Bathroom police really?

[playhavock]

Do people really LIKE the bathroom laws that are being put into place? Anyone feel better now? I mean, seriously people - REALLY?! WHY IS THIS A THING?

[Divine Insight]

Who a person is, is their private problem, if that is something they are struggling with. Treating them badly is counter-productive and unwarranted.

Who a person is, is not to be treated badly by the unwarranted impingement of others as a way to deal with their own issues.

Again I would suggest that this is nothing more than ignorance of the real issues.

What you don't seem to be recognizing, and acknowledging is that by forcing these individuals to use the restrooms of their natural sex you are forcing them to publicly expose their biological sex to everyone in a public place.

Moreover, the actual result of this is that you will end up having people who look like women going into the men's restroom, and people who look like men going into the women's restroom.

And because this will be occurring in public places this will cause much commotion. The women will still be freaking out when they see what appears to be a "man" walking into the ladies room. It will actually be a biological female, but she will appear to be a man for all intents and purposes. She passes as a man in public.

And the same thing will happen in the mens room. Men who pass publicly as women will need to use the mens restroom. This will cause the men to react as well. And potentially in hostile ways.

At first they will think that a woman just entered the mens room. But once they realized that this is actually a biological man dressed as a woman, they could actually become quite violent toward the transgender individual. So these laws are actually placing transgender individuals in potentially grave danger.

Not only will the strangers who are in these restrooms be reacting to this in unpredictable ways when they see someone who appears to be the opposite sex come into their restroom, but in addition to that everyone outside the restrooms who are in this public place will also see that the transgender individual went into what appears to be the "wrong" restroom.

In other words, a transgender person who was publicly passing as a woman will have need to expose and advertise to the whole place that she is really a biological male if she needs to use the restroom.

Saying, "Well that's their problem, they are just going to have to deal with it", is to do nothing more than be insensitive to their situation and basically refuse to even consider the reality of their situation.

In short, you are basically suggesting that transgender people should just stay home as "Freaks" and not even try to become a productive member of society.

It's just total insensitive to the situation. And a refusal to acknowledge that the situation is REAL.

And you can't just be thinking of this in terms of adults. We're talking about teens who have no choice but to attend public social places (like going to school) for example. What are they going to do?

Are they going to have to remain in the gender role of their biological body just because people in general are too ignorant and unwilling to understand their situation?

Are they going to need to dress for the gender role they are comfortable with, and then advertise to everyone that they are not biologically that gender every time they have to go to use a restroom?

You know very well that in a high school situation that is going to result in extreme bullying.

~~~~~~

There may be other answers to these issues. But in the meantime making public laws that forbid any transgender individuals from using restrooms other than what matches their biological sex certainly isn't addressing this situation at all. All it's doing is basically saying, "Hey if your a transgender individual too bad sucker, we aren't the least bit concerned with your situation or your safety.

~~~~~~

And finally, where was there any problem that these laws needed to be made?

These laws weren't made because there were actual problems. These laws were made as a religious statement that religious bigots simply aren't going to ever acknowledge the transgender individuals as being anything other than sinner perverts who don't deserve any consideration at all.

That's all these laws amount to.

They certainly aren't laws that stem from compassion, love, or understanding. They are laws that serve nothing more than an agenda for religious bigotry.

Let's face the truth here.

[bluethread]

Oh, those women are just going to about their lives normally, while men, who self identify as female, join them in the restroom. Sure, that is going to happen.

Yes they are if these men who identify as female are genuine transgendered individuals.

Just so we can be clear, what is a "genuine" transgendered individual?

Clearly you aren't recognizing the problem from the transgender perspective. And neither are the legislators. They are just totally ignoring transgender as if it isn't real. They refuse to concede that it's real.

You clearly aren't recognizing that voyeurist men lie. Those legislators are choosing not to ignore that, even though some might not recognize that as real.

Now you are talking about illegal criminals. That's an entirely different issue.

These laws weren't made to address that issue, because in truth that particular scenario is indeed a non-issue. That is simply not happening on any scale that would require making laws about.

These laws are being made specifically to address transgendered individuals. So trying to use actual criminal behavior as an excuse for these laws is nonsense. In fact, the very fact that these laws have been made and will necessarily need to be eventually revoked will actually create a situation later where perverts can then use the revocation of this law to justify precisely what you have suggested here.

So these laws are ultimately going to back-fire in the worst possible way over time. Especially if they aren't revoked immediately.

Yes, I am talking about criminal behavior. However, your argument is silly. This is not a non-issue. It appears that you are not paying attention to the news. There are even websites that are dedicated to this sort of thing.

This is nothing more than pure ignorance. This is the typical reaction that people have when they don't understand something. Instead of taking the time to learn about it and understand it, they just want to make laws in the hope that they can just make it go away.

Exposing business owners to accusations of civil rights violations for monitoring who goes into what bathroom is indeed pure ignorance. Those accusations of civil rights violations are the typical reaction of people who think they know better. Instead of taking the time to learn about and understand the consequences of their actions, they just want claim that their rights have been violated in the hope that they can get what they want without consequence.

I think you are still talking about pervert men who just want to dress up as women to get a gander at women in a women's restroom. This is a totally unrealistic fear.

But unfortunately the fact that these laws were instated and will eventually need to be revoked that will actually open the door for actual perverts (non-transgendered individuals) trying to take advantage of the fact that these laws have been revoked.

This is why it was doubly stupid to instate these kind of laws in the first place.

I said nothing about male transvestites. These policies do not require one to be a transvestite. All that is required is that one self identify as a woman. The transgender policies existed in some places before these laws were enacted. So, your argument that such a thing would not occur if the legislating codifying separate male and female restrooms were not enacted is just not valid. It is just that requiring everyone to adopt the self-identifying policies, just makes thing easier for the perp.

It isn't going away. So this isn't going to work anyway. It's a futile reaction based entirely on ignorance and an unwillingness to even learn and understand the true nature of the world we live in and the complex diversity of the human condition.

Voyeurism is not going away either. This is just a knee jerk reaction based entirely on ideology and an unwillingness to even recognize and understand the true nature of the world we live in.

These laws weren't made against voyeurs. There is no problem of voyeurism in these states that would have required making laws to suppress that activity. These laws were made specifically to refuse to recognize and accommodate the transgender and LGBT community.

No these laws were put in place to codify the standard practice of providing facilities based on physiology. Some trace this standard practice back to a more paternalistic era. However, in my experience it's not men who complain, but women. Isn't it usually the case that one is called misogynist if one favors the preferences of a male over those of a female?

Ignorance is never the solution. And that's what these laws amount to. Nothing but pure ignorance of the reality of the transgender phenomena of the Human species.

Yes, ignorance is never the solution. And that's what these civil rights claims amount to. Nothing but pure ignorance of the reality of the voyeuristic phenomena of the Human species.

These laws have nothing at all to do with voyeurism. These laws were created expressly for the purpose of supposedly protecting the "Religious Rights" of religious people who do not recognize the validity of the LGBT community.

Trying to twist this issue into being about voyeurism is simply baloney.

Ok ladies, you heard it here. You are just "religious people" if you do not want to do your business with a man in the next stall.

Hate will not solve the problem. And that's basically all this law amounts to. Hatred toward transgenders. It's bigotry driven by ignorance. And it's totally devoid and empty of any love, compassion, or even the slightest understanding.

Yah, women are opposed to this because they hate .01% of the population. They don't want men in their restrooms because they are bigots and their unwillingness to expose themselves to the risks of having their junk displayed on the internet is just empty of any love, compassion, or even the slightest understanding.

It's ignorance of the fact that transgendered individuals are REAL PEOPLE. These are people who have a "gender crisis" that has been validated by the psychological community as being very REAL.

People need to grow up and realize that the world we live in is not perfect. Not everyone identifies with the gender of the plumbing they may have been born with. This doesn't justify hating them and refusing to understand their situation.

This is nothing but ignorance. Ignorance that is unfortunately supported be religions. Religions that claim to be all about love and compassion, but that truly serve as nothing more than support for ignorance, intolerance, and ultimately hatred.

Basically what you are suggesting is that the LGBT community is nothing but a bunch of voyeuristic perverts. But psychologists have verified that this is not the case. These transgendered individuals are real people who have a genuine gender crisis going on in their life, and they need to be accepted for who they are, and not treated as some sort of freak show or just branded as voyeuristic perverts.

To refuse to recognize the reality of these people is bad enough. To suggest that they are nothing more than voyeuristic perverts is far worse. Now you are not only refusing to recognize the reality of their situation, but you are adding injury to insult by suggesting that they have ulterior motivations.

I did not say that transgendered individuals are voyeuristic perverts. I clearly said, "women concerned about heterosexual men". So, it is your argument that transgendered individuals have a "gender crisis" and not catering to that is a federal case? This is a text book example of grievance politics. How many psychological crises must a private business accommodate to satisfy the already bloated federal regulations? Must every business provide me with a golden "throne", if I happen to have a megalomania "crisis"? If I may quote the Hitchhiker's Guide, "We have normality, anything you still can't cope with is, therefore, your own problem."

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

Let's face the truth here.

We are trying to do just that and probably failing.

I have stated my "solution", or whatever it was, and you have stated yours.

We two are not able to see eye to eye so further discussion is pointless.

I am therefore bowing out.

Not

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

This is what I'm talking about when I suggest that much of this is based on ignorance of what it's even like to have a "transgender" personality crisis. It's just not that simple. Just because a person identifies with a different "gender" doesn't mean they necessarily want doctors hacking away at their genitals.

And besides, would this really change anything anyway? You would still have the very same person using that restroom in either case. The fact that they had a physical operation won't change who they are.

Yes but no.

There are two quite separate issues that have been put together and so we have two wrongs that do not one right make.

I bolded the above in order to address it later

So far as the transgender are concerned, it is not about their genitals, but, as you say, about who they are as persons.

But as far as others who use those gendered facilities are concerned, it is about both, their genitals and who they are as persons.

I think it's pretty much all about transgender genitals no matter how ya slice it. This 'controversy' highlights the importance we assign to male genitals vs female genitals.

SOME others may find the idea of male genitals in the women's restroom to be objectionable. I mean really . . . how is anyone going to know if their fellow restroom users even have genitals? As you know, the ladies' room is all about privacy, we go in and lock ourselves in and clutch our purses in our laps because hanging them on the back of the door is a great way to get your purse stolen. We see each other only fully clothed, at the washbasins, primping in the mirror.

No exposed genitals anywhere. Now mens' rooms, on the other hand . . .
Should people who are uncomfortable about the idea of something be reason enough to send a trans female who hasn't had 'bottom surgery' into the men's, where she is very likely to be beaten up? Some guys get real reactionary. It's not safe.

Your wife and/or daughters would never, ever know. Surely they've used the ladies' with trans women many times already without ever knowing.

Trans men and women have been using the gendered bathrooms all this time without some special ordinance giving them permissions. As trans people are identified younger and younger, you'll seriously not be able to tell the 'difference' unless you pull down their pants -- and even then, the surgeries are getting pretty good, too. Especially for trans women.

Opposite genitals have no place in such gendered facilities. They never have had any place for very good reasons everyone is well aware of.

What would you say your reasoning is, that opposite genitals have no place in gendered facilities?

What to you is the significance of the genitals? What impact do you imagine will be negative, in terms of trans women continuing to use the ladies' like they always have?

A female facility has potential or actual exposure of genitals or other normally covered body parts. A male in there who could thereby view those, or expose his own, can greatly affect who any females present are as persons.

Perhaps a locker room where people shower, but there are no genitals on display in regular restrooms.

People who don't know any trans people well enough to find these things out will be pleased to know trans people are more private, more 'modest' and less likely to get nekkid in front of ANYBODY (due to ongoing shame). The trans women in a swimming pool locker are wrapping towels around themselves in the backest fartherest darkest corner of the locker room. If they still have male genitals, they are beyond ashamed about them. In general, trans people feel their birth genitals are horrifying, ugly, like deformities -- even though their genitals are normal!

Who would know these kinds of things, unless one had a handy transgender or two to even tell us? (raising hand)

And the same applies regarding any male facility.

We do not solve or salve one problem by creating one for others they would not otherwise have had.

And here it is -- I'll tie in that first phrase I bolded; the 'problem' is mostly regarding the idea of something, rather than actual events. No doubt if trans people were scaring people in bathrooms, we'd have heard about it long ago.

Just how much should a society seek to ease the discomfort some of its citizens have at the idea of something?

If it's more than the 'idea of something', please correct me.

Who a person is, is their private problem, if that is something they are struggling with. Treating them badly is counter-productive and unwarranted.

Who a person is, is not to be treated badly by the unwarranted impingement of others as a way to deal with their own issues.

The thing about this 'new' public awareness of trans people is that it is forcing everyone, literally, to face themselves in some way.

Just how much stock do I/you/they put into . . . erm, genitals, anyway? How important are they? Are they a bit . . . sacred? Of greater significance and meaning than . . . a pair of feet, or knees or eyebrows? And if they do have this special 'charged-ness' about them -- why should trans people end up being 'responsible' for our discomfort? So that they put themselves in harm's way, as in the case of a trans woman who chose not to undergo 'bottom surgery'?

Is that really fair? Do we normally make one group take responsibility for another group's discomfort?

I think these are active 'living' questions,. They don't have down-pat answers, they have 'living' answers, and are worth the time taken to donate a thought or two.

There's so much about the trans experience that the normal everyday public only has furtive assumptions about.

What I've found is when people understand better, the actual differences don't seem to be worth all the hullaballoo about. We're just not used to thinking about these things in our culture, and yes, trans folk are such a small minority -- but what we learn about ourSELVES when we try to understand transgender conditions is going to help us all get along with each other better. Sounds soppy perhaps, but we are members of a global society, and dang there are people out there that we disagree with, don't understand for the life of us, cannot figure out, and so on.

Instead of holding other people accountable (much less responsible) for our own discomfort and lack of self-reflection, it's time more of us took that responsibility back. Sorry about the speech this is one of my 'babies'. I'm very glad to discuss this more, especially if you don't agree or it's just not sitting right.

[Divine Insight]

SOME others may find the idea of male genitals in the women's restroom to be objectionable. I mean really . . . how is anyone going to know if their fellow restroom users even have genitals? As you know, the ladies' room is all about privacy, we go in and lock ourselves in and clutch our purses in our laps because hanging them on the back of the door is a great way to get your purse stolen. We see each other only fully clothed, at the washbasins, primping in the mirror.

Exactly.

These laws are nothing other than an attempt to take religious stance against the LGBT community. That's all they are, and anyone who is pretending they aren't is just kidding themselves.

Just so we can be clear, what is a "genuine" transgendered individual?

How about any person who "genuinely" satisfies the definition of a transgendered individual?

And besides who else would be interested in dressing up as the opposite gender just so they could go into the restroom of the opposite gender?

What would they hope to accomplish by doing that?

As Hamsaka points out, they would meet with grave disappointment if they thought they were actually going to see a naked body, or expose their own naked body.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 14 by Hamsaka]

Quote:
Opposite genitals have no place in such gendered facilities. They never have had any place for very good reasons everyone is well aware of.


What would you say your reasoning is, that opposite genitals have no place in gendered facilities?

What I would now say, after reading your post, is that my reasoning was based on a misunderstanding that I am myself responsible for.

In particular, this part of what you pointed out:

SOME others may find the idea of male genitals in the women's restroom to be objectionable. I mean really . . . how is anyone going to know if their fellow restroom users even have genitals? As you know, the ladies' room is all about privacy, we go in and lock ourselves in and clutch our purses in our laps because hanging them on the back of the door is a great way to get your purse stolen. We see each other only fully clothed, at the washbasins, primping in the mirror.

No exposed genitals anywhere. Now mens' rooms, on the other hand . . .

Trans men and women have been using the gendered bathrooms all this time without some special ordinance giving them permissions.

And this little exchange between us:

Quote:
A female facility has potential or actual exposure of genitals or other normally covered body parts. A male in there who could thereby view those, or expose his own, can greatly affect who any females present are as persons.


Perhaps a locker room where people shower, but there are no genitals on display in regular restrooms.

I was assuming locker rooms were included, and changing rooms, for example.

My bad. I should have known better.

I'm very glad to discuss this more, especially if you don't agree Smile or it's just not sitting right.

Thanks.

I'm very glad you posted what you did how you did, to set the record straight.

Take care.

[bluethread]

SOME others may find the idea of male genitals in the women's restroom to be objectionable. I mean really . . . how is anyone going to know if their fellow restroom users even have genitals? As you know, the ladies' room is all about privacy, we go in and lock ourselves in and clutch our purses in our laps because hanging them on the back of the door is a great way to get your purse stolen. We see each other only fully clothed, at the washbasins, primping in the mirror.

Exactly.

These laws are nothing other than an attempt to take religious stance against the LGBT community. That's all they are, and anyone who is pretending they aren't is just kidding themselves.

Then why limit it to the transgendered. Why not require that everyone be permitted in every restroom?

Just so we can be clear, what is a "genuine" transgendered individual?

How about any person who "genuinely" satisfies the definition of a transgendered individual?

Thanks for not answering the question.

Since you provided no definition, here is one

(Wiki) transgendered ‎(comparative more transgendered, superlative most transgendered)
1.(uncommon, offensive, proscribed) Transgender; having changed gender identity (with or without surgery) from male to female, or from female to male. (Compare transsexual.)

What is necessary to "genuinely" change gender identity? It obviously does not require surgery, since that is stated in the definition.

And besides who else would be interested in dressing up as the opposite gender just so they could go into the restroom of the opposite gender?

What would they hope to accomplish by doing that?

Must one be a transvestite to be transgendered? If so, my mistake, because as I stated earlier, I said nothing about transvestites. I clearly said heterosexual men going into the women's room. No reference to transsexuals or transvestites. It is you who seems to believe that it is easy to differentiate the heterosexual males from the "genuine" transgendered males. Using the definition for transgendered above how does one do that? This appears to be getting very close to the true Scotsman argument.

As Hamsaka points out, they would meet with grave disappointment if they thought they were actually going to see a naked body, or expose their own naked body.

Well, my reference to their junk may have been a bit too specific, but needless to say, women do tend to be a rather protective of their privacy. Does that make them sexist bigots? What's the problem with using the men's room anyway? Are women the new "white" and men the new "colored"? If one wants to use the women's restroom, one must "pass" as a woman? If you think women are bigots, because they don't want men in their restrooms, then just say so. Why even bring up the transgendered, do they urinate and defecated differently from the rest of us?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]

I'm on my phone which makes copy/pasting beyond my ken but I wanted to give a definite answer on what makes a person a genuine transgender person. From the trans pov, they are trans the day they realize they are a boy in a girls body. From a medical / psychiatric pov, once the treatment team decides the individual meets the criteria for gender dysphoria and commits to living as a boy, choosing a boy's name, and living as a boy at school and home.

[Divine Insight]

SOME others may find the idea of male genitals in the women's restroom to be objectionable. I mean really . . . how is anyone going to know if their fellow restroom users even have genitals? As you know, the ladies' room is all about privacy, we go in and lock ourselves in and clutch our purses in our laps because hanging them on the back of the door is a great way to get your purse stolen. We see each other only fully clothed, at the washbasins, primping in the mirror.

Exactly.

These laws are nothing other than an attempt to take religious stance against the LGBT community. That's all they are, and anyone who is pretending they aren't is just kidding themselves.

Then why limit it to the transgendered. Why not require that everyone be permitted in every restroom?

We never needed these kinds of laws before. If there was a problem with some obvious pervert causing trouble that would be covered under "Disorderly Conduct".

And besides these laws were instated specifically under the claim that they are "Protecting Religious Freedom". When what they really amount to are laws that support "Religious Bigotry and Hatred".

Religious people are shooting themselves in their own feet with their religious bigotry. Is it any wonder that millennials are abandoning religion in droves?

In a way I'm actually glad to see this, because it really amounts to nothing more than religious people hanging their own "religious freedom" by trying to shove their religious bigotry down everyone else's throats.

This is nothing but an issue of religious bigotry.

[bluethread]

Then why limit it to the transgendered. Why not require that everyone be permitted in every restroom?

We never needed these kinds of laws before. If there was a problem with some obvious pervert causing trouble that would be covered under "Disorderly Conduct".

It would be nice if you would answer a question and dispense with the propagandizing. You have made your position clear. So, why not require that everyone be permitted in every restroom?