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:

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.

Actually it seems to me that the trans person has a much better argument, given that it is grounded in something which is usually considered a basic human right: equality.

 trexmeyer wrote:

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.

Considering we still don't know why people are homosexual, to try to only allow rights for medically explainable situations defeats the purpose.

It is none of your business the motivation or the medical implications of *WHY* someone is transgender. It doesn't impact you and you have no right to force them to be segregated from aspects of society in public. If you have a problem with it, you can remove yourself.

 dogma wrote:

 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?

Why?

 dogma wrote:

 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.

Thats your assumption.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Those laws are, in my opinion, overreaching and symptoms of our messed up society.

And that is why a bigoted county clerk is in jail right now.

nkelsch wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

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.

Considering we still don't know why people are homosexual, to try to only allow rights for medically explainable situations defeats the purpose.

It is none of your business the motivation or the medical implications of *WHY* someone is transgender. It doesn't impact you and you have no right to force them to be segregated from aspects of society in public. If you have a problem with it, you can remove yourself.

Doesn't impact me... hahaha

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

Actually it seems to me that the trans person has a much better argument, given that it is grounded in something which is usually considered a basic human right: equality.

Of course this person has the right to equality. That is not denied by saying if you have a penis you can't use the women's locker room. There is a Men's locker room right next door that is for people with penises.

 Frazzled wrote:

Thats your assumption.

Its my understanding of the laws in question, and the challenges mounted against them.

nkelsch wrote:
And if people are 'scared' of transpanic they can opt-out of using public facilities

Thats the issue. They aren't. it has nothing to do with that, and you won't see past your projections of bigotry on seemingly the whole world.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

Actually it seems to me that the trans person has a much better argument, given that it is grounded in something which is usually considered a basic human right: equality.

Of course this person has the right to equality. That is not denied by saying if you have a penis you can't use the women's locker room.

Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex, and legally she can choose her gender, and the girls gender is female, she has every right to use the locker room which matches her gender identity.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Why?

Because, as it stands, they depict a person wearing a dress and a person not wearing a dress. It would be more accurate to depict a caricature of a penis and a caricature of a vagina.

Plus, it would amuse me.

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

Actually it seems to me that the trans person has a much better argument, given that it is grounded in something which is usually considered a basic human right: equality.

Of course this person has the right to equality. That is not denied by saying if you have a penis you can't use the women's locker room.

Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex, and legally she can choose her gender, and the girls gender is female, she has every right to use the locker room which matches her gender identity.

No, locker rooms are not based on gender. They're based on sex, which for a long time was equated with gender. If you use that assumption, and we use the "modern" notion that they are different, we can now transition to where we now separate based on sex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Why?

Because, as it stands, they depict a person wearing a dress and a person not wearing a dress. It would be more accurate to depict a caricature of a penis and a caricature of a vagina.

Plus, it would amuse me.

Thats obviously why we don't do that. It would be vulger to do that.

The Dress wearing person now stands in for people with vaginas. The person not wearing a dress stands in for people with penises.

Maybe we can change the symbol to something less projecting of a stereotype, but that is an entirely different discussion with zero bearing here.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Of course this person has the right to equality. That is not denied by saying if you have a penis you can't use the women's locker room. There is a Men's locker room right next door that is for people with penises.

That's one sense of equality, sure. But we don't restrict locker rooms on the basis of sex alone, we also restrict them on the basis of gender. Hence you're continued conflation of the two.

nkelsch wrote:

 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.

I'm not marginalizing anyone. In fact, I'm all about equality. Kids with vagina all use one locker room/shower room and kids with penises all use another. I don't give a crap about what any of them identify with or what they are sexually attracted to. Treat them all the same. School faculty/admin protect all kids from bullying or punish bullies when they fail to protect. Doesn't matter if bullying is due to small fat kid being picked on for being small and fat or kid with penis who wishes to be kid with vagina gets picked on for that. Treat them all equally. Can't get more equal than that.

 Grey Templar wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

Actually it seems to me that the trans person has a much better argument, given that it is grounded in something which is usually considered a basic human right: equality.

Of course this person has the right to equality. That is not denied by saying if you have a penis you can't use the women's locker room.

Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex, and legally she can choose her gender, and the girls gender is female, she has every right to use the locker room which matches her gender identity.

No, locker rooms are not based on gender. They're based on sex, which for a long time was equated with gender. If you use that assumption, and we use the "modern" notion that they are different, we can now transition to where we now separate based on sex.

Too bad I posted multiple laws that show you are wrong. There is no 'junk check' when using a bathroom or locker room in the united states. You don't have to stick your wang in a hole to confirm you are a guy to get into the mens bathroom.

Besides, all these people scared about 'oh they might see other genitals, they have a right to never see them!' At what age does that start?

We have laws on the books which prevent minors under certain ages from being alone in public which means often a father has to take his daughter to a male bathroom or a mother has to take her son into a female locker room. And guess what? The world isn't falling apart. I guess because taking a 4 year old into the female locker room to change him at the pool is funny and cute and part of the majorities life experience that the fact someone might be exposed to 'wang' is universally overlooked.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Why?

Because, as it stands, they depict a person wearing a dress and a person not wearing a dress. It would be more accurate to depict a caricature of a penis and a caricature of a vagina.

Plus, it would amuse me.

Thread winner!

nkelsch wrote:
Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex

Do you have any evidence for this assumption?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Why?

Because, as it stands, they depict a person wearing a dress and a person not wearing a dress. It would be more accurate to depict a caricature of a penis and a caricature of a vagina.

Plus, it would amuse me.

Thread winner!

Agreed!

 -Shrike- wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex

Do you have any evidence for this assumption?

The laws which state that people can legally choose their gender and that people have the right to public facilities which match their gender identity? How about that?

 Grey Templar wrote:

Thats obviously why we don't do that. It would be vulger to do that.

It wouldn't amuse me because I find it vulgar, it would amuse me because people would throw a fit over what is essentially nothing.

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

Actually it seems to me that the trans person has a much better argument, given that it is grounded in something which is usually considered a basic human right: equality.

Of course this person has the right to equality. That is not denied by saying if you have a penis you can't use the women's locker room.

Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex, and legally she can choose her gender, and the girls gender is female, she has every right to use the locker room which matches her gender identity.

No, locker rooms are not based on gender. They're based on sex, which for a long time was equated with gender. If you use that assumption, and we use the "modern" notion that they are different, we can now transition to where we now separate based on sex.

Too bad I posted multiple laws that show you are wrong. There is no 'junk check' when using a bathroom or locker room in the united states. You don't have to stick your wang in a hole to confirm you are a guy to get into the mens bathroom.

Besides, all these people scared about 'oh they might see other genitals, they have a right to never see them!' At what age does that start?

We have laws on the books which prevent minors under certain ages from being alone in public which means often a father has to take his daughter to a male bathroom or a mother has to take her son into a female locker room. And guess what? The world isn't falling apart. I guess because taking a 4 year old into the female locker room to change him at the pool is funny and cute and part of the majorities life experience that the fact someone might be exposed to 'wang' is universally overlooked.

Thats because the parent is the controller of that child.

The parent should have the right to restrict the possibility that his child may see a penis. Anything within their control. And school activities should be included in that.

Just because nobody does a junk check doesn't mean that isn't what the room is for. You're being thick and obtuse.

nkelsch wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex

Do you have any evidence for this assumption?

The laws which state that people can legally choose their gender and that people have the right to public facilities which match their gender identity? How about that?

Is that the case universally, or in a selection of states?

There's been more talk of penises and vaginas in this thread than your average porn production. All that's needed is a bow chicka wow sound track and we're off to the races!

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Thats obviously why we don't do that. It would be vulger to do that.

It wouldn't amuse me because I find it vulgar, it would amuse me because people would throw a fit over what is essentially nothing.

It wouldn't be nothing. Go ahead, tack a picture of a penis and vagina over a public restroom's signs. You'd probably get arrested.

Relapse wrote:
There's been more talk of penises and vaginas in this thread than your average porn production.

There's not too much talking in a porn production...

 -Shrike- wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex

Do you have any evidence for this assumption?

The laws which state that people can legally choose their gender and that people have the right to public facilities which match their gender identity? How about that?

Is that the case universally, or in a selection of states?

Most states have different laws, some require a doctors note, some hormones, some only require a name change to change identity.

And the discrimination laws are based upon gender identity.

So that shows that SEX or 'Junk Check' is not the law and has never been the law of the land.

 -Shrike- wrote:

Relapse wrote:
There's been more talk of penises and vaginas in this thread than your average porn production.

There's not too much talking in a porn production...

Good point.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Thats because the parent is the controller of that child.

The parent should have the right to restrict the possibility that his child may see a penis. Anything within their control. And school activities should be included in that.

Just because nobody does a junk check doesn't mean that isn't what the room is for. You're being thick and obtuse.

You do have the right, you can remove your child. If I am a mother changing my son in the locker room, and you are in there with your daughter and you don't want her to see it, you be a parent and remove your daughter... Or tell her not to look... or put what she saw into context. What you cannot do is make a scene and have the mother and her son thrown out.

In school, if you don't like something, like the content of an assembly, sex ed, religious stuff, seeing gay people, being in a class is someone with AIDS or possibly being exposed to transgender students... you can opt-out for your child. You cannot have those other things removed from the school.

nkelsch wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Since locker rooms are based upon gender, not sex

Do you have any evidence for this assumption?

The laws which state that people can legally choose their gender and that people have the right to public facilities which match their gender identity? How about that?

Is that the case universally, or in a selection of states?

Most states have different laws, some require a doctors note, some hormones, some only require a name change to change identity.

And the discrimination laws are based upon gender identity.

So that shows that SEX or 'Junk Check' is not the law and has never been the law of the land.

I would argue that we've never had regulation till recently, but its always been the expected norm that you're only going to find penises in the men's room and vaginas in the women's room. And precedent is a very important part of the law. Whats "normal" and expected by any reasonable person.

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Thats because the parent is the controller of that child.

The parent should have the right to restrict the possibility that his child may see a penis. Anything within their control. And school activities should be included in that.

Just because nobody does a junk check doesn't mean that isn't what the room is for. You're being thick and obtuse.

You do have the right, you can remove your child. If I am a mother changing my son in the locker room, and you are in there with your daughter and you don't want her to see it, you be a parent and remove your daughter... Or tell her not to look... or put what she saw into context. What you cannot do is make a scene and have the mother and her son thrown out.

In school, if you don't like something, like the content of an assembly, sex ed, religious stuff, seeing gay people, being in a class is someone with AIDS or possibly being exposed to transgender students... you can opt-out for your child. You cannot have those other things removed from the school.

Actually, that's not quite true. It depends, for example, on what the content of the assembly is, but you can certainly have questionable content removed from schools. It's not really a black and white case, the world is painted in shades of grey.

 -Shrike- wrote:

Relapse wrote:
There's been more talk of penises and vaginas in this thread than your average porn production.

There's not too much talking in a porn production...

On second thought, perhaps the curtain should be drawn on possible porn plots here.