Wait…you actually believe that, don’t you?
Serious question: Have you ever paused to consider that sometimes arrogance is not laudable?
Nobody - yet.
But if someone decides to challenge the idea that a man must look and act like a traditional idea of a man - and I’ll bet someone will, since we’ve already been doing that even without the involvement of transgenders - then someone who “looks” male could use the women’s room. At that point, what’s the point? You can’t know if the person is (identifies as) male or female. What’s the difference between sharing a bathroom with someone who looks male but considers herself female and someone who looks male but considers himself male? Why even have gendered restrooms at that point?
I am not saying that it would be a bad thing to get rid of gendered restrooms. I’m saying it’s wrong to open the door to one kind of person and then shut it to the next, and silly to pretend we’re not.
You can go around saying this will never happen, but 20 or 30 years ago people would have laughed if you said transgender people would have legal protection to use restrooms of their gender too.
The reason I cited is the relevant one, and a very common one.
…among those who don’t think they can argue the “If you support gay marriage why don’t you support marriage to children or even animals, because those are the logical next steps!” crap any more and get away with it.
I think it could be problematic, but it isn’t in this case (at least based on current data that I have).
Why oh why do you keep bringing this appearance stuff up, since no one is insisting anything about appearance? Who are you arguing with? What have I said that conflicts with your question about appearance?
No, it’s not the other way around – that’s not why we have gender segregated restrooms, or at least that’s not a good enough reason. The reason we have them is because nearly everyone prefers them (for various reasons beyond just fear of harm), and because nearly everyone abides by them, and they don’t cause harm. Since they don’t cause harm, and since changing this convention would be very difficult and costly, then it’s entirely reasonable to continue this convention.
It would be different if they caused harm, or if most people wanted the convention to change. But in current circumstances, it’s reasonable, logical, and consistent for society to continue using segregated-gender restrooms, as long as trans people can use them without discrimination.
I’m not surprised in the least that you thought that’s what I was doing. It’s obvious you are having a kneejerk reaction instead of shutting the fuck up and actually listening.
You’re not getting my position then. No one is saying that people who identify as one gender can’t have non-traditional gender appearances. No one is saying that men must look like men, or women must look like women. I’m saying it doesn’t matter if some trans men don’t present a traditionally male appearance, and it doesn’t matter if some trans women don’t present a traditionally female appearance – they still get to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.
The appearance issue is utterly irrelevant to my position. It doesn’t matter how people present – what matters is gender identity.
There are many very common reasons – most people, in my experience, have multiple reasons for supporting gay marriage.
Listening since you started, troll.
Is it? Got a cite for that?
That’s pretty depressing. I’d been holding out hope that these folks were just pig-ignorant, and that meeting a trans person and realizing that they weren’t slavering maniacs out to rape their wimmin and children would be enough to get them to change their minds. I was trying to attribute to stupidity what apparently can only be explained by malice.
Because that’s what the standard is now for who uses restrooms.
We have replaced the standard of genitals with one of appearance. Maybe not officially, but that’s the expected social norm. If you want to identify as male, you have to look male and vice versa.
If that weren’t true, we’d have people with male genitals who look male using the women’s room because they identify as female. And that’s okay, because people shouldn’t have to conform to a social standard of appearance any more than by sex (and it is bizarre to expect them to - if sex doesn’t determine gender, how can we insist that appearance does?).
If we reach the point where neither sex nor appearance defines gender, what’s the point of having any policy based on gender, let alone gender-segregated restrooms?
But by that logic, one could say we shouldn’t let transgenders use opposite-sex restrooms (not of their gender) because “nearly everyone prefers” that they not be in the same restroom with them.
“Nearly everyone abides by them” seems to be a circular argument.
As for harm, we already talkd about that. Harm is subjective.
It’s all a circular argument. People want it, so it is okay, except for keeping out transgenders, when it’s not okay.
And you completely ignored the “separate but equal” thing.
I mean, come on.
So far all he’s got is “someone’s possibly hurt feelings = someone getting the shit beat out of them”.
No you haven’t.
Nope.
Shut up. You are in way over your head and you don’t know what’s going on.
Of course they are.
That’s how we currently define who can use which restroom.
If you look like a man and go in the women’s room, people will freak out.
Legally, perhaps, but if enough people who look male use the women’s room, two things will happen:
-
Some women will freak out and stop wanting to use a women’s room at all, preferring totally private unisex single-use rooms instead.
-
The rest will stop caring what you look like, if they ever did.
Either way, there will no longer be a point in having gendered restrooms any more.
That’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying why pretend? Just get it over with and change the restrooms.
But you can’t know someone’s gender identity any more. They can look like a man but identify as a woman! What’s the point of caring who you share a bathroom with if you don’t even know who it is, gender wise?
That’s the only possible “damage” you’ve come up with so far, troll-hurt feelings.
No it’s not. There is no standard. In some places, perhaps those in charge of a particular restroom might look closely at appearance, but not everywhere (and probably not in most places).
There was never a standard of genitals. Never in history, unless you have some other data, has there been genital checks at restrooms.
We don’t insist on anything with regards to genitals, and we don’t insist on anything with regards to appearance, for this issue. Genitals don’t matter, and neither does appearance.
For the nth time, it’s about gender identity – that’s what defines gender. It’s a big topic, and a complicated one, and perhaps not an intuitive one to someone with traditional ideas about sex and gender (and I don’t know if this includes you), but that’s what it’s about.
People go to the “right” bathroom because that’s what most people prefer to do. Not because of genitals or appearance – because they want to go to the bathroom associated with their gender identity. I see no reason to believe that this will change in any significant way.
Harm is subjective, and the subjects of the harm have spoken up in a major way. And I don’t believe that “nearly everyone prefers” that trans people not be in the same restroom. So no, my logic does not say this.
The convention will continue, and it’s logical that it continues, because almost everyone prefers this (and abides) and because it causes no harm. Not for one of these two reasons, but for both of them together. If one of these things changed, then we should re-evaluate the convention.
It’s not circular – keeping out trans people harms them. This can be demonstrated and has been. It’s not okay to bar trans people from using their bathrooms because that would harm trans people.
I don’t see it’s relevance – it was a bad argument for segregation by race, and properly killed by the Supreme Court.
I’d say most sum it up with that one. Why dispute that? Do you think it’s not a good reason?
I see you left polygamy out of that.
Some slippery slopes are invalid. Some are not. Proponent of gay marriage, assuming they are sincere, say it’s about consenting adults finding happiness with the ones they love. That’s an argument for plural marriage, it’s also an argument for marriage to robots or other intelligent species, or their own clones.
There’s nothing wrong with any of that if you accept the premise, which all reasonable people do. Likewise, if we accept the logic of transgender access to facilities, the same argument permits access by all genders and sexes to all facilities. Lance’s basic argument is correct: the logical end result is no more gender seperation. It is a convention, and one that will become increasingly pointless because we’re actively encouraging people to not be uncomfortable around members of the opposite sex in bathrooms and locker rooms. Which is also, of course, fine.
If there were no other reasons at all, then no, I don’t think that’s enough of a good reason by itself. My reasons (the main ones, anyway): there are many same-sex couples raising kids and they deserve the same protections that the kids of other couples have; giving these rights to same-sex couples causes no harm; and same-sex couples with or without children are harmed by barring them these rights.