The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

G

Guest

Guest
What's friggin funny is the cons have gotten their collective panties in a bunch and forcing a nanny state to protect kids in bathrooms from a nonexistent threat.
But it could happen.
Its not about a threat. Its about "comfort". The tranny is uncomfortable in a boys BR. The girls are uncomfortable with a biological boy in the girls locker room.

Who's comfort is more important here? That's an honest question that no one is bothering to address.
Oh, so it's about comfort instead of rights. Ah. Where have in our country had that discussion before?
Nice try sol. But its BS. 1964 was about giving rights to a group that had rights taken away (or never had). The SOLution correctly was to allow everyone to use the same lunch counter, the same drinking fountains, the same sections of the bus and the same classrooms. That was the correct accommodation for all.

The girls in the locker room have the same rights as the tranny does. What rights does the tranny have that the girls don't? Since those rights to privacy and access obviously conflict - who wins here? Unless you are advocating for single gender-neutral locker rooms, your race analogy falls on its face. Because we have segregated the sexes in these areas since the beginning of time, and that was and has been by mutual consent and by choice. I don't recall the feminist movement demanding access to men's bathrooms or vice versa. Title IX is all about segregation and separate but equal. You can deny that all you want, but that's exactly what it is.

This is not about "comfort", this is about rights to privacy. That lack of right to privacy is causing discomfort for the girls. The lack of equal access for the tranny is causing them discomfort.

Look, we've gone around and around about this..... the fact of the matter is that what I predicted came true. There are girls who don't want trannies in their bathroom and now their rights are being taken away in favor of one person who demands to bring their penis into the girls locker room where culturally and historically that was frowned upon. They are pushing back. This will be fought out in the courts, but that should stop us from discussing what WE think the solution should be. Its never stopped you or rzr before, why start now, lest you invoke the Dog/Plame standard again. Or something.

 
G

Guest

Guest
Once we get the trans-gender bathroom issue under control, let's not forget that there are other gender identities which also deserve special consideration.

In the world of biology, there are two genders. In the world of fucking idiocy there are at least 31, according to the NYC Commission on Human Rights:

1. BI-GENDERED

2. CROSS-DRESSER

3. DRAG KING

4. DRAG QUEEN

5. FEMME QUEEN

6. FEMALE-TO-MALE

7. FTM

8. GENDER BENDER

9. GENDERQUEER

10. MALE-TO-FEMALE

11. MTF

12. NON-OP

13. HIJRA

14. PANGENDER

15. TRANSEXUAL/TRANSSEXUAL

16. TRANS PERSON

17. WOMAN

18. MAN

19. BUTCH

20. TWO-SPIRIT

21. TRANS

22. AGENDER

23. THIRD SEX

24. GENDER FLUID

25. NON-BINARY TRANSGENDER

26. ANDROGYNE

27. GENDER GIFTED

28. GENDER BLENDER

29. FEMME

30. PERSON OF TRANSGENDER EXPERIENCE

31. ANDROGYNOUS
You forgot "Intersex" http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex

 
G

Guest

Guest
What's friggin funny is the cons have gotten their collective panties in a bunch and forcing a nanny state to protect kids in bathrooms from a nonexistent threat.
But it could happen.
Its not about a threat. Its about "comfort". The tranny is uncomfortable in a boys BR. The girls are uncomfortable with a biological boy in the girls locker room.

Who's comfort is more important here? That's an honest question that no one is bothering to address.
Isn't everyone equal? Or are trannies lesser people?
Yes everyone is equal and no trannies are not lessor. But if the rights of two groups conflict, assuming you think that the girls who are pushing back actually also have equal rights - then something's gotta give. Do you force 10 girls to accept a naked tranny in the shower or go elsewhere? Or do you accommodate the tranny with a reasonable alternative?

I know what my answer would be. What's yours?

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
There are girls who don't want trannies in their bathroom and now their rights are being taken away in favor of one person who demands to bring their penis into the girls locker room where culturally and historically that was frowned upon.
And therein lies your problem - there is no "right" to a public bathrooms in which you can feel comfortable. The issue is that there is an "expectation" you feel is violated, but there never was a "right" to what you claim. When the "expectations" of two groups conflict, one tries to make accomodations that don't violate either of their actual "rights".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
There are girls who don't want trannies in their bathroom and now their rights are being taken away in favor of one person who demands to bring their penis into the girls locker room where culturally and historically that was frowned upon.
And therein lies your problem - there is no "right" to a public bathrooms in which you can feel comfortable. The issue is that there is an "expectation" you feel is violated, but there never was a "right" to what you claim. When the "expectations" of two groups conflict, one tries to make accomodations that don't violate either of their actual "rights".
I never said there was a right to a bathroom or a right to be comfortable. I said there is a right and an expectation to privacy.

And in this case, that is exactly what is happening - the rights of two groups are directly conflicting. An accommodation WAS made for the minority group that did not violate their rights. By refusing that accommodation, one group is now infringing on the other's rights.

What happens now? Who's rights rein (for tom :p ) supreme?

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
There are girls who don't want trannies in their bathroom and now their rights are being taken away in favor of one person who demands to bring their penis into the girls locker room where culturally and historically that was frowned upon.
And therein lies your problem - there is no "right" to a public bathrooms in which you can feel comfortable. The issue is that there is an "expectation" you feel is violated, but there never was a "right" to what you claim. When the "expectations" of two groups conflict, one tries to make accomodations that don't violate either of their actual "rights".
I never said there was a right to a bathroom or a right to be comfortable. I said there is a right and an expectation to privacy.

And in this case, that is exactly what is happening - the rights of two groups are directly conflicting. An accommodation WAS made for the minority group that did not violate their rights. By refusing that accommodation, one group is now infringing on the other's rights.

What happens now? Who's rights rein (for tom :p ) supreme?
Your problem is the "right to privacy" is gender neutral. Nothing in the Constitution states that one's "right to privacy" applies differently to people of the opposite gender to you.

If you get stripped in a public bathroom or shower, then you are waiving your "right to privacy" as far as being nude in front of the people in there is concerned - male or female. You are getting stripped where an unknown third party can see you. Your "expectation" that everyone has the same plumbing as you is irrelevant.

Remember, we're talking about public amenities here, not a private residence. There are long established rules about how doing something where other members of the public are present waives the right to privacy.

 

Spatial Ed

Super Anarchist
39,509
96
I'm pretty sure you lose your right to privacy when you voluntarily enter a public shower. Whether you see a dick dangler or not.

 

nannygovtsucks

Super Anarchist
15,365
4
There are girls who don't want trannies in their bathroom and now their rights are being taken away in favor of one person who demands to bring their penis into the girls locker room where culturally and historically that was frowned upon.
And therein lies your problem - there is no "right" to a public bathrooms in which you can feel comfortable. The issue is that there is an "expectation" you feel is violated, but there never was a "right" to what you claim. When the "expectations" of two groups conflict, one tries to make accomodations that don't violate either of their actual "rights".
I never said there was a right to a bathroom or a right to be comfortable. I said there is a right and an expectation to privacy.

And in this case, that is exactly what is happening - the rights of two groups are directly conflicting. An accommodation WAS made for the minority group that did not violate their rights. By refusing that accommodation, one group is now infringing on the other's rights.

What happens now? Who's rights rein (for tom :p ) supreme?
Here is the justification for it from the Charlotte Observer editorial and Washington Times:

"In a defense of President Obama’s order compelling schools to allow access to restrooms on the basis of gender identity, the Charlotte Observer editorial board compared the discomfort of school-aged girls seeing male genitalia in locker rooms to the discomfort of white people being around black people in post-segregation America."

“This is what the Obama administration nudged the rest of the country toward Friday,”...

“Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms — and vice versa — might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort — with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage — then realizing it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined.”

In other words, for liberal utopia to be achieved, little girls must get used to being confronted with swinging (or erect we can assume) dicks.

Really? I say, no.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

benwynn

Super Anarchist
25,275
2,284
There are girls who don't want trannies in their bathroom and now their rights are being taken away in favor of one person who demands to bring their penis into the girls locker room where culturally and historically that was frowned upon.
And therein lies your problem - there is no "right" to a public bathrooms in which you can feel comfortable. The issue is that there is an "expectation" you feel is violated, but there never was a "right" to what you claim. When the "expectations" of two groups conflict, one tries to make accomodations that don't violate either of their actual "rights".
I never said there was a right to a bathroom or a right to be comfortable. I said there is a right and an expectation to privacy.

And in this case, that is exactly what is happening - the rights of two groups are directly conflicting. An accommodation WAS made for the minority group that did not violate their rights. By refusing that accommodation, one group is now infringing on the other's rights.

What happens now? Who's rights rein (for tom :p ) supreme?
Here is the justification for it from the Charlotte Observer editorial and Washington Times:

"In a defense of President Obama’s order compelling schools to allow access to restrooms on the basis of gender identity, the Charlotte Observer editorial board compared the discomfort of school-aged girls seeing male genitalia in locker rooms to the discomfort of white people being around black people in post-segregation America."

“This is what the Obama administration nudged the rest of the country toward Friday,”...

“Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms — and vice versa — might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort — with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage — then realizing it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined.”

In other words, for liberal utopia to be achieved, little girls must get used to being confronted with swinging (or erect we can assume) dicks.

Really? I say, no.
For Conservative Utopia to be maintained, one must show one's birth certificate before entering the bathroom.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,224
5,458
De Nile
There are girls who don't want trannies in their bathroom and now their rights are being taken away in favor of one person who demands to bring their penis into the girls locker room where culturally and historically that was frowned upon.
And therein lies your problem - there is no "right" to a public bathrooms in which you can feel comfortable. The issue is that there is an "expectation" you feel is violated, but there never was a "right" to what you claim. When the "expectations" of two groups conflict, one tries to make accomodations that don't violate either of their actual "rights".
I never said there was a right to a bathroom or a right to be comfortable. I said there is a right and an expectation to privacy.

And in this case, that is exactly what is happening - the rights of two groups are directly conflicting. An accommodation WAS made for the minority group that did not violate their rights. By refusing that accommodation, one group is now infringing on the other's rights.

What happens now? Who's rights rein (for tom :p ) supreme?
Here is the justification for it from the Charlotte Observer editorial and Washington Times:

"In a defense of President Obamas order compelling schools to allow access to restrooms on the basis of gender identity, the Charlotte Observer editorial board compared the discomfort of school-aged girls seeing male genitalia in locker rooms to the discomfort of white people being around black people in post-segregation America."

This is what the Obama administration nudged the rest of the country toward Friday,...

Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls locker rooms and vice versa might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage then realizing it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined.

In other words, for liberal utopia to be achieved, little girls must get used to being confronted with swinging (or erect we can assume) dicks.

Really? I say, no.
For Conservative Utopia to be maintained, one must show one's birth certificate before entering the bathroom.
Given all the IDs the righties want, why not just barcode our foreheads?

 
There are girls who don't want trannies in their bathroom and now their rights are being taken away in favor of one person who demands to bring their penis into the girls locker room where culturally and historically that was frowned upon.
And therein lies your problem - there is no "right" to a public bathrooms in which you can feel comfortable. The issue is that there is an "expectation" you feel is violated, but there never was a "right" to what you claim. When the "expectations" of two groups conflict, one tries to make accomodations that don't violate either of their actual "rights".
I never said there was a right to a bathroom or a right to be comfortable. I said there is a right and an expectation to privacy.

And in this case, that is exactly what is happening - the rights of two groups are directly conflicting. An accommodation WAS made for the minority group that did not violate their rights. By refusing that accommodation, one group is now infringing on the other's rights.

What happens now? Who's rights rein (for tom :p ) supreme?
Here is the justification for it from the Charlotte Observer editorial and Washington Times:

"In a defense of President Obama’s order compelling schools to allow access to restrooms on the basis of gender identity, the Charlotte Observer editorial board compared the discomfort of school-aged girls seeing male genitalia in locker rooms to the discomfort of white people being around black people in post-segregation America."

“This is what the Obama administration nudged the rest of the country toward Friday,”...

“Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms — and vice versa — might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort — with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage — then realizing it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined.”

In other words, for liberal utopia to be achieved, little girls must get used to being confronted with swinging (or erect we can assume) dicks.

Really? I say, no.
For Conservative Utopia to be maintained, one must show one's birth certificate before entering the bathroom.
Oh look! Ben's being sarcastic! Hahaha fucking ha!

 

nannygovtsucks

Super Anarchist
15,365
4
There are girls who don't want trannies in their bathroom and now their rights are being taken away in favor of one person who demands to bring their penis into the girls locker room where culturally and historically that was frowned upon.
And therein lies your problem - there is no "right" to a public bathrooms in which you can feel comfortable. The issue is that there is an "expectation" you feel is violated, but there never was a "right" to what you claim. When the "expectations" of two groups conflict, one tries to make accomodations that don't violate either of their actual "rights".
I never said there was a right to a bathroom or a right to be comfortable. I said there is a right and an expectation to privacy.

And in this case, that is exactly what is happening - the rights of two groups are directly conflicting. An accommodation WAS made for the minority group that did not violate their rights. By refusing that accommodation, one group is now infringing on the other's rights.

What happens now? Who's rights rein (for tom :p ) supreme?
Here is the justification for it from the Charlotte Observer editorial and Washington Times:

"In a defense of President Obama’s order compelling schools to allow access to restrooms on the basis of gender identity, the Charlotte Observer editorial board compared the discomfort of school-aged girls seeing male genitalia in locker rooms to the discomfort of white people being around black people in post-segregation America."

“This is what the Obama administration nudged the rest of the country toward Friday,”...

“Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms — and vice versa — might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort — with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage — then realizing it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined.”

In other words, for liberal utopia to be achieved, little girls must get used to being confronted with swinging (or erect we can assume) dicks.

Really? I say, no.
For Conservative Utopia to be maintained, one must show one's birth certificate before entering the bathroom voting booth.
Fixed. Not utopia, but we can start with fair and legal elections..

 




Top