There are situations where a regimented set of acceptable behaviors and hierarchies of interaction – where everyone know their place and others’ place at first sight and do what is expected of them – are useful, even advantageous, even necessary for survival. So, a military unit, a ship afloat, a small tribe of nomads always at the edge of being wiped out; a civilization in a time when physical labor is the only means of production and you need many hands to work and to care for the weak and elderly and there’s high mortality. In many modern societies this is thankfully no longer the general default, and such standards can be narrowed down to apply only when it is organizationally or situationally appropriate.
(At the same time, many people DO thrive in, do their best with, and even *need * an environment that’s regimented and structured and where the values scheme is not fluid or a-la-carte. We need to be better than to just say “your turn to be the misfit now”.)
This is not just gender-related. This is also reflected in racial or socioeconomic discussions when you hear even older members of socially disadvantaged communities, who spent lifetimes seeking respectability, now scolding the younger set about behaviors they see as reinforcing the stereotype and not helping. The ones who had or chose to play by the old rules to make it, sometimes will see the ones who come up under the new rules as “entitled” rather than empowered, especially when they embrace those conducts and affects that were exactly what was used against them under the old ways. You get the “was all that for nothing?” reaction.
OTOH if people like the OP could once face and overcome the challenge of adapting and fitting in with how things used to be, what is to say they cannot now* face and overcome the challenge of adapting and fitting in with how things will be henceforth*?
BTW valid point earlier, culturally effeminacy is considered inferior because “being like a woman” is considered inferior, yes. At the same time, though, “being like a woman” is socially constructed to mean being physically weak, emotionally delicate and temperamentally nonconfrontational, when like the socially constructed “manly” virtues of being strong, assertive and stoic, that value set really has damn little to do with genital configuration (…nor with actual sexual conduct: the ancient Thebans and Spartans would be almost surely considered “MANLY” … except for the bit about sex between men and teen boys).
think back: in the 1950s, women and men had no options. Men were supposed to be “masculine” and work themselves to death, and women were supposed to get married, clean stuff, and crank out babies. As a a woman, I can only suppose I would have ended up either dead from a back-alley abortion or from suicide, because I can’t imagine I would have been even remotely happy with the situation; ask anyone about my ability to clean things (non-existent) and my lack of interest towards babies (must you leave that stinky thing here?). Most reports indicate the majority of women were not very happy in the 1950s. Oddly, they never ask or report about the men’s level of happiness.
Today, women are fairly free. I wear men’s clothing most days and do a man’s job and can do pretty much whatever I want as long as I do not hurt others. However, men are not free. If a man wants to wear a skirt to work, well, I suspect he won’t be there long. I’ve met plenty of men who say they could not pursue their desired hobbies because of sexism.
I think the point of contention is that you (the general you) are making this type of statement as an immutable truth just like the OP is doing. To say that someone should be allowed to use whatever restroom they choose is objectively no better than saying that they must use the restroom of their birth sex. The left declares their position as one of superiority just like the right declares the same.
There is nothing objectively better about a man wearing a business suit, a dress, or walking around naked. You may respond that this makes your position superior because you would let him choose to wear either a business suit or a dress (but most of us still agree to repress him by not allowing him to be in public, or allow his boss to fire him for showing up naked).
I think both sides are in agreement that there should be no criminal penalties for cross dressing in public, but your side wishes to pass laws against others who would fire the man for wearing a dress. You would say that those people are bigots, so nobody cares about what they think, but at the base level, you are just saying that your value judgment is better than mine. If there is no universal truth, then you cannot claim to own it.
Standards, morality, they’re all just excuses to hurt people.
Conformity just turns people into soulless mindless unfeeling automatons.
If you believe in things like freedom, individuality, and other similar things, then what does it matter to you if a person wants to be different than you?
If you want to be moral, go ahead, but it’s wrong to impose one’s beliefs on to other people.
It is the imposing of one’s beliefs that causes atrocities and other assorted crimes against humanity.
And the government that sincerely restricts people’s behavior in the name of morality and helping them is the most tyrannical of all.
What if the way that a person wants to be different directly infringes on you or your property? And doesn’t most law derive from some axiomatic set of morals? Now, those set of morals may be inconvenient for the most hedonistic but would an anarchistic society be preferable to some constraints?
No, it’s objectively better, because treating all humans as human beings with civil rights is better than attacking humans that you think of as ‘weird’ as long as they’re a small enough minority that you can get away with it. Requiring ID checks and/or genital inspections for people who don’t follow an arbitrary standard of appearance is awful, and trying to act like it’s ‘just as valid’ as not actually being a jackass to a tiny minority is just absurd.
This controversey has nothing at all to do with men wearing dresses. It has to do with women wearing dresses, and some bigots calling them ‘men’ to justify being assholes.
Nobody is asking for ID or genital checks. Nobody. That has so much straw in it that it is a fire hazard. But, anyways, thanks for proving my point. You say your side is objectively better and I say my side is. That sure leads to reasoned discussion to solve issues.
What do you mean by “attacking humans”? Physical assault? Of course nobody is in favor of that. Pointing out a disapproval? That is not “attacking” and it is an interference in my right to disapprove of whatever I want to disapprove of. It is dangerous authoritarianism to tell me how to think or speak.
Oh, they are women in dresses? Why, because they say so? When the objective evidence says that they are men, I must indulge their belief that they are women.
So, we not only stifle expression, thought, and speech, but we must suppress objectively true expression, thought, and speech so we can move closer to that liberal utopia. No thanks.
What if the man wearing the dress admits that he is not a transsexual, but is really a man who just likes wearing dresses? Does he get special protection in this brave new world?
The North Carolina law explicitly calls for birth certificate (a form of ID) checks, and in practice enforcing transgender bathroom usage requires it. You may not want to SAY that you require such things, but in pracrice it’s needed for the gender enforcement.
By ''attacking humans" I mean all methods of attack on their ability to operate as humans, from relatively basic attacks like attempts to intimidate them into not being able to use a public restroom for fear of reprisals, to direct violence. I am not advocating anything approaching authoritarianism, I am advocating opposition to authoritarian enforcement of your idea of gender norms. On the topic of physical violence, your claim that “nobody is in favor of that” is provably false, with a quick google search:
Yes, somebody is in favor of physically assaulting trans people. And not just some random whacko living in a shack in the the woods, but senior LEOs.
Because medical science and objective evidence says so. I doubt that you even have a coherent definition of what ‘women’ and ‘men’ are, since in the other thread you hinged your definition on ‘has a penis’ which isn’t accurate and contradicts the standard in these bathroom bills anyway.
Sports is an area where the implications still need to be assessed. Not everyone is going to be comfortable with transwomen playing on women’s teams. On the other hand, not everyone is going to be comfortable with excluding transwomen from women’s teams.
This will need to be sorted out by society, in pursuit of the closest approximation to perfect justice. We shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good: some problems are more easily solved than others.
It seems ludicrous that bathrooms have become the hill that the anti-trans movement has chosen to fight and die upon.
Henceforth, sailors in Her British Majesty’s navy who happen to be part of all-male crews will eat nothing but chopped up raw fish, because to do otherwise would be unmanly.
Sailors in His Spanish Majesty’s navy will continue to complain about the quality of the food, because to do so is Traditional Damnit.
Especially because the transexual population of many western countries has to be tiny - I mean, in my entire life I can count on pretty much one hand the number of transsexual people I’ve had any meaningful interaction with.
I can totally understand how come the OP might be struggling with the idea that certain minorities like gays or transexuals are not just “making it up” or “doing it for attention”, though - to be honest, when I was growing up (not all that long ago) being gay was A Bad Thing and gay people were expected to Not Be Too Gay in public; the very idea of someone thinking they were a gender different from their genitals was obviously a symptom of some kind of psychiatric illness.
We know better nowadays, of course (and it sucks LGBTQ folks had to put up with all sorts of horrid things for so long) but you have to remember for a lot of people of a certain generation, Everything Was Fine Back In Those Days, and now they struggle to understand why the people for whom Everyone Was Not Fine are unhappy - and more importantly, how come the goalposts for Acceptable Social Behaviour appear to have arbitrarily moved.
This has been needing assessment for decades - women who had no idea they had any abnormality have been told they don’t actually count as women because of chromosomal conditions that only get tested for if there’s a problem or someone creates a problem. Also, the fact that there is a sex test to participate in women’s games but not one to participate in men’s games probably fails equal protection in the US and West Europe, and if there’s a test for men’s games then there are going to be people who don’t qualify for either team because of their genetic condition.