Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I still don't think anyone has answered my post below in regards to the bolded. I'm curious to know where you guys would find it appropriate to draw the line, if a line should be drawn at all, and whether the standards should be the same for lockerrooms/changing rooms as they are for bathrooms.

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. 

(April 15, 2016 at 6:43 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 6:32 pm)Sterben Wrote:        I am a grown adult and I was not condoning the practice of letting people based of appearance. I was conducting a thought experiment to where a common workplace was used. It is a heinous reaction to a person who is going a through such a major change within there lives. I can also understand the business's side of the argument, they have a right to protect there own lively hoods. If the daycare facility started to lose profit cause some parents were uncomfortable with leaving there child there. They stick to there guns and keep a trans-employee and when other parents start to look up reviews on the facility. The parents that were freaked out by the trans-employee posted that they have a Trans-gender attendant. Now there starting to lose profit and eventuality shuts down. Do company's facing these problems have a right to protect themselves? Or for social change to happen, are casualties necessary to force the issue into everyone lives?

Dammit, man. It's hard to read your posts. Come on.

There = place: "over there"
Their = possession: "their store"
They're = they are: "they're coming soon"

---

I'll ask you a question as a counter to your hypothetical. If you replaced transgender person with black person, would it be okay to fire a person for being black in a racist community?
How about gay? Would it be okay to fire a perfectly qualified homosexual because some parents thought their kid could catch the gay?

You'll also have to prove that this is something that actually could happen. If a person loses a client or two because the client(s) is bigoted, that's part of the free market. I don't know of a place where a person loses all of their clients because they all are bigoted. I think you have posed an unrealistic hypothetical.

Also, to be clear, what your are proposing amounts to "there are bigots out there who will discriminate against transexuals, and we should protect businesses from those bigots, not the people who are being discriminated against.

      Sorry about the typo, I thought I proofread it fully. It would not be right to discriminate in any of these cases, how would you purpose to keep bigots out of businesses? While your thinking about that, let me ask you a other question. Would you classify a sex-change operation has cosmetic surgery? John who feels he is really a woman on the inside, this has been bothering him for a while and is affecting his work. He wants to get breast implants and hormone therapy, should his employers health insurance cover such a operation? A female employee could easy claim the size of her breasts are to small and is affecting her work performance. Should both be covered by there HMO or PPO? Their both trying to get "Cosmetic" surgery's. Should both be covered, or do both get denied there surgery's? Does the requests fall under a medical need? If you were the underwriter for the company's health plan, would you deny both of them, or approve both? Since both fall under "Cosmetic".

Personally I think a single bathroom for everyone is the best and safest and best option. Same for locker rooms.

There are predators in this world and they will seek out and attack their victims regardless of restroom laws and likely some place less public. The people most likely to be attacked in a restroom are transgender people. If we have one restroom for everyone with floor to ceiling stalls and security cameras (outside the stalls of course) you can't really get any safer than that.


And for anyone crying for your children...I don't know why you would let them go into a public restroom without you in the first place, but statistically they're more likely to be molested by a hetero sexual man than a trans person.

(April 15, 2016 at 6:43 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 6:32 pm)Sterben Wrote:        I am a grown adult and I was not condoning the practice of letting people based of appearance. I was conducting a thought experiment to where a common workplace was used. It is a heinous reaction to a person who is going a through such a major change within there lives. I can also understand the business's side of the argument, they have a right to protect there own lively hoods. If the daycare facility started to lose profit cause some parents were uncomfortable with leaving there child there. They stick to there guns and keep a trans-employee and when other parents start to look up reviews on the facility. The parents that were freaked out by the trans-employee posted that they have a Trans-gender attendant. Now there starting to lose profit and eventuality shuts down. Do company's facing these problems have a right to protect themselves? Or for social change to happen, are casualties necessary to force the issue into everyone lives?

Dammit, man. It's hard to read your posts. Come on.

There = place: "over there"
Their = possession: "their store"
They're = they are: "they're coming soon"

---

I'll ask you a question as a counter to your hypothetical. If you replaced transgender person with black person, would it be okay to fire a person for being black in a racist community?
How about gay? Would it be okay to fire a perfectly qualified homosexual because some parents thought their kid could catch the gay?

You'll also have to prove that this is something that actually could happen. If a person loses a client or two because the client(s) is bigoted, that's part of the free market. I don't know of a place where a person loses all of their clients because they all are bigoted. I think you have posed an unrealistic hypothetical.

Also, to be clear, what your are proposing amounts to "there are bigots out there who will discriminate against transexuals, and we should protect businesses from those bigots, not the people who are being discriminated against.

don't forget though when you say protection you mean get the government to force the business to do something they might not necessarily want to do.  The business doesn't need protection from bigots.  When you say someone wants to protect the businesses from bigots, they aren't really.  It's not like they're actively protecting the business they're just not forcing the private business to do anything in particular.

(April 15, 2016 at 7:23 pm)Losty Wrote: Personally I think a single bathroom for everyone is the best and safest and best option. Same for locker rooms.

There are predators in this world and they will seek out and attack their victims regardless of restroom laws and likely some place less public. The people most likely to be attacked in a restroom are transgender people. If we have one restroom for everyone with floor to ceiling stalls and security cameras (outside the stalls of course) you can't really get any safer than that.


And for anyone crying for your children...I don't know why you would let them go into a public restroom without you in the first place, but statistically they're more likely to be molested by a hetero sexual man than a trans person.

I don't think the worry is that they'll be molested by a transperson. I think the worry is that a hetero man who has a peeping fetish and is NOT trans will pretend to be in order to easily gain access into women's rooms to peep.

(April 15, 2016 at 7:23 pm)paulpablo Wrote: It's not like they're actively protecting the business they're just not forcing the private business to do anything in particular.

So, let's take a hypothetical case of say, not serving anyone being born in Portugal? That OK?

I'm sure it is, since you're all open for choice.

But rest assured, business ruins itself when being bigoted. The case of the bakery not serving gays proved that very well.

(April 15, 2016 at 7:23 pm)Losty Wrote: Personally I think a single bathroom for everyone is the best and safest and best option. Same for locker rooms.

There are predators in this world and they will seek out and attack their victims regardless of restroom laws and likely some place less public. The people most likely to be attacked in a restroom are transgender people. If we have one restroom for everyone with floor to ceiling stalls and security cameras (outside the stalls of course) you can't really get any safer than that.


And for anyone crying for your children...I don't know why you would let them go into a public restroom without you in the first place, but statistically they're more likely to be molested by a hetero sexual man than a trans person.

With secularist mindset and being true to it, this seems to be the thing that makes most sense.  The norm of division comes from traditional mindset of religion.

Which is why I would never separate religion from politics, personally. It's eventually going to lead to even 6 people all being married to one another and all living in the same house as marriage...why not....from a secular perspective, why define marriage simply as 1:1, why not allow for example 3 men and 3 women to all be married to one another and share one another in the same house.

(April 15, 2016 at 7:31 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Which is why I would never separate religion from politics, personally.

With 59 percent of my population being areligious that's going against the majority, which amounts to going against democracy. Also, which religion should it be, out of the abundant choices?

(April 15, 2016 at 7:27 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 7:23 pm)Losty Wrote: Personally I think a single bathroom for everyone is the best and safest and best option. Same for locker rooms.

There are predators in this world and they will seek out and attack their victims regardless of restroom laws and likely some place less public. The people most likely to be attacked in a restroom are transgender people. If we have one restroom for everyone with floor to ceiling stalls and security cameras (outside the stalls of course) you can't really get any safer than that.


And for anyone crying for your children...I don't know why you would let them go into a public restroom without you in the first place, but statistically they're more likely to be molested by a hetero sexual man than a trans person.

I don't think the worry is that they'll be molested by a transperson. I think the worry is that a hetero man who has a peeping fetish and is NOT trans will pretend to be in order to easily gain access into women's rooms to peep.

Why wouldn't a parent be there to make sure that doesn't happen to their child? Why would that be more likely to happen? What I really don't get about all the emotional stress is that people have been using whatever bathroom they felt comfortable in for ages and everyone is just now noticing.

We don't need a law that will make hetero men more likely to dress up and try to peep on ladies in the bathroom. We just need to not make laws that prevent everyone from using the restroom they already use.

Still, the floor to ceiling stalls would prevent any peeping by anyone. The way restrooms tend to be set up now (where I live at least) I stare at my feet the entire time in in the restroom because if you're not careful you can accidentally make eye contact with someone who's peeing or pooping and that's pretty awkward.

(April 15, 2016 at 7:23 pm)Losty Wrote: Personally I think a single bathroom for everyone is the best and safest and best option. Same for locker rooms.

There are predators in this world and they will seek out and attack their victims regardless of restroom laws and likely some place less public. The people most likely to be attacked in a restroom are transgender people. If we have one restroom for everyone with floor to ceiling stalls and security cameras (outside the stalls of course) you can't really get any safer than that.


And for anyone crying for your children...I don't know why you would let them go into a public restroom without you in the first place, but statistically they're more likely to be molested by a hetero sexual man than a trans person.

I would think women are more likely to be attacked than transgender people.