Should trans people get to make others leave a public bathroom while they use it?

Painter · May 13, 2016

This is a pretty ridiculous idea.

Do you envision people just hanging out in the bathroom?

Do you expect someone to stop peeing mid stream or get off the toilet mid poop?

Or do you merely expect cooks and people serving your food to just go back to work without washing their hands?

Instead of this craziness, how about people just use the proper freaking bathroom.
Bathrooms are not about your precious feelings or your social life. They are about relieving yourself.
If you really do not understand which one you belong in, then check between your legs.
Bathrooms are not concerned with what sex you feel like. And bathrooms are not concerned with what you look like.
Can you use the urinal or not?

cpwill · May 13, 2016

X Factor said:
Just looking for the line. I thought there would easily be agreement that segregating bathrooms by gender was reasonable but, it turns out, it isn't. So now I'm wondering if folks think it would be reasonable to require that non trans people leave a bathroom if a trans person asks them to (and just for the time the trans person is in the bathroom, of course).

What if it's a situation where the stalls are missing doors or the doors don't lock?

Attaching poll.

Naturally. The feelings of the edgiest identity group outweigh everyone else's rights.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

X Factor · May 13, 2016

cpwill said:
Naturally. The feelings of the edgiest identity group outweigh everyone else's rights.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Naw, CP, all the votes indicate that there is really no support for my suggestion and I have no reason to doubt that's how folks really feel.

chromium · May 13, 2016

Risky Thicket said:
Cross-dressers, trans-sexuals, LGB people have been using public restrooms since public restrooms were invented. Suddenly people - IN AMERICA - are all concerned about it. I really, really don't understand the obsession.

The possibilities i can see:

they suddenly became aware that lgbt exist. This might have been true 20 years ago when "that's gay" became the fallback anger expression, but clearly not now

they just hate lgbt and are looking for the last desperate reason that some of the public, perhaps a slight majority, can agree to keep them 2nd class. If you look at the 'progress' in hate speech, it has gotten very gradually less offensive, because otherwise reasonable people stop listening - "gays are in league with the devil and contagious and they need to be killed" becomes "gays are all mentally ill pedos who need to be locked away" > "they're all limp wrist drag queens" > "they're deviant but it's their problem, leave them alone, just so long as they keep away" > "they're normal, just not comfortable around them" > "i'm fine hanging with them, just not in locker rooms" > "transgender are sick and we owe it to them to not enable their sickness" > "it's not about transgender, it's about liars who pretend to be trans"

Thing is, i'm very skeptical about the later comments. I see it as they're afraid to say what they really think so they fall back on less controversial objections in order for their devious plan to succeed. They aren't "suddenly concerned." They've just run out of other arenas to fight against civil rights

cpwill · May 13, 2016

X Factor said:
Naw, CP, all the votes indicate that there is really no support for my suggestion and I have no reason to doubt that's how folks really feel.

:shrug: that society is dominated by ignorant bigoted bullies isn't new. These people are just like the people who murdered Civil Rights Activists, and they will be defeated by History.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Risky Thicket · May 13, 2016

chromium said:
The possibilities i can see:

they suddenly became aware that lgbt exist. This might have been true 20 years ago when "that's gay" became the fallback anger expression, but clearly not now

they just hate lgbt and are looking for the last desperate reason that some of the public, perhaps a slight majority, can agree to keep them 2nd class. If you look at the 'progress' in hate speech, it has gotten very gradually less offensive, because otherwise reasonable people stop listening - "gays are in league with the devil and contagious and they need to be killed" becomes "gays are all mentally ill pedos who need to be locked away" > "they're all limp wrist drag queens" > "they're deviant but it's their problem, leave them alone, just so long as they keep away" > "they're normal, just not comfortable around them" > "i'm fine hanging with them, just not in locker rooms" > "transgender are sick and we owe it to them to not enable their sickness" > "it's not about transgender, it's about liars who pretend to be trans"

Thing is, i'm very skeptical about the later comments. I see it as they're afraid to say what they really think so they fall back on less controversial objections in order for their devious plan to succeed. They aren't "suddenly concerned." They've just run out of other arenas to fight against civil rights

That is an interesting perspective. You may be right.

chromium · May 13, 2016

X Factor said:
Not that I'm aware of which begs the question why you couldn't just be all, "I think your request is silly but I'll still respect it" instead of repeatedly insulting me over this thing that is supposedly no big deal. If you referred to me that way now, though, you have to acknowledge that it would only be with the intent to insult.

Now, have I ever intentionally referred to someone trans by the "wrong" pronoun, since that's the agenda you've accused me having? I answered your question.

if you'd rather be called non trans or come up with another term to describe your...non transgenderism, that's fine. It's not like you were consulted when 'cisgender' became standard

but as someone who has had to put up with a lot of words that in the context weren't meant to be derogatory, but i don't care for (queer etc), it can be less stressful to just let some things go. You're going to hear it more and more

chromium · May 14, 2016

Risky Thicket said:
That is an interesting perspective. You may be right.

it almost makes me respect the westboro freaks more because they're at least honest in their total contempt for you

The public objections to SSM became more and more nitpicking and qualified, yet the anonymous surveys revealed the same people oppose employment protection and even want cops barging into bedrooms to make arrests. If that's not hate, i don't know what is. Only their stated excuses change to bull**** absurdities like the mormons used in prop 8 - "there's no hate, we just don't want priests being forced to marry anyone." They are doing the same thing now to transgender - "we don't want non transgender men attacking little girls in bathroom stalls" Just lies thru and thru. The reality is they would ban transgender from leaving the house if they could

X Factor · May 14, 2016

chromium said:
if you'd rather be called non trans or come up with another term to describe your...non transgenderism, that's fine. It's not like you were consulted when 'cisgender' became standard

but as someone who has had to put up with a lot of words that in the context weren't meant to be derogatory, but i don't care for (queer etc), it can be less stressful to just let some things go. You're going to hear it more and more

For what reason do I even need any term to decribe my lack of transgenderism? Nothing I do or think any day has anything with me being not trans.

shrubnose · May 14, 2016

After I'm finished with the public restroom I don't care who uses it.

chromium · May 14, 2016

X Factor said:
For what reason do I even need any term to decribe my lack of transgenderism? Nothing I do or think any day has anything with me being not trans.

well you could just go with 'non trans' like you've been doing...or is even that objectionable?

if nothing else, tell me how is a trans person going to try and help you relate other than by referring to or at least acknowledging your being not trans? Given that you made 4-5 threads on this lately, i would think you'd be open to that

also, people need to communicate concepts like gender identity, even if it's not about you but others who are not transgender. Is it ok if i refer to kurt schilling for example as "non trans" or "cisgender, so why should the transgender care what he thinks"

Mason66 · May 15, 2016

Casper said:
No one is asking anyone to leave a bathroom other than those passing laws that force some to use another bathroom. Now back to real issue: Why is all of a sudden an issue, was this a major issue, were transgender people attacking people in the bathroom, where are the statistics that show this is some sort of major issue, why are some people pushing this as if it were some major threat to people and children in particular? Get to the root of this non-issue to find the agenda here. FYI, when it comes to government and schools the laws will fall, because the government is not legally allowed to discriminate, period. Me thinks the entire issue is much to do about nothing, other than maybe keeping the sheep occupied and distracted.

When the government goes out of it's way to create special rules and regulations governing the situation , they make it into a big issue.

If it is a small issue, why is the government doing what they are doing?

Mason66 · May 15, 2016

Phys251 said:
It is only an insult to those who choose to be offended.

You could say that about any derogatory word.

Mason66 · May 15, 2016

roguenuke said:
It's a term used to clarify. It is not meant to exclude anyone. Any word can be made into an insult. I've made "housewife" an insult in my youth.

You don't need to clarify the base element.

In all discussions of gender, the base is male and female. They do not require a word other than male and female.

This made up word is not necessary in any way.

Mason66 · May 15, 2016

countryboy said:
Star Wars and Star Trek in the same sentence? Blasphemy!

With all the mixing of universes and such, maybe one day there will be a movie with Trek And Wars in the same galaxy.

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

Mason66 · May 15, 2016

Your Star said:
Then stop acting like one, and reply earnestly instead of trying to push an agenda.

Did you just tell him to stop acting like a male?

Mason66 · May 15, 2016

Your Star said:
If this is how you really feel, and you're not just masquerading these objections so you can try to make it okay to call trans people incorrect pronouns, then they're stupid feelings based on ignorance and an unwillingness to learn. The term cis was not created to insult you, or to insult me, or any other non trans person. It was adopted to normalize trans people within our language and so we as a society can have a quick term to describe something more complex. Your objection to it makes no Earthly sense.

Who is to say what is an incorrect pronoun?

At what point does a trans get to change the pronoun?

Is it the operation, the hormones or the dress?

Mason66 · May 15, 2016

chromium said:
if you'd rather be called non trans or come up with another term to describe your...non transgenderism, that's fine. It's not like you were consulted when 'cisgender' became standard

but as someone who has had to put up with a lot of words that in the context weren't meant to be derogatory, but i don't care for (queer etc), it can be less stressful to just let some things go. You're going to hear it more and more

Since when has cis anything been standard?

Don't you know the words male and female accurately describe males and females?

Mason66 · May 15, 2016

X Factor said:
For what reason do I even need any term to decribe my lack of transgenderism? Nothing I do or think any day has anything with me being not trans.

Seems like an effort to make transgenderism the norm and being biologically male or female to be the oddity.

People have warped ways of thinking sometimes.

Mason66 · May 15, 2016

shrubnose said:
After I'm finished with the public restroom I don't care who uses it.

The rule has always been eyes down, so I don't know who else is in there.

roguenuke · May 16, 2016

Mason66 said:
You don't need to clarify the base element.

In all discussions of gender, the base is male and female. They do not require a word other than male and female.

This made up word is not necessary in any way.

Obviously, such a word is needed, despite your belief otherwise. Male and female are not as limited as some believe. A transgender woman would be female, but male by birth and possibly physically. She would use feminine pronouns to describe herself, as would others who recognized her as a woman.

Henrin · May 16, 2016

roguenuke said:
Obviously, such a word is needed, despite your belief otherwise. Male and female are not as limited as some believe. A transgender woman would be female, but male by birth and possibly physically. She would use feminine pronouns to describe herself, as would others who recognized her as a woman.

She's not a female. She's not even a she really.

Citizen.Seven · May 16, 2016

There is only one fair solution to this "problem": no more public bathrooms. The cost savings on building construction would be enormous, as it would cut back on plumbing needs a great deal (water supply, sewerage, etc). It would also cut back on maintenance costs, as I would hazard to guess that bathrooms take longer to clean, as well as must be cleaned more often, than typical classrooms, offices, retail space, etc. If someone needs to use the bathroom, they should take care of that in the privacy of their own home.

Ah, but what if nature calls when out and about? That's what Depends are for.

roguenuke · May 16, 2016

Henrin said:
She's not a female. She's not even a she really.

In your opinion. That's all it is, and you essentially proved my point.

Henrin · May 16, 2016

roguenuke said:
In your opinion. That's all it is, and you essentially proved my point.

It's not opinion. :lol:

Should trans people get to make others leave a public bathroom while they use it?