Transgender rightsFollow

Fruit substantial extreme mill comfort solid chewing victory.

I quoted the entire question, what exactly was the problem?
Cisgender?
But as i've repeatedly explained, there would not be. The type of people who go into women's bathrooms with a ***** 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?

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.

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.

That is not true at all.

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

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.



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.



Again, that's because we assume that people using one type have a ***** 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.



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.



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?



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.




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 ***** some percentage over. Kinda can't be helped.

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.

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%+.
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.

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.

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.

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?


Well i saw no need to answer what was essentially the same question twice with exactly the same answer.


Certainly not.

Edited, Apr 1st 2013 7:26pm by Rachel9

I guess? It seemed like exactly the same question to me though, so i didn't see a need to. Sorry!

Cisgender means someone's gender matches their assigned sex. Anyone who is not transgender, is cisgender.

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".

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.

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:





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



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

Did you no longer want a response to this?

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

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

Huh? I wasn't making an 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.

Huh?

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

They're human traits that have been historically associated with women but have become more increasingly accepted for males as well.

I knew it all along.

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