Transexuals

[Esquilax]

That sounds very progressive, except if someone is indeed suffering from a mental disorder it is not noble to allow them to irreversibly harm themselves. For example, it is right and proper to intervene when a severely depressed person tries to commit suicide rather than respect their personal autonomy. Likewise, it is right and proper to treat substance abusers rather than make it easy for them to poison themselves in the name of liberty.Right now, some people feel virtuous because they believe they are opposing bigotry and ignorance. They see themselves as fighting oppression. Their virtue signalling has nothing to do with compassion. Calling Drich a bigot only makes them feel good about themselves.

And yet you wouldn't kick up this much fuss, nor attempt to prevent, a person from getting plastic surgery. You might not like it, but I doubt you'd make the argument they should be prevented from doing so, yes?

So, the question becomes: why classify transgendered people in the same group as substance abusers or people trying to harm themselves, rather than as those wanting plastic surgery to improve the way they feel about their exteriors? We've gotta unwrap these assumptions you guys keep making, here.

But Drich did raised the cultural issue in a clumsy fashion. Cultures do not self-segregate the sexes purely out of modesty, moral sentiment, or taboo. Many social practices evolved to protect people in situations where they may be vulnerable, like states of undress. Sexual predators taking advantage of a misguided law to remove sex segregation is a legitimate concern. Also state mandates to alter public and private infrastructure just to sooth the feelings of a tiny minority would divert resources away from more worthwhile pursuits.

Oh, I'm so glad you brought this up today. Why? Because the Friendly Atheist ran a piece about this exact issue today: what was the takeaway? How many transgendered sexual predators have actually been arrested for doing illegal things in bathrooms? Zero.

How many republican politicians have been caught doing that? At least three. So, by your own logic, we'd be better served by making laws preventing GOP candidates from using restrooms than we would transgendered people. This specter of bathroom rape resulting from equitable transgender laws is constantly brought up, but there's simply no facts to support it. There's an interesting little coda to the article I posted, where a commentator demonstrated that men were already getting into women's bathrooms under false pretenses to improperly interact with them, rendering laws specifically forbidding transgender people not only irrelevant, but targeted at the wrong group anyway. Cis men dress as women to commit these crimes: transgender people do not.

And also, you know, sexual assault is still a crime. It's already illegal: if it happens right now the perpetrator has run afoul of the law, and frankly, it's not as though there's any real barrier to it happening either way. There aren't guards outside public restrooms frisking people's junk before they go in; you just kinda walk in. When you make this argument that allowing transgender people to use the correct restroom enables sexual assault in bathrooms and gendered spaces, what you're suggesting is that actual, real life rapists are not concerned with the far worse, felony laws for sexual assault, but that they will be deterred by state level bathroom bills, and I simply do not know how you can make that argument with a straight face.

"Dang, I guess I can't go into this women's bathroom to rape somebody now that the law prevents me from using the restroom other than the one matching my biological sex. I wouldn't want to break the law or anything..."

Doesn't that sound ridiculous to you?