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.

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.

More being thick and obtuse. I shouldn't have to remove my child from the school to prevent this. Especially since it will be occurring in the locker room, which you will use after PE which not an optional activity like an assembly.

The trans student can use a sex neutral facility OR use the one for his biological sex. This is the best solution. Raising a stink beyond this makes the trans person the one in the wrong here.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

More being thick and obtuse. I shouldn't have to remove my child from the school to prevent this. Especially since it will be occurring in the locker room, which you will use after PE which not an optional activity like an assembly.

The trans student can use a sex neutral facility OR use the one for his biological sex. This is the best solution. Raising a stink beyond this makes the trans person the one in the wrong here.

If your child has a problem with it, they can use the sex neutral facility. It's a "sex neutral facility"--anyone can use it.

Because guess what? We're talking about HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS here. Not elementary school students or middle school students. Anyone pretending that high school students cannot handle the concepts being discussed in this thread is in fact the person being "thick and obtuse", seeing as how the students apparently understand the concept enough to walk out of school as a protest.

Oh sure, thats a good solution. Have the children who don't want to see opposite sex parts use the facility where that is guaranteed.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh sure, thats a good solution. Have the children who don't want to see opposite sex parts use the facility where that is guaranteed.

Seeing as how the transgendered teen wanted to use the girls' locker room, it solves the problem pretty handily.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh sure, thats a good solution. Have the children who don't want to see opposite sex parts use the facility where that is guaranteed.

Seeing as how the transgendered teen wanted to use the girls' locker room, it solves the problem pretty handily.

Given how many girls don't want to see a penis, I think its not a good solution. Those 200 girls will overcrowd the gender neutral facility.

I think the trans student is being an attention grabbing jerk. He was offered a very reasonable compromise, and has decided not to take it.

And as pointed out, he's rejected the "compromise"(which amounts to "You're not a boy, you're not a girl so have your own special bathroom which singles you out as being different") in favor of making a statement.

Just like these students made a statement by walking out of school.

Oh, and while we're at it?
Nowhere does it say that it was "200 girls" who walked out. The article refers to "students", and makes a mention of a number of parents of students holding protests--including parents of male students, one of whom is cited in the article with this:

Tammy Sorden, whose son goes to Hillsboro High School, believes it’s not right to give Lila special treatment “while the girls just have to suck it up.”

“The girls have rights, and they shouldn’t have to share a bathroom with a boy,” she told the Post-Dispatch.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh sure, thats a good solution. Have the children who don't want to see opposite sex parts use the facility where that is guaranteed.

Seeing as how the transgendered teen wanted to use the girls' locker room, it solves the problem pretty handily.

Given how many girls don't want to see a penis, I think its not a good solution. Those 200 girls will overcrowd the gender neutral facility.

How many people didn't want to see brown skin in their locker room? I already know that this will just result in your "this is not a civil rights issue" canned response, but it is still the case. The good thing about rights and the constitution is that it doesn't give a feth what you or anyone else doesn't like, it focuses on the law. That's why gay people can now get married in Oklahoma despite the vast majority of folks in my state still thinking that two penises don't belong together.

I think the trans student is being an attention grabbing jerk. He was offered a very reasonable compromise, and has decided not to take it.

The history of the SCOTUS is full of rulings in favor of "attention grabbing jerks" who stood up for their rights and no longer accepted "reasonable compromises".

I don't think he has a reasonable expectation for girls to be ok with a man changing next to them. He's not being a very considerate or reasonable person. Obviously he is uncomfortable changing in the men's room. Ok, but you changing in the women's room would make them very uncomfortable as well(something he should sympathize with). The compromise is a third facility.

He's making a statement for sure. And that statement is "I'm an unreasonable person!"

Oh dear God! Someone's CHANGING THEIR CLOTHES NEXT TO ME!

Jesus Christ preserve me, I might catch a flash of something that I've seen at a public swimming pool!

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh sure, thats a good solution. Have the children who don't want to see opposite sex parts use the facility where that is guaranteed.

Seeing as how the transgendered teen wanted to use the girls' locker room, it solves the problem pretty handily.

Given how many girls don't want to see a penis, I think its not a good solution. Those 200 girls will overcrowd the gender neutral facility.

How many people didn't want to see brown skin in their locker room? I already know that this will just result in your "this is not a civil rights issue" canned response, but it is still the case. The good thing about rights and the constitution is that it doesn't give a feth what you or anyone else doesn't like, it focuses on the law. That's why gay people can now get married in Oklahoma despite the vast majority of folks in my state still thinking that two penises don't belong together.

I think the trans student is being an attention grabbing jerk. He was offered a very reasonable compromise, and has decided not to take it.

The history of the SCOTUS is full of rulings in favor of "attention grabbing jerks" who stood up for their rights and no longer accepted "reasonable compromises".

Examples of Judicial Activism.

Even if this is a civil rights issue, why is the 3rd facility not a reasonable compromise? Given that separate male and female facilities aren't under fire for existing I think its ok to offer that.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh sure, thats a good solution. Have the children who don't want to see opposite sex parts use the facility where that is guaranteed.

Seeing as how the transgendered teen wanted to use the girls' locker room, it solves the problem pretty handily.

Given how many girls don't want to see a penis, I think its not a good solution. Those 200 girls will overcrowd the gender neutral facility.

I think the trans student is being an attention grabbing jerk. He was offered a very reasonable compromise, and has decided not to take it.

Pronouns. They're not difficult. If you could manage to use 'she' it really would make you look less ignorant.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh sure, thats a good solution. Have the children who don't want to see opposite sex parts use the facility where that is guaranteed.

Seeing as how the transgendered teen wanted to use the girls' locker room, it solves the problem pretty handily.

Given how many girls don't want to see a penis, I think its not a good solution. Those 200 girls will overcrowd the gender neutral facility.

How many people didn't want to see brown skin in their locker room? I already know that this will just result in your "this is not a civil rights issue" canned response, but it is still the case. The good thing about rights and the constitution is that it doesn't give a feth what you or anyone else doesn't like, it focuses on the law. That's why gay people can now get married in Oklahoma despite the vast majority of folks in my state still thinking that two penises don't belong together.

I think the trans student is being an attention grabbing jerk. He was offered a very reasonable compromise, and has decided not to take it.

The history of the SCOTUS is full of rulings in favor of "attention grabbing jerks" who stood up for their rights and no longer accepted "reasonable compromises".

Examples of Judicial Activism.

Even if this is a civil rights issue, why is the 3rd facility not a reasonable compromise? Given that separate male and female facilities aren't under fire for existing I think its ok to offer that.

Having a water fountain for blacks and a water fountain for whites was considered "a reasonable compromise", y'know.

But seriously--it's entirely dependent upon whether or not the "third facility" really was a reasonable compromise or if it's just one of the existing bathrooms with a sign on it.
Or it could entirely be predicated upon the fact that the school outed a transgendered minor without their consent.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Even if this is a civil rights issue, why is the 3rd facility not a reasonable compromise? Given that separate male and female facilities aren't under fire for existing I think its ok to offer that.

If a primary part of your identity is "I am female" and there is a bathroom "This is for Females", another "This is for Males" and a third "This is for anyone" and you're allowed in the 2nd or the 3rd, but not the first the only conclusions you can draw about what your authority structure is saying about you is

"You are not female"
or
"You are male"
or
"You are neither male nor female"

None of which match your primary identification of "I am female". This because not being allowed in the "This is for Females" has the rational implication that of however you may be classified, female is not one of them.

Even if you disagree with their right to identify that way or what their identity may or may not entitle them to, you must be able to see that in plain logical fashion that the 3rd "Gender Neutral" option in no way accommodates their wishes or affirms their identity any more than being strictly confined to the male bathroom*, which is why it would be unacceptable given their desires (again, whatever you may think of them). There is no rational way to think that a Gender Neutral 3rd option is any way an accommodation or compromise.

EDIT.
* Which would be "You are male" obviously, which is no closer or further to their identity than "You are not female" or "You are neither male nor female" they're equally worthless.

When female is defined as having a vagina, No, this person is not a female.

What if we define being male and female as needing both mental and physical parts to match? Then this person is neither male nor female. Thus they would need a 3rd facility.

Either way, getting a 3rd facility is the only reasonable option.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Examples of Judicial Activism.

Even if this is a civil rights issue, why is the 3rd facility not a reasonable compromise? Given that separate male and female facilities aren't under fire for existing I think its ok to offer that.

Because "separate but equal" is NEVER equal.

And because most of the 'valid concerns' are anything but valid as shown via the statistics of the states where it has already been enacted. Besides, most schools have policies which include administrator notification, counselor confirmation and staff supervision which protects both the transgender student as well as the rest of the students from actual harm which renders an isolated bathroom unnecessary. If done right, most students will never know the student is transgender at all.

If you think a student can go from BOY to helicoptering his junk in the girls locker room in a wig in one day. In this specific case, it is a multi-year supervised transition. It is anything but attention grabbing selfishness.

And many of the articles show large numbers of the students doing the walk out were in SUPPORT of the transgender girl using the girls locker room. somewhere around 50-60 of the students.

It is a civil rights issue, pure and simple. The same way AIDS discrimination was socially acceptable and homsexuality discrimination was socially acceptable and institutionally enforced before court challenges and legislature solutions 20+ years ago.

All I'm saying is that you should have to wait till you've had your operation to use the opposite sex's facilities. At least in a setting where minors are the main users of that facility.

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Examples of Judicial Activism.

Even if this is a civil rights issue, why is the 3rd facility not a reasonable compromise? Given that separate male and female facilities aren't under fire for existing I think its ok to offer that.

Because "separate but equal" is NEVER equal.

Are you claiming that men and women are not equal because they use different bathrooms?

 Grey Templar wrote:
When female is defined as having a vagina, No, this person is not a female.

What if we define being male and female as needing both mental and physical parts to match? Then this person is neither male nor female. Thus they would need a 3rd facility.

Either way, getting a 3rd facility is the only reasonable option.

Then, that's your definition. Which is strictly opposed and entirely incompatibility with their view. A compromise means something that gives and takes from both sides and finds something that partially accomdates both views. However since your entire view is "They are not female" and their entire view is "I am female" there can be no compromise. As I outlined it's irrational to think the 3rd facility would be acceptable to them, so presenting it as a "Reasonable Option" is nonsensical since it's by definition a non-option to the other party. You may as well offer them a bathroom where "We won't let Gorillas come in with you" it's got nothing to do with their desires.

There can be no "Reasonable Option" between someone holding your views and someone holding their views, the only thing that can happen is for one of your views to be disregarded the other affirmed, one party left satisfied and the other left entirely dissatisfied.

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
When female is defined as having a vagina, No, this person is not a female.

What if we define being male and female as needing both mental and physical parts to match? Then this person is neither male nor female. Thus they would need a 3rd facility.

Either way, getting a 3rd facility is the only reasonable option.

Then, that's your definition. Which is strictly opposed and entirely incompatibility with their view. A compromise means something that gives and takes from both sides and finds something that partially accomdates both views. However since your entire view is "They are not female" and their entire view is "I am female" there can be no compromise. As I outlined it's irrational to think the 3rd facility would be acceptable to them, so presenting it as "Reasonable Option" is nonsensical since it's a non-option to the other party. You may as well offer them a bathroom where "We won't let Gorillas come in with you" it's got nothing to do with their desires.

There can be no "Reasonable Option" between someone holding your views and someone holding their views, the only thing that can happen is for one of your views to be disregarded the other affirmed, one party left satisfied and the other left entirely satisfied.

In which case, it seems that going with the majority is the best option.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

Unless it was a photograph, or a very realistic drawing, I highly doubt that.

And yes, it wouldn't be nothing in the sense that overly sensitive people might take offense, but making something out of nothing is what overly sensitive people do.

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.

False bs argument. They are based on body parts.

Segregation is wrong, the civil rights movement proved that, we should stop segregating by sex. It's time to end separate but equal.


it's time for progress people




And just for the record, if you suffer any mental harm on account of being in the presence of all genders naked, you're a bigot and your feelings dont matter, please leave society.

Progress for all! (who matter)

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

Unless it was a photograph, or a very realistic drawing, I highly doubt that.

And yes, it wouldn't be nothing in the sense that overly sensitive people might take offense, but making something out of nothing is what overly sensitive people do.

I know a lot of people who are far from being close to sensitive who would definitely take issue with that.

Go ahead and do it. You'll get in trouble. Even if its a stylized representation.

Relapse wrote:
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!

Way ahead of you. I've been getting strange looks for some time, so I had to switch to Muskrat Love.

 Grey Templar wrote:
All I'm saying is that you should have to wait till you've had your operation to use the opposite sex's facilities. At least in a setting where minors are the main users of that facility.

And the law says that view is wrong because SEX and Gender are not the same thing and changing ones gender doesn't always require a change in your sex organs. It also doesn't accommodate medical needs of minors who have valid reasons to be a different gender but not have the actual surgery until adulthood because simply hormone treatment can grow/shrink body parts without the need for surgery to a point.

Are you claiming that men and women are not equal because they use different bathrooms?

Since we still have inequity between the sexes across society due to biases, it does seem like we still have more work to do before we can declare 'everything fixed, gender equality is here'.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
When female is defined as having a vagina, No, this person is not a female.

What if we define being male and female as needing both mental and physical parts to match? Then this person is neither male nor female. Thus they would need a 3rd facility.

Either way, getting a 3rd facility is the only reasonable option.

Then, that's your definition. Which is strictly opposed and entirely incompatibility with their view. A compromise means something that gives and takes from both sides and finds something that partially accomdates both views. However since your entire view is "They are not female" and their entire view is "I am female" there can be no compromise. As I outlined it's irrational to think the 3rd facility would be acceptable to them, so presenting it as "Reasonable Option" is nonsensical since it's a non-option to the other party. You may as well offer them a bathroom where "We won't let Gorillas come in with you" it's got nothing to do with their desires.

There can be no "Reasonable Option" between someone holding your views and someone holding their views, the only thing that can happen is for one of your views to be disregarded the other affirmed, one party left satisfied and the other left entirely satisfied.

In which case, it seems that going with the majority is the best option.

Well in the end history will be the judge of that.

However as has Polonius pointed out the first pages of this thread it seems the tides man already flowing. If I was a betting man, I'd wager in 20 years their views will have won out. Your side will be seen as more of histories bigots, their side as yet another minority that carved out a place that was unjustly denied to them. Rather than your side being seen as the just defenders against improper intruders, and them as stubborn deviants or selfish weirdos.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh dear God! Someone's CHANGING THEIR CLOTHES NEXT TO ME!

Jesus Christ preserve me, I might catch a flash of something that I've seen at a public swimming pool!

Are you a teenage girl?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh dear God! Someone's CHANGING THEIR CLOTHES NEXT TO ME!

Jesus Christ preserve me, I might catch a flash of something that I've seen at a public swimming pool!

Are you a teenage girl?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Once again: STUDENTS WALKED OUT.
Not just girls.

And PARENTS went and protested as well. Are they teenage girls?

 Kanluwen wrote:


And PARENTS went and protested as well. Are they teenage girls?

Only the fun ones, I would assume

 Kanluwen wrote:


And PARENTS went and protested as well. Are they teenage girls?

Sometimes! If things haven't gone terribly well for them.

 Frazzled 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.

False bs argument. They are based on body parts.

The law is clearly on the side of the transgender individual here. You can keep saying that restrooms are based on body parts, but your government does not agree with you. It has been made quite clear that the trans individual has the right to use the restroom that aligns with her gender identity. Ergo, restrooms are based on gender, not body parts.