Transexuals

[Catholic_Lady]

For those bringing it up, I obviously don't think people need to be "checked" before going to the bathroom or the lockerroom. It would be a general standard that people are expected to follow. If someone chooses to be dishonest and not follow it though, and they look enough like the respective sex that they could do that and get away with it, I'm sure there are people out there who would. And if anything, drawing the line at sex change would at least ensure that you get people who actually look like the respective sex and have at least gone through plenty of transformation, even if sex change hasn't happened yet. This would ensure that at least not just anyone goes in there. 

I do think these people should have the right to a 3rd bathroom, and that should be the ultimate goal here. But as I said in my earlier post, if we are to draw the line somewhere, it seems like complete sex change would be the most logical, least arbitrary place to draw it, though of course there would be cases that are very much in the grey area such as Cait Jenner who has done every transformation possible except sex change. But that's why I believe the first priority here would be giving them access to a 3rd bathroom.

By the way, what do you guys think of this post I made, in reference to the bolded? I don't think anyone addressed where they think the line should be drawn, or if one should be drawn at all. Also, should the same standards apply to lockerrooms as they do to bathrooms or should the standards for lockerrooms be stricter since people will often be in open states of undress? 

 

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.

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes, there are such people, though it is very rare. They are called "otherkin." 

Ok, I can see what you're saying about the brain scan and it makes sense, and it does further set them apart from the examples I mentioned above. However, couldn't it still be considered some form of disorder for the brain to be one sex and the rest of the body to be a different sex? Isn't that the crux of the word "disorder," in it's most basic form, that something is not "ordered" properly?

Not in a medical sense.

Fair enough. Though I guess in this case it becomes a matter of semantics.

[Mister Agenda]

Actually, I'm not.[suggesting a soul][i]Using functional MRI studied Burke brains of people with and without a so-called gender dystrophy. Burke: "It appears that the brains of these young people have characteristics that are closer to their perceived gender than their birth gender."

Like a famous talk show host, I value clarity more than agreement. You do realize that by lumping homosexuality in with GID, then you are in essence saying that either 1) both are pathological or 2) both are normative. In the study you cited there is a proven mismatch and conflict between two biological functions. Therefore you seem to be arguing for the idea that GID is a legitimate pathology, so that must mean that you think homosexuality is too.

People with health issues are innocent victims of their circumstances, so they are not to be faulted. The question remains as to what treatment options best remedy the pathology, a private decision, and how the larger culture must adapt itself to the accommodate the pathology. These issues can be discussed without accusations of bigotry.

Not normative does not equal pathological. There is some space between normative and pathological.

[Mister Agenda]

Any more than the bolded part leading you to that conclusion?

I can only offer my thoughts, not any definite knowledge on the matter - as per my phrasing. I will offer them gladly, though.

It's like thinking you're a chair instead of a human.

It would be a delusion to think you're a chair instead of a human. Trans people don't suffer from a delusion that they're another sex. What actually seems to be happening is that the sex of their brain does not match their genitals. The main consideration though, is whether being trans harms anyone else. It doesn't. So ultimately, it's none of our business.

[Mister Agenda]

Which in itself is questionable, since these people aren't mentally ill. It's an insult to them and it goes against what serious experts in the fields have found out during the last few decades. Rocket quoted some of it.

Drippy only quoted conversion therapy con artists, which, even by US standards, is now a questionable practice. Even, because the US tolerated it for the longest time in the Western world.

Fair enough. How about people who identify as a different species or as a different race than what they physically/biologically are? If those are indeed psychological disorders, in what ways would you say they are different from identifying as a different sex?

If they actually believe that they are a different species or race, they are delusional. If they recognize that they are not actually a different species or race, but strongly desire to identify as a different species or race, that is something else.

[Edwardo Piet]

[...][on the topic of narcissism] never apologizing or admitting they are wrong

Is this always the case? Would they never give an apology or admit they are wrong ever, even if they're fighting a losing battle and/or are going to be rumbled?

They never apologize even for self-serving manipulative reasons?

Do they never give fake apologies even?

[Joods]

No, Evie. They don't. Funny, but even when evidence is presented to them, in black and white, they will still deny and won't admit defeat. To do that would be detrimental to their life. They'd have to remove their mask and expose their true self to everyone, thus exposing the lie that is their life. To them, they can't bear facing that.

They won't apologize for anything. Ever. I've asked my daughter if her dad ever bothered to apologize for something when he clearly knew he was in the wrong. She said no, he hadn't.

And isn't that a sad legacy to leave to a kid? Knowing that your dad was such an asshole that even when it came down to it, he couldn't apologize to his child?

[Marsellus Wallace]

My fav porn category is trans, maybe that's cuz im bi

IMO, tranxeuallity only becomes an issue in bathrooms.

[Edwardo Piet]

They won't apologize for anything. Ever. I've asked my daughter if her dad ever bothered to apologize for something when he clearly knew he was in the wrong. She said no, he hadn't.

Ahhhh. So even a fake apology is proof of not being a narcissist.

Excellent, thanks for that.

[robvalue]

My father fits the profile of a narcissist extremely well.

He has apologized to me a total of one time in our whole relationship, and that was for something totally petty as part of a power play when he thought he was losing control. And yes, he has a huge amount of things to apologize for, but either doesn't consider he has done anything wrong or will never admit a mistake.