Silly, only certain people get to have comfort levels that we need to acknowledge!
CMC fnord!
Yeah, I realize it. So? It’s a democracy and those people have a right to their opinion and to enact law. Democracy doesn’t mean popular rule only when it suits your particular point of view. I explained my point of view. Others feel different. Is that not their right?
Thanks, your reply was much better than Airbeck’s.
So . . . Everyone minded their own business unless someone started harassing people?
What a novel idea! :rolleyes:
As has already been explained to you, nobody cares what your showering preferences are, as long as the people you’re showering with have consented to shower with you.
When you brag about being willing to pretend to be a transwoman in order to deceive unconsenting women into showering with you, that’s when you start taking some heat for it. It’s not just “sensitive flowers” who don’t like sex offenders.
Nah, it’s the conservatives in this case who are dictating the comfort levels of others. We liberals are simply standing up for the rights of transgender people to use the facilities appropriate to the gender they identify with. Comfort and discomfort are irrelevant in this situation. Respect for human rights should not be dependent on what your “comfort level” is.
Fascinating point of view. It requires consent of the others for the presence to be legit? So a democratically enacted bill that basically states consent ain’t giving for these particular people is illegitimate in what way? Remember consent is what makes it legitimate according to you.
Legal fact.
[QUOTE=octopus]
It requires consent of the others for the presence to be legit?
[/quote]
It requires consent of others for sexual activities to be legit. People who use gendered facilities such as locker-room showers for their intended purpose (in this case, washing themselves) are implicitly consenting to share those facilities with other persons of their gender also using the facilities for their intended purpose. But they are not thereby giving consent to being ogled or surreptitiously touched or recorded, etc., for sexual purposes in those facilities.
This holds true whether the sexual offender is a man in disguise, a transwoman, a lesbian, etc. (and similarly for disguised women, gay men, etc., committing criminal acts of voyeurism or other sexual offenses in men’s showers).
Because the bill is illegitimately denying transgender people the right to use such facilities even for their intended purposes, as opposed to sexual purposes.
You do not have to get other occupants’ explicit consent before using facilities appropriate to your gender for their intended purposes. But you do have to obtain consent before involving other people in your sexual activities, no matter where you happen to be.
Your combination of ignorance and faulty logic apparently made you believe for a moment that you had some kind of “gotcha” going there, but you were, as usual, wrong.
Illegitimate according to whom? Do we or do we not live in a republic? I don’t know about you but I don’t consider looking at a woman a sexual offense. Sorry that I don’t subscribe to the preposterous idea of “eye rape.”
Do you consider misrepresenting your gender identity by disguising yourself as a woman to deceive women into sharing a women’s shower facility with you, so you can ogle them naked without their consent, to be a sexual offense?
Hint: It is.
Your personal opinion about whether it is or not doesn’t matter, of course. But it would probably be prudent for you to figure out what actually does count as a sexual offense and what doesn’t, before you act on your expressed willingness to “wear a dress to shower with the ladies” in order to enjoy looking at them naked without their consent. Which is, as we keep having to explain to you, a sexual offense.
Now, do you need still more help with that concept, or can we return to the separate issue of whether it’s illegitimate to deny transgender people the right to use the facilities of the gender they identify with for their intended purposes?
Please note that such use is different from using such facilities for sexual purposes like ogling other users without their consent (which is, in case you need reminding again, illegal).
Here is a recent blog post from a non-gender conforming woman about her very real fears for her personal safety:
https://emilycheath.com/2016/04/27/on-restrooms-gender-and-fear/
Just how many people are we talking about here?
And yet you defend deception for the actual act of sex which is a bit more personal than a mere glance. That good ol’ liberal hypocrisy again.
How many of what people? Do you mean, what’s the percentage of transgender people in the population as a whole?
If so, it seems to be somewhere around 0.1-0.3 percent, although that probably somewhat underestimates the total since official data on gender identity (as opposed to birth-assigned sex) is scanty.
I must have missed the post where “deception for the actual act of sex” was advocated. Could you link please?
Do you need to be reminded NC’s bathroom law was in responce to Charlotte voting out gender segregation laws. The local Representatives passed LGBT protections and removed the law requiring public accommodations provide gender segregated bathrooms. If Walmart wanted to have unisex bathrooms they could have.
Over in the state house the representatives saw a local government doing something they personally disagreed with and move to stop it.
For Republicans apparently small local government is best, unless of course it does something they don’t personally like then it’s a terrible thing so they have to use big government to smash local decisions.
What?? Nobody here is “defending deception”, for acts of sex or for any other purpose, in any way. (Except perhaps you with your endorsement of wearing a dress and pretending you’re not a man in order to trick women into letting you see them naked.)
If what you’re trying to refer to, in your typically muddleheaded rhetorical style, is the issue you brought up previously about transwomen discussing their gender identity history with potential or actual sex partners, I do not defend and never have defended deceiving anyone about that or any other aspect of one’s sexual history.
If a transwoman is dating a man who believes that she’s birth-assigned female and does not want to date any women who aren’t birth-assigned female, and if she lies to him about it when he states his feelings on the matter and/or directly asks about her gender identity, then that is dishonest and unfair and I don’t defend it in the least.
What you may be confused about is the part where I pointed out that a transwoman is not being deceptive simply by dressing and presenting as a woman, or by refusing to discuss her birth gender. Transwomen are women, and they have just as much right to habitually dress and present as women as other women do. Nor are they obligated in any way to talk about their past.
Of course, if a man doesn’t feel sufficiently confident that the woman he’s interested in is not transgender, he’s under no obligation to date her. No guy is obligated to date transwomen any more than he’s obligated to date taller women, or tattooed women, or redheaded women, or any other women with characteristics that don’t happen to appeal to him personally. But he is not owed any kind of spontaneous announcement by any transwoman concerning her gender-identity status or history.
It’s not deceptive for transgender people to just go about their lives as their preferred gender without proclaiming themselves to be transgender. It’s up to people in general to remember that some percentage of the population is transgender, and any random person you meet or want to date might, with a very small probability, turn out to be transgender.
If you don’t want to date transgender people, it’s your responsibility to avoid it, not their responsibility to protect you from it.
Failure to disclose relevant facts is deceptive regardless of your biased protests.
Nonsense. Is it deceptive not to tell your new partner, when they haven’t asked, how many sexual partners you’ve had previously? Whether you’ve ever slept with someone of a different race? Whether you’ve ever slept with someone of the same sex? Whether you’ve had an operation for undescended testicle(s)? Whether you’ve had cosmetic surgery to correct a problem with your genitalia?
All these things are “relevant” to one’s sexual history and relationships, but it’s in no way “deceptive” not to volunteer information about them when you haven’t been asked about them.
Exactly the same holds true for being transgender. If you want to know whether a potential or current partner is transgender, you can ask them. If they won’t answer, then you don’t have to have sex with them. But they are not being deceptive just because they don’t spontaneously announce their transgender status.
If the relationship hasn’t progressed to the point of discussing happy adult fun times, then it’s not relevant.
Ok. Point taken. I stand corrected.