Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#27 Mar 09 2013 at 6:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
As long as their motives don't interfere with the notion of safe space, then yes. If someone, male or female, is going in to make an exhibit out of the men or women in there, they've violated that trust.

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

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

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

I'm not saying that trans-whatever people are going to behave inappropriately. I'm saying that "Let them use whatever restroom they want" is a terrible way of setting a standard which invites all manners of abuse.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Mar 09 2013 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Idd wrote:
Aw, alma learned the word "callow."


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

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


Maybe you should look up words before debating their meanings.

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


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

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


Which is perfectly ok as long as there aren't any discriminating laws/rules/practices based on ***. If there are separate bathrooms for men and women, then it has absolutely nothing to do with "what you identify yourself as", but predetermined criteria. If you're going to let anyone define their criteria, then there is no point in having the discrimination. It's really that simple.
#29 Mar 09 2013 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Cross-dressing is not necessarily someone associating themselves with the opposite gender. It is also not a sexuality. It is a lifestyle choice.

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

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 6:38pm by Belkira
#30 Mar 09 2013 at 6:38 PM Rating: Default
******
20,020 posts
I'd invest a lot more in that argument if it wasn't, to the best of my knowledge, completely legal for a man to use a woman's bathroom. There's nothing stopping a creep from entering them right now besides the social pressure that he not do so. And maybe this is naive of me, but I'm inclined to say that societal pressure has rarely actually stopped someone from acting on their desires. Act on them with less frequency, sure. But someone who is turned on by peeping is probably going to peep.

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

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

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

[EDIT]

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

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

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#31 Mar 09 2013 at 6:52 PM Rating: Good
******
49,737 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I only gave it a quick once-over on google.
Cursory search found a bill proposed in Tennessee (imagine my surprise) to prohibit and fine transgender individuals from using bathrooms / dressing rooms opposite the gender on their birth certificate.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#32 Mar 09 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I don't see why the procedure for dealing with this would change at all. If someone's making you uncomfortable, you confront him, you ignore it, you report it to management, or you call the cops.

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

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

This is as silly as "Someone who wants to kill will just kill, gun or no." Allowing someone carte blanche to enter restrooms of the opposite *** opens up far more possibilities with far more ease than drilling holes in the walls or trying to hide cameras in the paper towel dispenser.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Mar 09 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
But it is legal (if frowned upon) for men to enter the women's bathroom in Tennessee? Or women enter the men's bathroom.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#34 Mar 09 2013 at 6:58 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,737 posts
I don't know, it's fucking Tennessee. If it's even remotely similar to New York then you're not going to be arrested but you won't have any grounds to argue if the management denies you or asks you to leave either.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#35 Mar 09 2013 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
But it is legal (if frowned upon) for men to enter the women's bathroom in Tennessee? Or women enter the men's bathroom.

It's likely legal and up to the property owner/manager to decide. But if people start claiming discrimination because the manager at McDonald's said you can't use the restroom you want, you're eventually going to see movement into the realm of the legal. It'll come up sooner or later.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Mar 09 2013 at 7:01 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira wrote:
Here's my question: A woman who wants to compete in, say, discus throwing. Wouldn't she want to train her body to the point where she can beat anyone, not just the other women? Is there really a disadvantage? Can women really just biologically never beat men in sports? That seems a little odd to me.

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

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

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


This is correct.

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


That is false by definition.


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

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

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

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 7:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Mar 09 2013 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
This would probably be less of an issue if the US would actually pass a bill allowing transgendered peoples to change their legal ***. It's hard to realistically discuss procedure when trans politics is in shambles across the board.

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

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

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

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

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

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#39 Mar 09 2013 at 7:19 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Idd wrote:
I'd invest a lot more in that argument if it wasn't, to the best of my knowledge, completely legal for a man to use a woman's bathroom. There's nothing stopping a creep from entering them right now besides the social pressure that he not do so. And maybe this is naive of me, but I'm inclined to say that societal pressure has rarely actually stopped someone from acting on their desires. Act on them with less frequency, sure. But someone who is turned on by peeping is probably going to peep.

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

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


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

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


I'm sorry, are you new here? Smiley: lol You really have no idea how your loutish comments portray you. Just stick with the topic at hand.
#40 Mar 09 2013 at 7:30 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#41 Mar 09 2013 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
Belkira wrote:
No, but in my perfect world with "one bathroom to rule them," urinals wouldn't be installed because there would be no need. Men can pee in toilets just as easily inside a stall. If the bathroom is being shared by females, then you would want to utilize every stall to make it so that any person who enters can use it.
Urinals have a better bang for the buck on real estate used.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


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

#42 Mar 09 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Good
******
49,737 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And, assuming states got off their asses and passed protection bills (I say knowing that these don't even exist for *** men and women in most states), they wouldn't be able to deny a patron access to the bathrooms outright on the grounds that they were trans, as that would clearly warrant a civil rights violation.
So how do you propose to enforce it? Have someone at the door to check IDs? Profiling? You'd probably need someone good at spotting fake IDs. And how about non residents? And who exactly gets to have their IDs and birth certificates changed? People that just feel like they are in the wrong body, or people who start going through the process of having their gender changed? Are we going to revisit this topic when it's not fair that only people with money get to and the poor don't or people slipping an extra $20 at the DMV to have a different gender on their driver's license. I'm all for fighting for equality but don't sit there and pretend that it's as easy as signing a piece of paper.

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

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 8:52pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#43Almalieque, Posted: Mar 09 2013 at 8:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Read above.
#44 Mar 09 2013 at 8:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Belkira wrote:
Much as I hate to admit it, I can see where Alma is coming from.

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

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

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

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#45 Mar 09 2013 at 9:01 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Jophiel wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
The "they" in the part of idiggory's post that you quoted refers to trans people, so it kind of does.

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

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

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

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#46 Mar 09 2013 at 9:16 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
It is also not a sexuality. It is a lifestyle choice.


That is false by definition.


Which definition is that...?

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

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 9:16pm by Belkira
#47 Mar 09 2013 at 9:24 PM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
This thread is dumb as fuck.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#48 Mar 09 2013 at 9:28 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
As long as their motives don't interfere with the notion of safe space, then yes. If someone, male or female, is going in to make an exhibit out of the men or women in there, they've violated that trust.

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

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

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

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

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#49 Mar 09 2013 at 9:38 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I only gave it a quick once-over on google.
Cursory search found a bill proposed in Tennessee (imagine my surprise) to prohibit and fine transgender individuals from using bathrooms / dressing rooms opposite the gender on their birth certificate.

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

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

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

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#51 Mar 09 2013 at 9:48 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
But someone who is turned on by peeping is probably going to peep.

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

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

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 102 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (102)