This kind of reminds me of myself, several years ago (a decade ago, maybe?)
I believed, and still believe, that the ideal status for marriage in the US would be for the government to get out of it entirely, instead offering civil unions to any two unattached adults that asked for one. I don’t figure the government ought to be giving social approval to any particular coupling, and I think there are some people (e.g., an adult child caring for an indigent parent) who might benefit from the legal rights granted by this legal status, and the whole thing felt and feels cleaner to me.
So whenever there was a thread about same-sex marriage, I’d join it making my arguments for why civil union for all would be preferable to extending marriage to same-sex couples. I did this a fair amount.
Then someone pointed out I was being a dick. Yes, yes, I had my reasons–but popping into every SSM thread to rehash them was hijacking those threads, was making it difficult for folks to have other discussions. Someone suggested that if I wanted to discuss my reasons for preferring civil unions to marriage for everyone, I do it in my own goddamned thread.
That’s what I did. I stopped hijacking SSM threads with my peculiar beliefs. Everyone benefited.
It seems to me that you’re arguing simply for the status quo, which is fine, except that the status quo changes all the time. Why be disproportionately tougher on SJWs if, in a few years, they’ll change the status quo. Would you then accept their version of society without question, arguing that one shouldn’t impose new changes? That, to me, is the biggest problem with your logic.
Imposing on others isn’t necessarily bad. Lots of good, fair, and just things had to be imposed on the American people. Why single out SJWs for imposing on others when at one point, America needed to get rid of anti-miscegenation laws or slavery? That’s where my logic comes from, if imposing has been good in the past, then how can you say we should stop now? My best is doing what I can to make sure trans people can use the bathroom they want and I want to impose it, just as I would have wanted to remove barriers to voting for women or create laws protecting kids from having to work. Imposing things on people is not bad
So what gives you the moral high ground to say “This far, no further”? Why not let SJWs further change social constructs? Why not help them? Is it simply because you personally don’t agree with them?
Here’s the problem. The cis people who are uncomfortable are uncomfortable with sharing a bathroom with ANY trans people regardless of their current gender presentation. They don’t want people who look like them but were assigned a different gender at birth to share their bathrooms but they also want to keep the appearance of gendered bathroom which means that they don’t want those who appear to be of the opposite gender to share their bathrooms. Since their discomfort of necessity bars transgender persons from using any gendered bathroom, it is clear that accommodating this discomfort crosses the line into infringing on the rights of the transgendered and therefore their wishes cannot be accommodated with posing an undue burden on the transgendered.
Slavery is a moral wrong. The rights of people to be free of slavery outweigh the desire of other people to own them. In this case it seems like two concerns that are roughly comparable, for the most part.
If they can change it by persuading people, all the merrier. The question here is whether the government should get involved and force other people to change one set of social constructs in favor of a different set of social constructs that this group prefers.
That would mean that fear of assault is not a determining factor in which bathroom they use, since that could happen either way.
Which is contrary to the position that you and others have been arguing in this thread.
Says you. (I’m talking about harm from using unisex restrooms, not just using them with transgender people).
Sure, but imagine this scenario: you actually live up to your beliefs that people have no right to demand (because they’ve failed to show harm) separate restrooms based on gender. You propose that men’s and women’s rooms be abolished and everyone use the same one. (I don’t know where transgender people end up in that scenario, but that’s your problem - you’re the one making this hypothetical proposal that I’m making up for you by putting words in your mouth :D).
So then somebody is threatened or assaulted in a restroom. Do you say “hey, we need to go back to gendered restrooms” or do you simply say “assault is wrong” and send the cops in? I mean, prevention of harm doesn’t always justify a policy. Plenty of white folks feared their kids would be harmed by busing them to black schools during desegregation, but that didn’t justify segregation.
Oh, come on, that one is too easy: transgender people aren’t denied the right to use a bathroom, just denied the use of the “wrong” one (based on sex). Just like everyone else. That’s parallel to the old “gays aren’t denied the right to marry, they just have to marry the opposite sex - the same right everyone else has.”
But if gendered bathrooms aren’t a right, as you said above, why couldn’t I use the women’s room? No woman has a right to use a bathroom without any males in it, right?
Absolutely. But that’s true outside of restrooms too. Are we going to have policies saying where transgender people can and can’t go based on fear of assault even outside of restrooms? Or other threatened people? And you’re treading a little too close to the claim that allowing transgender men in women’s rooms will open the door to pervs sneaking in.
The people who are making laws saying that transgender people MUST use the bathroom of their sex at birth don’t want transgender people to use bathrooms at all? Really?
If they were making laws banning transgender people from using any public restroom, you might have a point, but they aren’t.
Okay – I was responding to your claim of harm for using the bathroom with transgender people.
And yes, says me – this discussion is about opinions and judgment – and I hold that the claims of harm by transgender people are legitimate, while I haven’t heard any claims of harm from folks discomfited by using the bathroom with transgender people that have appeared to actually demonstrate harm, by my judgment.
What about you? Do you believe that they have legitimately demonstrated harm?
But segregation harmed folks demonstrably, and I haven’t yet seen how gendered bathrooms do.
I’m not sure how I can answer your hypothetical, since it’s a hypothetical version of myself that seems different enough to be incomprehensible to me.
By recent laws, they may just be denied one of the bathrooms, but in practice, by threats and violence, they have been denied use of any bathroom.
That’s the most important thing to overcome. After that, I don’t think the law should be involved (unless there is other sorts of bad behavior, like lewdness, or the return of threats or violence), but I think the societal expectation should be that people (transgender or not) will use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. This sounds like the best solution – the only ones who might be bothered or discomfited are those with bigotry against trans people.
You probably could – I don’t think the law should step in unless you act lewdly in some way. But in practice, you won’t, and neither will anyone else except perhaps an infinitesimal minority, who already could have used the ‘wrong’ bathroom, if they so chose, with minimal effort.
I don’t think I understand this – I’m pretty sure I haven’t advocated for restricting where someone goes. I operate under the assumption that virtually everyone wants (and needs no legal encouragement) to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. And I’m not any more worried about the pervs than I was before, since pervs perved in the past, with minimal effort, and I see no reason why they would be more likely to perv in the future with these new policies and practices.
I"m not sure. Like you, I feel the need to research it more and listen to them.
(I’m not saying their harm would outweigh the rights of transgender people though).
I’m talking about getting rid of gendered bathrooms. Would that cause harm?
And? Obviously they have a right to use one or the other bathroom. Nobody here disputes that.
But “societal expectation” is that transgender people use the restroom of their sex and not their gender! And suppose I want to defy it and use the women’s room - who is to say I’m wrong? Are the women who don’t like it bigots?
You’re STILL dodging. “In practice” we never had to worry about whether gays will want to marry or transgenders will want to use the “other” restroom either. But here we are.
Yes, and that’s you dodging. What if they don’t? All it takes is one man to want to use the women’s room and you have to finally answer my questions. And you can’t say it won’t happen, because as I noted, we now have gays getting married and transgender people using restrooms of their gender and nobody expected that either.
Not that I know of, but it would be so unpopular right now as to be unworkable. I don’t consider it particularly important because, in terms of harm, it seems to me that it’s six in one hand and a half-dozen in the other. I have no problem with unisex bathrooms, and they seem to work fine in the places I’ve personally seen them (which is really just Paris), but I don’t think they’re workable in the US right now, and I don’t see a reason to try and change people’s minds on this like I did on other things that, in the past, seemed unworkable.
I don’t think that’s the societal expectation of the past – I think it was “people shouldn’t be transgender” and “if they must, they shouldn’t be transgender in public”. Based on the rhetoric of those supporting the laws, I believe that the NC laws (and other recent state laws) are a push against the acknowledgement of trans people as actually being trans and people worthy of respect and dignity, rather than a push for people to use the bathrooms of their birth sex.
And if you want to use the ladies’ room because it corresponds to your gender, then you’re not wrong. If it’s for lewd purposes, then you are wrong. Women who don’t like transgender people using their bathroom are being bigoted, IMO, while women who don’t like people using the bathroom for lewd purposes are not being bigoted, IMO.
Here we are – and, unlike those past issues, I see no reason at this time to push to change minds and overcome something that seems unworkable.
No – I’ve always acknowledged the existence of pervs. I just don’t see pervs as a more significant issue for the present discussion than it was before the issue was considered by anyone.
The existence of some pervs who want to use the ‘wrong’ bathroom doesn’t change my position – they existed in the past, and will exist in the future, but since there’s no reason to believe that there are any more of them now than in the past, I see no reason to tailor my position now around them any more than I did in the past.
What about women who don’t like men using their bathrooms simply because they are men? Not acting lewd, or staring, or anything other than simply using the bathroom for its intended purpose. Are those women bigoted?
Really, so a woman being uncomfortable being in the same bathroom with a gender-typical, straight man who is simply using the bathroom is NOT bigoted? Would you mind explaining how you arrive at this decision?
Additionally, a transgender man is “someone whose gender identity is male” isn’t it? So you are saying there is a possibility that a woman being uncomfortable in a bathroom with a transgender man is NOT bigoted?
I think I could try to explain why I feel that something is bigoted, but I’m not sure how I can explain why I feel that something is not. In my opinion, I’m not sure if this meets the criteria for bigotry, as I understand it.
In the larger issue, I’m not particularly concerned about feelings of discomfort – I’m concerned about actual harm… things like threats, violence, and the like.
In general, dislike or other negative feelings towards a person because of a characteristic that has no affect on you or anyone close to you. But that’s just in general – there might be a ton of nuance and individual variations that I don’t have time nor inclination to get into right now.
I’m not nearly as interested in feelings like discomfort (and even whether these feelings are bigotry or not) as I am on actual harm, so I probably won’t put much effort into this sideline discussion.
Unsurprising, since I find it unlikely you can show that feeling uncomfortable using a bathroom with a transgender man is bigotry while simultaneously trying to show that feeling uncomfortable using a bathroom with a gender-typical man is NOT bigotry.
So that begs a different question: what’s so great about the status quo that you don’t want to change it? Do you believe things are perfect now and we don’t need any more civil rights for anyone, and that we should just freeze all rights to what it is now?
Explain the logic behind why the desire to be free from slavery outweighs the desire of others to own them. Earlier you mentioned that giving transgendered people access to the bathroom of their choice was wrong because they are a tiny minority. What if the vast majority of people want to own a tiny minority, let’s say native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders (being one of the smallest demographics in the US)?
Also, what logic or evidence do you have to say that the desire of transgendered people to use a bathroom of their choice is comparable to those who don’t want them to use it.
But again, government imposes all the time. Like above, you said slavery was a moral wrong, seemingly using that as the criteria to justify eliminating it. Freeing the slaves was imposed by government. So was getting rid of miscegenation laws. In fact, Loving v. Virginia happened when only atiny fraction of the people supported interracial marriage. The government imposed this on the majority of an unwilling population. So if you’re for the ban on slavery, or for getting rid of anti-interracial laws, how can you also be against imposing transgender access bathrooms?
Your view also begs another question. Are you only ok with laws where the majority agrees on, no matter how justified? Except slavery I suppose, you make an exception to that.
