Transexuals

[Losty]

Do you think there is a legitimate reason to believe that disallowing transwoman to continue using whatever restroom they're comfortable using will decrease the risk of this happening?

I've already explained my views on this a number of times and don't feel like repeating myself yet again on how I'm seeing this.   

Nonetheless, again, while I think fakes taking advantage of the opportunity to peep on women is a concern that should be taken into account, it is by no means the ultimate reason why I believe 3rd bathrooms are the best option. 

Women's comfort level (embarrassment) with pooping/peeing/changing/showering in front of people who are still men on the outside is the ultimate reason.

Sorry I jumped into the thread late so I never saw where you told your personal view, but you didn't actually answer my question at all...

What I am asking isn't about your personal view on a third bathroom or anything like that.

I'm just wanting to know if you think making a new law that prevents trans women from using the restrooms they've already been using would really reduce the risk of people peeping in the restroom.


A lot of people mistakenly think that what is happening is that new laws or new accommodations are being made for trans people. That is not the case. Transwomen have been using women's restrooms for decades. These new laws are now making it illegal for them to do that.

[account_inactive]

But this type of comfort level can be tempered by the mind if we understand the nature of transgenders.  We should in this instance put their well being over our gut knee reactions to the issue. I know Quran makes an exception to men who have no desire for women, they can see women without Hijaab. Some people say this referred specifically to people who their privates cut off for unjust reasons, but I think by definition it can be extended to transsexuals.

Perhaps you don't know this, but there are plenty of trans folks who are still attracted to women. Just because a biological man identifies as a woman, does not mean they are attracted to men.  Cait Jenner (formerly Bruce Jenner), for example, is still attracted to women not to men. But that's beside the point.

The point is, both the trans person and the woman may feel uncomfortable/embarrassed to be in states of undress in front of particular groups of people. The trans person may feel uncomfortable changing in the men's lockerroom because they themselves are women in the inside. The women may feel uncomfortable changing in front of a trans person who has not transitioned because those people are still men on the outside. Both of their feelings should be taken into account. To favor one group and tell the other one "too bad" is one sided. That's why I believe the only fair option here is a 3rd private bathroom for people to use when they have not yet transitioned. That way no one feels uncomfortable, and everyone's well being is taken into account. Not just one or the other.

Yeah, that's called being a lesbian.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Perhaps you don't know this, but there are plenty of trans folks who are still attracted to women. Just because a biological man identifies as a woman, does not mean they are attracted to men.  Cait Jenner (formerly Bruce Jenner), for example, is still attracted to women not to men. But that's beside the point.

The point is, both the trans person and the woman may feel uncomfortable/embarrassed to be in states of undress in front of particular groups of people. The trans person may feel uncomfortable changing in the men's lockerroom because they themselves are women in the inside. The women may feel uncomfortable changing in front of a trans person who has not transitioned because those people are still men on the outside. Both of their feelings should be taken into account. To favor one group and tell the other one "too bad" is one sided. That's why I believe the only fair option here is a 3rd private bathroom for people to use when they have not yet transitioned. That way no one feels uncomfortable, and everyone's well being is taken into account. Not just one or the other.

Yeah, that's called being a lesbian.

To be fair, while I don't think C_L would be so small-minded, I'd venture to say that 90% of the people behind these anti-trans "bathroom laws" would also prohibit homosexuals from using those rooms, too. They have a hard-core cabal of propagandists who dedicate their lives to disseminating false information (and fear) to their Christian flocks, in order to advance a Christian agenda while pretending it is an attack on Christians by the "gay agenda":

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/...propaganda

It's not too long ago they were making essentially the same arguments against gays, before they lost the fight in the court of public opinion... for instance, in the military:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/stra...rned-avoid


All we're seeing now is a new facet of their xenophobia.

[abaris]

To be fair, while I don't think C_L would be so small-minded, I'd venture to say that 90% of the people behind these anti-trans "bathroom laws" would also prohibit homosexuals from using those rooms, too. They have a hard-core cabal of propagandists who dedicate their lives to disseminating false information (and fear) to their Christian flocks, in order to advance a Christian agenda while pretending it is an attack on Christians by the "gay agenda":

No, CL is just your average woman. To tell the truth, I have my prejudices too. Many of them, as it is, and I hate myself for it. I just try to jump over my own shadow all the time, since I'm also into constantly trying to inform myself on different opinions and the current state of science.

To my shame I have to admit that my antigay bigotry only ended when I realized my best friend to be gay. He fessed up in a drunken moment, but I never was the same after that.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

To be fair, while I don't think C_L would be so small-minded, I'd venture to say that 90% of the people behind these anti-trans "bathroom laws" would also prohibit homosexuals from using those rooms, too. They have a hard-core cabal of propagandists who dedicate their lives to disseminating false information (and fear) to their Christian flocks, in order to advance a Christian agenda while pretending it is an attack on Christians by the "gay agenda":

No, CL is just your average woman. To tell the truth, I have my prejudices too. Many of them, as it is, and I hate myself for it. I just try to jump over my own shadow all the time, since I'm also into constantly trying to inform myself on different opinions and the current state of science.

To my shame I have to admit that my antigay bigotry only ended when I realized my best friend to be gay. He fessed up in a drunken moment, but I never was the same after that.

It is no shame to be ignorant. We are all ignorant of many things, and all of us are influenced by what author Daniel Quinn called "the voice of Mother Culture", telling us what we should think about things. The only shame in ignorance is to continue in that ignorance after you have had a chance to learn to know/do better.

[Vincent]

C_L is repeating the same two issues over and over, it seems to me.

1) it would make cis people uncomfortable.

This is BS for two reasons. One, you and most other women have shared a bathroom with a bunch of transwomen multiple times in your life. You didn't notice, because all of them appear as women, and many are on hormones. If you didn't notice before, why should it be a problem now?

Two, what you do to one side of the equation, you must do to the other. If transwomen must use the men's room, then transmen must use the women's room. And while transwomen might appear as masculine girls, transmen DEFINITELY appear as regular, biological guys, especially if they're on hormones. And the only hint to give away that they are not bio males, are vaginas you will NEVER get to see. Tell me, how much more comfortable would cis women be with a beaded, big-muscled man walking into the bathroom? Because that is the consequence of what you are proposing.

2) perverts everywhere taking advance of non-discrimination laws.

The only way to examine whether this would be an actual issue is to look at other areas that already allow trans people to use their preferred restroom. So, let's travel to Europe, where multiple countries such as the UK and Denmark allow these rights.

Question: are perverts a problem there? Has there been a noticeable increase in perverted activities in bathrooms?

Answer: no. Everything is proceeding as normal.

That being the case, where does your argument go? The only other thing you can claim is that "American men are more likely to be perverts".

But I'm sure you're intelligent enough to realize that's a foolish point to make.

[SteelCurtain]

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.

You completely missed the point. I was not equating the segregation of races with bathroom segregation. I was equating the general discomfort after segregation laws were nullified with your argument that the discomfort of the majority is cause to deny a vulnerable segment of the population a freedom or right. Seriously, C_L, don't go off the deep end on me. I am trying to have a conversation with you based on the arguments that you are putting forward.

You argument, which you have stated multiple times, seems to be that we shouldn't "cater" to a small segment of the population at the behest of the majority. I am attempting to show why that is ridiculous. Our nation's history is filled with examples of why this is not so. My argument is that just like white people, your discomfort will go away once you realize that your fears were all based on catastrophism that has never shown to be a reality. These very same arguments that you are using have been used over and over again in our nation's sordid history to prevent social change that created a more equal playing field for everyone.

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.

And eventually, through having their consciousness raised about what's actually happening, they'll realize that they are changing with a woman. The language is important here. I've never been in a women's locker room, but I'd imagine it works a lot like most men's locker rooms. Get in, change/shower, get out. There isn't a line of people changing in front of a trans woman. Again, it's hard to empathize with a situation that is hard for me to even imagine, but were it me that was just starting to transition and I still looked like I do now, I'd feel more comfortable in the men's locker room, even though I identify as a woman. I'd feel less exposed, less vulnerable, less anxious. When I felt like I got to a place where I looked more like a woman, that would change. I'd also imagine this would go for the vast majority of trans folks. It was never a mandate that if you identify as a woman, you must use the women's locker room/bathroom.

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.

No, they are well meaning folks who have been told to fear and hate segment of the population based on something they don't understand, just like the majority of white folks after integration. My point is not that anyone who is uncomfortable in front of a trans person is a bigot, but that this is new, and just like going from segregation to integration, there will be some discomfort. After a generation, this will be the norm. And again, you will probably never encounter a situation where this will actually be noticeable to you.    

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.

Again, C_L, I must ask you to back up what your imagination (and RW fearmongering) has foisted upon you with some facts. Show that allowing people to choose which bathroom they're comfortable with has resulted in increased perversions. As Vincent above and many people have said, this has been allowed in the UK for a long while, and your fears are unfounded.

You seem to love taking a statement with pretty clear meaning regarding the context and taking it to the extreme. So allowing people the freedom to choose means no limits at all? How about the laws that are already in place to prevent sexual predation? Is that not a limit? You think that now that there are some unenforceable city ordinances and state laws, that now you're safe from predation in a bathroom? You need to show that your fears are founded before you can justify the trampling of the rights of a vulnerable segment of the population.

ETA: I agree that a third bathroom would be an acceptable compromise, but it is not a plausible solution. You cannot force small businesses to build a third bathroom, and even if you change building codes to mandate three bathrooms in new buildings/renovations, you are still going to have a long transition period before even most buildings catch up. So the problem will still exist, as there will likely always be at least some buildings with two bathrooms.

[SteelCurtain]

Also:

[LadyForCamus]

Okay, I'd like to mention something about Christianity right now, and I want to preface it by saying that I mean it sincerely (for once) and am not trying to mock anyone's beliefs (for once).

According to the Christian narrative, did Jesus not take pain and suffering onto himself out of love for you? Out of love for humanity? Did he not bleed and hurt; give his life selflessly so that you could be saved? Don't the teachings of Christ revolve around sacrificing your own comforts in order to help your brother?

Will some people be uncomfortable with the transgendered sharing their bathroom? Sure...but is being a bit uncomfortable the end of the world? Out of love for our fellow humans, and knowing the pain that those suffering from gender dysphoria experience (pain that can drive them to suicide), can't we as the majority do the selfless thing and bear the burden of occasional discomfort for the sake of helping those who suffer deeply and chronically?

Isn't our mild personal discomfort worth knowing that we are helping ease these people's pain? Can't we better here? Can't we be selfless?

[I_am_not_mafia]

What do you even mean by people who are physical men?

Someone who has the body of a man.

So not a pre-operative transsexual who may have a penis still but is infertile, taking lots of oestrogen, has soft skin, has female fat distribution including breasts and is physically weaker?