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

[roguenuke]

It's not opinion. :lol:

It very much is. You can't prove "female". Its a term we use.

 

[Henrin]

It very much is. You can't prove "female". Its a term we use.

Oh right, you're one of those gender is a social construct people.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

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.

Are you kidding??? I thought solletica's thread on this issue was the worst that I'd seen. This now wins that honor. People have gone completely bat**** crazy on this and turned it into something that the Ringling Brothers would be proud of. It would be idiotic to require non-trans people to leave the bathroom if a trans person asks them to, mostly because NO TRANS PERSON WOULD ASK THEM TO. Why would a trans person want to "out" themselves.

This was a real dumb questions, X.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

It very much is. You can't prove "female". Its a term we use.

Well, "sex" is (with extremely rare exceptions) provable by genetics. After that, physical presentation acts a fairly good correlation (barring mutilation, abnormality, or accident).

The fundamental problem with "gender identity" is that relies on so-called "social constructs". What is female, socially? They wear dresses and high heels? That's certainly not anywhere nearly universally true, and the notion that a woman wasn't being "female enough" if she failed to dress that way would be subject to legal action under certain circumstances. So what are, exactly, the social construct definitions of male and female, and can they be formulated without making reference to stereotypes or archetypes?

I mean, really, you can "feel" you're a butterfly, but that won't help you at all when you jump off a roof.

 

[roguenuke]

Well, "sex" is (with extremely rare exceptions) provable by genetics. After that, physical presentation acts a fairly good correlation (barring mutilation, abnormality, or accident).

The fundamental problem with "gender identity" is that relies on so-called "social constructs". What is female, socially? They wear dresses and high heels? That's certainly not anywhere nearly universally true, and the notion that a woman wasn't being "female enough" if she failed to dress that way would be subject to legal action under certain circumstances. So what are, exactly, the social construct definitions of male and female, and can they be formulated without making reference to stereotypes or archetypes?

But we don't really verify sex with genetics in most cases, especially not with just dealing with people out in public. The vast majority of people have never had their sex genetically verified and it would be considered protected by medical privacy if they did.

Most of this concerns gender though, not sex. There is a difference. Gender is a lot things, but it mainly comes down to how a person feels about themselves.

Overall, it shouldn't matter. Maybe if we stopped viewing people by their gender/sex, and started seeing them as a person, we wouldn't have to worry about this stuff.

 

[Fiddytree]

Are you kidding??? I thought solletica's thread on this issue was the worst that I'd seen. This now wins that honor. People have gone completely bat**** crazy on this and turned it into something that the Ringling Brothers would be proud of. It would be idiotic to require non-trans people to leave the bathroom if a trans person asks them to, mostly because NO TRANS PERSON WOULD ASK THEM TO. Why would a trans person want to "out" themselves.

This was a real dumb questions, X.

This probably could be discussed in any number of the threads, but since you mentioned how ridiculous this whole "issue" has become, I thought I'd give you an anecdote of a friend of mine in another part of the country.

She walks into a bathroom in target and sees a little girl crawling under the stalls and sees people's parts. My friend, perturbed by this, asked the people in the restroom if the child was theirs. None of the women said the child was theirs. So she informed the little girl that it is inappropriate to sneak under the stalls that way. I don't know when exactly, but she ends up finding out the little girl was with her father. She informs the father about the little girl's behavior. He said he knows she did that. It was because he asked her to. Dad wanted the little girl to literally go underneath every stall and scope out the private parts of each person in the stall so that she can spot the transsexuals, for the little girl's safety, because transsexuals are dangerous.

Naturally, my friend gets into an argument with this guy about the utter inappropriateness of that and how all using the bathroom now have their privacy violated, let alone the fact that he's instructing his daughter to do the very thing he is afraid of having happen to his daughter.

The whole thing blows up and the Target staff apologize for this guy's behavior, meanwhile the Dad wants the cops called on her. Of course, she says, dude, they aren't going to arrest me, if anything it would be you who is in trouble.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

But we don't really verify sex with genetics in most cases, especially not with just dealing with people out in public. The vast majority of people have never had their sex genetically verified and it would be considered protected by medical privacy if they did.

Most of this concerns gender though, not sex. There is a difference. Gender is a lot things, but it mainly comes down to how a person feels about themselves.

Overall, it shouldn't matter. Maybe if we stopped viewing people by their gender/sex, and started seeing them as a person, we wouldn't have to worry about this stuff.

Define the difference between the "gender identification" of female vs male. And if someone identifies as opposite of their biological sex, isn't that indicative that they are associating with the wrong representatives of their sex rather than some internal.

In a sense, it's moot: people under 18 can't make these sorts of decisions legally, they aren't the age of majority. If one wishes to maintain separate but equal bathrooms based on sex, then there is an objective criteria for it: the sex of the person. How they feel is irrelevant.

 

[roguenuke]

Define the difference between the "gender identification" of female vs male. And if someone identifies as opposite of their biological sex, isn't that indicative that they are associating with the wrong representatives of their sex rather than some internal.

In a sense, it's moot: people under 18 can't make these sorts of decisions legally, they aren't the age of majority. If one wishes to maintain separate but equal bathrooms based on sex, then there is an objective criteria for it: the sex of the person. How they feel is irrelevant.

Who mentioned under 18 besides you?

The sex of the person is something that should be part of their right to privacy though. Why do you have any right to know the sex of a person? And if you don't have a right to know their sex, then your judgements are based on how they look, not their actual sex.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This probably could be discussed in any number of the threads, but since you mentioned how ridiculous this whole "issue" has become, I thought I'd give you an anecdote of a friend of mine in another part of the country.

She walks into a bathroom in target and sees a little girl crawling under the stalls and sees people's parts. My friend, perturbed by this, asked the people in the restroom if the child was theirs. None of the women said the child was theirs. So she informed the little girl that it is inappropriate to sneak under the stalls that way. I don't know when exactly, but she ends up finding out the little girl was with her father. She informs the father about the little girl's behavior. He said he knows she did that. It was because he asked her to. Dad wanted the little girl to literally go underneath every stall and scope out the private parts of each person in the stall so that she can spot the transsexuals, for the little girl's safety, because transsexuals are dangerous.

Naturally, my friend gets into an argument with this guy about the utter inappropriateness of that and how all using the bathroom now have their privacy violated, let alone the fact that he's instructing his daughter to do the very thing he is afraid of having happen to his daughter.

The whole thing blows up and the Target staff apologize for this guy's behavior, meanwhile the Dad wants the cops called on her. Of course, she says, dude, they aren't going to arrest me, if anything it would be you who is in trouble.

This is the issue that underpins this whole mass of stupidity. You have people who stupidly believe that transsexuals go into bathrooms to hurt people. It is FAR more likely that a transsexual would be assaulted then one would do the assaulting. It's the kind of stupidity that the father in your story showed that is being fueled by conservative idiocy and conservative media idiocy. Transsexuals go into public bathrooms to use the bathroom. This was no issue 6 months ago. It only is now because idiotic conservatives brought it up because they were butthurt about losing the SSM war and idiotic liberals are going too far the other way.

 

[Fiddytree]

This is the issue that underpins this whole mass of stupidity. You have people who stupidly believe that transsexuals go into bathrooms to hurt people. It is FAR more likely that a transsexual would be assaulted then one would do the assaulting. It's the kind of stupidity that the father in your story showed that is being fueled by conservative idiocy and conservative media idiocy. Transsexuals go into public bathrooms to use the bathroom. This was no issue 6 months ago. It only is now because idiotic conservatives brought it up because they were butthurt about losing the SSM war and idiotic liberals are going too far the other way.

But did you notice how everyone's brain switches off and acts like this whole thing was started because of transsexuals or liberals, rather than conservative paranoia that materialized somehow in the last six months. Hell, they can even act like it has nothing to do with transsexuals.

People are so damn stupid.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

But did you notice how everyone's brain switches off and acts like this whole thing was started because of transsexuals or liberals, rather than conservative paranoia that materialized somehow in the last six months. Hell, they can even act like it has nothing to do with transsexuals.

People are so damn stupid.

Of course. I've posted before a study that was done on partisans. With MRI scans, it shows that when a partisan hears information that completely contradicts or refutes their position, the reasoning part of their brain shuts OFF. No lighting up. That's what's happened here with many conservatives. They hear the stupidity, but because it feeds their partisanship, when they hear the reasons why they are wrong, they just do not process the information. Cognitive dissonance taken to the extreme.

 

[X Factor]

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

I suppose. You watch, I'm going to make non-trans great again.

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

Relate to what?

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"

Sure, I cannot control what terms people use even when it's directed at me, regardless of my request, much less when it's directed at someone else. I just have a personal dislike for having my entire identity wrapped up in, what appears to me, to be a recently manufactured term.

 

[X Factor]

Are you kidding??? I thought solletica's thread on this issue was the worst that I'd seen. This now wins that honor. People have gone completely bat**** crazy on this and turned it into something that the Ringling Brothers would be proud of. It would be idiotic to require non-trans people to leave the bathroom if a trans person asks them to, mostly because NO TRANS PERSON WOULD ASK THEM TO. Why would a trans person want to "out" themselves.

This was a real dumb questions, X.

Yeah, this is probably not one of my better polls. Still, I was hoping for a lopsided result - hoping pretty much everybody could agree that this would go too far so I do like the results.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Yeah, this is probably not one of my better polls. Still, I was hoping for a lopsided result - hoping pretty much everybody could agree that this would go too far so I do like the results.

So what was your purpose, X?

 

[roguenuke]

I suppose. You watch, I'm going to make non-trans great again.



Relate to what?



Sure, I cannot control what terms people use even when it's directed at me, regardless of my request, much less when it's directed at someone else. I just have a personal dislike for having my entire identity wrapped up in, what appears to me, to be a recently manufactured term.

Do you feel your entire identity is wrapped up in any word used to refer to you? So if someone calls you heterosexual, then that is now your entire identity? I just think it's silly to view one descriptor so negatively, especially as you describe it, as having your entire identity wrapped up in just that single characteristic, especially when it is only being used in very specific circumstances in most cases. The vast majority of people who do use the term also are going to realize that there is much more about you.

To me, this would be similar to a heterosexual complaining about being called heterosexual or even a homosexual complaining about being called homosexual because of how some people (thankfully many fewer now) view homosexuality so negatively. Your identity includes a lot of descriptors and it is you who decides which ones are most important for who you are, but no single term can really wrap up anyone's identity.

 

[X Factor]

So what was your purpose, X?

Nearly everything that comes to my mind, CC, comes in the form of a poll question. Admittedly, I was a little irritated when I started this one. I was having a discussion in another thread about how non trans people should be uncomfortable and men in girls locker rooms shouldn't even be questioned and I was wondering just how far should all the accommodations go. Is there no limit? Trans is right always - no matter what?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Nearly everything that comes to my mind, CC, comes in the form of a poll question. Admittedly, I was a little irritated when I started this one. I was having a discussion in another thread about how non trans people should be uncomfortable and men in girls locker rooms shouldn't even be questioned and I was wondering just how far should this accommodation go.

I would hope that you would realize that such a position from someone else is idiotic and doesn't fit most people arguing the pro side of the issue. You've been reading and participating in some of these threads. There are people with ignorant positions on BOTH sides.

 

[X Factor]

I would hope that you would realize that such a position from someone else is idiotic and doesn't fit most people arguing the pro side of the issue. You've been reading and participating in some of these threads. There are people with ignorant positions on BOTH sides.

I'm not sure about that, honestly. I believe you totally do think that way, but I rarely see people on the "pro side" disagreeing with each other (but that's not uncommon for any position on any topic) and, quite frankly, it seems a lot of people on the pro side are too busy feeling all superior to actually have a reasonable conversation about it. I'm not speaking about you at all, CC, just so you know. I think you might be the first one to acknowledge that there is stupidity on both sides.

 

[X Factor]

Do you feel your entire identity is wrapped up in any word used to refer to you? So if someone calls you heterosexual, then that is now your entire identity? I just think it's silly to view one descriptor so negatively, especially as you describe it, as having your entire identity wrapped up in just that single characteristic, especially when it is only being used in very specific circumstances in most cases. The vast majority of people who do use the term also are going to realize that there is much more about you.

To me, this would be similar to a heterosexual complaining about being called heterosexual or even a homosexual complaining about being called homosexual because of how some people (thankfully many fewer now) view homosexuality so negatively. Your identity includes a lot of descriptors and it is you who decides which ones are most important for who you are, but no single term can really wrap up anyone's identity.

I'm not interested in playing the game where I need some special designation because it's only fair since trans people are labeled "trans" so, now, everyone must have a label. Besides, the more I see it, the more I'm seeing the snark behind it. Like I say, I can't control it if people say it, but I think it would be pretty clear now that if I was referred to that way, it would be with the intent to insult and be disrespectful to me (which would also be something I cannot control, :lol.

Based on other conversations I've seen, I'm hardly alone in this. You don't have to agree at all and you can think it silly or stupid and you can totally disregard my request, but if you do that, do not argue that "courtesy" or "respect" is a solid basis for to insist that trans people be referred to however they say they want to be.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'm not sure about that, honestly. I believe you totally do think that way, but I rarely see people on the "pro side" disagreeing with each other (but that's not uncommon for any position on any topic) and, quite frankly, it seems a lot of people on the pro side are too busy feeling all superior to actually have a reasonable conversation about it. I'm not speaking about you at all, CC, just so you know. I think you might be the first one to acknowledge that there is stupidity on both sides.

There is certainly stupidity on my side. Unfortunately, the stupidity on the other side is SO pervasive and nasty, I have had to spend all my time correcting the ignorance, there. But I've seen some good posts from my side (and the opposite, too). I don't think there is too much disagreement on the pro side, though I am aware that I am more moderate/conservative on the pro side of this issue and there are some who are bit too extreme. They tend not to disagree with me much, though.

 

[roguenuke]

I'm not interested in playing the game where I need some special designation because it's only fair since trans people are labeled "trans" so, now, everyone must have a label. Besides, the more I see it, the more I'm seeing the snark behind it. Like I say, I can't control it if people say it, but I think it would be pretty clear now that if I was referred to that way, it would be with the intent to insult and be disrespectful to me (which would also be something I cannot control, :lol.

Based on other conversations I've seen, I'm hardly alone in this. You don't have to agree at all and you can think it silly or stupid and you can totally disregard my request, but if you do that, do not argue that "courtesy" or "respect" is a solid basis for to insist that trans people be referred to however they say they want to be.

So then you are making an assumption about a person's intent in the use of a word, and automatically saying "I'm right, you are trying to insult me by calling me this simply because I have asked you not to do so". It is no different than saying someone is heterosexual, that person saying "don't call me that, I'm normal, calling me that is insulting". It has nothing to do with the actual intent of the person referring to the other as a simple descriptor, but rather with the view of the one being referred to of a group under a different descriptor within the same area of conversation.

 

[X Factor]

So then you are making an assumption about a person's intent in the use of a word, and automatically saying "I'm right, you are trying to insult me by calling me this simply because I have asked you not to do so". It is no different than saying someone is heterosexual, that person saying "don't call me that, I'm normal, calling me that is insulting". It has nothing to do with the actual intent of the person referring to the other as a simple descriptor, but rather with the view of the one being referred to of a group under a different descriptor within the same area of conversation.

I've made my request and my preferences known on this. I'm not going to suddenly decide to be ok with it because you think I should be. That's not your call to make. Go ahead and refer to me with that every single time you address me if you want, but your intent will be clear if you do so. But then, I'm not trans so I my own personal preferences should be disregarded? Is that your argument?

 

[roguenuke]

I've made my request and my preferences known on this. I'm not going to suddenly decide to be ok with it because you think I should be. That's not your call to make. Go ahead and refer to me with that every single time you address me if you want, but your intent will be clear if you do so. But then, I'm not trans so I my own personal preferences should be disregarded? Is that your argument?

Hyperbole much? As I asked before, how often have a referred to you or anyone else outside of these very specific conversations as "cisgender"? The same goes for transgender people outside of very specific conversation types. It is a descriptor. It isn't needed in the context of most conversations, either cisgender or transgender.

 

[X Factor]

Hyperbole much? As I asked before, how often have a referred to you or anyone else outside of these very specific conversations as "cisgender"? The same goes for transgender people outside of very specific conversation types. It is a descriptor. It isn't needed in the context of most conversations, either cisgender or transgender.

Call me, specifically, "Cis X" or something and the intent would be to **** with me and to deny that would be dishonest.

 

[TheGoverness]

Call me, specifically, "Cis X" or something and the intent would be to **** with me and to deny that would be dishonest.

Or how about this:

"You are a CIS X, therefore I assume X about you."