Why not? People were mellow about it five years ago, and ten years ago, and twenty years ago.
It’s not like transgender people started having to pee just within the past couple years.
Or, at least, the legislative halls and governor’s mansion.
Sigh. Not talking about having to pee. Yes, most are already sanguine about that. It’s cases like the high school locker room in Missouri that are a new development, and a political danger.
Okay, you’re no longer reminding me of the people who tried to draw a bright line between their anti-ssm rhetoric and anti-miscegenation rhetoric.
Yours IS not like that.
At least the anti-miscegenation folks gave a reason for the bright line they tried to draw. You? Not so much. I’m supposed to take it on faith.
Sadly, I am a creature of little faith, and won’t do so.
People changed attitudes toward SSM very very quickly. I suspect attitudes will change about trans folk more slowly, but not much more slowly. WHat evidence do you have that attitudes won’t change?
And you continue to offer only “solutions” that are completely unworkable. I’m not sure whether you realize that they’re unworkable and offer them as some sort of social commentary, or whether you have a magic wand you can wave that will remodel all locker rooms, or what’s going on with you.
This is disingenuous. In a preponderance of cases, you can tell with a very high degree of certainty who is male and who is female for standard definitions of same. What we’re discussing is making exceptions to the rule for those who demonstrate through usually extra-ordinary means of personal conduct (the trans-gendered). And it is not a frequently occurring exception, and often not even detectable under most circumstances (given the tendency for modesty of the overwhelming majority of the population, cis & trans alike). Thus, suggesting as you do, that we abandon gender based segregation of public facilities for ALL because we can’t with absolute certainty identify the gender of those for whom we make this exceptions, is not reasonable.
Alternatively, we do so to provide a clear moral compass for the pervs thus making it more difficult for them to hide in plain sight.
Are you concerned about the politics, and that’s it? That’s a pretty different discussion than worries about men sneaking into ladies’ rooms (which, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, is equally possible whether locker rooms are trans-friendly or anti-trans).
What standard definition of “male” and “female” are you using? And how can you tell this simply by looking at them?
Here are a couple are articles about people, places, and institutions that DO think it is reasonable:
Gradually abandoning gender-segregated public facilities is reasonable. Trying to convince everyone at once to immediately abandon them is unrealistic, and significantly harder to implement than codifying protection for transgender people. Tying the two together only serves to increase the difficulty of making progress.
This is the Elections board, is it not?
Two different sets of definitions:
- XY vs. XX chromosomal sets. Most humans have one or the other. Test 1,000 random human adults for which set they have. Show me a picture of them dressed as they dress on a typical day. I predict that I can identify them as male or female, defined by their chromosomal sets, with greater than 95% accuracy.
- Self-identification. Most humans identify as male or female. Ask 1,000 random human adults what their gender identity is. Show me a picture of them dressed as they dress on a typical day. I predict that I can identify them as male or female, defined by their self-professed gender identity, with greater than 95% accuracy.
Do you doubt either of these?
I’m not really sure what the relevance of this is, but surely we can all agree that human gender is a real thing; that most people fall into one of two binary camps, however you define those camps (genetically or gender identity); and that most people can visually recognize which of those two camps most other people fall into.
Some people of course don’t fall into one of those two camps. Some people do, but are hard to pinpoint (e.g., me as a teenager: identified male, but was misidentified all the time). Some people fall into one camp genetically and another by self-identification. But the vast majority of people fall into the same camp no matter what definition is used, and visually appear to fall into that camp.
So, LHOD, you’re saying people should just use the facility that most people would assign them based on appearance?
I don’t, no. But I was asking QuickSilver, who said:
I wanted to know what standard definitions he meant and how he could tell who is male and who is female simply by looking at them.
And what percentage of people, do you think, fall into the same camp no matter what definition is used?
Of the two definitions I used? I don’t have an exact number, but it’s somewhere between 95% and 99.9%, or else I’m vastly mistaken. If you seriously mean “no matter what defintion is used,” the answer is 0%, of course.
No, but I do like pizza.
Sorry, I had some sort of point to this question, but I can’t remember it, so disregard 
Is this a meme I’m unfamiliar with? An inside joke? Or just a random non sequitur?
Oh, I’m sorry, I thought we were playing non sequiturs, given how completely unrelated your post was to the post you responded to. Did you mean to post something relevant and posted accidentally something that had nothing to do with what I said?
Ha, you’re a funny, funny guy. Maybe you can explain why you *did *submit for all of us to read a detailed treatise on how recognizable gender is visually. Because if it’s not for the reason I asked, which you dismissed as a non sequitur (bizarrely, given the subject of this thread), then I have no earthly clue what you were getting at.
I take you at your word that you have no earthly clue what I was getting at. Next time, instead of coming up with an attempted paraphrase that you surely knew was inaccurate, how about asking for clarification?