(April 15, 2016 at 8:55 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:(April 15, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Sorry I missed it.
One thing, I don't think it's fair to compare a woman feeling uncomfortable in private situations or in states of undress in the presence of a physically male person, to a white person not feeling comfortable next to a black person.
Why not? I can't think of a good reason why this isn't an apt comparison. Put the shoe on the other foot, C_L. If you were a black person in the 60's getting on a bus with one seat left, and it was next to a white person, do you not think that was a potentially dangerous, awkward, and incredibly scary situation?
Should I compare it to newly integrated bathrooms, then? When the scary and barbaric negroes were coming into the restrooms with little white children? How about when they got rid of the colored drinking fountains, and white children were forced to drink from the same water fountains as those disease infested niggers?
I say these words only to prove a point, that these arguments are just regurgitated fear mongering. What will these freedoms usher in? How many times are you going to fall for the same catastrophism when none of these instilled fears ever come to light?
Mike, be reasonable. You're equating sex with race. If to you, the 2 are completely identical and interchangeable, then there shouldn't be men's rooms or women's rooms at all. Everyone should just poop and pee and change and shower in the same vicinity. Anything other than that, would, to your logic, be segregation and discrimination exactly like separating black drinking fountains from white ones.
Are you seriously saying that women who feel uncomfortable (and by that I mean embarrassed, not necessarily unsafe) being in that situation in front of men are no different from white people wanting to sit separately from black people? I'm sorry, but this is a bit ridiculous.
A woman may feel embarrassed to be in a state of undress in front of a trans person who has not transitioned because she is embarrassed to be in a state of undress in front of a man, not because she has anything against trans people. And she may feel embarrassed to be in a state of undress in front of a man because she is a woman, not because she is a bigot who hates men.
A trans person may have the brain of a woman, yes, but unless they have had a sex change they still have the body of a man. They may be women in the inside, but they are still men on the outside. A woman who does not feel comfortable peeing/pooping/changing/showering in front of people who are outward men are not bigots equivalent to racist folks. This is just plain silly.
Quote:(April 15, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To be clear, do you hold the same views for lockerrooms/changing rooms as well? That there should be no line at all, and any person who says they are trans can just go in, even if it's a very male looking individual who is wearing lipstick?
There should be a line. If a person is transgender, they should be able to choose what bathroom/locker room/changing room they feel most comfortable in.
Right. So you're saying anyone who even claims to be transgender can just walk into a changing room or lockerroom where women are changing out of bathing suits and/or taking showers, even if that person still looks like a man but is just wearing some lipstick and padded bra. You're saying there should be no limits at all. And if a woman feels uncomfortable (aka embarrassed) being openly undressed in front of such a person, she's just being a bigot and should just suck it up, and too bad for her.
I'm sorry, but this is very one sided. I get that trans people may feel uncomfortable changing in front of people who match their physical sex. But on the other hand, women may feel uncomfortable changing in front of people who don't. The only fair solution to this is a 3rd bathroom. Anything else is one sided for one side or the other. You seem like you'd be more reasonable than this.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh