The Bathroom 'Freedom Fighters'

[vraiblonde]

It doesn't make me uncomfortable so it's not my problem, it's yours.

Well, no. I'm not uncomfortable using the restroom appropriate to my gender. So that would actually be the trans person's problem because they're the ones complaining about their comfort level.

 

[This_person]

Well, no. I'm not uncomfortable using the restroom appropriate to my gender. So that would actually be the trans person's problem because they're the ones complaining about their comfort level.

I don't much hear from people who can't figure out if they're born with a penis or not; I hear from people who think they're protecting and helping the people who can't figure out if they were born with a penis or not.

This is a media/activist issue, not a transgender issue. Ten months ago there weren't riots in the streets, why are there now? Because the media told the activists now is time (or vice versa).

 

[vraiblonde]

Don't condescend to me, and don't think you know my motivations because you aren't that good at guessing.

You are arguing that the extreme minority - as in statistically insignificant minority; so small a percentage of population that they round off to zero - should take priority over the vast majority. That's ridiculous, and you certainly must understand that.

You understand that, right?

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't much hear from people who can't figure out if they're born with a penis or not; I hear from people who think they're protecting and helping the people who can't figure out if they were born with a penis or not.

This is a media/activist issue, not a transgender issue. Ten months ago there weren't riots in the streets, why are there now? Because the media told the activists now is time (or vice versa).

It's an election year. Vote for Hillary's vagina!

 

[Radiant1]

When it comes to the science of it, it's as simple as math. Male = male, male =/= female.

I would not check. I see no need to check. Vrai did mention it, and it makes very good sense to me - if the people in the room don't know, why would they care?

Right!

The ones who are likely to BE a problem are the ones who are going to let you know whether they are male or female.

This is where you lose me. Do you suppose someone's going to announce to the entire room that they really have a vagina or a penis? If it's a matter of someone "passing" or not, then I don't think that a good enough as it's still discriminatory against someone's gender.

A law that says, "you can't be here if you're male" gives a redress to the concern.

Wait, according to what you said above you mean a law that says you can't be here if you happen to have *male sexual organs*, which ultimately makes a transgender person guilty of breaking a law by simple nature of what they born as. Of course, that's assuming you don't think transgenderism a choice like Psy does.

A law that says, "if you want to waive your penis in front of little girls because you claim to identify as feminine" is in effect, there is very little redress.

How is there no redress? It's a law (harassment, obscenity, whichever you prefer), so presumably there is a consequence regardless of the gender of the person.

Again, we're talking about literally 0.05% of the population as born, and a smaller percentage because most doctors/parents make a sex decision for the hermaphrodite. I "resort" to that in way of saying I have no good answer, and see no need for one. Assuming half of the children born this way have a sex selected for them at birth, we're talking 0.025%. If NYC has 10 million people, that means it is an issue for 2500 people. That seems like an insignificant number to be concerned with, and not worthy of law. And, I'd bet it's actually a much lower number than that, but the 0.05% is accurate - I simply can't tell how many are fixed at birth.

TP, I think this is kind of a cop out on your part, but so be it.

Well, no. I'm not uncomfortable using the restroom appropriate to my gender. So that would actually be the trans person's problem because they're the ones complaining about their comfort level.

And neither are they. You've already pointed out correctly that they use the same bathroom you happen to use now. You just don't like it when they're hairy.

 

[vraiblonde]

And neither are they.

Apparently someone is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Radiant1]

You are arguing that the extreme minority - as in statistically insignificant minority; so small a percentage of population that they round off to zero - should take priority over the vast majority. That's ridiculous, and you certainly must understand that.

You understand that, right?

Wrong. I'm arguing for human rights. Vrai, if majority always ruled then you'd be barefoot in the kitchen plowing the back 40 and never once had given thought to owning or co-owning your own business. You understand that, RIGHT?

 

[Gilligan]

Apparently someone is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Point.

 

[Gilligan]

Wrong. I'm arguing for human rights.

For what...ten people?

Seems a bit much.

 

[Radiant1]

Apparently someone is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yeah, apparently someone somewhere got miffed because a hairy person who identifies as female entered the women's restroom.

It's an election year. Vote for Hillary's vagina!

Definitely an election year, and a manipulation by the press. It's all been blown out of proportion. Although it's likely beneficial to the transgendered community only that it gets people talking. :shrug:

 

[This_person]

This is where you lose me. Do you suppose someone's going to announce to the entire room that they really have a vagina or a penis?

I believe the ones that will are a danger. I don't think most will, but I think the ones that will are a danger.

Wait, according to what you said above you mean a law that says you can't be here if you happen to have *male sexual organs*, which ultimately makes a transgender person guilty of breaking a law by simple nature of what they born as. Of course, that's assuming you don't think transgenderism a choice like Psy does.

I believe homosexuality to be a genetic defect, not a choice. I believe transgenderism to be a mental health issue, and the psychological academia tend to agree.

That said, a law would not suggest that being guilty of transgenderism is illegal. The law suggests that using the bathroom that is not in align with your sex - because of the concerns of the majority, especially of those that would utilize the ability for transgender people to use the bathroom of their identity instead of reality in nefarious ways instead of simply being used by those few transgendered people it would affect in some positive way - is against the law.

How is there no redress? It's a law (harassment, obscenity, whichever you prefer), so presumably there is a consequence regardless of the gender of the person.

You mean, I'm going to have to either film the person in the bathroom, or I'm going to have to overcome the "yeah, I was in the bathroom and had my dick out, that's a problem?" defense. In a gain vs. loss analysis, where is the interest in taking the risk of the person who intentionally complies with the letter of the law - men in women's bathrooms is okay - but not the spirit of the law?

TP, I think this is kind of a cop out on your part, but so be it.

Call it what you will, but if we had an abortion rate of 0.025% being elective, I would not concern myself with it. If we had a rape rate of 0.025%, I probably wouldn't worry too much about it. If 0.025% of cars violated traffic laws, I probably would see no need for traffic cops. See where I'm going here?

 

[Radiant1]

I believe the ones that will are a danger. I don't think most will, but I think the ones that will are a danger.I believe homosexuality to be a genetic defect, not a choice. I believe transgenderism to be a mental health issue, and the psychological academia tend to agree.

Ok, but I will say that academia also once thought homosexuality a mental disorder as a whole hose of other things we find perfectly normal today. They tend to change their minds given a bit of time because psychological diagnoses happen within a cultural context.

That said, a law would not suggest that being guilty of transgenderism is illegal.

Since you view transgendered persons as having a psychological defect and not having been born with what amounts to a physical defect, then there is no need to go on.

In a gain vs. loss analysis, where is the interest in taking the risk of the person who intentionally complies with the letter of the law - men in women's bathrooms is okay - but not the spirit of the law?Call it what you will, but if we had an abortion rate of 0.025% being elective, I would not concern myself with it. If we had a rape rate of 0.025%, I probably wouldn't worry too much about it. If 0.025% of cars violated traffic laws, I probably would see no need for traffic cops. See where I'm going here?

I see where you're going, and I have to ask...if it was your daughter, sister or mother raped would you change your mind about gain vs loss? If it were your child or grandchild that was aborted would you not worry about it? If someone you loved died from a drunk driver violating a traffic law would you concern yourself with it? I'm curious if you apply this gain vs loss analysis only when you are removed from any one given situation, or if you stand by it regardless.

 

[Tilted]

How are they going to even enforce that, do spot checks? "Oops, sorry Louise - I thought you were Louis. You can put your pants back on."

This is a made up problem with no solution because it's not a problem. All it is is gay activists wanting to piss off the heteros and give us the old yuck foo.

Trannies are going to be uncomfortable no matter what anyone else does. THEY are uncomfortable and it has nothing to do with the rest of us. They are uncomfortable by their very nature, or lack thereof, and not because of anything anyone else did. There is no legislation or acceptance that will make a man who thinks he's a woman be comfortable.

I have already said: they should use the restroom that they look like. If you're a trans guy being a woman, use the ladies room and shut up about it. Nobody cares, nobody will bother you, nobody's going to check. Nobody will call the police. If, however, you are some hairy guy who is clearly a guy, get your ass out and go use the mens room.

Like I said, this is a stupid "solution" to a non-problem.

That's much my point. Was this provision of the law put in for purely political reasons, to make it look like they were doing something to fight back against... whatever? A solution to a made up or non- problem?

Charlotte passed some amendments to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations (and in some other contexts) based on marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. Those things were added to the already existing list of protected classifications. Okay. So the state, not agreeing with those additions, passed legislation that effectively overrode those city level prohibitions and effectively forbid other localities from enacting similar (as well as other) prohibitions. Okay. But why did it also put in this bathroom provision? It wasn't to repeal what Charlotte had done or prevent other localities from doing something similar, the legislation otherwise already did that (and Charlotte's legislation didn't relate to bathrooms in particular, though it would have affected public accommodations bathrooms as it would have affected lots of other things). It was addressing what you're referring to as a non-problem. Do you have any thoughts on why they decided to make an issue out of it, beyond just repealing what Charlotte had done?

 

[luvmygdaughters]

I don't get it. We've always had public bathrooms designated for men and women. If you were born a man, use the mens room, same if you are a woman. If you've had the surgery to change your sex, than by all means, you have all the parts (or lack of them) to use the appropriate bathroom. However, if you are a man who likes to dress like a woman, than no way should you be using the womans room. Just because you dress the part, doesn't make it so. I dress like a witch for Halloween, but that doesn't make me...oh wait...bad analogy.

 

[vraiblonde]

Wrong. I'm arguing for human rights. Vrai, if majority always ruled then you'd be barefoot in the kitchen plowing the back 40 and never once had given thought to owning or co-owning your own business. You understand that, RIGHT?

Using a public restroom isn't a "right". Using the restroom designated for the opposite sex is absolutely not a "right". Like, not even close to being a right.

You have a very broad idea of what constitutes (see what I did there?) a right in this country.

 

[vraiblonde]

Although it's likely beneficial to the transgendered community only that it gets people talking. :shrug:

No. This sort of retardation is not doing them any favors and makes them look like unreasonable aholes, even if trans people have nothing to do with it and it's just a bunch of crazy militant activists who are bitching about this.

 

[vraiblonde]

Yeah, apparently someone somewhere got miffed because a hairy person who identifies as female entered the women's restroom.

Radiant! A transgender person typically at least makes an effort to look like the sex they "identify" as. That's the whole freaking point. If they are clearly a man, with a beard and hairy legs and lumberjack clothes, they are not transgender - they are a mentally ill man who for some reason wants to bother women in the restroom. Transgender men who identify as women typically look more stereotypically feminine than actual women do.

Do you understand what "transgender" means?

 

[Christy]

This is a made up problem with no solution because it's not a problem. All it is is gay activists wanting to piss off the heteros and give us the old yuck foo.

It's a made up problem on both sides. I'd wager 90% of the population never gave a second thought to the anatomy of who is in the public restroom with them. It's the vocal minority that has made this an issue, to the extent where pandering politicians are coming up with absurd legislation in an attempt to save us from the trannies.

 

[Christy]

Sure. But I think that's part of the opposition to this aspect of the North Carolina law. Now public facilities have to have a policy of not allowing transgender males to use the men's bathroom. Before they could perhaps just use the men's bathroom as you suggest and no one would notice. Now there's a law saying - hey, don't allow that to happen. They have to use the women's room and potentially cause a scene. Can they still just use the men's room and not have anyone notice? Yeah, in a lot of cases they probably could. But the point is there's a law against allowing them to do that and that law, if followed, will in some cases cause a scene to be made where otherwise there'd be no need for one.

Tilted, you capture the issue so eloquently. So much better than my "WTF? This is just so stupid".

 

[vraiblonde]

Do you have any thoughts on why they decided to make an issue out of it, beyond just repealing what Charlotte had done?

My guess is they put it in so predator men wouldn't invade the ladies room and then say they were transgender when they got caught. Beats a prison rap, eh? And yes, I can totally see some skeevy perv doing that. People are crazy. It's a safety net, is all, and reasonable to specify in light of all the lunacy that goes on in this country and the nutbag lawyers who will defend anything to make a buck.

Charlotte was just asking for trouble by going all in like that. They didn't consider the consequences of such a sweeping and generic amendment.