Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#802 Apr 01 2013 at 2:45 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 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 gay 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".


Exactly this. Since there's no objective means to determine if someone is trans, or is just saying "I feel like a girl, so I'm free to go use the women's locker room", removing the restriction for trans people effectively removes the restriction for everyone. And I don't think society is anywhere close to ready for co-ed restrooms, showers, locker rooms, etc. So yeah, sucks for the trans folks, but as I've said all along, this is a matter of making a small portion of society have to deal with potentially uncomfortable situations with regard to publicly accessibly facilities, or making *everyone* uncomfortable. This is one of those decisions where the majority kinda has to win, no matter how politically correct we might try to be about it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#803 Apr 01 2013 at 4:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
457 posts
Almalieque wrote:
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?
Fruit substantial extreme mill comfort solid chewing victory.

Quote:
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.
I quoted the entire question, what exactly was the problem?
Quote:
So, you say that it is "unlikely", so what would you "label" those two groups of people if they aren't "transgenders"?
Cisgender?
Quote:
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.
But as i've repeatedly explained, there would not be. The type of people who go into women's bathrooms with a penis don't usually use urinals, and even if they did, they are such a small minority, it doesn't really matter. So if we're not only talking about trans people, who's left? Cis women do not use urinals, so we don't need any for them. Cis men use the men's bathroom, so we don't need to install urinals in the women's bathroom for them. Who's left that the women's bathroom could possibly need urinals for?

Quote:
That makes no sense at all though, and again, does not address the question of whether we divide restrooms based on sex or gender. We clearly do so by sex, since it's sex that defines whether one can use a urinal, and thus whether urinals will appear in one restroom or both.
The vast majority of people who use the men's bathroom are able and willing to use a urinal. Not all of them can or are willing to, but that doesn't really matter. It's worth having them anyway, just because most can and will use them. However the vast majority of people who use a women's bathroom either cannot, or will not use a urinal. Some can, and would, but that doesn't matter either, because they are so few, that they cannot justify having urinals in women's bathrooms.

Quote:
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 sex.

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 sex. Which is it?
Huh? That's not what i'm arguing at all. Men should use the men's bathroom, and women should use the women's bathroom. There's no need for any exceptions.

Realistically, trans people do and will continue to use whichever bathroom they are more comfortable in, and there's nothing anyone can do about it, but i'm not arguing that they should be allowed to.

Quote:
A biological male is always allowed to use the mens restroom, whether a trans or not.
That is not true at all.

Quote:
Exactly this. Since there's no objective means to determine if someone is trans, or is just saying "I feel like a girl, so I'm free to go use the women's locker room", removing the restriction for trans people effectively removes the restriction for everyone. And I don't think society is anywhere close to ready for co-ed restrooms, showers, locker rooms, etc. So yeah, sucks for the trans folks, but as I've said all along, this is a matter of making a small portion of society have to deal with potentially uncomfortable situations with regard to publicly accessibly facilities, or making *everyone* uncomfortable. This is one of those decisions where the majority kinda has to win, no matter how politically correct we might try to be about it.
Heheh, this makes me wonder if anyone ever wore makeup and pretended to be black so they could get into a black bathroom,
____________________________
#804 Apr 01 2013 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
I like the colour pink. Or some shades of it anyway. Guess I'm feminine now. Well, not now so much as always was it seems.
____________________________
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

#805 Apr 01 2013 at 4:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
If restrooms were not intended to be divided based on genitalia, we'd have urinals in both. But we don't.
But as i've repeatedly explained, there would not be. The type of people who go into women's bathrooms with a penis don't usually use urinals, and even if they did, they are such a small minority, it doesn't really matter.


Yes. Because the only people with penises *now* who use the women's restroom are trans. This is why I keep saying you're only looking at this from a trans perspective. The restrooms are separated by sex. That's why there are urinals in the men's restrooms, but not the women's. If they were not, then there wouldn't be. I really think you just aren't grasping that I'm talking about why they are the way they are, and that if we changed the criteria for restroom use, they wouldn't be that way anymore.

Quote:
So if we're not only talking about trans people, who's left? Cis women do not use urinals, so we don't need any for them. Cis men use the men's bathroom, so we don't need to install urinals in the women's bathroom for them. Who's left that the women's bathroom could possibly need urinals for?


Um... Because if you remove the assumption that bathrooms are divided based on genitalia, there'd be no more reason to have urinals in the "men's restroom", than in the women's. That's the point. We'd either not have urinals in either, or we'd have them in both. And frankly "both" would be pointless as well. We'd just eliminate different restrooms entirely at that point.

But since we *do* have different restrooms, and one set has urinals and the other does not, we can conclude that the distinction is based on genitalia and that society cares enough about that distinction to make separate restrooms for each. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but just that this is how things are.

Quote:
The vast majority of people who use the men's bathroom are able and willing to use a urinal. Not all of them can or are willing to, but that doesn't really matter. It's worth having them anyway, just because most can and will use them. However the vast majority of people who use a women's bathroom either cannot, or will not use a urinal. Some can, and would, but that doesn't matter either, because they are so few, that they cannot justify having urinals in women's bathrooms.


Again, that's because we assume that people using one type have a penis and people who use the other do not. Once you eliminate that distinction, then the need or lack for urinals in any given restroom disappear.

Quote:
Quote:
But gender in this context is purely internal. As I've said repeatedly, there's no objective way to determine this.
Huh? That's not what i'm arguing at all. Men should use the men's bathroom, and women should use the women's bathroom. There's no need for any exceptions.


Except you're insisting on a definition of men and women that is purely subjective. So saying "men should use the men's restroom", but leaving the definition of "men" up to the individual is completely meaningless. It's the same as saying "anyone can use any restroom they want". I'm not sure why you can't see this.

Quote:
Realistically, trans people do and will continue to use whichever bathroom they are more comfortable in, and there's nothing anyone can do about it, but i'm not arguing that they should be allowed to.


You aren't? I've somewhat forgotten the full track of this thread, but I thought you were arguing that it was wrong for the school to deny the 6 year old trans his/her right to use the girls restroom facilities at school. Are you saying you aren't arguing this? Then what the hell are you arguing?

Quote:
Quote:
A biological male is always allowed to use the mens restroom, whether a trans or not.
That is not true at all.


Of course it is. Certainly from a legal perspective, which given we're talking about public schools, is the most relevant issue. Obviously, "allowed" can mean different things in the private arena, and a trans person can have issues no matter what he or she does.

Quote:
Heheh, this makes me wonder if anyone ever wore makeup and pretended to be black so they could get into a black bathroom,



I think the point you're missing is that there's no requirement for disguise here. After all, who are you to demand that a trans male must dress as a female? Can't someone feel like a girl on the inside without dressing like one? And who says what a girl dresses like anyway. Aren't you imposing gender roles if you do that? So a biological male could feel like a girl on the inside, but insist that girls can dress just like boys, but then also insist that he/she must be allowed to use the girls restroom and showers.

Why not? See, the problem is that you're demanding that society change its rules for your particular set of needs, but assuming that no one else has a similar and/or equally legitimate argument. This is why I keep pointing out how you are being too narrow minded, and failing to see how the changes/exceptions you want must result in other changes/exceptions because to fail to do so would be to unfairly discriminate against yet another group. But you don't see that other group because you're only thinking of your own, so you can't understand why people oppose *you*.

It's not about you. It's about a set of consistent and fair rules that apply to everyone, but that allow for the maximum social comfort and adherence to societal norms. And somewhat by definition, that's going to screw some percentage over. Kinda can't be helped.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#806 Apr 01 2013 at 4:53 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Rachel wrote:
Fruit substantial extreme mill comfort solid chewing victory.


I'll take that as an understanding of the necessity of a standard. Smiley: schooled

Rachel wrote:
I quoted the entire question, what exactly was the problem?

No, you originally only quoted the question referring to women.

Rachel wrote:
Cisgender?

Would you agree to the term "Metrosexual"?

Edited, Apr 2nd 2013 12:53am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#807 Apr 01 2013 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
457 posts
Quote:
Yes. Because the only people with penises *now* who use the women's restroom are trans.
Well yes, that's how it works, now and forever. Women with penises are trans. There may be exceptions to that, but if so they're rare enough that i see no reason to worry about them.

Quote:
The restrooms are separated by sex. That's why there are urinals in the men's restrooms, but not the women's. If they were not, then there wouldn't be.
Why wouldn't there be? Without looking up any statistics on it, i'd imagine that no less than 95% of people with a male gender are able and willing to use urinals (some because they don't want to for whatever reason, some because they do not have penises, and some because of disabilities), and it's probably closer to 98%+.
Quote:
Once you eliminate that distinction, then the need or lack for urinals in any given restroom disappear.
What? How? You do realize that 99%+ of people would use the same bathroom whether they choose based on sex or gender, right? So demographics are nearly identical. There's no need to cater to <1% of the population when designing a bathroom. Oh, and again, even if you wanted to, you still wouldn't put urinals in a women's bathroom.

Quote:
You aren't? I've somewhat forgotten the full track of this thread, but I thought you were arguing that it was wrong for the school to deny the 6 year old trans his/her right to use the girls restroom facilities at school. Are you saying you aren't arguing this? Then what the hell are you arguing?
Yes, that's what i'm arguing. If they want to refuse to let her in the boy's bathroom, i'm just fine with that.

Quote:
Of course it is. Certainly from a legal perspective,
Well i don't know about where you are from, but where i am, anyone can enter any bathroom they want from a legal perspective. That doesn't really seem like a relevant issue to me.

Quote:
Of course it is. Certainly from a legal perspective, which given we're talking about public schools, is the most relevant issue. Obviously, "allowed" can mean different things in the private arena, and a trans person can have issues no matter what he or she does.
Quick, you're the manager of a restaurant, and this guy tries to go into the women's bathroom. What do you do? What if people complained?


Alma wrote:
No, you originally only quoted the question referring to women.
Well i saw no need to answer what was essentially the same question twice with exactly the same answer.


Quote:
Would you agree to the term "Metrosexual"?
Certainly not.

Edited, Apr 1st 2013 7:26pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#808 Apr 01 2013 at 5:31 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Rachel wrote:
Well i saw no need to answer what was essentially the same question twice with exactly the same answer.


You could have easily quoted both text with one reply.

Rachel wrote:
Certainly not.


What's the difference from the man that I described, the word metrosexual and the word that you gave?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#809 Apr 01 2013 at 5:37 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
457 posts
Quote:
You could have easily quoted both text with one reply.
I guess? It seemed like exactly the same question to me though, so i didn't see a need to. Sorry!

Quote:
What's the difference from the man that I described, the word metrosexual and the word that you gave?
Cisgender means someone's gender matches their assigned sex. Anyone who is not transgender, is cisgender.
____________________________
#810 Apr 01 2013 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rachel9 wrote:
Quick, you're the manager of a restaurant, and this guy tries to go into the women's bathroom. What do you do?

Kick him/her out for not properly wearing a shirt. We have a health code here.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#811 Apr 01 2013 at 6:15 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,812 posts


Rachel wrote:
What's the difference from the man that I described, the word metrosexual and the word that you gave?
Cisgender means someone's gender matches their assigned sex. Anyone who is not transgender, is cisgender.[/quote]

That doesn't answer the question. How does "cisgender" differ from what the man that I described and metrosexual? You just gave me a definition of "cisgender".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#812 Apr 01 2013 at 6:26 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
457 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What's the difference from the man that I described, the word metrosexual and the word that you gave?
Cisgender means someone's gender matches their assigned sex. Anyone who is not transgender, is cisgender.


That doesn't answer the question. How does "cisgender" differ from what the man that I described and metrosexual? You just gave me a definition of "cisgender".
I figured if you knew what both meant, you could figure out what the difference is.
____________________________
#813 Apr 01 2013 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,812 posts

Rachel9 wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What's the difference from the man that I described, the word metrosexual and the word that you gave?
Cisgender means someone's gender matches their assigned sex. Anyone who is not transgender, is cisgender.


That doesn't answer the question. How does "cisgender" differ from what the man that I described and metrosexual? You just gave me a definition of "cisgender".
I figured if you knew what both meant, you could figure out what the difference is.


Since you don't believe in dictionaries, I want to use your exact definitions. Else, you'll just say "that's a bad definition". This allows you to deny the truth with circular logic.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#814 Apr 01 2013 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
457 posts
Metrosexual implies a number of things about a person's personality, sexuality, and interests. Cisgender says nothing about anything of those things.
____________________________
#815 Apr 01 2013 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Metrosexual implies a number of things about a person's personality, sexuality, and interests. Cisgender says nothing about anything of those things.


That's not a definition. That's a description. For a person who dislikes dictionaries, you are doing a horrible job giving definitions. Then again, you did admit to that. I give you credit for that. Since you seem to fail to grasp the question, let me assist you.

1. Provide an actual definition for metrosexual. Feel free to use the following:

a usually urban heterosexual male given to enhancing his personal appearance by fastidious grooming, beauty treatments, and fashionable clothes


a heterosexual, usually urban male who pays much attention to his personal appearance and cultivates an upscale lifestyle.

a heterosexual man who spends a lot of time and money on his appearance and likes to shop


2. Compare your definition to the description I gave below. Explain how the man below couldn't fit the definition of a metrosexual.

Almalieque The Most Awesome wrote:
heterosexual men who are "feminine", i.e., emotional, like tight clothes, the color pink, shopping and dramas


3. Finally, compare your definition of "cisgender" to the previous 2 definitions. Explain how a man who expresses feminine behavior is a cisgender.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#816 Apr 01 2013 at 7:26 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Rachel wrote:
Heheh, this makes me wonder if anyone ever wore makeup and pretended to be black so they could get into a black bathroom,

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
#817 Apr 01 2013 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
457 posts
Quote:
What's the difference from the man that I described, the word metrosexual and the word that you gave?
Did you no longer want a response to this?

Quote:
Explain how the man below couldn't fit the definition of a metrosexual.
He very well might, but i would not agree to using such a term.

Quote:
Explain how a man who expresses feminine behavior is a cisgender.
Liking the color pink doesn't make him trans. If he is not trans, he must be cis.

Quote:
So your argument is comparing oranges to apples?
Huh? I wasn't making an argument.
____________________________
#818 Apr 01 2013 at 8:10 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Rachel wrote:
Did you no longer want a response to this?


Yes, part of that includes actual definitions, which up to this point you have not provided. You wont quote a definition because they contradict your argument, but you also can't create a definition that doesn't either mirror the actual definition or make you look foolish. So, your last resort is to avoid it all together.

Rachel wrote:
He very well might, but i would not agree to using such a term.

Without standards, it doesn't matter if you agree to that term or not.

Rachel wrote:
Liking the color pink doesn't make him trans. If he is not trans, he must be cis.


Not according to the definition of transgender. If you feel otherwise, define transgender and explain how it differs from the word "metrosexual" and the man that I described earlier.

Are you now claiming that "wearing pink, enjoying shopping, wearing make up, being emotional, overly fashionable, etc." aren't traits of the female gender?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#819 Apr 01 2013 at 8:39 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
457 posts
Quote:
. You wont quote a definition because they contradict your argument
No they don't. Dictionaries are very useful. I use them all the time. Something doesn't have to be a perfect official source with no possibility of being wrong to be useful. For example, despite being wrong occasionally and not an official source for anything, wikipedia is arguably one of the most useful things ever made.

Quote:
Without standards, it doesn't matter if you agree to that term or not.
Huh?

Quote:
Not according to the definition of transgender. If you feel otherwise, define transgender and explain how it differs from the word "metrosexual" and the man that I described earlier.
According to who's definition? There is not only one single definition, so it's silly to say "the definition" without context that could indicate which definition you are referring to. Merriam-Webster and Oxford both give a fine definition for the word. Dictionary.com's is offensively wrong.

Edited, Apr 1st 2013 10:40pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#820 Apr 02 2013 at 4:38 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Are you now claiming that "wearing pink, enjoying shopping, wearing make up, being emotional, overly fashionable, etc." aren't traits of the female gender?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#821 Apr 02 2013 at 5:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
They're human traits that have been historically associated with women but have become more increasingly accepted for males as well.
____________________________
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

#822 Apr 02 2013 at 6:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Are you now claiming that "wearing pink, enjoying shopping, wearing make up, being emotional, overly fashionable, etc." aren't traits of the female gender?

Not intrinsically. They're things that you relate to femininity because of current Western social trends.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#823 Apr 02 2013 at 6:59 AM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Guess I'm feminine now.
I knew it all along.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#824 Apr 02 2013 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Guess I'm feminine now.
I knew it all along.
Prick. You could've let me know sooner.
____________________________
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

#825 Apr 02 2013 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Almalieque wrote:
wearing pink

The whole pink = girl thing began in the last sixty years. There was also some disagreement at the time about which colors were associated with which genders. You can find some old baby books magazines recommending pink for boys and blue for girls.

Edited, Apr 2nd 2013 10:05am by Allegory
#826 Apr 02 2013 at 10:04 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
457 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Are you now claiming that "wearing pink, enjoying shopping, wearing make up, being emotional, overly fashionable, etc." aren't traits of the female gender?
Uh, i guess, but half of those are common for men too, and only one is particularly rare for men.

Everyone likes a some things that are often associated with the opposite gender. That doesn't make you trans. Also, what joph said.

Edited, Apr 2nd 2013 12:05pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#827 Apr 02 2013 at 2:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
Yes. Because the only people with penises *now* who use the women's restroom are trans.
Well yes, that's how it works, now and forever. Women with penises are trans. There may be exceptions to that, but if so they're rare enough that i see no reason to worry about them.


You're not understanding what I'm saying.

Quote:
Quote:
The restrooms are separated by sex. That's why there are urinals in the men's restrooms, but not the women's. If they were not, then there wouldn't be.
Why wouldn't there be? Without looking up any statistics on it, i'd imagine that no less than 95% of people with a male gender are able and willing to use urinals (some because they don't want to for whatever reason, some because they do not have penises, and some because of disabilities), and it's probably closer to 98%+.


You're not understanding what I'm saying.

Quote:
Quote:
Once you eliminate that distinction, then the need or lack for urinals in any given restroom disappear.
What? How? You do realize that 99%+ of people would use the same bathroom whether they choose based on sex or gender, right? So demographics are nearly identical. There's no need to cater to <1% of the population when designing a bathroom. Oh, and again, even if you wanted to, you still wouldn't put urinals in a women's bathroom.


You're not understanding what I'm saying.


You're so caught up in applying tran needs to the existing situation, that you're failing to see that I'm saying that once you do that in any sort of "official" way, you change the existing situation. If people of either sex can use either restroom, then there's no distinction between them. There ceases to be a "mens restroom" and a "womens restroom". They just become "restrooms". Get it? From this, we can work backwards and conclude that because we do have two different restrooms, and one of them has urinals and the other doesn't, that the distinction we use is based on sex and not gender.

That's all I was saying.

Edited, Apr 2nd 2013 1:13pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#828 Apr 02 2013 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
This is a thread about penis possession.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#829 Apr 02 2013 at 3:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Are you now claiming that "wearing pink, enjoying shopping, wearing make up, being emotional, overly fashionable, etc." aren't traits of the female gender?
Uh, i guess, but half of those are common for men too, and only one is particularly rare for men.

Everyone likes a some things that are often associated with the opposite gender. That doesn't make you trans. Also, what joph said.

Edited, Apr 2nd 2013 12:05pm by Rachel9


Please provide me a better list of female gender traits.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#830 Apr 02 2013 at 3:22 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Are you now claiming that "wearing pink, enjoying shopping, wearing make up, being emotional, overly fashionable, etc." aren't traits of the female gender?

Not intrinsically. They're things that you relate to femininity because of current Western social trends.


Those traits not being intrinsic is the purpose of the creation of the word "gender", to differentiate personality traits from your sex. The fact that there is no standard on what is a female gender trait only supports the argument that bathrooms are based on sex, not a subjective, evolving opinion based on various cultures around the world.

Allegory wrote:

The whole pink = girl thing began in the last sixty years. There was also some disagreement at the time about which colors were associated with which genders. You can find some old baby books magazines recommending pink for boys and blue for girls.


I don't disagree. Read above.

Edited, Apr 2nd 2013 11:23pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#831 Apr 02 2013 at 3:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
This is a thread about penis possession.


Someone's penis is possessed? OMG! Call the ghostbusters!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#832 Apr 02 2013 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,405 posts
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
This is a thread about penis possession.


Someone's penis is possessed? OMG! Call the ghostbusters!


Screenshot
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#833 Apr 02 2013 at 3:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
457 posts
Quote:
You're so caught up in applying tran needs to the existing situation, that you're failing to see that I'm saying that once you do that in any sort of "official" way, you change the existing situation. If people of either sex can use either restroom, then there's no distinction between them. There ceases to be a "mens restroom" and a "womens restroom". They just become "restrooms". Get it?
You're not understanding what I'm saying.

Why do you think i am arguing for anyone to be able to use any bathroom they want? That is clearly the opposite of what i am saying. There IS a distinction, it's just not penises and vaginas.

Quote:
From this, we can work backwards and conclude that because we do have two different restrooms, and one of them has urinals and the other doesn't, that the distinction we use is based on sex and not gender.
No, you most certainly cannot conclude that. Women (gender) virtually never use urinals. Men (gender) virtually always use urinals. Just because <1% of them do/don't doesn't change anything.

Gbaji, i think you might be worse than Alma. You are just saying the same exact thing, thinking i'm arguing something i'm not, despite me repeatedly explaining that i'm not. If you want to continue, you could at least explain who you think would be using urinals in women's bathrooms so much that they would be needed if bathrooms were separated by gender (which hey, guess what? The law in many places says it is).

Quote:
Those traits not being intrinsic is the purpose of the creation of the word "gender", to differentiate personality traits from your sex. The fact that there is no standard on what is a female gender trait only supports the argument that bathrooms are based on sex, not a subjective, evolving opinion based on various cultures around the world.
Yeah, you really just have no idea what you're talking about. Liking pink isn't even a factor here. It has absolutely nothing to do with gender identity. This goes way beyond some basic personality traits.
____________________________
#834 Apr 02 2013 at 4:06 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Yeah, you really just have no idea what you're talking about. Liking pink isn't even a factor here. It has absolutely nothing to do with gender identity. This goes way beyond some basic personality traits.

Edited, Apr 2nd 2013 12:05pm by Rachel9


Please provide me a better list of female gender traits.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#835 Apr 02 2013 at 4:26 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
457 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Yeah, you really just have no idea what you're talking about. Liking pink isn't even a factor here. It has absolutely nothing to do with gender identity. This goes way beyond some basic personality traits.
Please provide me a better list of female gender traits.
Quote:
This goes way beyond some basic personality traits.
____________________________
#836 Apr 02 2013 at 4:35 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
You're so caught up in applying tran needs to the existing situation, that you're failing to see that I'm saying that once you do that in any sort of "official" way, you change the existing situation. If people of either sex can use either restroom, then there's no distinction between them. There ceases to be a "mens restroom" and a "womens restroom". They just become "restrooms". Get it?
You're not understanding what I'm saying.


Yes, I do understand. You're arguing that the determinate of who can/should use any given restroom is based on gender and not sex. I'm arguing that it's based on sex and not gender. My argument is based on two things:

1. It's based on sex because there are differences between the restrooms that are clearly based on the physical traits of those intended to use them. Since sex is based on physiology and not psychology, this strongly suggests that sex is the determinate being used.

2. If it's based on gender and not sex, and gender is purely subjective (determined by the individual and not via any external objective means), then the distinction is irrelevant and we have no usable determination of who should use which restroom, and thus having different restrooms becomes meaningless..

Quote:
Why do you think i am arguing for anyone to be able to use any bathroom they want? That is clearly the opposite of what i am saying. There IS a distinction, it's just not penises and vaginas.


I don't think you're arguing *for* that per se. But your argument is the equivalent of arguing for that. As I've stated repeatedly, since gender cannot be determined by any external objective means, allowing use of restrooms by gender effectively requires that we allow anyone to use any bathroom they want. It's like you're arguing for people who like strawberry ice cream to have strawberry ice cream specifically, but failing to grasp that what you're really arguing for is anyone to have any flavor they like. Unless you want *only* people who like strawberry ice cream to have what they want, but everyone else has to eat whatever flavor they're served. In which case your argument is discrimination in the guise of fighting against discrimination (as I've also pointed out several times in this thread).

This is why your argument is about allowing anyone to use any restroom they want. You may not think that's what you're arguing for, but it is the only way to fulfill the thing you *are* arguing for.

Quote:
Quote:
From this, we can work backwards and conclude that because we do have two different restrooms, and one of them has urinals and the other doesn't, that the distinction we use is based on sex and not gender.
No, you most certainly cannot conclude that. Women (gender) virtually never use urinals. Men (gender) virtually always use urinals. Just because <1% of them do/don't doesn't change anything.


And? Women (sex) never use urinals, and men (sex) almost always use urinals. I'm not sure what your point is. Urinals can only be used by people with penises. Thus, they exist so that people with penises may use them. The fact that not everyone with a penis will use them every time doesn't change that fact.

Quote:
Gbaji, i think you might be worse than Alma. You are just saying the same exact thing, thinking i'm arguing something i'm not, despite me repeatedly explaining that i'm not.


Which is funny, give that this is precisely what you are doing.

Quote:
If you want to continue, you could at least explain who you think would be using urinals in women's bathrooms so much that they would be needed if bathrooms were separated by gender.


I'm not arguing that. See how you are doing what you accuse me of doing? It's called projection. I'm arguing that if bathrooms were separated by gender urinals would not exist. Because if they were separated by gender, we could not assume that people with penises would use one restroom, but not the other. Thus, there would be no reason to put urinals in one, but not the other. Additionally, since there would be concern about people with penises peeing in urinals in front of people without penises, we'd have significant pressure to just put stalls in all the restrooms and no urinals.

That was my primary argument. I thought it was quite clear.

A secondary argument is that if we didn't have pressure (hangups) in our society about people with penises using urinals in front of people that don't, then the rationale for having them in either restroom becomes equal. You get that the reason trans people today don't use urinals is because of social conventions and no other reasons. If we didn't exist in a society where men aren't expected to wave their penises in front of women, we'd have communal restrooms with both stalls and urinals. But we don't.

The problem is that you are arguing for changes to how society deals with certain things, but not really thinking through the ramifications of the changes you're arguing for. You're assuming that one thing can change without anything else changing. But that's not how things tend to work.


Quote:
Yeah, you really just have no idea what you're talking about. Liking pink isn't even a factor here. It has absolutely nothing to do with gender identity. This goes way beyond some basic personality traits.


So neither is wearing a dress? Or looking as society currently expects a woman to look, right? I just find it funny that you're arguing for a social change/acceptance of one thing, but then steadfastly insisting that it can't change in some other way. So a biological male who is gender female in your world should use the women's restroom both because it's more comfortable for him/her *and* causes less problems for the other occupants (since they'll assume she's female). But there's no reason why a trans person can't identify with the gender of the opposite sex, without feeling the need to dress according to social stereotypes regarding that gender, right? Not unless you're discounting the possibility of a butch trans female, or effeminate trans male. You're being just as discriminatory for other forms of deviation from the norm (and deviation is not meant negatively here btw) as you accuse others of being regarding yourself if you do that.


Which brings us back to "anyone can use any restroom". Once you separate the issue from biology, there's no rational reason to argue that this person with a penis can use the women's restroom, but that other one over there cannot. But you seem to want to pretend that we can make an exception for your group, but not anyone else. I think that's problematic.

Edited, Apr 2nd 2013 3:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#837 Apr 02 2013 at 4:37 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Yeah, you really just have no idea what you're talking about. Liking pink isn't even a factor here. It has absolutely nothing to do with gender identity. This goes way beyond some basic personality traits.
Please provide me a better list of female gender traits.
Quote:
This goes way beyond some basic personality traits.


I read that. I didn't say "personality traits", I said traits. If you believe that is a "poor choice of words", change it to whatever allows you to provide a list that describes the female gender.

It possibly can't be that complicated.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#838 Apr 02 2013 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
457 posts
Quote:
And? Women (sex) never use urinals, and men (sex) almost always use urinals. I'm not sure what your point is. Urinals can only be used by people with penises. Thus, they exist so that people with penises may use them. The fact that not everyone with a penis will use them every time doesn't change that fact.
My point is that there is no reason urinals would ever be put into women's bathrooms.

Quote:
I'm arguing that if bathrooms were separated by gender urinals would not exist. Because if they were separated by gender, we could not assume that people with penises would use one restroom, but not the other. Thus, there would be no reason to put urinals in one, but not the other.
Uh, huh? When 99% of people with penises use one bathroom, the other 1% are irrelevant. Why wouldn't you put urinals in a bathroom where most of the people who go into it will use them?

Quote:
then the rationale for having them in either restroom becomes equal.
99% of people in one bathroom will use urinals. .001% in the other will. Yup, sure seems equal to me.

Quote:
Additionally, since there would be concern about people with penises peeing in urinals in front of people without penises
Huh? Why? I've never known trans men to have a problem with this. I don't know about how much cis women would care, but there will never be a reason to put urinals in a women's bathroom, so it doesn't matter.

Quote:
You get that the reason trans people today don't use urinals is because of social conventions and no other reasons.
Wow, i didn't know you knew more about why trans people do what they do than those people themselves!

Quote:
But you seem to want to pretend that we can make an exception for your group, but not anyone else.
Nope, i'm not asking for an exception for anyone. Everyone uses the bathroom that matches their gender, no exceptions.

Quote:
I read that. I didn't say "personality traits", I said traits. If you believe that is a "poor choice of words", change it to whatever allows you to provide a list that describes the female gender.

It possibly can't be that complicated.
I told you some 600 posts ago that i don't know how to describe it to someone who has no awareness of how gender can differ from sex.
____________________________
#839 Apr 02 2013 at 5:05 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Rachel wrote:
I told you some 600 posts ago that i don't know how to describe it to someone who has no awareness of how gender can differ from sex.


You have given definitions of words, you have explained that it is more than what I provided, but you have not provided a description SPECIFICALLY on what the female gender is.

You just wrote an entire post of 100+ words, surely you can sum up an example of what the female gender is less than that.

Again, it can't be that difficult. Provide an example of what the female gender is.

Edited, Apr 3rd 2013 1:06am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#840 Apr 02 2013 at 5:11 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
457 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You just wrote an entire post of 100+ words, surely you can sum up an example of what the female gender is less than that.
No, definitely not. It would take far more than 100 words.

Quote:
Again, it can't be that difficult.
It can be. As evidenced by your (and most people's) lack of understanding.
Quote:
Provide an example of what the female gender is.
An example? That's easy. Mine.
____________________________
#841 Apr 02 2013 at 5:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Rachel wrote:
No, definitely not. It would take far more than 100 words.


So, are you claiming that the most simple explanation of the female gender would exceed 100 words?

Rachel wrote:
An example? That's easy. Mine.


"mine" isn't a definition. For someone who proclaims that I don't know the difference between sex and gender, you sure are failing to provide a simple definition of the female gender.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#842 Apr 02 2013 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
457 posts
Quote:
So, are you claiming that the most simple explanation of the female gender would exceed 100 words?
No, i'm claiming a meaningful explanation would exceed 100 words.
Quote:
"mine" isn't a definition
Nope, it's not. You didn't ask for a definition. It's an example, which is what you asked for. Another example: your mom's gender.
____________________________
#843 Apr 02 2013 at 5:22 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Rachel wrote:
No, i'm claiming a meaningful explanation would exceed 100 words.

Does meaningful include understandable? If not, provide an understandable list of female gender traits.

Rachel wrote:
It's an example, which is what you asked for. Another example: your mom's gender.


Which is what I originally stated, so you do agree with what I provided as a female gender? So, why did you criticize my list and then agree to it?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#844 Apr 02 2013 at 5:37 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
457 posts
Quote:
list of female gender traits.
I give up.
____________________________
#845 Apr 02 2013 at 5:46 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
list of female gender traits.
I give up.


Well it's about time you give up this denial game. We both know that you're wrong and you attempted (and failed) to outwit me in words. I gave a list of female gender traits based on the females that I know, i.e. my mom. You ridiculed my list and then said that my mom was an example of the female gender. Which one is it?

Not only that, HTF do you know if my mom has a female gender? You're simply basing that off of her sex and you're the one claiming that I don't know the difference between sex and gender. You can't even provide a list of traits of the female gender, claiming it's too difficult to express in less than 100 words.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#846 Apr 02 2013 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
457 posts
Quote:
HTF do you know if my mom has a female gender?
It's obvious that you've never actually interacted with a trans person before.
____________________________
#847 Apr 02 2013 at 5:54 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
HTF do you know if my mom has a female gender?
It's obvious that you've never actually interacted with a trans person before.


Given that you don't know my mom, you have no way of knowing her gender. Given the fact that I based the female gender traits off of my mom, you just agreed to my list. Unless you're admitting that you don't know my mom's gender. Even though you're a trans, you can't have it both ways!

See what I did there?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#848 Apr 02 2013 at 5:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
So like, we're looking for a way for your average person using the restroom to be able to tell the difference between "legitimate transgender" and "creepy pervert" without unnecessarily involving the relevant authorities? Or at least without the potential perpetrator needing to spend 40 hours with a psychologist?

Or is this thread still about not having a penis?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#849 Apr 02 2013 at 6:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
457 posts
I don't need to know her, i know you. You have never interacted with a trans person before, so she cannot be trans.
____________________________
#850 Apr 02 2013 at 6:01 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis? 
Isn't it frightfully good to have a dong? 
It's swell to have a stiffy. 
It's divine to own a dick, 
From the tiniest little tadger 
To the world's biggest prick. 
So, three cheers for your Willy or John Thomas. 
Hooray for your one-eyed trouser snake, 
Your piece of pork, your wife's best friend, 
Your Percy, or your cock. 
You can wrap it up in ribbons. 
You can slip it in your sock, 
But don't take it out in public, 
Or they will stick you in the dock, 
And you won't. Come. Back.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#851 Apr 02 2013 at 6:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
457 posts
Quote:
So like, we're looking for a way for your average person using the restroom to be able to tell the difference between "legitimate transgender" and "creepy pervert" without unnecessarily involving the relevant authorities? Or at least without the potential perpetrator needing to spend 40 hours with a psychologist?

Or is this thread still about not having a penis?
Not that the average person can determine whether some other random person in the bathroom has a penis or not either.
____________________________
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 35 All times are in CDT
BonYogi, Debalic, Samira, Timelordwho, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (30)