Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#1 Mar 09 2013 at 11:00 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Lately, I've seen several stories via Yahoo/Facebook, etc. on discrimination towards transgenders. The first being a mother who is suing a school because her 6 year old boy, who identifies himself as a girl, was being treated like a boy. Then I saw another story about transgenders being allowed in the military and finally complaints about "physical advantages" over transgenders in a modeling contest and MMA fighting.

People often include discrimination against transgenders along with homosexuals (which is ironic), but they are completely two different scenarios which should be treated separately. I'm not familiar with the appropriate jargon (i.e. transgender vs transsexual, etc.); however, a person who dresses/behaves as a person of the opposite *** (regardless of sexuality) isn't the same as a person requesting society to ignore their innate *** in regards to specific *** based scenarios.

I believe there should be a fine line between "Freely expressing yourself as the *** of your choice" and allowing people to violate *** based regulations due to their expression.

What say ye?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#2 Mar 09 2013 at 11:18 AM Rating: Decent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Well, I never had a problem with *** men and male-to-female trans people using the female toilets over here. It just made social sense, because they either weren't interested in me (the gays) or felt safer being in with me (trans females). If any of them were bi, or like transgender lesbians, they were polite enough to completely ignore the women around them. No harm, no foul.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#3 Mar 09 2013 at 12:23 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
If society were more "unisexual", then I would agree; however, *** is the most discriminating factor world wide. A man, who identifies himself as a woman, shouldn't be able to participate as a woman in sporting events or violate any other already placed *** restrictions. If society wants to remove those *** restrictions, then go for it. However, as long as those restrictions exist, they should be followed.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#4 Mar 09 2013 at 1:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,576 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not familiar with the appropriate jargon (i.e. transgender vs transsexual, etc.)

*** is anatomy, gender is psychology.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#5 Mar 09 2013 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Since you seem to be referring to sports a lot, I'll just address that. I would say someone male who identifies as female probably should not be allowed to compete against females. We're talking about rare fringe cases here though, and I would say we probably have the capability to just deal with it on a case by case basis, and figure out if there is an advantage or not.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 1:26pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#7 Mar 09 2013 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,841 posts
It's a case-by-case issue. Sometimes society segregates men and women by ***, sometimes by gender, sometimes both, sometimes neither. You can't create universal rules that will govern whole cases, because human beings aren't so easily sorted.

But the biggest issue is that most people entertain an extremely wrong notion of what *** is. We all learned about XX and XY in school, but the reality is that sexual gender is determined by more than just two chromosomes. Chromosomal abnormalities, such as having an extra X or Y chromosome, aren't all that uncommon at all, and plenty of people with them may never even discover the difference. Most people have no conception of how common these disorders are, because most people with the most common forms are both fertile and lead normal lives. Then there are people who don't have clearly defined chromosomes, and chromosomes who are missing the genes that lead to changes we've come to associate with being one *** or the other. And then there's the fact that sexual development is linked to far more factors than just the X and Y genes.

There's a reason why the Olympics now uses testosterone levels to determine the "***" of competitors. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it attempts to level the playing field by pairing competitors into similar groupings using a system that has a known association with physical strength. Whether or not that's fair for competitions not relying on physical traits with proven, strong correlations to testosterone levels remains to be seen. But at least this sort of system would be more generous to trans females who have undergone reassignment surgery, use hormone blockers, or both.

That said, there will always be fringe cases--women with unusually high testosterone levels, or men with unusually low--because humans don't just fall into two categories. We run the gamut.

As for everything else, if you're trying to exclude a trans man or woman from something that isn't physically tied to their birth ***, you're an *******. At the worst of times, trans men and (particularly) trans women face vastly higher chances of assault than any other group. If they don't want to have to use the men's room, they shouldn't @#$%ing have to. It's not like they're going to whip out whatever they've got below the belt and make you play with it. Of course, we all know that this is Alma's greatest desire fear.

Chances are, they want this to be a conversation topic even less than you do. All they want is the ability to feel safe when going about their daily lives. The fact that anyone else even cares boggles my mind.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#8 Mar 09 2013 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
If they don't want to have to use the men's room, they shouldn't @#$%ing have to.

Does this apply to everyone?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Mar 09 2013 at 2:40 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
In before 17 pages of stupidity.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#10 Mar 09 2013 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Joph, if you want to continue your life from now on as a woman, I'd be fine with you going to the women's bathroom.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 9:44pm by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#11 Mar 09 2013 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,847 posts
Maybe related, maybe not, but I think we should do away with all regulations for football, hockey, and baseball. They're all boring. I think they should be able to pump as much steroids and horse growth hormones as they want. I don't give two fucks about their safety, their futures, or their dreams. They're here to entertain me and I'd be much more entertained by watching Mutant League Football.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 4:01pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#12 Mar 09 2013 at 3:08 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
They should do a test case with pro cycling, the infrastructure and professional programs for all of that are already there.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#13 Mar 09 2013 at 3:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Joph, if you want to continue your life from now on as a woman, I'd be fine with you going to the women's bathroom.

Awesome, but that didn't answer the question.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Mar 09 2013 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
The "they" in the part of idiggory's post that you quoted refers to trans people, so it kind of does.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#15 Mar 09 2013 at 3:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
The "they" in the part of idiggory's post that you quoted refers to trans people, so it kind of does.

Does it? Hence my question. Does the phrase "If they don't want to have to use the men's room, they shouldn't @#$%ing have to" apply to everyone or only a special, select group of people?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Mar 09 2013 at 5:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,841 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Since you seem to be referring to sports a lot, I'll just address that. I would say someone male who identifies as female probably should not be allowed to compete against females. We're talking about rare fringe cases here though, and I would say we probably have the capability to just deal with it on a case by case basis, and figure out if there is an advantage or not.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 1:26pm by Xsarus


I'll second the case-by-case thing.

I'm fine with leaving it up to the individual sport's leadership/whatever to figure it out. I'm all for letting transgender people choose the *** they associate themselves with. Competitive sports are iffy for me though, mainly to make sure it's fair to the to the other athletes. Just because you underwent gender re-assignment surgery doesn't mean you no longer have a natural competitive advantage because of your native gender. I could see why some might take issue with that.

But if you have a oversight body clear someone to compete, then I got no problems with it.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#17 Mar 09 2013 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
I don't want a man watching me pee. I don't particularly want another woman watching me pee, either. That's probably why the ladies room has stalls with doors that shut and lock. One very large bathroom with 6 or so stalls should be plenty for both the male and female population in any given public place.

Or, do as some of the places here do. Have two bathrooms with locking doors and it's a first come, first serve sort of thing. Just like in a house.

I don't see the issue, personally. I have rarely (I won't say never) been into a ladies room and seen someone buck naked standing outside of the stalls.

This idea, of course, would damage any companies who make their living creating urinals, but oh well. Win some, lose some.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 5:14pm by Belkira
#18 Mar 09 2013 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Eh, even for the urinals with only a divider in between them, it's not like you'll ever have to worry about someone else seeing you pee. It's just not done to look over to see what the next guy is doing.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#19 Mar 09 2013 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Eh, even for the urinals with only a divider in between them, it's not like you'll ever have to worry about someone else seeing you pee. It's just not done to look over to see what the next guy is doing.


No, but in my perfect world with "one bathroom to rule them," urinals wouldn't be installed because there would be no need. Men can pee in toilets just as easily inside a stall. If the bathroom is being shared by females, then you would want to utilize every stall to make it so that any person who enters can use it.

And if women were tramping in and out of the bathroom or clustering around the mirrors putting on their makeup, it might give a guy pause to saunter up to the urinal and start peeing.

Then again... it might dissuade females from gathering at the sinks like idiots, too... win/win?


Edited, Mar 9th 2013 5:30pm by Belkira
#20 Mar 09 2013 at 5:31 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Idd wrote:
It's a case-by-case issue. Sometimes society segregates men and women by ***, sometimes by gender, sometimes both, sometimes neither. You can't create universal rules that will govern whole cases, because human beings aren't so easily sorted.


*** is the biggest discriminator world wide. While there are times when ***/gender is not discriminated (i.e., in public schools), there are specific scenarios where *** is the biggest discriminator, i.e., changing rooms, bathrooms, showers and sports. Whether or not the discrimination is justified is another discussion, but if it is supported, then it needs to be followed. If not, then the discrimination should be removed.

Idd wrote:
As for everything else, if you're trying to exclude a trans man or woman from something that isn't physically tied to their birth ***, you're an @#%^. At the worst of times, trans men and (particularly) trans women face vastly higher chances of assault than any other group. If they don't want to have to use the men's room, they shouldn't @#$%ing have to. It's not like they're going to whip out whatever they've got below the belt and make you play with it. Of course, we all know that this is Alma's greatest desire fear.


Before this gets into a "flame Alma" thread, your callow threats wont phase me. I'm smart enough to know that I can express the belief that only women should be authorized to partake in a sporting event exclusively for women. If not, then why is it exclusive? If you want trans to participate, then remove the *** restrictions. It's really that simple. Your "if you don't agree with me, then you're the worst of the worst" attack holds no water towards anyone with common sense. Doing so will only make you a hypocrite. Of course, you don't realize it now.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#21 Mar 09 2013 at 5:35 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Much as I hate to admit it, I can see where Alma is coming from.

Here's my question: A woman who wants to compete in, say, discus throwing. Wouldn't she want to train her body to the point where she can beat anyone, not just the other women? Is there really a disadvantage? Can women really just biologically never beat men in sports? That seems a little odd to me.
#22 Mar 09 2013 at 5:38 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
To be completely honest, I have trouble believing it would be an issue in competitive sports at all. I'd be frankly shocked if there was a single professional athlete not juicing on whatever undetectable performance enhancers are available on the market, legal or not.

Imo, it should just come down to capability. If a trans woman has an unfair advantage, then she gets prohibited. If she doesn't, she doesn't. I don't mean to infer that this is simple--the procedure for determining this needs to be left to each sport, but I have difficulty imagining trans athletes actually being that far ahead. Particularly if they've actually had gender reassignment surgery. Put them through stress tests relevant to the activity, and plot them next to the bell curve of other players in the field. If they're too far ahead, don't let them compete.

I honestly don't think it's an issue. I can't help but feel that a big reason it's controversial is because people suspect that someone's trying to "infiltrate" the sport, which has been a big part of anti-trans rhetoric for both sides (male/female) since the 50s. It being the area of ***** rights where the least progress has made, not at all helped by the near-complete abandonment of trans peoples by the rest of the ***** community, I really wouldn't be shocked if this was still a continuing fear.

Or maybe I'm just putting my own perceptions onto the present situation. I'm not going to pretend like that couldn't be the case.

Quote:
Does this apply to everyone?


As long as their motives don't interfere with the notion of safe space, then yes. If someone, male or female, is going in to make an exhibit out of the men or women in there, they've violated that trust. Using the bathroom associated with the gender you identify with, assuming you have a gender identity, is built into that notion. One restroom to act as a safe space for men, and one for women (who admittedly need it more, due to having less protection and power within our society).

Deliberately entering the room that doesn't correlate to your identity is damaging. To yourself, if you are being barred from the room you wish to use, or fear using it. Or to those who do identify with the correlated gender, for infringing upon their safe space.

The problem as I see it is that we too often correlate gender segregation with sexual segregation. And we shouldn't, because it's been a long time since that made sense with the public perception of society. As a *** man, I'm going to use the men's room. Because I identify as male. Lesbians use women's rooms, because they identify as women. We trust that these groups aren't going to attempt to rape the straight men/women in the rest room (though alma might disagree).

I'm also not going to pretend that it's always clear what the motives are, particularly for trans peoples who have not begin transitioning, or who do not desire to. They may or may not care about trying to pass for their gender to others. If they start peeping, they're no different than any other deviant.

But it's not like they're going to be acting like drag queens. A trans woman in a women's restroom isn't going to be paying any more or less attention to the other women in there than anyone else. The other women are likely paying more to her. But forcing her to use the men's room is surely the worse option.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#23 Mar 09 2013 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,417 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Maybe related, maybe not, but I think we should do away with all regulations for football, hockey, and baseball. They're all boring. I think they should be able to pump as much steroids and horse growth hormones as they want. I don't give two fucks about their safety, their futures, or their dreams. They're here to entertain me and I'd be much more entertained by watching Mutant League Football.


You mean this: http://www.hulu.com/watch/4090
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#24 Mar 09 2013 at 5:42 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
The "they" in the part of idiggory's post that you quoted refers to trans people, so it kind of does.


The question is "who are they?". If I decided to associate myself as a woman, so is everything now ok? Or do I have to change the way I look, dress and act? If the latter, aren't you not discriminating against my gender? Where is the line? People should feel free to associate with whatever gender and dress appropriately, but if there are rules that discriminate on ***, then there needs to be a line. Else, remove the discrimination.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#25 Mar 09 2013 at 5:44 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
There are too much biological differences for that to be fair.


For example: I was watching speed skating today, the women's second longest distance is 3000 meters, it's 5000 meters for the men.
The winner of the women's 3000 meters won with a track record of 3:58:68 (that's minutes, seconds, hundredth of seconds, just to be clear).

Even the worst performing men beat that by a good 5-6 seconds on their way to 5000m. The winner of the women's 3000m is in probably the best funded skating team in the world, has every possible method of training at her fingertips and I am sure she makes full use of everything she can to get better (within the legal means of the sport, obviously) yet she can't even compete by far with the men who aren't even giving it their all for that distance since they still have 2000m to go.


Speed skating tracks are 400 meters in length, therefore a 3000 meter race is 7 and a half laps and a 5000 meter race is 12 and a half laps so it's easy to track times recorded at 3000 meter when the men race a 5000 meter race because they pass the finish line at that point.

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 12:44am by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#26 Mar 09 2013 at 5:57 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
Aw, alma learned the word "callow."

Granted, it doesn't mean what he thinks it means. He also seems to misunderstand the definition of "threats." But it's cute that he tried.

And no, the point is that these are gender identities. You don't just wake up one morning and decide you want to dress in women's clothing. That's not an identity, it's a lifestyle choice. Cross dressing is far more common among heterosexual men than any other group, combined. Drag queens, trans peoples, and the subset of lesbians who hold the butch identity are still a minority to them.

But in all of these cases, men who like to wear women's clothes, women who like to wear men's clothes, they elect to use the restrooms associated with their gender, not with their lifestyle choices. Yet of these groups people only end up in an uproar over trans persons, because they're somehow considered more deviant than others as their lifestyle choices may actually reflect their gender.

A boy who wants to wear women's clothes is still going to want to use the men's room, because he identifies as male. A boy who identifies as female may or may not want to wear women's clothes is going to want to use the women's room, because she identifies as female.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#27 Mar 09 2013 at 6:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
As long as their motives don't interfere with the notion of safe space, then yes. If someone, male or female, is going in to make an exhibit out of the men or women in there, they've violated that trust.

But that's very ambiguous. Especially for setting a standard, be it social or legal. Who decides if someone has "made an exhibit" out of me?

Quote:
If they start peeping, they're no different than any other deviant.

They're different in that we've handed them a ready excuse and defense. That was the restroom they wanted to use and we're just misinterpreting their actions.

I'm not saying that trans-whatever people are going to behave inappropriately. I'm saying that "Let them use whatever restroom they want" is a terrible way of setting a standard which invites all manners of abuse.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Mar 09 2013 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Idd wrote:
Aw, alma learned the word "callow."


I've used that word several times. The fact that you felt it worthy to be singled out as if it were some kind of precocious action, only demonstrates your inability to provide a valid point.

Idd wrote:
Granted, it doesn't mean what he thinks it means. He also seems to misunderstand the definition of "threats." But it's cute that he tried.


Maybe you should look up words before debating their meanings.

Idd wrote:
And no, the point is that these are gender identities. You don't just wake up one morning and decide you want to dress in women's clothing. That's not an identity, it's a lifestyle choice. Cross dressing is far more common among heterosexual men than any other group, combined. Drag queens, trans peoples, and the subset of lesbians who hold the butch identity are still a minority to them.


How does any of that matter if a man decides to be associated as a woman? You seriously can't be such a hypocritical ignoramus to believe that it's "ok" to label someone's sexuality a "lifestyle CHOICE" when you deem fit.

Idd wrote:
A boy who wants to wear women's clothes is still going to want to use the men's room, because he identifies as male. A boy who identifies as female may or may not want to wear women's clothes is going to want to use the women's room, because she identifies as female.


Which is perfectly ok as long as there aren't any discriminating laws/rules/practices based on ***. If there are separate bathrooms for men and women, then it has absolutely nothing to do with "what you identify yourself as", but predetermined criteria. If you're going to let anyone define their criteria, then there is no point in having the discrimination. It's really that simple.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#29 Mar 09 2013 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Cross-dressing is not necessarily someone associating themselves with the opposite gender. It is also not a sexuality. It is a lifestyle choice.

I prefer to wear jeans and a t-shirt every day. That doesn't mean I identify as a man, or that I an attracted women. The same holds true for a man who finds wearing a dress comfortable. It doesn't automatically mean he prefers men over women. He just feels like wearing a dress.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 6:38pm by Belkira
#30 Mar 09 2013 at 6:38 PM Rating: Default
*****
19,841 posts
I'd invest a lot more in that argument if it wasn't, to the best of my knowledge, completely legal for a man to use a woman's bathroom. There's nothing stopping a creep from entering them right now besides the social pressure that he not do so. And maybe this is naive of me, but I'm inclined to say that societal pressure has rarely actually stopped someone from acting on their desires. Act on them with less frequency, sure. But someone who is turned on by peeping is probably going to peep.

I don't see why the procedure for dealing with this would change at all. If someone's making you uncomfortable, you confront him, you ignore it, you report it to management, or you call the cops.

I may be wrong--maybe those laws do exist. I only gave it a quick once-over on google. But it seems to me that these distinctions aren't a matter of public policy, but a personal choice on part of the owner of whoever operates those restrooms. But I really don't think a societal acceptance that people should use the bathrooms they feel comfortable in would translate into an increased rate of lewd behavior in restrooms.

If anything, I imagine the long term desexualization of ***-specific areas like restrooms would reduce these rates.

[EDIT]

I'm laughing so hard right now. "Precocious," "ignoramus?" I can only imagine what Alma will be like in another 4 months.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 7:39pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#31 Mar 09 2013 at 6:52 PM Rating: Good
******
43,847 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I only gave it a quick once-over on google.
Cursory search found a bill proposed in Tennessee (imagine my surprise) to prohibit and fine transgender individuals from using bathrooms / dressing rooms opposite the gender on their birth certificate.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#32 Mar 09 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I don't see why the procedure for dealing with this would change at all. If someone's making you uncomfortable, you confront him, you ignore it, you report it to management, or you call the cops.

A male entering a woman's restroom would likely be grounds for ejection by management whether he was peering over stalls or making ******* motions or not. Simple and pretty cut 'n dry. Unless you're saying this rule shouldn't change regardless of the male's personal gender identity, I don't think you want the procedure to stay the same.

Quote:
But someone who is turned on by peeping is probably going to peep.

This is as silly as "Someone who wants to kill will just kill, gun or no." Allowing someone carte blanche to enter restrooms of the opposite *** opens up far more possibilities with far more ease than drilling holes in the walls or trying to hide cameras in the paper towel dispenser.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Mar 09 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
But it is legal (if frowned upon) for men to enter the women's bathroom in Tennessee? Or women enter the men's bathroom.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#34 Mar 09 2013 at 6:58 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,847 posts
I don't know, it's fucking Tennessee. If it's even remotely similar to New York then you're not going to be arrested but you won't have any grounds to argue if the management denies you or asks you to leave either.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#35 Mar 09 2013 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
But it is legal (if frowned upon) for men to enter the women's bathroom in Tennessee? Or women enter the men's bathroom.

It's likely legal and up to the property owner/manager to decide. But if people start claiming discrimination because the manager at McDonald's said you can't use the restroom you want, you're eventually going to see movement into the realm of the legal. It'll come up sooner or later.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Mar 09 2013 at 7:01 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Belkira wrote:
Here's my question: A woman who wants to compete in, say, discus throwing. Wouldn't she want to train her body to the point where she can beat anyone, not just the other women? Is there really a disadvantage? Can women really just biologically never beat men in sports? That seems a little odd to me.

Your biggest complaint will more than likely come from women for the same reason why martial arts, wrestling, etc. have weight classes. People want to win. Someone at 6'1/180 lbs vs someone at 6'0/174 lbs is a fairer fight then anyone of them fighting someone at 5'6/130 lbs, regardless of their ***.

Look at it from the other point of view. Is that something you really want to brag about? Fighting someone half your size? So, the intent is to make the competition as equal as possible. Then and only then can you truly say that you're the winner.

Belkira wrote:
Cross-dressing is not necessarily someone associating themselves with the opposite gender.
...
I prefer to wear jeans and a t-shirt every day. That doesn't mean I identify as a man, or that I an attracted women. The same holds true for a man who finds wearing a dress comfortable. It doesn't automatically mean he prefers men over women. He just feels like wearing a dress.


This is correct.

Belkira wrote:
It is also not a sexuality. It is a lifestyle choice.


That is false by definition.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#37 Mar 09 2013 at 7:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
I don't know, it's fucking Tennessee. If it's even remotely similar to New York then you're not going to be arrested but you won't have any grounds to argue if the management denies you or asks you to leave either.

Most common current example is women deciding to use the men's room because the line for the ladies facilities is too long. Sometimes it's treated with a "hehe, she's got moxie" and sometimes it's a boot out the door. It really depends on the management and the venue. But there really isn't a "They weren't letting me use the restroom of my gender identity!" argument to be made there.

There are, of course, a bunch of other areas where the same question could come up besides public restrooms. That's just the most obvious one and one most people encounter day to day.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 7:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Mar 09 2013 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
This would probably be less of an issue if the US would actually pass a bill allowing transgendered peoples to change their legal ***. It's hard to realistically discuss procedure when trans politics is in shambles across the board.

Only 5 states will allow you to change your legal *** without first going through reassignment surgery, and only 1 of them will do it without a court order. The result is that the overwhelming majority of trans peoples in the US are legally considered the *** opposite of the gender identity they possess. This realistically grants them almost no protections in their day-to-day lives.

If you were a trans woman trying to use a woman's restroom, and your license designated you as a woman, it would be in the establishment's best interest to allow you to use that restroom. Forcing you to use the mens room would be politically destructive for them. Even if no trans protection laws were passed preventing that, the political ******** that would follow would teach business owners very quickly that it was in their best interest to accept the legal designation.

And, assuming states got off their asses and passed protection bills (I say knowing that these don't even exist for *** men and women in most states), they wouldn't be able to deny a patron access to the bathrooms outright on the grounds that they were trans, as that would clearly warrant a civil rights violation.

But I have serious difficulty imagining any sizable population of people would request a change to their legal gender identity simply to give them a slightly better opportunity to peep on women in the restroom.

At the end of the day, at least in my opinion, the real issue is that we're talking about a group of people who have next to no protections under the law, and possibly even less social support than that. Trans is barely recognized as being an actual social group, let alone one that needs protection. And considering they're always under scrutiny, that's the real issue.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#39 Mar 09 2013 at 7:19 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Idd wrote:
I'd invest a lot more in that argument if it wasn't, to the best of my knowledge, completely legal for a man to use a woman's bathroom. There's nothing stopping a creep from entering them right now besides the social pressure that he not do so. And maybe this is naive of me, but I'm inclined to say that societal pressure has rarely actually stopped someone from acting on their desires. Act on them with less frequency, sure. But someone who is turned on by peeping is probably going to peep.

I don't see why the procedure for dealing with this would change at all. If someone's making you uncomfortable, you confront him, you ignore it, you report it to management, or you call the cops.

I may be wrong--maybe those laws do exist. I only gave it a quick once-over on google. But it seems to me that these distinctions aren't a matter of public policy, but a personal choice on part of the owner of whoever operates those restrooms. But I really don't think a societal acceptance that people should use the bathrooms they feel comfortable in would translate into an increased rate of lewd behavior in restrooms.


You're restricting your argument to bathrooms, yet *** discrimination exceeds beyond that.

Idd wrote:
I'm laughing so hard right now. "Precocious," "ignoramus?" I can only imagine what Alma will be like in another 4 months.


I'm sorry, are you new here? Smiley: lol You really have no idea how your loutish comments portray you. Just stick with the topic at hand.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#40 Mar 09 2013 at 7:30 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
Quote:
Quote:
It is also not a sexuality. It is a lifestyle choice.


That is false by definition.


Sexuality is the sum of your sexual preferences. It's what gets you horny. It includes, but is not limited to: the sexes and genders you are attracted to (sexual orientation), your kinks and fetishes, the frequency with which you desire sexual activity or release, the way in which you achieve sexual release, etc.

Your *** is the biological *** you were born with. Most humans fall within the binary of male or female, but as many as 2% of humans are to some degree intersex and may identify as either or both sexes.

Your gender is an identity that is formed as a result of both biological and environmental phenomena. When your gender matches your ***, you are a cis- (man, woman). When your gender does not match your ***, you are a trans- (man, woman, or just trans). You may indentify as genderqueer, where you have a gender identity that does not fall on the typical spectrum of masculine/feminine. You may have a fluid gender, sometimes considering yourself one thing, sometimes another. You may have no gender identity at all.

Your sexuality is not defined by what you identify as or your ***. Our words may change, but a trans person may be attracted to cis-men, trans-men, cis-women, trans-women, those in between, no one, and any combination thereof. Your sexuality may be that you are attracted only to male-gendered females (as in trans men who have not used medical means to alter their bodies). None of this has to do with the *** or gender identity you possess.

There, enjoy your definitions.

[EDIT]
Quote:
loutish

Oh my god, it just keeps getting better.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 8:31pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#41 Mar 09 2013 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Belkira wrote:
No, but in my perfect world with "one bathroom to rule them," urinals wouldn't be installed because there would be no need. Men can pee in toilets just as easily inside a stall. If the bathroom is being shared by females, then you would want to utilize every stall to make it so that any person who enters can use it.
Urinals have a better bang for the buck on real estate used.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#42 Mar 09 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Good
******
43,847 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And, assuming states got off their asses and passed protection bills (I say knowing that these don't even exist for *** men and women in most states), they wouldn't be able to deny a patron access to the bathrooms outright on the grounds that they were trans, as that would clearly warrant a civil rights violation.
So how do you propose to enforce it? Have someone at the door to check IDs? Profiling? You'd probably need someone good at spotting fake IDs. And how about non residents? And who exactly gets to have their IDs and birth certificates changed? People that just feel like they are in the wrong body, or people who start going through the process of having their gender changed? Are we going to revisit this topic when it's not fair that only people with money get to and the poor don't or people slipping an extra $20 at the DMV to have a different gender on their driver's license. I'm all for fighting for equality but don't sit there and pretend that it's as easy as signing a piece of paper.

Also I want to go on record and say that I find it ridiculous there's a battle over a hole to **** and shit in.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 8:52pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#43Almalieque, Posted: Mar 09 2013 at 8:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Read above.
#44 Mar 09 2013 at 8:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Belkira wrote:
Much as I hate to admit it, I can see where Alma is coming from.

Here's my question: A woman who wants to compete in, say, discus throwing. Wouldn't she want to train her body to the point where she can beat anyone, not just the other women? Is there really a disadvantage? Can women really just biologically never beat men in sports? That seems a little odd to me.
Any and every Biologist and medical doctor will tell you that this is the case, and why. Men and Women's bodies are layed out differently inside, and that's NOT just the genitals. Men have a completely different vein layout, allowing more blood to be pumped to their outer muscles. For the same length of bone, men also have longer tendons. The outcome is a roughly 10% difference in athletic* ability between the sexes

Women's bodies are focused more on the internal organs. If you slapped a womb and a ****** and a fetus in an otherwise male body, the pregnant man could not live through childbirth even with a cesarean section. He probably couldn't even live through late stage pregnancy, where all the organs usually laid out in the abdomen are all thrust up together into the rib-cage, and the lungs are squeezed right up just under the neck in an area no larger than the size of an orange, for both of them.

* "athletic" used in the broadest sense of the word.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#45 Mar 09 2013 at 9:01 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Jophiel wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
The "they" in the part of idiggory's post that you quoted refers to trans people, so it kind of does.

Does it? Hence my question. Does the phrase "If they don't want to have to use the men's room, they shouldn't @#$%ing have to" apply to everyone or only a special, select group of people?

What are you arguing for here Joph? A One Rule For Everyone, and **** the consequences when humans are too diverse to not have a minority terrorised or completely squashed by the One Rule? It's not so hard to make the right exceptions. Deaf kids get to use computer and closed circuit equipment in the classroom. Children with learning disabilities of every kind get (or should get) extra help in the way of more attention, their own aide, or their own special classes.

Toilets were segregated on gender lines, because people presumed that took care of the *** divide, the sexual interest divide. As in: all the people in the bathroom weren't supposed to be able to be sexually interested in their bathroom comrades, and thus people could do bodily private things with less embarrassment, including adjustment of clothing, and grooming. And there is already an entrenched exception to the rule: pre-adolescent boys. They are presumed to have no sexual interest in the women in the Women's, and so mothers bring them in with impunity. It's also seen as better that the boy child is not left alone without guardian supervision in the Men's toilet, even back in the days when there was no public alarm about pedophiles.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#46 Mar 09 2013 at 9:16 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
It is also not a sexuality. It is a lifestyle choice.


That is false by definition.


Which definition is that...?

ETA: Forgot to add, thanks, Ari. I didn't realize all that. That's interesting.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 9:16pm by Belkira
#47 Mar 09 2013 at 9:24 PM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
This thread is dumb as fuck.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#48 Mar 09 2013 at 9:28 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
As long as their motives don't interfere with the notion of safe space, then yes. If someone, male or female, is going in to make an exhibit out of the men or women in there, they've violated that trust.

But that's very ambiguous. Especially for setting a standard, be it social or legal. Who decides if someone has "made an exhibit" out of me?

Quote:
If they start peeping, they're no different than any other deviant.

They're different in that we've handed them a ready excuse and defense. That was the restroom they wanted to use and we're just misinterpreting their actions.

I'm not saying that trans-whatever people are going to behave inappropriately. I'm saying that "Let them use whatever restroom they want" is a terrible way of setting a standard which invites all manners of abuse.
No really, we already have rules in place for this. If a heterosexual woman starts behaving unacceptably to a heterosexual woman in a bathroom, according to a common sense definition as determined by a jury of her peers, then protections are up in place. Just the same as if a trans woman started behaving unacceptably to a heterosexual woman in a bathroom. If you will accept a personal anecdote, I shared public bathrooms in four different venues, twice a week, for three years, with trans women, and not once did one of them make me feel uncomfortable by her behavior.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#49 Mar 09 2013 at 9:38 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I only gave it a quick once-over on google.
Cursory search found a bill proposed in Tennessee (imagine my surprise) to prohibit and fine transgender individuals from using bathrooms / dressing rooms opposite the gender on their birth certificate.

Half of america is stuck firmly in the 18th century, while honestly convinced they are the most free-living, privileged, people in the greatest nation on Earth.

TL:DR. Half of the USA is a hypocritical, severely oligarchical* empire building cunt.

*most of these people rabidly, blindly, support the oligarchy, whilst being heavily oppressed by it.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#51 Mar 09 2013 at 9:48 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
But someone who is turned on by peeping is probably going to peep.

This is as silly as "Someone who wants to kill will just kill, gun or no." Allowing someone carte blanche to enter restrooms of the opposite *** opens up far more possibilities with far more ease than drilling holes in the walls or trying to hide cameras in the paper towel dispenser.
What we would be doing would be to segregate toilets not by simplistic ***, but by a the more nuanced and practical/wanted segregation by sexuality/orientation. The bis like me are just going to have to continue with bloody good bathroom etiquette and manners.

But if it's breaking people's brains, I don't mind having toilets marked "Men's", "Women's", "Disabled" and "Other"
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 70 All times are in CDT
Jophiel, Kavekkk, lolgaxe, Poldaran, Tasera, yenwangweh, Anonymous Guests (64)