The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

[Mike G]

Don't be fucking stupid.

Once the transformation is complete or you have progressed enough to legally change your sex in public records there is no problem.

It's the self diagnoses that smell.

Only those rich enough to afford the surgery will have more rights than those that arent?

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Now we are being told that it is discriminatory not extend special bathroom privileges to a select group.

Playing the perception over truth game might work with morons, but it won't help when it counts. The courts are not likely to play along with the Doggy Style on this one. They're pretty good at sniffing out bull malarkey like yours, and have a pretty good track record of it over the last 60 years or so.

Oh please...By adopting a psychological criteria for the determination of one's sex you are the one advocating that perception is reality.

I've actually argued chromosomal, but don't let the truth get in the way of your perception.

 

[Guest]

No sol, I am not going full nannygoat. And this is not about discrimination. Is is NOT the same as racial discrimination no matter how many times you say it. By taking that approach, you are trying to boil this incredibly complex issue down to a bumper sticker simplicity level. Its not.
The fact is that there are competing rights involved. In the 1960s civil rights cases, there were only one set of rights that were being discriminated against - negros. And that situation has rightfully been addressed. But in the case of trans bathroom and shower room facilities, its not so clear cut. No matter what, someone is going to be discriminated against. If you keep the trans boy out the girls shower - then the trans boy will feel discriminated against. If you let him in, then the girls in the shower will feel discriminated against. I've asked this before - whose rights have higher priority here? The 1 tranny or the 10 girls? Which group makes more sense to attempt to accommodate? Are the girls who object not also being discriminated against?

Now, if shower rooms were already gender-neutral and trannies were banned from using them, then you would have the negro discrimination analogy. But they are not, so again your analogy fails.

But lets say you are correct and the courts rule on your side..... and this is discrimination against the trans boy and they must let him shower with the girls. If so, then ALL cases of gender segregation are therefore discrimination and ANY man should be able to use any restroom or shower he pleases. If not, then I am being discriminated against. As I said, you cannot have one without the other. And that's why I think this will lose in the courts when (not if) it gets there. You DO see that right?

And for the record, I do not want every one to be the same and comport to perfect social norms. I have repeatedly said I have nothing whatsoever against trannies or other historically abnormal forms of the human condition. I am simply saying that we cannot expect for one group of people to sacrifice their rights to privacy just to accommodate another smaller group if a reasonable accommodation can be made. In the case of the school litigation I posted, the school bent over backwards to accommodate the tranny's needs to be a girl. They let him on the girls sports teams, let him wear girls uniforms, and gave him a suitable shower facility to use. But it wasn't good enough. He didn't have that one little thing..... and that was to shower naked with the girls. And the rest of the girls didn't want it. So there is an impasse. This is not a big gov't solution being rammed crammed jammed and slammed down the tranny's throat. It is the other way around. The LGBT community is ramjamcramslamming their shit down the rest of societies throats.

When you refuse to acknowledge that transgender girls are girls, and transgender boys are boys, you are going full nannygoat. Stomping feet, gritting teeth and clenching fists did not succeed in keeping subhuman mongrel status attached to black folks, and it won't work here. All it does is demonstrate that you haven't educated yourself about the gender matters at the heart of this. That is going full nannygoat.

Competing rights? Blah blah blah non-relevant racial cases.

Jesus sol. Nice fucking job of ignoring my question and going full nanny goat yourself.

Look.... I'm not stomping feet or gritting teeth here. You are totally misunderstanding where I'm coming from on this. I *personally" could care less if I'm peeing or showering next to a "girl" or a "guy" regardless of what plumbing they have. I am in favor of gay marriage too, btw. I am only digging my heels in on this only because I think the other side is missing the fucking point and trying to force their minority will on the rest of people who are not interested in peeing or showering with people of the opposite plumbing. For right or wrong, those people have rights too and it fucking pisses me off that they are getting lost in this.

You are correct that letting gays get married didn't hurt marriage. Nor did it hurt white folk by letting the negros sit at the lunch counter with them or share a school room or a bus seat. But there is a legitimate concern here where there are competing rights to privacy. Going right to the race card without actually addressing the question before you is..... so...... happy jack-esque. You are better than that.

I understand that a trans woman with a dick considers herself a "woman". It matters not what I think she is. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with my objections to this. My objection to this is that there are people whose right to privacy will be violated by letting a person with the opposite plumbing shower and change naked next to them. Whether or not you or I think that is rational or right is irrelevant. The earlier SC case you brought up and then promptly ignored when I pointed out that it referred to what society thought "reasonable and legitimate" makes the case I've been attempting to make.....Society for a 1000 years has thought that a separation of the sexes/genders was and is reasonable and legitimate and that some people think that having trannies in the shower is not "reasonable and legitimate". What about their right to privacy? Title IX does not in anyway, shape or form attempt to bring the sexes together into a common shower room.

And get off of the NC bathroom case. They were douchebags about it on both sides. I'm focusing on the IL school shower room where the 10 straight girls objected to the tranny using the shower/changing room. Where do you come down on that in terms of the law, counselor? What accommodation, if any should be given?

Look, stop going off on the race thing and just answer my fucking question: Is it OK for a man (not a trans man, but a regular man) to go shower shower and change in the ladies locker room? If not, why not?

 

[Dog]

Now we are being told that it is discriminatory not extend special bathroom privileges to a select group.

Playing the perception over truth game might work with morons, but it won't help when it counts. The courts are not likely to play along with the Doggy Style on this one. They're pretty good at sniffing out bull malarkey like yours, and have a pretty good track record of it over the last 60 years or so.

Oh please...By adopting a psychological criteria for the determination of one's sex you are the one advocating that perception is reality.

I've actually argued chromosomal, but don't let the truth get in the way of your perception.

Bullshit...You're arguing perception. No one is going to check chromosomes its all about a person's perception of themselves, but don't let the truth get in the way.

 

[Raz'r]

No sol, I am not going full nannygoat. And this is not about discrimination. Is is NOT the same as racial discrimination no matter how many times you say it. By taking that approach, you are trying to boil this incredibly complex issue down to a bumper sticker simplicity level. Its not.

The fact is that there are competing rights involved. In the 1960s civil rights cases, there were only one set of rights that were being discriminated against - negros. And that situation has rightfully been addressed. But in the case of trans bathroom and shower room facilities, its not so clear cut. No matter what, someone is going to be discriminated against. If you keep the trans boy out the girls shower - then the trans boy will feel discriminated against. If you let him in, then the girls in the shower will feel discriminated against. I've asked this before - whose rights have higher priority here? The 1 tranny or the 10 girls? Which group makes more sense to attempt to accommodate? Are the girls who object not also being discriminated against?

Now, if shower rooms were already gender-neutral and trannies were banned from using them, then you would have the negro discrimination analogy. But they are not, so again your analogy fails.

But lets say you are correct and the courts rule on your side..... and this is discrimination against the trans boy and they must let him shower with the girls. If so, then ALL cases of gender segregation are therefore discrimination and ANY man should be able to use any restroom or shower he pleases. If not, then I am being discriminated against. As I said, you cannot have one without the other. And that's why I think this will lose in the courts when (not if) it gets there. You DO see that right?

And for the record, I do not want every one to be the same and comport to perfect social norms. I have repeatedly said I have nothing whatsoever against trannies or other historically abnormal forms of the human condition. I am simply saying that we cannot expect for one group of people to sacrifice their rights to privacy just to accommodate another smaller group if a reasonable accommodation can be made. In the case of the school litigation I posted, the school bent over backwards to accommodate the tranny's needs to be a girl. They let him on the girls sports teams, let him wear girls uniforms, and gave him a suitable shower facility to use. But it wasn't good enough. He didn't have that one little thing..... and that was to shower naked with the girls. And the rest of the girls didn't want it. So there is an impasse. This is not a big gov't solution being rammed crammed jammed and slammed down the tranny's throat. It is the other way around. The LGBT community is ramjamcramslamming their shit down the rest of societies throats.

When you refuse to acknowledge that transgender girls are girls, and transgender boys are boys, you are going full nannygoat. Stomping feet, gritting teeth and clenching fists did not succeed in keeping subhuman mongrel status attached to black folks, and it won't work here. All it does is demonstrate that you haven't educated yourself about the gender matters at the heart of this. That is going full nannygoat.
Competing rights? Blah blah blah non-relevant racial cases.

Jesus sol. Nice fucking job of ignoring my question and going full nanny goat yourself.

Look.... I'm not stomping feet or gritting teeth here. You are totally misunderstanding where I'm coming from on this. I *personally" could care less if I'm peeing or showering next to a "girl" or a "guy" regardless of what plumbing they have. I am in favor of gay marriage too, btw. I am only digging my heels in on this only because I think the other side is missing the fucking point and trying to force their minority will on the rest of people who are not interested in peeing or showering with people of the opposite plumbing. For right or wrong, those people have rights too and it fucking pisses me off that they are getting lost in this.

You are correct that letting gays get married didn't hurt marriage. Nor did it hurt white folk by letting the negros sit at the lunch counter with them or share a school room or a bus seat. But there is a legitimate concern here where there are competing rights to privacy. Going right to the race card without actually addressing the question before you is..... so...... happy jack-esque. You are better than that.

I understand that a trans woman with a dick considers herself a "woman". It matters not what I think she is. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with my objections to this. My objection to this is that there are people whose right to privacy will be violated by letting a person with the opposite plumbing shower and change naked next to them. Whether or not you or I think that is rational or right is irrelevant. The earlier SC case you brought up and then promptly ignored when I pointed out that it referred to what society thought "reasonable and legitimate" makes the case I've been attempting to make.....Society for a 1000 years has thought that a separation of the sexes/genders was and is reasonable and legitimate and that some people think that having trannies in the shower is not "reasonable and legitimate". What about their right to privacy? Title IX does not in anyway, shape or form attempt to bring the sexes together into a common shower room.

And get off of the NC bathroom case. They were douchebags about it on both sides. I'm focusing on the IL school shower room where the 10 straight girls objected to the tranny using the shower/changing room. Where do you come down on that in terms of the law, counselor? What accommodation, if any should be given?

Look, stop going off on the race thing and just answer my fucking question: Is it OK for a man (not a trans man, but a regular man) to go shower shower and change in the ladies locker room? If not, why not?

That depends on local laws, right? Well, the Supremes will likely now have a say.

 

[Guest]

That depends on local laws, right? Well, the Supremes will likely now have a say.

Yes, they will. But that will be years away most likely. I'm interested in what people think about it now.

I'll ask you directly, local law or not - is it ok for a man to shower with and change with females in a designated female public shower/changing room? Why or why not?

 

[slatfatf]

It seems pretty clear that the feds are saying that it would be discriminatory to check chromosomes.

The guidance explains that when students or their parents, as appropriate, notify a school that a student is transgender, the school must treat the student consistent with the student’s gender identity. A school may not require transgender students to have a medical diagnosis, undergo any medical treatment, or produce a birth certificate or other identification document before treating them consistent with their gender identity.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-departments-justice-and-education-release-joint-guidance-help-schools-ensure-civil-rights

I still don't think an Orthodox Jewish girl or Muslim girl is an ignorant bigot for not wanting to shower with someone who has the anatomy of a man, even if Obama does.

 

[Guest]

It seems pretty clear that the feds are saying that it would be discriminatory to check chromosomes.

The guidance explains that when students or their parents, as appropriate, notify a school that a student is transgender, the school must treat the student consistent with the student’s gender identity. A school may not require transgender students to have a medical diagnosis, undergo any medical treatment, or produce a birth certificate or other identification document before treating them consistent with their gender identity.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-departments-justice-and-education-release-joint-guidance-help-schools-ensure-civil-rights

I still don't think an Orthodox Jewish girl or Muslim girl is an ignorant bigot for not wanting to shower with someone who has the anatomy of a man, even if Obama does.

You're such a bigot for daring to take the mooslem girl's side. As evadent.......

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Now we are being told that it is discriminatory not extend special bathroom privileges to a select group.

Playing the perception over truth game might work with morons, but it won't help when it counts. The courts are not likely to play along with the Doggy Style on this one. They're pretty good at sniffing out bull malarkey like yours, and have a pretty good track record of it over the last 60 years or so.

Oh please...By adopting a psychological criteria for the determination of one's sex you are the one advocating that perception is reality.

I've actually argued chromosomal, but don't let the truth get in the way of your perception.

Bullshit...You're arguing perception. No one is going to check chromosomes its all about a person's perception of themselves, but don't let the truth get in the way.

Changing my argument is so very straussian of you. But I think I'll stick with what I actually argued, thanks just the same.

 

[Saorsa]

Straussian?

As usual, waltzing around anything that is the least disturbing to your linear mind.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Jesus sol. Nice fucking job of ignoring my question and going full nanny goat yourself.

1. Look.... I'm not stomping feet or gritting teeth here. You are totally misunderstanding where I'm coming from on this. I *personally" could care less if I'm peeing or showering next to a "girl" or a "guy" regardless of what plumbing they have. I am in favor of gay marriage too, btw. I am only digging my heels in on this only because I think the other side is missing the fucking point and trying to force their minority will on the rest of people who are not interested in peeing or showering with people of the opposite plumbing. For right or wrong, those people have rights too and it fucking pisses me off that they are getting lost in this.

2. You are correct that letting gays get married didn't hurt marriage. Nor did it hurt white folk by letting the negros sit at the lunch counter with them or share a school room or a bus seat. But there is a legitimate concern here where there are competing rights to privacy. Going right to the race card without actually addressing the question before you is..... so...... happy jack-esque. You are better than that.

3. I understand that a trans woman with a dick considers herself a "woman". It matters not what I think she is. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with my objections to this. My objection to this is that there are people whose right to privacy will be violated by letting a person with the opposite plumbing shower and change naked next to them. Whether or not you or I think that is rational or right is irrelevant. The earlier SC case you brought up and then promptly ignored when I pointed out that it referred to what society thought "reasonable and legitimate" makes the case I've been attempting to make.....Society for a 1000 years has thought that a separation of the sexes/genders was and is reasonable and legitimate and that some people think that having trannies in the shower is not "reasonable and legitimate". What about their right to privacy? Title IX does not in anyway, shape or form attempt to bring the sexes together into a common shower room.

4. And get off of the NC bathroom case. They were douchebags about it on both sides. I'm focusing on the IL school shower room where the 10 straight girls objected to the tranny using the shower/changing room. Where do you come down on that in terms of the law, counselor? What accommodation, if any should be given?

5. Look, stop going off on the race thing and just answer my fucking question: Is it OK for a man (not a trans man, but a regular man) to go shower shower and change in the ladies locker room? If not, why not?

1. I have provided cites to teach folks what transgendered people think about themselves, what they go through, etc. I cannot force you to read it, but your refusal to educate yourself does not make your opinion about whether someone can just decide that they are a different gender does not render your opinion authoritative. This is not a new phenomenon that people learned about on MTV and thought it would be cute to try. It's been going on for quite some time.

2. I have provided case law, authored by Justice Scalia, which discusses the right to privacy in a locker room setting. That you refuse to acknowledge it does not render your opinion authoritative.

3. See number 2, above. I didn't bother replying to your thousand year comment because it would involve repeating once again something that I have said many times before, that this has been going on a long time and has not been a problem yet. (See answer to number 1, above.) I shall henceforth respond to future versions of this question by referring to these numbers, in lieu of spending the time to respond yet again.

4. I've responded to that in this thread.

5. Why not discuss race? Were black folks not discriminated against, in order to keep the majority feeling more comfortable? As I asked the last time I responded to the male/female locker room question, do we wish to discuss the matter in the context of schools or public locker rooms, because the standards applied may very well be different, given the custodial nature of schools and sometimes compulsory use of locker rooms (P.E. class vs. playing sports). I ask because I don't mind spending time digging stuff up if it is read and acknowledged, but folks like nanny will just ignore it and spout idiocy and hatred, and folks like Dog will just change what I said and argue against that, and I do not care to waste time with that. I will say that my answer will come not just from what I feel it should be, but from case law, and that you can likely figure the answer out from those cases discussing locker room privacy in the sports team context, in which folks choose to be in the locker room vs kids in PE who must use it.

 

[Saorsa]

Transgendered people think a lot about themselves. It's demanding that everyone else think about them and let them have their way regardless of what anyone else thinks.

What the fuck part of SELF esteem don't you understand. In most cases you have no way of knowing that someone is transgender unless they go out of their way to tell you.

 

[Gouvernail]

The more you protest about guys in the gals' facilities and gals being upset about how the other gals look the more you embarrass yourselves.

NOBODY is advocating sending boys or men into the locker room or making it legal for men or boys to go in the girls' locker room.

The rulings and policies are about Trans girls and trans boys.

There will not be any boys or men in girls locker rooms except for the ones commiting sex crimes.

What do you do about the ten ignorant girls who object to sharing with what they think is a boy???

You educate them.

"That person in not a boy. That person in a trans girl."

Then you answer a few questions, thank them for participating in the learning process, go on to the next subject, and everything is fine.

That is of course Unless you are so high from your last bong hit you need to continue asking questions about Men and boys in the ladies locker room.

 

[Saorsa]

The more you protest about guys in the gals' facilities and gals being upset about how the other gals look the more you embarrass yourselves.

NOBODY is advocating sending boys or men into the locker room or making it legal for men or boys to go in the girls' locker room.

The rulings and policies are about Trans girls and trans boys.

There will not be any boys or men in girls locker rooms except for the ones commiting sex crimes.

What do you do about the ten ignorant girls who object to sharing with what they think is a boy???

You educate them.

"That person in not a boy. That person in a trans girl."

Then you answer a few questions, thank them for participating in the learning process, go on to the next subject, and everything is fine.

That is of course Unless you are so high from your last bong hit you need to continue asking questions about Men and boys in the ladies locker room.

Are the TGs basing this on self diagnosis pulled out of their ass to justify some shortcoming or an actual documented individual medical diagnosis?

If it's documented, you have the legal basis to change your ID documents to show your determined vs. evident gender.

Then, in the highly unlikely event of a gender check at the doorway you have your proof.

 

[Gouvernail]

There you go looking even more foolish.

You are establishing Trans girls and trans boys as a special class with special obligations.

They are just people like everybody else

 

[Dog]

The more you protest about guys in the gals' facilities and gals being upset about how the other gals look the more you embarrass yourselves.

NOBODY is advocating sending boys or men into the locker room or making it legal for men or boys to go in the girls' locker room.

The rulings and policies are about Trans girls and trans boys.

There will not be any boys or men in girls locker rooms except for the ones commiting sex crimes.

What do you do about the ten ignorant girls who object to sharing with what they think is a boy???

You educate them.

"That person in not a boy. That person in a trans girl."

Then you answer a few questions, thank them for participating in the learning process, go on to the next subject, and everything is fine.

That is of course Unless you are so high from your last bong hit you need to continue asking questions about Men and boys in the ladies locker room.

Gov... you're laboring under a misconception. A boy with gender dysphoria is not a girl, he's a boy with gender dysphoria..

 

[Gouvernail]

Your say the mind is wrong the trans boy or girl says the body is wrong.

You are not going to change any here minds and neither am I

 

[Bent Sailor]

The first ones that come to mind is indecent exposure. The SCOTUS has ruled in this case that states can ban public nudity.

No-one is arguing that. However the basis for the state's right to legislate on public nudity / public indecency is not the right to privacy. The issue I have with your "malarkey" is that you keep spouting off about competing rights to privacy despite the fact that is not the issue. The right to privacy is not gender specific. If you waive your right to privacy in a public space or amenity, you can't then complain about the gender of those you waived your rights to. It might suck for your "expectations", it might even suck for the expectations of NC, but the fact remains that SCOTUS has been pretty fucking clear that one cannot use gender as a discriminator when it comes to dealing with the rights granted under the US Constitution.

So I can't waive my dick around in the park in front of little girls but I can do the same in a public shower???

OK, so you dug you're own hole here - answer spatial's question. Is it OK to waive your dick around in the face of a little boy in the shower room?

I think Sol would have a very hard time convincing a court that a dude going into a women's shower or locker room in a public place would be acceptable or legal.

Socially acceptable? Maybe not. Legally acceptable? Weren't you the one admitting you weren't aware of any actual laws on the matter?

I did some searching last night and found there isn't a law on the books specifying gender for public amenities in Utah, in California, or in Maine (where the state supreme court ruled explicitly FOR transgenders being able to use them). I didn't bother looking after that as I think when Utah fails to legislate on the morality of an issue - it's a new thing for the country legally speaking.

 

[Bent Sailor]

[SIZE=11pt]If the right to privacy is not gender specific, at least with respect to bathrooms, why do we provide gender specific bathrooms? [/SIZE]

I wasn't aware that you needed a "right" to something in order for it to be provided to the public by government & private organisations.

I design buildings for a living and I can tell you there is no right to decline to provide gender specific bathrooms, the public has mandated that separate facilities be provided. Now we are being told that it is discriminatory not extend special bathroom privileges to a select group.

None of which invalidates my point. What the public demands is not the basis for whether or not the "right to privacy" is gender specific. The right to privacy is a legal right granted by SCOTUS interpretation of the US Constitution. As recent decisions by that court has shown, expectations of special rights based on gender do not have the backing of the highest court in the land - the very court from which your "right to privacy" stems.

Tell it to the trans people.

They seem to understand it just fine. It's the folks trying to claim their constitutional rights have gender sub-clauses who seem to be missing the message... especially in light of the recent same sex marriage decision which should have slapped that shit down for another five years or so.

 

[Bent Sailor]

But there is a legitimate concern here where there are competing rights to privacy.

No matter how many times you repeat it - that is not so. The legal rights stemming from the US Constitution are not gender specific. Both the document itself and the SCOTUS bench have stated this in as clear a language as possible. You just want to ignore it because it violates your "expectation" you have some special gender-specific right to privacy as yet unwritten in the Constitution and, from what I can tell, the laws of most states when it comes to public amenities.