Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#52 Mar 09 2013 at 9:53 PM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
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.
Nine of our states have taken steps to legalize same-*** marriage. How's that going in Australia?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#53 Mar 09 2013 at 10:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
There sure is a lot of bigotry up here.

Here's a rule for everyone: Women use the women's bathroom, and men use the men's bathroom. Done. Simple. No exceptions.

Here's the thing though, that some of you are missing. A trans woman is not a man who identifies as a woman. She is a woman. Like wise, a trans man is not a woman who identifies as a man. He's just a man. What someone's birth certificate says, or what their genitals look like (both of which can be changed by the way) doesn't really matter here. We don't assign bathrooms based on who has a *****, and who has a ******. Nor do we assign them based on what someone's original (or even current) birth certificate says. We assign bathrooms for men, and for women.

Sports are a little more complicated, because they segregate people based on athletic ability, to allow for better competitions. But then hey the Olympics will allow trans women to compete against other women (with some requirements), so maybe it's not so complicated either.

Sorry Kao, you can ban me now. I felt i had to say something.
____________________________
#54 Mar 09 2013 at 10:11 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
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.
Nine of our states have taken steps to legalize same-*** marriage. How's that going in Australia?

That's why I said Half. The overwhelming majority of Americans I've kept as friends from guilds, or spent time on skype with, are intelligent, caring, empathic, open-minded and open-hearted people. Some of them are bitter, and behave misanthropically, because they are so angry/disillusioned by the narrow-mindedness of their fellow humans from all over the world, including the USA (which they care about). For example Mindel, Annabella, Cattattack, Barkingturtle's alter ego Kile, and Don't-Say-I-Have-Aids-Doug are some of the people you might recognise from here whom I treasure highly for their political opinions. There's dozens more I personally have as skype friends from elsewhere.

I'm bubbling over with excitement about the American States that have legalized same-*** marriage (and marijuana). *** Marriage is overwhelmingly supported by younger Australians, so It is frustrating waiting around for the politicians to catch up with the majority. If you want to find something horrific about Australia, look into the way that we have treated refugees arriving by boat over the last 20 years. We're contravening International Law and Human Rights Law, not to mention all morals and ethics when it comes to "boat People" or "Illegal Immigrants" (Hint, they aren't committing a crime by arriving by boat in order to claim refuge in a nation that is signatory to the Refugee convention). I am so disgusted by our two main political parties that I'm now voting for a minority party.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#55 Mar 09 2013 at 10:14 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,240 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
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"


I think Joph is saying that if you opened it up to anyone, that Joe, the Perv, Six Pack will say he's a gal on the inside just to get in and gawk at some ladies doing their business. Not that the ***/transgender folks are going to be bouncing between the two options peeping at who ever they want.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#56 Mar 09 2013 at 10:27 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
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"


I think Joph is saying that if you opened it up to anyone, that Joe, the Perv, Six Pack will say he's a gal on the inside just to get in and gawk at some ladies doing their business. Not that the ***/transgender folks are going to be bouncing between the two options peeping at who ever they want.
Yes, I got that, thank you.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#57 Mar 09 2013 at 11:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
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 sh*tshow that would follow would teach business owners very quickly that it was in their best interest to accept the legal designation.

This is a bit different from the previous suggestion of "Let people go where they want".
Quote:
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.

Again, no one was making that suggestion. I was saying that a lassiez faire standard was an invitation for abuse.
Aripyanfar wrote:
What are you arguing for here Joph?

Nothing much beyond some sort of agreed upon standard. "Everyone do what they want" isn't a standard.
Aripyanfar wrote:
No really, we already have rules in place for this.

In the US, the rule is typically that the property owner sets the rules. If you're saying that trans people need or deserve protections against property owners that decide "Biological males go here, biological females go here" then there's something that needs to be discussed. If you're happy letting the management set the rules and everyone follows them without complaint then we're golden.
Aripyanfar wrote:
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.

Not likely to happen anytime soon.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Mar 09 2013 at 11:42 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,240 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Yes, I got that, thank you.


Sorry, didn't realize, since your anecdote mentioned earlier talked about working with transgenders who were polite when using the opposite of their birth *** restroom...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#59 Mar 09 2013 at 11:47 PM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rachel9 wrote:
Here's the thing though, that some of you are missing. A trans woman is not a man who identifies as a woman. She is a woman. Like wise, a trans man is not a woman who identifies as a man. He's just a man. What someone's birth certificate says, or what their genitals look like (both of which can be changed by the way) doesn't really matter here.

Lovely notion. Utterly incorrect in the real world though. Legally speaking, in most of the US, legally changing your *** requires reassignment surgery and a court order. Even then it's not absolute; a trans woman can not marry a man in Illinois, even though she can get a new birth certificate (following surgery) saying she's a woman. If the state isn't interested in treating you as a woman, why should a property owner be held to the same onus?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 Mar 10 2013 at 12:04 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
492 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Here's the thing though, that some of you are missing. A trans woman is not a man who identifies as a woman. She is a woman. Like wise, a trans man is not a woman who identifies as a man. He's just a man. What someone's birth certificate says, or what their genitals look like (both of which can be changed by the way) doesn't really matter here.

Lovely notion. Utterly incorrect in the real world though. Legally speaking, in most of the US, legally changing your *** requires reassignment surgery and a court order. Even then it's not absolute; a trans woman can not marry a man in Illinois, even though she can get a new birth certificate (following surgery) saying she's a woman. If the state isn't interested in treating you as a woman, why should a property owner be held to the same onus?
Oh well if the law discriminates against a class of people, then i guess it's just fine for everyone else to too.

Let's make gays use the wrong bathroom too.

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 1:06am by Rachel9
____________________________
#61 Mar 10 2013 at 12:11 AM Rating: Decent
******
44,511 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Oh well if the law discriminates against a class of people, then i guess it's just fine for everyone else to too.
Since you're so enlightened then it'd be easy for you to tell us whether this individual is a man or a woman, right?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#62 Mar 10 2013 at 12:11 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Oh well if the law discriminates against a class of people, then i guess it's just fine for everyone else to too.
Since you're so enlightened then it'd be easy for you to tell us whether this individual is a man or a woman, right?


I fully expected Lady Gaga.
#63 Mar 10 2013 at 12:13 AM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
I prefer facts, and the science is still out on that one.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#64 Mar 10 2013 at 12:13 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Oh well if the law discriminates against a class of people, then i guess it's just fine for everyone else to too.
Since you're so enlightened then it'd be easy for you to tell us whether this individual is a man or a woman, right?

I can't possibly know based only on the information provided.
____________________________
#65 Mar 10 2013 at 12:14 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Also, I thought I'd leave this here.

#66 Mar 10 2013 at 12:14 AM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
I can't possibly know based only on the information provided.
Okay, they say they're a woman.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#67 Mar 10 2013 at 12:16 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
I can't possibly know based only on the information provided.
Okay, they say they're a woman.

Then there's probably a good chance that she is a woman.
____________________________
#68 Mar 10 2013 at 12:26 AM Rating: Decent
******
44,511 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Then there's probably a good chance that she is a woman.
Not probably, are they or aren't they a woman?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Mar 10 2013 at 12:27 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
You have not provided enough information to be sure of anything.
____________________________
#70 Mar 10 2013 at 12:28 AM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
What information do you require before you let this individual into the woman's bathroom?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#71 Mar 10 2013 at 12:31 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Okay, they say they're a woman.
That's good enough for me. If she isn't doing anything wrong, i see no reason to doubt her. I kind of like that whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 1:32am by Rachel9
____________________________
#72 Mar 10 2013 at 12:37 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rachel9 wrote:
Oh well if the law discriminates against a class of people, then i guess it's just fine for everyone else to too.

If that's the best response you can come up with, you have a long road ahead of ya.

Quote:
Let's make gays use the wrong bathroom too.

Homosexual males use the men's room just as straight men use the men's room, homosexual females use the ladies room just as straight females use the ladies room. Pretty cut & dry.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Mar 10 2013 at 12:40 AM Rating: Decent
******
44,511 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
If she isn't doing anything wrong, i see no reason to doubt her.
But if they are lying then they are doing something wrong.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Mar 10 2013 at 12:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rachel9 wrote:
I kind of like that whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

Generally speaking, public restrooms aren't court rooms. And property owners have multiple interests in ensuring that the correct people are entering the correct facilities before a problem arises rather than waiting for someone to act "guilty".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#75 Mar 10 2013 at 12:59 AM Rating: Decent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Oh for frig's sake it's not that hard. There are buildings where it's understood that the gays are in the "Mens" and the male-to-female trans are in the "Womens". There are less frequent buildings where it's understood that the gays are in with the "Women's". Government buildings here tend to have one stall per bathroom, so it doesn't matter much if someone needs the wrong one in an emergency, or if you're not quite in the right place for some people's sakes.

I just feel worried for obviously *** men who have to use the "Mens" in rural areas, and the Western Suburbs in Melbourne.

All that is needed is non-sexual bathroom etiquette, which almost always prevails. Unless you're in a heavy-duty ***** club, where it's understood that the Men's toilet stalls are also for ***.

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 2:01am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#76 Mar 10 2013 at 1:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Aripyanfar wrote:
There are buildings where it's understood that the gays are in the "Mens" and the male-to-female trans are in the "Womens". There are less frequent buildings where it's understood that the gays are in with the "Women's".

I've never been in a public building where this was de facto "understood". I imagine in a private office setting people would make whatever allowances they need to but it's not as though there's some universal standard in public settings.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#77 Mar 10 2013 at 1:13 AM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
I imagine that understanding is the property owner's discretion.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#78 Mar 10 2013 at 1:15 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
If that's the best response you can come up with, you have a long road ahead of ya.

Have i misunderstood? Your argument appears to be that if the law doesn't recognize someone for who they are, then no one else should either.

Quote:
Quote:
Let's make gays use the wrong bathroom too.

Homosexual males use the men's room just as straight men use the men's room, homosexual females use the ladies room just as straight females use the ladies room. Pretty cut & dry.
That's not what you seem to be arguing. Correct me if i'm wrong, but you have been arguing that certain men should use the women's bathroom, and certain women should use the men's bathroom. No?

Maybe this is all just a big misunderstanding. I'd love for that to be the case. let's clear it up if so.

lolgaxe wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
If she isn't doing anything wrong, i see no reason to doubt her.
But if they are lying then they are doing something wrong.
Yes, of course, but I think you will find this happens so rarely that it's absurd to assume someone going into a particular bathroom is doing something wrong based only on their looks, especially if when questioned they say they are trans.

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 2:17am by Rachel9
____________________________
#79 Mar 10 2013 at 1:19 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rachel9 wrote:
Have i misunderstood? Your argument appears to be that if the law doesn't recognize someone for who they are, then no one else should either.

If the law doesn't recognize them as a woman, a private business shouldn't be under any onus to do so either. Should they decide to do so, that's fine but there's no obligation.

Quote:
you have been arguing that certain men should use the women's bathroom, and certain women should use the men's bathroom. No?

More than anything, I was arguing that there should be a stricter standard than the originally mentioned "Let them use whatever bathroom they want". Again, since there's no legislation setting the standards, I'd think that "Go to the bathroom that matches your driver's license" is a fair and impartial rule for a private manager to use.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Mar 10 2013 at 1:27 AM Rating: Decent
******
44,511 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Yes, of course, but I think you will find this happens so rarely that it's absurd to assume someone going into a particular bathroom is doing something wrong based only on their looks, especially if when questioned they say they are trans.
Is your argument that since it rarely occurs we should simply ignore it? Because, you know that it's pretty rare that there is an issue with how things currently are.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#81 Mar 10 2013 at 1:40 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Yes, of course, but I think you will find this happens so rarely that it's absurd to assume someone going into a particular bathroom is doing something wrong based only on their looks, especially if when questioned they say they are trans.
Is your argument that since it rarely occurs we should simply ignore it? Because, you know that it's pretty rare that there is an issue with how things currently are.

No, my argument is that since it rarely occurs you should not just assume everyone is lying without any reason to believe so. If it was happening left and right, it would make sense to be cautious. But it's not. It almost never happens.

Quote:
Again, since there's no legislation setting the standards, I'd think that "Go to the bathroom that matches your driver's license" is a fair and impartial rule for a private manager to use.
How is blatant discrimination fair?

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 2:43am by Rachel9
____________________________
#82 Mar 10 2013 at 1:46 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,087 posts
Ari wrote:
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.


Do you have any scenarios that don't involve disabilities?

Belkira wrote:
Which definition is that...?




***·u·al·i·ty
[sek-shoo-al-i-tee or, esp. British, seks-yoo-] Show IPA
noun
1. sexual character; possession of the structural and functional traits of ***.
2. recognition of or emphasis upon sexual matters.
3. involvement in sexual activity.
4. an organism's preparedness for engaging in sexual activity.

.....

Medical Dictionary

sexuality ***·u·al·i·ty (sěk'sh&oomacr;-āl'ĭ-tē)
n.

The condition of being characterized and distinguished by ***.

Concern with or interest in sexual activity.

Sexual character or potency.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#83 Mar 10 2013 at 1:47 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You'd need to make an argument for how it's discriminatory.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Mar 10 2013 at 2:08 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You'd need to make an argument for how it's discriminatory.

Every other woman is allowed in the women's bathrooms, and without having to show ID. So either they profile people they don't like and demand ID (which they may not have, or they may be unable to get with the appropriate gender marker because our government (and almost all others) also discriminates against us), or they check ID of everyone (lol), and still discriminate because they know trans people cannot easily get appropriate ID.

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 4:12am by Rachel9
____________________________
#85 Mar 10 2013 at 2:16 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rachel9 wrote:
Every other woman is allowed in the women's bathrooms, and without having to show ID.

I never said they had to show ID to enter. I said they were expected to use the restroom matching their legally recognized gender.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#86 Mar 10 2013 at 2:20 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Which still boils down to every other woman is allowed in the women's bathroom except those who someone doesn't like.
____________________________
#87 Mar 10 2013 at 4:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Generally speaking, public restrooms aren't court rooms. And property owners have multiple interests in ensuring that the correct people are entering the correct facilities before a problem arises rather than waiting for someone to act "guilty".

Within reasonable suspicion. I can't think of a restaurant that checks customers licenses before allowing them to enter a restroom, so clearly establishments don't see enough cause to parse their poopers preemptively.

A trans-looking individual is not reasonable suspicion. The reasonable person standard is widely accepted in law, and so I don't see why it can't be used as the standard here.
#88 Mar 10 2013 at 5:37 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Allegory wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Generally speaking, public restrooms aren't court rooms. And property owners have multiple interests in ensuring that the correct people are entering the correct facilities before a problem arises rather than waiting for someone to act "guilty".

Within reasonable suspicion. I can't think of a restaurant that checks customers licenses before allowing them to enter a restroom, so clearly establishments don't see enough cause to parse their poopers preemptively.

A trans-looking individual is not reasonable suspicion. The reasonable person standard is widely accepted in law, and so I don't see why it can't be used as the standard here.


That's my take on this as well. I honestly don't see it being a huge issue, particularly once social expectations have shifted to actually include trans peoples. Right now, social pressure is against them both ways--if a trans woman is trying to live as a woman, men don't want her in their restroom, and if a trans man is trying to live as a man, women don't want her in their restroom. This is, of course, assuming care about the gender barriers that are in place.

Honestly, I just don't see why it would be an issue. I get why a bar or restaurant owner would prefer a system that stops problems before they begin. I also don't think our system does that now. Nor is there any way I can think of that stops potential issues, before we even add trans peoples back into the mix.

It almost seems far better, to me, to have a socially agreed upon standard for using restrooms. I can't help but feel that the end result would be a net drop in issues. And I can absolutely be wrong here--this is a gut feeling. I have no objective evidence one way or the other. But if trans people aren't welcome in either bathroom right now, in theory it can only get better if there's a system in place that establishes their welcome to one or the other. That's my take on it at least.

There are always going to be creeps doing their creeper things. You deal with them as you've always dealt with them. If someone has a better idea on how to stop that, I'm all ears. I don't. And I don't think using something that is already an issue actually helps.

And Joph, you're right--I should have been a lot more clear in what I meant by everyone go where they want. I should have said everyone should go to where they feel most comfortable, and from there you rely on social boundaries to protect the people inside. I have difficulty imaging that a significant population of new deviants is going to emerge by allowing for overlap in the gender domains that bathrooms serve. That's all I meant by the peepers gonna peep comment. If they'd be willing to peep in this new context, I seriously doubt they're somehow less willing to peep now. To the best of my knowledge, peeping behaviors primarily stem from social issues and anxieties when dealing with the opposite gender. You probably aren't going to just brazenly walk into a domain specified for the opposite gender, you're going to sneak in.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#89 Mar 10 2013 at 7:03 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,087 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
How is blatant discrimination fair?


Because, by definition, there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. Society has simply given it a negative connotation. Your question should be "Why is this discrimination UNFAIR?"..

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 3:05pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#90 Mar 10 2013 at 7:17 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
How is blatant discrimination fair?


Because, by definition, there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. Society has simply given it a negative connotation. Your question should be "Why is this discrimination UNFAIR?".
I think the "negative" in the unsaid "How is blatant negative discrimination fair?" was fairly obvious there.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#91 Mar 10 2013 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
There are buildings where it's understood that the gays are in the "Mens" and the male-to-female trans are in the "Womens". There are less frequent buildings where it's understood that the gays are in with the "Women's".

I've never been in a public building where this was de facto "understood". I imagine in a private office setting people would make whatever allowances they need to but it's not as though there's some universal standard in public settings.

So is my part of Australia living in a bubble, or is your part of America? What IS this Western difficulty with transgendered people? The only place with a good argument to discriminate against transgendered women is in sport, and if the transgendered woman was lucky enough to start the hormonal medications in adolescence, then not even then.
Jophiel wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Every other woman is allowed in the women's bathrooms, and without having to show ID.


I never said they had to show ID to enter. I said they were expected to use the restroom matching their legally recognized gender.
Good Grief. The law hasn't caught up with reality, and you want to insist on a technical law that doesn't remotely practically work?. You going to dob in a lovey dovey happy 19 year old and 17 year old couple for statutory rape? It's useful to have statutory rape on the books to cover coersive relationships. It's useful to broadly segregate men and women in toilets. But it's neither fair nor practical to insist on a slavish adherence to old fashioned legal definitions of gender status. Trans people are such a small minority. It's not like hoards are going to swap toilets.

But trans people are a growing percentage of Western populations, because of all the Endocrine Disruptors floating around our urban and farming environments now.

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 9:41am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#92 Mar 10 2013 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,570 posts
I've never been in a public building where this was de facto "understood". I imagine in a private office setting people would make whatever allowances they need to but it's not as though there's some universal standard in public settings.

Eliminate gender based bathrooms, problem solved. My home doesn't have gender based bathrooms, yet somehow women manage to use them without fainting. Is there some non Victorian reason we have segregated bathrooms for genders? Is the fear that some women will have to defecate in a completely private stall then see..."A MAN!" while washing her hands. Or is that women, being made of tissue paper and fear, could be easily attacked by the ever present stranger rapist who at all times lurks in the shadows if he was allowed access to the place where they ****?

Talk about manufactured problems.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#93 Mar 10 2013 at 8:22 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,087 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
How is blatant discrimination fair?


Because, by definition, there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. Society has simply given it a negative connotation. Your question should be "Why is this discrimination UNFAIR?".
I think the "negative" in the unsaid "How is blatant negative discrimination fair?" was fairly obvious there.


If you're trying to prove a point, then words need to be used correctly. There is no assumption because "How is blatant discrimination fair" is a completely different question from "How is this particular discrimination fair". The first question insinuates that discrimination in itself isn't fair, hence the term "blatant".

While you may very well be right, there is no way of knowing without explicitly stating your question as such.

P.S.Where is all of this defensive talk when I'm being attacked for grammatical errors?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#94 Mar 10 2013 at 8:35 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Quote:
If you're trying to prove a point, then words need to be used correctly.
I wasn't trying to prove a point, i was asking a question. It also wasn't just a random question, it was in response to something, which i quoted, which should have given appropriate context. I apologize if i was unclear though.

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 10:37am by Rachel9
____________________________
#95 Mar 10 2013 at 8:38 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,087 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
If you're trying to prove a point, then words need to be used correctly.
I wasn't trying to prove a point, i was asking a question. It also wasn't just a random question, it was in response to something, which i quoted. I apologize if i was unclear though.


Does your question support a point or are you just asking questions? In any case, my answer is still valid. Discrimination, blatant or not, doesn't inherently mean "unfair". So, therefore, "blatant discrimination", i.e. handicap spots, can be very fair.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#96 Mar 10 2013 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Generally speaking, public restrooms aren't court rooms. And property owners have multiple interests in ensuring that the correct people are entering the correct facilities before a problem arises rather than waiting for someone to act "guilty".
Within reasonable suspicion. I can't think of a restaurant that checks customers licenses before allowing them to enter a restroom, so clearly establishments don't see enough cause to parse their poopers preemptively.

As I said, no one is calling for ID checks. However, if someone was to say "Hey, that person there looks inappropriate for the restroom", the manager should handle it the same as they would anyone else. Which would mean that boys get kicked out of the girl's room (and likely removed from the property) and vice versa. Rachel was saying that even a rule designating bathrooms for their respective (legal) gender was "proving them guilty" of inappropriate behavior.

The question isn't: "What can we do to stop this wave of trans people using the wrong restroom?" but rather "Which restroom should owners reasonably expect their patrons to use?" Designating them by legally recognized gender is the most practical solution. "Enforcement" of the rules, such as it is, is another matter.
Aripyanfar wrote:
So is my part of Australia living in a bubble, or is your part of America?

*Shrug* Who knows? Who cares? Whining about how wrong America is for having boys rooms and girls rooms and expecting people to use them based on whether they have a ***** or ****** isn't going to address the overall issue.
Quote:
you want to insist on a technical law that doesn't remotely practically work?

I dare say that categorizing people on gender works the vast, vast, vast majority of the time.
Smasharoo wrote:
Eliminate gender based bathrooms, problem solved.

Wave your magic wand and make it happen. I'll be over here, not holding my breath.

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 9:54am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Mar 10 2013 at 9:07 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Quote:
Which would mean that boys get kicked out of the girl's room
Yes, that seems perfectly reasonable. Boys should not be in the girls' room.
____________________________
#98 Mar 10 2013 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
In before 17 pages of stupidity.

2 down, 15 to go...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#99 Mar 10 2013 at 9:26 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,087 posts
Instead of admitting to the overall concern is "sexual privacy", people try to create logical reasons for certain types of discrimination. This results in contradictions of what should be socially accepted.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#100 Mar 10 2013 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rachel9 wrote:
Yes, that seems perfectly reasonable. Boys should not be in the girls' room.

Difference being that I'm working off the legal categorization of their gender and not some "They're whatever they say they are" standard.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#101 Mar 10 2013 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
492 posts
No, you're just being a bigot. If you wish to refer to someone's legally recognized gender, then say that. Calling girls "boys" is just hateful.
____________________________
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 38 All times are in CST