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.

 Goliath wrote:
(Side note: I love how I can make this exact post in literally every single trans bathroom issues thread. It's almost as if the argument is tired and played out)

And likewise, I'm going to repeat myself in a post I made in reply to mbuildr, which I assume they either ignored or never saw.

Re. Why it is is dangerous to segregate by genitals.

...we are yet to reach an easily and safely attainable solution for lower surgeries - for example the most common, safest and uncomplicated FtM method does not give a penis that can urinate. Urethral hookup is beyond the capabilities of many surgeons and the financial or physical reach of many patients. Yet to look at those patients, you would be absolutely clueless in a great many cases.

And there's the danger. If you put one of those patients in the V room because he can't piss in a trough, he is visible. If you put a trans lady in the P room because she can piss in a trough, she is visible. Not only is it forcibly outing someone's identity, it's putting them in danger from people who witness them. Gender neutral bathrooms (when used as a third option) similarly run this issue.
Plus, to receive surgeries, a doctor requires a patient to experience six months to two years of "Real Life Experience" - living as though you have already fully transitioned at work and at home.

Think back a few decades to how commonly accepted terrible things happening to gay people was. Then think about how frightening and dangerous it would have been to have a room that visually distinguished gays.
Yes, there are far more important things to worry about in life... But it's not purely a big fuss about being thought of as weird, or being near kids, or having feelings hurt by going in the 'wrong' room... It's a genuinely frightening (inadvertent) move towards putting people in danger.

 d-usa wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I have to agree with some of the other sentiments here, I think the people who are going to abuse this new ruling are vastly outweighed by the people who will use the restroom for it's intended purpose.

There are estimated to be over 700K registered sex offenders in the USA. There are estimated to be over 700K transgender individuals in the USA.

Is there a point to this post?

Of course. Let me walk you through the math.

There are slightly over 700,000 transgender individuals in the US.

There are over 700,000 registered sex offenders in the US.

There are slightly over 700,000 people living in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Barack Obama was allegedly born in Hawaii in '54.

5 + 4 equals nine.

Those 3 populations go into nine 3 times.

Half Life 3 confirmed. Checkmate, libs.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I have to agree with some of the other sentiments here, I think the people who are going to abuse this new ruling are vastly outweighed by the people who will use the restroom for it's intended purpose.

There are estimated to be over 700K registered sex offenders in the USA. There are estimated to be over 700K transgender individuals in the USA.

And? Laws don't stop people from committing terrible crimes. You think that people weren't doing terrible things to women in bathrooms before this law?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I have to agree with some of the other sentiments here, I think the people who are going to abuse this new ruling are vastly outweighed by the people who will use the restroom for it's intended purpose.

There are estimated to be over 700K registered sex offenders in the USA. There are estimated to be over 700K transgender individuals in the USA.

Do you know what kind of things can get you put onto the sex offenders list?

Hint: It's not just being a sex offender. Things like public nudity and indecent exposure can get you put onto that list.

Also, somehow every single transgender is a sex offender? That's about all anyone can get from this post, unless you have some kind of secret knowledge the rest of us don't.

Word to the wise - whichever side that will require more people to care over a longer period of time will lose.

I'm flabbergasted at the responses to the comment I made with respect to the quotation it was meant to address.

700K transgenders is a good reason to allow men to use the women's bathroom.

700K registered sex offenders is a bad reason to allow men to use the women's bathroom.

Is it that hard to make that correlation based on my comment about the quotation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
indecent exposure can get you put onto that list.

LOL thanks for making my point exactly.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
I'm flabbergasted at the responses to the comment I made with respect to the quotation it was meant to address.

700K transgenders is a good reason to allow men to use the women's bathroom.

700K registered sex offenders is a bad reason to allow men to use the women's bathroom.

There are more than 700K black people in the US, how does that affect laws like this?

Mdlbuildr wrote:I'm flabbergasted at the responses to the comment I made with respect to the quotation it was meant to address.

Maybe you should actually make a comment rather than just throw out numbers?

700K transgenders is a good reason to allow men to use the women's bathroom.

700K registered sex offenders is a bad reason to allow men to use the women's bathroom.

Is it that hard to make that correlation based on my comment about the quotation?

 jreilly89 wrote:
I have to agree with some of the other sentiments here, I think the people who are going to abuse this new ruling are vastly outweighed by the people who will use the restroom for it's intended purpose.

This is the quotation you're referring to.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

There are estimated to be over 700K registered sex offenders in the USA. There are estimated to be over 700K transgender individuals in the USA.

That is your comment.

There is no real correlation. You just threw numbers out there.

 Kanluwen wrote:
indecent exposure can get you put onto that list.

LOL thanks for making my point exactly.

Waffles. Waffles waffles waffles!

What, you can't see the correlation between the quotation and my reply?

In any regards, throwing out "700K registered sex offenders" is an asinine argument as to why it's a "bad idea for (transgendered) men to use the women's bathroom". There's a ton of things which can get you put onto the sex offenders list that aren't actually sexual offenses or are prosecutable offenses that can be leveled against minors engaged in consenting sexual activity.

The quotation referred to the poster thinking there are more people that would abide by using the bathroom properly based on their gender identification over those that would do it maliciously.

The number pointed to the fact that there are numerically just as many who could use it properly as those that could use it malicioulsy. Perhaps next time I will be more specific. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the waffle comment. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

Mdlbuildr wrote:
The quotation referred to the poster thinking there are more people that would abide by using the bathroom properly based on their gender identification over those that would do it maliciously.

The number pointed to the fact that there are numerically just as many who could use it properly as those that could use it malicioulsy. Perhaps next time I will be more specific. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the waffle comment. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

Okay, find me how many transgender people are on the sex offender register. If you can't find any, or you find that they are a much lower proportion of that population compared to non-transsexuals, then they should be allowed to use whichever bathroom they want to.

Well there was that guy from Silence of the Lambs....

Mdlbuildr wrote:
The quotation referred to the poster thinking there are more people that would abide by using the bathroom properly based on their gender identification over those that would do it maliciously.

The number pointed to the fact that there are numerically just as many who could use it properly as those that could use it malicioulsy. Perhaps next time I will be more specific. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the waffle comment. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

Exfrigginactly what your "700K transgenders and 700K sex offenders" comment had to do with the discussion at hand.

Throwing out numbers with no context contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand.
A) Where did you get the numbers from?
B) Are you trying to say that there are 700K transgendered sex offenders? 700K sex offenders are transgendered? That all sex offenders are transgendered and all transgendered are sex offenders?
C) Out of the % of sex offenders who are transgendered, what are they registered for? Remember that in some places, engaging in certain traditionally homosexual acts can be considered sexual offenses and get you put on the registry.

In all seriousness, you really show a complete lack of understanding of the sex offender's registry and why it is considered a bit of an outmoded thing by law enforcement agencies.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


What about someone with a permanent catheter? What bathroom do they use considering they don't even need to drop their trouser or skirt to use the bathroom?

They can do what the folks around here with colostomy bags apparently do: use the drinking fountain drain.

Wow...just wow...

Mdlbuildr wrote:
The quotation referred to the poster thinking there are more people that would abide by using the bathroom properly based on their gender identification over those that would do it maliciously.

The number pointed to the fact that there are numerically just as many who could use it properly as those that could use it malicioulsy. Perhaps next time I will be more specific. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the waffle comment. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

So people will use this bill as a fake reason to go into bathrooms in order to do criminal things, but the only people that would do so are people already on the registered sex offender list?

Passing laws requiring people to use the gender on their birth certificate does nothing to prevent people who want to commit crimes in bathrooms from entering the bathroom. Passing laws banning discrimination in bathrooms does nothing to allow people who want to commit crimes in bathrooms to enter the bathroom.

I understand that YOU think that throwing those numbers out there means something, but they are junk statistics and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Wow.

I'm saying that there are 700K that would likely use the bathrooms appropriately.

There's A WHOLE OTHER GROUP OF 700K PEOPLE that would likely not.

Yes, if we let transgender people go to the bathroom of their gender, then EVERY SINGLE SEX OFFENDER currently registered in the US will swarm the bathroom of their opposite gender.

Wow indeed.

Can someone please tell me what being on the sex offender list has to do with which restroom one chooses? I'm not following that train.

*Post purged out of courtesy*

 Frazzled wrote:
Well there was that guy from Silence of the Lambs....

Lecter and Clarice Starling both very clearly stated that Buffalo Bill was not transgender (and had in fact been denied treatment to undergo sex-reassignment) but that his desire to become a woman stemmed from childhood trauma and a desire to completely transform himself due to his own self hatred, which he believed made him transsexual.

 d-usa wrote:

Yes, if we let transgender people go to the bathroom of their gender, then EVERY SINGLE SEX OFFENDER currently registered in the US will swarm the bathroom of their opposite gender.

Now you begin to see the danger!

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Can someone please tell me what being on the sex offender list has to do with which restroom one chooses? I'm not following that train.

Someone posted that he was sure that the people that would use this law properly outweighed those that would use the law maliciously.

As I've posted a few times, the transgender community would likely use the laws properly, but that there were an equal number of people who could use the law maliciously.

The conduct of some of the people on this thread is truly frightening. Kindly remove that "Crazy Train" and I believe referring to Rule #1 is not out of the realm of what should be mentioned here.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Can someone please tell me what being on the sex offender list has to do with which restroom one chooses? I'm not following that train.

I've no idea.

let's just put this down to a misunderstanding and move on.

Never mind.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well there was that guy from Silence of the Lambs....

Lecter and Clarice Starling both very clearly stated that Buffalo Bill was not transgender (and had in fact been denied treatment to undergo sex-reassignment) but that his desire to become a woman stemmed from childhood trauma and a desire to completely transform himself due to his own self hatred, which he believed made him transsexual.

Who are you going to believe, a fictional book character or me?

I think we've all learned something here, and that the number '700,000' is tricksy, realz tricksy.

Why hasn't the Crazy Train post been removed?

 d-usa wrote:
Yes, if we let transgender people go to the bathroom of their gender, then EVERY SINGLE SEX OFFENDER currently registered in the US will swarm the bathroom of their opposite gender.

That's going to be a really crowded bathroom!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
As I've posted a few times, the transgender community would likely use the laws properly, but that there were an equal number of people who could use the law maliciously.

No, there is not an equal number. There is a much, much larger number. There are a little over 7 billion people in the world, all of whom could use the law maliciously. What matter is whether people are likely to use the law maliciously, and that's a question that the number of convicted sex offenders has very little to do with. There are undoubtedly lots of sex offenders who haven't been caught and convicted yet. There are "sex offenders" convicted for minor offenses (for example, someone labeled a "sex offender" for getting drunk and running naked across the field at a sporting event is probably not any more likely than the average person to commit a more serious offense). There are sex offenders convicted of serious offenses who have no interest in bathrooms. There are gay sex offenders who would not find being restricted to the bathroom matching what's between their legs to be a significant obstacle. There are sex offenders who would like to commit some sex offenses in bathrooms, but know that trying anything in such a public location is just a good way to get arrested again. Etc, etc.

On top of this we need to look at whether the law even accomplishes anything to keep sex offenders from doing anything to hurt people. A person who is going to do something inappropriate is likely to understand that getting caught is easy, and pick a low-traffic bathroom where they can be alone with their victim and not worry about anyone else walking in and catching them. And in this case it doesn't really matter what sign is on the door, nobody is going to be around to prevent them from going in whatever bathroom they want, regardless of the law. Similarly, taking pictures of people, acting creepy towards them, etc, are things that are already either illegal or grounds for being banned from whatever store/restaurant/etc owns the bathroom. A person doing those things can be arrested or banned regardless of their claimed gender identity, so making stricter laws about which bathroom a person can use doesn't really add anything.

In conclusion, the only sex offenders these laws can plausibly stop is the kind that just wants to quietly sit in a bathroom and listen to everything without ever making their presence known. And, while this is pretty creepy, it would be difficult to argue that they are having any meaningful effect on anyone.

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well there was that guy from Silence of the Lambs....

Lecter and Clarice Starling both very clearly stated that Buffalo Bill was not transgender (and had in fact been denied treatment to undergo sex-reassignment) but that his desire to become a woman stemmed from childhood trauma and a desire to completely transform himself due to his own self hatred, which he believed made him transsexual.

Who are you going to believe, a fictional book character or me?

I think we've all learned something here, and that the number '700,000' is tricksy, realz tricksy.

To be fair Frazz, how do we know YOU aren't a fictional character?

 Easy E wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well there was that guy from Silence of the Lambs....

Lecter and Clarice Starling both very clearly stated that Buffalo Bill was not transgender (and had in fact been denied treatment to undergo sex-reassignment) but that his desire to become a woman stemmed from childhood trauma and a desire to completely transform himself due to his own self hatred, which he believed made him transsexual.

Who are you going to believe, a fictional book character or me?

I think we've all learned something here, and that the number '700,000' is tricksy, realz tricksy.

To be fair Frazz, how do we know YOU aren't a fictional character?

Well if I were still a Zen Buddhist I'd say I was, but for now we'll just go with:

Can a Mod please remove the Crazy Train post!! I find it insulting and it breaks Rule #1.

I've asked several times, now. Both with a report and via PM.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Can a Mod please remove the Crazy Train post!! I find it insulting and it breaks Rule #1.

I've asked several times, now. Both with a report and via PM.

Mods usually don't respond publicly to requests or alerts, unless it requires an in-thread warning to discourage further violations. They also usually don't justify their decisions one way or another, unless it is in the interest of the thread as a whole.

There is a locked thread in Nuts & Bolts that goes into some of the same issues that might help explain stuff.

Stick to the topic, if it hasn't been changed after being reviewed then asking repeatedly in thread for that to happen is just going to get you a spam/off topic warning.

Back to the original topic, last warning for the thread as a whole before I lock it.