Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#102 Mar 10 2013 at 9:37 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rachel9 wrote:
No, you're just being a bigot.

Smiley: laugh Whatever.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 Mar 10 2013 at 9:48 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
496 posts
Well as long as it's funny to you, i guess it doesn't matter how terribly you treat people. After all, legally it's perfectly okay!

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 11:49am by Rachel9
____________________________
#104 Mar 10 2013 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
My home doesn't have gender based bathrooms, yet somehow women manage to use them without fainting
A property owner setting policy that works and doesn't need legislation to correct? You don't say.
Smasharoo wrote:
Talk about manufactured problems.
Exactly.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#105 Mar 10 2013 at 9:54 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, you're funny to me if that helps. I mean, I can only make clear I'm speaking of legally recognized gender a however many times before you hop in singing "Boys and Girls! Boys and Girls! EVERYONE is Boys & Girls!" and then throw a fit when I make the same point again for the X+1th time.

Yes, fine. If you want to call me a bigot for using an actual standard beyond "Whatever makes you feel good", go for it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#106 Mar 10 2013 at 9:56 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
A property owner setting policy that works and doesn't need legislation to correct? You don't say.

If universal bathrooms were seen to "work" (beyond in a single person setting), builders would be all over that. Costs less to run plumbing and fixtures to a single location (and you could probably have less fixtures as well). They don't because it's not what most people want.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Mar 10 2013 at 10:01 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
I don't think refusing to refer to women with words such as "girl" or "woman" is really a standard thing.
____________________________
#108 Mar 10 2013 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
The differences between general discrimination and negative discrimination are fairly clear. It's rarely a fine line scenario.

Offering women's and men's rest rooms and locker rooms is an attempt to afford people a safer space, from whatever they perceive as threatening about a mixed environment. The goal isn't a separate but equal environment, it's to produce separate environments tailored to suit the specific needs of the group utilizing it. It gives women a place where they're surrounded by women and, hopefully, free from prying eyes. It gives men a place where they can do their business surrounded only by men, which might be important depending on what their notions of modesty are (and, you know, urinals). It's the same reason why affirmative action policies aren't negative discrimination--they're an attempt to make things equal when they aren't.

Providing a separate trans bathroom, however, would be negative discrimination. It's the same thing as forcing a bullied kid eat lunch/have recess alone in the classroom while everyone else is in the cafeteria or outside. Yeah, it's better in the sense that he or she is not getting bullied during that period, but it robs the child of valuable social experiences. It targets him or her as the source of the bullying, not the actual bullies.

A separate trans bathroom means trans women/men/other have to sacrifice access to their own safe space where they can be surrounded by people with the same gender identity as them. A trans man and women may both be trans, but they aren't the same gender, and the point of having a gender identity is possessing a certain shared identity with the other people who possess it. Trans men feel like men. They don't feel like trans women.

Imo, the short term answer is letting trans people use the bathroom they're most comfortable with. I don't have a better answer to this than having it handled on a case-by-case basis, the same way everything else is handled right now. In the long term, I hope that trans protections are put into place, and trans peoples are able to establish a legal gender without needing court orders and sexual reassignment surgery. One would hope that this correlates with a social shift that offers inclusion for trans peoples into our society's framework.

As for the issue from the perspective of a builder who needs to actually design a building, I'd say Target's system is good enough for the moment: Male restrooms, female restrooms, and a unisex "family" restroom for people who don't feel comfortable in either of the others. Family restrooms are typically a toilet, sink, and changing table. If you service a population of trans peoples that would make the single occupancy room an issue, I imagine you aren't transphobic enough to bar a trans person from the restroom they choose. This is definitely only a temporary system though.

I don't know what system would be better. I'm not trans and can't speak for them.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#109 Mar 10 2013 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rachel9 wrote:
I don't think refusing to refer to women with words such as "girl" or "woman" is really a standard thing.

I have no idea what this means. Are you under the impression that using one's legally recognized gender as their gender is other settings isn't the norm?

Is this one of those Gbaji things? "You're married if you just say you're married, no need for any legal recognition!" and "You're a woman if you just say you're a woman!"?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#110 Mar 10 2013 at 10:11 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Belkira wrote:
[quote=His Excellency Aethien]
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.
With the current design of the toilet, I'd want to minimize men having to pee into the same public toilet that I have to sit down on. Two separate peeing set-ups is really convenient considering the anatomical differences and probably more hygienic. Which leads me to wonder why we even have toilet seats anymore. Why has no designed a toilet for the 21st century?

Individual isolated rooms would be the ideal, but impractical in many situations. No one seems to have problems deciding with porta-potty to line up at during crowded events.

I'm curious how legal gender status works. Obviously we're given a legal gender on our birth certificates. What's the process for changing that - is there physical criteria you have to meet, or can you change it just like changing your name?


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#111 Mar 10 2013 at 10:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
I'm curious how legal gender status works. Obviously we're given a legal gender on our birth certificates. What's the process for changing that - is there physical criteria you have to meet, or can you change it just like changing your name?

Varies state by state. Here, make yourself an expert by graduating from Wikipedia University.

Ironically, the only state allowing you to change your birth certificate on a whim is Mississippi. Every other state requires a court order, sexual reassignment surgery or both.

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 11:17am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#112 Mar 10 2013 at 10:15 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
I don't think refusing to refer to women with words such as "girl" or "woman" is really a standard thing.


That's not the case. So, what is your opinion on an immigrant who comes to the US, who associates him or herself as a "United States Citizen", and complains when treated like an immigrant?
#113 Mar 10 2013 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
Elinda wrote:
Belkira wrote:
[quote=His Excellency Aethien]
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.
With the current design of the toilet, I'd want to minimize men having to pee into the same public toilet that I have to sit down on. Two separate peeing set-ups is really convenient considering the anatomical differences and probably more hygienic. Which leads me to wonder why we even have toilet seats anymore. Why has no designed a toilet for the 21st century?

Individual isolated rooms would be the ideal, but impractical in many situations. No one seems to have problems deciding with porta-potty to line up at during crowded events.

I'm curious how legal gender status works. Obviously we're given a legal gender on our birth certificates. What's the process for changing that - is there physical criteria you have to meet, or can you change it just like changing your name?




It's a state issue. One state (Mississippi, surprisingly) doesn't require anything but a request to change it. Most states require a court order to change it, and most of those will not issue that order unless the person has undergone reassignment surgery. Then there are states that only require reassignment surgery, and will change it upon request after that. Then, of course, you have the states that won't change it at all--I'm inclined to say this is a minority now, though.

As far as I know, most states just match your birth certificate for any laws with gender distinctions. And to the best of my knowledge, the federal government does too. Though, as Joph noted, some do not use that for everything--marriage is the biggest one. Because obviously the gays would reassign their sexes just to get married.

This process is actually one of the biggest political issues for trans peoples, though. Because it doesn't reflect the trans experience. The vast majority of trans peoples don't reassign their genitalia. For many, it's because it's a painful and cost-intensive process, and you lose a LOT of the nerves in the area. Sexual males are more likely to reassign than sexual females, because far more of the nerves are preserved. And few people want to give up sexual pleasure down yonder.

There's also the birth issue. Reassignment surgery renders you infertile, so anyone who wants biological children is unlikely to reassign.

And there are also people who just don't want to. Maybe they don't hold a gender identity that's 100% one or the other, or maybe they're happy to keep the genitals they were born with as long as they're allowed to live as the gender they identify as. Bodily changes to "pass" is often far more important to non-trans peoples than it is to them. Not that this is universal, by any means, I'm talking about statistics not individual feelings on an issue.

Even in states where you don't need to have surgery to reassign your legal gender, it's still generally very expensive to go through the legal process of changing it.

Hence, big political issue.

[EDIT]

You know, if you're too lazy to click Joph's link.

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 12:24pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#114 Mar 10 2013 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And there are also people who just don't want to. Maybe they don't hold a gender identity that's 100% one or the other, or maybe they're happy to keep the genitals they were born with as long as they're allowed to live as the gender they identify as. Bodily changes to "pass" is often far more important to non-trans peoples than it is to them. Not that this is universal, by any means, I'm talking about statistics not individual feelings on an issue.

This is fine by me (big sigh of relief from the transgen community, I know) and if there's ever a universal ability to change your legal gender by signing a card at the local library, I don't much care.

I don't, however, feel that individuals, businesses, organizations, local governments (inc. schools), etc should be accused of discrimination or bigotry for holding to the current standard or using current legal recognition as their benchmark. Be it for anything from which restroom to use to inclusion in gender-separated activities, housing assignments, gender based funding or whatever else.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#115 Mar 10 2013 at 10:56 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I don't, however, feel that individuals, businesses, organizations, local governments (inc. schools), etc should be accused of discrimination or bigotry for holding to the current standard or using current legal recognition as their benchmark. Be it for anything from which restroom to use to inclusion in gender-separated activities, housing assignments, gender based funding or whatever else.


And we see Kohlsberg's opinion of Jophiel plummet.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#116 Mar 10 2013 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Assuming you meant Kohlberg, he's dead so probably not Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 Mar 10 2013 at 11:04 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Can't be, he's still making that awful beer.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#118 Mar 10 2013 at 11:05 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,905 posts
Elinda wrote:
Belkira wrote:
[quote=His Excellency Aethien]
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.
With the current design of the toilet, I'd want to minimize men having to pee into the same public toilet that I have to sit down on. Two separate peeing set-ups is really convenient considering the anatomical differences and probably more hygienic. Which leads me to wonder why we even have toilet seats anymore. Why has no designed a toilet for the 21st century?


From what I gather from numerous anecdotal sources (those charged to clean them), women's toilets are much more disgusting than men's toilets. The general idea being that women seem to "hover" over the seat and make a mess. It's rare to see urine on the toilet seat in a men's stall. Probably cause we actually know how to raise/lower the seat as needed.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#119 Mar 10 2013 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Urinals also use less water than toilets and use less space. If they weren't better than toilets for their function, mens rooms would just have a row of toilet stalls. Instead, we just see occasional abortive attempts to design a female urinal.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#120 Mar 10 2013 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,905 posts
Or the female *****-replica attachment that they can carry in their purse to be able to aim.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#121 Mar 10 2013 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
This is a bit late now, as you all have argued about bathrooms for a page and a half (still not one of the worst discussions here however) but I wanted to tell Alma:

On cross-dressing as a sexuality, everything I had ever heard indicated that a cross-dresser did so out of comfort and not sexual arousal. I still believe that, but the current definition of a transvestite is one who wears the clothing of the opposite *** for sexual arousal, so I concede that argument to you.
#122 Mar 10 2013 at 5:08 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira wrote:
This is a bit late now, as you all have argued about bathrooms for a page and a half (still not one of the worst discussions here however) but I wanted to tell Alma:

On cross-dressing as a sexuality, everything I had ever heard indicated that a cross-dresser did so out of comfort and not sexual arousal. I still believe that, but the current definition of a transvestite is one who wears the clothing of the opposite *** for sexual arousal, so I concede that argument to you.


The issue with your statement is that "arousal" isn't a prerequisite for sexuality, hence why I quoted the definition of sexuality.
#123 Mar 10 2013 at 7:11 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
496 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
I don't think refusing to refer to women with words such as "girl" or "woman" is really a standard thing.

I have no idea what this means. Are you under the impression that using one's legally recognized gender as their gender is other settings isn't the norm?

Is this one of those Gbaji things? "You're married if you just say you're married, no need for any legal recognition!" and "You're a woman if you just say you're a woman!"?
I don't think you really understand how this works. Someone does not just decide one day that they are trans. Either they are or they aren't. Someone can no more decide this than they can the color of the sky. It is what it is, and whether other people realize it or not doesn't change the facts.

Almalieque wrote:
That's not the case. So, what is your opinion on an immigrant who comes to the US, who associates him or herself as a "United States Citizen", and complains when treated like an immigrant?
They are lying.

Quote:
And to the best of my knowledge, the federal government does too.
They are actually a bit more lenient on this. You can get a passport with the appropriate gender marker without SRS. This can actually then be used to get a driver's license changed as well, but usually not a birth certificate.

Quote:
There's also the birth issue. Reassignment surgery renders you infertile, so anyone who wants biological children is unlikely to reassign.
HRT does this anyway.
____________________________
#124 Mar 10 2013 at 7:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,913 posts
is it just me, or does anyone else want to know what happened to the other 8 rachels?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#125 Mar 10 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,905 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
is it just me, or does anyone else want to know what happened to the other 8 rachels?


They were... reassigned. And now go by Rafael. (Well, I think 2 and 3 chose Raymond).
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#126 Mar 10 2013 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
is it just me, or does anyone else want to know what happened to the other 8 rachels?

Do you wonder that every time someone appends a number to their name? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)