Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#752 Mar 30 2013 at 8:42 AM Rating: Decent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,254 posts
Nude models in art class are for learning how to draw human anatomy, by the way.

Not sure why I bother, but there you go.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#753 Mar 30 2013 at 8:56 AM Rating: Decent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Almalieque wrote:
It is impossible to draw EVERYTHING in any given class,

You're slow. I could knock out the entire outline of someone's body, including the major characteristics of the hair on their head, and the major fold lines in their body, in exactly 2 minutes, ever since grade 9, when I was 14. With good accuracy, too. It was getting good tonal work in later that I was weak at. But compositionally, the areas of greatest details, or of greatest contrast between light and dark, would be the focal points of a drawing/painting. Which usually meant face and crotch, and often nipples and underarms. You'd have to work to balance tones out if you didn't want those to overwhelm the rest of the picture.

Why am I answering you? You've GOT to be trolling at this point, if you're not deranged.

Edited, Mar 30th 2013 11:03am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#754 Mar 30 2013 at 9:02 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,054 posts
Jophiel wrote:


Edit II: Actually that article sounds more like it pre-dates the linked one and it's unclear what decisions are actually in the new policy. Also...

Maine Principal's Association is the organization that provides all the rules and guidance for sanctioned high school sports. So this policy specifically addresses a transgenders eligibility to join a single-*** HS sports team.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#755 Mar 30 2013 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, I saw the referencing to sports and assumed they were related. But the article I linked doesn't even have a date on it so who knows.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#756 Mar 30 2013 at 9:22 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Nadenu wrote:
You can't draw everything, so you should never draw anything.


Hah! Smiley: lol
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#757 Mar 30 2013 at 9:23 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,951 posts
Art's overrated, obviously.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#758 Mar 30 2013 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Corporate art has a use.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#759 Mar 30 2013 at 10:31 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
?
I haven't said a word about half of those things.
Quote:
So the labels tall, short, fat, dead, skinny, sleeping, bloody, bruised represent personalities?
See above.
Quote:
Why would you intentionally reference something that is incorrect?
But it's not incorrect. It has the potential to be incorrect. In this case (and most cases), it's not.
Quote:
So, if I, a man, walk into the women's bathroom, then I'm a woman.
No, that is not what i said.
Quote:
Most homosexual men have women genders [...] Likewise, many lesbians have male genders.
Um, no.
Quote:
You interjected black/white labels as some sort relevancy at least twice now.
Yes, but never to compare it to sexuality.
____________________________
#760 Mar 30 2013 at 10:41 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Nadenu wrote:
You can't draw everything, so you should never draw anything.


That's the nonsense that you all are saying. "If I don't draw the *****, then I'm less of an artist". I countered to say that there are numerous things that you will probably never draw and that doesn't make you any less of an artist.

I'm merely pointing out that there is no gain of artistic value from drawing a fully nude person vs a barely dressed person. No one has yet countered that belief.

someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Society has labeled those parts as "indecent" and/or private, so much so that you can be arrested/fined/etc. for displaying those parts. A movie with a 5 minute *** scene will receive a higher rating movie than a 2 hour gore fest of violence. The same does not hold true for leaves, kneecaps, elbows or anything else.

Sounds like a challenge if I ever heard one. I bet we can still make a dirty movie using nothing but those three things.

'Tis not a challenge. I'm sure a movie consisting of actual filmed violence of people being decapitated and mutilated would be just as equal or worse in rating. The point being is that a movie containing violence, vulgarity, gore, drugs and partial nudity would not receive the same rating as a movie with hardcore *** scenes. I'm not saying that I particularly agree with it, just pointing out how society is.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#761 Mar 30 2013 at 1:58 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Rachel,

I'll get to your nonsense later..

Samira wrote:
Nude models in art class are for learning how to draw human anatomy, by the way.

Not sure why I bother, but there you go.


By "anatomy", do you mean lungs, hearts, kidneys, intestines, etc.? Or are you referring to specific parts, mainly the outer parts of the body? I mean, how can you possibly draw a human without drawing EVERY part of the body?
Aripyanfar wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It is impossible to draw EVERYTHING in any given class,

You're slow. I could knock out the entire outline of someone's body, including the major characteristics of the hair on their head, and the major fold lines in their body, in exactly 2 minutes, ever since grade 9, when I was 14. With good accuracy, too. It was getting good tonal work in later that I was weak at. But compositionally, the areas of greatest details, or of greatest contrast between light and dark, would be the focal points of a drawing/painting. Which usually meant face and crotch, and often nipples and underarms. You'd have to work to balance tones out if you didn't want those to overwhelm the rest of the picture.

Why am I answering you? You've GOT to be trolling at this point, if you're not deranged.

Edited, Mar 30th 2013 11:03am by Aripyanfar


Read above. Unless you're stating that you are unable to draw that contrast of dark/light areas on anything else in the world except a nipple and crotch, then you have no point. There is no "perfect" thing to draw that utilizes every artistic aspect.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#762 Mar 30 2013 at 5:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Not only is Alma scared of *** people, he's afraid of naughty bits also.
#763 Mar 30 2013 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
I haven't been paying attention: What exactly is Alma arguing at this point? Something about showing naughty bits having no "artistic" value or something?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#764 Mar 30 2013 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,863 posts
You don't need to see a ***** to draw a *****, unless you're in a shower with a *******, or something...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#765 Mar 30 2013 at 6:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel,

I'll get to your nonsense later..
Oh good, i shall be waiting!
____________________________
#766 Mar 30 2013 at 6:32 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Rachel wrote:
Uh, what? Why does it need to be quantifiable?

How else are you going to differentiate if you have nothing to measure it by? Why even differentiate in the first place?

Rachel wrote:
I haven't said a word about half of those things.

You're claiming that the labels "men" and "women" on bathrooms are for genders and not ***, so what about all of the scenarios that include those labels? Are they gender, *** and/or both? Why would a person assume that those labels would change for the bathrooms?

Rachel wrote:
See above.

I asked you why a person would think that the men/boys labels for a urinating/defecating room are based on personality traits as opposed to urinating/defecating.

You replied with "That's usually what those labels refer to"

Are the things that I mentioned not also labels? Those labels don't refer to personality traits.I know what labels are used for. The question is asking why a room for urinating and defecating be labeled for anything outside of urinating and defecating?

Rachel wrote:
But it's not incorrect. It has the potential to be incorrect. In this case (and most cases), it's not.

When are they incorrect and how can you tell?

Rachel wrote:
Um, no.

No to what? Are you saying that many homosexual men aren't feminine? Are you saying that those homosexual feminine men don't use male bathrooms, gyms, etc? Are you saying that they don't urinate standing? Are you saying that many lesbians don't aren't labeled "butch"?

You're wrong. *** men urinate just like every other man, standing. If bathrooms were based on gender, then there should be urinals in the women bathrooms.


Rachel wrote:
No, that is not what i said.

So, I ask again, how do people know if they are "female" enough to use the bathroom? How does anyone know if anyone else is in violation? If you can't tell, then why even make the rule?

Rachel wrote:
Yes, but never to compare it to sexuality.

So your argument is comparing oranges to apples? "Since people eat the skin off apples, you should eat the skin of oranges?".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#767 Mar 30 2013 at 6:50 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
You're wrong. *** men urinate just like every other man, standing.


If I've had a long day, I sit. Also, that way if I get crampy I dont have to pinch off the stream, turn around, & sit. I'M ALREADY THERE.

Alma wrote:
Most homosexual men have women genders


Actually, only some of the bottoms do. I'd say more than half, don't.

Edited, Mar 30th 2013 10:40pm by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#768 Mar 30 2013 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,250 posts
Alma wrote:
Most homosexual men have women genders
Priceless.
____________________________
Banh
#769 Mar 30 2013 at 8:30 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
No to what? Are you saying that many homosexual men aren't feminine?
Feminine? Sure, i guess you could say many are. But very few are trans women. Of course in that case they wouldn't even be homosexual men, but rather heterosexual women.

Quote:
You're wrong. *** men urinate just like every other man, standing.
Yes, because they are men, and that's what most all men do.
Quote:
If bathrooms were based on gender, then there should be urinals in the women bathrooms.

Urinals are put in the men's bathrooms because it is expected that many people who go into that bathroom will make use of them. They are convenient for customers, and even save money by using less water, and being much faster to use, thus allowing more people to use a smaller bathroom. Therefore it makes sense to install them, from a financial stand point. Making customers happy, and saving money at the same time is something most businesses like doing.

They are not put in the women's bathroom because it is expected that virtually no one would use them there. That people with penises might use the women's bathroom isn't going to effect a different decision here; either they wouldn't use a urinal even if there was one in the women's bathroom, or they are such a small minority that it doesn't make sense to install urinals. There's simply not enough demand for urinals in women's bathrooms. Why would anyone ever waste money and space installing them if no one wants them? It just wouldn't make sense, except maybe for a bathroom that is likely to only be used by pre-op trans women, but even then, as i've explained, most still wouldn't use them anyway.
____________________________
#770 Mar 30 2013 at 9:57 PM Rating: Good
Actually, lady urinals ARE a thing. They're just rare, as many women don't wear dresses so it makes no sense to put them into newly constructed buildings.

I hear some older Chicago hotels still have them, though.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#771 Mar 30 2013 at 11:17 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,689 posts
We can lock this as of the next page, right?
____________________________
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

#772 Mar 31 2013 at 12:06 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Alma wrote:
Most homosexual men have women genders
Priceless.

Ok, so Almalieque, unlike Gbaji, hasn't had any *** male friends. That he knows about.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#773 Mar 31 2013 at 12:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
We can lock this as of the next page, right?


I dunno, i don't usually lock Asylum stuff. Bribery would probably work though if you really wanted it killed.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#774 Mar 31 2013 at 7:17 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Rachel wrote:
Feminine? Sure, i guess you could say many are. But very few are trans women.
I wasn't talking about trans. According to your logic, feminine men should be using the women's bathroom and tom boys and butch lesbians should use the men's bathroom, but they don't.

Rachel wrote:
Of course in that case they wouldn't even be homosexual men, but rather heterosexual women.


Not according to the definition of *** that you provided.

Rachel wrote:
Uh, what? Why does it need to be quantifiable?

How else are you going to differentiate if you have nothing to measure it by? Why even differentiate in the first place?

Rachel wrote:
No, that is not what i said.

How do people know if they are "female" enough to use the bathroom? How does anyone know if anyone else is in violation? If you can't tell, then why even make the rule?

Rachel wrote:
I haven't said a word about half of those things.

Are the things that I mentioned not also labels? Those labels don't refer to personality traits.I know what labels are used for. The question is asking why a room for urinating and defecating be labeled for anything outside of urinating and defecating?


Rachel wrote:
But it's not incorrect. It has the potential to be incorrect. In this case (and most cases), it's not.

When are they incorrect and how can you tell?

Rachel wrote:
Yes, because they are men, and that's what most all men do.

Which is not bound to a specific gender. So, if all men urinate standing up and gender isn't bound to a ***, then why are there no urinals in women bathrooms if the bathrooms are separated by gender?

This is you again attempting to interchange words when you already defined them separately.

Rachel wrote:
Urinals are put in the men's bathrooms because it is expected that many people who go into that bathroom will make use of them. They are convenient for customers, and even save money by using less water, and being much faster to use, thus allowing more people to use a smaller bathroom. Therefore it makes sense to install them, from a financial stand point. Making customers happy, and saving money at the same time is something most businesses like doing.

They are not put in the women's bathroom because it is expected that virtually no one would use them there. That people with penises might use the women's bathroom isn't going to effect a different decision here; either they wouldn't use a urinal even if there was one in the women's bathroom, or they are such a small minority that it doesn't make sense to install urinals. There's simply not enough demand for urinals in women's bathrooms. Why would anyone ever waste money and space installing them if no one wants them? It just wouldn't make sense, except maybe for a bathroom that is likely to only be used by pre-op trans women, but even then, as i've explained, most still wouldn't use them anyway.


Finance
: It's cheaper to have ONE co-ed room than to have two separate rooms. Hence the question you keep ignoring, why separate in the first place? Genders are together every other time of the day, why separate in bathrooms, locker rooms, dorms, etc., if it isn't about ***?
Customer satisfaction: Have you not noticed the long lines in the women bathrooms and how much quicker men finish by using urinals? Those men aren't using the stalls most of the time. So, now you have unused stalls that women could use and a line of women waiting to use the restroom. That's not customer satisfaction.

Furthermore, how are you making that assumption on men using the men's bathroom? If your argument is that the bathrooms are separated based on GENDER and NOT ***, then that means that the designers cognitively acknowledged that there would be men using the women's bathroom and vice versa. So, it would make absolutely NO sense to create two separate bathrooms based on gender, but not accommodate each gender in both bathrooms. That's counterproductive and a financial failure from a project stand point.

Rachel wrote:

Rachel wrote:
Yes, but never to compare it to sexuality.

So your argument is comparing oranges to apples? "Since people eat the skin off apples, you should eat the skin of oranges?".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#775 Mar 31 2013 at 7:29 AM Rating: Good
******
43,911 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
We can lock this as of the next page, right?
Amputating the diseased limb won't cure the underlying disease. In this case it is better to let it feed than spread.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#776 Mar 31 2013 at 8:44 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
I wasn't talking about trans. According to your logic, feminine men should be using the women's bathroom and tom boys and butch lesbians should use the men's bathroom, but they don't.
Either they are trans, or their genders match their ***. Why did you spend so much time insisting you knew what gender is if you don't?

Quote:
When are they incorrect and how can you tell?
They are incorrect when they are not correct. I can tell because they give a definition which does not match what the word really means. For example, if i went and edited the wiktionary entry for the word "segment" to "a mythical creature resembling a horse, with a single horn in the center of its forehead: often symbolic of chastity or purity.", it would be incorrect.

Quote:
Finance: It's cheaper to have ONE co-ed room than to have two separate rooms. Hence the question you keep ignoring, why separate in the first place? Genders are together every other time of the day, why separate in bathrooms, locker rooms, dorms, etc., if it isn't about ***?
Because that's what people want. This isn't an all or nothing thing. There are alternatives between the most efficient setup and the least efficient setup.
Quote:
Customer satisfaction: Have you not noticed the long lines in the women bathrooms and how much quicker men finish by using urinals? Those men aren't using the stalls most of the time. So, now you have unused stalls that women could use and a line of women waiting to use the restroom. That's not customer satisfaction.
Is your argument here that if we had unisex bathrooms they should include urinals? Because if so, i agree.

Quote:
Furthermore, how are you making that assumption on men using the men's bathroom? If your argument is that the bathrooms are separated based on GENDER and NOT ***, then that means that the designers cognitively acknowledged that there would be men using the women's bathroom and vice versa. So, it would make absolutely NO sense to create two separate bathrooms based on gender, but not accommodate each gender in both bathrooms. That's counterproductive and a financial failure from a project stand point.
Why would they make accommodations for a gender which isn't supposed to be in the bathroom? If you're still confused about the differences between gender and ***, and actually meant they should accommodate both sexes, then they already do. Stalls in men's rooms go mostly unused, thanks to urinals, so biological females will have no trouble in there. There are no urinals in the women's bathroom because no one of that gender uses them (that includes those with penises). Seriously. Trans women do not use urinals. And they would be far less likely to use one if there was one in a women's bathroom for whatever reason. I'm really not making that up.

Edited, Mar 31st 2013 10:46am by Rachel9
____________________________
#777 Mar 31 2013 at 8:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I dunno, i don't usually lock Asylum stuff. Bribery would probably work though if you really wanted it killed.

If I threatened to start murdering people you'd have to lock this thread for potential evidence, right?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#778 Mar 31 2013 at 9:21 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Rachel wrote:
Uh, what? Why does it need to be quantifiable?

How else are you going to differentiate if you have nothing to measure it by? Why even differentiate in the first place?

Rachel wrote:
No, that is not what i said.

How do people know if they are "female" enough to use the bathroom? How does anyone know if anyone else is in violation? If you can't tell, then why even make the rule?

Rachel wrote:
I haven't said a word about half of those things.

Are the things that I mentioned not also labels? Those labels don't refer to personality traits.I know what labels are used for. The question is asking why a room for urinating and defecating be labeled for anything outside of urinating and defecating?


Rachel wrote:
Yes, but never to compare it to sexuality.

So your argument is comparing oranges to apples? "Since people eat the skin off apples, you should eat the skin of oranges?".



Edited, Mar 31st 2013 5:21pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#779 Mar 31 2013 at 9:41 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
It's very simple. I should have said this earlier. trans women belong in with us women when separated off by either *** or gender. Trans men belong in with the men. If you're in an open locker room or shower and there is no where to change or shower privately, there's no problem. It's not like a TG is homosexual, except for in a minority of cases. The person most at risk of being looked at is the TG person, as "normal" people may be curious. Proper social etiquette covers everything, unless you are an immature child. After all, you've been toiletting and showering with bi-sexuals and gays your entire life without knowing it.

If you're whinging about sharing open showers or open air toilets with TGs in the armed forces, what part of "I signed my life over to my country to do with it as it sees fit for the greater good in return for a paycheck and benefits" did you miss? This isn't being exposed to nuclear explosions and depleted uranium vapourised shells without protective suiting and decontamination long after the dangers of radiation are known. This isn't being experimented on with chemical or biological weaponry and then being denied compensation for lifelong pain and disability because you volunteered. This isn't decommissioning buildings made of asbestos without protective suits and decontamination showers because you're a soldier and not a civilian. Grow a pair of gonads.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#780 Mar 31 2013 at 9:47 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
490 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
Uh, what? Why does it need to be quantifiable?

How else are you going to differentiate if you have nothing to measure it by? Why even differentiate in the first place?

Rachel wrote:
No, that is not what i said.

How do people know if they are "female" enough to use the bathroom? How does anyone know if anyone else is in violation? If you can't tell, then why even make the rule?

Rachel wrote:
I haven't said a word about half of those things.

Are the things that I mentioned not also labels? Those labels don't refer to personality traits.I know what labels are used for. The question is asking why a room for urinating and defecating be labeled for anything outside of urinating and defecating?


Rachel wrote:
Yes, but never to compare it to sexuality.

So your argument is comparing oranges to apples? "Since people eat the skin off apples, you should eat the skin of oranges?".
I do believe i have already addressed all of this. Except that last one i guess, but lol.
____________________________
#781 Mar 31 2013 at 9:51 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
I believe you have not, at least directly.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#782 Mar 31 2013 at 12:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I dunno, i don't usually lock Asylum stuff. Bribery would probably work though if you really wanted it killed.

If I threatened to start murdering people you'd have to lock this thread for potential evidence, right?



Well yeah, that and ban you. But its an option.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#783 Mar 31 2013 at 1:09 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Rachel wrote:
Either they are trans, or their genders match their ***. Why did you spend so much time insisting you knew what gender is if you don't?


o.O ? How can you be a trans and not even know what a trans is? I guess this has something to do with making up your own definitions...

***: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures

Gender b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one ***

1. a person appearing or attempting to be a member of the opposite ***, as a transsexual or habitual cross-dresser.


Notice.
1. *** is defined by reproduction organs.

2. Gender is the behavior, cultural or psychological traits associated with one's ***

3. Transgender is someone appearing or attempting to be a member of the opposite *** as either a transsexual or cross gender traits.

A man can posses woman gender traits and still relate as a man. According to your logic, women who like football, beer, dirt and sports and men who like pink, dramas, flowers and shopping are transgenders. A man can be feminine and not be a transgender. Likewise, a woman can be masculine and not be a transgender.

Again, your theory contradicts the entire purpose of the word gender which is to separate personality traits from sexes. Do you call all feminine men ***? If not, why would you call them women ?

Rachel wrote:
They are incorrect when they are not correct. I can tell because they give a definition which does not match what the word really means. For example, if i went and edited the wiktionary entry for the word "segment" to "a mythical creature resembling a horse, with a single horn in the center of its forehead: often symbolic of chastity or purity.", it would be incorrect


You do realize that wiki isn't what society calls an official reputable source? So, given an official reputable source, i.e. Oxford or Webster dictionary, how can you tell when it's incorrect?

Rachel wrote:
Because that's what people want. This isn't an all or nothing thing. There are alternatives between the most efficient setup and the least efficient setup.

If we're co-ed on buses, work offices, schools, etc. what's so special about bathrooms, lockers, etc.?

Rachel wrote:
Is your argument here that if we had unisex bathrooms they should include urinals? Because if so, i agree.


No and no.

1. The point is that the way its built isn't on customer satisfaction (excluding the obvious *** which you are denying), because the set up cause women to wait to use the bathroom when there are open stalls in another bathroom. Might as well separate based on height, weight or age. If you're over 40, you use bathroom A, if you're under 40, you use bathroom B. You cause one bathroom to flood while the other one being open. That's not customer satisfaction.

2. If urinals save money and most people do #1 than #2, why wouldn't you implement urinals? You're wasting water doing an entire flush for urine when you can have waterless urinals.

Rachel wrote:
Why would they make accommodations for a gender which isn't supposed to be in the bathroom? If you're still confused about the differences between gender and ***, and actually meant they should accommodate both sexes, then they already do. Stalls in men's rooms go mostly unused, thanks to urinals, so biological females will have no trouble in there. There are no urinals in the women's bathroom because no one of that gender uses them (that includes those with penises). Seriously. Trans women do not use urinals. And they would be far less likely to use one if there was one in a women's bathroom for whatever reason. I'm really not making that up.

Smiley: banghead

Let me try this again.

1. You've agreed that *** is defined by reproduction organs, i.e. men have penises and women have vaginas.

2. You've agreed that men use urinals

3. Men with female genders are not trans. See top of post.

4. If bathrooms were designed to separate genders, then they would include men with female genders who would use urinals.

If the female bathrooms only accommodate genders with vaginas, that's the definition of the woman ***.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#784 Mar 31 2013 at 3:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Nope, that definition for transgender is terrible, and not accurate at all. Hint: Someone can be transgender without also being transsexual, or cross-dressing.

Quote:
So, given an official reputable source, i.e. Oxford or Webster dictionary, how can you tell when it's incorrect?
Excuse me, there are no official sources. Some may be more reputable than others, but none are official.

Quote:
According to your logic, women who like football, beer, dirt and sports and men who like pink, dramas, flowers and shopping are transgenders.
How the **** did you come to that conclusion?

Quote:
Do you call all feminine men ***?
Not unless they are.
Quote:
If not, why would you call them women ?
Why would i call men women? That's absurd, i would never intentionally do that.


Quote:
If we're co-ed on buses, work offices, schools, etc. what's so special about bathrooms, lockers, etc.?
Well, i guess it relates to the purposes of the rooms. There's no particular reason someone would expect more privacy just because they are on a bus. I'm not sure how this addresses what i asked though.

Quote:
No and no.

1. The point is that the way its built isn't on customer satisfaction (excluding the obvious *** which you are denying), because the set up cause women to wait to use the bathroom when there are open stalls in another bathroom. Might as well separate based on height, weight or age. If you're over 40, you use bathroom A, if you're under 40, you use bathroom B. You cause one bathroom to flood while the other one being open. That's not customer satisfaction.

2. If urinals save money and most people do #1 than #2, why wouldn't you implement urinals? You're wasting water doing an entire flush for urine when you can have waterless urinals.
So...you're arguing for uni-gender bathrooms which should include urinals? What is your point? Yes, i'm aware that a single bathroom would be more efficient than separate ones. Why do you keep saying this? Sometimes efficiency isn't the only thing that matters.

Quote:
Let me try this again.
Good idea, sometimes when you're not making any sense it's best to just try again.

Quote:
1. You've agreed that *** is defined by reproduction organs, i.e. men have penises and women have vaginas.
Well, more or less. Of course there's more to it than that, but we don't really need to go into the minor details.

Quote:
2. You've agreed that men use urinals
I'm with you so far. Most men i've known do, indeed use urinals when they are available. I've used them before, and indeed they are pretty convenient.

Quote:
3. Men with female genders are not trans. See top of post.
Huh? You've lost me. A "man with a female gender" seems like a decent enough attempt to define "trans woman".

Quote:
4. If bathrooms were designed to separate genders, then they would include men with female genders who would use urinals.
Nope, they would not. And even if they would, they are such a small minority, that they don't need to be accommodated here.
____________________________
#785 Mar 31 2013 at 5:46 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Post 778.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#786 Mar 31 2013 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,951 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I dunno, i don't usually lock Asylum stuff. Bribery would probably work though if you really wanted it killed.

If I threatened to start murdering people you'd have to lock this thread for potential evidence, right?



Well yeah, that and ban you. But its an option.


Should we have a poll to see who, Rachel or Alma, we accuse of being a rapist first?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#787Almalieque, Posted: Mar 31 2013 at 6:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Rachel,
#788 Mar 31 2013 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
You accepted the definition of gender. It explicitly says traits typically associated with a particular ***.
Well, i mean that's part of it, and it's good enough for a dictionary, but there's a lot more to it.
Quote:
So, do you or do you not believe that that heterosexual women who are "tomboys" and/or "tough", enjoy sports, wear loose jeans, have short haircuts, etc. are transgenders?
Can't say based on that information alone, but it's unlikely.

Quote:
Given a definition in one of the aforesaid dictionaries, how can you tell if the definition is accurate or not?
I can tell based on whether or not the given definition reflects how the word is actually used.
____________________________
#789 Apr 01 2013 at 3:28 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
644 posts
For those who feel restrooms should be based strictly on genitals, please do a search on Buck Angel if you don't know who he is. Then tell me, do you really think it would be more appropriate for him to use the ladies room instead of the men?

I'm getting the sense that there are a few individuals here who don't really know what a transgender is, picturing a stereotypical *** man instead of somebody who is trying as hard as they can to be a woman. Its not about some dude walking into the bathroom saying "Uh, I'm like a girl or something. I can be here".
#790 Apr 01 2013 at 5:41 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts

Rachel wrote:
Can't say based on that information alone, but it's unlikely.

Do you or do you not believe that heterosexual men who are "feminine", i.e., emotional, like tight clothes, the color pink, shopping and dramas are transgenders? All of the above are female gender traits, yet they are men expressing women gender traits.

Rachel wrote:
I can tell based on whether or not the given definition reflects how the word is actually used.


So, if a group of friends and family interpret the word "minor" as the age of 14 and below, you are suggesting that they are not contradicting any laws that involve minors (i.e. drinking, sexual content, contracts, work labor, etc.)?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#791 Apr 01 2013 at 6:58 AM Rating: Good
******
43,911 posts
Liberal murderer sounds kind of like War for Peace.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#792 Apr 01 2013 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
xantav wrote:
I'm getting the sense that there are a few individuals here who don't really know what a transgender is, picturing a stereotypical *** man instead of somebody who is trying as hard as they can to be a woman. Its not about some dude walking into the bathroom saying "Uh, I'm like a girl or something. I can be here".

Well, the main argument (I assume, haven't been keeping up) is about the ability of some dude to do exactly that if the sole criteria for being in the women's restroom is "Says he feels like a girl".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#793 Apr 01 2013 at 8:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
So Almalieque hasn't read anything about real transgender people, let alone had one as a friend, either.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#794 Apr 01 2013 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,250 posts
 
____________________________
Banh
#795 Apr 01 2013 at 10:07 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
Do you or do you not believe that heterosexual men who are "feminine", i.e., emotional, like tight clothes, the color pink, shopping and dramas are transgenders? All of the above are female gender traits, yet they are men expressing women gender traits.

Same question, same answer:
Quote:
Can't say based on that information alone, but it's unlikely.


Quote:
So, if a group of friends and family interpret the word "minor" as the age of 14 and below, you are suggesting that they are not contradicting any laws that involve minors (i.e. drinking, sexual content, contracts, work labor, etc.)?
Such terms are defined by law. That is a very different situation.
____________________________
#796 Apr 01 2013 at 11:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
Bagel Socks!
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#797 Apr 01 2013 at 12:15 PM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
xantav wrote:
I'm getting the sense that there are a few individuals here who don't really know what a transgender is, picturing a stereotypical *** man instead of somebody who is trying as hard as they can to be a woman. Its not about some dude walking into the bathroom saying "Uh, I'm like a girl or something. I can be here".

Well, the main argument (I assume, haven't been keeping up) is about the ability of some dude to do exactly that if the sole criteria for being in the women's restroom is "Says he feels like a girl".


Yea, that was basically what my argument boiled down to. Alma spiraled off into a mix of homophobia, arachnophobia and I think dyslexia though, so it got lost in translation somewhere along the line and just became a weird sort of courtship thing with Rachel9...


Quote:
The person most at risk of being looked at is the TG person, as "normal" people may be curious. Proper social etiquette covers everything, unless you are an immature child. After all, you've been toiletting and showering with bi-sexuals and gays your entire life without knowing it.


Sadly, the reason this topic exists is precisely that. We're talking about a six year old child, who will be growing up with other six year old childen. It's great that the parents of the kid are so progressive and aren't trying to fit her into a neat little box, but the school had to take action before parents started the law suit frenzy. Better for them, better for Coy in the long run, too. Yea, it sucks that she can't just be a normal little girl. If life was fair she would have been born with that ****** her female brain matches. Life isn't fair though, and kids can't be expected to behave like adults. It's a ****** situation all around, but one the parents really should have thought through before sending the kid off to public school.
#798 Apr 01 2013 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good
******
43,911 posts
They named their kid after a fish.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#799 Apr 01 2013 at 2:23 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Rachel wrote:
Such terms are defined by law. That is a very different situation.


That "law" is defined by words. Just like arguments are defined by words. How can everyone interpret the same definition if there is no standard?

Rachel wrote:
Same question, same answer:
Can't say based on that information alone, but it's unlikely.


Well you left it out of the quote, so I wasn't sure if you were avoiding it like you did the other contradicting facts to your argument.

So, you say that it is "unlikely", so what would you "label" those two groups of people if they aren't "transgenders"?

As a reference wrote:

1. heterosexual women who are "tomboys" and/or "tough", enjoy sports, wear loose jeans, have short haircuts, etc.

2.heterosexual men who are "feminine", i.e., emotional, like tight clothes, the color pink, shopping and dramas
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#800 Apr 01 2013 at 2:27 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
What does liking tight clothes have to do with being feminine? Some guys just have muscles and like to show them off - I don't think that makes them feminine.

Sometimes you almost have a point, but then I realize it was all an illusion.
#801 Apr 01 2013 at 2:30 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Gonna reply to this before reading the last/next page:

Rachel9 wrote:
You are saying that we would have urinals in women's bathrooms if it was expected that people with penises would go in such bathrooms. I explained why we would not. How does that not address what you said?


Because you're assuming we're only talking about transgendered people. Remember when I said that you're only looking at this from one perspective? It's not about what trans folks would do, but what everyone would do. Urinals are in the mens restroom because it's expected that people with penises will use them, and urinals are convenient for people with penises. Get it? If restrooms were not intended to be divided based on genitalia, we'd have urinals in both. But we don't.

I suspect you aren't getting that once we eliminate the whole "penises go in this room, vaginas go in that room" rule, that removal applies to *everyone*, not just transgendered.


Quote:
Urinals are put in the men's bathrooms because it is expected that many people who go into that bathroom will make use of them. They are convenient for customers, and even save money by using less water, and being much faster to use, thus allowing more people to use a smaller bathroom. Therefore it makes sense to install them, from a financial stand point. Making customers happy, and saving money at the same time is something most businesses like doing.


Yes. They're put into any restroom that people with penises will be using. That's the point.

Quote:
They are not put in the women's bathroom because it is expected that virtually no one would use them there.


Yes. Because they don't have penises. You're only viewing this from your own perspective and failing to see the bigger picture.

Quote:
That people with penises might use the women's bathroom isn't going to effect a different decision here; either they wouldn't use a urinal even if there was one in the women's bathroom, or they are such a small minority that it doesn't make sense to install urinals.


That makes no sense at all though, and again, does not address the question of whether we divide restrooms based on *** or gender. We clearly do so by ***, since it's *** that defines whether one can use a urinal, and thus whether urinals will appear in one restroom or both.

Quote:
Quote:
This is why I said that you are arguing for discrimination under the guise of arguing against it. You are saying that we must treat transgendered people differently than everyone else, instead of treating them the same as everyone else.
No, i'm arguing that everyone should be able to use the bathroom that matches their gender, kind of like how it already works in the real world.


But gender in this context is purely internal. As I've said repeatedly, there's no objective way to determine this. Thus, what you're really arguing for is to allow anyone to use any restroom they want. Which somewhat defeats the point of having different restrooms in the first place. Either that, or you're arguing for some special status for transgendered people. Perhaps they have to apply for a card or something, which allows them to use whichever restroom they prefer, while everyone else has to use the one that matches their ***.

It has to be one or the other, but you seem to want to dance around the issue and ignore this very relevant problem. Either you are allowing anyone to use any restroom, destroying the distinction and subjecting many people to conditions they are uncomfortable with, or you want a special status for transgendered people, which allows them (and only them) to use the restroom they want to use instead of the one that matches their ***. Which is it?

Quote:
I don't recall arguing that trans people should be free to use any bathroom they want. Could you please link the post where i said that?


Of course you are. It's inherent in the whole argument itself. A biological male is always allowed to use the mens restroom, whether a trans or not. You're arguing that he should be allowed to use the women's restroom if he feels more comfortable doing so. End result: he's allowed to use either one based on how he feels.

Quote:
Quote:
It doesn't stop being bigotry based on who you favor and oppose btw.
Huh? Yes it does. Bigotry is hatred, or intolerance for someone who is different. Thinking some group of people is better than everyone else isn't bigotry.


This is sheer gold right here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 65 All times are in CDT