Obama administration issues guidance on transgender access to school bathrooms

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

You must be registered for see images

The Obama administration issued guidance Friday directing public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms matching their gender identity.

A joint letter from the Departments of Education and Justice went to schools Friday with guidelines to ensure that "transgender students enjoy a supportive and nondiscriminatory school environment," the Obama administration said Thursday.

The announcement comes amid heated debate over transgender rights in schools and public life, which includes a legal standoff between the administration and North Carolina over its controversial House Bill 2. The guidance goes beyond the bathroom issue, touching upon privacy rights, education records and ***-segregated athletics, all but guaranteeing transgender students the right to identify in school as they choose.

"There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their ***," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said. "This guidance gives administrators, teachers and parents the tools they need to protect transgender students from peer harassment and to identify and address unjust school policies."


The letter does not carry the force of law but the message was clear: Fall in line or face loss of federal funding.
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory slammed the guidance and called on Congress to address the issue.

"Most Americans, including this governor, believe that government is searching for a solution to a problem that has yet to be defined. Now, both the federal courts and the U.S. Congress must intercede to stop this massive executive branch overreach, which clearly oversteps constitutional authority," McCrory said in a statement.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, reiterated in a statement that the guidance was not federal.

"This is the kind of issue that parents, schools boards, communities, students and teachers should be allowed to work out in a practical way with a maximum amount of respect for the individual rights of all students. Insofar as the federal government goes, it's up to Congress to write the law, not the executive departments," the Tennessee Republican said.

Justice and Education Department officials have repeatedly made clear that under their interpretation of Title IX, the federal anti-discrimination law in education, schools receiving federal funds may not discriminate based on a student's ***, including a student's transgender status.

 

[Punk Hazard]

This should be obvious. There's no ****ing student that's gonna go "I can't wait to rape that person in the bathroom they're about to go in. Oh shit, the sign is male, I'm female, I could never cross that moral boundary."

 

[Urda]

Now, both the federal courts and the U.S. Congress must intercede to stop this massive executive branch overreach, which clearly oversteps constitutional authority

What worries me is that the Supreme Court should have been on this a long time ago.

The Governor cannot publically pass this law as it violates the constitution. However, I do see this as a loophole for private business.

 

[Claymantan]

What worries me is that the Supreme Court should have been on this a long time ago.

The Governor cannot publically pass this law as it violates the constitution. However, I do see this as a loophole for private business.

Can you explain what you mean?

 

[wanderingcactus]

yep that was a really bad move on their part.

seriously, the problem that they base it on is "discriminatory" attitude against those people of transgender.

however the case is not all about that but rather the complexity of it. Shared bathrooms with such bring in complicated issues that are not properly addressed nor the matter is debatable.

Why is it debatable? The very essence on it is based on one's perception of their own gender.

Sorry but if we do not tackle this issue in a very logical standpoint, we're doomed as a society. How so?

Solely due to having truth and "fact" based on one's feelings about it.

For example, I would voice my stand on this and say I disagree. I am labeled as a bigot. Not because of my reasoning that it welcomes predators and we would have no way of truly finding out whether or not they are perverts.
Basically this issue is subjective and thus no such rule should be implemented.

However, it wouldn't be the case in those "progressive" people. They would group me with the "conservatives" (which is discriminative BTW) and here at least in America, being conservative has an undertone of bigotry, backwards thinkers, and overall scums.

So yeah, this powermove is as much nonsense of that one chick who denied those gay people their marriage because of her BELIEFS.

Keyword here is beliefs.

Go through all the modifications you want, your chromosomes and all your body structures will be the same and in the eyes of nature, you don't CHOOSE. You simply follow its laws.

But in my opinion, either have a uni-restroom or don't protect any trans/homos/etc.

Because if a gay man/woman can enter the bathroom freely other people are susceptible of being sexually assaulted.

So they should get their own bathrooms. Whatever happens there, sucks to be them. That's what they CHOOSE.

Those are the only LOGICAL solutions and outcomes that are possible in these scenarios.

Like the issue is to find out whether or not we should cater to one's beliefs. Is it fine for religious people to get benefits?
then apply that reasoning to anything that is based on beliefs.

before replying, read this. or not, it might offend you solely because it disagrees with your standpoints.

Spoiler

"oh it's different" no it is not. Then they would deny others to explain and force the government to fend for them.

"this is the same as racism 50 years before" no it is not. racism is subjective as it is based on one's beliefs that a race is superior than the other.
Also it is a proven fact that other races are NOT sub-humans. We can mate and procreate with them. We have the same chromosomes and organs. We simply look different.

While stating that "I was born in a different body" is neither logical or valid reasoning in which can be either backed up by science.

Granted, those people are denied certain rights but "the right to CHOOSE your bathrooms" is not a right.
You cannot simply choose your bathrooms as much as you can choose your gender or your race or your species or where you were born and when you were born.

Sorry to tell you this but that's borderline delusional. And before you jump into the conclusion, no not delusional, but borderline. As in it has the characteristic of one. much like short term memory loss vs alzheimer.

Also having the government force such laws, to grant one group something that they THINK they deserve is NOT EQUALITY.

I'm sorry that you FEEL like you're a different gender, but you CANT use the government to FORCE people to be fine with it. That's tyrannical.

That's like if man made laws that oppresses women due to their reasoning that they FEEL like men are superior or that white folks BELIEVING that their race is better than the others. Or that religious people FEEL like their religion is right and the rest is sinning and must be punished.

This is basically what this bill is.

 

[wanderingcactus]

What worries me is that the Supreme Court should have been on this a long time ago.

The Governor cannot publically pass this law as it violates the constitution. However, I do see this as a loophole for private business.

there will always be loopholes for private businesses. They designed those laws that way. After all, most politicians are just a business pawn.

Basically they are hired to pass laws that benefit their (big corporations) business.

 

[Magnolius]

Controversial statement that will get me many likes and rep points~

 

[Gerkak]

How unfortunate.

 

[wanderingcactus]

Controversial statement that will get me many likes and rep points~

Validly sound argument.

*adds more controversial statement*

 

[Claymantan]

yep that was a really bad move on their part.

seriously, the problem that they base it on is "discriminatory" attitude against those people of transgender.

however the case is not all about that but rather the complexity of it. Shared bathrooms with such bring in complicated issues that are not properly addressed nor the matter is debatable.

Why is it debatable? The very essence on it is based on one's perception of their own gender.

Sorry but if we do not tackle this issue in a very logical standpoint, we're doomed as a society. How so?

Solely due to having truth and "fact" based on one's feelings about it.

For example, I would voice my stand on this and say I disagree. I am labeled as a bigot. Not because of my reasoning that it welcomes predators and we would have no way of truly finding out whether or not they are perverts.
Basically this issue is subjective and thus no such rule should be implemented.

Considering it's a guideline that encourages the Supreme Court to tackle the issue (much as when Obama said his administration supported gay marriage, but before there was actually a Supreme Court ruling on the matter), and not an actual passing of a law, I don't think any of this is relevant. Also, it's specifically targeted at public schools, and like Riker said, I don't really think the issue of "predators" applies as much.

A) School surveillance is legit.
B) If people are going to rape, they're going to do it outside of bathrooms.

The idea that we should deny the identities of students, which could do damage to them, versus not denying the identity of these students, which will likely have negligible impact on everyone involved, just because opinions differ, is silly, and is just another way of saying "I disagree, and things have always been the way that I agreed with, so things should stay the way I like them."

However, it wouldn't be the case in those "progressive" people. They would group me with the "conservatives" (which is discriminative BTW) and here at least in America, being conservative has an undertone of bigotry, backwards thinkers, and overall scums.

Conservatives always acting like they're the unheard minority. xD Both sides are pretty much equally loud, and support for trans rights is in no way a majority stance in the U.S., although this varies with age group and gender.

So yeah, this powermove is as much nonsense of that one chick who denied those gay people their marriage because of her BELIEFS.

Keyword here is beliefs.

Go through all the modifications you want, your chromosomes and all your body structures will be the same and in the eyes of nature, you don't CHOOSE. You simply follow its laws.

So they're saying the laws should be changed or reexamined, and until a law exists which expressly forbids the public schools from accepting the gender identity of students (afaik, there isn't one), the recommendation is a legitimate option. Again, it's not an executive order, it's the administration taking a stance.

But in my opinion, either have a uni-restroom or don't protect any trans/homos/etc.

Because if a gay man/woman can enter the bathroom freely other people are susceptible of being sexually assaulted.

So they should get their own bathrooms. Whatever happens there, sucks to be them. That's what they CHOOSE.

But gay men can use male bathrooms and gay women can use women's bathrooms. Arbitrary.

Those are the only LOGICAL solutions and outcomes that are possible in these scenarios.

Like the issue is to find out whether or not we should cater to one's beliefs. Is it fine for religious people to get benefits?
then apply that reasoning to anything that is based on beliefs.

Religious people do get benefits.

before replying, read this. or not, it might offend you solely because it disagrees with your standpoints.

You sound really offended.

"oh it's different" no it is not. Then they would deny others to explain and force the government to fend for them.

What?

"this is the same as racism 50 years before" no it is not. racism is subjective as it is based on one's beliefs that a race is superior than the other.
Also it is a proven fact that other races are NOT sub-humans. We can mate and procreate with them. We have the same chromosomes and organs. We simply look different.

While stating that "I was born in a different body" is neither logical or valid reasoning in which can be either backed up by science.

I can tell you've never read any serious scientific literature on the issue of gender dysphoria, because there is not a single legitimate academic paper in psychology or social psychology that says "gender dysphoria is illegitimate." xD Don't claim science agrees with you when it has not taken any such stance.

Granted, those people are denied certain rights but "the right to CHOOSE your bathrooms" is not a right.
You cannot simply choose your bathrooms as much as you can choose your gender or your race or your species or where you were born and when you were born.

Why not? Separate bathrooms is the same thing as separate schools. The only reason you're lumping it in with things like race and gender and whatever is to suit your argument. It's clearly subjective. We could have entirely unisex bathrooms if we wanted. The right to have separate bathrooms isn't a right either, bro. xD

Sorry to tell you this but that's borderline delusional. And before you jump into the conclusion, no not delusional, but borderline. As in it has the characteristic of one. much like short term memory loss vs alzheimer.

So what's the point of saying this? xD

Also having the government force such laws, to grant one group something that they THINK they deserve is NOT EQUALITY.
I'm sorry that you FEEL like you're a different gender, but you CANT use the government to FORCE people to be fine with it. That's tyrannical.

It's not tyrannical, because such a law (that does not even exist) would affect you and your behaviors in no demonstrable way whatsoever. The most you can claim is that you might get exposed to more risk, but you cannot even really prove this. Laws that may expose a population to risk =/= tyranny. Stop exaggerating..

That's like if man made laws that oppresses women due to their reasoning that they FEEL like men are superior or that white folks BELIEVING that their race is better than the others. Or that religious people FEEL like their religion is right and the rest is sinning and must be punished.

Such a law, that is not even in the article, would oppress you in no way, or punish you in no way, again. xD

This is basically what this bill is.

Right, "this bill":

The letter does not carry the force of law but the message was clear: Fall in line or face loss of federal funding.

Schools aren't entitled to federal funding, btw. State and municipal issue.

The only bill is the one that was passed in North Carolina, and the Supreme Court has always had the right to review the constitutionality of any bill, regardless of how it transgresses against your personal opinion.

 

[Jokule67]

And this is why people say Obama was a bad president. They always shunn the dude and spout how congress makes the laws, then blame him for every gotdamn thing thats happening like its 100% his fault and hes king.

 

[Urda]

Can you explain what you mean?

Basically, the Obama Admin is pitching that North Carolina is violating the US. Const.... This one....

The U.S. Const. Amend. 14 and The Equal Protection Clause:

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose."

and this one... Civil Rights:

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, ***, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation.

The Obama Admin threats are empty because they do not control the budget (congress does). However, Obama Admin played their cards and now the Supreme Court has no choice but to look into the matter, which they have been ignoring.

 

[Claymantan]

Basically, the Obama Admin is pitching that North Carolina is violating the US. Const.... This one....

The U.S. Const. Amend. 14 and The Equal Protection Clause:

and this one... Civil Rights:

The Obama Admin threats are empty because they do not control the budget (congress does). However, Obama Admin played their cards and now the Supreme Court has no choice but to look into the matter, which they have been ignoring.

Yeah, and the people who are complaining about the administration pitching this to the Supreme Court are complaining about nothing, really. If it's unconstitutional, it'll be decided as such, and if it's constitutional, it'll be decided as such. Why be afraid of the possibility that your opinion may be legitimized, unless you know your opinion is actually based on nothing substantial and only your feelings of discomfort?

 

[Punk Hazard]

yep that was a really bad move on their part.

seriously, the problem that they base it on is "discriminatory" attitude against those people of transgender.

however the case is not all about that but rather the complexity of it. Shared bathrooms with such bring in complicated issues that are not properly addressed nor the matter is debatable.

Why is it debatable? The very essence on it is based on one's perception of their own gender.

Sorry but if we do not tackle this issue in a very logical standpoint, we're doomed as a society. How so?

Solely due to having truth and "fact" based on one's feelings about it.

For example, I would voice my stand on this and say I disagree. I am labeled as a bigot. Not because of my reasoning that it welcomes predators and we would have no way of truly finding out whether or not they are perverts.

The thing about this is, if a predator wanted to attack you, like, REALLY wanted to attack you, you think they're gonna stop and say "I don't match this sign...that's going to far"? You think someone who wanted to rape or molest you would be deterred by a door sign? If they wanted it, they would go get it.

Not to mention that straight, cis people can be predators and perverts in the "normal" bathroom arrangements as well. You think there are no male predators perving on other males in the male bathroom? Same for females? Perverts and predators in your bathroom isn't a transgender issue, it's a perverts and predators in your bathroom issue. Transgender or not, it remains a possibility.

Basically this issue is subjective and thus no such rule should be implemented.

There actually is an objective aspect to this issue.

However, it wouldn't be the case in those "progressive" people. They would group me with the "conservatives" (which is discriminative BTW) and here at least in America, being conservative has an undertone of bigotry, backwards thinkers, and overall scums.

So yeah, this powermove is as much nonsense of that one chick who denied those gay people their marriage because of her BELIEFS.

Keyword here is beliefs.

Pretty much every major policy in America was BELIEF. Abolitionism was a belief, feminism was a belief. The argument that these are beliefs so they can't be implemented or factored in is fallible, especially when drawing comparisons between harmful and harmless beliefs and saying that they're the same.

Discrimination based on belief is bad, inclusion based on belief is not. How do you determine which is which? A combination of objective and subjective reasoning. Adequate decision making isn't based on either, but a balance of both.

Go through all the modifications you want, your chromosomes and all your body structures will be the same and in the eyes of nature, you don't CHOOSE. You simply follow its laws.

If we go by biology to such an extent, then by this logic, adoptive parents should not receive the same qualifications as birth parents. You're saying that no surgery will change that you are biologically male or female. Applying this logic, then it is fair to say that no amount of paperwork and legal documents will change that little Timmy you adopted is not your biological son.

If we deny transgenders access to things that are "reserved" for the biological *** they aren't for this reason, then we've have to deny adoptive parents things that are "reserved" for biological parents as well.

Not to mention there are conditions where people are born with atypical chromosome structures. By that logic, we shouldn't even consider them human. This outlook is flawed.

Because if a gay man/woman can enter the bathroom freely other people are susceptible of being sexually assaulted.

I've been in restrooms and locker rooms with gay men throughout my entire life. It's a wonder with how much of a threat homosexual people are that none of them have ever assaulted, raped, or otherwise molested another individual. Not to mention that, statistically, most men who rape other men report that they identify as heterosexual. It's important to note that a majority of rapists commit the crime over a desire to be dominant and in a position of power, not for sexual gratification.

So they should get their own bathrooms. Whatever happens there, sucks to be them. That's what they CHOOSE.

Oh, you're ignorant. Now I feel dumb for going to the trouble to responding to this.

Like the issue is to find out whether or not we should cater to one's beliefs. Is it fine for religious people to get benefits?
then apply that reasoning to anything that is based on beliefs.

Thing is, transgenders don't want benefits. It says a lot about society that simply wanting to take a piss in peace with the gender they identify as is considered a "benefit they don't deserve" or a "privilege" when cis people do exactly that all the time. Trans people don't want "special treatment," they want the same treatment any cis person would get at any given moment.
before replying, read this. or not, it might offend you solely because it disagrees with your standpoints.

Granted, those people are denied certain rights but "the right to CHOOSE your bathrooms" is not a right.
You cannot simply choose your bathrooms as much as you can choose your gender or your race or your species or where you were born and when you were born.

Actually, this does fall under a right. The right to not be harassed for doing essentially nothing but existing.

Also having the government force such laws, to grant one group something that they THINK they deserve is NOT EQUALITY.

This is literally what the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage were.

And, once again, they deserve to be treated like anyone else and not be harassed just for existing.

I'm sorry that you FEEL like you're a different gender, but you CANT use the government to FORCE people to be fine with it. That's tyrannical.

It's not forcing people to be fine with it. You can feel however you want about the law, but that doesn't matter. If the law offers a justified benefit, then your feelings about it are irrelevant. Was the 13th Amendment forcing whites to be okay with blacks? No. You can go home and grumble and ***** and moan all you want about how much you hate them, the law can't stop you from doing that. What the law CAN and SHOULD do, however, is stop you from depriving someone of their rights because you don't like their genital arrangement.

That's like if man made laws that oppresses women due to their reasoning that they FEEL like men are superior or that white folks BELIEVING that their race is better than the others. Or that religious people FEEL like their religion is right and the rest is sinning and must be punished.

Or a cis person declining a law that makes progression for trans people because they FEEL like they don't deserve it.

 

[wanderingcactus]

Considering it's a guideline that encourages the Supreme Court to tackle the issue (much as when Obama said his administration supported gay marriage, but before there was actually a Supreme Court ruling on the matter), and not an actual passing of a law, I don't think any of this is relevant. Also, it's specifically targeted at public schools, and like Riker said, I don't really think the issue of "predators" applies as much.

A) School surveillance is legit.
B) If people are going to rape, they're going to do it outside of bathrooms.

The idea that we should deny the identities of students, which could do damage to them, versus not denying the identity of these students, which will likely have negligible impact on everyone involved, just because opinions differ, is silly, and is just another way of saying "I disagree, and things have always been the way that I agreed with, so things should stay the way I like them."



Conservatives always acting like they're the unheard minority. xD Both sides are pretty much equally loud, and support for trans rights is in no way a majority stance in the U.S., although this varies with age group and gender.



So they're saying the laws should be changed or reexamined, and until a law exists which expressly forbids the public schools from accepting the gender identity of students (afaik, there isn't one), the recommendation is a legitimate option. Again, it's not an executive order, it's the administration taking a stance.



But gay men can use male bathrooms and gay women can use women's bathrooms. Arbitrary.





Religious people do get benefits.



You sound really offended.



What?



I can tell you've never read any serious scientific literature on the issue of gender dysphoria, because there is not a single legitimate academic paper in psychology or social psychology that says "gender dysphoria is illegitimate." xD Don't claim science agrees with you when it has not taken any such stance.



Why not? Separate bathrooms is the same thing as separate schools. The only reason you're lumping it in with things like race and gender and whatever is to suit your argument. It's clearly subjective. We could have entirely unisex bathrooms if we wanted. The right to have separate bathrooms isn't a right either, bro. xD



So what's the point of saying this? xD



It's not tyrannical, because such a law (that does not even exist) would affect you and your behaviors in no demonstrable way whatsoever. The most you can claim is that you might get exposed to more risk, but you cannot even really prove this. Laws that may expose a population to risk =/= tyranny. Stop exaggerating..



Such a law, that is not even in the article, would oppress you in no way, or punish you in no way, again. xD



Right, "this bill":



Schools aren't entitled to federal funding, btw. State and municipal issue.

The only bill is the one that was passed in North Carolina, and the Supreme Court has always had the right to review the constitutionality of any bill, regardless of how it transgresses against your personal opinion.

im just saying some defensive stances about such controversial issues.

I live in one of the most liberal cities/universities and trust me they have a "either youre with us or we get the entire world to hate on you" kind of attitude.

So right now I am playing as the devil's advocate. While gender dysphoria is not researched to the point where we can surmise a claim of whether or not it does play a role in gender association, the case of gender choosing is still subjective. I don't know what kind of thing people have about bias but you simply CANNOT choose your gender, as a human being that is.

Sorry if I was not that clear with the whole "tyrannical" statements.
I was explaining that it is not fair that when the whole side is based off of the person's beliefs and have the government issue something that benefits that group only and none can have a say about it. It is illogical. So then I gave examples of things we had done it the past that were unfair (still doing in the current day and age BTW) so like racism, religious state, sexism etc.

That's why I said that the best option is that we either just have a universal restroom in which anyone can come in and have stalls for us or simply stick to what we do now.

BTW empirical data is not logically sound. Societal and personalities change overtime. Much like how homos and trans were abominations recently and now we perceive them as people. So simply put: before, they were abnormals and put into psych wards under the premise of insanity. now, they are normal.

So any psychological studies, when it comes to perception, is unreliable as it does not follow rules for EVERY time it is tested.
The data can be justified. Any data that can be justified cannot be used as a real valid proof.

Just saying. studying all you want, if the data is not analytical, but rather empirical, it can change. hence, homo/trans normality v abnormality changed with time.

However, I can assure you that XX and XY cannot change naturally based off of one's feelings about their gender. That's common knowledge. That's analytical data. each and every time, you will get the same gender if you choose XX or XY.

 

[Claymantan]

im just saying some defensive stances about such controversial issues.

I live in one of the most liberal cities/universities and trust me they have a "either youre with us or we get the entire world to hate on you" kind of attitude.

It's the same whenever there's a majority opinion in any given area.

So right now I am playing as the devil's advocate. While gender dysphoria is not researched to the point where we can surmise a claim of whether or not it does play a role in gender association, the case of gender choosing is still subjective. I don't know what kind of thing people have about bias but you simply CANNOT choose your gender, as a human being that is.

You're coming at the stance of people being born with a gender, and switching. The way people who identify as transgender see it, and the way people who support them see it, is that they were in fact always born with the gender they feel they are (i.e. they are choosing their physical features, not their gender, which they can choose). Sociology supports this claim, social psychology does not contradict this claim, and recognizes gender dysphoria as a legitimate condition for which *** reassignments are permissible.

In other words, you're constructing a strawman. The argument you are defending against is not the argument transgendered people are making.

Sorry if I was not that clear with the whole "tyrannical" statements.
I was explaining that it is not fair that when the whole side is based off of the person's beliefs and have the government issue something that benefits that group only and none can have a say about it. It is illogical. So then I gave examples of things we had done it the past that were unfair (still doing in the current day and age BTW) so like racism, religious state, sexism etc.

That's why I said that the best option is that we either just have a universal restroom in which anyone can come in and have stalls for us or simply stick to what we do now.

I still don't understand what you're saying. The federal government and absolutely the Supreme Court are taking in all arguments from both sides. There is no call to say that that is not what is happening, especially in the case of the Supreme Court. You might as well say the Supreme Court is a tyrannic system (some people think it is, especially when it disagrees with their personal opinion).

A guideline is not coercive; federal funding is not an entitlement. Therefore, it is impossible to call this tyranny.

BTW empirical data is not logically sound. Societal and personalities change overtime. Much like how homos and trans were abominations recently and now we perceive them as people. So simply put: before, they were abnormals and put into psych wards under the premise of insanity. now, they are normal.

So any psychological studies, when it comes to perception, is unreliable as it does not follow rules for EVERY time it is tested.
The data can be justified. Any data that can be justified cannot be used as a real valid proof.

Just saying. studying all you want, if the data is not analytical, but rather empirical, it can change. hence, homo/trans normality v abnormality changed with time.

Empirical data is sound when you use it to make an argument about present circumstances. The only reference I made to empirical data was to talk about people's opinions on the subject of transgendered rights, because you tried to make it out like progressives were somehow oppressing conservatives with their opinions. Empirical data is also sound when you use it to identify trends.

Furthermore, methods change over time and become more accurate. In the past, there was less data on transgendered issues, now there is more. Modern studies are more accurate than prior studies. There are very few cases in scholarly literature where we moved backwards in the overall legitimacy of our research.

Finally, scholarly work on the issue of the transgendered has been generally consistent in accepting that gender dysphoria is a legitimate phenomenon which may be treated with *** reassignment surgery, for as long as transgendered issues have been in the public eye (since the 1970s). So the argument you're making about it being a flip-flopping issue is actually not reflected by the way the issue has been treated in the past.

Also, the argument you're making applies to virtually no identity group in the United States. We have never really regressed backwards in recognizing the legitimacy of certain identity groups.

However, I can assure you that XX and XY cannot change naturally based off of one's feelings about their gender. That's common knowledge.

I don't know of any articles in biology that make claims about the connection between *** and gender as something that is unquestionable and intrinsically tied. In social psychology and psychology, *** and gender are virtually always treated as distinct concepts. Same for Sociology.

It's whatever if you think XX and XY are determinants of gender. Unfortunately, this is not sufficient evidence to make any of the arguments you have made.

 

[wanderingcactus]

The thing about this is, if a predator wanted to attack you, like, REALLY wanted to attack you, you think they're gonna stop and say "I don't match this sign...that's going to far"? You think someone who wanted to rape or molest you would be deterred by a door sign? If they wanted it, they would go get it.

Not to mention that straight, cis people can be predators and perverts in the "normal" bathroom arrangements as well. You think there are no male predators perving on other males in the male bathroom? Same for females? Perverts and predators in your bathroom isn't a transgender issue, it's a perverts and predators in your bathroom issue. Transgender or not, it remains a possibility.


There actually is an objective aspect to this issue.


Pretty much every major policy in America was BELIEF. Abolitionism was a belief, feminism was a belief. The argument that these are beliefs so they can't be implemented or factored in is fallible, especially when drawing comparisons between harmful and harmless beliefs and saying that they're the same.

Discrimination based on belief is bad, inclusion based on belief is not. How do you determine which is which? A combination of objective and subjective reasoning. Adequate decision making isn't based on either, but a balance of both.


If we go by biology to such an extent, then by this logic, adoptive parents should not receive the same qualifications as birth parents. You're saying that no surgery will change that you are biologically male or female. Applying this logic, then it is fair to say that no amount of paperwork and legal documents will change that little Timmy you adopted is not your biological son.

If we deny transgenders access to things that are "reserved" for the biological *** they aren't for this reason, then we've have to deny adoptive parents things that are "reserved" for biological parents as well.

Not to mention there are conditions where people are born with atypical chromosome structures. By that logic, we shouldn't even consider them human. This outlook is flawed.


I've been in restrooms and locker rooms with gay men throughout my entire life. It's a wonder with how much of a threat homosexual people are that none of them have ever assaulted, raped, or otherwise molested another individual. Not to mention that, statistically, most men who rape other men report that they identify as heterosexual. It's important to note that a majority of rapists commit the crime over a desire to be dominant and in a position of power, not for sexual gratification.

Oh, you're ignorant. Now I feel dumb for going to the trouble to responding to this.





Thing is, transgenders don't want benefits. It says a lot about society that simply wanting to take a piss in peace with the gender they identify as is considered a "benefit they don't deserve" or a "privilege" when cis people do exactly that all the time. Trans people don't want "special treatment," they want the same treatment any cis person would get at any given moment.
before replying, read this. or not, it might offend you solely because it disagrees with your standpoints.


Actually, this does fall under a right. The right to not be harassed for doing essentially nothing but existing.

This is literally what the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage were.

And, once again, they deserve to be treated like anyone else and not be harassed just for existing.


It's not forcing people to be fine with it. You can feel however you want about the law, but that doesn't matter. If the law offers a justified benefit, then your feelings about it are irrelevant. Was the 13th Amendment forcing whites to be okay with blacks? No. You can go home and grumble and ***** and moan all you want about how much you hate them, the law can't stop you from doing that. What the law CAN and SHOULD do, however, is stop you from depriving someone of their rights because you don't like their genital arrangement.


Or a cis person declining a law that makes progression for trans people because they FEEL like they don't deserve it.

please reread some of your statements before going on.

Like adoption. yes no amount of paperwork will make little Timmy your biological son. He IS your son by law. but biologically? no. IDK where you were going with this. much like if your daughter got married, that person will be your son/daughter-in-law. There is no way you could ever make someone your biological child if they never have you as one of their biological parent. IDC what you say. That's not how science works.

also the premise on which you used racism, you technically agreed to what I was saying. Racism, Sexism and "religionism?" were a prime example of people using laws to force others how they FEEL. which is unfair. Basically transgender people forcing other people to do what they think they deserve is another example. this time their justification is under "discrimination"

Also, you say rape. While you are right, rape can happen at anyplace at anytime. So why the hell would they need to have transgender bathrooms? Homos don't. So why is that the case?

Basically to recognize that this issue is a tad bit silly, go watch that south park episode that addresses transgendered bathrooms.

PEOPLE will take advantage of it. Whether they really are transgender or not. they will go into any bathrooms they want.

So why even have separate bathrooms in the first place? Because it makes things less complicated. It makes it easier to have a sense of security.

This is basically the best option to end all gender related bathrooms:

You must be registered for see images

 

[Punk Hazard]

please reread some of your statements before going on.

Like adoption. yes no amount of paperwork will make little Timmy your biological son. He IS your son by law. but biologically? no. IDK where you were going with this. much like if your daughter got married, that person will be your son/daughter-in-law. There is no way you could ever make someone your biological child if they never have you as one of their biological parent. IDC what you say. That's not how science works.

Where I'm going with this was explicitly stated in my post. Your premise is that "You aren't this biologically, so we should never treat you as such." That same premise can be applied to adoptive parents, which I did to emphasize the flaw in the premise.

Even though you would never consider that person that child's biological parent, you wouldn't deny them the same rights a biological parent would have to that child. You ignore the premise you yourself proposed. The fact that you ignore it for one subject and not for another, in a manner that doesn't justify it, shows bigotry.

also the premise on which you used racism, you technically agreed to what I was saying. Racism, Sexism and "religionism?" were a prime example of people using laws to force others how they FEEL. which is unfair. Basically transgender people forcing other people to do what they think they deserve is another example. this time their justification is under "discrimination"

And as I said in my post, there is a difference between harmful belief and harmless belief.

When your beliefs harm another, or unjustifiably discriminates against another, or decreases the quality of life of another, THEN your beliefs are a problem. There is nothing wrong with shaping laws around subjectivity and objectivity. There is, however, a problem with beliefs unjustifiably harming another person. When your beliefs do so, then they are worthless and don't deserve to impact the law.

Also, you say rape. While you are right, rape can happen at anyplace at anytime. So why the hell would they need to have transgender bathrooms? Homos don't. So why is that the case?

Because of people like you that harass transgenders. Because of people like you that can't let someone take a piss, wash their hands, and leave without your bigotry creating a problem. You act as though transgenders walk into a bathroom, announce they're transgenders, then purposefully do things to bother, harass, or harm you. Let em pee and let em get the **** out as you would any other person. That's what they want, not special bathrooms.

PEOPLE will take advantage of it. Whether they really are transgender or not. they will go into any bathrooms they want.

People will take advantage of EVERYTHING. "They're gonna take advantage" isn't a realistic reason. Once again, if a creep were willing to rape you, they're probably willing to go into the bathroom anyways.

So why even have separate bathrooms in the first place? Because it makes things less complicated. It makes it easier to have a sense of security.

A sense of security against what, a transgender will pee and leave? Oh scary.

 

[wanderingcactus]

It's the same whenever there's a majority opinion in any given area.



You're coming at the stance of people being born with a gender, and switching. The way people who identify as transgender see it, and the way people who support them see it, is that they were in fact always born with the gender they feel they are (i.e. they are choosing their physical features, not their gender, which they can choose). Sociology supports this claim, social psychology does not contradict this claim, and recognizes gender dysphoria as a legitimate condition for which *** reassignments are permissible.

In other words, you're constructing a strawman. The argument you are defending against is not the argument transgendered people are making.



I still don't understand what you're saying. The federal government and absolutely the Supreme Court are taking in all arguments from both sides. There is no call to say that that is not what is happening, especially in the case of the Supreme Court. You might as well say the Supreme Court is a tyrannic system (some people think it is, especially when it disagrees with their personal opinion).

A guideline is not coercive; federal funding is not an entitlement. Therefore, it is impossible to call this tyranny.



Empirical data is sound when you use it to make an argument about present circumstances. The only reference I made to empirical data was to talk about people's opinions on the subject of transgendered rights, because you tried to make it out like progressives were somehow oppressing conservatives with their opinions. Empirical data is also sound when you use it to identify trends.

Furthermore, methods change over time and become more accurate. In the past, there was less data on transgendered issues, now there is more. Modern studies are more accurate than prior studies. There are very few cases in scholarly literature where we moved backwards in the overall legitimacy of our research.

Finally, scholarly work on the issue of the transgendered has been generally consistent in accepting that gender dysphoria is a legitimate phenomenon which may be treated with *** reassignment surgery, for as long as transgendered issues have been in the public eye (since the 1970s). So the argument you're making about it being a flip-flopping issue is actually not reflected by the way the issue has been treated in the past.

Also, the argument you're making applies to virtually no identity group in the United States. We have never really regressed backwards in recognizing the legitimacy of certain identity groups.



I don't know of any articles in biology that make claims about the connection between *** and gender as something that is unquestionable and intrinsically tied. In social psychology and psychology, *** and gender are virtually always treated as distinct concepts. Same for Sociology.

It's whatever if you think XX and XY are determinants of gender. Unfortunately, this is not sufficient evidence to make any of the arguments you have made.

The reason why I said that empirical data is not logically sound is solely due to the fact that its a majority influenced data. While what you said that we are getting better at researching, the case is still the same. As we are studying behavioral outlooks and how one perceives sexuality/gender, one cannot truly test the determining fact, with our level of understanding and technology that is.

Hence my statement with the whole normalcy and abnormalcy in regards to how we see homo/trans. If this is truly just became a fad/trend, well, all of those studies have been for naught.

That's why I said that it could be justified. They never truly follow a definite rule. That's why it falls under unreliable.

But we digress. It seems like we have taken a detour and let's get back on track.

Should the government be involved in such matters where one should piss?

No. I don't think so. Even if you are transgender, you should still be going to the same bathroom as you had done in the past (this is in our CURRENT scenario where we do not have a uni-*** bathrooms as a standard).

Why? because that person already have/had that reproductive system in the first place. Now they have a deformed one.
(yes go through all the surgeries you want, it is still the same just a different look)
Also, the people who are cis would acknowledge that you are trans and if you are faking it, at least they always have their guard up.

The problem is that stigma. That a woman looks like a man or vice versa. That's discriminating in a way.
Also, since we're having a gender neutral bathroom anyways, why would looks be the case?
The case should be whether or not that person is a pervert.

In any scenario, government has no reason to even be involved.

maybe building those universal bathrooms? that's I think the most they should do.

 

[wanderingcactus]

Where I'm going with this was explicitly stated in my post. Your premise is that "You aren't this biologically, so we should never treat you as such." That same premise can be applied to adoptive parents, which I did to emphasize the flaw in the premise.

Even though you would never consider that person that child's biological parent, you wouldn't deny them the same rights a biological parent would have to that child. You ignore the premise you yourself proposed. The fact that you ignore it for one subject and not for another, in a manner that doesn't justify it, shows bigotry.


And as I said in my post, there is a difference between harmful belief and harmless belief.

When your beliefs harm another, or unjustifiably discriminates against another, or decreases the quality of life of another, THEN your beliefs are a problem. There is nothing wrong with shaping laws around subjectivity and objectivity. There is, however, a problem with beliefs unjustifiably harming another person. When your beliefs do so, then they are worthless and don't deserve to impact the law.


Because of people like you that harass transgenders. Because of people like you that can't let someone take a piss, wash their hands, and leave without your bigotry creating a problem. You act as though transgenders walk into a bathroom, announce they're transgenders, then purposefully do things to bother, harass, or harm you. Let em pee and let em get the **** out as you would any other person. That's what they want, not special bathrooms.


People will take advantage of EVERYTHING. "They're gonna take advantage" isn't a realistic reason. Once again, if a creep were willing to rape you, they're probably willing to go into the bathroom anyways.


A sense of security against what, a transgender will pee and leave? Oh scary.

So you assume that I am a bigot? that I dislike transgender people using the same bathroom as I use?

WTF? this is the kind of BS I hate when it comes to controversial topic. You're the kind of person that would attack the other for having a different stand point as you. You got offended and that gave you a right to change the topic and harass your opponent?

I don't care about transgenders. That's why I am making a notion that they should stick to the bathroom they once used.

WHERE THE HECK is the bigotry you speak of? I am no very open to the idea that transgender is in any way "natural" nor do I about homosexuals until further proof is given to us.

But I still see them as people. If you read carefully, like once, you would KNOW that I speak of the government not being involve in such matters. That transgender people shouldn't have their own bathrooms (because IDK people aren't all bigots).

All I said is that it brings complicated matters. You sound like one of those self-righteous progressive people.

I believe that I already said it before "I dislike stating my standpoint 'I disagree'" for reasons such as this.
You completely shut someone off, like those bigots who don't think homo/trans are people.

My disagreement came from SEXUALITY, not deny them their rights. So please refrain from having any more opinions without giving it some thoughts.

You practically missed every point I tried to make.

I DONT think trans need extra stuff. That won't be equality.
I believe that homo/trans is stupid as I see it as a subjective matter.
Subjective matters complicates things and must not bring the government into play when it comes to subjective matters.
I don't care about transgender's feelings when it comes to security.
Go to whichever bathroom you're suppose to go (the gender you were born with)
No need for any special bathrooms.

Not once did I proclaim that I deny them of any rights. They are people. I only said they mustn't be given extra stuff.

I really hate the issues where they relate SEXUALITY to deny them their human rights...

AGAIN> "I DISLIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE RELATE CONSERVATISM TO BIGOTRY BACKWARDS THiNKING SCUMS"

if that's your only argument, don't input any more into ANY discussion in regards to this topic. also learn to debate. Once you attack your opponent, you lost the argument.