Obama administration issues guidance on transgender access to school bathrooms

[Claymantan]

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.

1) The issue is at hand because North Carolina issued a law which legalized discrimination against transgendered people (well beyond just bathroom rights, by the way). This has forced Obama's administration to take a stance, and since the Bill undeniably restricts the rights of people, they have asked that the Supreme Court to review whether or not the law is constitutional. Now, you might say, "it doesn't restrict their rights, because they don't have the right to change their legal birth gender"; well, that's what the Supreme Court is going to review. In other words, conservatives put their hands in this first, not progressives. Your whole argument is not addressing the issue at hand, and you're making it out as though the federal government tried to force their beliefs on you. This is no way what has happened.

2) Your argument amounts to an appeal to the status quo, which is essentially fallacious. People have been doing things the way they have always done them because:

• Transgendered issues were not as visible until recently, because *** has been taken for granted as a determinant of gender until recently, and because transgendered people are a significant minority.
• Cis people have legislative power and are more likely to favor laws that emphasize the connection between *** and gender.
• Research on the connection between *** and gender has not been a serious scholarly issue of interest until relatively recently.
• It is extremely difficult to change the law to accept new identity groups, regardless of what that identity group is.

For these reasons, the fact that we have always had segregated bathrooms is not a logical argument for why we should continue to have them.

3) Conflating *** with gender is not self-evident, no matter how much people try to assume it is. Aside from the fact that *** as an essential determinant of gender is not treated as such in the vast majority of scientific and social scholarship, *** is a reproductive function. Gender is not a reproductive function. Gender is a set of behaviors that generally people argue are associated with that reproductive function, even if you believe gender is essentially tied to ***. Transgender people and those who support them argue that, no, gender is not dependent on ***, and gender should not be dependent on ***. Bathroom use is a behavior, and is more tied to gender. Since gender may be demonstrated to be fluid and not tied to ***, they should be allowed to do things like use the bathroom they want.

4) All a bathroom is, no matter how much symbolic importance people place upon it, is a place where you go to use the bathroom. However, it is a utility that everyone has some right to. Segregating a utility requires some justification; this principle is embedded in our Constitution. Men and women are segregated in bathroom use primarily based on the rights to privacy and safety. However, transgendered people also have a right to privacy, and should not be required to out themselves to everyone. Furthermore, the safety argument is arbitrary, because we let gay people use the same bathrooms as hetero people. In summary, the segregation of bathrooms is wholly arbitrary, and cannot really be defended.

Now, if we're going to stick with the segregation of male and female bathrooms because we expect generally that females will be more vulnerable to males - well, transmen and transwomen alike are vulnerable to violence by males (transwomen moreso than transmen). Furthermore, as I said, forcing transgendered people to use their own bathroom violates their right to privacy, so either we should have unisex bathrooms, or we should stop discriminating against transgendered people.

Finally, you're not walking around in the bathroom with your junk out, so really, no one's right to privacy is all that violated to begin with.

Even though it's just a bathroom, there are rights involved, especially in public institutions like schools, which is what this article and issue is about. North Carolina restricted the rights of trans individuals not only in bathrooms, but in other institutions as well.

5) A primary function of the U.S. Government is to guarantee and protect the rights of citizens. Granting protective rights to identities is part of this duty. This is what anti-discrimination laws are - to protect the rights of people who have historically have those rights threatened. If transgendered people had never experienced discrimination on a significant scale, then the government's involvement would be arbitrary, and against the principles of our Constitution. However, it is undeniable that the rights of trans people have been consistently infringed upon. Therefore, the federal government is right to be involved in this matter.

 

[Avani]

<snip>

I am beginning to suspect half of these guys are the ones who simply don't want a transgender( that's an umbrella term for quite a diverse people not all of them transsexual) using a washroom for men. They know a woman who is not transsexual and have surgeries is still not likely to use men's washroom just because she likes to think she is a man. So it's a win win situation.

Besides it has other benefits- Practically lowering women's participation in public by reducing facilities or lowering the comfort level. A perfect set up to take back some of the freedom men had to give to women as a result of feminists movement. Barnard Shaw once commented on Chinese practice of iron shoes for women which disabled their foot sooner or later- petticoats around the ankle are just as effective. Women who since childhood are taught not to go washroom alone( for safety reasons) even when it was ladies only washrooms, (many have tough time shrugging the habit off even as an adult) are not going to barge in men's room. A few may depending on the style and design of the washroom but low chances. And women's washrooms are almost always lower in number. So over all a lot of them would have to take more precautions like go dehydrated and what not and take a leave or two during periods if the washrooms are not comfortable enough. Works just fine for them.

More importantly- Transpeople are still being forced to choose either male or female as their gender in public spheres and instead of right to be safe and given opportunities as the other two genders, just as they are, they are being given right to hide. But smart people phrase this issue in a way that makes them pretend they are giving them acceptance.

Just like there are Americans and everybody else( african american, indian aerican, asian american... ) not there is a gender called men that gets to have men only washroom and there is another gender neutral washroom/locker room/sports competitions for those who are practically everyone that doesn't want to or cannot identify "itself" as men.


Refusing entry to transsexuals can be understandable but transanything? Unless of course- American women prefer to use men's washroom and they are designed so, and i just didn't know.

 

[wanderingcactus]

1) The issue is at hand because North Carolina issued a law which legalized discrimination against transgendered people (well beyond just bathroom rights, by the way). This has forced Obama's administration to take a stance, and since the Bill undeniably restricts the rights of people, they have asked that the Supreme Court to review whether or not the law is constitutional. Now, you might say, "it doesn't restrict their rights, because they don't have the right to change their legal birth gender"; well, that's what the Supreme Court is going to review. In other words, conservatives put their hands in this first, not progressives. Your whole argument is not addressing the issue at hand, and you're making it out as though the federal government tried to force their beliefs on you. This is no way what has happened.

2) Your argument amounts to an appeal to the status quo, which is essentially fallacious. People have been doing things the way they have always done them because:

• Transgendered issues were not as visible until recently, because *** has been taken for granted as a determinant of gender until recently, and because transgendered people are a significant minority.
• Cis people have legislative power and are more likely to favor laws that emphasize the connection between *** and gender.
• Research on the connection between *** and gender has not been a serious scholarly issue of interest until relatively recently.
• It is extremely difficult to change the law to accept new identity groups, regardless of what that identity group is.

For these reasons, the fact that we have always had segregated bathrooms is not a logical argument for why we should continue to have them.

3) Conflating *** with gender is not self-evident, no matter how much people try to assume it is. Aside from the fact that *** as an essential determinant of gender is not treated as such in the vast majority of scientific and social scholarship, *** is a reproductive function. Gender is not a reproductive function. Gender is a set of behaviors that generally people argue are associated with that reproductive function, even if you believe gender is essentially tied to ***. Transgender people and those who support them argue that, no, gender is not dependent on ***, and gender should not be dependent on ***. Bathroom use is a behavior, and is more tied to gender. Since gender may be demonstrated to be fluid and not tied to ***, they should be allowed to do things like use the bathroom they want.

4) All a bathroom is, no matter how much symbolic importance people place upon it, is a place where you go to use the bathroom. However, it is a utility that everyone has some right to. Segregating a utility requires some justification; this principle is embedded in our Constitution. Men and women are segregated in bathroom use primarily based on the rights to privacy and safety. However, transgendered people also have a right to privacy, and should not be required to out themselves to everyone. Furthermore, the safety argument is arbitrary, because we let gay people use the same bathrooms as hetero people. In summary, the segregation of bathrooms is wholly arbitrary, and cannot really be defended.

Now, if we're going to stick with the segregation of male and female bathrooms because we expect generally that females will be more vulnerable to males - well, transmen and transwomen alike are vulnerable to violence by males (transwomen moreso than transmen). Furthermore, as I said, forcing transgendered people to use their own bathroom violates their right to privacy, so either we should have unisex bathrooms, or we should stop discriminating against transgendered people.

Finally, you're not walking around in the bathroom with your junk out, so really, no one's right to privacy is all that violated to begin with.

Even though it's just a bathroom, there are rights involved, especially in public institutions like schools, which is what this article and issue is about. North Carolina restricted the rights of trans individuals not only in bathrooms, but in other institutions as well.

5) A primary function of the U.S. Government is to guarantee and protect the rights of citizens. Granting protective rights to identities is part of this duty. This is what anti-discrimination laws are - to protect the rights of people who have historically have those rights threatened. If transgendered people had never experienced discrimination on a significant scale, then the government's involvement would be arbitrary, and against the principles of our Constitution. However, it is undeniable that the rights of trans people have been consistently infringed upon. Therefore, the federal government is right to be involved in this matter.

Well North Carolina issued the bill but why with the sudden uproar in the Supreme Court? Also all this protection bills suddenly started to be addressed when this issue is still not well established.

North Carolina's bill will in no way ever be approved. Whatever one's beliefs are, we have no right of denying such rights unless they had violated others' rights in some way or form (ex: criminals).

This is why government shouldn't be involved in such petty things. Only when they are required to. Because I feel like a whole lot of people will take advantage of this.

Kind of like those who took advantage of affirmative action.

I have heard of a group,AFA (i forgot what the acronym stood for), apparently sending sexual predators in the opposite *** bathrooms/gender neutral ones to prove that the whole thing is a bad idea. Absurd but it's highly likely to happen in the future. Dunno whether the story was vaild or not, but it is realistic.

Still a complicated matter and not everyone is open to the idea. Well I fear that it's more like people would take advantage of it.

 

[Claymantan]

More importantly- Transpeople are still being forced to choose either male or female as their gender in public spheres and instead of right to be safe and given opportunities as the other two genders, just as they are, they are being given right to hide. But smart people phrase this issue in a way that makes them pretend they are giving them acceptance.

I think you're speaking for transgendered people in saying they're being "forced" to pick male or female. Afaik, those who identify specifically as trans, and not as something like "genderqueer" or "two-spirit" or "bigender" or "agender," literally do identify themselves as male or female (i.e. they don't see themselves as some other gender, or being forced to pick one or the other).

The two-bathroom system encourages a gender binary, but that's like, a separate issue.

Well North Carolina issued the bill but why with the sudden uproar in the Supreme Court? Also all this protection bills suddenly started to be addressed when this issue is still not well established.

North Carolina's bill will in no way ever be approved. Whatever one's beliefs are, we have no right of denying such rights unless they had violated others' rights in some way or form (ex: criminals).

You must be registered for see links

...that's why there's an uproar. It's a state-level bill, but the federal government unquestionably has the right to oversee state legislation that may be unconstitutional.

This is why government shouldn't be involved in such petty things. Only when they are required to. Because I feel like a whole lot of people will take advantage of this.

They are required to, because rights were literally taken away.

Kind of like those who took advantage of affirmative action.

Affirmative action and protective rights are two separate issues.

I have heard of a group,AFA (i forgot what the acronym stood for), apparently sending sexual predators in the opposite *** bathrooms/gender neutral ones to prove that the whole thing is a bad idea. Absurd but it's highly likely to happen in the future. Dunno whether the story was vaild or not, but it is realistic.

This is unethical and deductively invalid. Creating the situation you say will happen is an illogical line of reasoning.

Still a complicated matter and not everyone is open to the idea. Well I fear that it's more like people would take advantage of it.

That a law might be taken advantage of is not an argument for failing to protect the rights of individuals that do actually exist.

 

[wanderingcactus]

I am beginning to suspect half of these guys are the ones who simply don't want a transgender( that's an umbrella term for quite a diverse people not all of them transsexual) using a washroom for men. They know a woman who is not transsexual and have surgeries is still not likely to use men's washroom just because she likes to think she is a man. So it's a win win situation.

Besides it has other benefits- Practically lowering women's participation in public by reducing facilities or lowering the comfort level. A perfect set up to take back some of the freedom men had to give to women as a result of feminists movement. Barnard Shaw once commented on Chinese practice of iron shoes for women which disabled their foot sooner or later- petticoats around the ankle are just as effective. Women who since childhood are taught not to go washroom alone( for safety reasons) even when it was ladies only washrooms, (many have tough time shrugging the habit off even as an adult) are not going to barge in men's room. A few may depending on the style and design of the washroom but low chances. And women's washrooms are almost always lower in number. So over all a lot of them would have to take more precautions like go dehydrated and what not and take a leave or two during periods if the washrooms are not comfortable enough. Works just fine for them.

More importantly- Transpeople are still being forced to choose either male or female as their gender in public spheres and instead of right to be safe and given opportunities as the other two genders, just as they are, they are being given right to hide. But smart people phrase this issue in a way that makes them pretend they are giving them acceptance.

Just like there are Americans and everybody else( african american, indian aerican, asian american... ) not there is a gender called men that gets to have men only washroom and there is another gender neutral washroom/locker room/sports competitions for those who are practically everyone that doesn't want to or cannot identify "itself" as men.


Refusing entry to transsexuals can be understandable but transanything? Unless of course- American women prefer to use men's washroom and they are designed so, and i just didn't know.

hmm I never actually thought about that standpoint.

That actually saddens me that people still think like that.

Here I was only disliking it solely due to men going into the women's bathroom and completely forgotten about other men oppressing women in any way shape or form.

I really hope that is not the case. That's the kind of bad conservative thinking we really do not need.

I still stand on my conservative stance on whichever gender you were born in, go there. Because it makes things simpler.

It'll be treated as where homos go to the bathrooms. Like yeah, cis people don't feel comfortable under the premise of perversion. But who cares? They make a move, we beat the hell out of them. Should be the same case for trans.

Even if they are just pretending. There's always a way of protecting yourself. It is much safer for a former to go to their old bathroom (once people are ok with trans).

That's what they used, that's what they will continue to use.

Side note: I don't know why we still haven't made universal bathrooms a standard.

 

[Avani]

I think you're speaking for transgendered people in saying they're being "forced" to pick male or female. Afaik, those who identify specifically as trans, and not as something like "genderqueer" or "two-spirit" or "bigender" or "agender," literally do identify themselves as male or female (i.e. they don't see themselves as some other gender, or being forced to pick one or the other).

The two-bathroom system encourages a gender binary, but that's like, a separate issue.

They are raised in a society conditioned to see them only either of the two genders- that explains half their confusion. You are making them think they have to go though surgeries and take life time of hormone therapy- that's quite a business for your medical industry. But, Is, any treatment that makes them that much extra dependent on medical treatment and drugs, really a treatment? Not all of them are comfortable in their new skin either. Unless they are just happy to win by competing against women in sports or be cool celebrity etc, it's not like changing to female gender ups their social status and problems. So the other solution we get is to allow everyone who doesn't even wish to go that far, in women's washroom/lockers/competitions/shelters just because they say they identify with women and hide themselves among them.

And yes- It encourages gender binary- that's not separate issue at all especially since washroom laws are direct result of that binary bias.

Nor it matters what real women think- everyone else know better. Isn't it?

 

[Claymantan]

They are raised in a society conditioned to see them only either of the two genders- that explains half their confusion. You are making them think they have to go though surgeries and take life time of hormone therapy- that's quite a business for your medical industry. But any treatment that makes them that much dependent on medical treatment is really a treatment? Not all of them are comfortable in their new skin either. Unless they are just happy to win by competing against women in sports, or the like, it's not like changing to female gender ups their social status and problems.

Not all trans people want to transition.

The cause of what makes trans people want to transition cannot be boiled down to the fact that there are bathrooms for men and bathrooms for women. They're not transitioning to access a correct bathroom, they're transitioning in order to be treated as the gender they feel they are - in far more life-significant things like relationships and daily interactions. If people started treating you as male, with all that that implies, you would feel uncomfortable in your daily interactions and your intimate relationships.

These things have very little to do with the political aims of bathroom use. People will continue to see the phenotype "female" a certain way and treat it a certain way regardless of what bathrooms transgendered people use. Transitioning is not solely or even majorly due to how institutions are structured, it's also due to how trans people can expect their personal, private interactions to go. Placing it all at the foot of public policy is...reductive.

And yes- It encourages gender binary- that's not separate issue at all especially since washroom laws are direct result of that binary bias.

They're a result of the binary bias, but they're not the cause of it. If you're arguing that unisex bathrooms are the best outcome (I have never been able to discern this ), then I agree with you. However, my perspective is that I'll take what I can get, and the federal government banning discrimination against trans people seems infinitely more preferable to me than trying to deconstruct the entire concept of gender binaries which is rooted at the heart of virtually every institution in all societies in the world.

In other words, law exists in the real world, not an ideal world. Incremental change is the only way we've ever been able to accomplish things in the U.S.

I am not advocating for a law in which the federal government states "trans people should use the bathrooms that correspond to the gender they identify with." I am advocating for a law that bans explicit transgender discrimination. I count transgender discrimination as segregating them by giving them a separate bathroom, or forcing them to use bathrooms for genders they do not identify with.

 

[wanderingcactus]

I think you're speaking for transgendered people in saying they're being "forced" to pick male or female. Afaik, those who identify specifically as trans, and not as something like "genderqueer" or "two-spirit" or "bigender" or "agender," literally do identify themselves as male or female (i.e. they don't see themselves as some other gender, or being forced to pick one or the other).

The two-bathroom system encourages a gender binary, but that's like, a separate issue.

You must be registered for see links

...that's why there's an uproar. It's a state-level bill, but the federal government unquestionably has the right to oversee state legislation that may be unconstitutional.



They are required to, because rights were literally taken away.



Affirmative action and protective rights are two separate issues.



This is unethical and deductively invalid. Creating the situation you say will happen is an illogical line of reasoning.



That a law might be taken advantage of is not an argument for failing to protect the rights of individuals that do actually exist.

Wait how was it even approved? Constitution overwrites everything, not just federal level. The state should have no power of passing that. The hell is the legislature thinking? As soon as it voilates/restrict a right, it becomes invalid right?

In regards to what I said about AFA, it is not farfetch. Think of it as a safeguard line of reasoning. It is an underlying con that most people miss. All they see is the pros but they never really bother with the con. Now I don't know whether or not the whole story about AFA is true as I only heard it recently and sort of disregarded it. People will try to do it. "just a prank bro"

all kidding aside, as stated above and will be continued to be stated "rape can happen at anyplace, at anytime" so it is not an illogical line of reasoning. Maybe somewhat off tangent but that's as far as it will go.

The last bit with the whole "denying of rights" that was my fault of not knowing that the stupid law actually had passed.

So in that case, what I meant was that once that law is revoked and nulled and voided, there really no need for any laws to be passed.

It will first start off as protection laws then proceeds to compensation, etc. etc. In some countries, dunno about USA, it's highly likely that they will cater though as they always do to appease the "victims"

That's where I was coming from with taking advantage of some laws. There are some where being homo you are compensated with such and such so others pretend to be gay and reap of the benefits for that. I think there was even an Adams Sandler movie about it where they did that.

So this is why I am against government stepping in and getting involved (is that redundant?) in such petty but complicated matters. To deny them of rights or to grant them special treatment is never the answer.

 

[Claymantan]

Wait how was it even approved? Constitution overwrites everything, not just federal level. The state should have no power of passing that. The hell is the legislature thinking? As soon as it voilates/restrict a right, it becomes invalid right?

No. The state can pass whatever it wants to pass, and it is generally assumed that the state will not do anything that directly transgresses against the Constitution. Trans rights are a political grey area, and the Obama administration has until now taken a 'wait and see' approach to the issue (because it's controversial, and they're politically smarmy f***s), so the law was able to pass. Laws that are potentially unconstitutional are passed all the time.

Regardless, the law was passed.

In regards to what I said about AFA, it is not farfetch. Think of it as a safeguard line of reasoning. It is an underlying con that most people miss. All they see is the pros but they never really bother with the con. Now I don't know whether or not the whole story about AFA is true as I only heard it recently and sort of disregarded it. People will try to do it. "just a prank bro"

all kidding aside, as stated above and will be continued to be stated "rape can happen at anyplace, at anytime" so it is not an illogical line of reasoning. Maybe somewhat off tangent but that's as far as it will go.

As I've stated, it's an arbitrary distinction, because yeah, rape can happen at any time, any place. Might as well segregate everything.

So in that case, what I meant was that once that law is revoked and nulled and voided, there really no need for any laws to be passed.

If it is affirmed that trans discrimination is unconstitutional, yes. However, it might be that a law is passed which affirms this statute.

It will first start off as protection laws then proceeds to compensation, etc. etc. In some countries, dunno about USA, it's highly likely that they will cater though as they always do to appease the "victims"

That's where I was coming from with taking advantage of some laws. There are some where being homo you are compensated with such and such so others pretend to be gay and reap of the benefits for that. I think there was even an Adams Sandler movie about it where they did that.

Historically speaking, the only examples of true compensation for historical inequities in the United States is the monetary payment to Japanese-Americans after internment. African-Americans and Native Americans never really received reparations (and whether they want any is a whole other thing). Affirmative Action was less about compensation and more about correcting inequities that had manifested as a result of legalized segregation and discrimination against minorities or women. Regardless,

You must be registered for see links

.

______

That's because I am actually a female. Not just thinking that I'm one.

You just have anatomy that means that fewer people will question that you're female, because generally it's been unquestioned that *** = gender.

Not all- South Asia and Polynesian society recognizes the third gender. They still may have a long way to go in terms of their social status but individuals have been quite successful too while keeping their third gender ID.

I said virtually, I know of some movements like this in Nordic countries as well, I think. I agree that this is the right direction to go if individuals wish to be identified as a third gender. Nonetheless, it remains that most institutional and interpersonal interactions are deeply structured around the idea of male and female genders, even in these societies that are moving towards accepting the concept of non-binary genders.

And again, being transgender does not mean one should be forced outside of the binary, unless the binary ceases to exist.

Do you also count segregating men in their own bathroom as discrimination? The other two gender have to disclose their ID and use the washroom they belong to. You are actually giving Trananything people extra privilege that neither of the two other genders enjoy. You don't want to force them to use a washroom they don't want to but you have no problem forcing women use a washroom that any gender can use or make them share with anyone you find fit and not provide them a separate one where they can be comfortable.

You admitted transmen (FtM) exist in your other post, but now they don't?

 

[Avani]

Not all trans people want to transition.

The cause of what makes trans people want to transition cannot be boiled down to the fact that there are bathrooms for men and bathrooms for women. They're not transitioning to access a correct bathroom, they're transitioning in order to be treated as the gender they feel they are - in far more life-significant things like relationships and daily interactions. If people started treating you as male, with all that that implies, you would feel uncomfortable in your daily interactions and your intimate relationships.

That's because I am actually a female. Not just thinking that I'm one.

Getting in to a relationship with a male because he thinks I am male won't help him, will it? If I should tell him that I think I am a male while still having a female body and he continues? What does it make me? Gay or straight? If I get pregnant will you class me as a new species where men give birth?

They're a result of the binary bias, but they're not the cause of it. If you're arguing that unisex bathrooms are the best outcome (I have never been able to discern this ), then I agree with you. However, my perspective is that I'll take what I can get, and the federal government banning discrimination against trans people seems infinitely more preferable to me than trying to deconstruct the entire concept of gender binaries which is rooted at the heart of virtually every institution in all societies in the world.

Not all- South Asia and Polynesian society recognizes the third gender. They still may have a long way to go in terms of their social status but individuals have been quite successful too while keeping their third gender ID.

Unisex washrooms are one solution but it's just not washroom I am concerned about. It has a long list of implications.

am not advocating for a law in which the federal government states "trans people should use the bathrooms that correspond to the gender they identify with." I am advocating for a law that bans explicit transgender discrimination. I count transgender discrimination as segregating them by giving them a separate bathroom, or forcing them to use bathrooms for genders they do not identify with.

Do you also count segregating men in their own bathroom as discrimination? Is such a discrimination bad? The other two gender have to disclose their ID and use the washroom they belong to. You are actually giving Trananything people extra privilege that neither of the two other genders enjoy.

You don't want to force them to use a washroom they don't want to but you have no problem forcing women use a washroom that any gender can use or make them share with anyone you find fit and not provide them a separate one where they can be comfortable and safe. Nope. Women don't get to have a washroom/a locker/ a shelter of their own despite their concerns.

No. The state can pass whatever it wants to pass, and it is generally assumed that the state will not do anything that directly transgresses against the Constitution

Most of it is legal jargon and interpretations that can go either way depending on the people arguing you know. Equality before law doesn't mean extra privilege to hide. Hiding your gender was not a right given to any gender just because- it's more of internet thing where one can pretend to be anyone or hide their gender. The people who passed the law haven't been thinking it through or maybe just under pressure from one vocal lobby.

rape can happen at any time, any place. Might as well segregate everything.

Yea a rape can happen anytime- so why trans get to claim being unsafe in men's washroom? Why their safety is meaningful but not women's? Instead of making society safe for both, you endanger safety and comfort of another too. Yay!!

 

[wanderingcactus]

No. The state can pass whatever it wants to pass, and it is generally assumed that the state will not do anything that directly transgresses against the Constitution. Trans rights are a political grey area, and the Obama administration has until now taken a 'wait and see' approach to the issue (because it's controversial, and they're politically smarmy f***s), so the law was able to pass. Laws that are potentially unconstitutional are passed all the time.

Regardless, the law was passed.



As I've stated, it's an arbitrary distinction, because yeah, rape can happen at any time, any place. Might as well segregate everything.



If it is affirmed that trans discrimination is unconstitutional, yes. However, it might be that a law is passed which affirms this statute.



Historically speaking, the only examples of true compensation for historical inequities in the United States is the monetary payment to Japanese-Americans after internment. African-Americans and Native Americans never really received reparations (and whether they want any is a whole other thing). Affirmative Action was less about compensation and more about correcting inequities that had manifested as a result of legalized segregation and discrimination against minorities or women. Regardless,

You must be registered for see links

.

______



You just have anatomy that means that fewer people will question that you're female, because generally it's been unquestioned that *** = gender.



I said virtually, I know of some movements like this in Nordic countries as well, I think. I agree that this is the right direction to go if individuals wish to be identified as a third gender. Nonetheless, it remains that most institutional and interpersonal interactions are deeply structured around the idea of male and female genders, even in these societies that are moving towards accepting the concept of non-binary genders.

And again, being transgender does not mean one should be forced outside of the binary, unless the binary ceases to exist.



You admitted transmen (FtM) exist in your other post, but now they don't?

Just because the whole trans topic is a gray area, does not mean they could deny an individual their rights. The sexuality is in question not their humanity.

Just because they have a different outlook on which gender they should belong to, does not exclude them from the human race.

Or does this assumption also falls into logical fallacy? as I am leading to one thing to another?

Any breach in the constitution should be revised or revoked, so why was this bill proposed not revised/revoked. You probably do not have the answer to that so lets peg that as rhetorical. stinking politics.

also in regards to 3rd gender, that's probably the best way to integrate them into society and the fastest way of making others to accept them.

Also there would be no hassle as to which bathrooms they would have to use. still a segregation thing but I think it's a segregation we can live with.

 

[Claymantan]

I responded to some of the stuff JG said in my other post, but I guess editing chaos happened. I'll respond to what's available now that I haven't responded to previously in this post, and hope things work themselves out. xD

Most of it is legal jargon and interpretations that can go either way depending on the people arguing you know. Equality before law doesn't mean extra privilege to hide. Hiding your gender was not a right given to any gender just because- it's more of internet thing. The people who passed the law haven't been thinking it through or maybe just under pressure from one vocal lobby.

If you read what I've been saying in this thread, I've been saying that the federal government has the right to take the bill in question in the OP under review. I haven't been necessarily arguing over what they should conclude, but I have been providing arguments that the answer is not so clear cut as "They have no right to question this issue."

You only consider it "hiding" and "extra privilege" because you don't consider transgendered people legitimately male or female, i.e. you think that people born with specific anatomy are more entitled to the gender label than people born without the anatomy. If you can't concede that this is not self-evident, given that there is a monumental amount of scholarly literature that treats *** and gender as separate entities, and that there is no significant scholarship in biology that affirms or even really takes a stance that *** = gender (definitely not in absolutist terms), there's no real point in arguing further on this point.

Yea a rape can happen anytime- so why trans get to claim being unsafe in men's washroom? Why their safety is meaningful but not women's?

Oppression wars are silly. If you really want to go down that route, transwomen are disproportionately more unsafe than women. I don't see the point of this line of argument. A separate bathroom just makes transwomen targets. Transwomen being present in women's bathrooms doesn't turn women's bathrooms into this unsafe space. And again, you're taking it for granted that women could never conceive of the space as safe.

You said in another post that you think men aren't concerned about transmen coming into their bathrooms because they don't think transmen will actually come in -

You must be registered for see links

(the statistics aren't available there, but this is a book I read that describes the experience of transmen in workplaces and demonstrates this claim)? I don't know what to tell you here. xD Facts are facts.

Just because the whole trans topic is a gray area, does not mean they could deny an individual their rights. The sexuality is in question not their humanity.

Just because they have a different outlook on which gender they should belong to, does not exclude them from the human race.

Or does this assumption also falls into logical fallacy? as I am leading to one thing to another?

Any breach in the constitution should be revised or revoked, so why was this bill proposed not revised/revoked. You probably do not have the answer to that so lets peg that as rhetorical. stinking politics.

Yeah dude, what do you want from me? I'm just telling you what's happened in reality. I don't have control over it. xD

also in regards to 3rd gender, that's probably the best way to integrate them into society and the fastest way of making others to accept them.

Also there would be no hassle as to which bathrooms they would have to use. still a segregation thing but I think it's a segregation we can live with.

People shouldn't have to negotiate their identities just so everyone else can be comfortable. Some might object, and say that men and women are being told to renegotiate what it means to be male and female as a consequence. Yeah. Because what it means to be male and what it means to be female, in terms of gender, has gone unjustifiably unquestioned, and the consequence has been the exclusion of demographics that do exist.

 

[kimb]

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."

Yeahhhhhh..... I'll just leave these here.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

 

[Claymantan]

Yeahhhhhh..... I'll just leave these here.

You must be registered for see links

Misleading title. He doesn't lead the TG effort in NC. He leads one of the organizations that (supposedly, the article didn't even show an example - they just seem to have picked an organization that identifies as LGBT) may campaign in NC. News-wise, they haven't been relevant for two years. The dude isn't even TG afaik. So garbage. So garbage.

Hint: Never cite Breitbart.

You must be registered for see links

Isn't transgender tho, is a troll, doesn't take place in a school, represents no one but bad humans.

You must be registered for see links

"Some news outlets have been reporting that this story is false, prompting multiple retractions and larger controversy. I contacted the Pacific Justice Institute, which represents two concerned families in the case, and was unable to reach Rhonda Vendetti, Florence High School’s superintendent, who will be out of the office for the rest of the week. However, Vendetti previously talked to Cristan Williams of the Transadvocate on the subject, responding to many of the ambiguities in question. In sum, there is a transgender male student who has been using women’s restrooms at the school. Allegations of sexual harassment have been both made and disputed, and each side has factual disagreements regarding the case. The Pacific Justice Institute stands by its accusations, including that its clients’ privacy rights have been violated, that its clients were directed to forgo access to many locker rooms and restrooms at the school in order to protect their privacy rights, and that its clients have been threatened with retaliation and possible hate-crime charges if they speak out. Matthew McReynolds, staff attorney for the Pacific Justice Institute, told me that “the core issue is that this school is giving this transgender youth full access to both boys’ and girls’ facilities, and they are showing little if any regard for the privacy rights of other students. . . . We have received additional reports of specific, inappropriate statements made by this student, and we are working to corroborate those reports.” “We’re standing by our allegations that our student clients have been threatened with retaliation by school officials for talking about this, including [the threat of] being kicked off athletic teams,” he said. ”[School officials] have also thrown around the notion that hate crimes could be charged against students just for talking about this.” In the interview Vendetti gave, she said “nothing has actually been verified with [the school]. This is one parent basically bringing their viewpoint about this situation to the media because they weren’t getting the responses that they hoped they would get from the district, from parents of students at the high school, or from the board and myself.” According to Vendetti, to the school district’s knowledge and based on their own investigation, none of the alleged actions ever happened. “We do have a transgender student at the high school and she has been using the women’s restroom. . . . There has not been an incident of harassment or anything that would cause any additional concern,” beyond the male student’s using the women’s restroom, she said.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/361317/girls-allegedly-harassed-transgender-student-bathroom-threatened-hate-crime-charges-if"

So, you just did a Google search hoping it would prove a point? Every link failed hard.

 

[Avani]

I responded to some of the stuff JG said in my other post, but I guess editing chaos happened. I'll respond to what's available now that I haven't responded to previously in this post, and hope things work themselves out. xD

"

It doesn't at all since your replies are out of context.

You only consider it "hiding" and "extra privilege" because you don't consider transgendered people legitimately male or female, i.e. you think that people born with specific anatomy are more entitled to the gender label than people born without the anatomy. If you can't concede that this is not self-evident, given that there is a monumental amount of scholarly literature that treats *** and gender as separate entities, and that there is no significant scholarship in biology that affirms or even really takes a stance that *** = gender (definitely not in absolutist terms), there's no real point in arguing further on this point.

Washroom aren't separate just because of the some social construct but because of biological and physical realities too.

Oppression wars are silly. If you really want to go down that route, transwomen are disproportionately more unsafe than women. I don't see the point of this line of argument. A separate bathroom just makes transwomen targets. Transwomen being present in women's bathrooms doesn't turn women's bathrooms into this unsafe space. And again, you're taking it for granted that women could never conceive of the space as safe.

I know. Half the problem they face also comes from society not coming to terms with their existence and having trouble with the idea-
They are also disproportionately more susceptible to

You must be registered for see links

How is hiding going to help them? It can be a temp solution but if policy makers are saying they are allowing to hide the existence of a certain group because they cannot provide them safety - what good is that government?

You said in another post that you think men aren't concerned about transmen coming into their bathrooms because they don't think transmen will actually come in -

You must be registered for see links

(the statistics aren't available there, but this is a book I read that describes the experience of transmen in workplaces and demonstrates this claim)? I don't know what to tell you here. xD Facts are facts.

Well men don't talk much in washroom do they? They have a lot of public space outside to them. They don't need extra time to fix their clothes and nor take extra precautions due to periods either. Nor these trans men try to get friendly to other men by calling them "boyfriend" do they? I have had transwoman who wouldn't even let me fix my clothes in silence and my attempt to do it modestly in a corner resulted in hanging "her" on my shoulder declaring we were all girls so I don't need to be discrete- I am always discrete even if there only ciswomen but none tries to evade the personal space if they have enough room. Nor I have seen actual female friends ever addressing another girl, girlfriend. I also doubt any of these transmen tried to compare genitals telling the guys how lucky they are. How many men sit in locker room naked and start massaging themselves leisurely? I don't see a transmen - who only thinks he is a guy trying that stunt either.

So no, don't go comparing experiences men have in washroom with what women in there.

 

[Claymantan]

"

It doesn't at all since your replies are out of context.

I mean I responded literally directly to quotes in that post, but you moved or deleted the post and it ended up being after my...forget it.

Washroom aren't separate just because of the some social construct but because of biological and physical realities too.

Sure. But I was mainly responding to what you said about you not just thinking you're female, but being essentially female.

I know. Half the problem they face also comes from society not coming to terms with their existence and having trouble with the idea-
They are also disproportionately more susceptible to

You must be registered for see links

Yeah, I know.

You must be registered for see links

(while the title says LGB, the paper does also include trans people in the mix). In short, this is in part both because mental stress is covariant with overall health, and structural stigma keeps people from seeking health aid from institutions.

Structural stigma includes the lack of protective rights.

How is hiding going to help them? It can be a temp solution but if policy makers are saying they are allowing existence of a certain group because they cannot provide them safety - what good is that government?

It is indeed a temporary solution until the rest of that sentence stops being an issue. Like I said, incremental change. An incremental change in policy is still useful, even if it is not the absolute ideal solution.

Well men don't talk much in washroom do they? They have a lot of public space outside to them. Nor these trans men try to get friendly by calling them "boyfriend" do they? I have had transwoman who wouldn't even let me fix my clothes in silence and my attempt to do it modestly in a corner resulted in hanging "her" on my shoulder declaring we were all girls so I don't need to be discrete- I am always discrete even if there only ciswomen. Nor I have seen actual female friends ever calling another girl, girlfriend. I also doubt any of these transmen tried to compare genitals telling the guys how lucky they are.

@Bold: So many girls in the United States call each other "girl" (not as much girlfriend these days). In any case, this is a cultural thing. Perhaps the United States is a significant source for the behavior of LGBT individuals globally, I dunno.

@Underlined: Maybe, but males in general...there's no such thing as privacy when a group of males get together, regardless of what dudes pretending to be stoic might say. xD

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. You can have bad experiences with everyone. I can assure you there are plenty of transpeople who are interested in keeping their modesty to themselves. Passing is hard enough without engaging every woman you see. xD Obviously you're more likely to interact with transgendered people who are outgoing. Whatever. It's irrelevant that people have personality variations, doesn't have anything to do with the legitimacy of their identity or access to public spaces.

So no, don't go comparing experiences men have in washroom with what women in there.

Don't go saying that the people supporting transgendered rights are upholding some imaginary scheme in which they hope transmen don't actually make good on their rights. xD I only compared because you went off on that tangent.

You must be registered for see links

. Again, the idea that women cannot feel safe in trans-inclusive spaces is not something that can be taken for granted.

 

[Avani]

I mean I responded literally directly to quotes in that post, but you moved or deleted the post and it ended up being after my...forget it.

I have made my stand clear so I am not even going to keep up with same arguments with new wordings.

Sure. But I was mainly responding to what you said about you not just thinking you're female, but being essentially female.

Yeah, I know.

You must be registered for see links

(while the title says LGB, the paper does also include trans people in the mix). In short, this is in part both because mental stress is covariant with overall health, and structural stigma keeps people from seeking health aid from institutions.

Structural stigma includes the lack of protective rights.
It is indeed a temporary solution until the rest of that sentence happens. Like I said, incremental change. An incremental change in policy is still useful, even if it is not the absolute ideal solution.

Short term solutions that are given by compromising safety of another group of people is causing another problem not solving any and only delays handling of real problems. Especially since I don't even see many people looking at this issue only as temp. It's going to be permanent and soon we will find lGBT groups trying to put down other countries for not following the same- that's how it goes.

@Bold: So many girls in the United States call each other "girl" (not as much girlfriend these days). In any case, this is a cultural thing. Perhaps the United States is a significant source for the behavior of LGBT individuals globally, I dunno.

@Underlined: Maybe, but males in general...there's no such thing as privacy when a group of males get together, regardless of what dudes pretending to be stoic might say. xD

A big part of LGBT movements and behaviour is fashion trend and they copy. And no girl and girlfriend are not the same thing and women use it in certain contexts not as permanent way to address to each other.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. You can have bad experiences with everyone. I can assure you there are plenty of transpeople who are interested in keeping their modesty to themselves. Passing is hard enough without engaging every woman you see. xD Obviously you're more likely to interact with transgendered people who are outgoing. Whatever. It's irrelevant that people have personality variations, doesn't have anything to do with the legitimacy of their identity or access to public spaces.

Most of your argument is based on anecdotal evidence given by LGBT groups. The group recently uploaded an ancient video of a woman being thrown out of washroom as if it happened after passing the recent bill and every one was going cray over it. Yet somehow if women are using the same they are not worth taken in account.

Don't go saying that the people supporting transgendered rights are upholding some imaginary scheme in which they hope transmen don't actually make good on their rights. xD I only compared because you went off on that tangent.

You must be registered for see links

. Again,.

And? The idea that women will feel safe and comfortable in trans-inclusive spaces is something that can be taken for granted?

 

[Claymantan]

Short term solutions that are given by compromising safety of another group of people is causing another problem not solving any and only delays handling of real problems. Especially since I don't even see many people looking at this issue only as temp. It's going to be permanent and soon we will find LGBT groups trying to put down other countries for not following the same- that's how it goes.

Incremental change is a long-term solution, and is the model for how both the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement in the United States achieved success. If you remove all steps of incremental change, there is no long-term change. A large-scale revolution in how people perceive transgendered people created through one large program is not happening. Additionally, shared bathroom usage, even if it has transgendered people "hiding" (which is a choice, anyway), is in fact one way to get people more comfortable to the idea of sharing spaces with transgendered people, and to get them to accept their existence.

A big part of LGBT movements and behaviour is fashion trend and they copy. And no girl and girlfriend are not the same thing and women use it in certain contexts not as permanent for of address to each other.

I didn't say they were the same thing, but whatever. Point is that it's just a difference in cultural behaviors.

Most of your argument is based on anecdotal evidence given by LGBT groups. Yet somehow if women are using the same they are anecdotal.

Most of my argument in that quote reply is based on anecdotal evidence, to show that anecdotal evidence is useless, because I was responding to you using anecdotal evidence. It was your argument. I didn't bring up anecdotes until you did, iirc.

And? The idea that women will feel safe and comfortable in trans-inclusive spaces is something that can be taken for granted?

Point is that it's a null-argument against trans-inclusive spaces, just as it's a null-argument for trans-inclusive spaces. It was your argument.

The argument for trans-inclusive bathrooms is that trans people have just as legitimate a claim to being female or male gendered as cis people (as evidenced by the significant scholarship that does not treat gender as intrinsically and essentially tied to ***), that trans people are statistically more likely to experience violence (as you agreed), so giving them their own bathroom is forcibly outing them and exposing them to violence (pretty logical), and the lack of data showing that this actually exposes anybody to more violence than they would be otherwise (will change my mind if I am shown something more significant than an anecdote of a transwoman attacking another woman in public bathrooms). I personally don’t count things like some d-bag claiming to be female as evidence against the trans claim to access to spaces that correspond to the gender with which they identify, because this has little to do with trans people themselves. Like I said, anyway, oppression wars are useless. I don’t count the sense of safety as an issue because it can’t be shown that the sense of safety is even at risk or being compromised, given that women are even more likely to support trans rights than men are (as I sourced). Allowing private and public institutions to discriminate against trans-people, or lacking protections for trans people, has been shown to contribute to negative health outcomes as well (as I sourced).

> No anecdotal evidence.
> Does not rely on whether or not women will feel safe, since this can't really be demonstrated positively or negatively.

The group recently uploaded an ancient video of a woman being thrown out of washroom as if it happened after passing the recent bill and every one was going cray over it.

You added this as I was typing my post, and I just saw it now. I don't entirely know what you're referring to, context-wise.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

How is gender dysphoria a thing if gender is apparently a social construct?


Also, the d-bag using a women's washroom and pretending to be transgender IS one of the issues. People will use it as a a way to not get into any trouble.

 

[Punk Hazard]

How is gender dysphoria a thing if gender is apparently a social construct?

Because there are two usages of Gender. One usage is synonymous with "***," which means biological. The other is gender as in the roles that society has assigned to the sexes.

***=male, female

Gender=masculine, feminine

There is supposed to be a difference between *** and gender, but so many people use them interchangeably that transsexualism ended up being called gender dysphoria.