(April 15, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(April 15, 2016 at 8:31 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: What does it matter what the goal is if the outcome is just as I said?
I think if the outcome could be dangerous, it should matter. There are 2 sides to everything, and both sides should be considered and options weighed.
Anything could be dangerous, C_L. The integration laws had a much more dangerous element to them, and yet they were still the right thing to do. You are still relying on a bogey man that you haven't shown to be a significant risk.
(April 15, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(April 15, 2016 at 8:31 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: As to your question, I answered it, we leave it up to the trans person. Wherever they feel more comfortable peeing, that's where they pee.
Just like in the 50s-60s, when white people were uncomfortable sitting in the booth next to black people, you'll get over it in time. Black people were a minority then just like they are now, but they deserved protection, even at the cost of the majority being uncomfortable while they adjusted. So while having a black person sit next to you (global you) on the bus was just about nearly intolerable, having a trans person nervously shuffle into a stall to use the restroom will be something you'll get over. It's even easier this time, because you'll probably not even notice that it's happening.
Again, the perv bogey man is just a tactic that was drawn up out of fear mongering from the right. Denying people rights and putting them in danger because some asshole politician whose party has been involved in more bathroom perversions than the people they are claiming to protect against is creating this "trans panic" is a thing that would fly in no other situation.
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?
(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.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---