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

[dparker713]

Holy #### HF - 486 posts in this thread. I'm certain I don't have that many posts in any single thread.

 

[Henry Ford]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I agree, with the caveat that genitalia involves a likely impermissible invasion of privacy, and genetic sex likely an impermissible requirement to disclose medical and specific genetic information.

I will say that my genitalia argument is based upon the notion that we use outward appearance as a proxy. Someone looking like a woman walks into a lockerroom and no one takes a second look. However, if they then shower and have a penis, plenty of people would consider that person had been in the wrong lockerroom all along.

Basically, I believe this is a matter of objective standards - outward appearances and the like. Meanwhile it seems to me that your primary signifier is the subjective determination of each individual.

If we use outward appearance as a proxy, how do you separate that from gender expression? I mean, that's what outward appearance is.

 

[bigbottom]

The problem isn't that the girls in the OP aren't legitimately uncomfortable. It's that they don't have the right not to be uncomfortable. No one has identified an actual right that they have that is being violated causing that uncomfortableness.

Again, you've conceded the point. At its essence, it's all about people feeling uncomfortable. It's simply that some types of uncomfortableness are worthy of protection and other types are not.

I conceded that point about 20 pages ago. In fact, that's been my point for about 20 pages.

"No, I care about people's actual rights, and I don't put someone feeling uncomfortable or unhappy at the same level as another person's civil rights. You don't have the right to not like stuff, and not liking stuff isn't as important as equal rights."

Yes. Thanks. If it's hard to understand, you can add the word "merely" after the word "feelings," but of course you already understand that.

As smart as you are, I'm honestly perplexed at how you don't recognize the circular nature of your reasoning. You say that being made to feel uncomfortable is not worthy of recognition, except when it is. Honestly, I'm on your side in this debate. But I think the distinction you're drawing is completely unpersuasive. You need to do better.

I'm sorry it doesn't persuade you, but if you don't understand that being uncomfortable is only actionable if there's a right not to be uncomfortable in that specific instance, I don't know what to tell you. We must just be talking past each other, because I know you're a lot smarter than you're coming off to me, too.I also don't like when people hit me in the face, and it makes me uncomfortable physically. But I don't put merely disliking when someone gives me milk chocolate rather than dark chocolate on the same level. Because merely disliking something doesn't implicate a right.

Without a duty not to harm, harm isn't actionable. Nor should it be. The school has a duty not to discriminate, which is what causes the harm here. The student doesn't have a duty not to change clothes in the bathroom consistent and with her gender. So I don't place that on the same level as a civil rights harm.

Gender identity is not a protected class in the state of Texas. Thus, refusing to allow a biological male who identifies as female to use the women's restroom does not constitute actionable discrimination. There is no recognized duty and there is no civil right.

In that context, we cannot default to claiming something as a "civil right" where no such right is recognized. Thus, we are relegated to discussing why this should be a right where it is not, and it comes down to a conclusion that the discomfort to which the transgendered person is subjected is worthy of accommodation notwithstanding the discomfort others may experience through such accommodation. I'm good with that argument. It is one that RHE made previously and it's quite persuasive.

Ah, I see what our issue is. You're looking at Texas law. I'm looking at my position - and the position of the United States through the DoJ and DoE on Title IX (and, alternatively, due process.)https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/gg-v-gloucester-county-school-board-amicus-brief-united-states

State actor, and specifically a school.

This issue is far broader than public schools. And I'm looking at the issue in terms of why something should be a right, rather than simply relying upon it being a right in certain limited contexts as the sole basis for distinction. That's why I viewed your argument as circular. "It should be a right because it's a right" is not a particularly compelling argument.

 

[Henry Ford]

Holy #### HF - 486 posts in this thread. I'm certain I don't have that many posts in any single thread.

I don't think I do in any others.

 

[Henry Ford]

The problem isn't that the girls in the OP aren't legitimately uncomfortable. It's that they don't have the right not to be uncomfortable. No one has identified an actual right that they have that is being violated causing that uncomfortableness.

Again, you've conceded the point. At its essence, it's all about people feeling uncomfortable. It's simply that some types of uncomfortableness are worthy of protection and other types are not.

I conceded that point about 20 pages ago. In fact, that's been my point for about 20 pages.

"No, I care about people's actual rights, and I don't put someone feeling uncomfortable or unhappy at the same level as another person's civil rights. You don't have the right to not like stuff, and not liking stuff isn't as important as equal rights."

Yes. Thanks. If it's hard to understand, you can add the word "merely" after the word "feelings," but of course you already understand that.

As smart as you are, I'm honestly perplexed at how you don't recognize the circular nature of your reasoning. You say that being made to feel uncomfortable is not worthy of recognition, except when it is. Honestly, I'm on your side in this debate. But I think the distinction you're drawing is completely unpersuasive. You need to do better.

I'm sorry it doesn't persuade you, but if you don't understand that being uncomfortable is only actionable if there's a right not to be uncomfortable in that specific instance, I don't know what to tell you. We must just be talking past each other, because I know you're a lot smarter than you're coming off to me, too.I also don't like when people hit me in the face, and it makes me uncomfortable physically. But I don't put merely disliking when someone gives me milk chocolate rather than dark chocolate on the same level. Because merely disliking something doesn't implicate a right.

Without a duty not to harm, harm isn't actionable. Nor should it be. The school has a duty not to discriminate, which is what causes the harm here. The student doesn't have a duty not to change clothes in the bathroom consistent and with her gender. So I don't place that on the same level as a civil rights harm.

Gender identity is not a protected class in the state of Texas. Thus, refusing to allow a biological male who identifies as female to use the women's restroom does not constitute actionable discrimination. There is no recognized duty and there is no civil right.

In that context, we cannot default to claiming something as a "civil right" where no such right is recognized. Thus, we are relegated to discussing why this should be a right where it is not, and it comes down to a conclusion that the discomfort to which the transgendered person is subjected is worthy of accommodation notwithstanding the discomfort others may experience through such accommodation. I'm good with that argument. It is one that RHE made previously and it's quite persuasive.

Ah, I see what our issue is. You're looking at Texas law. I'm looking at my position - and the position of the United States through the DoJ and DoE on Title IX (and, alternatively, due process.)https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/gg-v-gloucester-county-school-board-amicus-brief-united-statesState actor, and specifically a school.

This issue is far broader than public schools. And I'm looking at the issue in terms of why something should be a right, rather than simply relying upon it being a right in certain limited contexts as the sole basis for distinction.

Then we are talking past each other because we are discussing completely different concepts. That makes more sense.

 

[Henry Ford]

If we want to discuss why it should be a right, happy to do that. Just a completely different discussion than I've been having.

I've been playing case or controversy. You're playing public policy determinations.

 

[bigbottom]

If we want to discuss why it should be a right, happy to do that. Just a completely different discussion than I've been having.

I've been playing case or controversy. You're playing public policy determinations.

Agreed. I understand now why we were talking past each other.

 

[whiskey7]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I agree, with the caveat that genitalia involves a likely impermissible invasion of privacy, and genetic sex likely an impermissible requirement to disclose medical and specific genetic information.

I will say that my genitalia argument is based upon the notion that we use outward appearance as a proxy. Someone looking like a woman walks into a lockerroom and no one takes a second look. However, if they then shower and have a penis, plenty of people would consider that person had been in the wrong lockerroom all along.

Basically, I believe this is a matter of objective standards - outward appearances and the like. Meanwhile it seems to me that your primary signifier is the subjective determination of each individual.

If we use outward appearance as a proxy, how do you separate that from gender expression? I mean, that's what outward appearance is.

If we go by gender expression, how do you know if the person with the hairy #### and balls in the women's shower at the gym is a transgender woman or a dirtbag peeping tom?

 

[bigbottom]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I agree, with the caveat that genitalia involves a likely impermissible invasion of privacy, and genetic sex likely an impermissible requirement to disclose medical and specific genetic information.

I will say that my genitalia argument is based upon the notion that we use outward appearance as a proxy. Someone looking like a woman walks into a lockerroom and no one takes a second look. However, if they then shower and have a penis, plenty of people would consider that person had been in the wrong lockerroom all along.

Basically, I believe this is a matter of objective standards - outward appearances and the like. Meanwhile it seems to me that your primary signifier is the subjective determination of each individual.

If we use outward appearance as a proxy, how do you separate that from gender expression? I mean, that's what outward appearance is.

If we go by gender expression, how do you know if the person with the hairy #### and balls in the women's shower at the gym is a transgender woman or a dirtbag peeping tom?

The dirtbag peeping tom has a raging boner?

 

[Henry Ford]

If we want to discuss why it should be a right, happy to do that. Just a completely different discussion than I've been having.

I've been playing case or controversy. You're playing public policy determinations.

Agreed. I understand now why we were talking past each other.

Great, now that we understand that...

Bathroom use should be based on gender because basing it on virtually anything else is needlessly complex, the system for gender is already in place, and this doesn't happen:http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/03/14/trans-folks-respond-bathroom-bills-wejustneedtopee-selfies

Much like RHE has been discussing, and which you mentioned earlier. Which should have clued me in as to what our disconnect was.

 

[Henry Ford]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I agree, with the caveat that genitalia involves a likely impermissible invasion of privacy, and genetic sex likely an impermissible requirement to disclose medical and specific genetic information.

I will say that my genitalia argument is based upon the notion that we use outward appearance as a proxy. Someone looking like a woman walks into a lockerroom and no one takes a second look. However, if they then shower and have a penis, plenty of people would consider that person had been in the wrong lockerroom all along.

Basically, I believe this is a matter of objective standards - outward appearances and the like. Meanwhile it seems to me that your primary signifier is the subjective determination of each individual.

If we use outward appearance as a proxy, how do you separate that from gender expression? I mean, that's what outward appearance is.

If we go by gender expression, how do you know if the person with the hairy #### and balls in the women's shower at the gym is a transgender woman or a dirtbag peeping tom?

We don't, we go by gender identity, the primary signifier of which is gender expression. And how do you know the lesbian in the corner of the women's shower isn't a peeping tomboy?

 

[Henry Ford]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I agree, with the caveat that genitalia involves a likely impermissible invasion of privacy, and genetic sex likely an impermissible requirement to disclose medical and specific genetic information.

I will say that my genitalia argument is based upon the notion that we use outward appearance as a proxy. Someone looking like a woman walks into a lockerroom and no one takes a second look. However, if they then shower and have a penis, plenty of people would consider that person had been in the wrong lockerroom all along.

Basically, I believe this is a matter of objective standards - outward appearances and the like. Meanwhile it seems to me that your primary signifier is the subjective determination of each individual.

If we use outward appearance as a proxy, how do you separate that from gender expression? I mean, that's what outward appearance is.

If we go by gender expression, how do you know if the person with the hairy #### and balls in the women's shower at the gym is a transgender woman or a dirtbag peeping tom?

The dirtbag peeping tom has a raging boner?

How do you know he isn't a peeping Tom with erectile dysfunction?

 

[whiskey7]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I agree, with the caveat that genitalia involves a likely impermissible invasion of privacy, and genetic sex likely an impermissible requirement to disclose medical and specific genetic information.

I will say that my genitalia argument is based upon the notion that we use outward appearance as a proxy. Someone looking like a woman walks into a lockerroom and no one takes a second look. However, if they then shower and have a penis, plenty of people would consider that person had been in the wrong lockerroom all along.

Basically, I believe this is a matter of objective standards - outward appearances and the like. Meanwhile it seems to me that your primary signifier is the subjective determination of each individual.

If we use outward appearance as a proxy, how do you separate that from gender expression? I mean, that's what outward appearance is.

If we go by gender expression, how do you know if the person with the hairy #### and balls in the women's shower at the gym is a transgender woman or a dirtbag peeping tom?

The dirtbag peeping tom has a raging boner?

Possibly. But, IIRC, HF acknowledged earlier that transgenders tend to be attracted to the opposite sex of the gender they switched from. So, its possible Henry's "woman" could be sporting wood, too.

 

[Henry Ford]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I agree, with the caveat that genitalia involves a likely impermissible invasion of privacy, and genetic sex likely an impermissible requirement to disclose medical and specific genetic information.

I will say that my genitalia argument is based upon the notion that we use outward appearance as a proxy. Someone looking like a woman walks into a lockerroom and no one takes a second look. However, if they then shower and have a penis, plenty of people would consider that person had been in the wrong lockerroom all along.

Basically, I believe this is a matter of objective standards - outward appearances and the like. Meanwhile it seems to me that your primary signifier is the subjective determination of each individual.

If we use outward appearance as a proxy, how do you separate that from gender expression? I mean, that's what outward appearance is.

If we go by gender expression, how do you know if the person with the hairy #### and balls in the women's shower at the gym is a transgender woman or a dirtbag peeping tom?

The dirtbag peeping tom has a raging boner?

Possibly. But, IIRC, HF acknowledged earlier that transgenders tend to be attracted to the opposite sex of the gender they switched from. So, its possible Henry's "woman" could be sporting wood, too.

I like when people put "woman" in quotes. It helps when people acknowledge that their position is that transgender women aren't really women up front.

 

[whiskey7]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I agree, with the caveat that genitalia involves a likely impermissible invasion of privacy, and genetic sex likely an impermissible requirement to disclose medical and specific genetic information.

I will say that my genitalia argument is based upon the notion that we use outward appearance as a proxy. Someone looking like a woman walks into a lockerroom and no one takes a second look. However, if they then shower and have a penis, plenty of people would consider that person had been in the wrong lockerroom all along.

Basically, I believe this is a matter of objective standards - outward appearances and the like. Meanwhile it seems to me that your primary signifier is the subjective determination of each individual.

If we use outward appearance as a proxy, how do you separate that from gender expression? I mean, that's what outward appearance is.

If we go by gender expression, how do you know if the person with the hairy #### and balls in the women's shower at the gym is a transgender woman or a dirtbag peeping tom?

We don't, we go by gender identity, the primary signifier of which is gender expression. And how do you know the lesbian in the corner of the women's shower isn't a peeping tomboy?

You don't. Just like you don't know for certain which guys in the men's locker room are gay. Since its impossible to know someone's sexual preference, gender, etc by looking at them, the best you can do (if you're going to segregate people at all) is to segregate by biological sex. Its obviously not foolproof. As parker (I believe) said earlier...(paraphrasing) you simply cant account for all the outliers.

 

[Henry Ford]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I agree, with the caveat that genitalia involves a likely impermissible invasion of privacy, and genetic sex likely an impermissible requirement to disclose medical and specific genetic information.

I will say that my genitalia argument is based upon the notion that we use outward appearance as a proxy. Someone looking like a woman walks into a lockerroom and no one takes a second look. However, if they then shower and have a penis, plenty of people would consider that person had been in the wrong lockerroom all along.

Basically, I believe this is a matter of objective standards - outward appearances and the like. Meanwhile it seems to me that your primary signifier is the subjective determination of each individual.

If we use outward appearance as a proxy, how do you separate that from gender expression? I mean, that's what outward appearance is.

If we go by gender expression, how do you know if the person with the hairy #### and balls in the women's shower at the gym is a transgender woman or a dirtbag peeping tom?

We don't, we go by gender identity, the primary signifier of which is gender expression. And how do you know the lesbian in the corner of the women's shower isn't a peeping tomboy?

You don't. Just like you don't know for certain which guys in the men's locker room are gay. Since its impossible to know someone's sexual preference, gender, etc by looking at them, the best you can do (if you're going to segregate people at all) is to segregate by biological sex. Its obviously not foolproof. As parker (I believe) said earlier...(paraphrasing) you simply cant account for all the outliers.

It's significantly easier on the aggregate to tell someone's gender by looking at him or her than it is to tell that person's biological sex.

 

[Henry Ford]

Biological sex based women's room:

https://mobile.twitter.com/aprilfosterrr/status/576214511188742144/photo/1

 

[whiskey7]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I agree, with the caveat that genitalia involves a likely impermissible invasion of privacy, and genetic sex likely an impermissible requirement to disclose medical and specific genetic information.

I will say that my genitalia argument is based upon the notion that we use outward appearance as a proxy. Someone looking like a woman walks into a lockerroom and no one takes a second look. However, if they then shower and have a penis, plenty of people would consider that person had been in the wrong lockerroom all along.

Basically, I believe this is a matter of objective standards - outward appearances and the like. Meanwhile it seems to me that your primary signifier is the subjective determination of each individual.

If we use outward appearance as a proxy, how do you separate that from gender expression? I mean, that's what outward appearance is.

If we go by gender expression, how do you know if the person with the hairy #### and balls in the women's shower at the gym is a transgender woman or a dirtbag peeping tom?

The dirtbag peeping tom has a raging boner?

Possibly. But, IIRC, HF acknowledged earlier that transgenders tend to be attracted to the opposite sex of the gender they switched from. So, its possible Henry's "woman" could be sporting wood, too.

I like when people put "woman" in quotes. It helps when people acknowledge that their position is that transgender women aren't really women up front.

And I like when people talk about someone with a stiff #### being a woman because they choose to "live as a woman". What does that mean, by the way? You never answered my question.

 

[whiskey7]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I agree, with the caveat that genitalia involves a likely impermissible invasion of privacy, and genetic sex likely an impermissible requirement to disclose medical and specific genetic information.

I will say that my genitalia argument is based upon the notion that we use outward appearance as a proxy. Someone looking like a woman walks into a lockerroom and no one takes a second look. However, if they then shower and have a penis, plenty of people would consider that person had been in the wrong lockerroom all along.

Basically, I believe this is a matter of objective standards - outward appearances and the like. Meanwhile it seems to me that your primary signifier is the subjective determination of each individual.

If we use outward appearance as a proxy, how do you separate that from gender expression? I mean, that's what outward appearance is.

If we go by gender expression, how do you know if the person with the hairy #### and balls in the women's shower at the gym is a transgender woman or a dirtbag peeping tom?

We don't, we go by gender identity, the primary signifier of which is gender expression. And how do you know the lesbian in the corner of the women's shower isn't a peeping tomboy?

You don't. Just like you don't know for certain which guys in the men's locker room are gay. Since its impossible to know someone's sexual preference, gender, etc by looking at them, the best you can do (if you're going to segregate people at all) is to segregate by biological sex. Its obviously not foolproof. As parker (I believe) said earlier...(paraphrasing) you simply cant account for all the outliers.

It's significantly easier on the aggregate to tell someone's gender by looking at him or her than it is to tell that person's biological sex.

Person is naked in the shower at the gym. Penis/sack clearly visible if someone chooses to look. Adam's Apple present. You're saying it would be easier to tell (by appearance) this person identifies as man or woman gender-wise than to tell he's biologically a male?

ETA: it should be clear by now but (if not) I am less concerned about bathrooms than locker rooms and/or shower rooms. I cant think of any bathrooms (intended for concurrent multiple person use) I have ever been in that didn't have a stall. Someone wants to go into the stall where they don't have to see others and others don't have to see them, I don't have as strong an objection to that. But locker rooms and showers are different. In most cases, those are open rooms where nudity is on full display. At a gym/YMCA/etc, you may have young kids in there showering and/or getting dressed after swimming or whatever. A room full of naked people can be confusing enough for a young kid if its a fairly homogenous group. Mix in someone with opposite equipment and it can be even more confusing/intimidating/uncomfortable/etc. You'll never convince me a young girl and her mother should have to shower and change next to an adult person sporting a penis and #### just because that person says he's a woman. Sorry. Take your #### into the men's room, shower-up, and get on with your day.

 

[Henry Ford]

Meh. 3/10. Still better than they have been lately for the most part though.

 

[Henry Ford]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I agree, with the caveat that genitalia involves a likely impermissible invasion of privacy, and genetic sex likely an impermissible requirement to disclose medical and specific genetic information.

I will say that my genitalia argument is based upon the notion that we use outward appearance as a proxy. Someone looking like a woman walks into a lockerroom and no one takes a second look. However, if they then shower and have a penis, plenty of people would consider that person had been in the wrong lockerroom all along.

Basically, I believe this is a matter of objective standards - outward appearances and the like. Meanwhile it seems to me that your primary signifier is the subjective determination of each individual.

If we use outward appearance as a proxy, how do you separate that from gender expression? I mean, that's what outward appearance is.

If we go by gender expression, how do you know if the person with the hairy #### and balls in the women's shower at the gym is a transgender woman or a dirtbag peeping tom?

The dirtbag peeping tom has a raging boner?

Possibly. But, IIRC, HF acknowledged earlier that transgenders tend to be attracted to the opposite sex of the gender they switched from. So, its possible Henry's "woman" could be sporting wood, too.

I like when people put "woman" in quotes. It helps when people acknowledge that their position is that transgender women aren't really women up front.

And I like when people talk about someone with a stiff #### being a woman because they choose to "live as a woman". What does that mean, by the way? You never answered my question.

There's a whole host of documents available in the series of tubes we are communicating on that describe what that means, I've repeatedly described what that means in this thread, and I posted a document drafted by the United States DoJ and filed in a lawsuit that has a description of what that means within the last couple pages.I don't know how to help you.

 

[Papa Georgio]

I am as open minded as anyone I know. I still have a ton of bias and preconceived ideas though, as almost everyone does. As a parent of a teenage daughter I have tried to imagine how I would feel about this situation as if it were happening in her life. I am not sure if I would be overly bothered by a true transgendered person that 100% identifies as female being in there. It's hard for my hetrosexual mind sometimes to understand that a man might not be one bit attracted to a female, but I have had enough gay friends to know that is surely the case. The problem is that there is no way of ever knowing if someone is only attracted to one sex or the other. Then you have the chance, the very likely chance that some teenage boy is going to use this to his benefit. The only thing we have is the anatomy.

I feel for people who suffer. I have seen my gay friends bullied and mocked. I am not unsympathetic to this situation, but short of creating a 3rd bathroom specifically for them then the only real choice is to use the bathroom/locker room that their physical gender determines.

The common sense part of my mind wonders if this is really a problem for the transgendered. I've had a gay guy follow me in the bathroom before and caught him trying to check out my cash and prizes. If I were suddenly forced to use women's restrooms I don't think I would find it very offensive, unless it was at Wal-Mart.

 

[Henry Ford]

I am as open minded as anyone I know. I still have a ton of bias and preconceived ideas though, as almost everyone does. As a parent of a teenage daughter I have tried to imagine how I would feel about this situation as if it were happening in her life. I am not sure if I would be overly bothered by a true transgendered person that 100% identifies as female being in there. It's hard for my hetrosexual mind sometimes to understand that a man might not be one bit attracted to a female, but I have had enough gay friends to know that is surely the case. The problem is that there is no way of ever knowing if someone is only attracted to one sex or the other. Then you have the chance, the very likely chance that some teenage boy is going to use this to his benefit. The only thing we have is the anatomy.

I feel for people who suffer. I have seen my gay friends bullied and mocked. I am not unsympathetic to this situation, but short of creating a 3rd bathroom specifically for them then the only real choice is to use the bathroom/locker room that their physical gender determines.

The common sense part of my mind wonders if this is really a problem for the transgendered. I've had a gay guy follow me in the bathroom before and caught him trying to check out my cash and prizes. If I were suddenly forced to use women's restrooms I don't think I would find it very offensive, unless it was at Wal-Mart.

If your daughter were forced to use the men's room, would you find that offensive?

 

[Papa Georgio]

I am as open minded as anyone I know. I still have a ton of bias and preconceived ideas though, as almost everyone does. As a parent of a teenage daughter I have tried to imagine how I would feel about this situation as if it were happening in her life. I am not sure if I would be overly bothered by a true transgendered person that 100% identifies as female being in there. It's hard for my hetrosexual mind sometimes to understand that a man might not be one bit attracted to a female, but I have had enough gay friends to know that is surely the case. The problem is that there is no way of ever knowing if someone is only attracted to one sex or the other. Then you have the chance, the very likely chance that some teenage boy is going to use this to his benefit. The only thing we have is the anatomy.

I feel for people who suffer. I have seen my gay friends bullied and mocked. I am not unsympathetic to this situation, but short of creating a 3rd bathroom specifically for them then the only real choice is to use the bathroom/locker room that their physical gender determines.

The common sense part of my mind wonders if this is really a problem for the transgendered. I've had a gay guy follow me in the bathroom before and caught him trying to check out my cash and prizes. If I were suddenly forced to use women's restrooms I don't think I would find it very offensive, unless it was at Wal-Mart.

If your daughter were forced to use the men's room, would you find that offensive?

Sure. She is biologically a female and identifies as a female. If she identified as a male I would not have any problem with her school telling her she had to continue to get dressed in the girls locker room though. Maybe my perspective would be different though if I had a child or close friend that was transgendered.

What about a curtained area within a locker room for those that wish to step behind if they feel uncomfortable with a transgender in the same locker room? I mean those people have rights too. Just because they aren't comfortable dressing in front of what they see as a boy doesn't make them bad on not enlightened.

A complex situation with no winners I imagine. I keep being amused at how peeing and pooping got to this point though.

 

[Henry Ford]

I am as open minded as anyone I know. I still have a ton of bias and preconceived ideas though, as almost everyone does. As a parent of a teenage daughter I have tried to imagine how I would feel about this situation as if it were happening in her life. I am not sure if I would be overly bothered by a true transgendered person that 100% identifies as female being in there. It's hard for my hetrosexual mind sometimes to understand that a man might not be one bit attracted to a female, but I have had enough gay friends to know that is surely the case. The problem is that there is no way of ever knowing if someone is only attracted to one sex or the other. Then you have the chance, the very likely chance that some teenage boy is going to use this to his benefit. The only thing we have is the anatomy.

I feel for people who suffer. I have seen my gay friends bullied and mocked. I am not unsympathetic to this situation, but short of creating a 3rd bathroom specifically for them then the only real choice is to use the bathroom/locker room that their physical gender determines.

The common sense part of my mind wonders if this is really a problem for the transgendered. I've had a gay guy follow me in the bathroom before and caught him trying to check out my cash and prizes. If I were suddenly forced to use women's restrooms I don't think I would find it very offensive, unless it was at Wal-Mart.

If your daughter were forced to use the men's room, would you find that offensive?

Sure. She is biologically a female and identifies as a female. If she identified as a male I would not have any problem with her school telling her she had to continue to get dressed in the girls locker room though. Maybe my perspective would be different though if I had a child or close friend that was transgendered. What about a curtained area within a locker room for those that wish to step behind if they feel uncomfortable with a transgender in the same locker room? I mean those people have rights too. Just because they aren't comfortable dressing in front of what they see as a boy doesn't make them bad on not enlightened.

A complex situation with no winners I imagine. I keep being amused at how peeing and pooping got to this point though.

The curtained area is one already discussed in here, offered (unfortunately incorrectly) in a negotiation in one of the cases we have discussed, and a great idea. Frankly, a great idea in locker rooms in general.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I am as open minded as anyone I know. I still have a ton of bias and preconceived ideas though, as almost everyone does. As a parent of a teenage daughter I have tried to imagine how I would feel about this situation as if it were happening in her life. I am not sure if I would be overly bothered by a true transgendered person that 100% identifies as female being in there. It's hard for my hetrosexual mind sometimes to understand that a man might not be one bit attracted to a female, but I have had enough gay friends to know that is surely the case. The problem is that there is no way of ever knowing if someone is only attracted to one sex or the other. Then you have the chance, the very likely chance that some teenage boy is going to use this to his benefit. The only thing we have is the anatomy.

I feel for people who suffer. I have seen my gay friends bullied and mocked. I am not unsympathetic to this situation, but short of creating a 3rd bathroom specifically for them then the only real choice is to use the bathroom/locker room that their physical gender determines.

The common sense part of my mind wonders if this is really a problem for the transgendered. I've had a gay guy follow me in the bathroom before and caught him trying to check out my cash and prizes. If I were suddenly forced to use women's restrooms I don't think I would find it very offensive, unless it was at Wal-Mart.

I think back to High School. I may have thought it was cool if some guy was getting over on the system by making a false claim to get to see some naked chicks. I probably would have high fived the guy. Now whether the chicks would have tolerated his presence is another matter. Most of the girls I knew would have teamed up to blind the lothario with hairspray and other materials available to hand. They would not have put up with this. Also, if the lothario was trying to see the girl I was dating naked I would have kicked his ###.

I'm just not seeing the scenario of horny boy getting over on the system actually ever playing out. I understand we guys can understand that initial impulse, but really, who thinks it would ever actually happen successfully?

 

[Papa Georgio]

I am as open minded as anyone I know. I still have a ton of bias and preconceived ideas though, as almost everyone does. As a parent of a teenage daughter I have tried to imagine how I would feel about this situation as if it were happening in her life. I am not sure if I would be overly bothered by a true transgendered person that 100% identifies as female being in there. It's hard for my hetrosexual mind sometimes to understand that a man might not be one bit attracted to a female, but I have had enough gay friends to know that is surely the case. The problem is that there is no way of ever knowing if someone is only attracted to one sex or the other. Then you have the chance, the very likely chance that some teenage boy is going to use this to his benefit. The only thing we have is the anatomy.

I feel for people who suffer. I have seen my gay friends bullied and mocked. I am not unsympathetic to this situation, but short of creating a 3rd bathroom specifically for them then the only real choice is to use the bathroom/locker room that their physical gender determines.

The common sense part of my mind wonders if this is really a problem for the transgendered. I've had a gay guy follow me in the bathroom before and caught him trying to check out my cash and prizes. If I were suddenly forced to use women's restrooms I don't think I would find it very offensive, unless it was at Wal-Mart.

I think back to High School. I may have thought it was cool if some guy was getting over on the system by making a false claim to get to see some naked chicks. I probably would have high fived the guy. Now whether the chicks would have tolerated his presence is another matter. Most of the girls I knew would have teamed up to blind the lothario with hairspray and other materials available to hand. They would not have put up with this. Also, if the lothario was trying to see the girl I was dating naked I would have kicked his ###.

I'm just not seeing the scenario of horny boy getting over on the system actually ever playing out. I understand we guys can understand that initial impulse, but really, who thinks it would ever actually happen successfully?

Absolutely but what if he argues it's his right? Also you are describing bullying...lame I know but it could be claimed if such things actually happened.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess that's possible, but they'll have to get the drop on me. I'm a pretty good shot.

 

[Henry Ford]

Papa, would you be more concerned if your daughter was in the bathroom with this person:

https://mobile.twitter.com/_michaelhughes1/status/575522150964199425/photo/1

Or this one:

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155274985515055&set=a.10151885675625055.884769.546880054&type=3&source=48&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.advocate.com%2Fpolitics%2Ftransgender%2F2015%2F03%2F14%2Ftrans-folks-respond-bathroom-bills-wejustneedtopee-selfies&locale2=en_US&__tn__=E

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess that's possible, but they'll have to get the drop on me. I'm a pretty good shot.

Being a Transgender yourself and stumping for "equality" for transgenders, even to the detriment of the majority for which you show absolutely zero empathy for, doesn't make you enlightened.

Choosing to get your junk cut off doesn't make you a hero. It actually make you more intolerant given your position in this thread.

I'm confused - are you suggesting that I am transgender? Or that cutting your junk off is what makes someone transgender?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I am somewhat unclear that when we have a dichotomous classification which seems to be inadequate to cover all of a population that we then have to choose to broaden the scope of what is covered under each of the two existing classifications rather than to add a third, or even more number of classifications. One approach is not more logically necessary than would be the other. That said, in a world set up around a dichotomous classification practicality may determine that we choose to continue in that manner, broadening those classifications, than to seek to add more.

In the instant matter the argument is also being made that we have in fact erroneously misclassified some, if I understand the argument correctly.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I guess that's possible, but they'll have to get the drop on me. I'm a pretty good shot.

Being a Transgender yourself and stumping for "equality" for transgenders, even to the detriment of the majority for which you show absolutely zero empathy for, doesn't make you enlightened.

Choosing to get your junk cut off doesn't make you a hero. It actually make you more intolerant given your position in this thread.

I believe that he is. I do concede, however, that the sentence may just be poorly drafted. I mean he does seem to be dangling an extraneous "for" at the end of a clause. Perhaps he meant to say: Being a transgender oneself and stumping for "equality" for transgenders, even to the detriment of the majority for which one shows absolutely zero empathy, doesn't make one enlightened.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yeah, I couldn't tell if that was his big point. Whoever has the keys to that right now is getting dumber. And taking us all with him.

That said, I would counsel anyone suing for discrimination to hire a straight, white, cis-gendered male lawyer.

 

[Uwe Blab]

Had you guys seen this ad for Houston's ant-discrimination proposition that just failed? As the father of a daughter....brutal, reminded me of the anti-Goldwater ad in days of yore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYpko86x6GU

 

[Henry Ford]

Had you guys seen this ad for Houston's ant-discrimination proposition that just failed? As the father of a daughter....brutal, reminded me of the anti-Goldwater ad in days of yore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYpko86x6GU

Yeah. It's completely f'd.

 

[Hang 10]

Had you guys seen this ad for Houston's ant-discrimination proposition that just failed? As the father of a daughter....brutal, reminded me of the anti-Goldwater ad in days of yore.

Obviously the ad is meant to be provocative but how does your position reassure the rest of us that predators won't try to take advantage?

 

[Henry Ford]

Had you guys seen this ad for Houston's ant-discrimination proposition that just failed? As the father of a daughter....brutal, reminded me of the anti-Goldwater ad in days of yore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYpko86x6GU

Yeah. It's completely f'd.

Obviously the ad is meant to be provocative but how does your position reassure the rest of us that predators won't try to take advantage?

The ordinance was a prohibition on discrimination in public accommodations, housing, employment, city contracts, etc based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, gender, marital status, religion, military status, etc.

And you'd like that measure defeated because of concerns that some people might - and there's no evidence of this happening at any increased rate whatsoever in cities with antidiscrimination laws - try to use a bathroom to commit a sex crime. When, for instance, gay and lesbian sex offenders are already allowed to use the same restroom as their potential victims.

 

[Hang 10]

Had you guys seen this ad for Houston's ant-discrimination proposition that just failed? As the father of a daughter....brutal, reminded me of the anti-Goldwater ad in days of yore.

I don't really care about the ordinance. I'm talking about how it relates to this thread. We have spent a fair amount of time talking about bathrooms and locker rooms, have we not?

 

[Henry Ford]

Had you guys seen this ad for Houston's ant-discrimination proposition that just failed? As the father of a daughter....brutal, reminded me of the anti-Goldwater ad in days of yore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYpko86x6GU

Yeah. It's completely f'd.

Obviously the ad is meant to be provocative but how does your position reassure the rest of us that predators won't try to take advantage?

The ordinance was a prohibition on discrimination in public accommodations, housing, employment, city contracts, etc based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, gender, marital status, religion, military status, etc.

And you'd like that measure defeated because of concerns that some people might - and there's no evidence of this happening at any increased rate whatsoever in cities with antidiscrimination laws - try to use a bathroom to commit a sex crime. When, for instance, gay and lesbian sex offenders are already allowed to use the same restroom as their potential victims.

I don't really care about the ordinance. I'm talking about how it relates to this thread. We have spent a fair amount of time talking about bathrooms and locker rooms, have we not?

Okay. How do I reassure you that people won't try to take advantage? Well, these anti-discrimination rules already exist in some areas of the country. Let's find all the news stories about people "taking advantage" of them to commit crimes when they otherwise wouldn't have. I'll wait.

 

[timschochet]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I believe his question is "why wouldn't someone non-transgender pretend to be transgender to gain access to a women's room and prey on women and girls?"The answer of course being that any "pretend" transgender would be under incredible scrutiny while in there, and if no one else is around or is extremely passable as the other gender wouldn't need the ordinance to gain access anyway.

 

[Hang 10]

Had you guys seen this ad for Houston's ant-discrimination proposition that just failed? As the father of a daughter....brutal, reminded me of the anti-Goldwater ad in days of yore.

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

 

[Henry Ford]

Had you guys seen this ad for Houston's ant-discrimination proposition that just failed? As the father of a daughter....brutal, reminded me of the anti-Goldwater ad in days of yore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYpko86x6GU

Yeah. It's completely f'd.

Obviously the ad is meant to be provocative but how does your position reassure the rest of us that predators won't try to take advantage?

The ordinance was a prohibition on discrimination in public accommodations, housing, employment, city contracts, etc based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, gender, marital status, religion, military status, etc.

And you'd like that measure defeated because of concerns that some people might - and there's no evidence of this happening at any increased rate whatsoever in cities with antidiscrimination laws - try to use a bathroom to commit a sex crime. When, for instance, gay and lesbian sex offenders are already allowed to use the same restroom as their potential victims.

I don't really care about the ordinance. I'm talking about how it relates to this thread. We have spent a fair amount of time talking about bathrooms and locker rooms, have we not?

Okay. How do I reassure you that people won't try to take advantage? Well, these anti-discrimination rules already exist in some areas of the country. Let's find all the news stories about people "taking advantage" of them to commit crimes when they otherwise wouldn't have. I'll wait.

How many areas of the country have had a use either bathroom you choose policy and for how long? Sorry but I'm not very reassured by your response.

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

Protection from what? What is currently going to happen that will no longer happen at that moment? If there are people around who will call the police about someone going into a bathroom, I don't think those people would stand around while someone gets raped. No sex criminal would think that either. "Ha-ha, I've gotten past the magic door! Now no one can stop me!"

 

[dutch]

"Damnit, it was push not pull the whole time!"

 

[Hang 10]

Had you guys seen this ad for Houston's ant-discrimination proposition that just failed? As the father of a daughter....brutal, reminded me of the anti-Goldwater ad in days of yore.

Certain men will now have the "right" to be in a women's restroom and I'm sorry but the concept of gender identity is a bit ambiguous to most of us and we may not be able to tell who's being honest.

 

[Henry Ford]

"Damnit, it was push not pull the whole time!"

Wait, is that a trans joke?

 

[Henry Ford]

Had you guys seen this ad for Houston's ant-discrimination proposition that just failed? As the father of a daughter....brutal, reminded me of the anti-Goldwater ad in days of yore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYpko86x6GU

Yeah. It's completely f'd.

Obviously the ad is meant to be provocative but how does your position reassure the rest of us that predators won't try to take advantage?

The ordinance was a prohibition on discrimination in public accommodations, housing, employment, city contracts, etc based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, gender, marital status, religion, military status, etc.And you'd like that measure defeated because of concerns that some people might - and there's no evidence of this happening at any increased rate whatsoever in cities with antidiscrimination laws - try to use a bathroom to commit a sex crime. When, for instance, gay and lesbian sex offenders are already allowed to use the same restroom as their potential victims.

I don't really care about the ordinance. I'm talking about how it relates to this thread. We have spent a fair amount of time talking about bathrooms and locker rooms, have we not?

Okay. How do I reassure you that people won't try to take advantage? Well, these anti-discrimination rules already exist in some areas of the country. Let's find all the news stories about people "taking advantage" of them to commit crimes when they otherwise wouldn't have. I'll wait.

How many areas of the country have had a use either bathroom you choose policy and for how long? Sorry but I'm not very reassured by your response.

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

Protection from what? What is currently going to happen that will no longer happen at that moment? If there are people around who will call the police about someone going into a bathroom, I don't think those people would stand around while someone gets raped. No sex criminal would think that either. "Ha-ha, I've gotten past the magic door! Now no one can stop me!"

Certain men will now have the "right" to be in a women's restroom and I'm sorry but the concept of gender identity is a bit ambiguous to most of us and we may not be able to tell who's being honest.

So what?This once again comes back to "they aren't real women" or "they aren't real men."

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

 

[Hang 10]

So what?

It concerns me that predators may try to use this policy to their advantage. Was that not clear from my initial question?

 

[Henry Ford]

So what?

It concerns me that predators may try to use this policy to their advantage. Was that not clear from my initial question?

Use this policy to their advantage in what way? That's what I'm asking. What is going to happen if it passes that doesn't happen now?