(April 11, 2016 at 5:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 4:04 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 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.

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.

I agree that unless you have a penis, you should not go into a woman's bathroom/lockerroom, and vice versa. For one, if we allow anyone to go into any bathroom/lockerromm so long as they say "I identify with this sex", this opens the doors to fakes who are sexual predators. Second, even though bathrooms wouldn't be as big of a deal for me personally, I respect that there are women who understandably are not comfortable with it. As for lockerrooms, I'm sorry but I would not feel comfortable with a man going in there while I'm in there changing/showering/etc... even if he did say he identified as female. I have no problem with a 3rd option of "gender neutral" bathroom/lockerrooms though.

But what male-identified man is going to go out in public in full drag just to sexually assault women in toilets and locker rooms? The women who you would be sharing toilets and locker rooms with, most likely, would already be well into transitioning and will be outwardly presenting as femme even if they still had a penis. A man who is not transgender isn't going to go to those lengths just to prey on women. You're really blowing that argument out of proportion.

And not to tar lesbians by any means, but there are biological women you already share the toilets and locker rooms with who are probably pervs and potentially predators. Same with some of the biological men who enter male changing rooms. Sexual assault is still sexual assault regardless of the biological sex of the perpetrator.

That winky face is hawt.

(April 11, 2016 at 10:51 am)Drich Wrote: Transsexuals suffer from a diagnosable affliction called Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder. So then how is this not a mental illness if the word/term mental illness literally means:

Mental illness refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviors.
(as per the Mayo clinic)

If this is a mental disorder, then why do we allow the patients to run the asylum? Why do we have mentally compromised people trying to set a national policy that allows them to indulge their disorder?

would we allow people afflicted with Munchhausen access to their kids? Or if you want to look at other people who just hurt themselves, would we allow people who want to cut themselves places they could do so?

I get the odd feeling that your only reason for opening your mouth is to exchange whatever foot was previously put there.

Anybody else come to this conclusion or am I alone?

(April 11, 2016 at 5:54 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 5:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I agree that unless you have a penis, you should not go into a woman's bathroom/lockerroom, and vice versa. For one, if we allow anyone to go into any bathroom/lockerromm so long as they say "I identify with this sex", this opens the doors to fakes who are sexual predators. Second, even though bathrooms wouldn't be as big of a deal for me personally, I respect that there are women who understandably are not comfortable with it. As for lockerrooms, I'm sorry but I would not feel comfortable with a man going in there while I'm in there changing/showering/etc... even if he did say he identified as female. I have no problem with a 3rd option of "gender neutral" bathroom/lockerrooms though.

But what male-identified man is going to go out in public in full drag just to sexually assault women in toilets and locker rooms? The women who you would be sharing toilets and locker rooms with, most likely, would already be well into transitioning and will be outwardly presenting as femme even if they still had a penis. A man who is not transgender isn't going to go to those lengths just to prey on women. You're really blowing that argument out of proportion.

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Some people may very well get off on that specific type of scenario. The point is, should we take the risk at the expense of women? The risk can easily be avoided with a third, gender neutral bathroom.

Quote:And not to tar lesbians by any means, but there are biological women you already share the toilets and locker rooms with who are probably pervs and potentially predators. Same with some of the biological men who enter male changing rooms. Sexual assault is still sexual assault regardless of the biological sex of the perpetrator.

Sure, but personally, I would feel a ton more comfortable changing in front of a lesbian than I would changing in front of a man.

(April 11, 2016 at 5:57 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 10:51 am)Drich Wrote: Transsexuals suffer from a diagnosable affliction called Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder. So then how is this not a mental illness if the word/term mental illness literally means:

Mental illness refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviors.
(as per the Mayo clinic)

If this is a mental disorder, then why do we allow the patients to run the asylum? Why do we have mentally compromised people trying to set a national policy that allows them to indulge their disorder?

would we allow people afflicted with Munchhausen access to their kids? Or if you want to look at other people who just hurt themselves, would we allow people who want to cut themselves places they could do so?

I get the odd feeling that your only reason for opening your mouth is to exchange whatever foot was previously put there.

Anybody else come to this conclusion or am I alone?

Lol, I would say you are in majority on that one! [emoji106]

(April 11, 2016 at 3:44 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 2:40 pm)Goosebump Wrote: This is an unrelated question but why is the T in LGBT? The first three make sense as they are all sexual orientations, but isn't T something entirely different? Why do they get lumped together? Doesn't make sense to me since somebody who is trans can be LGB or Hetero.

You're right in that being trans is about gender identity and being lesbian, gay or bisexual concerns your sexuality. The two are different.

But it's down to practicality because they face the same kind of bigotry from society. Not every T wants to be lumped in with the LGB, but many T's are, or have been more fluid with their own sexuality.

So it's political and shared experience. Got it, thank you.

Also it seems like all the heat on this "bathroom/birther" stuff is on the male side; similarly with the anti-gay issues. 

Does it just boil down to strait men being terrified of dicks that aren't their own?

(April 11, 2016 at 5:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 5:54 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: But what male-identified man is going to go out in public in full drag just to sexually assault women in toilets and locker rooms? The women who you would be sharing toilets and locker rooms with, most likely, would already be well into transitioning and will be outwardly presenting as femme even if they still had a penis. A man who is not transgender isn't going to go to those lengths just to prey on women. You're really blowing that argument out of proportion.

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Some people may very well get off on that specific type of scenario. The point is, should we take the risk at the expense of women? The risk can easily be avoided with a third, gender neutral bathroom.

Also, should the requirement for transgender folks without surgical reassignment using the opposite sex bathroom/lockerroom be that they are in "full drag?" What if they're at the gym, or only had time to put on a little lipstick and padded bra that day?

(April 11, 2016 at 11:55 am)Bella Morte Wrote: Transgender here. You can kindly go fuck yourself.

Now where does the person who fucks himself fit into the GLBT acronym?

(April 11, 2016 at 6:07 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 5:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Some people may very well get off on that specific type of scenario. The point is, should we take the risk at the expense of women? The risk can easily be avoided with a third, gender neutral bathroom.

Also, should the requirement for transgender folks without surgical reassignment using the opposite sex bathroom/lockerroom be that they are in "full drag?" What if they're at the gym, or only had time to put on a little lipstick and padded bra that day?

Well since there are no transgender incidents of attacks in bathrooms I don't think any risk is being taken "at the expense of women".  If you can point to the overwhelming problem of strait men dressing up as women to attack real women in bathrooms please share it.

I think a "third bathroom" is unrealistic. 

If somebody isn't in "full drag" what's the problem? Don't all non-single occupant public bathrooms have stalls? Isn't there a law for that?

(April 11, 2016 at 6:09 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 11:55 am)Bella Morte Wrote: Transgender here. You can kindly go fuck yourself.

Now where does the person who fucks himself fit into the GLBT acronym?

Fucking yourself is for all sexualities



Oh btw... if you only fuck yourself and you're sexually attracted to yourself that is known as "autosexual."