are you saying that only the Trans person has these rights? What about the basic human rights of the majority not to be exposed to opposite sex genitalia without their consent?

Trans people are going too far demanding they be allowed to use whatever facility they identify as. They can use the facility designed to accommodate their current plumbing or a gender neutral facility.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

I think in a women's locker room you'd have a very reasonable expectation not to be exposed to male genitalia. And vice verse in a men's locker room.

So your argument is similar to the one behind indecent exposure? Because no one has the right to not see something.

Criminal law says you are wrong.

I don't know where you're getting this whole "Love it or leave it." thing from, as in no way is that a part of my argument.

Thats Nkelsch's whole argument. People who disagree are bigots and evidently vermin not worth being educated.

 Grey Templar wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
200 people should accomodate 1 person, it should only ever be one way and if the 200 don't like it, they' can remove themselves from society.... solid

Yeah, that is what the civil rights movement was when those bigots in Mississippi had 200 people who were not comfortable with a black girl going to their school. Those 200 people had to accommodate her legal protected rights to be there and if they didn't like it they could always opt out of society.

And from the news reports, it seems a bunch of the people 'walking out' supported the transgender girls right to use the female locker room. Stop recycling this 200 people when it was no where close to that number against the student.

Please don't compare civil rights with this. Its not even close to the same situation. Black people were not exposing themselves to the opposite sex.

I am sure the white people's 'disgust' of sharing bathrooms with black people had directly the same racial-panic of fear of seeing black people naked or fear of being violated by black people. People said gay rights and medical discrimination were not civil rights and was nothing like race because of 'science' and 'decency' and they were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

Ignorant, unfounded and stupid fears which should not have been catered to and did not justify abusing people's rights.

And it is still illegal to 'expose' yourself in public facilities regardless of gender. You lost that argument a few pages back where you assumed simply changing clothes constituted 'being vulgar' legally if the person seeing it was an uptight bigot by changing the meaning of the law based upon the perception of the supposed victim.

My point the entire thread has been you simply can't tell me with a straight face that 200 people are bigots and leave it at that.


Being open minded generally involves seeing gradients instead of binaries. Saying everyone has to accept trans individuals regardless of the context or what in particular upsets them in said context is ludicrous.

"some guys just flashed his dick at a bunch of people in the parking lot" is usually followed by calling the police, not skepticism about people's fears or accusations of being bigots. The cops don't generally show up and accuse the victims of just putting it on or being small minded, they're not subjected to skepticism about how said incident may or may not have affected them emotionally. I also don't think lila had any intention to play helicopter with her angry member in full view of the girls.

I'll give both sides here the benefit of the doubt that they're not content with the current situation.

 Frazzled wrote:

Criminal law says you are wrong.

You mean laws regarding indecent exposure? Those are based on the absence of the right to engage in lewd behavior, thereby allowing the state to restrict lewd behavior; not any particular right to not see something.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, basic human rights that are not explicitly defined.

Are you saying that only the Trans person has these rights? What about the basic human rights of the majority not to be exposed to opposite sex genitalia without their consent?

Trans people are going too far demanding they be allowed to use whatever facility they identify as. They can use the facility designed to accommodate their current plumbing or a gender neutral facility.

Except requiring that is actually illegal in a majority of states currently. You have to break the law to enforce a non-existent made up human right.

And if people are 'scared' of transpanic they can opt-out of using public facilities and opt for private ones where they can discriminate legally. That is how it works. You build a 1950s bomb shelter and go live it in.

nkelsch wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I know I have often discouraged inappropriate (to the situation/function/place) clothing for my kids (both Son1 and Son2 and now daughter). And I do think parents SHOULD do so.

Be glad your children live such a cut and dry life. Imagine having your son born with what appears to be a vagina with an overdeveloped clitoris, and you choose to 'assign' him the gender of female by having that penis-shaped object cut off at birth.

And imagine years later your little daughter which you have been forcing into dresses is physically maturing and is clearly a boy and going to develop into one at puberty, and if only you had left his body alone at birth, hormone treatments could have helped his penis grow and become a mostly intact boy.

Now regardless of any treatment, because of a snap judgement at birth, that boy will have a vagina even though he is not genetically a woman and could have grown a reasonably functional penis if he hadn't been mutilated as a child.

*Are you going to yell at him and make him wear girl clothes and go to the girls bathroom because you 'discourage' it probably causing irrevocable harm to your child.
*Are you going to let him function in all possible ways as normally as he can as a boy and simply tell him to go into the boys room and be discreet while meeting privately with his school to make sure they understand his situation?

It is a lot easier to make up trans-panic and oppress people's rights opposed to treat people as human and realize that no one is harming your kids by pissing next to them in a bathroom or discreetly changing in a locker room.

And I would love to know what 'rights' people think they have in public locker rooms... If they actually had rights, they would have lawsuits... but guess what? The only right they have is to remove themselves from society if they disagree with giving people equal protection under the law. They can have their scared girl opt-out of the girls locker room out of fear of wang.

I feel for the 1:20,000 or .005% of kids/parents this is an issue for.

Having said that, I stand 100% by my statement. Not just in regards to 'gender' specific clothing. Parents should parent.

 Frazzled wrote:

Thats Nkelsch's whole argument. People who disagree are bigots and evidently vermin not worth being educated.

Ah, I see. I thought Crabblezworth was referring to my post.

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, basic human rights that are not explicitly defined.

Are you saying that only the Trans person has these rights? What about the basic human rights of the majority not to be exposed to opposite sex genitalia without their consent?

Trans people are going too far demanding they be allowed to use whatever facility they identify as. They can use the facility designed to accommodate their current plumbing or a gender neutral facility.

Except requiring that is actually illegal in a majority of states currently. You have to break the law to enforce a non-existent made up human right.

And if people are 'scared' of transpanic they can opt-out of using public facilities and opt for private ones where they can discriminate legally. That is how it works. You build a 1950s bomb shelter and go live it in.

"feth off and die" isn't really the greatest education strategy. For someone so open minded, there's a lot of binary choices being presented. that doesn't strike be as progressive or pragmatic.

The message you present is "it's not polite to disregard other people" followed by "feth all those people who don't agree"

 Crablezworth wrote:
My point the entire thread has been you simply can't tell me with a straight face that 200 people are bigots and leave it at that.


Being open minded generally involves seeing gradients instead of binaries. Saying everyone has to accept trans individuals regardless of the context or what in particular upsets them in said context is ludicrous.

"some guys just flashed his dick at a bunch of people in the parking lot" is usually followed by calling the police, not skepticism about people's fears or accusations of being bigots. The cops don't generally show up and accuse the victims of just putting it on or being small minded, they're not subjected to skepticism about how said incident may or may not have affected them emotionally. I also don't think lila had any intention to play helicopter with her angry member in full view of the girls.

I'll give both sides here the benefit of the doubt that they're not content with the current situation.

Flashing your dick and playing helicopter is not the same as changing clothes and using a shower in gym.

If the student *ACTUALLY* did something illegal, they can report it to staff who can call the police. Simply catching a passing glance of a penis or knowing there is one in the locker room is not illegal. I suspect most trans people in this situation are very discreet and don't make a scene of it in the locker room. Usually in news stories, it is someone actively following, harassing, peeping on the transgender person and when they 'figure it out' they get violent against the transgender person and make the scene.

We have laws which already cover peeping, lewd behavior, and actual flashing and nudity in public. Transgender people are not immune to those laws, but merely existing doesn't violate them. (as the gold gym story showed)

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
200 people should accomodate 1 person, it should only ever be one way and if the 200 don't like it, they' can remove themselves from society.... solid

Yeah, that is what the civil rights movement was when those bigots in Mississippi had 200 people who were not comfortable with a black girl going to their school. Those 200 people had to accommodate her legal protected rights to be there and if they didn't like it they could always opt out of society.

And from the news reports, it seems a bunch of the people 'walking out' supported the transgender girls right to use the female locker room. Stop recycling this 200 people when it was no where close to that number against the student.

Please don't compare civil rights with this. Its not even close to the same situation. Black people were not exposing themselves to the opposite sex.

I am sure the white people's 'disgust' of sharing bathrooms with black people had directly the same racial-panic of fear of seeing black people naked or fear of being violated by black people. People said gay rights and medical discrimination were not civil rights and was nothing like race because of 'science' and 'decency' and they were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

Ignorant, unfounded and stupid fears which should not have been catered to and did not justify abusing people's rights.

And it is still illegal to 'expose' yourself in public facilities regardless of gender. You lost that argument a few pages back where you assumed simply changing clothes constituted 'being vulgar' legally if the person seeing it was an uptight bigot by changing the meaning of the law based upon the perception of the supposed victim.

This is far from ignorant, unfounded, and stupid.

Women's locker rooms are for people with vaginas. Men's locker rooms are for people with penises. Its not for people who mentally identify as one or the other. Especially when children are involved, then there is the rights of parents as well.

Nobody is saying trans people can't use the locker room. They just have to use a specific one. Just like everybody else. This student was even given special treatment with a private room.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, basic human rights that are not explicitly defined.

So, basically, the rights that you say they have for the sake of your argument.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Are you saying that only the Trans person has these rights?

No, I believe all humans have basic human rights.

 Grey Templar wrote:

What about the basic human rights of the majority not to be exposed to opposite sex genitalia without their consent?

I don't consider that to be a basic human right, and I can't imagine there's a particularly good argument to support its inclusion in that category.

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, basic human rights that are not explicitly defined.

Are you saying that only the Trans person has these rights? What about the basic human rights of the majority not to be exposed to opposite sex genitalia without their consent?

Trans people are going too far demanding they be allowed to use whatever facility they identify as. They can use the facility designed to accommodate their current plumbing or a gender neutral facility.

Except requiring that is actually illegal in a majority of states currently. You have to break the law to enforce a non-existent made up human right.

And if people are 'scared' of transpanic they can opt-out of using public facilities and opt for private ones where they can discriminate legally. That is how it works. You build a 1950s bomb shelter and go live it in.

Those laws are, in my opinion, overreaching and symptoms of our messed up society. Plus they have ziltch to do with the Constitution like you were claiming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, basic human rights that are not explicitly defined.

So, basically, the rights that you say they have for the sake of your argument.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Are you saying that only the Trans person has these rights?

 Grey Templar wrote:

What about the basic human rights of the majority not to be exposed to opposite sex genitalia without their consent?

I don't consider that to be a basic human right, and I can't imagine there's a particularly good argument to support its inclusion in that category.

Maybe not, but no less of a good argument than a Trans person has of saying he has the right to use the facility of the gender he identifies with.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Women's locker rooms are for people with vaginas. Men's locker rooms are for people with penises.

Can we change that caricatures we place on the doors then?

nkelsch wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I know I have often discouraged inappropriate (to the situation/function/place) clothing for my kids (both Son1 and Son2 and now daughter). And I do think parents SHOULD do so.

Be glad your children live such a cut and dry life. Imagine having your son born with what appears to be a vagina with an overdeveloped clitoris, and you choose to 'assign' him the gender of female by having that penis-shaped object cut off at birth.
<cut>

Are you really going to pretend that even 10% of transgender cases have anything to do with a legit physical deformity? Talk about your overwhelming ignorance.

 CptJake wrote:


I feel for the 1:20,000 or .005% of kids/parents this is an issue for.

Having said that, I stand 100% by my statement. Not just in regards to 'gender' specific clothing. Parents should parent.

But you still feel those people deserve to be marginalized and their rights abridged to accommodate the majority...

Parents should parent their OWN kids... and when you send your kids to public school, your kids will have to interact with situations you have zero right to control. Hence why schools have opt-out policies for parents who object to a specific thing at their kids school. Because the school most times legally can't bow to 'parent pressure' when it violates other student's rights.