Ignoring gender?

[AA&E]

So, you're asking about exercising one's personal right not to associate with a person of type X in a… public school? When we engage in activities in a public place, we have to come to grips with the fact that those same public places may be occupied by people doing things with which we disagree: driving AMC Gremlins, wearing white after Labor Day, voting Leftist, etc. You must tolerate it, or, when you discover it happening in your vicinity, leave said vicinity. If you find yourself being hounded out of public places by people of type X forcing you to leave their vicinity (due to you exercising your own right of association by using their own right of association), then I believe I have already mentioned adopting a hermitic lifestyle as a legitimate solution. Even for a student at a public school, this is possible. It's called home schooling. When one chooses to attend a public school or whatever description, it is expected that one gives up a measure of that right of association, whether in terms of associating with the same campus, associating with the same classrooms, or associating with the same gender-segregated facilities.

Even if one's daughter is in a private school where people of type X are allowed around her, you have the option of removing her from said vicinity. With a private school, however, at least the mere threat of such removal may lead to some action on your behalf which you find agreeable. A public school is beholden under law to respect the rights of people of type X as well, and so such threats to exercise your rights of association are unlikely to move them. I support everyone's right to home school their children, bar none.

Just as there are legal balancing acts which take place between the rights of one person and the rights of another, there are balancing acts which play out within a single individual on a daily basis. You have the right not to associate with a person of type X, but you want to, are deeply desirous of, relieving one's full bowel and bladder in a convenient public restroom, which may also be occupied at the moment by a person of type X. Hmmm, decisions, decisions. You, and you alone, will have to make that decision as to which of those needs you will give priority, keeping in mind that applying fist to face or boot to ass, as I mentioned above, is an option that equates to you committing the crime of battery under Indiana law. Choose wisely.

Keep also in mind that the vast majority of people in bathrooms are there for the exact same reasons you are. But then, perhaps that is the very reason you are so trepidatious about them being there with your wife and/or daughter.

So, you're saying your daughter is the type of person who would take the fist to face and boot to ass tack on a person of type X entering a public restroom to utilize the facilities in the manner for which they were designed and installed? That's the type of daughter you raised?

The rights of the minority supersede those of the majority. Got it.

 

[edporch]

Originally Posted by edporch The line between my rights and another person's rights is that I, just like the other person, have the right to decide not to associate with somebody based on their behavior and/or lifestyle.

When it comes to the use of facilities that people will be in various stages of undress, the facility you use should be the one that matches your "plumbing".
(i.e. when everybody is undressed, nobody sees any gender related physical differences between them)

I too feel sorry for people who suffer from any kind of delusion, and would like to see them get help with recognizing reality.
"Help" doesn't mean the rest of us are supposed to make believe somebody's delusion is reality.

If a man puts on women's clothes, he's simply a man in women's clothes, no matter how much he has his body medically mutilated or changes his name.
I won't make believe he's a she.

So you are okay to be in the same changing room with someone that doesn't have the correct plumbing any more.... since they are still a "he"

That's a good question.

In real life it becomes a MOOT point, IF the job of having an individual's body medically mutilated to visually pass for the opposite gender was masterfully done, WHO would know?

The PROBLEM comes when somebody who is OBVIOUSLY of the opposite sex when disrobed uses a locker room or bathroom.

Case in point the Planet Fitness story from some weeks back, where a man dressed in women's clothes and obviously still physically a man uses the women's locker room.
That woman who complained had a right to be offended.
I know I wouldn't want my wife in a locker room with him.

 

[bwframe]

Bloomington initiative gets more Indiana cities to cover transgender health services | Insurance News Net

 

[Snapdragon]

Bloomington initiative gets more Indiana cities to cover transgender health services | Insurance News Net

And that's relevant to the OP how? Oh, I get it. We've already got the haters rounded up in one place. Might as well make the most of it.

 

[bwframe]

And that's relevant to the OP how? Oh, I get it. We've already got the haters rounded up in one place. Might as well make the most of it.

My apologies if that news link is not relevant. It just came over my local news feed and I thought it would be a relevant news information contribution to the thread?

I'm not a hater.

 

[CathyInBlue]

The rights of the minority supersede those of the majority. Got it.

The correct lesson to learn is that everyone has rights, even if they are in the minority. The balancing act I keep mentioning does not always do in the favour of the minority position and anyone who claims otherwise is being disingenuous, deluded, or dishonest.

In real life it becomes a MOOT point, IF the job of having an individual's body medically mutilated to visually pass for the opposite gender was masterfully done, WHO would know?

The PROBLEM comes when somebody who is OBVIOUSLY of the opposite sex when disrobed uses a locker room or bathroom.

So, it is as I suspected; What you are really trying to practice is the politics of aesthetics. This is no different than the incessant busy-bodies from HOAs measuring the height of their neighbor's grass or using color cards pressed against their siding to judge whether their paint was one of the pre-approved hues, with the exception that at least those busy-bodies must realize the limit of their authority must be the gates of their own community and the strictures of their written CCRs. Those who spout the mantra, "I don't care if there are people of type X around, I just don't want to see it." know no limitations. They would have their aesthetics applied as law (see: bathroom bills above) across the whole of the globe, taking their aesthetic sense, as they do, to be some form of proclamation of nature. They claim the enforcement of their aesthetics as law to be righteous since they are just respecting nature, while those who transgress their aesthetics are somehow unnatural or go against nature. And I know I am courting Godwin, but the greatest practitioners of the politics of aesthetics in recent memory were not even the HOA busy-bodies, but were the Fascists who went so far to not have to see LGBT people or Joos as to commit mass murder of them. Nazis had strange ideas of what they considered natural and called upon religious iconography to promote their ideas of moral hygiene as well.

 

[CathyInBlue]

And that's relevant to the OP how? Oh, I get it. We've already got the haters rounded up in one place. Might as well make the most of it.

My apologies if that news link is not relevant. It just came over my local news feed and I thought it would be a relevant contribution to the thread?

I'm not a hater.

I think Snapdragon was being overly sensitive here, but the nature, length, and content of this thread being what it is, I can understand why she was so sensitive. Frankly, I take it to be one of the true benefits of Obamacare, that it's making medical care for the transgendered and related conditions more common and affordable. I hope when Obamacare leaves skidmarks on the bowl, these standards of healthcare insurance coverage exemplified by municipal plans remain for corporate plans to follow.

 

[bwframe]

I think Snapdragon was being overly sensitive here, but the nature, length, and content of this thread being what it is, I can understand why she was so sensitive.

I'm happy to remove the link if it is perceived as offensive. That was not my intent.

 

[CathyInBlue]

The OP of this thread was about a private organization being more trans-inclusive. I think an article about government trans-inclusivity is right on topic.

 

[oldpink]

And that's relevant to the OP how? Oh, I get it. We've already got the haters rounded up in one place. Might as well make the most of it.

Haters?
Got that, folks?
Consider me glad that neither I nor my daughter ever attended an institution where you were a "counselor," given your attitude.
That little comment right there encapsulates all that anyone ever suspects about this "movement."
It's not enough to simply obey; nothing less than total agreement is acceptable.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

And that's relevant to the OP how? Oh, I get it. We've already got the haters rounded up in one place. Might as well make the most of it.

Come on, this is getting out of hand. You enter this thread as some sort of expert on the subject, and any opposition or challenge to you is now "hating". You're biting people's heads off for trying to contribute.

Can we please put this thread down now. It's lived long enough. Nothing good is coming from it anymore.

I'm happy to remove the link if it is perceived as offensive. That was not my intent.

No, and don't apologize to the perpetually offended (Not specifically Snapdragon, but anyone that takes "offense"). How about everyone go to a "safe space" and cool off for a bit? This thread is just bringing up the worst anger and knee-jerk commentary.

 

[17 squirrel]

Haters?
Got that, folks?
Consider me glad that neither I nor my daughter ever attended an institution where you were a "counselor," given your attitude.
That little comment right there encapsulates all that anyone ever suspects about this "movement."
It's not enough to simply obey; nothing less than total agreement is acceptable.

Yea I got it, its one of the top ten egoistic posts I have ever read. Wow

 

[Snapdragon]

Haters is a slang term that may or may not include whomever is offended. In hindsight, I agree that it was a poor choice.

I perceived bwframe's intent in posting the link as "stirring the pot". If that was not the actual intent, then I stand corrected.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There is a full body of judicial decisions based on shaky Constitutional interpretations and societal capitulation that aided the federal .gov to the metastasize into into the behemoth it has now become.

There is no such body of law attesting to the illegality of LGBT people "utilizing the facilities".

FIFY.

 

[AA&E]

Haters?
Got that, folks?
Consider me glad that neither I nor my daughter ever attended an institution where you were a "counselor," given your attitude.
That little comment right there encapsulates all that anyone ever suspects about this "movement."
It's not enough to simply obey; nothing less than total agreement is acceptable.

Agreed.

 

[edporch]

Originally Posted by edporch In real life it becomes a MOOT point, IF the job of having an individual's body medically mutilated to visually pass for the opposite gender was masterfully done, WHO would know?

The PROBLEM comes when somebody who is OBVIOUSLY of the opposite sex when disrobed uses a locker room or bathroom.

The correct lesson to learn is that everyone has rights, even if they are in the minority. The balancing act I keep mentioning does not always do in the favour of the minority position and anyone who claims otherwise is being disingenuous, deluded, or dishonest.

So, it is as I suspected; What you are really trying to practice is the politics of aesthetics. This is no different than the incessant busy-bodies from HOAs measuring the height of their neighbor's grass or using color cards pressed against their siding to judge whether their paint was one of the pre-approved hues, with the exception that at least those busy-bodies must realize the limit of their authority must be the gates of their own community and the strictures of their written CCRs. Those who spout the mantra, "I don't care if there are people of type X around, I just don't want to see it." know no limitations. They would have their aesthetics applied as law (see: bathroom bills above) across the whole of the globe, taking their aesthetic sense, as they do, to be some form of proclamation of nature. They claim the enforcement of their aesthetics as law to be righteous since they are just respecting nature, while those who transgress their aesthetics are somehow unnatural or go against nature. And I know I am courting Godwin, but the greatest practitioners of the politics of aesthetics in recent memory were not even the HOA busy-bodies, but were the Fascists who went so far to not have to see LGBT people or Joos as to commit mass murder of them. Nazis had strange ideas of what they considered natural and called upon religious iconography to promote their ideas of moral hygiene as well.

If I infer correctly, if a man dressed in women's clothes wants to use the women's locker room it's OK with you?
So then he in the midst of a group of women disrobes, and there stands an obviously naked man in the women's locker room, and you think that's just fine?
All because he "identifies" with women?

 

[CathyInBlue]

As long as his male ego can tolerate all the pointing and giggling, yes.

 

[edporch]

As long as his male ego can tolerate all the pointing and giggling, yes.

 

[churchmouse]

Let us stipulate that we are talking about public restroom facilities with an ample number of stalls to accommodate all concerned. If you are saying that the mere presence of a transsexual woman (a drag queen being a wholly different issue), entering the same restroom would illicit an immediate violent reaction from your daughter without regard to the transsexual woman's behaviour, if the mere presence of a person of type X equates to a "threat" to her, then I absolutely stand by my non-purple text. And if the area in which your daughter is taking her daughters to the restroom is one filled with people so prone to violence, then, under those conditions, I would even support the rights of drag queens to utilize the facilities which match their mode of dress, being that the threat of violence against them when they need to void bowel and bladder, or just primp their makeup, could reasonably be judged by them to be unacceptably high were they to enter a men's restroom, or if they were in such men's restroom alone and a similarly violence prone man walked in on them.

I think a lot of people in this thread are conflating two wholly different issues: behaviour and being. A transsexual person is a being. A sexual predator is a mode of behaviour. Anyone behaving as a sexual predator, even if they happen to be a transsexual person as well, is fully deserving of a proper trouncing to eject them from the vicinity of all those who are not committing voyeuristic, or worse, crimes. Some in this thread seem to be equating the mere being of a transsexual person in a public restroom with the behaviour of a sexual predator with no further basis for such a claim, as if it's natural for everyone to make that assumption.

What you term violent can be measured in degrees. What you see as "OK" we do not. I am sure that Violence would not erupt right off. There would be as serious gender discussion. If this did not end well it could go anywhere from there.
Predator or not some things are just off the cuff crazy to some of us simple minded folks. We all have our reasons for responding to something that to us is just not right.
To me, if harry wants to wear his moms cloths cool. Just do not come prancing into the mens room and think it is ok because to many many people it is not "OK"
I may or may not be one of those people.

To be absolutely honest I have been in a restroom on more than one occasion and had a guy in drag roll in. It is un-nerving because it just is not "Normal" in my narrow scope.
And yes, they were trolling for dates.

 

[rw02kr43]

If a man is dressed as a woman and still uses the men's restroom and locker room, is that okay? Or is that guy just as bad?