Pointing out that you made a statement indicating that you wish to engage in predatory behavior is not an ad hominem argument. It’s analyzing part of your direct contribution to the discussion, and is not being used to invalidate any particular point that you’ve made. Complaining that I’m being ‘hyper literal’ or ‘deliberately offensive’ for discussing the words you chose to write in this thread is pretty blatantly absurd.
I’d like a cite for someone making that claim. I certainly never claimed that ‘to see a woman nude under false pretenses’ is a crime, and I don’t think anyone else did either. Taking a specific claim and making it overly general, then asking for a cite supporting the overgenarlization is not honest argument.
There are no laws requiring people to reveal their medical history, so no it’s not criminal, or even unethical, and ‘not revealing medical history when not even asked’ is vastly different than telling an outright lie. OTOH, the trans people that I know will in no way get physically intimate with someone who doesn’t know that they are trans, because it’s likely to result in them being killed and the murdered being allowed to get away scott-free with a ‘trans panic’ defense.
Do you have any kind of cite about the frequency of trans people having sex with others who are unaware of their trans status? And no, the various rap songs where the singer discusses being tricked by a ‘guy dressed as a woman’ aren’t an actual cite.
I don’t have much issue with people peeing where or when they need. I’ve had to pee on the side of a building before. I’ve peed in the ladies room. I had to share a stall with a strange woman at a Lilith Fair concert. She wanted to save her spot in the men’s room because the women to men ratio was so skewed they stampeded into our bathroom. Don’t really care.
But what exactly are the criteria to have a gender identity? Is it merely a statement?
Part of the problem is precisely that the definition of “biological sex” isn’t as cut and dried as we thought before we discovered hormones and DNA. Look up “intersex”, “androgen insensitivity”, “trisomy”. The spontaneously-grown groin parts don’t always match the DNA, and both have more than the two options we’re used to assuming.
Nothing noteworthy would happen. What do you think would happen in that situation?
How do you think these things have been handled up until now? Do you think trans people just started to exist as the Republicans started passing these new laws? You’ve just never noticed anything about this issue until your party told you to be afraid and creeped out by it. You’ve probably pissed in the same room as a trans person and never even realized it. But now you’re all weirded out all of a sudden. You should ask yourself why that is? Why is this an issue for you now all of a sudden when it never has been before?
Biology is a very “shades-of-gray” subject, however sex is one of the most “black-and-white” things there is in biology due to DNA and sexual dimorphism. Of course “shades-of-gray” creeps into biology and you can have individuals with DNA that is not distinctly of one sex or individuals with the DNA of one sex, but the morphology of the other sex.
However even when shades of gray exist, it doesn’t stop the black and white existing too. Biological sex is still something easily definable, though still, in the sense that a transgender individual may alter their morphology to appear superficially similar to one sex or that there is some evidence that gender-identity may be caused by the morphology of certain structures in the brain, transgenderism touches on the shades of gray. However I think it would be disingenuous to believe that transgenderism confounds biological notions of sex in the same way as XXY-syndrome (for example) does.
It could be said to be unhelpful as it is looking at people through the same lens with which we might view mice in a laboratory rather than viewing them as human beings. However I don’t think there are any great arguments that it is factually incorrect.
For the record, when a Danish physician came to the 4077 and told Klinger that he could go to Denmark and have a “sex change”, Klinger IIRC expresses a transphobic comment. Meaning…about as much as whatever point you’re trying to make, which escapes me completely.
Moving the goalposts. I never said anything about all rules, jokes, and comments - or such in general.
Being a frequenter of every gay, lesbian, LGBTQIA, etc. bar in the KC area, I can tell you…pretty much nothing happens. Crossdressers (who are cisgender men dressed female) use the bathroom they present as. I cannot even count the number of times it’s happened and I’ve been present. The worst I’ve seen happen is a group of other lesbians roll their eyes and say things to the effect of “as long as he knows the sink isn’t a urinal.”
Now if this man dressed as a woman goes into the women’s room and starts propositioning women, or harassing them? Yeah, I’ve seen it once or twice with a really drunk crossdresser. The bouncer/manager goes in and gets them, and out they go. That’s how the system should work.
(the same thing happened with my friend S, a cisgender butch lesbian who got outrageously drunk one night and went into the men’s room (dressed male), and started harassing men.)
So my responding critically and factually to things that you write is ‘personal attacks’, but you claiming that I have a creepy obsession for replying to posts where you mention me by name isn’t? I think the amount of real argument is pretty clear.
I might be wrong, but to me I’d guess that the risk of a transwoman in a men’s restroom being assaulted (sexual or otherwise) represents by far the greater risk than any of the other public safety risks combined.
I’m not entirely sure. When I think of me (a boring ole white guy with a penis who likes the nekkid women), I suppose that my gender identity began from birth, with lots of variables gearing me towards my gender expression. I suppose it’s the same for most people.
But even if it’s not something ingrained since birth, so what? Even if it’s a person’s first day switching genders, does it matter, presuming they are sincere? I think, amongst the rancor, that’s what people are getting at - a person with a sincere gender identity is not going to create a scene when they use facilities relating to that gender. Instead, they’ll blend in and be innocuous. And a person who doesn’t blend in (such as a voyeur) is going to be called out. It’s not genitalia that’s the determinate of whether the person belongs there; it’s how they act.
Of course not. As this is something anyone trying to seriously debate this issue ought to have done their legwork on, I can only assume the question is rhetorical or argumentative.
This is exactly what i would expect. If a straight cisgender man, dressed as a woman, walked into the ladies room, peed into a toilet, washed his hands, and left, what problem would be be causing?
And if a man wants to assault women in the ladies room, i don’t know why he would bother to wear a dress.
(Bolding mine) - So you are actually against the type of law under discussion? After all, that handsome dude was assigned female at birth. So you agree that he should use the bathroom of his gender identity, not that of assigned birth?
And btw, as a woman, your “joke” that you would happily don a disguise in order to violate the privacy of women, because we are easier on the eyes? Gross.
I’m not a fan of laws that are going to make life harder for people unnecessarily. I do think issues arise in sports and other fields where being one gender has a huge advantage either due to nature or discriminatory policy. Men pee in troughs at some facilities and many facilities have no privacy in the communal shower. It wouldn’t bother me. I’m not a prude and I don’t have a problem showering with the women folk, the men folk (not my first preference sorry sensitive flowers) or if there is a category I’m unaware of those as well. But who am I to dictate to others their comfort levels? That’s a level of arrogance I’ll reserve for the left.
