(April 15, 2016 at 7:21 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 7:17 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BshxCIjNEjY

Keep being a dick if you wish, but this isn't about me, and you really are insulting very real people both transexuals who are victims of ignorance, but also victims of sexual assault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dcbw4IEY5w

(April 15, 2016 at 1:43 am)robvalue Wrote: This discussion has been very enlightening for me, on all sides.

I find it somewhat ironic that the theists in the thread, in general, have a more negative spin on someone feeling the desire/need to be transgender. They are describing how incompetent or cruel their alleged designer is, to have set things up this way. Of course, they will find a way to excuse the designer from any responsibility, as usual. The atheists, in general, seem far more accepting of people how they are, regardless of whether it's a "condition" or a choice for any particular person.

Of course, I don't take our forum theists to be representative of theists in general.

Lol, yeah. Some design, right? God is just "testing" them. [emoji6]

(April 14, 2016 at 3:08 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 2:48 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: If it's a sin to change one's sex, then it's also a sin to eat seedless grapes because the bible said fruit would have its seed within it (Genesis 1:11).

So start a thread against the seedless grape industry or shut the fuck up.

But Drich, unlike his imaginary savior, isn't a practicing Jew.

All the better for the Jews not to have such a twat calling himself one.

(April 14, 2016 at 9:20 pm)Evie Wrote: Isn't physical and biological sex the same thing?

Aren't there just as many female perverts as male perverts?

No. Physical sex is having the male/female parts. Biological is having xy/xx chromosomes. 

No. There are much more men on women sex crimes than women on men or women on women sex crimes. Men are much more likely to be into peeping tomery and much more likely to have kinky fetishes.

(April 14, 2016 at 9:40 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 9:03 pm)Evie Wrote: I don't understand how allowing people of the opposite biological sex would encourage perversion. Isn't biological sex completely irrelevant to perversion?

So, I think CL's point is that once male offenders know that transgendered individuals are allowed to use the bathroom of their choosing, they may use this allowance to gain easier access to women's bathrooms without arousing as much suspicion (correct me if I didn't summarize you properly, Cath).  

Yes, this is what I meant, thanks.

(April 15, 2016 at 3:10 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 6:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: By the way, this is the type of stuff I'm referring to. Fakes who might falsely claim transgenderism and peep into women's bathrooms and lockerrooms.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/...34761.html

And how is banning transsexuals from using the bathroom going to stop that from happening again?

Never said it would.

(April 15, 2016 at 3:47 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 10:07 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: We are still talking about trampling on one group in order to prevent crimes by a completely unrelated group that have not shown to be correlated to the absence of these laws.

I would like to see Catholic_Lady respond to this.

Will do, though I feel like I'll just be repeating myself.

Again, the concern with pervs taking advantage of a new law like this is only a smaller part of why I think we should draw the line at sex change. I feel like people are acting as though this is the one and only reason why I take take the stance I do. The reason I posted that story is because the first time I suggested something like this happening, the response from a lot of people was that this would never happen, and that no man would never dress as women to peep at them in bathrooms and lockerrooms. Well, yes they would. It's a real existing fetish similar to peeping tomery. And given a better opportunity for the pervs to do this may increase this sort of incident. We'd be taking that risk at the expense of women being violated by men in their own bathrooms and lockerrooms. And that's not fair to them/us.  

Nonetheless, the main problem I think with allowing anyone to use any restroom so long as they claim transgenderism is the fact that many women would not feel comfortable with people who are physical men going into women's bathrooms/lockerrooms, even if those people identify as women. And these women that would understandably feel uncomfortable have rights as well. It's not fair to tell them "well these people who are still physically male can all go into your bathrooms and lockerrooms while you're pooping and peeing and tending to wardrobe malfunctions and changing and showering, and too bad if you're not comfortable with it." That's why I keep saying we need 3rd bathrooms. That way no one feels uncomfortable. Not the transgender person, and not the women.  

I wrote this post below a couple days ago that summarizes my stance on this pretty well. I may have missed it but I don't think anyone has addressed the bolded part below. Where would you guys draw the line? Or should there not even be one? And should the standards be stricter for lockerrooms and changing rooms where people may often be in various states of undress? 

Quote:I think the most important argument is that there are plenty of women out there who would not feel comfortable with a physical male going into the women's bathroom/lockerroom while they are in there doing their thing. (notice I am not using the general term "transgender person" because I think this would be ok if they had a sex change. I am specifically referring to transgender folks who have not yet gone through the transition and are still physical males.) Personally, I wouldn't mind the bathroom scenario, but I would not like the lockerroom if I was in there changing or showering. I would feel uncomfortable with a physical male being present while I'm changing or showering in there as I used to do in high school and when I go to the Y for swimming. Nonetheless, I can understand and respect a woman not feeling comfortable with a physical male in the bathroom, either. Even though I personally would not have a problem with it, I'm not going to condemn or shame a woman who doesn't feel comfortable with it. And I know many of them are not.   

To be clear, I never said sexual assault though. I understand the chances of someone getting raped in a bathroom or lockerroom are almost non existent. I was thinking more along the lines of a person going in there to discretely "take a peek"... because they get off on that peeping tom type scenario. I would not want to take that sort of risk to a woman's privacy, especially in lockerrooms where many of them are in open states of undress. When it comes to that sort of thing, I think it is wise to err on the side of caution.  

Of course, we're going to get examples like people such as Cait Jenner who has done a lot of surgical/hormonal transformation but has not yet had a sex change. But on the other end of the spectrum we're going to get people who are still completely physically male and still look 100% like men, physically, and are just wearing a little lipstick and padded bra or something. Or perhaps, not even that if they are at the gym or at a pool or something. So I think there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. 

*Should any person, even those who still look like men, be able to walk into a woman's bathroom/lockerroom while there are other women in there so long as they claim to identify as female? 

*Should it be limited to people who are at least dressed femininely even if no hormonal or surgical change has been made? And if so, who gets to decide what constitutes as looking feminine enough? Is just some long hair enough? Just some lipstick and panty hoes and padded bra? Do they need to be in full drag? What if they are at the gym or the pool?  

*Should there be at least some sort of hormonal/surgical change? If so, how much? Who decides?  

....That's why I personally think the best place to draw the line is at complete sex change. 

And again, this is not perfect. Because we're going to get people like Cait who has done a lot of change already but is not completed. But I don't think any of the above would be perfect because we're always going to get people with all different situations. To me, sex change seems like the most logical place to draw the line.

Ultimately I think the best solution to this is a private third bathroom. Someone mentioned their store only has one bathroom. Well, if it's one bathroom then I'm assuming it's unisex anyway, so no problem there. If it's a place that has one private male bathroom and one private female bathroom, I don't think that matters either since they are private, one person rooms. I think any place that can afford to make multiple stalled public bathrooms for men and for women can afford a 3rd private room. Even if that means making the others a little smaller to save space/costs. The well being of everyone involved should be the first priority. 

This thread is gotten away from me. I'll be the first to admit it. The problem is none of you seem to want to address the points I've been making. you all just continue to spin everything back to bigotry and hate.

However in truth I have raised several issues that none of you want to address. The chief of which is who is responsible when someone using these laws to fish or troll in the wrong bathroom decides to step things up and someone gets hurt because of it?

Or why do we have laws on the books that makes people vulnerable to predators at all? especially if this law only benefits less than 1% of the population?

Again I don't care if a woman who is now physically a man uses the mens room, what I will not abid is being made to stand outside the woman's room waiting for my 8 year old, while an obvious man in a dress walks in behind her!

P/C bullshit aside if anyone of you were in a situation like that and you did not know this man in a dress from adam you can't tell me your initial reaction would be the same if it were a grandmother who followed your daughter in the lady's room.

If and when this happens Lord help me I will be on the news because I will not let that go down.

(April 15, 2016 at 10:59 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No. There are much more men on women sex crimes than women on men or women on women sex crimes. Men are much more likely to be into peeping tomery and much more likely to have kinky fetishes.

But sexual kinks and sex drives are a product of the brain, not the body. Male to female transsexuals have female brains according to brain scans. Pre-operative transsexuals take extremely high doses of oestrogen in order to feminise their bodies, to the extent that they have to have regular blood tests. And post-operative they can lose a lot of their sex drive because unlike cisgendered women they don't have any means of creating testosterone.

But what the new laws do mean is that female to male transsexuals who are taking high doses of testosterone, which is known to increase sex drive, now have to use the female toilets. Not to mention that it ignores that lesbians exist. So the logic behind the law is completely screwy.

The only way it makes sense is if you see it as a product of the right wing Christian male's obsession with female fertility and seeing women as baby making objects to be owned.

(April 15, 2016 at 11:41 am)Drich Wrote: Again I don't care if a woman who is now physically a man uses the mens room, what I will not abid is being made to stand outside the woman's room waiting for my 8 year old, while an obvious man in a dress walks in behind her!

P/C bullshit aside if anyone of you were in a situation like that and you did not know this man in a dress from adam you can't tell me your initial reaction would be the same if it were a grandmother who followed your daughter in the lady's room.

If and when this happens Lord help me I will be on the news because I will not let that go down.

I get where you're coming from but there are some preventitive measures you can take for that. For instance:
1 - if it's possible, have your daughter go to the bathroom at your house before you leave to go grab a bite to eat. 
2 - Carry hand sanitizer with you so that she doesn't have to go to the bathroom just to wash her hands. 
3 - wait until you see a lady going to the bathroom and ask her if she wouldn't mind keeping an eye on your daughter while she's in there. 
4 - teaching your daughter about stranger danger and telling her to yell "fire" if she feels she's in a dangerous situation

I'm sure there are more, but I can sort of see where it would make one uncomfortable, especially if the person is obviously a man dressed as a woman.  But honestly, the chances of a transman going into the woman's bathroom to violate another person are slim to none and if you feel you are uncomfortable with that sort of situation, perhaps preventing the situation all together would help you. If you can't find anyone at all, perhaps appealing to a female member of the staff at the restaurant to accompany your child would put your mind at rest? I honestly don't know what else to tell you Drich. And really, I don't think there is anything anyone could say to you that would put your mind at ease. 

We have a transgender person in our school. During school, he is required to dress as a man because that's who he is, regardless of any medications he's taking to start his changover process. He's the only male student in school. Even he is considerate and aware enough to know to use the men's room at school. I have talked to him before on what his opinion about the bathroom issue is and he told me that until his change is complete, he will always use the men's bathroom because that is the considerate thing to do. So, you see, not all transgendered persons are the way you are thinking them to be. He has an entire community of people who are very supportive and I think that mutual respect and giving them a chance without judging them goes much farther than just assuming they have the intent to molest or harm someone in a bathroom.