The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

[Spatial Ed]

Dangling Dicks! Its the new BENGHAZI!

 

[Raz'r]

Since this is a serious conversation

My SUVs Tranny! is leaking fluid. Should I take it to a gender neutral shop? What if they are union mechanics making over minimum wage? What if there is a Feel the Bern sticker in sight? What is one of Dabber's Butt Plugs is on display in the parts cabinet?

So many considerations I never had to consider before

 

[Bent Sailor]

The locker room issue should absolutely be decided at the local level. It has been, but now it won't be. Thank NC LGBT in charlotte for that. because now we will get a one size fits all decision.

FIFY

Right, cos city council ordinances are not a local level.

Did a member of the LGBT steal your wife/boyfriend or something, cos you sure as hell aren't thinking straight about which side of the equation overreacted and made this a deal outside a single city.

 

[Rockdog]

Rockdog loves to be on the losing side of history.

We shall see. But I think you will be unpleasantly surprised at the court's take on this. I may be wrong, but I think the lower courts and eventually the SC will determine that the reasonable accommodations originally offered were in fact sufficient for the needs of the TG.

If I am wrong and they do rule in favor of TGs get access to whatever facility they want based on their self-determination, you will see lots of people pushing back and there will be suits and counter suits as non or borderline-TGs push this issue about who gets to go shower where.

The only way for the courts to actually solve it that would be fair to all would be to remove ALL gender distinctions from public facilities and tell people they have no right to privacy of any kind. It ain't gonna happen though.....

I think, as always, the decision will rest on what case actually makes it to the Supreme Court. See, the NC State Legislature is, even by your standards, a flying leap too far on the control spectrum, is a far easier case to argue, and has more attention behind it.

If that is the case that makes it to SCOTUS, the decision will not be about "reasonable accomodations" but a more black & white scenario. In that case, I don't think the court has much case but to bring the hammer down on the "no trannies in my bathroom!" side.

The Illinois case will involve whether or not the government can REQUIRE minor females to undress and or shower with a member of the opposite sex present. Currently the government requires them to do so with members of the same sex.

 

[Gouvernail]

Trans girls are not transsexuals. I can't keep up with all the terms either but you are using the terms inaccurately

:::::::;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;?;;::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;;;:;;;:

The ONLY reason I am responding once more is this notion of yours that someone will be offended by the presence of the trans girl in a girls' shower.

Or

Offended by the presence of a trans boy in the boys' shower.

( I will only address the trans girl issue as no one seems to be complaining on behalf of hypothetical young boys who don't want to see a naked vagina or even some boobs. )

I think schools go on all day five days a week. I think the kids pretty much all know one another pretty well.

I think the kids (from their point of view) on your gym class or on your sports team are kids you see many many times a year and probably knew last year and the year before that

I think the trans girl is so unique EVERY kid in the school is aware of that " boy who dresses and lives as a girl."

I think there is some teasing, some hatred, some toleration, some avoidance, some regular friends, and some love.

Everybody knows gym class has showers and everybody has considered what it will mean.

Some of the kids plan to make an issue of being supportive.

Some kids plan to make an issue of not noticing

Some kids plan to not look

Some kids plan to stare

Some kids plan to hide their bodies from ALL the other kids

Some kids plan to show off their nakedness

Some kids plan to hide from the girls who have breasts

Some kids plan to hide their breasts

Some kids don't have breasts yet and are embarrassed

Some kids have no plans

Some kids plan to avoid interaction.

What I absolutely do not believe is that ANY of the kids will be frightened by the trans girl.

I think the prevailing reaction will be "he really isn't a boy."

I think the discomfort about the trans girl's presence is no different in quantity than the discomfort about breast size, amount of pubic hair, number of zits, twisted spine, deformed body parts, birthmarks, extreme skinniness, obesity, or whatever else differs. L

Summary:

I don't think the "girl who is bothered by the presence of the human with a penis despite the fact she knows that human thinks he is a girl" is someone who really exists.

Also, when that first kid who complains about the discomfirt steps up and asks for relief, I will be right there searching for a solution

So you are saying ALL girls will be comfortable undressing with a boy they've known for a number of years?
You are incorrect that kids know all the kids in their school very well and are familiar with them. You must have grown up in a very very small town. Around here we have separate k-2 and 3-5 schools. Multiple 3-5 schools feed junior high schools, which comprise their own districts. Multiple junior highs feed into a high school, which comprise their own separate district. Plus their are families moving in and out of the area all the time.

You think the problem is in the minds. I think the problem is physiological as the normal minds got stuck with the wrong bodies.

I could be 100% correct, 50% correct or 100% wrong. We are not going to be able to resolve this issue until you understand what I mean and accept the possibility your opinion could be 100% wrong, 50% wrong, or 100% correct.

There isn't much point in an open minded person discussing this with a closed minded person.

 

[Guest]

has anyone said a man, who has identified as male his entire life, should be allowed in female showers?

interesting comprehension problems you have.

Yes, actually the feds have. They said that all that is required is for a person to state that they identify as female, requiring anything beyond that is considered discriminatory, and it is. Kristin Beck and Caitlin Jenner both lived nearly their entire lives as males, winning gold medals and having a career as a Navy SEAL as males, until one day they were no longer males. Would it be right to tell them they missed the window to self realization? I don't think so. At the same time, it would be exceedingly disconcerting to see Kristin Beck showering next to a thirteen year old girl on her first day of transformation. The point JBSF and I have tried to make is that the feds have erred in eliminating eliminating any power of the schools to use their discretion in determining how to manage this type of situation. And I still think that a Muslim woman who objects to sharing common shower and changing facilities next to Kristin Beck on her first day of transformation is not a bigot for doing so. There may be a point during that transformation where that changes, but that is a difficult thing to legislate, so instead we have people determined to make this a black and white issue when it is not.

its a sticky wicket for sure.

Well, its about time someone finally, even if in a roundabout way, acknowledges that this is a complex issues and not just a black & white (pun intended) story about mean spirited discrimination like Sol continually attempts to push with his race analogy. Some limited progress, finally.

 

[Rockdog]

Is it legal for the state or federal Gov to require a 12 yo girl to undress in front of a boy? A girl? Anyone?

I don't think that it is legal that the state or federal govt require a 12 yo of either gender to undress in front of either gender. That would be a violation of one's right to privacy and is why we have stalls with doors in our change rooms for those that desire to strip down without an audience.

Is it reasonable for a 12 yo girl to not be mature enough to differentiate a naked 12yo transgender girl from a naked 12yo boy?

Given my answer above, I don't think it matters.

Wow, Bent actually posted that he didn't know something. In our school district in Illinois children are REQUIRED to participate in PE. They are REQUIRED to change from their Street clothes into theirschool mandated (all kids the same) PE uniform. They cannot where there PE uniform as Street clothes to school. Our schools do NOT have separate changing stalls nor separate private showers. Kids can get out of PE with a doctor's directive.

If the government CANNOT force a minor child to undress in the company of a member of the opposite sex the government will be required to change its requirement to undress at school or end the requirement to participate in PE, which will affect an end to girls PE. Any girls PE class around here with a male in it will end up a one student class.

Note: my kids participate in sports year round and PE means nothing to their physical health.

 

[Rockdog]

The locker room issue should absolutely be decided at the local level. It has been, but now it won't be. Thank NC for that. because now we will get a one size fits all decision.

You are incorrect. The federal courts ruled on this issue prior to NC.

 

[Bent Sailor]

The Illinois case will involve whether or not the government can REQUIRE minor females to undress and or shower with a member of the opposite sex present. Currently the government requires them to do so with members of the same sex.

I think the case will revolve around whether or not the government can require minors of either gender to undress &/or showing with another minor present. That the government currently does so doesn't make it constitutional and I reckon there is a far stronger case regarding the government forcing kids to get naked in front of anyone than there is about the gender of the kids in question.

Remember, state governments once required that couples be male & female in order to be married. SCOTUS struck that down. The fact a state government is doing something in the present doesn't mean it has the legal right to do so.

In our school district in Illinois children are REQUIRED to participate in PE. They are REQUIRED to change from their Street clothes into their school mandated (all kids the same) PE uniform. They cannot where there PE uniform as Street clothes to school. Our schools do NOT have separate changing stalls nor separate private showers. Kids can get out of PE with a doctor's directive.

One thing I'm not seeing in that is the law that requires minors to undress in front of one another. You describe a situation that may or may not be legal if challenged, however my view was (& remains) that the government cannot be forcing minors to undress in front of one another without violating their right to privacy - regardless of the children's respective genders, gender identity, or note from their doctor.

If the government CANNOT force a minor child to undress in the company of a member of the opposite sex the government will be required to change its requirement to undress at school or end the requirement to participate in PE, which will affect an end to girls PE. Any girls PE class around here with a male in it will end up a one student class.

Seems like a reasonable outcome to me. Either the government provides suitable facilities which minors can use to get changed without being seen naked by others or they are not allowed to force them to get changed. I don't see a problem with this. As I said, we have open change rooms AND individual stalls for those that want to get changed without others seeing. The government here at least provides facilities in line with the rights of children to their privacy whilst also making it possible to enforce a physical education regimen.

 

[Rockdog]

The Illinois case will involve whether or not the government can REQUIRE minor females to undress and or shower with a member of the opposite sex present. Currently the government requires them to do so with members of the same sex.

I think the case will revolve around whether or not the government can require minors of either gender to undress &/or showing with another minor present. That the government currently does so doesn't make it constitutional and I reckon there is a far stronger case regarding the government forcing kids to get naked in front of anyone than there is about the gender of the kids in question.

Remember, state governments once required that couples be male & female in order to be married. SCOTUS struck that down. The fact a state government is doing something in the present doesn't mean it has the legal right to do so.

In our school district in Illinois children are REQUIRED to participate in PE. They are REQUIRED to change from their Street clothes into their school mandated (all kids the same) PE uniform. They cannot where there PE uniform as Street clothes to school. Our schools do NOT have separate changing stalls nor separate private showers. Kids can get out of PE with a doctor's directive.

One thing I'm not seeing in that is the law that requires minors to undress in front of one another. You describe a situation that may or may not be legal if challenged, however my view was (& remains) that the government cannot be forcing minors to undress in front of one another without violating their right to privacy - regardless of the children's respective genders, gender identity, or note from their doctor.

If the government CANNOT force a minor child to undress in the company of a member of the opposite sex the government will be required to change its requirement to undress at school or end the requirement to participate in PE, which will affect an end to girls PE. Any girls PE class around here with a male in it will end up a one student class.

Seems like a reasonable outcome to me. Either the government provides suitable facilities which minors can use to get changed without being seen naked by others or they are not allowed to force them to get changed. I don't see a problem with this. As I said, we have open change rooms AND individual stalls for those that want to get changed without others seeing. The government here at least provides facilities in line with the rights of children to their privacy whilst also making it possible to enforce a physical education regimen.

Yep, I agree with that. I've never heard of a lawsuit against a school district or other government agency requiring minor children to undress in the company of same sex schoolmates. The government requiring minor children to undress in the company of opposite sex classmates will bring the end of PE altogether.

If transgenders don't FEEL normal in a locker room we'll just have eliminate locker rooms. Thanks Transgenders - hope you FEEL better!

 

[Bent Sailor]

Yep, I agree with that. I've never heard of a lawsuit against a school district or other government agency requiring minor children to undress in the company of same sex schoolmates.

And your point is what exactly? Either being forced to get naked in front of someone is a violation of one's right to privacy or it isn't. Once again, like it or not, rights are not gender specific - if doing something as a male is a violation, it's a violation as a female too. See the recent same sex marriage decision that some are still smarting over if you think that's somehow in question.

The government requiring minor children to undress in the company of opposite sex classmates will bring the end of PE altogether.

If transgenders don't FEEL normal in a locker room we'll just have eliminate locker rooms. Thanks Transgenders - hope you FEEL better!

Or, you know, you can do what we've been doing for decades - provide stalls for those that don't want to get changed in the open space where everyone can see them. Are you really so stuck on seeing other men naked in the change rooms you didn't think of that solution?

 

[GRUMPY]

Bent at Hunter st bus station....

 

[Guest]

Bent at Hunter st bus station....

That's fucking funny!

 

[Spatial Ed]

Bent at Hunter st bus station....

That's fucking funny!

That's the GOP Two Step.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

The locker room issue should absolutely be decided at the local level. It has been, but now it won't be. Thank NC for that. because now we will get a one size fits all decision.

You are incorrect. The federal courts ruled on this issue prior to NC.

Cite please.

 

[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. What does my opinion of TG people have to do with my #1. I have repeatedly said I have no issue with TG folks and have repeatedly admitted that they are what they are. My #1 was based on the fact that there are other rights involved here as well that are being over-looked or deliberately ignored. And you deliberately ignored addressing it by going off on your rant about what you think I think about TG. My opinion about TGs is irrelevant to the discussion. Could it ever fucking cross your mind that maybe I'm arguing on principle here rather than emotion? I have no emotion about the subject. There is a principle here, yet no one wants to address it.

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. And I have responded directly to that case law you provided. That you refuse to acknowledge that Scalia also said there were limits to the expectation to privacy except in cases where its "reasonable and legitimate." That case doesn't perfectly make your argument, I would be a bit careful about relying on it too much here.

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. Yes, and I have repeatedly agreed with you that there have been TG's with us for a long time. But for as long or longer, there has been a mutual agreed upon separation of the sexes wrt to bathroom and shower facilities. Will you at least stipulate that this has been and continues to be the case? And you keep saying it has not been a problem yet..... well that is patently now incorrect. It IS a problem now as evadent by the IL school case.brought by both the TG and by the girls who wish not to have a girl with a penis showering and changing next to them. That you refuse to acknowledge that it now a problem, and a growing one does not render your opinion authoritative.

4. I've responded to that in this thread. If you don't mind, please summarize it then - because its gotten lost in all the noise

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. Race is a red herring here. There are some similarities, but using race is really a poor and cowardly attempt to stomp the issue out and drown out legitimate discussion by pulling out the race card. As I've said, just because some whites back in Plessy were claiming they were being infringed upon doesn't make it legitimate. It was a different time, it still didn't make it right or a legit argument. However, by using race to frame the discussion - you are essentially saying that the straight girls in the shower room have no standing or no legitimate argument and they should just STFU and get out of the way of progress. Is that what you're saying? I don't want to read minds and imagine - so please correct me here.

My entire objection all along to this is that the rights of the rest of us seem not to matter not one fuck-ola here. The one TG kid says they want to shower with the girls and the whole world needs to stop spinning and accommodate him/her. Never mind the 10 or 20 other people in that locker room who might legitimately say "wait a min, WTF?" What about their rights to privacy?

And futhermore, you diatribe about race in #5 again completely is a tap dance waltz away from the actual question. What does case law say about a man entering and using a women's shower/locker facility? This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether trans feel they are the gender they ID with or not. This entire question has to be framed around the unintended consequences of allowing trans people to use the facility they feel like. You know as well as I do that case law takes into account what the long term consequences are for not only the plaintiff or defendant but for society as a whole. They will and should be looking at that when/if this case gets to them.

And BTW - I did NOT ask you what you thought of men using women's facilities - I asked you what the law is. Again you refused to answer. I will assume then that in most states, the law would not look favorably on a man walking into a women's locker room, getting undressed, taking a shower, toweling his balls off in front of them and then walking out. I never mentioned anything about leering or assault or any of those other imagined things. Just his presence there legally is probably not going to go over well. Assuming that is the case, how would the law differentiate between the guy toweling his balls in front of the ladies and a trans walking in a doing the same thing. Maybe if they were super feminine and overtly trans, with breast implants and long curly hair - maybe. But what about the trans who is still fairly outwardly male appearing? You do know that they exist, right? Especially the teens we are discussing. Who then gets to make that call? The school? Wow, talk about opening a can of worms - "NO, you're not girly enough, get out of the ladies room!"

Sorry, I didn't respond to you last night.... was heading to bed and this deserved a more considered response.

1. I didn't suggest that you were arguing from emotion. I suggested that you have not bothered to avail yourself of the resources I have cited.

2. The foundation of the "reasonable and legitimate" reasons is rendered shaky by the number of times we've actually had girl wee-wees shaking in the faces of girls in the locker room. Reasons for discriminatory laws to solve problems that we have not had, are neither reasonable nor legitimate. As for reasonable and legitimate expectations of privacy in a communal shower and locker room, Scalia laid that to rest.

3. So if we are to make these changes in response to one case in IL, should white supremacists be prohibited from owning firearms because Dylann Roof shhhhhhot a bunch of black folks in their church?

4. 15, 44, 73, 82, 89, 123, 129 (the Cliff's Notes version), 178, 180, 185, 186, 213, 515, 529, 541, 554, 557, 576, 602, 618, 624, 835. Please feel free to ignore these again, but don't suggest that I have not answered your question(s). You just don't like the answers.

5. Racial discriminaton is perfectly analogous here. Folks were uncomfortable sharing public space with the subhuman mongrels, so they were segregated. Share a locker room with THOSE people? What about the feelings of the poor white boys, like little Donnie Smallhands? Won't anyone consider HIS feelings? He deserves his comfort and privacy from those others. Good Americans will never accept THOSE people in our public places.

People of all varieties have been using the bathroom in which they feel the most appropriate for quite some time now. Charlotte added gender to their non discrimination ordinance, as a way to signal to the business community that their people would be treated like people, that they could relocate to Charlotte without fear of the type of idiotic discrimination previously seen in the region. Unfortunately, the legislature chose to signal loud and clear that fear and ignorance is alive and well. This isn't a matter of progress. Charlotte was trying to prevent regression to the dark ages. In so doing, they caused a chorus of "whut, there is people who ain't just a simple him or her? Not in my state!"

Man in the women's locker room, or transgender woman? Nobody has suggested that people be allowed to use facilities for a gender that does not match their gender identity.

To which fallacy will you return us now?

 

[Gouvernail]

Perhaps most if not all of you who are struggling with this topic would be less confused and frightened if you took the time to understand how souls are reincarnated.

Transgenderism, bi-sexuality, homosexuality, and even that which is known today as being straight are normal parts of the soul's development process.

As the soul is repeatedly challenged with existing inside new physical beings it retains all it has learned over its previous incarnations as it has traveled througout the universe.

Those souls existing in one of the few heterosexual creatures in this universe are often incapable of living in such a repressed state. Having experienced lives where intimate sexual encounters are available and expected with all other entities of all descriptions, human Herero existence is a frustrating although very brief, hesitation in their development.

Certainly some of you reading this explanation will suspect it is not serious, you can look back and laugh at your human bound soul in your next few incarnations. Perhaps your next incarnation will be one during which knowledge of past and even future incarnations are available.

Regardless

The fact is, most of you do not understand the trans girl ( for example) is generally a soul reincarnated and captivated in a body in which it has not learned and may not be able to learn to exist with comfort.

It is all just one stop on the path of that soul.

Bon voyage

 

[Raz'r]

Damn, where'd I put my waders. The shits getting deep around here.

 

[Gouvernail]

Hey!! That "shit" took half my lunch break to come out!!!

 

[Sol Rosenberg]