HS girls stage a walkout as trans teen uses girls bathroom (1 Viewer)

[Hoh]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

 

[Hang 10]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

 

[Clifford]

So has this question been answered and I just missed it: Don't non-transgender girls have the right to have access to a locker room where penises, even ones attached to transgender boys who identify as girls, are forbidden? Seems to me that as adults we should honor that, especially considering that some girls may be reluctant to speak up for fear of being seen as insensitive or politically incorrect. If I understand the recent ruling (and likely don't) I believe such a common sense right, in my opinion, does not exist anymore.

I don't believe that "right" ever existed.

If this "right" to a an area of privacy away from members of a different gender does not exist, why would a transgender have a right to either bathroom? I don't see how you can have a situation where the transgender kid has a right to one bathroom or the other if no one has a right to privacy from a different gender when they change clothes or use the bathroom.

If the "right" to privacy is not defined in any way shape or form then would that not mean it is not a protected right (thanks for clarification) but the other kind that is not strictly punishable by law but also not protected.

Next obvious question is whether students even have a legal right to use the bathroom. And to what degree the law is willing to step in here.

If there is no right to privacy at all, it would seem that students would have no redress (legally) against a transgender or member of the opposite gender coming into the bathroom and dropping trow.

 

[TobiasFunke]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

Why do people think that requiring people to use the gender-specific bathroom that matches their genitalia will result in less discomfort for "the majority"? Seems to me that the opposite is true. The vast majority of transgender women would likely use the ladies' room without even being noticed, while many transgender men forced to use the ladies' room because they don't have penises would still make women incredibly uncomfortable since they look like men. What makes women more uncomfortable- someone who looks like a woman whipping out their junk behind the closed door of a stall, or someone who looks like a man greeting them at the sinks while they apply their makeup after taking a dump?

I'm not lobbying for one side or the other, I'm wondering whether this argument based on comfort or privacy is accurate.

 

[Clifford]

Pretty sure that requires intent, which makes it irrelevant to this discussion. Hence the options in my statement.

Specific intent. The person is intending to enter the lockerroom, are they not?

Is entry to a locker room considered assault in your state, counselor?

I could certainly make a hypothetical where it'd atleast be a colorable charge.

Is it the hypothetical where a transgender girl goes it to change her clothes before gym class? Because otherwise it's not really on point.

Big questions here are:

Is a transvestite now legally considered the same as transgender? Are we judging gender based on what the person wants to be or physically is?

Is an actual transgender who has undergone surgery to physically change their genitalia legally considered the new gender or a third class of gender since they can not actually become physically the same as their desired gender?

What is the burden on the state to provide privacy based on gender?

 

[Henry Ford]

So has this question been answered and I just missed it: Don't non-transgender girls have the right to have access to a locker room where penises, even ones attached to transgender boys who identify as girls, are forbidden? Seems to me that as adults we should honor that, especially considering that some girls may be reluctant to speak up for fear of being seen as insensitive or politically incorrect. If I understand the recent ruling (and likely don't) I believe such a common sense right, in my opinion, does not exist anymore.

I don't believe that "right" ever existed.

If this "right" to a an area of privacy away from members of a different gender does not exist, why would a transgender have a right to either bathroom? I don't see how you can have a situation where the transgender kid has a right to one bathroom or the other if no one has a right to privacy from a different gender when they change clothes or use the bathroom.If the "right" to privacy is not defined in any way shape or form then would that not mean it is not a protected right (thanks for clarification) but the other kind that is not strictly punishable by law but also not protected.

Next obvious question is whether students even have a legal right to use the bathroom. And to what degree the law is willing to step in here.

If there is no right to privacy at all, it would seem that students would have no redress (legally) against a transgender or member of the opposite gender coming into the bathroom and dropping trow.

Where have you seen that students have legal redress against a transgender person coming in and using the restroom?

 

[Henry Ford]

Pretty sure that requires intent, which makes it irrelevant to this discussion. Hence the options in my statement.

Specific intent. The person is intending to enter the lockerroom, are they not?

Is entry to a locker room considered assault in your state, counselor?

I could certainly make a hypothetical where it'd atleast be a colorable charge.

Is it the hypothetical where a transgender girl goes it to change her clothes before gym class? Because otherwise it's not really on point.

Big questions here are:Is a transvestite now legally considered the same as transgender? Are we judging gender based on what the person wants to be or physically is?

Is an actual transgender who has undergone surgery to physically change their genitalia legally considered the new gender or a third class of gender since they can not actually become physically the same as their desired gender?

What is the burden on the state to provide privacy based on gender?

Transvestite is just wearing clothes. Transgender is living as. To varying degrees based on where you are - and it's all moving like a freight train right now - transgender people are considered the new gender, whether or not there has been surgery.As far as I know there is no burden on the state to provide privacy based on gender - simply to treat everyone equally.

If schools want to set up gender neutral facilities, they can do so.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

I'm not lobbying for one side or the other, I'm wondering whether this argument based on comfort or privacy is accurate.

Let's just say that it's hard to find record evidence supporting the argument in the cases that have been filed. Certainly in the G.G. case, the District Court credited hypothetical concerns raised by parents and school board members, not by students and administrators.

Some of the concerns are best addressed just by stating them aloud.

Opponents are concerned that a guy is going to wake up one day and decide to come to high school in drag in front of his peers just because he wants to pop in the girl's bathroom to get a peek at the girls. Now, I can tell you that nobody has offered record evidence of this ever happening, but I shouldn't need to. It sounds ludicrous on its face. There have to be a thousand easier ways to be a Peeping Tom.

 

[fantasycurse42]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

I'm not lobbying for one side or the other, I'm wondering whether this argument based on comfort or privacy is accurate.

Let's just say that it's hard to find record evidence supporting the argument in the cases that have been filed. Certainly in the G.G. case, the District Court credited hypothetical concerns raised by parents and school board members, not by students and administrators.

Can't this also be bc nobody wants to be labeled as a bigot?

 

[Henry Ford]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

I'm not lobbying for one side or the other, I'm wondering whether this argument based on comfort or privacy is accurate.

Let's just say that it's hard to find record evidence supporting the argument in the cases that have been filed. Certainly in the G.G. case, the District Court credited hypothetical concerns raised by parents and school board members, not by students and administrators.

Some of the concerns are best addressed just by stating them aloud.

Opponents are concerned that a guy is going to wake up one day and decide to come to high school in drag in front of his peers just because he wants to pop in the girl's bathroom to get a peek at the girls. Now, I can tell you that nobody has offered record evidence of this ever happening, but I shouldn't need to. It sounds ludicrous on its face. There have to be a thousand easier ways to be a Peeping Tom.

Also, dressing in drag isn't transgenderism.

 

[Henry Ford]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

I'm not lobbying for one side or the other, I'm wondering whether this argument based on comfort or privacy is accurate.

Let's just say that it's hard to find record evidence supporting the argument in the cases that have been filed. Certainly in the G.G. case, the District Court credited hypothetical concerns raised by parents and school board members, not by students and administrators.

Can't this also be bc nobody wants to be labeled as a bigot?

But they're staging protests and giving interviews? Unlikely.

 

[Henry Ford]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

The lawyers who take these cases usually make very little money on them. If any. The majority should get over being uncomfortable when making them comfortable denies the minority civil rights.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If the kid commits an assault in the locker room, that's a crime that should be investigated and prosecuted. Changing clothes isn't assault or battery.

That's a hell of a defense for any Peeping Tom, isn't it? 'Hey yerhoner dropping trau ain't no crime, she just can't appreciate my rights.'

You folks sure do like to equate transgender people to sex crimes, don't you?

I don't see a "you" vs "us" vs "them" rubric here, Henry. I think of us all being in the same body public.

Oh, sorry, I meant people who want to deny transgender students the right to use their chosen genders' bathroom. "You."

Perhaps if we stopped using the word "chosen" it would be helpful. That word makes it seem like this can be done on a whim (although it could also be thoughtful) or that the choice could change again.

Good point./

 

[RBM]

 

[Henry Ford]

If the kid commits an assault in the locker room, that's a crime that should be investigated and prosecuted. Changing clothes isn't assault or battery.

That's a hell of a defense for any Peeping Tom, isn't it? 'Hey yerhoner dropping trau ain't no crime, she just can't appreciate my rights.'

You folks sure do like to equate transgender people to sex crimes, don't you?

I don't see a "you" vs "us" vs "them" rubric here, Henry. I think of us all being in the same body public.

Oh, sorry, I meant people who want to deny transgender students the right to use their chosen genders' bathroom. "You."

Perhaps if we stopped using the word "chosen" it would be helpful. That word makes it seem like this can be done on a whim (although it could also be thoughtful) or that the choice could change again.

Perhaps. But words have meaning. And beginning to live as another gender is a very important choice that belongs to transgender people.

 

[Clifford]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

Why do people think that requiring people to use the gender-specific bathroom that matches their genitalia will result in less discomfort for "the majority"? Seems to me that the opposite is true. The vast majority of transgender women would likely use the ladies' room without even being noticed, while many transgender men forced to use the ladies' room because they don't have penises would still make women incredibly uncomfortable since they look like men. What makes women more uncomfortable- someone who looks like a woman whipping out their junk behind the closed door of a stall, or someone who looks like a man greeting them at the sinks while they apply their makeup after taking a dump?

I'm not lobbying for one side or the other, I'm wondering whether this argument based on comfort or privacy is accurate.

Comfort level I think a transgender person has a high-probability of making both sexes uncomfortable. So I don't think personal comfort should be part of the equation since that is a no-win situation.

Question has to come down to body parts: should a woman be forced to use the same locker room/bathroom as someone with a penis and vice versa.

People have a right to dress and identify (and thus potentially offend) in any way they choose. If there is any right to privacy based on gender (EG if little 12-y-o Sally has a right to visit the locker room without being confronted by a dong) then I think the only way that is enforced is by body parts, not clothing or identity.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

I'm not lobbying for one side or the other, I'm wondering whether this argument based on comfort or privacy is accurate.

Let's just say that it's hard to find record evidence supporting the argument in the cases that have been filed. Certainly in the G.G. case, the District Court credited hypothetical concerns raised by parents and school board members, not by students and administrators.

Some of the concerns are best addressed just by stating them aloud.

Opponents are concerned that a guy is going to wake up one day and decide to come to high school in drag in front of his peers just because he wants to pop in the girl's bathroom to get a peek at the girls. Now, I can tell you that nobody has offered record evidence of this ever happening, but I shouldn't need to. It sounds ludicrous on its face. There have to be a thousand easier ways to be a Peeping Tom.

Also, dressing in drag isn't transgenderism.

Yes, the administrators actually do determine whether someone is acting consistently. In G.G.'s case, everyone's been calling him Gavin and using the masculine gender pronoun for years. The idea that someone is going to "opportunistically" adopt a transgender persona is something that you might be worried about until you actually try to imagine it as a realistic scenario.

 

[Clifford]

So has this question been answered and I just missed it: Don't non-transgender girls have the right to have access to a locker room where penises, even ones attached to transgender boys who identify as girls, are forbidden? Seems to me that as adults we should honor that, especially considering that some girls may be reluctant to speak up for fear of being seen as insensitive or politically incorrect. If I understand the recent ruling (and likely don't) I believe such a common sense right, in my opinion, does not exist anymore.

I don't believe that "right" ever existed.

If this "right" to a an area of privacy away from members of a different gender does not exist, why would a transgender have a right to either bathroom? I don't see how you can have a situation where the transgender kid has a right to one bathroom or the other if no one has a right to privacy from a different gender when they change clothes or use the bathroom.If the "right" to privacy is not defined in any way shape or form then would that not mean it is not a protected right (thanks for clarification) but the other kind that is not strictly punishable by law but also not protected.

Next obvious question is whether students even have a legal right to use the bathroom. And to what degree the law is willing to step in here.

If there is no right to privacy at all, it would seem that students would have no redress (legally) against a transgender or member of the opposite gender coming into the bathroom and dropping trow.

Where have you seen that students have legal redress against a transgender person coming in and using the restroom?

I haven't and I don't think they do. My question is whether a girl has any protection under the law of being presented with a penis.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

Why do people think that requiring people to use the gender-specific bathroom that matches their genitalia will result in less discomfort for "the majority"? Seems to me that the opposite is true. The vast majority of transgender women would likely use the ladies' room without even being noticed, while many transgender men forced to use the ladies' room because they don't have penises would still make women incredibly uncomfortable since they look like men. What makes women more uncomfortable- someone who looks like a woman whipping out their junk behind the closed door of a stall, or someone who looks like a man greeting them at the sinks while they apply their makeup after taking a dump?

I'm not lobbying for one side or the other, I'm wondering whether this argument based on comfort or privacy is accurate.

Question has to come down to body parts: should a woman be forced to use the same locker room/bathroom as someone with a penis and vice versa.

Why does it have to come down to body parts? My son has been in the women's bathroom plenty of times. He certainly has the wrong body part. But every time my wife changes him in public, there you go.

 

[Henry Ford]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

Why do people think that requiring people to use the gender-specific bathroom that matches their genitalia will result in less discomfort for "the majority"? Seems to me that the opposite is true. The vast majority of transgender women would likely use the ladies' room without even being noticed, while many transgender men forced to use the ladies' room because they don't have penises would still make women incredibly uncomfortable since they look like men. What makes women more uncomfortable- someone who looks like a woman whipping out their junk behind the closed door of a stall, or someone who looks like a man greeting them at the sinks while they apply their makeup after taking a dump?

I'm not lobbying for one side or the other, I'm wondering whether this argument based on comfort or privacy is accurate.

Comfort level I think a transgender person has a high-probability of making both sexes uncomfortable. So I don't think personal comfort should be part of the equation since that is a no-win situation.Question has to come down to body parts: should a woman be forced to use the same locker room/bathroom as someone with a penis and vice versa.

People have a right to dress and identify (and thus potentially offend) in any way they choose. If there is any right to privacy based on gender (EG if little 12-y-o Sally has a right to visit the locker room without being confronted by a dong) then I think the only way that is enforced is by body parts, not clothing or identity.

I don't understand where you all get the idea that anyone has a right to a locker room that doesn't have a penis in it.

 

[Hang 10]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

Why do people think that requiring people to use the gender-specific bathroom that matches their genitalia will result in less discomfort for "the majority"? Seems to me that the opposite is true. The vast majority of transgender women would likely use the ladies' room without even being noticed, while many transgender men forced to use the ladies' room because they don't have penises would still make women incredibly uncomfortable since they look like men. What makes women more uncomfortable- someone who looks like a woman whipping out their junk behind the closed door of a stall, or someone who looks like a man greeting them at the sinks while they apply their makeup after taking a dump?

I'm not lobbying for one side or the other, I'm wondering whether this argument based on comfort or privacy is accurate.

Question has to come down to body parts: should a woman be forced to use the same locker room/bathroom as someone with a penis and vice versa.

Why does it have to come down to body parts? My son has been in the women's bathroom plenty of times. He certainly has the wrong body part. But every time my wife changes him in public, there you go.

Why doesn't she take him in the men's room to change him? Seems more apples to apples to the situation we're talking about.

 

[Henry Ford]

Flip it to GG's case - living as a boy, clearly a boy, on testosterone therapy, state issued ID says "male" and while I don't know this for sure, I'd imagine sexually attracted to women.

Is the good policy for everyone to put GG in the women's locker room? Seriously?

 

[Henry Ford]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

Why do people think that requiring people to use the gender-specific bathroom that matches their genitalia will result in less discomfort for "the majority"? Seems to me that the opposite is true. The vast majority of transgender women would likely use the ladies' room without even being noticed, while many transgender men forced to use the ladies' room because they don't have penises would still make women incredibly uncomfortable since they look like men. What makes women more uncomfortable- someone who looks like a woman whipping out their junk behind the closed door of a stall, or someone who looks like a man greeting them at the sinks while they apply their makeup after taking a dump?

I'm not lobbying for one side or the other, I'm wondering whether this argument based on comfort or privacy is accurate.

Question has to come down to body parts: should a woman be forced to use the same locker room/bathroom as someone with a penis and vice versa.

Why does it have to come down to body parts? My son has been in the women's bathroom plenty of times. He certainly has the wrong body part. But every time my wife changes him in public, there you go.

Why doesn't she take him in the men's room to change him? Seems more apples to apples to the situation we're talking about.

I don't think you understand apples.

 

[Hang 10]

Flip it to GG's case - living as a boy, clearly a boy, on testosterone therapy, state issued ID says "male" and while I don't know this for sure, I'd imagine sexually attracted to women.

Is the good policy for everyone to put GG in the women's locker room? Seriously?

Why would you assume she/he is attracted to women?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

I'm not lobbying for one side or the other, I'm wondering whether this argument based on comfort or privacy is accurate.

Let's just say that it's hard to find record evidence supporting the argument in the cases that have been filed. Certainly in the G.G. case, the District Court credited hypothetical concerns raised by parents and school board members, not by students and administrators.

Can't this also be bc nobody wants to be labeled as a bigot?

To the extent that some these administrators are voluntarily submitting an amicus brief, they're going way farther than they need to go to avoid being called a bigot.

The most compelling story I read was from an administrator in Kentucky. His school system was sued by a transgender student. In the course of the lawsuit, however, the school system sat down and talked to the student. And what they found was that the student just wanted to be able to go to school without worrying about where he or she (I actually forget the gender) was going to go to the bathroom. So the school system adopted a policy similar to the one used by L.A. County. I was Kentucky, so critics chafed at Kentucky adopting a "California policy" but the administrator essentially said that he felt that human dignity had the same value in Kentucky as in California. It was pretty compelling.

I'm a pinko liberal, so I'm probably susceptible to these arguments, but I can honestly say that I was probably at least somewhat sympathetic to the opponents' side when this thread started, despite the fact that I have transgender cousins (who I'm not particularly close to, but still). I still haven't studied the issue in terms of Title IX or SCOTUS gender discrimination cases to know where I think a court would have to come out on it. But simply as a policy matter, I'm finding that I don't find that the concerns of the opponents hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Hang 10]

In summary: the majority should get over being uncomfortable because the minority can't get over

being uncomfortable. And lawyers look to make a lot of money.

Why do people think that requiring people to use the gender-specific bathroom that matches their genitalia will result in less discomfort for "the majority"? Seems to me that the opposite is true. The vast majority of transgender women would likely use the ladies' room without even being noticed, while many transgender men forced to use the ladies' room because they don't have penises would still make women incredibly uncomfortable since they look like men. What makes women more uncomfortable- someone who looks like a woman whipping out their junk behind the closed door of a stall, or someone who looks like a man greeting them at the sinks while they apply their makeup after taking a dump?

I'm not lobbying for one side or the other, I'm wondering whether this argument based on comfort or privacy is accurate.

Question has to come down to body parts: should a woman be forced to use the same locker room/bathroom as someone with a penis and vice versa.

Why does it have to come down to body parts? My son has been in the women's bathroom plenty of times. He certainly has the wrong body part. But every time my wife changes him in public, there you go.

Why doesn't she take him in the men's room to change him? Seems more apples to apples to the situation we're talking about.

I don't think you understand apples.

I don't think you understand adam's apples.

 

[Henry Ford]

Flip it to GG's case - living as a boy, clearly a boy, on testosterone therapy, state issued ID says "male" and while I don't know this for sure, I'd imagine sexually attracted to women.

Is the good policy for everyone to put GG in the women's locker room? Seriously?

Why would you assume she/he is attracted to women?

Because the overwhelming majority of trans teenagers, according to the latest research I've seen, experience at least some attraction to people of the gender they lived as before transitioning.

 

[Hang 10]

Flip it to GG's case - living as a boy, clearly a boy, on testosterone therapy, state issued ID says "male" and while I don't know this for sure, I'd imagine sexually attracted to women.

Is the good policy for everyone to put GG in the women's locker room? Seriously?

Why would you assume she/he is attracted to women?

Because the overwhelming majority of trans teenagers, according to the latest research I've seen, experience at least some attraction to people of the gender they lived as before transitioning.

So is that standard then? Attraction based? Because it seems your position is that their junk or lack of junk is irrelevant. Is it your position that gays should use the opposite facilities?

I'm sorry but all this seems needlessly complicated to try accommodate an extreme minority. Maybe their parents could find a private school that better suits their views.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Flip it to GG's case - living as a boy, clearly a boy, on testosterone therapy, state issued ID says "male" and while I don't know this for sure, I'd imagine sexually attracted to women.

Is the good policy for everyone to put GG in the women's locker room? Seriously?

Why would you assume she/he is attracted to women?

Because the overwhelming majority of trans teenagers, according to the latest research I've seen, experience at least some attraction to people of the gender they lived as before transitioning.

So is that standard then? Attraction based? Because it seems your position is that their junk or lack of junk is irrelevant. Is it your position that gays should use the opposite facilities?

I'm sorry but all this seems needlessly complicated to try accommodate an extreme minority. Maybe their parents could find a private school that better suits their views.

I think the point is that attraction and biology are equally irrelevant. We mention attraction because the people who want to base it in on biology seem to be using biology as a proxy for attraction, and its ironic because in most (but not all) cases it works the other way.

 

[Henry Ford]

Flip it to GG's case - living as a boy, clearly a boy, on testosterone therapy, state issued ID says "male" and while I don't know this for sure, I'd imagine sexually attracted to women.

Is the good policy for everyone to put GG in the women's locker room? Seriously?

Why would you assume she/he is attracted to women?

Because the overwhelming majority of trans teenagers, according to the latest research I've seen, experience at least some attraction to people of the gender they lived as before transitioning.

So is that standard then? Attraction based? Because it seems your position is that their junk or lack of junk is irrelevant. Is it your position that gays should use the opposite facilities?I'm sorry but all this seems needlessly complicated to try accommodate an extreme minority. Maybe their parents could find a private school that better suits their views.

No, I think boys should use the boys' room and girls should use the girls' room. Transgender girls and transgender boys are girls and boys, respectively.What this argument boils down to is "is a transgender person really the new gender?" Understanding that's the question, far too many people are comfortable saying "no, I know better than the person, his or her doctors, and the law. He or she is not REALLY a boy or a girl. Not enough for me."

To which my professional response is "you're just wrong and don't understand gender." My response in private life is generally less polite.

 

[timschochet]

In an article recently about Trump's popularity, some of the people interviewed stated that they didn't want to live in a world in which it was OK for a boy to go into a girl's bathroom. This is apparently a huge concern, and proof that America is no longer "great".

 

[irish eyes]

Anyone in here who thinks it is okay for a male to be able to have access to girls locker room because he thinks he wants to be a female, needs to have their freakin head checked. Sorry if you have @@@@ you don't go in girls locker room, I don't care what's going on in his diluted mind. Idiotic that this is even an issue.

 

[Henry Ford]

In an article recently about Trump's popularity, some of the people interviewed stated that they didn't want to live in a world in which it was OK for a boy to go into a girl's bathroom. This is apparently a huge concern, and proof that America is no longer "great".

I certainly understand that a lot of people agree with Donald Trump and Eminence. I tend to fall on RHE's side of more issues than either of them.

 

[Henry Ford]

Sorry if you have @@@@ you don't go in girls locker room, I don't care what's going on in his diluted mind.

That doesn't seem fair. Is it just an issue of concentration?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

If the kid commits an assault in the locker room, that's a crime that should be investigated and prosecuted. Changing clothes isn't assault or battery.

That's a hell of a defense for any Peeping Tom, isn't it? 'Hey yerhoner dropping trau ain't no crime, she just can't appreciate my rights.'

You folks sure do like to equate transgender people to sex crimes, don't you?

I don't see a "you" vs "us" vs "them" rubric here, Henry. I think of us all being in the same body public.

Oh, sorry, I meant people who want to deny transgender students the right to use their chosen genders' bathroom. "You."

Perhaps if we stopped using the word "chosen" it would be helpful. That word makes it seem like this can be done on a whim (although it could also be thoughtful) or that the choice could change again.

Perhaps. But words have meaning. And beginning to live as another gender is a very important choice that belongs to transgender people.

I believe there is an interesting semantic discussion here, and that semantics can influence perceptions in this argument. I view gender as immutable, central to our perceptions of ourselves and more global than a simple dichotomy based on genitalia. Tied up in gender is our sexuality and other traits. How or whether we express our gender to the outside world is a choice, perhaps, but I do not believe that our gender is a choice.

At any rate, sorry to sidetrack the conversation on a matter which may only be of interest to me.

 

[Eminence]

In an article recently about Trump's popularity, some of the people interviewed stated that they didn't want to live in a world in which it was OK for a boy to go into a girl's bathroom. This is apparently a huge concern, and proof that America is no longer "great".

I don't think people understand that there is American culture. When did we hand the keys of our country over to a bunch of sissies? This is life. Survival of the fittest. Deal with it.

I believe like most things in life there is a pendulum swinging. At some point society is going to have enough of this "progress" and the pendulum will begin swinging in the opposite direction. It's starts with accepting gays and now we have to accept people who are altering their body chemistry with pharmaceuticals.

Give an inch, take a foot.

Thanks, no thanks, I'd like my children to live in a society where things are still somewhat normal. This kid probably just needs a father figure and maybe some HGH if we're going to manipulate the poor kid's body chemistry.

 

[Hang 10]

Flip it to GG's case - living as a boy, clearly a boy, on testosterone therapy, state issued ID says "male" and while I don't know this for sure, I'd imagine sexually attracted to women.

Is the good policy for everyone to put GG in the women's locker room? Seriously?

Why would you assume she/he is attracted to women?

Because the overwhelming majority of trans teenagers, according to the latest research I've seen, experience at least some attraction to people of the gender they lived as before transitioning.

So is that standard then? Attraction based? Because it seems your position is that their junk or lack of junk is irrelevant. Is it your position that gays should use the opposite facilities?

I'm sorry but all this seems needlessly complicated to try accommodate an extreme minority. Maybe their parents could find a private school that better suits their views.

I think the point is that attraction and biology are equally irrelevant. We mention attraction because the people who want to base it in on biology seem to be using biology as a proxy for attraction, and its ironic because in most (but not all) cases it works the other way.

Attraction and biology are irrelevant? What's left? Emotions?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I imagine that if I had a "diluted mind", I really would need to go pretty bad.

 

[Eminence]

In an article recently about Trump's popularity, some of the people interviewed stated that they didn't want to live in a world in which it was OK for a boy to go into a girl's bathroom. This is apparently a huge concern, and proof that America is no longer "great".

I certainly understand that a lot of people agree with Donald Trump and Eminence. I tend to fall on RHE's side of more issues than either of them.

If our forefathers acted like a bunch of politically correct wimps, we'd have no country. Think of the rusted stoics who made America and kept everyone on the globe on check.

Turn your back on American culture and watch our country continue to wither.

 

[VA703]

so is a guy or girl going to take this being to the prom

 

[Henry Ford]

In an article recently about Trump's popularity, some of the people interviewed stated that they didn't want to live in a world in which it was OK for a boy to go into a girl's bathroom. This is apparently a huge concern, and proof that America is no longer "great".

I certainly understand that a lot of people agree with Donald Trump and Eminence. I tend to fall on RHE's side of more issues than either of them.

If our forefathers acted like a bunch of politically correct wimps, we'd have no country. Think of the rusted stoics who made America and kept everyone on the globe on check.Turn your back on American culture and watch our country continue to wither.

John Minor Wisdom was a great Justice from Louisiana. There's a courthouse named for him in New Orleans. He was the voice of desegregation on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. Truly a great man. Kept a lot of momentos. He once said that his proudest possession was a stack of letters he got during that time period. The letters were usually written with a massive number of spelling and grammar mistakes, sometimes actually written in crayon, almost all including death threats. They were statements about how he was destroying our country, that good white folks had the right to be together without n...... and that people should stick to their own kind. That he was crazy, evil, and wrong.

He said that every time he received one, he knew that he was right. That you can sometimes tell which side is the right side by who stands against you, even more than who stands with you.

 

[Henry Ford]

I imagine that if I had a "diluted mind", I really would need to go pretty bad.

I have reached my quota of positive votes for the day.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

That you can sometimes tell which side is the right side by who stands against you, even more than who stands with you.

Certainly this is true.

 

[Eminence]

In an article recently about Trump's popularity, some of the people interviewed stated that they didn't want to live in a world in which it was OK for a boy to go into a girl's bathroom. This is apparently a huge concern, and proof that America is no longer "great".

I certainly understand that a lot of people agree with Donald Trump and Eminence. I tend to fall on RHE's side of more issues than either of them.

If our forefathers acted like a bunch of politically correct wimps, we'd have no country. Think of the rusted stoics who made America and kept everyone on the globe on check.Turn your back on American culture and watch our country continue to wither.

John Minor Wisdom was a great Justice from Louisiana. There's a courthouse named for him in New Orleans. He was the voice of desegregation on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. Truly a great man. Kept a lot of momentos. He once said that his proudest possession was a stack of letters he got during that time period. The letters were usually written with a massive number of spelling and grammar mistakes, sometimes actually written in crayon, almost all including death threats. They were statements about how he was destroying our country, that good white folks had the right to be together without n...... and that people should stick to their own kind. That he was crazy, evil, and wrong.

He said that every time he received one, he knew that he was right. That you can sometimes tell which side is the right side by who stands against you, even more than who stands with you.

False analysis. A mental disorder is much different than a race.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I imagine that if I had a "diluted mind", I really would need to go pretty bad.

I understand that in the original draft of the song Suspicious Minds it was written as "Diluted Minds".I think they made the right editorial choice.

 

[Eminence]

I would propose that the fact we seperate those who are mentally handicapped in schools to their own classrooms and sports teams is sufficient reason we can seperate those with other mental deficiencies.

 

[Henry Ford]

I imagine that if I had a "diluted mind", I really would need to go pretty bad.

I understand that in the original draft of the song Suspicious Minds it was written as "Diluted Minds".I think they made the right editorial choice.

Come on, my concentration joke was a little funny, wasn't it?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Flip it to GG's case - living as a boy, clearly a boy, on testosterone therapy, state issued ID says "male" and while I don't know this for sure, I'd imagine sexually attracted to women.

Is the good policy for everyone to put GG in the women's locker room? Seriously?

Why would you assume she/he is attracted to women?

Because the overwhelming majority of trans teenagers, according to the latest research I've seen, experience at least some attraction to people of the gender they lived as before transitioning.

So is that standard then? Attraction based? Because it seems your position is that their junk or lack of junk is irrelevant. Is it your position that gays should use the opposite facilities?

I'm sorry but all this seems needlessly complicated to try accommodate an extreme minority. Maybe their parents could find a private school that better suits their views.

I think the point is that attraction and biology are equally irrelevant. We mention attraction because the people who want to base it in on biology seem to be using biology as a proxy for attraction, and its ironic because in most (but not all) cases it works the other way.

Attraction and biology are irrelevant? What's left? Emotions?

Attraction has already been irrelevant. We don't ban gay men from men's bathrooms. I don't think we ever have, even pre-Stonewall.

So the question becomes whether biology is more relevant than gender identity. I'm not a scientist, but from what I understand, those that are scientists agree that these are two different things.

So then we need to ask ourselves whether we really have gender segregated bathrooms because of biology or because of notions of gender identity. Because I can think of lots of exceptions where we allow people with the "wrong" biology into segregated bathrooms (often, but not always to do with caring for children), I suspect its really the latter. And when I ask someone why biology is the standard, the answer I get back normally ends up focusing on attraction. I think that's weird.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

In an article recently about Trump's popularity, some of the people interviewed stated that they didn't want to live in a world in which it was OK for a boy to go into a girl's bathroom. This is apparently a huge concern, and proof that America is no longer "great".

I certainly understand that a lot of people agree with Donald Trump and Eminence. I tend to fall on RHE's side of more issues than either of them.

If our forefathers acted like a bunch of politically correct wimps, we'd have no country. Think of the rusted stoics who made America and kept everyone on the globe on check.Turn your back on American culture and watch our country continue to wither.

John Minor Wisdom was a great Justice from Louisiana. There's a courthouse named for him in New Orleans. He was the voice of desegregation on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. Truly a great man. Kept a lot of momentos.He once said that his proudest possession was a stack of letters he got during that time period. The letters were usually written with a massive number of spelling and grammar mistakes, sometimes actually written in crayon, almost all including death threats. They were statements about how he was destroying our country, that good white folks had the right to be together without n...... and that people should stick to their own kind. That he was crazy, evil, and wrong.

He said that every time he received one, he knew that he was right. That you can sometimes tell which side is the right side by who stands against you, even more than who stands with you.

False analysis. A mental disorder is much different than a race.

What if their perception is not a disorder, unconventional though it may be. What race is, for instance, Halle Berry? I believe she chooses to identify as African American. I also believe her genetic makeup to be quite mixed. Also is race itself a truly separate thing, or a continuum which has progressed to a point where the subtly changes along a continuum become readily visually apparent?

 

[Eminence]

Flip it to GG's case - living as a boy, clearly a boy, on testosterone therapy, state issued ID says "male" and while I don't know this for sure, I'd imagine sexually attracted to women.

Is the good policy for everyone to put GG in the women's locker room? Seriously?

Why would you assume she/he is attracted to women?

Because the overwhelming majority of trans teenagers, according to the latest research I've seen, experience at least some attraction to people of the gender they lived as before transitioning.

So is that standard then? Attraction based? Because it seems your position is that their junk or lack of junk is irrelevant. Is it your position that gays should use the opposite facilities?I'm sorry but all this seems needlessly complicated to try accommodate an extreme minority. Maybe their parents could find a private school that better suits their views.

I think the point is that attraction and biology are equally irrelevant. We mention attraction because the people who want to base it in on biology seem to be using biology as a proxy for attraction, and its ironic because in most (but not all) cases it works the other way.

Attraction and biology are irrelevant? What's left? Emotions?

Attraction has already been irrelevant. We don't ban gay men from men's bathrooms. I don't think we ever have, even pre-Stonewall.

So the question becomes whether biology is more relevant than gender identity. I'm not a scientist, but from what I understand, those that are scientists agree that these are two different things.

So then we need to ask ourselves whether we really have gender segregated bathrooms because of biology or because of notions of gender identity. Because I can think of lots of exceptions where we allow people with the "wrong" biology into segregated bathrooms (often, but not always to do with caring for children), I suspect its really the latter. And when I ask someone why biology is the standard, the answer I get back normally ends up focusing on attraction. I think that's weird.

It's not exactly relevant to changing the entire spectrum. What % of people are trans? Even if there is a huge breakthrough, it's exception based. Far and few between somebody is has a mental disorder and obsess over being the opposite sex.

That doesn't mean we have to rewrite the rules. 90% of the time nature gets it right. Let's not pretend we have to create some new spectrum when the old spectrum worked excellent for centuries. Again, we're talking about catering to a small minority with mental disorders!