First  Prev  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  Next  Last
Post Reply "Transgendered" Restrooms and showers
1409 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/20/17 , edited 10/20/17
It does come down to a social factor, now.
For quite a long while, those who were transgender would use the restrooms that were designed for the gender that they identified with.
It wasn't until it became a topic of discussion that it has been blown out of proportion.
Nobody recalls when New Hampshire Representative Ed Butler suggested expanding protections around nondiscrimination to citizens who are transgendered.
This was back in 2009, long before the "Battle of the Bathroom" HB2 law in North Carolina (2016).
It started out as expanding anti-discrimination laws to ensure that a transgender citizen would have the unalienable rights to not being discriminated against in regard to housing, employment, or general safety.
This bill was defeated, mostly in part that people have been trying to push the same agenda too quickly.

That leads me to the fundamental point: it is a social rights issue.
There are not any statistics that purposely illustrate that there is a genuine risk of allowing those who identify with a different gender than the one that appears on their birth certificate.
It is a perceived threat under the misunderstanding of the core demographic (transgenderism).
Some consider those with transgenderism as someone having a mental disorder: WHO nor the DSM-IV nor the ICD-10 labels transgenderism (specifically) as a mental illness.
This is objectively incorrect and most of those who have utilized these medical classifications to suit their perceived agenda haven't any knowledge on mental illness and are taking the classifications out of context (which is a common thing these days with all sorts of citations).

I will yield that it is a perceived threat.
But would this not mean that if people fear for their children that they would not send them into the opposite gender's restroom?
I have lost count at how many fathers come into the men's restroom with their 2 to 7-year old daughter and send them into the stall while they're using the urinal.
I would perceive this more of a threat than someone who identifies as a female being in the female restroom.
Even under the incorrect logic that this person (transgender) were mentally ill, would this not play in the fact that they identify with the same gender and have little-to-no interest in your young daughter?
In contrast to being in a men's room which, statistically speaking, has a greater chance of having a heterosexual that is attracted to females in it?

I can see both sides of this issue, even though many on both sides are appealing to their subjective emotions versus the facts of the matter (in many scenarios).
For the record, North Carolina appears to be in the process of allowing transgender citizens to use the restrooms of the gender that they identify with.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/us/north-carolina-bathroom-bill.html
qwueri 
24220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 10/20/17 , edited 10/20/17

DevinKuska wrote:

People dictating how you live your life is a fact of life, regardless of your gender, age, or nationality. As far as people being "wankers" at least here in the US we are a nation of laws. Some get helped, some get hurt by these laws. Trying to push an agenda that nobody ever gets offended will either fail miserably, or lead to the eradication of the human species. Like it or not, humans need opposition to feel validated. If everyone agrees with you then you should get away from those people as soon as possible as they do not have your best interests in mind.


What are you even going on about? The "agenda" in this case is laws that were passed to specifically target people who are openly transgender using the bathroom they most feel comfortable in. A transgender person who can reasonably pass as their presented gender and stays quiet about it will in all likelihood never be challenged about where they pee. A mother bringing her young son or a father bringing his young daughter into the (women's and men's respectively) bathroom has virtually never been an issue. And the instances of transgender people targeting children in bathrooms is virtually unheard of; transgender women have enough on their plates already what with being at a higher likelihood of being victims of sexual assault. It's not a law that's protecting anyone, it's designed to sweep transgender people under the rug and keep transgender people from being open about being transgender.
7626 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 10/20/17 , edited 10/20/17

Cydoemus wrote:

It does come down to a social factor, now.
For quite a long while, those who were transgender would use the restrooms that were designed for the gender that they identified with.
It wasn't until it became a topic of discussion that it has been blown out of proportion.
Nobody recalls when New Hampshire Representative Ed Butler suggested expanding protections around nondiscrimination to citizens who are transgendered.
This was back in 2009, long before the "Battle of the Bathroom" HB2 law in North Carolina (2016).
It started out as expanding anti-discrimination laws to ensure that a transgender citizen would have the unalienable rights to not being discriminated against in regard to housing, employment, or general safety.
This bill was defeated, mostly in part that people have been trying to push the same agenda too quickly.

That leads me to the fundamental point: it is a social rights issue.
There are not any statistics that purposely illustrate that there is a genuine risk of allowing those who identify with a different gender than the one that appears on their birth certificate.
It is a perceived threat under the misunderstanding of the core demographic (transgenderism).
Some consider those with transgenderism as someone having a mental disorder: WHO nor the DSM-IV nor the ICD-10 labels transgenderism (specifically) as a mental illness.
This is objectively incorrect and most of those who have utilized these medical classifications to suit their perceived agenda haven't any knowledge on mental illness and are taking the classifications out of context (which is a common thing these days with all sorts of citations).

I will yield that it is a perceived threat.
But would this not mean that if people fear for their children that they would not send them into the opposite gender's restroom?
I have lost count at how many fathers come into the men's restroom with their 2 to 7-year old daughter and send them into the stall while they're using the urinal.
I would perceive this more of a threat than someone who identifies as a female being in the female restroom.
Even under the incorrect logic that this person (transgender) were mentally ill, would this not play in the fact that they identify with the same gender and have little-to-no interest in your young daughter?
In contrast to being in a men's room which, statistically speaking, has a greater chance of having a heterosexual that is attracted to females in it?

I can see both sides of this issue, even though many on both sides are appealing to their subjective emotions versus the facts of the matter (in many scenarios).
For the record, North Carolina appears to be in the process of allowing transgender citizens to use the restrooms of the gender that they identify with.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/us/north-carolina-bathroom-bill.html


Finally someone I can identify with. As I stated before the "threat" is perceived and I acknowledge it is far more likely that is perceived and not actually valid. That said I don't find my perception to be all that unreasonable, as someone carrying pepper spray at night is not thought of as unreasonable. We humans are a paranoid bunch sometimes for the better, sometimes to the point we generate our own worst case scenario. As far as the bathroom thing. My daughter passed away in December so I cant speak on that, however I can say my wife will NOT and has NOT ever taken my son into the women's restroom, nor does she go into the mens bathroom. Mostly out of insecurity(I call it gender dignity, take it with a grain of sand).

As far as subjective emotions... I agree as well. Though this whole argument like so many social justice issues doesn't really apply to logic. On social justice issues anyways I don't personally believe humans can be truly objective. As most if not all our opinions and decisions are based on how we "feel" about something. This is why issues like this don't really have a right answer. They are defacto social constructs that will always have sides for and against.


qwueri wrote:

What are you even going on about? .


I was addressing your personal points... nvm it must be a bit early for you

qwueri 
24220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 10/20/17 , edited 10/20/17

DevinKuska wrote:

I was addressing your personal points... nvm it must be a bit early for you



You addressed your own personal abstraction on social issues, not the issue at hand. You don't even have the "that's just how it's always been" in the instance of bathroom laws, they're a new thing. Jim Crow laws were passed because 'the South wasn't ready to accept black people on equal standing'. Transgender people have been using whichever bathroom they felt safe in for decades, and it wasn't an issue until transgendered people were starting to come out of the shadows and ask to be treated normally. It's legislative wankery designed to shunt transgender people back into hiding, because a society is never "read to accept" someone until they stand up and demand equal footing.
1409 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/20/17 , edited 10/20/17

DevinKuska wrote:
Finally someone I can identify with. As I stated before the "threat" is perceived and I acknowledge it is far more likely that is perceived and not actually valid. That said I don't find my perception to be all that unreasonable, as someone carrying pepper spray at night is not thought of as unreasonable. We humans are a paranoid bunch sometimes for the better, sometimes to the point we generate our own worst case scenario. As far as the bathroom thing. My daughter passed away in December so I cant speak on that, however I can say my wife will NOT and has NOT ever taken my son into the women's restroom, nor does she go into the mens bathroom. Mostly out of insecurity(I call it gender dignity, take it with a grain of sand).


First off, my apologies for the loss of your daughter - understandably, that's a difficult thing to experience and I wish it on no-one.
Hang in there and I'm sure you, your wife, and your son will be absolutely fine.
-

I do understand that the vast majority of the threats that we accept as potential complications to our livelihood are often just perceived threats.
The chance that something will happen is often more terrifying than the actual probability of it happening (statistically speaking).
The issue I have with those who are strongly in the mindset that this is not a "perceived threat" but one that is a fact that we all must be cautious of in our day to day lives is that it's entirely flawed.
We haven't any statistics or data to fully support the argument that the threat is genuine.

Appealing to emotion and accepting that it's a threat that one perceives (or rather, "believes") is entirely well and good.
But this cycles back to form of discrimination, just in its earliest of stages.
Similar to what you said in your response on the last page: "Not that transgender using any facilities is inherently bad, but at this time I feel like society isn't ready for it. Maybe in 10-30years, but forcing it on people will only lead to animosity and outrage on both sides."
I feel that a lot of the issue with those who oppose it, even if it is a perceived threat, is that it's mostly being "forced" upon them.
This goes with a lot of recent progress in social awareness (gender identities, LGBTQ+ rights, and so forth).
While I assert the notion that social progress is good, I also think that humans and change are not often a great mix (especially when it happens rapidly).
We are only just on the brink of accepting same-sex marriage and even that is hotly debated by some, to this day.

In a country where racism still exists, despite it having been sixty-three years since we did away with segregation, I think we still have a fair amount of learning to do.
This is not to say that we should not have rights for transgender citizens or to single out any minority of citizens that are not specifically classified in most legal documents.
I am simply agreeing that it may be "too much, too soon".
I hate saying it but it appears, more than ever, that we just are not ready for everything at once.
Even on those who support great strides of social progress in rapid secession, we see cases where this has also got a bit out of hand (Tumblr's list of gender identities, for example).
It may be a "subset of a subset" but it is easy to take something minute and blow it up as a red flag or cautionary tale.

My girlfriend often sees little boys going into the women's restroom with their mother.
The case usually occurs when a parent decides that the risk of bringing the "opposite gender" child into their restroom outweighs the risk of sending them into the restroom of the child's gender.
I get it but it's just one of those situations where if a sweeping generalization is going to be made, the law should take these things into consideration as well.
Nor am I attempting to say that either way of parenting is better than the other (not allowing them in the restroom of the opposite sex/gender or allowing them with the parent in the same restroom), it was more so an example as to how it confuses me that this isn't perceived as an equal or greater threat than a MtF being in a female restroom.


DevinKuska wrote:
As far as subjective emotions... I agree as well. Though this whole argument like so many social justice issues doesn't really apply to logic. On social justice issues anyways I don't personally believe humans can be truly objective. As most if not all our opinions and decisions are based on how we "feel" about something. This is why issues like this don't really have a right answer. They are defacto social constructs that will always have sides for and against.


True, nobody can be entirely objective on this matter.
I just try to understand both viewpoints and rationalize them as much as I can.
My personal views are parallel to someone just shrugging their arms up and saying, "Whatever, man."
I'm all for equal rights of all citizens, regardless of how or what they identify as/with (as long as it does not directly harm another individual - like "identifying as a pedophile", as an example).
But I also try to take a step back and look at the behavior that both sides of the discussion take when mud is flung from either (or both) directions.
I will say, I am always going to be a stickler for data or information.
When it doesn't correlate to someone's point, I become slightly more bias in favor of data as long as the sources pan out.
77679 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / F / Toronto
Offline
Posted 10/20/17 , edited 10/20/17

dougeprofile wrote:

Never have, never will ...keep loving? that I will.


Riiiiight. Have a nice life. Far from mine.

1106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / Michigan
Offline
Posted 10/25/17 , edited 10/25/17
It disgusts me that humans are still disgusted by other human's harmless actions.
First  Prev  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.