I knew I could rely on you to draw the wrong conclusion. Thanks for not disappointing.
:dubious:
[QUOTE=Manson1972]
As far as I can tell, you are stating you simply look at a person, and if that person looks like what you would call a typical man, then that person is a male? Same for a female? Regardless of their biological sex and gender identity? Simply how they dress and cut their hair tells you if they are male or female?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=QuickSilver]
See, I knew you could figure out the answer.
[/QUOTE]
Did we just vehemently agree?
Allow me to recap my position, Manson1972.
For ~95% of the population, bathroom/locker use by gender is in line with their biological gender identity and there does not seem to be a compelling need to change the established standards in our society. (I assume we’re done playing the ‘guess that gender game’.)
For the remaining ~5% of the population that identifies as trans or some other non-conventional gender identity, bathrooms/locker room choice should be left to their own discretion and they should be permitted to make that choice without prejudice or risk to personal safety.
Perverts, trying to be clever dicks by taking advantage of these norms in order to victimize others, ought to be tarred and feathered in public.
I’m pretty sure not. I would ask you what you think we agree upon, but I’m sure you wouldn’t answer, or would want me to supply YOUR answer for you, so I’m going to pass.
What is biological gender identity? Is that some new term you made up? Biological sex is completely different from gender identity. I didn’t know we could combine them into one gigantic pot of sexender or gendex.
The compelling need is saving money by only printing one “Restroom” sign, instead of two different signs. Think of the cash savings!! Oh, and there wouldn’t be an uproar from morons who say “That person can’t use that bathroom because they are (something)” Everyone will just use the same bathroom.
I’m not the one who said I could tell a male from a female simply by looking at their clothes and hair. YOU said you could do that.
Sorry, people don’t get a CHOICE. If someone identifies as female, then they use the women’s restroom. If they identify as a male, then they use the men’s room. No choice involved.
Hey, we DO agree on something!
Nope, sorry. Back to not being able to understand it for you.
Bye, Felicia.
AWWW! And here I thought we were bonding over our mutual love of tar and feathering perverts 
Bye! *waves
And the only problem is that virtually nobody wants this solution, which means it has zero chance of passing now.
If you want to advocate for it as a long-term solution to the problem, I double pinky swear I won’t stand in your way. But there’s no chance it’s going to happen within the next six months, and we need a solution for the next six months.
My solution–MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS IN THE BATHROOM AND LOCKER ROOM–works perfectly well, and is pretty close to what’s already in practice. If someone’s not minding their own damn business, they’re the ones who need to change their behavior.
There’s one possible change, that I think is fair, and also obvious: if you’re in a locker room or bathroom and are visibly aroused, you need to cover that shit up and get out of there. It doesn’t matter what your gender identity is, or whether you’re cis or trans: locker rooms are not places for visible arousal, even if you are minding your own damn business.
Lots of people want this now. Many colleges and universities are switching to unisex bathrooms already. What is there to pass? Places can just start DOING it, that’s what’s great about it. Simply switch 2 signs with a single sign that says “Bathroom” It would be kind of hard for some dummy to call the cops because a transgender woman was going into the women’s room, when there is no women’s room.
I’ve honestly never heard of this as a problem. If there haven’t been any issues with gay people being visibly aroused, I doubt there is going to be one with transgender people.
If you’re saying that some places do it, of course. If you’re proposing it as a universal solution, nope, not happening in the short term. Plenty of places do it, yes–but trans people need a way to pee in all the places. Waiting for voluntary adoption of unisex bathrooms isn’t going to fix the short-term problem.
Totally agree. This is one of those creepy things put forth by anti-trans folk–see Slacker’s posts about his own imaginary tumescence in an imaginary unisex locker room, for example. It’s not a real problem, but if it were, the solution would be simple, as I suggested.
It is difficult to keep the political issues out of this, but I am interested in some thoughts:
-
Is there a legal or a constitutional problem with gender segregated restrooms? I would think not since they have been around forever with no thought that there was an issue and that they are unlike black/white water fountains as there is no thought that it is intended as a detriment to either gender.
-
Is the proposal that I as a biological male may use the women’s room, even if I do not self-identify as a woman?
-
If the answer to #2 is “No. You must self-identify with the appropriate gender to use that particular restroom. IOW, to use the men’s room, you must identify as male, and to use the women’s room, you must identify as female,” then doesn’t that make the restriction in #2 pretty silly? Even if I am a biological male who identifies as male and wants to use the women’s room, all I have to do is lie and declare that I identify as female and I can do exactly the same thing as in #2. There is no point to making that policy.
-
If #2 is allowed, then it makes the gender segregated restrooms in #1 pointless as men can easily use the women’s room and vice versa.
Is this whole think simply a desire to eliminate gender segregated restrooms?
There is a mild one, having to do with equal access. There have been lawsuits against stadiums and auditoriums and the like, when women’s rooms have had long lines, but men’s rooms haven’t. Merely having the same number of rooms isn’t enough, and even having the same number of stations isn’t enough.
In cases where the lines have been very long, women have chosen to invade the men’s rooms. True need might serve as a defense. If the men’s toilet is broken, would society prefer you to use the women’s room…or to pee on the floor?
However, to answer the question, no, that isn’t the proposal.
No. Self identification goes beyond a simple spur-of-the-moment declaration. It is a life-choice, and is recorded legally. You can’t “lie” about it, any more than you can lie about your age to get a senior discount at a restaurant. (Which is to say, sure, you can, it’s easy enough, but there are legal liabilities if you do it and get caught.)
This may end up being the result. By and large, it shouldn’t matter a whole hell of a lot. Piss and shit are something both sexes have to do, and there are very, very few sex-linked factors, other than the purely mechanical. Penises enable some of us to pee standing up. Big deal.
(Seriously: when is the last time you, as a man, actually saw another man’s penis in a public bathroom? I honestly cannot think of ever seeing one. Urinals have privacy screens.)
Is it true that one’s self identification is “recorded legally”? If so, then I don’t think we have much of a disagreement. I thought that those on the left fought heavily against this being any sort of requirement. No surgery, no written declarations, nothing but an oral declaration entitled a 16 year old boy to go shower with the girls.
And again, I am not talking about a truly transgendered person who is born male, but self identifies as female. I am talking about a smartass little punk who is born male and identifies as male, but is screwing with the system to watch the girls shower.
Even if it doesn’t need to be legally recorded, there’s is virtually no way a smartass punk is going to get away with it. Everyone knows who the smartass punks are. It’s seems paranoid and irrational to assume society will suddenly be helpless and powerless to stop the smartass punks of the world.
“I’m a girl. Let me shower with the girls.”
“Nice try.”
That is how it will work until the first time an overzealous teacher stops a genuine transgendered person from entering the locker room. Then after the 1983 suit settles, the school district will adopt a new policy requiring “no questions asked” admission and liberal indoctrination-er “sensitivity” training for all staff.
The teacher would probably know it was a trans girl. She’d refuse entry because she believes trans girls shouldn’t shower with girls, and perhaps that’s school policy. I don’t think it would be a mistake. The parents, teachers and school should know which kids are transgendered. The odds that the very first time the kid decided to invoke their girl rights would be trying to enter the opposite sex shower room seem remote.
If it’s just a mistake, there’s no reason to pass new policies.
This is something parents, schools and society need to battle out, but I don’t see this particular scenario really happening or leading to knee jerk “no questions asked” policies.
In schools, it certainly is. The kid doesn’t just make a personal decision at any given moment; there’s counseling, paperwork, and formal registration. There’s also almost always formal medical recommendation. You don’t get this far without a doctor backing you up.
I’m astonished anyone still doesn’t understand this.
In what way does any of this counseling, paperwork, etc. mean that this fact is “recorded legally”?
Are counseling records filed with the County Clerk, for example? Is a “formal medical recommendation” required before a biological boy can enter the girls’ locker room? Is there an appeal process if the school does not agree with the medical recommendation?
So if the kid bullshits one doctor off the internet, then that is it?
Where did you legally register your gender identity (and not sex)?
And I thought those on the right have fought continuously against a 16-year-old having surgery, going on hormones, or even having counseling. If one takes away those remedies, then one is left with a simple truthful and factual statement of gender identity. It’s a common Republican circle-jerk argument in fact: “we refuse to allow or fund or support diagnostic and treatment methods for transgender persons, but insist they’ve had them before we recognize their gender identity.” :smack:
:rolleyes:
The process of identifying as a transgender person has been outlined in excruciating detail by myself several times on this message board, and you can also find numerous examples with Google.
Where does one legally register to be handicapped? Or African-American? Or Jewish? There are all sorts of times these things are asked on legal forms, such as employment, education, and government assistance documents. And yet, somehow we get along without a giant Big Government database of everyone registering every aspect about themselves.
And aren’t those on the right supposed to be against that sort of thing? They certainly are against gun registration in any form, but a transgender kid needs to register, because she or he is obviously much more dangerous than an AR-15… 
Or is the answer simply that those on the right who demand transgender persons register themselves somehow are just bigots who think the kids are icky?