Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#177 Mar 11 2013 at 12:24 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm honestly not sure what you're saying here. I have no issue with "family" restrooms. I don't believe that ALL restrooms should be made in that fashion. It takes up considerably more space and money than a big room with three or four stalls and a couple of sinks. Hence me saying that "converting them all to private restrooms" is an expensive solution to something that is almost never an issue.

Right, because removing the signs and putting new ones up would bankrupt almost any organization.
Jophiel wrote:
You think you convert a large room with four stalls along one wall and a couple sinks along the other into four small individual restrooms by changing signs?

And no one said "bankrupt". Said the cost wasn't worth the benefit for the size of the issue.

Going Metric is Too Expensive!
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#178 Mar 11 2013 at 12:30 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Good lord, it's like none of you have read any of the neuroscience on Transgender and Homosexual brains. Not that that should reallly matter.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#179 Mar 11 2013 at 12:30 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Going Metric is Too Expensive!

Smiley: confused

Edited, Mar 11th 2013 1:31pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#180 Mar 11 2013 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
You think you convert a large room with four stalls along one wall and a couple sinks along the other into four small individual restrooms by changing signs?


I think you leave the stalls and the sinks and change the sign. Unisex doesn't have to mean "single person use," and frequently doesn't. Before we get to it, Archie Bunker, yes leave the urinals also. I think women can probably stand the sight of them and determine the best ******* option for themselves all on their own. Or we can add fainting couches if you think that's required, which would, I guess, bolster your monetary argument a little.

Is it the lack of a Pope that's making you so feisty today? It's going to be Scola, it'll be over Tuesday night.
____________________________
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.

#181 Mar 11 2013 at 12:35 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
Torrence wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
And what about men who lose their ***** in an accident or something? That is certainly not the standard we go by. Or are you arguing that such people shouldn't use the men's bathroom either?


Yea, I figured this would be your argument, but men who lose their penises in tragic accidents aren't asking to use the ladies' bathroom, nor are women lobbying that they should for whatever imagined reason.
Because it demonstrates that in fact, we do not expect people to use bathrooms based on their genitals.

Quote:
Rachel9 wrote:
The sky's color changes all the time. But when it's blue, it's blue. When it's black, it's black. It may not be 10 minutes later, and it may not have been 10 minutes prior, but at any given time, it is what it is.


Well that's true, but that's also a measurable physical difference. A male doesn't have a *****, then not have a *****, then have a ***** again because he hopes really, really hard (>.>). What you are suggesting is exactly what Joph originally argued against - everyone doing whatever the @#%^ they want just because.
No, but that's not what we are talking about.
____________________________
#182 Mar 11 2013 at 12:53 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,010 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Because it demonstrates that in fact, we do not expect people to use bathrooms based on their genitals..


It's a bonehead argument at best. You're reaching.
#183 Mar 11 2013 at 1:06 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
I think you leave the stalls and the sinks and change the sign. Unisex doesn't have to mean "single person use," and frequently doesn't.

Yeah, there's a greater chance of me teaching a fern to play piano than this happening on any wide scale. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you meant something that could potentially happen.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#184 Mar 11 2013 at 1:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
My Google-Fu failed at finding any regulations or laws about which bathrooms TG people were supposed to use in Australia. I did find out that recently the Supreme Court determined that TG people should be issued new birth certificates reflecting their preferred gender, without having to go through gender reassignment surgery first. TG military personnel have only gained the right to stay in the military in the last two years. Prior to that, they were automatically discharged for having a mental disability: Gender Identity Disorder.

(Surprisingly to me, it's been 18 years since Homosexuals have been permitted to serve openly in the armed forces in Australia.) TG Australians have recently gained free and easy access to Passports reflecting their preferred gender. This might be associated with the Birth Certificate change. TG people are not to be excluded from any parental rights or custody of their prior children on the basis of the gender change. However some paperwork is still hard for TG people to obtain, and TG people still face a lot of prejudice and active violence against them from some sections of the Australian community.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#185 Mar 11 2013 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Yeah, there's a greater chance of me teaching a fern to play piano than this happening on any wide scale. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you meant something that could potentially happen.

Oh, change that only benefits the minority is hard? Well, fuck it, then. Let's just vote on human rights until everyone agrees that people different from themselves are worthy of equal consideration. That's usually how change works. The minority class just suffers silently until suddenly, *poof*! they're accepted. I assume you'd make the same argument for racial issues, sexual orientation, poverty, whatever, and that it's not that this happens to make you uncomfortable for some strange reason. "I don't really like the idea of this change, but I have no logical basis for that, so let's throw up our hands and say 'too hard'! and not think about it anymore. I don't know anyone impacted by it, anyway, and neither do you."
____________________________
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.

#186 Mar 11 2013 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's nice. There still ain't gonna be large scale unisex restrooms any time soon. Maybe we can break up your ranting with a few practical, useful suggestions to implement between now and your hopeful future Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#187 Mar 11 2013 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you meant something that could potentially happen.


That's very generous of you, Jophiel.

Edited, Mar 11th 2013 7:31pm by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#188 Mar 11 2013 at 1:38 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Rachel wrote:
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.


Why would they be lying? Based on what?
#189 Mar 11 2013 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
That's nice. There still ain't gonna be large scale unisex restrooms any time soon. Maybe we can break up your ranting with a few practical, useful suggestions to implement between now and your hopeful future

It's about 30 posts back. You dismissed it because of cost, then when that turned out to not be an issue, you dismissed it because it was too hard, then when that was addressed you laughed it off, because who can take the problems of TG people seriously. I mean they're a meaningless minority we should do nothing for, right? They'll get over it, or kill themselves. Either way.

You have some very odd mental blocks, sir. Hitting children, this. I don't see the common thread, but whatever. I have to say it's jarring to see someone who normally relies on reason to resort to "this is stupid, no one cares about this, right everyone?" Not sure what it's about, really.

What's the answer you want so you can be validated in not caring about this? There aren't enough TG people for it to matter? Ok. Society won't accept unisex bathrooms? Ok. It's too expensive for private businesses to have an extra bathroom? Ok.

Can you think of one that's falsifiable in any way through reasoned debate or evidence or do you really just want to continue posting "Come on...everyone knows..."

____________________________
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.

#190 Mar 11 2013 at 1:51 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,010 posts
Smasharoo wrote:


It's about 30 posts back. You dismissed it because of cost, then when that turned out to not be an issue, you dismissed it because it was too hard, then when that was addressed you laughed it off, because who can take the problems of TG people seriously. I mean they're a meaningless minority we should do nothing for, right? They'll get over it, or kill themselves. Either way.



Actually, I thought he was saying that it would be far more offensive to more people to just slap a unisex sign on existing, non-private restrooms just to make a handful of folks more comfortable, and it would be cost-prohibitive to build the private restrooms in place of the existing, ***-separated ones I was suggesting.

I don't think he was saying that the issue for TG isn't serious, just that slapping a unisex sign on the ladies' room and calling it a day isn't the answer.

Edited, Mar 11th 2013 3:52pm by Torrence
#191 Mar 11 2013 at 1:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
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.


Why would they be lying? Based on what?
Based on the given premise. They are not a us citizen, therefore if they say they are, they are either lying, or misinformed. Most likely the former.
____________________________
#192 Mar 11 2013 at 1:58 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,010 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
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.


Why would they be lying? Based on what?
Based on the given premise. They are not a us citizen, therefore if they say they are, they are either lying, or misinformed. Most likely the former.


Careful there. You're coming dangerously close to supporting his point.

Edited, Mar 11th 2013 3:59pm by Torrence
#193 Mar 11 2013 at 2:02 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
It's about 30 posts back. You dismissed it because of cost

So your solution to "Waving a wand and making bathrooms unisex is impractical" is "Wave a wand and make bathrooms unisex".

Well, okay then.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#194 Mar 11 2013 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Torrence wrote:
Actually, I thought he was saying that it would be far more offensive to more people to just slap a unisex sign on existing, non-private restrooms just to make a handful of folks more comfortable, and it would be cost-prohibitive to build the private restrooms in place of the existing, ***-separated ones I was suggesting.

Really, I was saying that having a single "family" restroom makes sense (for multiple reasons) but converting large restrooms into individual units was a costly solution that exceeded the scope of the problem.

Smash wishes for a beautiful day where he can prove how evolved he is by having all men and women, trans and.. umm... untrans?... all **** in a communal hole. Which is beautiful and I know it made for all sorts of laughs in Ally McBeal but probably isn't a solution actually on the horizon.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#195 Mar 11 2013 at 2:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
It's about 30 posts back. You dismissed it because of cost

So your solution to "Waving a wand and making bathrooms unisex is impractical" is "Wave a wand and make bathrooms unisex".

Well, okay then.


Jophiel wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
It's about 30 posts back. You dismissed it because of cost

So your solution to "Waving a wand and making bathrooms unisex is impractical" is "Wave a wand and make bathrooms unisex".

Well, okay then.


No, that's very stupid.

Something being impractical because of public opinion is very different from something being impractical because of cost. It's the difference between female suffrage and launching new york into space.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#196 Mar 11 2013 at 2:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
So your solution to "Waving a wand and making bathrooms unisex is impractical" is "Wave a wand and make bathrooms unisex".

Well, okay then.


No, my solution is to pass a law. Pass a law that makes it clear that gender identified women can use a women's bathroom. Or pass a law that makes it clear that if no neutral bathroom is provided anyone can use either. Not that hard. Passing laws is how we protect minority rights in this country. The burden of those laws on citizens of course matters, but generally not as much as the rights of citizens. I imagine integrating schools was a bit of a costly endeavor, the argument that it shouldn't have been done because of cost isn't very compelling to me. Title IX women's athletics cost universities money, I don't think that was a compelling reason not to pass it.

Pretending we don't have to worry about minority rights is just a tradition, but one not normally practiced by people who believe what you seem to believe. Unique snowflakes and all that, though. Maybe I didn't pay enough attention. Maybe you're pro civil union being equal to marriage for gays and think affirmative action is no longer necessary. Maybe you're completely consistent. Obviously I don't know what you think as well as you do, but your arguments here seem strained and completely misplaced. I can't imagine you making them in another thread. I've seen Gbaji make them on other issues hundreds of times. "We shouldn't do anything about climate change because we'll never get China to do anything so why bother", "Civil unions are just as good without offending the majority of people" etc.

____________________________
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.

#197 Mar 11 2013 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Unisex restrooms and impractical for social reasons although it wouldn't cost anything.

Converting restrooms into separate units is impractical due to cost though I bet we'd all be thrilled to have the privacy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#198 Mar 11 2013 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
No, my solution is to pass a law. Pass a law that makes it clear that gender identified women can use a women's bathroom. Or pass a law that makes it clear that if no neutral bathroom is provided anyone can use either.

I have no quarrel with either of those solutions.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#199 Mar 11 2013 at 2:18 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
I have no quarrel with either of those solutions.

Righty oh. Well, then. Illinois sucks!
____________________________
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.

#200 Mar 11 2013 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What do you want to argue about now?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#201 Mar 11 2013 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,062 posts
Having non-gender specific bathrooms is a much larger issue than just for transgender people, but that's the most "exciting" thing to make them about. I encounter needs for such regularly. I have an employee with an opposite *** personal assistant who he needs to bring with him into the bathroom. I've known elderly people who had a spouse that assisted them in the bathroom. Parents helping children of the opposite *** in the bathroom. Yes, transgender people. In college, having an opposite *** friend make sure that someone hadn't died of alcohol poisoning in the shower resulted in the police being called because he might be a peeping tom, who knows.

Naked people! Gah! people who aren't naked but have body parts! Gah! Maybe if we stopped making it so exciting and mysterious and taboo then people would stop having crazy fetishes about it since it would be boring. I find the whole seperate bathroom thing about as necessary as assigned some words arbitrarily as "naughty". Manufactured problems, indeed.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 108 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (108)