Couldn’t one say the same thing about allowing transgenders to use bathrooms corresponding with their gender though?
[/QUOTE]
This is the part where you seem to be out of touch with reality.
MOST people out there would say it’s very very wrong for me to use the women’s room, and would become very angry about it. Even if I’m not using it for lewd purposes.
That’s the fact on the ground. Whether I should have a right to isn’t the issue - I don’t think I have a right to. I’m just trying to get you to see that our culture strongly values having two bathrooms, and just dismissing those feelings doesn’t work.
How does that apply to privacy though? A feeling of not wanting certain people of a certain sex (or maybe other characteristics) to see me naked in a locker room isn’t reflective of any hatred for those people.
Most people would say that causing discomfort IS harm.
So you think there are some times where feeling uncomfortable around a transgender person in the bathroom who is simply using the bathroom for its intended purpose is NOT bigotry?
Sure – that falls into that nuance I mentioned. And I’ll say again that I don’t really care that much about personal feelings – it’s actions that matter much more to me. Bigoted feelings aren’t illegal and shouldn’t be illegal; bigoted actions like discrimination sometimes should be.
I can’t think of a reason to want to exclude all transgender people from a restroom that’s not bigotry, but I can think of reasons someone might want to exclude a particular transgender person (for a myriad of reasons other than their trans status).
But feelings can’t and shouldn’t drive policy – I’m answering questions about feelings because I generally try to answer questions, but these opinions about feelings don’t affect my position on this issue, which is about actions and harm, not about feelings.
Absolutely – maybe the transgender person reeks, or they are playing with a firearm, or they are on fire, or they have a bleeding compound fracture, or they have an Alien coming out of their chest, or any number of non-bigoted reasons someone might have to not feel comfortable around them.
What about feelings about privacy and gender? Do those not matter to you? Again, talking about gendered restrooms.
It’s absurd to talk about this if you make up your own distinctions and say you only care about one. You can’t just declare that some people’s feelings or beliefs don’t matter because you don’t define overriding them as “harm.”
You declare that all desires to not be in a bathroom with a transgender person of the same gender is automatically bigotry, but not wanting to be in a bathroom with a person of the opposite gender is not bigotry, because you say so.
Just because YOU can’t think of one doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
We’re going in circles because you won’t face the issue. Feelings are the only reason people dont’ want to share restrooms - or locker rooms - with the opposite sex/gender. Yet you won’t acknowledge that there is a de facto policy against using the restroom of the opposite sex. You know most people wouldn’t accept it if someone violated that policy. It’s absurd to pretend that most people wouldn’t care if we abolished gendered restrooms. You keep dancing around it, because it forces you to acknowledge that people have feelings, they matter, and they aren’t necessarily based on hate or bigotry.
Again, most people would define a violation of their feelings on this - their privacy - as harm. Again, stop denying that.
In terms of law? No, not really. I don’t believe the law should be stepping into bathrooms unless people are being assaulted (which fits for the transgender access issue) or behaving lewdly.
Sure I can – this is all about opinion and judgment. In my judgment, one group has actually demonstrated harm, and one group has not. I’m not concerned about mere discomfort, in terms of law and policy – I’m concerned about harm. I understand that some people might disagree on what constitutes harm.
What I “declare” holds exactly as much legal weight as what a fish declares. People ask for my feelings and opinions and I answer. This isn’t exactly what I said, but since it’s irrelevant to my feelings on the NC law and other laws regarding transgender bathroom access, I don’t care to put forward the effort to contest it.
If you want anyone else to be convinced by you, you need to do better. If you’re just here to give arbitrary opinions without rational backing, you’re not really doing any better than the other side.
I’m done. I thank you for putting up with my aggressive style and persistence and being polite in return.
Indeed – I’m open to that possibility, just as I’m open to the possibility that there’s a non-bigoted reason to exclude all black people or Jews. I doubt it, but I’m listening if anyone can present one.
When have I said feelings weren’t the driver of gendered restrooms? Yes, they are. Most people prefer them – I’ve said that many times. Preference is a feeling. And I’ve said many times that most people would oppose abolishing gendered restrooms.
Most of what you say in the above paragraph about my position is entirely wrong, and often the opposite of what I’ve said many times.
Sure, feelings about violating one’s privacy… but that’s not what I was asked. The question was much broader than just feelings of privacy.
What a shame. I think what’s frustrating you most is that you keep getting my position wrong. Perhaps I’m not communicating it perfectly, but it’s no surprise that it’s going to be frustrating if you keep assuming I believe the opposite of what I’ve actually said.
Things aren’t perfect now and never will be perfect. You don’t change things based on the mere fact that they’re not currently perfect. You change them based on the projection that the change will make them more perfect than they are now. If changing them will be more perfect for one group and less perfect for another, then you need to weigh the different harms in balance.
Being free from slavery involves an inherent human right. Owning a slave involves a practical benefit. An inherent human right trumps a practical benefit.
By contrast, in the case of bathrooms - and this was the main point of my initial post here - it’s mostly just “discomfort” on both sides of the equation.
It starts off the other way. You need to show that it’s not. (FWIW, in my initial post here, I suggested it might be a bit different.)
As above, it’s different when it’s rights versus practical benefit as compared to when it’s practical benefit versus practical benefit.