I pit the people behind anti-transgender "bathroom bills"

[lance_strongarm]

@iiandyiiii

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).

It’s the standard everyday people use.

There was never a standard of genitals. Never in history, unless you have some other data, has there been genital checks at restrooms.

No, because we didn’t need them because we had appearance to go on. (Or at least we thought we did - transgender people existed, but they were closeted).

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.

Bullshit.

Go into a women’s room and see what happens. In the real world, most women will be very upset to see someone who looks like a man in there.

Try it.

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.

Just going around saying it doesn’t make it reality. I’m talking about the social norm.

If sex doesn’t define gender, and neither does appearance, what does? What the heck is gender in that case?

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.

No. They go there because OTHER people are doing the same thing. If someone does goes in the “wrong” room, other people don’t like it. If the only reason was because there’s a little man on the door, who would care about that? What matters is who else is in that room with you. That’s what people still care about.

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.

I didn’t mean to say nearly everyone prefers it. Everyone who prefers it would say it is a harm to them.

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.

Fine. If you have to wait and see whether I’m right and “reevaluate the convention” then wait.

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.

That’s not the circular part. I’m not arguing against that. The circular part is you saying we should still keep gendered restrooms around.

I don’t see it’s relevance – it was a bad argument for segregation by race, and properly killed by the Supreme Court.

Its COMPLETELY relevant. You’re saying the exact same thing! You’re saying it’s okay to segregate by sex because there’s no harm to it.

[Czarcasm]

@adaher

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.

What a load of bigoted horseshit. Are you proud of yourself?

[iiandyiiii]

lance, skipping your #195 since it overlaps so much with my response in #197. Feel free to ask about anything that you think I left out.

[adaher]

@Czarcasm

What a load of bigoted horseshit. Are you proud of yourself?

Wait now it’s bigoted to want MORE inclusion? It’s so hard to keep up with what’s PC.

[iiandyiiii]

@lance_strongarm

It’s the standard everyday people use.

I don’t believe this. I don’t believe most people have a standard at all.

No, because we didn’t need them because we had appearance to go on. (Or at least we thought we did - transgender people existed, but they were closeted).

We don’t need any standard, and we never did, since most people needed no coercion to use the appropriate restroom. We don’t need a standard for not shitting on the ceiling since no one wants to shit on the ceiling.

Bullshit.

Go into a women’s room and see what happens. In the real world, most women will be very upset to see someone who looks like a man in there.

Try it.

I have, many times, and in many places (when I was younger because I was drunk and didn’t care, and nowadays if I pick the wrong one by mistake). I got laughter, raised eyebrows, or something like “I think you’re in the wrong one”, or no reaction at all. Never did I get a freak-out, or anyone being “very upset”.

Just going around saying it doesn’t make it reality. I’m talking about the social norm.

If sex doesn’t define gender, and neither does appearance, what does? What the heck is gender in that case?

Gender is what someone identifies as. What part of this is so difficult for you? I’ve repeated it over and over again. There exists the possibility that you won’t know by looking at someone, but that already existed. There’s nothing new with that possibility.

No. They go there because OTHER people are doing the same thing. If someone does goes in the “wrong” room, other people don’t like it. If the only reason was because there’s a little man on the door, who would care about that? What matters is who else is in that room with you. That’s what people still care about.

People prefer to use the “right” restroom because of their own feelings and preferences. Men don’t feel comfortable if there’s no men’s room, and women don’t feel comfortable if there’s no ladies room.

I use the men’s room because I would feel weird about using the ladies room. Yes, I don’t want others to feel uncomfortable, but that’s just part of it.

I didn’t mean to say nearly everyone prefers it. Everyone who prefers it would say it is a harm to them.

They have failed to demonstrate actual harm, just as the racists failed to demonstrate actual harm of desegregation. These sorts of claims can be evaluated, and some are reasonable and some are not.

Fine. If you have to wait and see whether I’m right and “reevaluate the convention” then wait.

This doesn’t make sense, since I’m open to the possibility of this changing. If peoples desires change, or harm is demonstrated, then I would be open to re-evaluating the convention. If not, then I see no reason to re-evaluate it.

That’s not the circular part. I’m not arguing against that. The circular part is you saying we should still keep gendered restrooms around.

We should keep gendered restrooms around for those reasons, plus the reason that it would be much more costly and difficult to change it, and changing this would add no benefit that you have demonstrated. So many reasons to keep using the convention, and none to change it except that there’s a polite fiction that almost everyone abides by that lance can’t seem to wrap his mind around.

Its COMPLETELY relevant. You’re saying the exact same thing! You’re saying it’s okay to segregate by sex because there’s no harm to it.

These claims can be evaluated. Some claims of harm or no harm are reasonable and some are not.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Well, this thread is really and truly fucked. Instead of being what it originally was, now it’s the “Lance doesn’t understand bathrooms” thread, like so many before. Lance, iiandyiiii, and others including myself, y’all suck.

[iiandyiiii]

I just need a few more posts. I’m so close to making him understand, I swear!

[Eonwe]

@lance_strongarm

I mean, come on.

No, you come on. You’ve asked this question quite a number of times in this thread:

@lance strongarm

So if we don’t care about sex, and we don’t care about appearance, what’s left? Why even have gender at all, let alone gendered bathrooms?

. . . and I think it’s a good question (well, the second part. The question about gender itself is a good question, but one for another thread). You never really answer it though, until you say:

the reason we have gender-segregated restrooms is because people would feel harmed by sharing the restrooms.

You seem to find the question really important (at least in the context of participating in this thread), and you finally threw out what you believe is the answer. I don’t buy it though, and I think it’s the sort of position that is wide open for factual analysis.

You make the assumptions that:

1. Gender-segregated bathrooms were invented to protect people from harm.
2. Gender-segregated bathrooms currently protect people from harm.
3. Cultural/legal mandates regarding actions and access segregated by genetalia type ultimately protects people from harm (see #1 and #2)

Well, these things are not as obviously right as your dismissive response indicates you think they are. Show some intellectual/philosophical rigor. Analyze and question your assumptions. Maybe you’ll find an even stronger place from which to support them, or maybe you’ll learn something you didn’t already know. Maybe you’ll change your mind. Maybe not. But don’t piss into the wind. You’re half way there; you’re asking real questions. Be open to exploring possible answers.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@Czarcasm

Are you proud of yourself?

Why are you JAQing off?

[lance_strongarm]

@iiandyiiii

If there were no other reasons at all, then no, I don’t think that’s enough of 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;

That argument also leads to recognizing polyamorous marriage.

giving these rights to same-sex couples causes no harm;

That argument also leads to recognizing polyamorous marriage.

and same-sex couples with or without children are harmed by barring them these rights.

That argument also leads to recognizing polyamorous marriage.

[lance_strongarm]

@Eonwe

Well, these things are not as obviously right as your dismissive response indicates you think they are. Show some intellectual/philosophical rigor. Analyze and question your assumptions. Maybe you’ll find an even stronger place from which to support them, or maybe you’ll learn something you didn’t already know. Maybe you’ll change your mind. Maybe not. But don’t piss into the wind. You’re half way there; you’re asking real questions. Be open to exploring possible answers.

Harm means anything that someone doesn’t like but can’t avoid. Whatever the specific reasons people don’t want to go to the bathroom with members of the same sex, to deny them that is to cause them harm.

[crowmanyclouds]

@lance_strongarm

Harm means anything that someone doesn’t like but can’t avoid. Whatever the specific reasons people don’t want to go to the bathroom with members of the same sex, to deny them that is to cause them harm.

What is your solution to this “problem”?

CMC fnord!

[lance_strongarm]

@iiandyiiii

I don’t believe this. I don’t believe most people have a standard at all.

OF COURSE we do.

Are you actually saying nobody cares which bathroom they go into and who else is in it?

We don’t need any standard, and we never did, since most people needed no coercion to use the appropriate restroom.

Appropriate? So they think there’s an appropriate restroom? You just said people have no standard.

I’m talking about people’s preferences here and the strong social pressure that goes with it. Again, try going in a women’s room and see what I’m talking about.

[lance_strongarm]

@crowmanyclouds

What is your solution to this “problem”?

CMC fnord!

I don’t think it’s a problem yet. But the solution, which is inevitable anyway, is getting rid of gendered bathrooms, and replacing them with more private, single-use ones.

And for those of you who like to read for kneejerking rather than comprehension - no we are not discussing transgender use of restrooms alone - that is not the problem we are discussing.

[lance_strongarm]

@iiandyiiii

Gender is what someone identifies as. What part of this is so difficult for you? I’ve repeated it over and over again. There exists the possibility that you won’t know by looking at someone, but that already existed. There’s nothing new with that possibility.

And I’ve said over and over that I already know that - and the POINT is that if one can’t tell which gender someone is - because one can’t read a person’s mind - then what’s the point of, or the possibility of, segregating restrooms by gender any more?

People prefer to use the “right” restroom because of their own feelings and preferences. Men don’t feel comfortable if there’s no men’s room, and women don’t feel comfortable if there’s no ladies room.

I use the men’s room because I would feel weird about using the ladies room. Yes, I don’t want others to feel uncomfortable, but that’s just part of it.

WHY though? Does it weird you out to be around women? Does it weird you out that they might be weirded out? Do you just do it because that’s the way you’ve always done it?

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

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.

Yes - except for the stuff about robots and clones.

[lance_strongarm]

@iiandyiiii

I just need a few more posts. I’m so close to making him understand, I swear!

I was just about to say the exact same thing.

[iiandyiiii]

@lance_strongarm

That argument also leads to recognizing polyamorous marriage.

That argument also leads to recognizing polyamorous marriage.

That argument also leads to recognizing polyamorous marriage.

Says you, but I’m not convinced.

[74westy]

@lance_strongarm

And for those of you who like to read for kneejerking rather than comprehension - no we are not discussing transgender use of restrooms alone - that is not the problem we are discussing.

The title of the thread is ‘I pit the people behind anti-transgender “bathroom bills”’.

[iiandyiiii]

@lance_strongarm

OF COURSE we do.

Are you actually saying nobody cares which bathroom they go into and who else is in it?

Appropriate? So they think there’s an appropriate restroom? You just said people have no standard.

I’m talking about people’s preferences here and the strong social pressure that goes with it. Again, try going in a women’s room and see what I’m talking about.

You say of course, but that’s your opinion. Consider challenging your own assumptions. I might really disagree, and if so, it might be the root of our disagreement.

Appropriate refers to the context of the convention.