Transexuals

[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.