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

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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.

You seem to have a spelling deficiency. Is that a mental deficiency? Can we separate you? Why the valuative presumption of deficiency?

 

[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.

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

I smiled.

 

[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?

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.

You've already stated that biology and attraction (which I didn't bring up BTW) are irrelevant in your opinion. I got that. Can you boil down what is relevant into one or two words? As I asked before, is it emotions?

 

[Politician Spock]

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.

You seem to have an oddly narrow view of the right to privacy.

It's not a private room.

Is it open to the public?

Doesn't matter if it is public. It's used by numerous people. It's not a private room.

 

[Eminence]

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.

You seem to have an oddly narrow view of the right to privacy.

It's not a private room.

Is it open to the public?

Doesn't matter if it is public. It's used by numerous people. It's not a private room.

Does that mean I can bring my dog in there?

 

[Politician Spock]

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.

You seem to have an oddly narrow view of the right to privacy.

It's not a private room.

Is it open to the public?

Doesn't matter if it is public. It's used by numerous people. It's not a private room.

Does that mean I can bring my dog in there?

Is it a service animal?

 

[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?

I smiled.

Then my day is complete. Back to appellate briefs.

 

[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.

Can you boil down what is relevant into one or two words? As I asked before, is it emotions?

I literally did that in the post you quoted. Gender identity. If the reason that we segregate bathrooms is to provide the most people with the most comfort, for whatever reason (and this may or may not be rational, but the trans community is no different than anyone else in preferring gendered bathrooms), it seems likely that its based on gender identity. I feel pretty confident in saying that. Let's assume that none of us knew who Caitlyn Jenner was. She can choose to use the men's room or the women's room. Which scenario is most likely to freak people out? I bet I'd be more likely to be uncomfortable than my wife. My wife would think, "whoa the chick in the next stall is really tall." And I'd think "why's a chick in the men's room?"

 

[Steve Tasker]

I haven't voted in the poll in here, and have apparently posted twice, but for some reason I have read pretty much this entire thread.

This has really been one of the most informative threads I think I have ever read on this forum. Kudos to the people who know a lot more about this stuff than I do....shows me how little I know about this subject. Maybe we should all take a step back away from "<person> has a penis and therefore must use the men's room" and think a little more critically about the situation. The world isn't black-and-white, or penis-and-###### (or vulva?) if you will. I'm very progressive in general, and this is something I could stand to learn a lot more about.

 

[Thorn]

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.

almost as if on cue

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Are we still trying to find out how to fit these weirdo's into conventional society.

 

[Clifford]

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./

I personally know a guy/girl that changes back and forth weekly. His/her identity shifts from male to female back to male seemingly at random. So for some people it completely is a choice, and I think the transgender movement would be hard pressed to deny this given the amazing array of gender-identities they have codified.

 

[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.

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.

From laws that would penalize a man for going into a woman's locker room and showing them his penis. Or are you saying that is not a crime? Let's make the analogy more consistent. I am a male student. I have a penis. I walk into a women's locker room, disrobe, and reveal my penis. Do the women in this locker room have any legal redress against me under current state/federal laws?

ETA: Want to clarify that I am not attempting to debate on this as I would get skewered. I find it an interesting problem of individual vs collective rights/privileges and how those two counter-balance.

 

[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?

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.

Can you boil down what is relevant into one or two words? As I asked before, is it emotions?

I literally did that in the post you quoted. Gender identity. If the reason that we segregate bathrooms is to provide the most people with the most comfort, for whatever reason (and this may or may not be rational, but the trans community is no different than anyone else in preferring gendered bathrooms), it seems likely that its based on gender identity. I feel pretty confident in saying that. Let's assume that none of us knew who Caitlyn Jenner was. She can choose to use the men's room or the women's room. Which scenario is most likely to freak people out? I bet I'd be more likely to be uncomfortable than my wife. My wife would think, "whoa the chick in the next stall is really tall." And I'd think "why's a chick in the men's room?"

But what determines gender? A declarative statement?

 

[Clifford]

I haven't voted in the poll in here, and have apparently posted twice, but for some reason I have read pretty much this entire thread.

This has really been one of the most informative threads I think I have ever read on this forum. Kudos to the people who know a lot more about this stuff than I do....shows me how little I know about this subject. Maybe we should all take a step back away from "<person> has a penis and therefore must use the men's room" and think a little more critically about the situation. The world isn't black-and-white, or penis-and-###### (or vulva?) if you will. I'm very progressive in general, and this is something I could stand to learn a lot more about.

The only reason I have posited that penis/###### be the ultimate arbiter is that is the only one in which there is verifiable proof. We can not prove/disprove identity or attraction. I don't think it ultimately makes sense, but none of this does. For the first time in human history medical science has posed a new classification of gender we have never actually dealt with as a society.

 

[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.

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.

From laws that would penalize a man for going into a woman's locker room and showing them his penis. Or are you saying that is not a crime? Let's make the analogy more consistent. I am a male student. I have a penis. I walk into a women's locker room, disrobe, and reveal my penis. Do the women in this locker room have any legal redress against me under current state/federal laws?

ETA: Want to clarify that I am not attempting to debate on this as I would get skewered. I find it an interesting problem of individual vs collective rights/privileges and how those two counter-balance.

This would depend on what a reasonable person considers "offensive." The entire argument being made here is that people should not be offended by the mere presence of genitalia in the locker room, so your argument is circular. Certainly if you wagged your junk in their face they (or at least the state) would have legal recourse. But that would also be true if a woman spread her legs in the face of another woman in the locker room who was minding her own business.

 

[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.

From laws that would penalize a man for going into a woman's locker room and showing them his penis. Or are you saying that is not a crime? Let's make the analogy more consistent. I am a male student. I have a penis. I walk into a women's locker room, disrobe, and reveal my penis. Do the women in this locker room have any legal redress against me under current state/federal laws?ETA: Want to clarify that I am not attempting to debate on this as I would get skewered. I find it an interesting problem of individual vs collective rights/privileges and how those two counter-balance.

The laws you're going to be arrested and charged under aren't going to be called "going into the wrong locker room." They're all going to require some sort of prurient intent or trespass based on the policies of the building owner.It may be very easy to prove you had a prurient interest given that you did this with no other discernable reason, but when someone living as a woman does it there's a very obvious reason.

Kind of like how it's illegal for a woman to walk around topless under indecent exposure laws, but a woman breastfeeding in public is perfectly legal.

 

[fantasycurse42]

if a woman spread her legs in the face of another woman in the locker room who was minding her own business.

Sounds hot.

 

[Clifford]

So you are saying that being presented with the genitalia of the opposite sex by itself, without some sort of accompanying show of said genitalia, might not be found to be offensive to the viewer? Does that mean the degree of offense taken by the viewer (something we know to be completely subjective and highly variable person to person) determines whether or not a crime has been committed? How would one arrive at a label such as "reasonable" when considering what is found to be offensive concerning nudity of the opposite gender?

 

[Henry Ford]

So you are saying that being presented with the genitalia of the opposite sex by itself, without some sort of accompanying show of said genitalia, might not be found to be offensive to the viewer? Does that mean the degree of offense taken by the viewer (something we know to be completely subjective and highly variable person to person) determines whether or not a crime has been committed? How would one arrive at a label such as "reasonable" when considering what is found to be offensive concerning nudity of the opposite gender?

See my post above, too. There's a different rule for truly public settings and limited privacy settings, and exposure laws vary based on the state

 

[Ditka Butkus]

if a woman spread her legs in the face of another woman in the locker room who was minding her own business.

Sounds hot.

Agree..this I have no problem with

 

[TobiasFunke]

So you are saying that being presented with the genitalia of the opposite sex by itself, without some sort of accompanying show of said genitalia, might not be found to be offensive to the viewer? Does that mean the degree of offense taken by the viewer (something we know to be completely subjective and highly variable person to person) determines whether or not a crime has been committed? How would one arrive at a label such as "reasonable" when considering what is found to be offensive concerning nudity of the opposite gender?

Well, yeah, I think that's true. But more importantly I'm saying that what people who are arguing for transgender rights want is for us to get to a point where nobody (or at least 99% of us) don't find it offensive because we progress to and become familiar with the idea. Consider how most people react to seeing same-sex couples kiss. 20 years ago I'm betting the vast majority of people would have bee grossed out by that or found it offensive. Now those people are a clear minority. People advocating for transgender rights want to eventually reach the point where their gender status is accepted the same way that peoples' sexuality is finally being accepted.

As to the other stuff- lots of crimes are based on subjective determinations. Hell, the entire notion of guilt or innocence is based on what level of doubt 12 random people consider "reasonable."

 

[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.

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.

From laws that would penalize a man for going into a woman's locker room and showing them his penis. Or are you saying that is not a crime? Let's make the analogy more consistent. I am a male student. I have a penis. I walk into a women's locker room, disrobe, and reveal my penis. Do the women in this locker room have any legal redress against me under current state/federal laws?ETA: Want to clarify that I am not attempting to debate on this as I would get skewered. I find it an interesting problem of individual vs collective rights/privileges and how those two counter-balance.

The laws you're going to be arrested and charged under aren't going to be called "going into the wrong locker room." They're all going to require some sort of prurient intent or trespass based on the policies of the building owner.It may be very easy to prove you had a prurient interest given that you did this with no other discernable reason, but when someone living as a woman does it there's a very obvious reason.

Kind of like how it's illegal for a woman to walk around topless under indecent exposure laws, but a woman breastfeeding in public is perfectly legal.

First question: public nudity laws are suspended in a locker room setting, regardless of gender mixing? IOW I am as safe disrobing in terms of public nudity statutes in a male locker room as a female locker room?

So prurient interest motivating the act and not the act itself is what determines guilt or innocence, kinda like what Tobias said. So I would have to justify my entrance via my own POV as to why I would need to use a girl's locker room as opposed to a boys. So let's say I identify as neither boy nor girl but gender-questioning and I am trying to determine where I fit in a bilateral society divided by gender. I do not currently identify as female but that is a possibility. I simply go in, change, and walk out. I do not make eye contact or stare at other girls in the locker room. I do become fully naked while changing underpants.

This would then become dependent on the outcome of a jury trial, no? Where I could easily be found guilty of sexual harassment/assault or exonerated as no wrong-doing, correct?

 

[Henry Ford]

You're asking very state-specific questions regarding exposure laws. I can't answer them for every state.

 

[saintsfan]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

 

[Henry Ford]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Why not just let men and women use whatever bathroom or locker room they please. Who cares if some guy at the YMCA has his wang all up in your 80 year old grandmothers face. Nothing she hasn't seen on before. Tough #### if the old bat doesn't like it. She should stay at home if she is offended.

 

[Henry Ford]

Why not just let men and women use whatever bathroom or locker room they please. Who cares if some guy at the YMCA has his wang all up in your 80 year old grandmothers face. Nothing she hasn't seen on before. Tough #### if the old bat doesn't like it. She should stay at home if she is offended.

Should the YMCA decide to use entirely gender neutral facilities, there would be no law against that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You're asking very state-specific questions regarding exposure laws. I can't answer them for every state.

Yup. One thing to clarify though- there's no "public nudity laws," at least not on a scale significant enough that I know about them. The charge is usually indecent exposure, so it necessarily depends on context to determine what is decent and what is not.

 

[Eminence]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

The first two groups don't have mental disorders that includes body mutilation. They're clearly not right in mind. Not a valid comparison. Men use men's room. Women use the women's room.

A transgender is a transgender. Why would they use a room exclusively for women? Obviously we can look the other way but when somebody else's mental disorder and body mutilation effects others we can't state it as "normal".

Bobby's has Tourette's and it's slowing down the other students. Common sense says we remove Bobby.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31193

Pretty good state by state list of public nudity laws.

Again, though, the locker room changes things substantially. The expectation is substantially different regarding nudity, especially when you use current gender identity understandings.

A reasonable person is expected to know the law. The law allows people born as women to be men and vice versa. I'd say it's tough to claim that a reasonable person would have an expectation of freedom from exposure to a transgender body in a locker room.

 

[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.

Can you boil down what is relevant into one or two words? As I asked before, is it emotions?

I literally did that in the post you quoted. Gender identity. If the reason that we segregate bathrooms is to provide the most people with the most comfort, for whatever reason (and this may or may not be rational, but the trans community is no different than anyone else in preferring gendered bathrooms), it seems likely that its based on gender identity. I feel pretty confident in saying that. Let's assume that none of us knew who Caitlyn Jenner was. She can choose to use the men's room or the women's room. Which scenario is most likely to freak people out? I bet I'd be more likely to be uncomfortable than my wife. My wife would think, "whoa the chick in the next stall is really tall." And I'd think "why's a chick in the men's room?"

But what determines gender? A declarative statement?

And appearance and behavior.

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say that for some stupid reason, we really wanted to police this issue so that majoritarian ideas of gender identity are respected and "men" use the "men's room" and "women" use the "women's room."

So we'll post someone particularly dedicated and hardcore at the door of the restroom. I'll nominate Eminence because I sense this would be a job that he could really excel at.

Now, one way that Eminence might want to police this is by asking each person who wants to use the restroom to show him his or her genitalia. I imagine that might cause some offense, but hey, this is important.

Another way we could do it is to have Eminence look at the person. Does he look like a dude? Does she look like a woman? How does he or she dress? He can ask him or her for a name. Bob? Roberta? He might get a Pat, so then he'll have to go with his can't fail question? "Hey, Pat? Are you using the men's room or the ladies room?" I think Eminence can handle this approach too. Presumably he's been able to determine a lot of people's gender without asking them to reveal their genitalia.

 

[timschochet]

As far as motivations go, as I pointed out in my earlier post, this issue is being raised a lot more by conservatives than by liberals. Why? Because just as in 2004 with gay marriage, it's designed to bring evangelicals to the polls. Look for several more propositions outlawing this on the ballot in 2016, especially in swing states. It works every time.

 

[Eminence]

I don't discriminate against somebody who is mentally challenged. That's simply the price they pay for their mental condition. It's unfortunate but they can't function in normal society.

This he-she is causing the same inconvenience. Why are we going to inconvenience the lives of these sweet girls?

 

[Clifford]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

Good point on separate but equal clearly not being a working solution. Article in OP stated that student had access to gender neutral locker room but refused to use it, saying because he identified as girl he should be able to use the girls bathroom.

Given all the subjectivity pointed out regarding intent (prurient or no) in this question, if I am a school administrator I see two choices:

1. Piss off everyone and say that the school will have no policy regarding gender in locker rooms, and that everyone should act in their own best interests. This would put burden on transg student to prove no prurient intent if they are sued by a student claiming mental anguish or some other harm caused by the transg student changing in the locker room. Essentially neither the unaltered and transg pops receive any protection via school building policies.

2. Go by equipment: Until a trans student actually becomes transgender via surgery to remove the outward gender-identifying bits, they have to stick to their own gender-determined restroom. This opens up the school to immediate discrimination lawsuits that will ultimately dictate an appeal to Supreme Court to determine how exactly the 40-something different codified gender identities are protected under the equal protection clause relating to gender.

If I am an admin I remove myself from this cluster#### of our own creation and go with option 1, let the courts decide case-by-case.

 

[Henry Ford]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

The first two groups don't have mental disorders that includes body mutilation. They're clearly not right in mind. Not a valid comparison. Men use men's room. Women use the women's room.

A transgender is a transgender. Why would they use a room exclusively for women? Obviously we can look the other way but when somebody else's mental disorder and body mutilation effects others we can't state it as "normal".

Bobby's has Tourette's and it's slowing down the other students. Common sense says we remove Bobby.

Does it bother you when the only effect that your useless, meandering, yet somehow repetitive posts that are virtually devoid of reason, understanding, empathy, education, or common sense are only acknowledged insofar as I suggest that the very fact that you oppose me on an issue of rights makes me further convinced that I am correct?

 

[DoubleG]

Good.

Rod and reel use the door. Its not a psychological determination on the bathroom. Its a physical one.

The problem is that sometimes the problem goes in the exact opposite direction ... if you have a transgender man who looks to all the world like a man but is forced to use the ladies room he's probably gonna make everyone in there feel pretty uncomfortable. So really the problem is just that women are too squeamish- can't handle a male transgender or a female transgender. Get over yourselves, ladies

So one group being uncomfortable over the other?The equipment determines the room.

It has to - for urinals' SAKE!

 

[Henry Ford]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

Good point on separate but equal clearly not being a working solution. Article in OP stated that student had access to gender neutral locker room but refused to use it, saying because he identified as girl he should be able to use the girls bathroom.Given all the subjectivity pointed out regarding intent (prurient or no) in this question, if I am a school administrator I see two choices:

1. Piss off everyone and say that the school will have no policy regarding gender in locker rooms, and that everyone should act in their own best interests. This would put burden on transg student to prove no prurient intent if they are sued by a student claiming mental anguish or some other harm caused by the transg student changing in the locker room. Essentially neither the unaltered and transg pops receive any protection via school building policies.

2. Go by equipment: Until a trans student actually becomes transgender via surgery to remove the outward gender-identifying bits, they have to stick to their own gender-determined restroom. This opens up the school to immediate discrimination lawsuits that will ultimately dictate an appeal to Supreme Court to determine how exactly the 40-something different codified gender identities are protected under the equal protection clause relating to gender.

If I am an admin I remove myself from this cluster#### of our own creation and go with option 1, let the courts decide case-by-case.

3. Go by gender, like we have been and like the DoJ and DoE are saying we should.

 

[Eminence]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

The first two groups don't have mental disorders that includes body mutilation. They're clearly not right in mind. Not a valid comparison. Men use men's room. Women use the women's room.

A transgender is a transgender. Why would they use a room exclusively for women? Obviously we can look the other way but when somebody else's mental disorder and body mutilation effects others we can't state it as "normal".

Bobby's has Tourette's and it's slowing down the other students. Common sense says we remove Bobby.

Does it bother you when the only effect that your useless, meandering, yet somehow repetitive posts that are virtually devoid of reason, understanding, empathy, education, or common sense are only acknowledged insofar as I suggest that the very fact that you oppose me on an issue of rights makes me further convinced that I am correct?

It makes me smile that you won't attack my argument only my identity, old sport. Makes me think I've got merit to my argument.

 

[Clifford]

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31193

Pretty good state by state list of public nudity laws.

Again, though, the locker room changes things substantially. The expectation is substantially different regarding nudity, especially when you use current gender identity understandings.

A reasonable person is expected to know the law. The law allows people born as women to be men and vice versa. I'd say it's tough to claim that a reasonable person would have an expectation of freedom from exposure to a transgender body in a locker room.

So unless a third designation of transgender is created, legally the second anyone gets their driver's license changed they become the other gender?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

The first two groups don't have mental disorders that includes body mutilation. They're clearly not right in mind. Not a valid comparison. Men use men's room. Women use the women's room.

A transgender is a transgender. Why would they use a room exclusively for women? Obviously we can look the other way but when somebody else's mental disorder and body mutilation effects others we can't state it as "normal".

Bobby's has Tourette's and it's slowing down the other students. Common sense says we remove Bobby.

Now imagine Bobby declares himself transgender and uses the girls locker room.

 

[timschochet]

I don't discriminate against somebody who is mentally challenged.

If you don't love yourself nobody will.

 

[Eminence]

Can we say liberally 90% of the population are OK with their biological gender? If so, why is it not common sense for those with the mental problem to have to deal with their mental problem the way every other person with a disorder does?

 

[Henry Ford]

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31193

Pretty good state by state list of public nudity laws.

Again, though, the locker room changes things substantially. The expectation is substantially different regarding nudity, especially when you use current gender identity understandings.

A reasonable person is expected to know the law. The law allows people born as women to be men and vice versa. I'd say it's tough to claim that a reasonable person would have an expectation of freedom from exposure to a transgender body in a locker room.

So unless a third designation of transgender is created, legally the second anyone gets their driver's license changed they become the other gender?

State by state. As to when someone is "legally" the other gender, may as well ask when someone is "legally" a Christian.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't discriminate against somebody who is mentally challenged. That's simply the price they pay for their mental condition. It's unfortunate but they can't function in normal society.

This he-she is causing the same inconvenience. Why are we going to inconvenience the lives of these sweet girls?

Even for a troll account, suggesting that our policies regarding the mentally impaired are for our benefit and comfort rather than theirs (the only way this silly analogy works) is really awful.

 

[Henry Ford]

Hey, look, the poll is on real percentage numbers - exactly 20.0% in favor, exactly 80.0% opposed to transgender bathroom rights.

 

[Eminence]

I don't discriminate against somebody who is mentally challenged. That's simply the price they pay for their mental condition. It's unfortunate but they can't function in normal society.

This he-she is causing the same inconvenience. Why are we going to inconvenience the lives of these sweet girls?

Even for a troll account, suggesting that our policies regarding the mentally impaired are for our benefit and comfort rather than theirs (the only way this silly analogy works) is really awful.

Does it discredit the idea that maybe this is the best approach for transgenders? I don't know what bathroom a he-she belongs in but it's definitely not with the well of mind girls.

The kid is going to get pushed to suicide, guaranteed. Girls are relentless at that age.

 

[Clifford]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

Good point on separate but equal clearly not being a working solution. Article in OP stated that student had access to gender neutral locker room but refused to use it, saying because he identified as girl he should be able to use the girls bathroom.Given all the subjectivity pointed out regarding intent (prurient or no) in this question, if I am a school administrator I see two choices:

1. Piss off everyone and say that the school will have no policy regarding gender in locker rooms, and that everyone should act in their own best interests. This would put burden on transg student to prove no prurient intent if they are sued by a student claiming mental anguish or some other harm caused by the transg student changing in the locker room. Essentially neither the unaltered and transg pops receive any protection via school building policies.

2. Go by equipment: Until a trans student actually becomes transgender via surgery to remove the outward gender-identifying bits, they have to stick to their own gender-determined restroom. This opens up the school to immediate discrimination lawsuits that will ultimately dictate an appeal to Supreme Court to determine how exactly the 40-something different codified gender identities are protected under the equal protection clause relating to gender.

If I am an admin I remove myself from this cluster#### of our own creation and go with option 1, let the courts decide case-by-case.

3. Go by gender, like we have been and like the DoJ and DoE are saying we should.

That doesn't deal with gender-questioning and the other 30-some odd varieties of identification that don't fall into male and female. So what happens there? What about my friend who switches as he pleases what gender he identifies as?

If identity is the only determination, then we have to allow for those that are not certain as to what their identity is AND the fact that this could change at really any interval.

So you either legislate away any right to avoid seeing the genitalia of the opposite gender (as you can not simply classify people as male or female anymore), or you go by equipment.

 

[DoubleG]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

Sorry - but you are comparing apples, oranges and pineapples. Nice try though. Typically your points are more logical than this.

 

[Eminence]

It's nature. If you bring a cat near a mouse it will eat the mouse. Push a boy into a group of girls and tell the group he's a girl and you're going to have problems.