The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

[Spatial Ed]

I have never been uncomfortable sharing my bathroom with the transgendered. What would Jesus do?

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I have never been uncomfortable sharing my bathroom with the transgendered. What would Jesus do?

What about the blacks, ever feel a twinge of discomfort when one of "them" walks in to the shitter when you are taking a squirt? Just think about what they could do.

Nope. We've never seen that line of argument before....

 

[Dog]

So what makes a transgender person's discomfort sharing a bathroom with members of their own biological sex more deserving of accommodation than a cisgender person's discomfort sharing a bathroom with a person of the opposite biological sex?

Who said it was?

Obama.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

So what makes a transgender person's discomfort sharing a bathroom with members of their own biological sex more deserving of accommodation than a cisgender person's discomfort sharing a bathroom with a person of the opposite biological sex?

Who said it was?

Obama.

What did he say, exactly?

 

[Dog]

So what makes a transgender person's discomfort sharing a bathroom with members of their own biological sex more deserving of accommodation than a cisgender person's discomfort sharing a bathroom with a person of the opposite biological sex?

Who said it was?

Obama.

What did he say, exactly?

Basically that transgender people don't have to use the bathroom corresponding to their sex if it makes them uncomfortable. Their discomfort qualifies for an accommodation and they can use whatever bathroom they feel like. Other people's discomfort, not so much.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

So what makes a transgender person's discomfort sharing a bathroom with members of their own biological sex more deserving of accommodation than a cisgender person's discomfort sharing a bathroom with a person of the opposite biological sex?

Who said it was?

Obama.

What did he say, exactly?

Basically that transgender people don't have to use the bathroom corresponding to their sex if it makes them uncomfortable. Their discomfort qualifies for an accommodation and they can use whatever bathroom they feel like. Other people's discomfort, not so much.

Not basically. What did he actually say.

 

[Spatial Ed]

It's not what he said that's important, it's what dog heard that is important.

 

[Cement_Shoes]

It's not what he said that's important, it's what dog heard that is important.

Here is an example of said versus heard,

Obama, "Good morning."

Dog hears, "I am an Kenyan, Indonesian, Muslim, Atheist, Terrorist Sympathizer, Terrorist Supporter, TERRORIST, Fascist, Nazi, School Cheat, Illegal Alien, Space Alien, Robot and I am here to destroy America. And Worst of all I Am a Liberal."

 

[Guest]

What cases of discrimination can you show that was happening in CLT to prompt this measure?

Remember that the bar YOU and Rzr set was that this had to be actually happening in the real world before politicians were allowed to act and pass laws. Just saying.

See post 571. Discrimination was legal in Charlotte. Why would there be a record of it? The justification for adding categories to the Charlotte NDO was as stated above, it's good for business.

Malarky! If tranny discrimination was happening in an LGBT friendly town like CLT, it would have been know and reported. CLT pushed their law only because they could and wanted to push their shit onto the rest of the country. The NC legislature said NFW.

I was seriously under the impression that your bar for enacting legislation was that there had to be an actual injustice that needed fixing. That's what you've been saying this entire thread. Now you're changing your tune and saying that it was justified because something might or might not have happened. Sounds a lot like the dog/plame standard you continually rail against......

Edit: And it was "good for business"??? Sounds like CLT was having no trouble attracting business before they enacted their anti-discrimination policy. Sounds to me like the LGBT folks were shopping for a problem they could use their "SOLution" on.

 

[Dog]

It's not what he said that's important, it's what dog heard that is important.

Here is an example of said versus heard,

Obama, "Good morning."

Dog hears, "I am an Kenyan, Indonesian, Muslim, Atheist, Terrorist Sympathizer, Terrorist Supporter, TERRORIST, Fascist, Nazi, School Cheat, Illegal Alien, Space Alien, Robot and I am here to destroy America. And Worst of all I Am a Liberal."

The above is an example of said versus heard. I defy you to find one example of me referring to Obama as any of those things, well maybe liberal. Fuck off.

 

[Guest]

@ gov - if that woman does say she's uncomfortable with a biological man in the woman's locker room, what accommodation would/should we give her? A private shower? What if she refuses just as the tranny boy refuses to use a separate shower?

Do we boot her out of her own locker room, suck it up and say to go to class sweaty and you can damn well shower when you get home?

Its that what you're saying?

Neither seems like a very nice solution

Bear in mind, I believe you are asking for a detailed solution to an extremely unlikely hypothetical.

You are suggesting some female is going to claim a need for access to a solution to a problem

I don't believe will ever exist.

"There is a person in the locker room I would like to use whose presence violates my freedom. "

"How does this person's presence violate your freedom"

"The person has a dangly thing between the legs."

"And?"

"?????? OK.... I can't fill in this part because I have no idea why anyone would possibly give a rat's parootie about a dangly thing hanging off a person who is in every other way playing the time of a female

So, I have no idea what accommodations such a person might need.

She might be grossed out, frightened, amazed, jealous, turned on, revolted...

I don't have Ny idea what the hypothetical petitioner wants, needs, or any way to predict what might be fair.

I can guarantee this. If I were a teacher or administrator T her school Snd confronted with this situation, I would sit down and chat with the petitioner and do my very best to serve her needs.

In fact, I am fully confident I could work with her to absolutely solve the problem in a way she would find acceptable

But yet the trannies could not be accommodated in any way they would find acceptable other than to force all the other girls to shower with him?

By your reasoning above, gov, if you claim it would be unfathomable that a girl would have a problem with a "girl" with dangly bits showering next to her - why then would a tranny "girl" have a problem going into a men's room? Does (s)he also not want to have to be exposed to dangly bits in the shower room too? Seems like an amazing double standard you are building here.

Think about that.....

 

[Dog]

Who said it was?

Obama.

What did he say, exactly?

Basically that transgender people don't have to use the bathroom corresponding to their sex if it makes them uncomfortable. Their discomfort qualifies for an accommodation and they can use whatever bathroom they feel like. Other people's discomfort, not so much.

Not basically. What did he actually say.

Look it up yourself.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

I was thinking about something from an article that Sol shared above trying to explain the chromosomal basis for feeling transgendered. It seems to me that if we are to accept that gender isn't binary, than perhaps the solutions to gender "acceptance" shouldn't be either.

If we stipulate to that, then it is indeed the case that the trans-kids who are pushing for inclusion into the facilities of their chosen gender identity are the ones who are being intrusive, and that the only equitable solutions are to provide separate facilities for each possible permutation of "gender identity", or to eliminate communal facilities altogether.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

What cases of discrimination can you show that was happening in CLT to prompt this measure?

Remember that the bar YOU and Rzr set was that this had to be actually happening in the real world before politicians were allowed to act and pass laws. Just saying.

See post 571. Discrimination was legal in Charlotte. Why would there be a record of it? The justification for adding categories to the Charlotte NDO was as stated above, it's good for business.

Malarky! If tranny discrimination was happening in an LGBT friendly town like CLT, it would have been know and reported. CLT pushed their law only because they could and wanted to push their shit onto the rest of the country. The NC legislature said NFW.

I was seriously under the impression that your bar for enacting legislation was that there had to be an actual injustice that needed fixing. That's what you've been saying this entire thread. Now you're changing your tune and saying that it was justified because something might or might not have happened. Sounds a lot like the dog/plame standard you continually rail against......

So you are not reading what I write, or the links that I post. The link explained quite clearly why Charlotte enacted the ordinance. It was good for business, to attract the best and brightest talent, to add gender expression, gender identity, sexual preference and marital status to the pre-existing discrimination ordinance. What would you want to see from a local ordinance that takes nothing away from anyone, but protects local citizens and lets big business know that they don't have to fear any backwards backwoods regulations? The Charlotte folks cited studies to support their argument in favor of attracting business. The legislation from the state was directed at what might happen in a bathroom if some transgender person decided to act out on perverted thoughts, yet nobody can provide an example of it happening. One was enacted to attract business, the other was enacted to attract ignorance and fear.

I don't expect you to get this far into this post, but I'm not going to keep repeating stuff just because you refuse to read it.

 

[slatfatf]

@ gov - if that woman does say she's uncomfortable with a biological man in the woman's locker room, what accommodation would/should we give her? A private shower? What if she refuses just as the tranny boy refuses to use a separate shower?

Do we boot her out of her own locker room, suck it up and say to go to class sweaty and you can damn well shower when you get home?

Its that what you're saying?

Neither seems like a very nice solution

Bear in mind, I believe you are asking for a detailed solution to an extremely unlikely hypothetical.

You are suggesting some female is going to claim a need for access to a solution to a problem

I don't believe will ever exist.

"There is a person in the locker room I would like to use whose presence violates my freedom. "

"How does this person's presence violate your freedom"

"The person has a dangly thing between the legs."

"And?"

"?????? OK.... I can't fill in this part because I have no idea why anyone would possibly give a rat's parootie about a dangly thing hanging off a person who is in every other way playing the time of a female

So, I have no idea what accommodations such a person might need.

She might be grossed out, frightened, amazed, jealous, turned on, revolted...

I don't have Ny idea what the hypothetical petitioner wants, needs, or any way to predict what might be fair.

I can guarantee this. If I were a teacher or administrator T her school Snd confronted with this situation, I would sit down and chat with the petitioner and do my very best to serve her needs.

In fact, I am fully confident I could work with her to absolutely solve the problem in a way she would find acceptable

But yet the trannies could not be accommodated in any way they would find acceptable other than to force all the other girls to shower with him?

By your reasoning above, gov, if you claim it would be unfathomable that a girl would have a problem with a "girl" with dangly bits showering next to her - why then would a tranny "girl" have a problem going into a men's room? Does (s)he also not want to have to be exposed to dangly bits in the shower room too? Seems like an amazing double standard you are building here.

Think about that.....

You are missing a crucial difference. The cisgender female who feels uncomfortable is an ignorant bigot, the transexual who feels uncomfortable is a victim. It is not open for discussion, as evidenced by this thread.

 

[Guest]

Myth #3: Letting trans people use the bathroom matching their gender identity is dangerousTransgender people generally prefer using the bathroom that matches their gender identity, not the one that corresponds with the gender they were assigned at birth. But critics argue that this could expose others to sexual voyeurism and assault in bathrooms — even though there's no evidence to support this claim.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee perpetuated this myth at a 2015 convention, stating, "Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE. I'm pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, 'Coach, I think I'd rather shower with the girls today.'"

But as Media Matters pointed out, experts from 12 states that protect trans rights have thoroughly refuted this talking point. In the US, there's not a single reported instance of this kind of voyeurism occurring in states with legal protections for trans people.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11692494/transgender-bathrooms-creepy

I have NEVER once argued this point from a voyeurism or assault standpoint. I maintain that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a tranny feels uncomfortable being in a men's room because it doesn't match her "gender" - then why is it so fucking hard to understand that the opposite can be true and that a girl in a female locker room might equally feel "uncomfortable" showering and changing next to a person of the opposite biological sex??? What if that female doesn't give a rat's fuck about self-identified "gender" and is uncomfortable being around an exposed penis - even if that penis is attached to an outwardly feminine body? Why is her discomfort any less valid than the tranny's discomfort being in a male shower?

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I was thinking about something from an article that Sol shared above trying to explain the chromosomal basis for feeling transgendered. It seems to me that if we are to accept that gender isn't binary, than perhaps the solutions to gender "acceptance" shouldn't be either.

If we stipulate to that, then it is indeed the case that the trans-kids who are pushing for inclusion into the facilities of their chosen gender identity are the ones who are being intrusive, and that the only equitable solutions are to provide separate facilities for each possible permutation of "gender identity", or to eliminate communal facilities altogether.

So we're gonna circle back to the separate but equal discussion today? We've already covered why that was wrong in the 50s and 60s and why it is wrong now.

Shall we provide them with separate water fountains too? How can we know what perversity rests upon their lips, for transfer to innocents via the water fountain?

apologies for the snark. I just cannot believe that we are having this discussion again.

 

[slatfatf]

I was thinking about something from an article that Sol shared above trying to explain the chromosomal basis for feeling transgendered. It seems to me that if we are to accept that gender isn't binary, than perhaps the solutions to gender "acceptance" shouldn't be either.

If we stipulate to that, then it is indeed the case that the trans-kids who are pushing for inclusion into the facilities of their chosen gender identity are the ones who are being intrusive, and that the only equitable solutions are to provide separate facilities for each possible permutation of "gender identity", or to eliminate communal facilities altogether.

And that is exactly where i expect things to go.

 

[Spatial Ed]

Where Would Jesus Doodoo?

 

[BeSafe]

or to eliminate communal facilities altogether.

And that is exactly where i expect things to go.

That's probably the only actual answer. It'll just cost more.