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.

 Chongara wrote:

 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.

Ahh, the old "Call someone a Bigot so I don't have to deal with their actual argument" strategy.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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

If they take issue with something like heavily stylized pictures of male or female genitalia in public places, then they're overly sensitive regarding at least sexuality.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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

If by "trouble" you mean "given a stern talking to." then sure, probably. But arrested? No way in hell.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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

If they take issue with something like heavily stylized pictures of male or female genitalia in public places, then they're overly sensitive regarding at least sexuality.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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

If by "trouble" you mean "given a stern talking to." then sure, probably. But arrested? No way in hell.

Depends on the local laws, but at the very least you might be looking at a fine. But in a lot of places you might end up on the sex offender registry.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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?

It means you're speaking for a group of people you have no clue about.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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?

It means you're speaking for a group of people you have no clue about.

So what are you doing speaking for teenage girls everywhere?

Right, you're not. You're speaking on behalf of PARENTS of teenage girls.


All seriousness though, once again, it's not something which couldn't have potentially been seen at a public swimming pool.

Interestingly, I imagine if this situation had not changed, that gym as a class would have ended there, making the point moot.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Depends on the local laws, but at the very least you might be looking at a fine. But in a lot of places you might end up on the sex offender registry.

I have a hard time believing I would be fined for vandalism over what essentially amounts to putting a sticker on a sign.

As to the sex offender registry: what crime could I be charged with that would carry such a penalty?

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.

Again oh foreigner, please show me where courts in the US have mandated that public schools be forced to allow some with male parts be allowed into the women's locker and shower rooms.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Depends on the local laws, but at the very least you might be looking at a fine. But in a lot of places you might end up on the sex offender registry.

I have a hard time believing I would be fined for vandalism over what essentially amounts to putting a sticker on a sign.

As to the sex offender registry: what crime could I be charged with that would carry such a penalty?

It depends on where you are and the local laws. Things like public urination, indecent exposure, and public indecency can land you on it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

It depends on where you are and the local laws. Things like public urination, indecent exposure, and public indecency can land you on it.

Those all involve conduct which directly reveal the genitalia of the acting individual. I guess you could argue that putting up a picture of human genitalia that is stylized to the extent that a common bathroom caricature is constitutes the distribution of pornography to minors, but that seems like a massive stretch.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

It depends on where you are and the local laws. Things like public urination, indecent exposure, and public indecency can land you on it.

Those all involve conduct which directly reveal the genitalia of the acting individual. I guess you could argue that putting up a picture of human genitalia that is stylized to the extent that a common bathroom caricature is constitutes the distribution of pornography to minors, but that seems like a massive stretch.

I don't know how much of a stretch it would be.

Better just to do bathroom signs having zero involvement with the sex organs in imagery. Maybe just the male and female words.

I wonder if most if any of the people in this thread have actually been to an unisex bath- / locker room. I mean...reading the thread, you could get the idea that some think when entering those, they got wild vaginas and penises thrown right at their face with no chance to escape the endless horror of genitalia everywhere. Slightly overexaggerated of course.

It's...just like any regular bathroom, really. People don't like to show others their genitalia. Why would they suddenly start caring to do so? There are a lot of cabins to use and one less open part for men that holds an urinal. You go in...option 1 or 2...wash your hands...leave. If anything, men are suddenly starting to wash their hands more often due to female presence. Yes, it's a thing....and really, anyone who doesn't wash their hands is really disgusting. Urks.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

Again oh foreigner, please show me where courts in the US have mandated that public schools be forced to allow some with male parts be allowed into the women's locker and shower rooms.

US Department of Education, title IX clarifications (April 29, 2014) ruled that sex-discrimination laws extend to transgendered individuals and the gender identity of their choosing.

This extends to changing facilities (and has been proven to in the court cases where it has been put to test against specific trans people).

Of course, it doesn't say anything specifically about changing rooms in schools, but that's not how laws work.

If you would like anything else googling, please ask.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 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.

Ahh, the old "Call someone a Bigot so I don't have to deal with their actual argument" strategy.

Grey Templar, first off I did address your actual arguments. I showed plainly how your endorsement of the 3rd-bathroom option is absurd can't function as compromise and doesn't give even the barest cursory consideration to their basic request. In response to "majority rules" I said history would be the judge and it will, though the winds already seem to be blowing in a particular direction.

Second, Grey Templar I didn't call you a bigot. I said that if I was I betting man I'd wager that in 20 years you'd be seen as one. I'm honestly not so invested in their side of it that I can't see where the resistance is coming from and bigot is probably a stronger word than I'd choose to use at this time. However the arrow of progress seems pointed along a certain path and I think we'll wind up there.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

It depends on where you are and the local laws. Things like public urination, indecent exposure, and public indecency can land you on it.

Those all involve conduct which directly reveal the genitalia of the acting individual. I guess you could argue that putting up a picture of human genitalia that is stylized to the extent that a common bathroom caricature is constitutes the distribution of pornography to minors, but that seems like a massive stretch.

I don't know how much of a stretch it would be.

Better just to do bathroom signs having zero involvement with the sex organs in imagery. Maybe just the male and female words.

Just leave it as proper American: "hombres" and "senioritas".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

Again oh foreigner, please show me where courts in the US have mandated that public schools be forced to allow some with male parts be allowed into the women's locker and shower rooms.

US Department of Education, title IX clarifications (April 29, 2014) ruled that sex-discrimination laws extend to transgendered individuals and the gender identity of their choosing.

This extends to changing facilities (and has been proven to in the court cases where it has been put to test against specific trans people).

Of course, it doesn't say anything specifically about changing rooms in schools, but that's not how laws work.

If you would like anything else googling, please ask.

AGAIN, please show me an actual fething court case where the courts have ruled that public schools may be forced to allow some with male parts be allowed into women's locker and shower rooms.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I wonder if most if any of the people in this thread have actually been to an unisex bath- / locker room. I mean...reading the thread, you could get the idea that some think when entering those, they got wild vaginas and penises thrown right at their face with no chance to escape the endless horror of genitalia everywhere. Slightly overexaggerated of course.

It's...just like any regular bathroom, really. People don't like to show others their genitalia. Why would they suddenly start caring to do so? There are a lot of cabins to use and one less open part for men that holds an urinal. You go in...option 1 or 2...wash your hands...leave. If anything, men are suddenly starting to wash their hands more often due to female presence. Yes, it's a thing....and really, anyone who doesn't wash their hands is really disgusting. Urks.

I think part of what you are seeing is just the big difference between Europe and the US.

When we were visiting family in Germany I was able to just pack a couple of swim-diapers in my daughters diaper bag and if we were anywhere with some sort of water feature (zoo, Europa Park, Playmobile Funland) we did what every other parent with a child did. Strip our daughter naked in public, put on a swim diaper, let her play, then strip her naked again and put her regular clothes back on. Public beaches all had a "snail" where boys/girls/women/men changed their clothes one after another.

Meanwhile, at my gym here in the US, men are sitting in the sauna in their bathing suit or full workout outfit.

Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

[Group of people 1] say I don't identify with [group of people 2], I identify with [group of people 3]. Response: that's fine, you shouldn't be forced to be with a group of people you don't identify with, go with group of people 3 who you do identify with.

[Group of people 3] say I don't identify with group of people 1. Response too bad, you have to share facilities with them.

[Group of people 1] get to choose who they share facilities with. Groups 2 and 3 don't. This is equality.

This is not analogous to racial segregation. To advance an analogous situation you would have to argue for gender/sex public facility segregation to end. With sex we have long had a separate but equal segregation that is happily accepted by almost all who are so segregated. The party who's rights are said to be aggrieved is even happy with the segregation and wants it, but only on that party's terms. That party gets to segregate as desired but other parties don't. This is equal.

We are told that gender is largely a social construct that doesn't mean much and we shouldn't pigeonhole kids into one or the other. We are told there are many different genders. But we are also told that unless we pigeonhole someone into one of two supposed meaningless social constructs we are doing something wrong. Got that. Gender matters except it doesn't. It is a meaningless social construct, but it isn't. One person's identity matters, another's doesn't.

One person is uncomfortable with one group and gets to leave. Other persons are uncomfortable with a group, they don't.

--

Arguments that "it is the law therefore it is right" (not a direct quote, but a concise description of the argument that has been advanced here) need to stop. I am almost certain that those advancing the argument didn't support criminalization of homosexuality, denial of marriage to same sex couples, laws they seem regressive regarding transperson (not sure if this is the right, neutral term, no offense intended) rights, or would support slavery if it became legal. They would argue the law to be unjust and in need of changing. To then argue, "too bad it is the law" is hypocritical.

 d-usa wrote:

Meanwhile, at my gym here in the US, men are sitting in the sauna in their bathing suit or full workout outfit.

That's the younger guys, there's typically the out of shape, super hairy, naked dude in his 50's sitting around in there with his sack poised just right to make sure that there's no escaping it visually as you walk in.

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

Extreme graphic violence ok, but naughty bits, everyone loses their minds

Yep. Or, shoot, take Facebook for example.

Shirtless man with his nipples and moobs all out? No problem!
Shirtless woman shows her nipples? BAN IT! BAN IT ALL!

Cover woman's nipples with man's nipples through the magic of Photoshop (or MS Paint)? Oh, ok, that's fine, go ahead.

...
What?

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

Extreme graphic violence ok, but naughty bits, everyone loses their minds

And in Europe its the opposite. So what?

I don't think the kid honestly even cares, he's figured out he can get a reaction from people and is doing it for the attention. He has a grin ear to ear while being interviewed because it's amusing to him and he's enjoying be a douchebag and he knows he's pissing everyone off.

It boils down to a massive sense of entitlement:

trans student: I don't feel comfortable changing in the mens room, I feel threatened and intimidated so I want to be in the womens.

school: Umm... we get that you're uncomfortable, but by allowing that it will also make the girls pretty uncomfortable.

trans student: So?

school: How about we give you a separate room so that you don't have to change with the men and won't be making the girls uncomfortable?

trans student: No! this is about my feelings, the girls don't matter,

school: That's not really being considerate of your classmates...

trans student: Feth those other kids, it's all about me and only me.

school: Facepalms

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

That's not how schizophrenia works.

 Grey Templar wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

Extreme graphic violence ok, but naughty bits, everyone loses their minds

And in Europe its the opposite. So what?

Only Germany, really.

We don't panic much about either in Sweden.

 Grey Templar wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

Extreme graphic violence ok, but naughty bits, everyone loses their minds

And in Europe its the opposite. So what?

There's an argument to be made that violence is objectively much worse. Violence hurts people, causes pain, kills people any situation is better absent violence than it is with violence. In contrast genitals have many fun, enjoyable uses and one vital reproductive one. A culture that embraces violence but shuns genitals is arguably embracing something that simply isn't as good. From a practical standpoint most people just don't have any great cause for violence in their day to day lives, we don't seek to hurt others and more of us won't be victims of violence than will be. In contrast most of us are going to use our genitals at some point, having a broader range of open imaginary, ideas, and open conversation can be useful. Not to mention genitals are just body parts we have, while violence is a specific conscious act we have to visit upon another.

Sex Organs and the sex with have with them are just all around better than violence, no matter how you measure it.

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

Extreme graphic violence ok, but naughty bits, everyone loses their minds

And in Europe its the opposite. So what?

There's an argument to be made that violence is objectively much worse. Violence hurts people, causes pain, kills people any situation is better absent violence than it is with violence. In contrast genitals have many fun, enjoyable uses and one vital reproductive one. A culture that embraces violence but shuns genitals is arguably embracing something that simply isn't as good. From a practical standpoint most people just don't have any great cause for violence in their day to day lives, we don't seek to hurt others and more of us won't be victims of violence than will be. In contrast most of us are going to use our genitals at some point, having a broader range of open imaginary, ideas, and open conversation can be useful.

Sex Organs and the sex with have with them are just all around better than violence, no matter how you measure it.

Yes, but there is an appropriate age for those things. And we believe that children shouldn't be exposed to sexual material till their parents deem it appropriate. We believe its a very private matter on top of that, not something that should be flaunted.

Violence on the other might be worse, but its also something that can and should be addressed at an earlier age.

On top of it all, we do still have rating systems in place. People should probably follow them a little more.

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah... the US is rather... schizophrenic when it comes to our naughty bits. Like... it's apparently the Apocalypse to be naked in front of people in a non-sexual venue (like the locker room at the gym) but it's A-OK to send pictures of your wedding tackle to strangers on Instagram and Twitter?

I... don't "get" America sometimes.

Extreme graphic violence ok, but naughty bits, everyone loses their minds

And in Europe its the opposite. So what?

There's an argument to be made that violence is objectively much worse. Violence hurts people, causes pain, kills people any situation is better absent violence than it is with violence. In contrast genitals have many fun, enjoyable uses and one vital reproductive one. A culture that embraces violence but shuns genitals is arguably embracing something that simply isn't as good. From a practical standpoint most people just don't have any great cause for violence in their day to day lives, we don't seek to hurt others and more of us won't be victims of violence than will be. In contrast most of us are going to use our genitals at some point, having a broader range of open imaginary, ideas, and open conversation can be useful. Not to mention genitals are just body parts we have, while violence is a specific unconscious act we have to visit upon another.

Sex Organs and the sex with have with them are just all around better than violence, no matter how you measure it.

The other argument could be "Europe acting stupid doesn't cancel out USA doing something stupid, and vice versa".

I work with someone who's sibling identifies as male despite female biology. The sibling uses faculty restrooms not wanting to use either the boy's or girl's room. Makes me wonder several things...

Should this child be forced into the men's room since that is how the child identifies? Banned from the girl's room if the child wants to use it at some point in the future? Not be given special privledges since they are victimizing the child with an "other" designation (the child may not understand the victimization is happening) and because it isn't equal. If a girl/boy can have a neutral facility and it be an acceptable solution, why can't the same solution be acceptable for a boy/girl? If you identify as something other than your apparent sex, do you get to choose where to go, but if you don't identify as something other than your apparent sex are you not afforded that opportunity? If someone identifies as truely neutral and has neutral physiology as well should they be forced to choose in the binary system, be given free reign to move from one to the other, or perhaps be given a third option. Would the last be victimizing?

Maybe binary designations and treatment isn't really that great an idea.

 dogma wrote:
If we're talking about preventing young women from being forced to deal with body image issues, then shouldn't the argument be that any instance in which they are forced to expose their bodies in front of another person be avoided? The same goes for young men, of course, as they also frequently suffer from body image issues and the sexual assaults triggers that Stanman mentioned.

Indeed, what about the possibility of lesbian girls in the class?