Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#252 Mar 14 2013 at 5:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I get that. But then we're also not talking about just this one school, or one class, but everyone who isn't very wealthy. Ultimately, we're looking at two groups with incompatible needs. One group's needs are no more irrational than the other, so doesn't it make more sense to inconvenience the smallest group possible?

Awesome argument for raising the marginal tax rate on income above $300k to 95%.


Except for the whole "One group's needs are no more irrational than the other" part, you'd have a semi-decent analogy.It's rational to expect to keep money you earn, and irrational to demand that others pay for things you didn't earn. But yet, other than that minor difference, you're spot on!

Quote:
Good work, comrade.


Keep trying.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#253 Mar 14 2013 at 5:31 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Minorities have always made majorities uncomfortable. It's why they constantly have to fight for their rights. This is not a new thing. People will get used to the biologically male woman in the restroom (and vice versa). I don't see the majority really getting inconvenienced all that much. But you're asking the minority to inconvenience themselves for their entire lives to conform to what makes the majority comfortable. That's pretty **** up.
#254 Mar 14 2013 at 5:34 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
Transphobes are uncomfortable with someone of a different **** using the same restroom because they make that determination based on sex
fixed.
____________________________
#255 Mar 14 2013 at 5:45 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,950 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
I tire of this, if you have a point, make it, otherwise read my previous posts, i've already responded.


If you're unable to grasp such as simple concept as why those 11 million people are considered "illegal", then you wont understand anything further.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#256 Mar 14 2013 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
Gbaji believes any who are not right-wing, moneyed, white males don't really matter
Super-fixed.

____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#257 Mar 14 2013 at 6:20 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
Except for the whole "One group's needs are no more irrational than the other" part, you'd have a semi-decent analogy.It's rational to expect to keep money you earn, and irrational to demand that others pay for things you didn't earn.

No, I understood that part. I think you may not have.
____________________________
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 whore. 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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#258 Mar 14 2013 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Belkira wrote:
Minorities have always made majorities uncomfortable. It's why they constantly have to fight for their rights. This is not a new thing. People will get used to the biologically male woman in the restroom (and vice versa).


Why can't the biologically male woman simply get used to using the restroom the rest of the biologically male people use?

Quote:
I don't see the majority really getting inconvenienced all that much.


They are being inconvenienced just as much by having to share a restroom with someone who is biologically a different **** as the transgendered person is having to share a restroom with someone who is biologically the same sex. Seriously? Why is one hang up any more important than the other?

Quote:
But you're asking the minority to inconvenience themselves for their entire lives to conform to what makes the majority comfortable.


You're asking the majority to inconvenience themselves for their entire lives to conform to what makes the minority comfortable.

Quote:
That's pretty @#%^ed up.


Yes. But one way is fucked up to about .01% of the population , while the other way is fucked up to the other 99.99% of the population. Neither hang up has any more legitimacy than the other, so any sane society should go with not inconveniencing the larger group.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#259 Mar 14 2013 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
Transphobes are uncomfortable with someone of a different **** using the same restroom because they make that determination based on sex
fixed.


Changing the label doesn't change the logic. Transgendered people who can't handle using a restroom with other people of the same physical **** as themselves are just as phobic. Yet somehow that's ok, but the other isn't? Why?

There is nothing preventing that kid from using the boy's bathroom except his/her own fears and hangups. None at all. Yet, we're expected to require that everyone else set aside their hangups about sharing a restroom with someone of the opposite **** on hold because a very tiny percentage of the population feels uncomfortable the other way around? That makes no sense at all.

If I declare that I'm made uncomfortable at the sight of women with clothing on, can I demand that we change the rules to require that they all walk around nude? I'm the minority here, right? So the fact that most women will be uncomfortable complying with what I want shouldn't matter. They're just bigots and haters of a minority. They simply don't understand the mental and emotional stress I go through every day having to deal with women around me who are wearing clothing! Argh... If the world doesn't fix this, I'll just have to commit suicide.

Silly? Yes. And so is the idea of transgenders imposing their own phobias and hangups on the rest of the society. They're the ones who have a disconnect between their physical **** and their psychological gender. The rest of us don't. They're going to have problems dealing with that regardless of what restrooms they're allowed to use. So we're looking at a ridiculous and largely unworkable demand that isn't really going to fix anything anyway. So how about we just not do it and tell the little boy/girl that the world works this way and that he/she will need to learn how to interact with that world as it is. It's not going to change for him/her.


There's no practical way to change the vast hosts of things in the world that will cause problems for a transgendered person. Better to set realistic expectations and move forward IMO. And guess what? The kids probably not going to get a pony either. That's just the way the real world is kid. Deal with it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#260 Mar 14 2013 at 7:54 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
The majority is inconvenienced once or twice, not their whole life. They are not asked to wear clothing they don't feel comfortable in, to affect mannerisms they are not comfortable with, to use facilities they are not comfortable with, and to present themselves as someone they are not. We're not just talking about public restrooms, gbaji.

Quote:
It's all well and good to say that we're infringing his/her right to be a unique snowflake or something, but the problems don't stop at the grade school level. What happens when it's the locker room, or the showers, or sports? Expecting the whole rest of the world to make way for your own personal preferences is a bit silly. We have social norms for a reason, and fair or not, it's a **** of a lot easier to find ways to adjust to them, rather than make everyone adjust the other direction. This kid is going to encounter problems with his desire to be female for his entire life. Better he learn that now and figure out ways to deal with it, than run headfirst into block after block after block.


If we change society, everyone is better for it. We've done it for race. We can do it for this, too.

Edited, Mar 14th 2013 8:58pm by Belkira
#261 Mar 14 2013 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Belkira wrote:
The majority is inconvenienced once or twice, not their whole life.


No. The majority is inconvenienced every single time they use a public restroom because they know that there could be someone of the opposite **** in there with them. Just as the minority is inconvenienced every single time they use a public restroom because they know there could be someone of the same sex, but opposite gender in there with them. It's the same **** thing. Remember, it's not like it's "this bathroom, in this location". In order for this to work at all, it would have to be "every bathroom, everywhere". Otherwise, the transgendered person would run into the same issue at a restaurant, or a business, or an airport, or bus stop, or gas station, etc, etc, etc.

I'm assuming we're not just saying this one school changes it's rules, right? Cause that's not going to really fix the problems the kid is going to have if using a restroom with other biological males is such a problem.

Quote:
They are not asked to wear clothing they don't feel comfortable in, to affect mannerisms they are not comfortable with, to use facilities they are not comfortable with, and to present themselves as someone they are not. We're not just talking about public restrooms, gbaji.


I'm just talking about public restrooms. No one was talking about clothes or mannerisms. We were specifically speaking of a "girl" being uncomfortable being required to use a men's restroom because she has the physical genitalia of a male. And I'm comparing that to everyone else being uncomfortable with the idea of some of the opposite **** using their restroom, regardless of what that person's gender identity is.

Quote:
If we change society, everyone is better for it. We've done it for race. We can do it for this, too.


If we change the transgender's irrational fears and needs, everyone is better for it too. Only that's a much more achievable goal.

And this is *nothing* like race.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#262 Mar 14 2013 at 8:29 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
Changing the label doesn't change the logic. Transgendered people who can't handle using a restroom with other people of the same physical **** as themselves are just as phobic. Yet somehow that's ok, but the other isn't? Why?

There is nothing preventing that kid from using the boy's bathroom except his/her own fears and hangups. None at all. Yet, we're expected to require that everyone else set aside their hangups about sharing a restroom with someone of the opposite **** on hold because a very tiny percentage of the population feels uncomfortable the other way around? That makes no sense at all.


Well, it was the primary idea behind the founding of our country. Aside from that though, no big deal, I guess.

People who actively disagree with your sentiment:

Plato, John Adams, De Toqueville, Mill, Nitche, Aynn Rand, I'll just stop there, I guess.

The entire reason Law exists as a concept is to enforce the rights of minority actors. Even the ones you don't like.
____________________________
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 whore. 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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#263 Mar 14 2013 at 8:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Well, it was the primary idea behind the founding of our country. Aside from that though, no big deal, I guess.


You're wrong. Sorry, that's not it. Our system is founded on the idea that rights compete with each other, and a society has to decide which ones are more important to a civil society than another.

Quote:
People who actively disagree with your sentiment:

Plato, John Adams, De Toqueville, Mill, Nitche, Aynn Rand, I'll just stop there, I guess.

The entire reason Law exists as a concept is to enforce the rights of minority actors. Even the ones you don't like.


Wrong again. Laws exist within the context of liberalism to mediate between competing rights. The sociopath has a right to move his hand, pick up a hammer, and smash it into someone's skull, killing them. That right is out weighed by his potential victim's right to *not* have his head bashed in with a hammer and be killed. We first recognize that rights exist, and then act to protect them to the greatest degree possible, always being aware that in order to do this in any society consisting of more than one person, we must infringe some rights in order to protect others that we as a society deem more important.

This means that my right to run around naked with peanut butter and bananas smeared on my body singing "I'm King Henry the Eighth, I am" at the top of my lungs at 3 in the morning is outweighed by the rest of society's right to not have to see people running around naked with peanut butter and banana's smeared on their bodies singing "I'm King Henry the Eighth, I am" at the top of their lungs at 3 in the morning. These sorts of things are necessary impositions on liberty in order for a civil society to exist. And while some of those rules may seem arbitrary, they are ultimately an expression of what the society as a whole wants. And in those areas, a minority opinion does not trump the majority.


Most people don't want to share restroom facilities with people of the opposite sex. Arbitrary or not, that right outweighs the right of the small number of people who do want to do so, regardless of their stated reason for wanting to. Thus, that's our social rule. You can always work to change the minds of the people, but the wrong way to do it is to pass a law forcing them to comply with something that makes them uncomfortable. Doing that is the opposite of the principles of a free society.

Edited, Mar 14th 2013 7:48pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#264 Mar 14 2013 at 8:52 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
Most people don't want to share restroom facilities with people of the opposite sex. Arbitrary or not, that right outweighs the right of the small number of people who do want to do so, regardless of their stated reason for wanting to. Thus, that's our social rule. You can always work to change the minds of the people, but the wrong way to do it is to pass a law forcing them to comply with something that makes them uncomfortable. Doing that is the opposite of the principles of a free society.

I'll keep that in mind when SCOTUS goes 7-2 in favor of codifying the right of **** folks to marry in June. I'm lazy, but there are about 72,000 examples of how the US system doesn't and wasn't intended to function the way you describe. Were you thinking, perhaps, of Galt Gulch?
____________________________
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 whore. 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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#265 Mar 14 2013 at 8:56 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
Yes. But one way is **** up to about .01% of the population , while the other way is **** up to the other 99.99% of the population. Neither hang up has any more legitimacy than the other, so any sane society should go with not inconveniencing the larger group.
lol, get out. Not all cis people hate trans people. You're also vastly underestimating the number of trans people.

Quote:
Transgendered people who can't handle using a restroom with other people of the same physical **** as themselves are just as phobic.
No, i don't think so. I don't know about anyone else, but personally, i am not afraid of using a men's bathroom. I did it just fine for the first 20 years of my life. I'm simply not comfortable in one. Not because i'm afraid of men, but because i'm in the wrong **** bathroom. I'm sure i probably feel similar to how you would feel using a women's bathroom.

Quote:
I'm just talking about public restrooms. No one was talking about clothes or mannerisms. We were specifically speaking of a "girl" being uncomfortable being required to use a men's restroom because she has the physical genitalia of a male. And I'm comparing that to everyone else being uncomfortable with the idea of some of the opposite **** using their restroom, regardless of what that person's gender identity is.
Well the thread is about "Transgender rights". Everyone else has in fact been talking about those things. Also, you don't need quotes around girl. That just makes it seem like you're implying she's not really a girl.
____________________________
#266 Mar 14 2013 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
I'm sure i probably feel similar to how you would feel using a women's bathroom.

I don't know you, but I DO know Gbaji, and I'm going to say you're wrong about that.

Dead wrong.
____________________________
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 whore. 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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#267 Mar 14 2013 at 11:50 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
The entire reason Law exists as a concept is to enforce the rights of minority actors.


What a bizarre thing to say.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#268 Mar 15 2013 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
gbaji wrote:

Most people don't want to share restroom facilities with people....

I know!

Bushes are so much more hygienic.



Edited, Mar 15th 2013 2:49pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#269 Mar 15 2013 at 7:36 AM Rating: Decent
******
43,650 posts
Belkira wrote:
The majority is inconvenienced once or twice, not their whole life. They are not asked to wear clothing they don't feel comfortable in, to affect mannerisms they are not comfortable with, to use facilities they are not comfortable with, and to present themselves as someone they are not.
Sounds like my job.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#270 Mar 15 2013 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Or high school!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#271 Mar 15 2013 at 12:18 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,950 posts
Rachel wrote:
Also, you don't need quotes around girl. That just makes it seem like you're implying she's not really a girl.


Who decides which label is accurate or not and why?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#272 Mar 15 2013 at 12:48 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
Also, you don't need quotes around girl. That just makes it seem like you're implying she's not really a girl.


Who decides which label is accurate or not and why?
I'm not an etymologist. If you're interested in the subject, I'm sure your local college can explain better than i can.
____________________________
#273 Mar 15 2013 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
Also, you don't need quotes around girl. That just makes it seem like you're implying she's not really a girl.


Who decides which label is accurate or not and why?

If I'm going to asked to wear a label into a public restroom I'm picking what mine says.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#274 Mar 15 2013 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rachel9 wrote:
I'm not an etymologist. If you're interested in the subject, I'm sure your local college can explain better than i can.

Etymologists wouldn't decide if or when to call a biological male a "girl", anyway.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#275 Mar 15 2013 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
So ... transgender folks are really insects?

Edit: Huh, google lied to me. Hilarious.

Edited, Mar 15th 2013 3:38pm 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.
#276 Mar 15 2013 at 1:34 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
I'm not an etymologist. If you're interested in the subject, I'm sure your local college can explain better than i can.

Etymologists wouldn't decide if or when to call a biological male a "girl", anyway.
Of course but they might be able to explain why a word is used the way it is. I am not an expert on the subject, so the best answer i can give is "that's just what it means".

Edited, Mar 15th 2013 3:36pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#277 Mar 15 2013 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That wasn't the question though. The question was a pretty plain one and you're obviously dodging it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#278 Mar 15 2013 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That wasn't the question though. The question was a pretty plain one and you're obviously dodging it.
Labeling people may be plain but it's certainly not straight-forward. Alma's question was leading and unnecessary as all the salient points surrounding why a person with a **** can't use the a bathroom that is labeled 'girls' have been covered.

I'd ask why someone needs a label before they're allowed to pee in a public restroom, but that's really about where this debate started.






Edited, Mar 15th 2013 10:04pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#279 Mar 15 2013 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Restrooms or not, the statement has been made that referring to someone by their obvious biological gender is "bigoted" and "hateful", yadda yadda. And that a biological, physical male is a girl if he decides he is and no quotes or other indication that the standard definition of "girl" isn't being used are acceptable in reference to this person. That's not a decision that some etymologist made.

Asking exactly WHO is making these decisions seems perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.

Edited, Mar 15th 2013 3:16pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#280 Mar 15 2013 at 2:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Ideally we all make the decisions for ourselves, vote on it, and go with whatever the majority decides.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#281 Mar 15 2013 at 2:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Ideally we all make the decisions for ourselves, vote on it, and go with whatever the majority decides.

Safe to say that wasn't the case here.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#282 Mar 15 2013 at 2:30 PM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
True, but I'd wager it'll come to that at some point.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#283 Mar 15 2013 at 2:32 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
I'd take that bet. Easy money.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#284 Mar 15 2013 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That wasn't the question though. The question was a pretty plain one and you're obviously dodging it.
I'm not dodging anything:
Quote:
so the best answer i can give is "that's just what it means".


I couldn't really tell you how any word came to mean what it means.

Jophiel wrote:
And that a biological, physical male is a girl if he decides he is and no quotes or other indication that the standard definition of "girl" isn't being used are acceptable in reference to this person.
The "standard definition of 'girl'" includes such people.
____________________________
#285 Mar 15 2013 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
**
644 posts
I guess I don't see what the argument is here. If somebody presents themselves to the world as female, why would there even be a question when they use the women's restroom? I mean, as a male, I sure don't scope out the bathroom to make sure everybody has the same equipment. It would raise more eyebrows if somebody who looked like a woman came in to the male side.
#286 Mar 15 2013 at 2:53 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
490 posts
xantav wrote:
I guess I don't see what the argument is here. If somebody presents themselves to the world as female, why would there even be a question when they use the women's restroom? I mean, as a male, I sure don't scope out the bathroom to make sure everybody has the same equipment. It would raise more eyebrows if somebody who looked like a woman came in to the male side.
It obviously depends on how well they present themselves as female. With any luck, no one will question it, because no one will even know the person is trans. Unfortunately that's not always the case.
____________________________
#287 Mar 15 2013 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts

Asking exactly WHO is making these decisions seems perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.


Interestingly it's the WHO. And the APA. I guess you could argue they don't get to decide and you can still call kids with Down's "mongoloids" if you want to until social pressure gets to you, but really, they sort of decide.
____________________________
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 whore. 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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#288 Mar 15 2013 at 3:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I'll keep that in mind when SCOTUS goes 7-2 in favor of codifying the right of **** folks to marry in June.


Which would indicate just how far away from the founding principles of this nation we've gone.

Quote:
I'm lazy, but there are about 72,000 examples of how the US system doesn't and wasn't intended to function the way you describe.


Pointing to 72,000 examples of liberals insisting that our system should work differently than originally intended doesn't really prove what you're claiming. What it proves is that we've moved away from that original intent. So much so that there are people like you who today think that this is really what that original intent was all along.

You're mistaken though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#289 Mar 15 2013 at 3:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts

Pointing to 72,000 examples of liberals insisting that our system should work differently than originally intended doesn't really prove what you're claiming. What it proves is that we've moved away from that original intent.


The original intent was that white land owning men would get the vote and slaves would count as 3/5th of a person. We moved away from that? How??? The idea that "founders intent" has any value at all is an amusing joke people play on idiots who don't understand the Constitution. It hasn't since about 1820. To genuinely thing otherwise is laughable. Ha.

Edited, Mar 15th 2013 5:23pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
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 whore. 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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#290 Mar 15 2013 at 3:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
Yes. But one way is @#%^ed up to about .01% of the population , while the other way is @#%^ed up to the other 99.99% of the population. Neither hang up has any more legitimacy than the other, so any sane society should go with not inconveniencing the larger group.
lol, get out. Not all cis people hate trans people. You're also vastly underestimating the number of trans people.


Er? So you either agree with someone 100% and go out of your way to give them whatever they want or you hate them? There's no room in your world for anything in between? People can't just treat each other as people?

Quote:
Quote:
Transgendered people who can't handle using a restroom with other people of the same physical **** as themselves are just as phobic.
No, i don't think so. I don't know about anyone else, but personally, i am not afraid of using a men's bathroom. I did it just fine for the first 20 years of my life. I'm simply not comfortable in one. Not because i'm afraid of men, but because i'm in the wrong @#%^ing bathroom.


Are you demanding that public schools change their policies to suite you though?

Quote:
I'm sure i probably feel similar to how you would feel using a women's bathroom.


Which I think shows just how poorly you understand the issue. My biggest concern if I were to find myself in a women's bathroom would be that I'd make a woman uncomfortable because I have a different set of genitalia than she has and I'm not supposed to be in that restroom. It would not at all be about my own discomfort because "I don't belong" or something.

Which I guess is what I'm getting at. The transgender argument really is selfish IMO. It's about how you feel in a given location or a given role, and whether you feel good or bad, or comfortable or uncomfortable. The rest of us are thinking about how we make other people feel. I really think that's a key difference to this whole deal.

Quote:
Well the thread is about "Transgender rights". Everyone else has in fact been talking about those things.


It's been mentioned once or twice, but always by someone arguing against this assumed imposition on what transgendered folks can wear or how they can act. No one has once actually argued those things in this thread, so it makes me wonder why it keeps getting brought up.

Quote:
Also, you don't need quotes around girl. That just makes it seem like you're implying she's not really a girl.


She's not really a girl. I'm sorry, but I refuse to refer to someone who is biologically one **** but feels like another **** by the other term. I think that's incredibly stupid and childish. I honestly despise the whole "gender not sex" thing as well (for similar reasons). I think it makes people sound stupid as **** when they talk like that, and it makes those who go along with it look even more stupid. Those terms apply to the **** of the person.

You want to fight for transgender rights? Stop playing stupid word games. Fight instead for the idea that there's nothing wrong with a man wearing a dress, or wearing makeup, or having bows in his hair. And there's nothing wrong with a woman wearing pants, work gloves, and a short haircut. I don't care if you think your gender is something else. Act like how you want to act, and stop playing stupid labeling games. You are a "he". You are a "man". If you like wearing rose scented perfurme, wearing dresses, and swinging your hips when you walk, that's great. And it makes you no less a man.


That's what you should be fighting for. Not over stupid words and labels. But then, maybe I look a bit farther at issues like this than most.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#291 Mar 15 2013 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
xantav wrote:
I guess I don't see what the argument is here. If somebody presents themselves to the world as female, why would there even be a question when they use the women's restroom? I mean, as a male, I sure don't scope out the bathroom to make sure everybody has the same equipment. It would raise more eyebrows if somebody who looked like a woman came in to the male side.


You might not. But if I slap on a dress and walk into the woman's restroom, it's a good bet that the women using it are going to be made far far more uncomfortable by that than the men would if I wore the same dress into the men's restroom. Guys would be like "hey. There's a guy in a dress. Whatever floats his boat, I guess". Women would be like "WTF? There's some creepy guy peeping at the women and wearing a really crappy disguise. Call the cops!".

That's why it's an issue. It's a bigger issue at a public school, where children are involved and overly protected sue-happy parents. I suppose this is where I inject my "let's privatize all schools and fund with vouchers" argument. It would solve everything, since the school could decide how to handle the restrooms as they wish and the parents/children could then choose to attend a school based on that policy if that's what they care about most. Yet another great argument for privatization! ;)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#292 Mar 15 2013 at 3:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
Er? So you either agree with someone 100% and go out of your way to give them whatever they want or you hate them? There's no room in your world for anything in between? People can't just treat each other as people?
That's generally about the only reason someone would be upset about being in a bathroom with a trans person.

Quote:
Are you demanding that public schools change their policies to suite you though?
If their policy is penises go in the men's bathroom, and vaginas go in the women's, then yes.
Quote:
Which I think shows just how poorly you understand the issue. My biggest concern if I were to find myself in a women's bathroom would be that I'd make a woman uncomfortable because I have a different set of genitalia than she has and I'm not supposed to be in that restroom. It would not at all be about my own discomfort because "I don't belong" or something.

Well, i think it more shows how poorly i understand you. I am still confident that most people feel similar to me on this.

Quote:
Which I guess is what I'm getting at. The transgender argument really is selfish IMO. It's about how you feel in a given location or a given role, and whether you feel good or bad, or comfortable or uncomfortable. The rest of us are thinking about how we make other people feel. I really think that's a key difference to this whole deal.
That's ironic.

Quote:
That's what you should be fighting for. Not over stupid words and labels. But then, maybe I look a bit farther at issues like this than most.
No, it's not what i should be fighting for, and it's not what i want. Fuck you. I think i will go further contemplate if i even want to live in a world with people like you. How's that thinking about how other people feel thing working out for you?

Edited, Mar 15th 2013 6:03pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#293 Mar 15 2013 at 4:04 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,950 posts
Rachel wrote:
I'm not an etymologist. If you're interested in the subject, I'm sure your local college can explain better than i can.


This has nothing to do with the origin of the word, but who decides to label who what. If you're not concerned about that, then why are you upset for calling a **** a male or using quotes?

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#294 Mar 15 2013 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Fuck you.

The important thing is you figured out how to get around the profanity filer. Grats, and have a cookie on me.

Smiley: cookie
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#295 Mar 15 2013 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rachel9 wrote:
The "standard definition of 'girl'" includes such people.

Not in any dictionary I checked.

Smash wrote:
Interestingly it's the WHO. And the APA.

A quick browse through the WHO site didn't reveal anything immediately saying "Males who want to call themselves girls are really girls" in their main "Gender & Genetics" section and I wasn't up for browsing all 2,000+ hits on the word "transgender".
Quote:
I guess you could argue they don't get to decide and you can still call kids with Down's "mongoloids" if you want

This would be more akin to calling children with disabilities "Star Children" and saying they're blessed with remarkable special gifts. I.e., it's going against the actual physical reality of their situation.

Edited, Mar 15th 2013 5:17pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#296 Mar 15 2013 at 4:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Rachel9 wrote:
How's that thinking about how other people feel thing working out for you?
He doesn't. Ever. Please pay better attention than that.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#297 Mar 15 2013 at 4:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
Er? So you either agree with someone 100% and go out of your way to give them whatever they want or you hate them? There's no room in your world for anything in between? People can't just treat each other as people?
That's generally about the only reason someone would be upset about being in a bathroom with a trans person.


Because they hate the trans? That's insane. Ever consider that your fears are in your own head?

People are upset about a trans male being in the women's restroom for exactly the same reason they'd be upset about a non-trans male being in the women's restroom. You're focusing on your own condition and failing to realize that it applies to everyone, not just you.

Quote:
Quote:
Are you demanding that public schools change their policies to suite you though?
If their policy is penises go in the men's bathroom, and vaginas go in the women's, then yes.


There you go then. Let me point out again that this rule applies to everyone. Not just those who are transgender. So no one's discriminating against you.


Quote:
Well, i think it more shows how poorly i understand you. I am still confident that most people feel similar to me on this.


Coming from the person who thinks that the reason people don't like having a person with male genitalia in the women's restroom is because they hate transgenders, forgive me if I think it's you who's got it wrong. You're not a special case here. We apply the same rules to everyone. Bathrooms are segregated based on the biological features of those using them. It's why you don't find urinals in women's restrooms. This is done because the overwhelming majority of people in our society are uncomfortable sharing a public restroom with people who have the opposite **** genitalia. That's really the reason. And this reason doesn't change for them because of how you feel about yourself.

Quote:
Quote:
Which I guess is what I'm getting at. The transgender argument really is selfish IMO. It's about how you feel in a given location or a given role, and whether you feel good or bad, or comfortable or uncomfortable. The rest of us are thinking about how we make other people feel. I really think that's a key difference to this whole deal.
That's ironic.


It's also the truth. You're putting your own needs ahead of everyone else and demanding that everyone else accept it because, well, it's your needs and they somehow magically outweigh the needs of everyone else. Like I said: Selfish. I don't use the mens restroom because it make me comfortable to do so. I use the men's restroom because if I used the women's restroom it would make the women uncomfortable. I'm thinking of others. You are thinking of only yourself and putting that above how others might feel about it.

The saddest part is that you've somehow convinced yourself that it's ok to push aside the feelings of others by labeling them hateful. How convenient for you that you've decided that anyone who doesn't willingly set aside their own discomfort in favor of yours is a monster who hates you, and thus isn't deserving of their position in the first place.

Quote:
Quote:
That's what you should be fighting for. Not over stupid words and labels. But then, maybe I look a bit farther at issues like this than most.
No, it's not what i should be fighting for, and it's not what i want. Fuck you.


What do you want? A world that doesn't care how you dress or feel or look? Or a world that pays attention to every detail about you, labels you, puts you in a box, tells you how your specific group should act, behave, and be treated, and passes laws to mandate these things society wide? Because you're fighting for the latter. Most of my disagreement with these sorts of causes are not about the people, or their basic desires/needs, but rather how the organizations which take up these causes tend to twist them into a methodology seemingly designed to create social conflict and then use those people as pawns in that fight.

It's the wrong way to do this. You honestly hurt yourself in the long run doing this. I just think that if more people abandoned the assumption that the only way to increase their own freedom is to infringe the freedom of others, a whole **** of a lot of our social conflicts would vanish.

Edited, Mar 15th 2013 3:32pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#298 Mar 15 2013 at 7:04 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,917 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Restrooms or not, the statement has been made that referring to someone by their obvious biological gender is "bigoted" and "hateful", yadda yadda. And that a biological, physical male is a girl if he decides he is and no quotes or other indication that the standard definition of "girl" isn't being used are acceptable in reference to this person. That's not a decision that some etymologist made.

Asking exactly WHO is making these decisions seems perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.
Before we get to the ideal world, there is a measurabe physiological reason that some men feel like women trapped in a male body, and vice versa. Neurologists will tell you that a TG female might have the physiology of a male on the outside, but the physiology of a female on the inside. There is a noticeable structural difference in male and female brains. Just using simple, conventional male and female brain scans, a neurologist can look at a scan of an unknown patient, and tell the gender of the patient correctly about 95% of the time. Transgenderd brains conform to the **** that the person "claims" to be. That is, a phisologically outward looking male who says he is really female, almost always has a female structured brain. Medical science may pedantically call these people transgender, even after they've switched sexes in every way that they can. Out in polite society, just like it is a taboo for a **** man to obviously check-out, or hit on a straight man, and it is taboo for a straight woman to check out or hit on a **** man, it is very important common courtesy to call a TG by the gender that they feel like inside, as soon as they start their journey. If X feels like a female, then in Melbourne she always gets called by female pronouns, no matter what X looks like. If Y feels like a male, then he always gets addressed by male pronouns, no matter what he looks like. To do otherwise is to negate the whole of the identity of the person in question.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#299 Mar 15 2013 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts

A quick browse through the WHO site didn't reveal anything immediately saying "Males who want to call themselves girls are really girls" in their main "Gender & Genetics" section and I wasn't up for browsing all 2,000+ hits on the word "transgender".


You can find the terminology in the GID section of ICD or you could consider why I would bother lying about it and then wonder why you're arguing it in the first place. Not that I'm immune to being wrong, but it'd be an odd thing to make up. Again, I can't see why it matters much. Having a Y chromosome precludes many of the definitions or female gender words from being accurate in a technical sense. That has virtually nothing to do with common usage. It seems an odd battle to fight, honestly. Odd along the lines of "Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a women". I didn't read the entire context, so maybe I missed something, but clearly, in both ICD and GID the correct pronoun or descriptive term is that of the perceived gender and not the biological one.
____________________________
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 whore. 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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#300 Mar 15 2013 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
This is done because the overwhelming majority of people in our society are uncomfortable sharing a public restroom with people who have the opposite **** genitalia.
Do you have data for this? Because i doubt that's even true.
someproteinguy wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Fuck you.

The important thing is you figured out how to get around the profanity filer. Grats, and have a cookie on me.

Smiley: cookie
I've known how for years, but thanks!

Quote:
This has nothing to do with the origin of the word, but who decides to label who what.
Uh...?

Quote:
then why are you upset for calling a **** a male or using quotes?
Same reason i'm upset with what gbaji said. Same reason i'm upset when someone is called a "shemale". Because it very quickly tells me that you don't accept trans people for who they are.

Quote:
You're putting your own needs ahead of everyone else and demanding that everyone else accept it
No, not everyone else. Only people like you. No one else has a problem with it. And your needs here matter about as much as someone who "needs" black people to use a different bathroom because they are uncomfortable sharing one with them.

Quote:
What do you want? A world that doesn't care how you dress or feel or look? Or a world that pays attention to every detail about you, labels you, puts you in a box, tells you how your specific group should act, behave, and be treated, and passes laws to mandate these things society wide?
A world that accepts me for who i am.
____________________________
#301 Mar 15 2013 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
A world that accepts me for who i am.
Someone who contemplates whether they want to live on this world based on some text on a computer screen? Good luck with that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 37 All times are in CDT
Jophiel, Anonymous Guests (36)