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

[Clifford]

Is there consensus among lawyers that if someone in the OP brought a suit against the TG student that the judge/jury would side with the defendant and not the plaintiff on claims of emotional distress via indecent exposure?

 

[Henry Ford]

Is there consensus among lawyers that if someone in the OP brought a suit against the TG student that the judge/jury would side with the defendant and not the plaintiff on claims of emotional distress via indecent exposure?

I think it would be thrown out of court for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

 

[dparker713]

"We shouldn't scrap our policy because of a small percentage of people who are transgender" just became "we shouldn't allow transgender bathroom rights because of an unbelievably miniscule percentage of people who cycle their gender back and forth on a daily basis."

Why are you assuming so much about this portion of the TG community? It was important enough to elicit a 40+ classification list for Facebook. Obviously the TG community considers allowing for choice and fluidity of that choice to be pretty important. And it just so happens the only truly TG person I know falls into that category.

I'm not actually assuming this. I'm basing it on a bunch of experience and research, and while the general determination these days - especially among transgender people - is that gender is a fluid, non-binary concept, the vast majority of transgender people in their daily lives live as either male or female an overwhelming majority of the time. It's the way we as a society have been set up, and it's why people undergo lifestyle changes when they become transgender.

And either way, the fact that we currently have people with both female and male genitalia using restrooms and locker rooms seems to suggest we can come to some sort of understanding as to how to live with people who subscribe to both (or neither) gender roles.

If this were about who uses adult bathrooms, I'd guess you'd have a very different result and this thread wouldn't be 31 pages.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Is there consensus among lawyers that if someone in the OP brought a suit against the TG student that the judge/jury would side with the defendant and not the plaintiff on claims of emotional distress via indecent exposure?

You'll have to explain your hypothetical in much more detail. What did the TG student do?

 

[Henry Ford]

Is there consensus among lawyers that if someone in the OP brought a suit against the TG student that the judge/jury would side with the defendant and not the plaintiff on claims of emotional distress via indecent exposure?

You'll have to explain your hypothetical in much more detail. What did the TG student do?

Using the original post, I would imagine the student used the locker room as allowed by the school.

 

[Clifford]

At first I found the whole argument absurd. Then I got really interested based on HF's postings. But the more I followed it seemed to only account for people who have made a definite one-time switch and did not account for those who don't solidly identify with one gender or the other.

What's the difference between someone who identifies as a gender all the time or only part-time that's not accounted for?

Only the line that seemed to be drawn by someone committing to a single gender and therefore "belonging" in that gender's locker room. If the commitment aspect is irrelevant then there is no difference.

That's the thing - the commitment aspect isn't irrelevant. It may change, but transgender identity is partially defined by an enduring identification with a non-birth-sex gender. That's why your friend is an interesting case, if, in fact, he or she identifies with different genders on a daily basis. But I don't really hear evidence of transgenderism so much as transvestism at this point.

Isn't the TG student in OP only transvestite? If it's about identity why would this make a difference? And I don't know if its daily weekly monthly or yearly.

But you see a binary gender class at the end, and gender-fluidity as confusion?

 

[Henry Ford]

"We shouldn't scrap our policy because of a small percentage of people who are transgender" just became "we shouldn't allow transgender bathroom rights because of an unbelievably miniscule percentage of people who cycle their gender back and forth on a daily basis."

Why are you assuming so much about this portion of the TG community? It was important enough to elicit a 40+ classification list for Facebook. Obviously the TG community considers allowing for choice and fluidity of that choice to be pretty important. And it just so happens the only truly TG person I know falls into that category.

I'm not actually assuming this. I'm basing it on a bunch of experience and research, and while the general determination these days - especially among transgender people - is that gender is a fluid, non-binary concept, the vast majority of transgender people in their daily lives live as either male or female an overwhelming majority of the time. It's the way we as a society have been set up, and it's why people undergo lifestyle changes when they become transgender.

And either way, the fact that we currently have people with both female and male genitalia using restrooms and locker rooms seems to suggest we can come to some sort of understanding as to how to live with people who subscribe to both (or neither) gender roles.

If this were about who uses adult bathrooms, I'd guess you'd have a very different result and this thread wouldn't be 31 pages.

Probably. But transgender teens also have rights.

 

[Clifford]

Is there consensus among lawyers that if someone in the OP brought a suit against the TG student that the judge/jury would side with the defendant and not the plaintiff on claims of emotional distress via indecent exposure?

You'll have to explain your hypothetical in much more detail. What did the TG student do?

Using the original post, I would imagine the student used the locker room as allowed by the school.

Correct

 

[Henry Ford]

At first I found the whole argument absurd. Then I got really interested based on HF's postings. But the more I followed it seemed to only account for people who have made a definite one-time switch and did not account for those who don't solidly identify with one gender or the other.

What's the difference between someone who identifies as a gender all the time or only part-time that's not accounted for?

Only the line that seemed to be drawn by someone committing to a single gender and therefore "belonging" in that gender's locker room. If the commitment aspect is irrelevant then there is no difference.

That's the thing - the commitment aspect isn't irrelevant. It may change, but transgender identity is partially defined by an enduring identification with a non-birth-sex gender. That's why your friend is an interesting case, if, in fact, he or she identifies with different genders on a daily basis. But I don't really hear evidence of transgenderism so much as transvestism at this point.

Isn't the TG student in OP only transvestite? If it's about identity why would this make a difference? And I don't know if its daily weekly monthly or yearly.

But you see a binary gender class at the end, and gender-fluidity as confusion?

No. The TG teen is transgender. Which is a very different thing. Dressing like a woman and living as a woman are completely different concepts.

Frank N Furter from Rocky Horror is a transvestite. Laverne Cox is transgender.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

At first I found the whole argument absurd. Then I got really interested based on HF's postings. But the more I followed it seemed to only account for people who have made a definite one-time switch and did not account for those who don't solidly identify with one gender or the other.

What's the difference between someone who identifies as a gender all the time or only part-time that's not accounted for?

Only the line that seemed to be drawn by someone committing to a single gender and therefore "belonging" in that gender's locker room. If the commitment aspect is irrelevant then there is no difference.

That's the thing - the commitment aspect isn't irrelevant. It may change, but transgender identity is partially defined by an enduring identification with a non-birth-sex gender. That's why your friend is an interesting case, if, in fact, he or she identifies with different genders on a daily basis. But I don't really hear evidence of transgenderism so much as transvestism at this point.

Isn't the TG student in OP only transvestite? If it's about identity why would this make a difference? And I don't know if its daily weekly monthly or yearly.But you see a binary gender class at the end, and gender-fluidity as confusion?

No. The TG teen is transgender. Which is a very different thing. Dressing like a woman and living as a woman are completely different concepts. Frank N Furter from Rocky Horror is a transvestite. Laverne Cox is transgender.

Frank N Furter is more than that. He is a sweet transvestite, transsexual, Transylvaniaaaan ah huh.

 

[Clifford]

So transvestitism is essentially posing, or playing a role you yourself don't really believe is you.

So why do you think this guy/girl is a transvestite?

Sorry, never seen RHPS

 

[Henry Ford]

At first I found the whole argument absurd. Then I got really interested based on HF's postings. But the more I followed it seemed to only account for people who have made a definite one-time switch and did not account for those who don't solidly identify with one gender or the other.

What's the difference between someone who identifies as a gender all the time or only part-time that's not accounted for?

Only the line that seemed to be drawn by someone committing to a single gender and therefore "belonging" in that gender's locker room. If the commitment aspect is irrelevant then there is no difference.

That's the thing - the commitment aspect isn't irrelevant. It may change, but transgender identity is partially defined by an enduring identification with a non-birth-sex gender. That's why your friend is an interesting case, if, in fact, he or she identifies with different genders on a daily basis. But I don't really hear evidence of transgenderism so much as transvestism at this point.

Isn't the TG student in OP only transvestite? If it's about identity why would this make a difference? And I don't know if its daily weekly monthly or yearly.But you see a binary gender class at the end, and gender-fluidity as confusion?

No. The TG teen is transgender. Which is a very different thing. Dressing like a woman and living as a woman are completely different concepts. Frank N Furter from Rocky Horror is a transvestite. Laverne Cox is transgender.

Frank N Furter is more than that. he is a sweet transvestite, transsexual, Transylvaniaaaan ah huh.

No, he's a transvestite from Transsexual, Transylvania. It's just the name of his home town.

 

[Henry Ford]

So transvestitism is essentially posing, or playing a role you yourself don't really believe is you.

So why do you think this guy/girl is a transvestite?

Sorry, never seen RHPS

Because transsexualism under ICD9 code 302.50 included a persistent self-identification as the non-birth gender for a period of two years. I believe that the new ICD10 code calling it gender dysphoria requires the same.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

At first I found the whole argument absurd. Then I got really interested based on HF's postings. But the more I followed it seemed to only account for people who have made a definite one-time switch and did not account for those who don't solidly identify with one gender or the other.

What's the difference between someone who identifies as a gender all the time or only part-time that's not accounted for?

Only the line that seemed to be drawn by someone committing to a single gender and therefore "belonging" in that gender's locker room. If the commitment aspect is irrelevant then there is no difference.

That's the thing - the commitment aspect isn't irrelevant. It may change, but transgender identity is partially defined by an enduring identification with a non-birth-sex gender. That's why your friend is an interesting case, if, in fact, he or she identifies with different genders on a daily basis. But I don't really hear evidence of transgenderism so much as transvestism at this point.

Isn't the TG student in OP only transvestite? If it's about identity why would this make a difference? And I don't know if its daily weekly monthly or yearly.But you see a binary gender class at the end, and gender-fluidity as confusion?

No. The TG teen is transgender. Which is a very different thing. Dressing like a woman and living as a woman are completely different concepts. Frank N Furter from Rocky Horror is a transvestite. Laverne Cox is transgender.

Frank N Furter is more than that. he is a sweet transvestite, transsexual, Transylvaniaaaan ah huh.

No, he's a transvestite from Transsexual, Transylvania. It's just the name of his home town.

I'll be. You are correct sir. Learn something new everyday.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'll be. You are correct sir. Learn something new everyday.

True story - once wrote a brief I quoted that in.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

At first I found the whole argument absurd. Then I got really interested based on HF's postings. But the more I followed it seemed to only account for people who have made a definite one-time switch and did not account for those who don't solidly identify with one gender or the other.

What's the difference between someone who identifies as a gender all the time or only part-time that's not accounted for?

Only the line that seemed to be drawn by someone committing to a single gender and therefore "belonging" in that gender's locker room. If the commitment aspect is irrelevant then there is no difference.

That's the thing - the commitment aspect isn't irrelevant. It may change, but transgender identity is partially defined by an enduring identification with a non-birth-sex gender. That's why your friend is an interesting case, if, in fact, he or she identifies with different genders on a daily basis. But I don't really hear evidence of transgenderism so much as transvestism at this point.

Isn't the TG student in OP only transvestite? If it's about identity why would this make a difference? And I don't know if its daily weekly monthly or yearly.But you see a binary gender class at the end, and gender-fluidity as confusion?

No. The TG teen is transgender. Which is a very different thing. Dressing like a woman and living as a woman are completely different concepts. Frank N Furter from Rocky Horror is a transvestite. Laverne Cox is transgender.

Frank N Furter is more than that. he is a sweet transvestite, transsexual, Transylvaniaaaan ah huh.

No, he's a transvestite from Transsexual, Transylvania. It's just the name of his home town.

And I thought my hometown, Morphadite Gap Wyoming had a weird name.

 

[Henry Ford]

And I thought my hometown, Morphadite Gap Wyoming had a weird name.

To be fair, you were right.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I'll be. You are correct sir. Learn something new everyday.

True story - once wrote a brief I quoted that in.

Nice. Did it draw any comment from the Judge?

 

[Henry Ford]

I'll be. You are correct sir. Learn something new everyday.

True story - once wrote a brief I quoted that in.

Nice. Did it draw any comment from the Judge?

Something to the effect of "despite counsel's flair for the dramatic, the question before the court today is not whether or not the plaintiff has the right to self-identify as either transvestite or as transsexual."

 

[Clifford]

So transvestitism is essentially posing, or playing a role you yourself don't really believe is you.

So why do you think this guy/girl is a transvestite?

Sorry, never seen RHPS

Because transsexualism under ICD9 code 302.50 included a persistent self-identification as the non-birth gender for a period of two years. I believe that the new ICD10 code calling it gender dysphoria requires the same.

But you and I don't know how long it was he identified with female before changing his/her mind. So we don't know. But it was sincere enough to where it ended an engagement he had with another friend who did not want to marry a woman. So wasn't fly by night. Not sure if it was a full two years though.

 

[Henry Ford]

So transvestitism is essentially posing, or playing a role you yourself don't really believe is you.

So why do you think this guy/girl is a transvestite?

Sorry, never seen RHPS

Because transsexualism under ICD9 code 302.50 included a persistent self-identification as the non-birth gender for a period of two years. I believe that the new ICD10 code calling it gender dysphoria requires the same.

But you and I don't know how long it was he identified with female before changing his/her mind. So we don't know. But it was sincere enough to where it ended an engagement he had with another friend who did not want to marry a woman. So wasn't fly by night. Not sure if it was a full two years though.

Sorry, we're bouncing all over the place here. This person has decided to live as a woman, then, right? I mean, she ended an engagement because she decided she was a woman? And how do you know that she did change her mind? I ask because it was my understanding that you had never discussed whether she (or he now, I suppose) identified with either gender.

 

[ghostguy123]

HF doesnt want high school kid's feelings to dictate the decisons of the lawmakers.....unless those high school kids are the transgenders of course.

 

[Clifford]

By indirect means such as observing dress, mannerisms, and of course word around. Sorry, I never saw a need to ask direct questions. Whatever he/she does with her/his life really is none of my business anyway.

I just don't necessarily agree that all roads lead to one gender or the other. There may be people who don't see gender-identity as necessary at all. I the eighties we called them Poison.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'll be. You are correct sir. Learn something new everyday.

True story - once wrote a brief I quoted that in.

Nice. Did it draw any comment from the Judge?

Something to the effect of "despite counsel's flair for the dramatic, the question before the court today is not whether or not the plaintiff has the right to self-identify as either transvestite or as transsexual."

"...but rather whether the plaintiff has the right to hold a rawkin' trampy time warp party in his ancient haunted mansion. That sir, is the question!"

 

[Henry Ford]

By indirect means such as observing dress, mannerisms, and of course word around. Sorry, I never saw a need to ask direct questions. Whatever he/she does with her/his life really is none of my business anyway.

I just don't necessarily agree that all roads lead to one gender or the other. There may be people who don't see gender-identity as necessary at all. I the eighties we called them Poison.

No, Bret Michaels has definitely always identified as all man.

Seriously, ask Van. It could be a really important conversation in your life. And what Van does in life may be none of your business, but you as a voter will help shape policy for Van's life in the future. So that makes your understanding of transgenderism or however Van views Van at least a bit of Van's business.

I can't possibly explain to you how incredibly fascinating, in-depth, and flat out awesome those conversations can be. Really eye-opening.

 

[Henry Ford]

Found this, for anyone actually interested in the topic:

Sexual orientation is with whom, whether and how you like to have sex.

Gender expression is how you express yourself in relation to gendered concepts (your relative “masculinity” and “femininity”, as well as whether you dress “like a boy” or “like a girl”, that kind of thing)

Physiological sex is how your body is configured in relation to gendered anatomy (like your chromosomes, your hormones, your breasts or lack thereof, your body and facial hair or lack thereof, and whether you have an innie or an outie).

Gender identity is the part of your gender that’s not any of that, and would stay the same even if that stuff changed.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/03/21/gender-expression-is-not-gender-identity/#ixzz3qZImsRtM

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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.

It requires that you accept that a transgender woman is a woman. If you don't accept that, it's not going to make sense. It's also going to be a rough couple decades for you. Sorry.

Your response makes no sense. You are trying to draw false correlations amongst 3 very different cases. It's a typical logic trap. No one takes issue with the fact that your second example is clearly racist and discrimination. But then you try to incorrectly (although indirectly) parallel the argument in questions 1 and 3. Question 1 is, to many, a religious as well as legal question that has numerous tax, insurance and a myriad of other financial implications and facets to it as well. The third case (and the point of this thread) is not nearly as clear cut as point 2 - nor nearly as "loaded" as 1. To attempt to lump the 3 together is extremely disingenuous (and, as mentioned, a logical fallacy) - and I think you know that.

No, the logical fallacy is in attempting to argue against something I'm not arguing.Separate but equal is unsupportable under the law. That's the only point of the argument I made.

I actually agree with you when it comes to bathrooms -- I don't think its reasonable for people to care about the sex or gender of the person in the next stall, and I posted something along those lines much earlier in the thread.

That said, we do actually have separate bathrooms for men and women right now, and those are clearly legal. I don't think you're helping your cause by trotting out the "separate but equal" canard in a situation like this where it already exists without controversy.

 

[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?"

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

It requires that you accept that a transgender woman is a woman. If you don't accept that, it's not going to make sense. It's also going to be a rough couple decades for you. Sorry.

Your response makes no sense. You are trying to draw false correlations amongst 3 very different cases. It's a typical logic trap. No one takes issue with the fact that your second example is clearly racist and discrimination. But then you try to incorrectly (although indirectly) parallel the argument in questions 1 and 3. Question 1 is, to many, a religious as well as legal question that has numerous tax, insurance and a myriad of other financial implications and facets to it as well. The third case (and the point of this thread) is not nearly as clear cut as point 2 - nor nearly as "loaded" as 1. To attempt to lump the 3 together is extremely disingenuous (and, as mentioned, a logical fallacy) - and I think you know that.

No, the logical fallacy is in attempting to argue against something I'm not arguing.Separate but equal is unsupportable under the law. That's the only point of the argument I made.

I actually agree with you when it comes to bathrooms -- I don't think its reasonable for people to care about the sex or gender of the person in the next stall, and I posted something along those lines much earlier in the thread.

That said, we do actually have separate bathrooms for men and women right now, and those are clearly legal. I don't think you're helping your cause by trotting out the "separate but equal" canard in a situation like this where it already exists without controversy.

It was specifically in response to "use their own transgender bathrooms" arguments.

And that position only works if transgender women are not women. Which they are.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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.

It requires that you accept that a transgender woman is a woman. If you don't accept that, it's not going to make sense. It's also going to be a rough couple decades for you. Sorry.

Your response makes no sense. You are trying to draw false correlations amongst 3 very different cases. It's a typical logic trap. No one takes issue with the fact that your second example is clearly racist and discrimination. But then you try to incorrectly (although indirectly) parallel the argument in questions 1 and 3. Question 1 is, to many, a religious as well as legal question that has numerous tax, insurance and a myriad of other financial implications and facets to it as well. The third case (and the point of this thread) is not nearly as clear cut as point 2 - nor nearly as "loaded" as 1. To attempt to lump the 3 together is extremely disingenuous (and, as mentioned, a logical fallacy) - and I think you know that.

No, the logical fallacy is in attempting to argue against something I'm not arguing.Separate but equal is unsupportable under the law. That's the only point of the argument I made.

I actually agree with you when it comes to bathrooms -- I don't think its reasonable for people to care about the sex or gender of the person in the next stall, and I posted something along those lines much earlier in the thread.

That said, we do actually have separate bathrooms for men and women right now, and those are clearly legal. I don't think you're helping your cause by trotting out the "separate but equal" canard in a situation like this where it already exists without controversy.

It was specifically in response to "use their own transgender bathrooms" arguments.

And that position only works if transgender women are not women. Which they are.

I don't think so. If we can do "men's" and "women's" restrooms now, I don't see any philosophical reason why we couldn't do "male" and "female" and "neutral" or somesuch instead. This essentially creates a third class and puts it on equal footing with the two that we already have, in the ordinary English sense (if not legal sense).

This is academic because, like I said, I agree with you. I have no objection to just converting all bathrooms everywhere to unisex.

 

[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?"

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

It requires that you accept that a transgender woman is a woman. If you don't accept that, it's not going to make sense. It's also going to be a rough couple decades for you. Sorry.

Your response makes no sense. You are trying to draw false correlations amongst 3 very different cases. It's a typical logic trap. No one takes issue with the fact that your second example is clearly racist and discrimination. But then you try to incorrectly (although indirectly) parallel the argument in questions 1 and 3. Question 1 is, to many, a religious as well as legal question that has numerous tax, insurance and a myriad of other financial implications and facets to it as well. The third case (and the point of this thread) is not nearly as clear cut as point 2 - nor nearly as "loaded" as 1. To attempt to lump the 3 together is extremely disingenuous (and, as mentioned, a logical fallacy) - and I think you know that.

No, the logical fallacy is in attempting to argue against something I'm not arguing.Separate but equal is unsupportable under the law. That's the only point of the argument I made.

I actually agree with you when it comes to bathrooms -- I don't think its reasonable for people to care about the sex or gender of the person in the next stall, and I posted something along those lines much earlier in the thread.

That said, we do actually have separate bathrooms for men and women right now, and those are clearly legal. I don't think you're helping your cause by trotting out the "separate but equal" canard in a situation like this where it already exists without controversy.

It was specifically in response to "use their own transgender bathrooms" arguments.And that position only works if transgender women are not women. Which they are.

I don't think so. If we can do "men's" and "women's" restrooms now, I don't see any philosophical reason why we couldn't do "male" and "female" and "neutral" or somesuch instead. This essentially creates a third class and puts it on equal footing with the two that we already have, in the ordinary English sense (if not legal sense).

This is academic because, like I said, I agree with you. I have no objection to just converting all bathrooms everywhere to unisex.

I suppose we could create a third gender class. Except transgender women don't belong to it. They are women. And transgender men don't belong to it. They are men.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't think so. If we can do "men's" and "women's" restrooms now, I don't see any philosophical reason why we couldn't do "male" and "female" and "neutral" or somesuch instead. This essentially creates a third class and puts it on equal footing with the two that we already have, in the ordinary English sense (if not legal sense).

This is academic because, like I said, I agree with you. I have no objection to just converting all bathrooms everywhere to unisex.

I suppose we could create a third gender class. Except transgender women don't belong to it. They are women. And transgender men don't belong to it. They are men.

Yeah, I get that. And it doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.

Most people use "male" and "men" interchangeably. I get that we're drawing a distinction between them, but what we're doing now is not how people talk in ordinary conversation. It would be news to most ordinary folks that men might be female and that women might be male. So we sort out the terminology, and we divvy up restrooms along the lines of "male" and "female" instead of "men" and "women." And then we add a third category to accommodate people who fit neither category comfortably. That's not philosophically different than we have now, even if the legal setup has changed.

Please note that I went out of my way to use the terminology that I chose in the post you quoted. What I'm saying is that segregating bathrooms by gender isn't a good example of "OMG separate but equal!" and neither is segregating bathrooms by sex.

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't think so. If we can do "men's" and "women's" restrooms now, I don't see any philosophical reason why we couldn't do "male" and "female" and "neutral" or somesuch instead. This essentially creates a third class and puts it on equal footing with the two that we already have, in the ordinary English sense (if not legal sense).

This is academic because, like I said, I agree with you. I have no objection to just converting all bathrooms everywhere to unisex.

I suppose we could create a third gender class. Except transgender women don't belong to it. They are women. And transgender men don't belong to it. They are men.

Yeah, I get that. And it doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.

Most people use "male" and "men" interchangeably. I get that we're drawing a distinction between them, but what we're doing now is not how people talk in ordinary conversation. It would be news to most ordinary folks that men might be female and that women might be male. So we sort out the terminology, and we divvy up restrooms along the lines of "male" and "female" instead of "men" and "women." And then we add a third category to accommodate people who fit neither category comfortably. That's not philosophically different than we have now, even if the legal setup has changed.

Please note that I went out of my way to use the terminology that I chose in the post you quoted. What I'm saying is that segregating bathrooms by gender isn't a good example of "OMG separate but equal!" and neither is segregating bathrooms by sex.

But segregating by making transgender people go into a "neutral" bathroom is separate but equal. Because they're women and men. Legally. Like, in every way that matters for the law. Driver's licenses have "M" or "F" under "sex". Totally legit. And separating by birth sex or whetever you're actually saying involves a lot more work than you think it does. intersex people will have to be identified to get them out of your sex-specific restrooms.

 

[Henry Ford]

Or we can redefine what male and female mean biologically, I guess.

 

[fantasycurse42]

FTR, I'm strictly discussing schools. We're all adults and can handle any of these situations. Outside of a gym, I can't think of another place where any of us would be changing in a public place. I guess a gym would be one situation, but a lot of these "how do we know" or "do you ask them to expose themselves" comments have no bearing on the circumstances I'm discussing. The general bathroom argument is a different discussion in itself - My thoughts and strongest opinions are geared solely at schools where almost everyone is under 18.

I've made my position on schools pretty clear.

 

[Henry Ford]

FTR, I'm strictly discussing schools. We're all adults and can handle any of these situations. Outside of a gym, I can't think of another place where any of us would be changing in a public place. I guess a gym would be one situation, but a lot of these "how do we know" or "do you ask them to expose themselves" comments have no bearing on the circumstances I'm discussing. The general bathroom argument is a different discussion in itself - My thoughts and strongest opinions are geared solely at schools where almost everyone is under 18.

I've made my position on schools pretty clear.

Crystal. Transgender girls aren't really girls. Transgender boys aren't really boys. We get it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't think so. If we can do "men's" and "women's" restrooms now, I don't see any philosophical reason why we couldn't do "male" and "female" and "neutral" or somesuch instead. This essentially creates a third class and puts it on equal footing with the two that we already have, in the ordinary English sense (if not legal sense).

This is academic because, like I said, I agree with you. I have no objection to just converting all bathrooms everywhere to unisex.

I suppose we could create a third gender class. Except transgender women don't belong to it. They are women. And transgender men don't belong to it. They are men.

Yeah, I get that. And it doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.

Most people use "male" and "men" interchangeably. I get that we're drawing a distinction between them, but what we're doing now is not how people talk in ordinary conversation. It would be news to most ordinary folks that men might be female and that women might be male. So we sort out the terminology, and we divvy up restrooms along the lines of "male" and "female" instead of "men" and "women." And then we add a third category to accommodate people who fit neither category comfortably. That's not philosophically different than we have now, even if the legal setup has changed.

Please note that I went out of my way to use the terminology that I chose in the post you quoted. What I'm saying is that segregating bathrooms by gender isn't a good example of "OMG separate but equal!" and neither is segregating bathrooms by sex.

But segregating by making transgender people go into a "neutral" bathroom is separate but equal. Because they're women and men. Legally. Like, in every way that matters for the law. Driver's licenses have "M" or "F" under "sex". Totally legit.And separating by birth sex or whetever you're actually saying involves a lot more work than you think it does. intersex people will have to be identified to get them out of your sex-specific restrooms.

I don't care what the law is. I'm interested in what the law ought to be. You're begging the question when you reference current legal standards. Conceivably, we can allow TG people to list their preferred gender on their DL and still have sex-based bathrooms. That's not what I would opt for, but "men/women" and "male/female/neutral" are the same in terms of segregation. We're just segregating on different dimensions based entirely on social mores.

Edited to change "other" to "neutral." The former sounds disparaging and I don't intend it that way.

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't think so. If we can do "men's" and "women's" restrooms now, I don't see any philosophical reason why we couldn't do "male" and "female" and "neutral" or somesuch instead. This essentially creates a third class and puts it on equal footing with the two that we already have, in the ordinary English sense (if not legal sense).

This is academic because, like I said, I agree with you. I have no objection to just converting all bathrooms everywhere to unisex.

I suppose we could create a third gender class. Except transgender women don't belong to it. They are women. And transgender men don't belong to it. They are men.

Yeah, I get that. And it doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.

Most people use "male" and "men" interchangeably. I get that we're drawing a distinction between them, but what we're doing now is not how people talk in ordinary conversation. It would be news to most ordinary folks that men might be female and that women might be male. So we sort out the terminology, and we divvy up restrooms along the lines of "male" and "female" instead of "men" and "women." And then we add a third category to accommodate people who fit neither category comfortably. That's not philosophically different than we have now, even if the legal setup has changed.

Please note that I went out of my way to use the terminology that I chose in the post you quoted. What I'm saying is that segregating bathrooms by gender isn't a good example of "OMG separate but equal!" and neither is segregating bathrooms by sex.

But segregating by making transgender people go into a "neutral" bathroom is separate but equal. Because they're women and men. Legally. Like, in every way that matters for the law. Driver's licenses have "M" or "F" under "sex". Totally legit.And separating by birth sex or whetever you're actually saying involves a lot more work than you think it does. intersex people will have to be identified to get them out of your sex-specific restrooms.

I don't care what the law is. I'm interested in what the law ought to be. You're begging the question when you reference current legal standards. Conceivably, we can allow TG people to list their preferred gender on their DL and still have sex-based bathrooms. That's not what I would opt for, but "men/women" and "male/female/other" are the same in terms of segregation. We're just segregating on different dimensions based entirely on social mores.

No, they're not the same. You have removed the ability for a transgender person to self identify and forced him or her into identifying as a third sex, for God's sake. You understand that's the very definition of separate but equal facilities, right?

 

[Henry Ford]

No, no, it's not that we think you're not really a woman, we just refer to you as "it" for bathroom purposes.

 

[fantasycurse42]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hiNBCuE3C_M

Something everyone can laugh it. Most of us in the gambling thread follow this guy Steve Stevens. He claims to be a sports betting guru, in reality he is a con man, quite stupid, and some of my best laughs every week are when we post highlights of his weekly podcast. Interestingly enough, he discusses transgendered people in his podcast this week. Fast forward to the 12:40 mark and have a laugh at his description.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't care what the law is. I'm interested in what the law ought to be. You're begging the question when you reference current legal standards. Conceivably, we can allow TG people to list their preferred gender on their DL and still have sex-based bathrooms. That's not what I would opt for, but "men/women" and "male/female/other" are the same in terms of segregation. We're just segregating on different dimensions based entirely on social mores.

No, they're not the same. You have removed the ability for a transgender person to self identify and forced him or her into identifying as a third sex, for God's sake. You understand that's the very definition of separate but equal facilities, right?

No, I don't. I don't see how "men/women" is okay but "male/female/TG" isn't. They're both segregation. We're just arguing about what kind of segregation is most appropriate.

No, no, it's not that we think you're not really a woman, we just refer to you as "it" for bathroom purposes.

This wasn't directed at me, right? Since I've gone out my way a bunch of times to make it clear that I agree with your differentiation between gender and sex. Right?

 

[Henry Ford]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hiNBCuE3C_M

Something everyone can laugh it. Most of us in the gambling thread follow this guy Steve Stevens. He claims to be a sports betting guru, in reality he is a con man, quite stupid, and some of my best laughs every week are when we post highlights of his weekly podcast. Interestingly enough, he discusses transgendered people in his podcast this week. Fast forward to the 12:40 mark and have a laugh at his description.

What about my position on this issue makes you think I would laugh at that?

 

[fantasycurse42]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hiNBCuE3C_M

Something everyone can laugh it. Most of us in the gambling thread follow this guy Steve Stevens. He claims to be a sports betting guru, in reality he is a con man, quite stupid, and some of my best laughs every week are when we post highlights of his weekly podcast. Interestingly enough, he discusses transgendered people in his podcast this week. Fast forward to the 12:40 mark and have a laugh at his description.

What about my position on this issue makes you think I would laugh at that?

You're laughing at what a moron he is. This isn't the dumbest man you've heard in your life?

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't care what the law is. I'm interested in what the law ought to be. You're begging the question when you reference current legal standards. Conceivably, we can allow TG people to list their preferred gender on their DL and still have sex-based bathrooms. That's not what I would opt for, but "men/women" and "male/female/other" are the same in terms of segregation. We're just segregating on different dimensions based entirely on social mores.

No, they're not the same. You have removed the ability for a transgender person to self identify and forced him or her into identifying as a third sex, for God's sake. You understand that's the very definition of separate but equal facilities, right?

No, I don't. I don't see how "men/women" is okay but "male/female/TG" isn't. They're both segregation. We're just arguing about what kind of segregation is most appropriate.

No, no, it's not that we think you're not really a woman, we just refer to you as "it" for bathroom purposes.

This wasn't directed at me, right? Since I've gone out my way a bunch of times to make it clear that I agree with your differentiation between gender and sex. Right?

It was absolutely directed at you because your position is "sure, they can be women, but not female for purposes of public facilities." You understand that it creates a separate underclass of women and men based on creating a new biological classification of sex that currently doesn't exist and making everyone fall in line with that, right?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't care what the law is. I'm interested in what the law ought to be. You're begging the question when you reference current legal standards. Conceivably, we can allow TG people to list their preferred gender on their DL and still have sex-based bathrooms. That's not what I would opt for, but "men/women" and "male/female/other" are the same in terms of segregation. We're just segregating on different dimensions based entirely on social mores.

No, they're not the same. You have removed the ability for a transgender person to self identify and forced him or her into identifying as a third sex, for God's sake. You understand that's the very definition of separate but equal facilities, right?

No, I don't. I don't see how "men/women" is okay but "male/female/TG" isn't. They're both segregation. We're just arguing about what kind of segregation is most appropriate.

No, no, it's not that we think you're not really a woman, we just refer to you as "it" for bathroom purposes.

This wasn't directed at me, right? Since I've gone out my way a bunch of times to make it clear that I agree with your differentiation between gender and sex. Right?

It was absolutely directed at you because your position is "sure, they can be women, but not female for purposes of public facilities." You understand that it creates a separate underclass of women and men based on creating a new biological classification of sex that currently doesn't exist and making everyone fall in line with that, right?

Begging the question. I addressed this already.

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't care what the law is. I'm interested in what the law ought to be. You're begging the question when you reference current legal standards. Conceivably, we can allow TG people to list their preferred gender on their DL and still have sex-based bathrooms. That's not what I would opt for, but "men/women" and "male/female/other" are the same in terms of segregation. We're just segregating on different dimensions based entirely on social mores.

No, they're not the same. You have removed the ability for a transgender person to self identify and forced him or her into identifying as a third sex, for God's sake. You understand that's the very definition of separate but equal facilities, right?

No, I don't. I don't see how "men/women" is okay but "male/female/TG" isn't. They're both segregation. We're just arguing about what kind of segregation is most appropriate.

No, no, it's not that we think you're not really a woman, we just refer to you as "it" for bathroom purposes.

This wasn't directed at me, right? Since I've gone out my way a bunch of times to make it clear that I agree with your differentiation between gender and sex. Right?

It was absolutely directed at you because your position is "sure, they can be women, but not female for purposes of public facilities." You understand that it creates a separate underclass of women and men based on creating a new biological classification of sex that currently doesn't exist and making everyone fall in line with that, right?

Begging the question. I addressed this already.

Except that you're suggesting a biological category based on transitioned gender identity, which is not a biological classification. And in so doing, stripping equal treatment from all people who would be classified that way and currently are not.Try this:

"We will just make one bathroom for males, one bathroom for females, and one bathroom for X, whether male or female." Replace X with virtually any classification you'd like in that sentence.

Can you see why that might be problematic?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't care what the law is. I'm interested in what the law ought to be. You're begging the question when you reference current legal standards. Conceivably, we can allow TG people to list their preferred gender on their DL and still have sex-based bathrooms. That's not what I would opt for, but "men/women" and "male/female/other" are the same in terms of segregation. We're just segregating on different dimensions based entirely on social mores.

No, they're not the same. You have removed the ability for a transgender person to self identify and forced him or her into identifying as a third sex, for God's sake. You understand that's the very definition of separate but equal facilities, right?

No, I don't. I don't see how "men/women" is okay but "male/female/TG" isn't. They're both segregation. We're just arguing about what kind of segregation is most appropriate.

No, no, it's not that we think you're not really a woman, we just refer to you as "it" for bathroom purposes.

This wasn't directed at me, right? Since I've gone out my way a bunch of times to make it clear that I agree with your differentiation between gender and sex. Right?

It was absolutely directed at you because your position is "sure, they can be women, but not female for purposes of public facilities." You understand that it creates a separate underclass of women and men based on creating a new biological classification of sex that currently doesn't exist and making everyone fall in line with that, right?

Begging the question. I addressed this already.

I'm not sure I understand your classification scheme, though. Transgender isn't a gender. It's just a description for people whose gender identity does not align with their birth sex. Classifying by male, female, transgender would be like classifying by male, female, and Catholic.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm not sure I understand your classification scheme, though. Transgender isn't a gender. It's just a description for people whose gender identity does not align with their birth sex. Classifying by male, female, transgender would be like classifying by male, female, and Catholic.

Yes, I anticipated this and should have addressed it the first time.

For whatever reason, a very large number of people are uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with people of a different biological sex. To reiterate, I don't share that view, but it's commonly held. I agree with HF that the male/female breakdown doesn't work well once you recognize that male <> man and female <> woman. But the sex breakdown is still relevant to most people even if it no longer aligns with the way we talk about gender. So we still allow a bathroom for females and a bathroom for males, because that's how our current social privacy concerns break out. For people who don't feel that they comfortably fit into either of those assignments, we provide a third alternative.

It seems to me that this sort of arrangement does the least violence to anybody, given current social preferences. If you want to tell me that male/female thing is stupid, I will agree with you. No problem. But the overwhelming majority of folks who support men/women restrooms I think really mean male/female, and if there's no special reason to respect one but not the other. The important thing is to provide accommodation for folks who don't fit neatly.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm not sure I understand your classification scheme, though. Transgender isn't a gender. It's just a description for people whose gender identity does not align with their birth sex. Classifying by male, female, transgender would be like classifying by male, female, and Catholic.

Yes, I anticipated this and should have addressed it the first time.

For whatever reason, a very large number of people are uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with people of a different biological sex. To reiterate, I don't share that view, but it's commonly held. I agree with HF that the male/female breakdown doesn't work well once you recognize that male <> man and female <> woman. But the sex breakdown is still relevant to most people even if it no longer aligns with the way we talk about gender. So we still allow a bathroom for females and a bathroom for males, because that's how our current social privacy concerns break out. For people who don't feel that they comfortably fit into either of those assignments, we provide a third alternative.

It seems to me that this sort of arrangement does the least violence to anybody, given current social preferences. If you want to tell me that male/female thing is stupid, I will agree with you. No problem. But the overwhelming majority of folks who support men/women restrooms I think really mean male/female, and if there's no special reason to respect one but not the other. The important thing is to provide accommodation for folks who don't fit neatly.

They do fit neatly. They're men and women.There is a reason to respect one and not the other. It's so you don't create an underclass of "not really men and women" in public.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm not sure I understand your classification scheme, though. Transgender isn't a gender. It's just a description for people whose gender identity does not align with their birth sex. Classifying by male, female, transgender would be like classifying by male, female, and Catholic.

Yes, I anticipated this and should have addressed it the first time.

For whatever reason, a very large number of people are uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with people of a different biological sex. To reiterate, I don't share that view, but it's commonly held. I agree with HF that the male/female breakdown doesn't work well once you recognize that male <> man and female <> woman. But the sex breakdown is still relevant to most people even if it no longer aligns with the way we talk about gender. So we still allow a bathroom for females and a bathroom for males, because that's how our current social privacy concerns break out. For people who don't feel that they comfortably fit into either of those assignments, we provide a third alternative.

It seems to me that this sort of arrangement does the least violence to anybody, given current social preferences. If you want to tell me that male/female thing is stupid, I will agree with you. No problem. But the overwhelming majority of folks who support men/women restrooms I think really mean male/female, and if there's no special reason to respect one but not the other. The important thing is to provide accommodation for folks who don't fit neatly.

They do fit neatly. They're men and women.There is a reason to respect one and not the other. It's so you don't create an underclass of "not really men and women" in public.

Actually yes, I do see what you're saying. You're talking me back into a male/female-only breakdown.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yeah, scratch the male/female/TG thing. I see where that isn't going to work. My bad.