Ignoring gender?

[churchmouse]

Do you not?

Do we as firearm owners and public handgun carriers not demand that people around us in public tolerate the presence of our carry pieces?

Is that any different than the transgendered dressing as they see fit?

You think the ultra-hoplophobic don't feel at least as passionately about the issue of OC as you do about queers in public restrooms? Ask the whacko Warthog encountered at Office Max.

You think you are any different from that whacko when you get so bent out of shape about "Why would any male want to mutilate their body to look like a female? Why would any female want to mutilate their body to look like a male?" Those hoplophobes get bent out of shape about "Why would anyone want to carry a gun in public? Isn't that what we have police for?"

To me, they sound as ridiculous as you do, and you sound as ridiculous as they do.

Over in the Survival and Disaster Preparedness forum, we talk about how all of civilization is only three meals away from total chaos. I disagree. There's something much more fundamental that prevents civilization from dissolving into chaos, without which it can do so so much faster than the span of three meals. Mutual respect. You expect the wierdoes and the freaks to respect your RKBA? You have no less an obligation to civilization to respect their right to let their freak flags fly, regardless what they paint on those flags. To me, normal people be whack. Someone who is completely average and middle of the road and moderate and bland and unnoteworthy in every respect? I never want to meet a normal person. Bring me the weirdoes. Those are the people with stories worth listening to.

The anti-gun left can expect us to act responsibly with our firearms in the restroom (unless, you know, you're like a police officer or a U.S. Marshall. They leave their carry pieces alone in the stalls all the time.). You have a right to expect the gender non-conforming to act responsibly in the restrooms as well, but you cannot exclude them from the restrooms. Your mere presence with your gun and holster is not a threat to Mr. and Mrs. Anti-Gun. Uncle Janet's mere presence with his penis and sundress is not a threat to you. Get some perspective.

I do not open carry nor do I make an Ass of myself sporting one of my many AR's in a coffee shop.
I see your point but apples to oranges.
I also have a constitutional right to do so.
Mary does not have the same when she sports dads cloths or vice versa.
They have the right to live their lives but I am not forced by law to accept this behavior and will never be in acceptance of it.

The fire arms thing is a serious stretch.

Again, you can have your opinion.....you do have that right. I will stand with you in defense of that right even if you are wearing Bobs cloths. Just do not try and push this on me as being OK because in my mind (simple as it is) it is not. I am not being anything but serious.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Exactly.

If everyone has to accept a trans gender person into their bathroom/locker room etc, why not have to accept ANY person into that area? If "we" (the collective we) all need to be inclusive to those who traditionally weren't allowed into areas and clubs that were for one gender (mens room/ladies room; Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts etc) why not just open EVERYTHING up to EVERYONE - why discriminate against males who just want to go into the ladies bathrooms because their feelings tell them it's ok? Or why can't a woman go into the mens bathroom for the same reason?

I have a feeling if the collective WE had to break down ALL stereotypical areas (ie: no more mens room/ladies room) for EVERYONE to participate (not just a boy who identifies with being a girl or a woman who identifies as being a man) the proverbial poop may just hit the fan and no one will like how they smell.

I have a very strong feeling you wouldn't feel the same if a group of men came into the ladies room while you were in there.

Modulo the crimes of indecent exposure and voyeurism as mentioned above, I would have no problem with it.

Anyone remember key scenes for this discussion from the sci-fi movies Aliens and Starship Troopers? Aliens was an older film, beholden to an older sensibility. In that, everyone was dressed in a minimum of lower underwear and for the ladies, tops, but when everyone came out of hypersleep, it was one big locker room for the intergalactic boy-girl slumber party. Everyone just gets on with the task of getting dressed and getting about their bidniz. Starship Troopers was a later film. In that, it could take more risks. (In my opinion, it strayed too far from Heinlein's source material to be termed good, however.) ST had a co-ed shower scene with full (or at least implied full) nudity. Just a bunch of mobile infantry guys and gals attending to their personal hygiene. Those really are my ideal for where western civilization should be, and is, evolving.

If there is to be a dichotomy in nudity-expected areas, I would not make it boy/girl. I would make it boy-girl/man-woman, separating along the age of consent. An adult, such as that term may be defined, would be disallowed from entering the children's side unless accompanying their own child. This is not an admission of some truth of edporch's or churchmouse's claims that the sight of non-sexual, mere, adult nudity is harmful to fragile, young minds. Quite the opposite. This idea is merely a concession to such sensibilities as they have, thus not imposing on them a requirement to expose their children to such adult sexuality if they choose not to.

Right now, with gender-segregated facilities, that's exactly what we have. Children have to be exposed to adult nudity if they want to use a locker room at a pool or gym. However, with public restrooms with multiple use stalls, no such exposure to nudity/genitalia is expected. If someone is in such a place waving their anatomy around, then there's likely something legally actionable about it.

 

[CathyInBlue]

No? I don't demand anyone tolerate me. I go about my business regardless. Not sure if this was a great example, unless I'm interpreting it wrong...

If you were OCing while minding your own business in a Dunkin Donuts and someone decided they were not going to tolerate that and made a hairy great scene of their intolerance, you'd think them all grade-A asshats, wouldn't you?

Same sentiment, I'm sure, for gender non-conforming folks minding their own business at the Cracker Barrel if some good ol' boys started hootin' an hollerin' their intolerance at the trannies and queers, except that they are not as likely to have the best tools of self defense yet invented by man to aid them in insuring that the intolerance did not lead to violence… unless they're the local Pink Pistols contingent.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I also have a constitutional right to do so.

LGBT folks don't have a Constitutional right to life, liberty, and property?

 

[Bill of Rights]

There are now many stores with a single non-gender specific facility.

Question.......What about "MY" life. Why do I always have to change when a group of off bubble (IMHO) people want to prance around as something they were not born to be. Where are my rights in this. Why do "I" always have to be the one to do all the bending.

Sorry CIB.....been here a hell of a long time and I am done bending for folks. Never asked them to bend for me.

I respect your opinion. You have the right to it. I also have the right to be offended by things and not want my life twisted around anymore. I can be in public with these folks and am all the time. I just do not want to be in the facility's with them and neither do the woman folk in my family. Do we not have that right........works both ways.

Churchmouse, with all due respect, I agree you have the right to be offended. What you don't have is the right to never be offended. We all have to tolerate things in others that we don't do ourselves, and to an extent, that includes acceptance. I don't mean you have to accept what they do as "natural" or whatever, I mean you have to accept the fact that someone living their life as they see fit, not causing you or anyone else any harm, has the right to do so. You have to accept that it is their choice to do so. You then have the right to decide if your response to that person living his/her life and not causing anyone any harm is to leave and disassociate yourself from them or to shrug and say "Meh. Not my monkeys, not my circus" and just leave them be. In much the same way that they have to either leave or "live and let live" with the idea that some people think they're perverts and a threat simply for having to empty their bladder and choosing to do so in a toilet. I imagine just as many people would call them perverts if they chose to wear a diaper so that no one else had to see their "naughty bits".

...you and snapdragon have yet to address is the mental effects of exposing a young girl to male genitalia. Just because they are only using the bathroom or showering doesn't make it harmless.....

CB, I'm a little lost here... What is the harm to said young girl from merely seeing a body part that she does not have? I don't dispute that said body part being used in an act of aggression against her or anyone would be harmful, but that's not what we're discussing. For a similar example let's say that little Suzie was born without a left leg. Is she somehow harmed by seeing people who have both legs? Or is this postulated harm solely due to the massive hangup our society has about sex and nudity that in some ways is closer to Sodom and Gomorrah and in other ways makes Queen Victoria look like a porn actress.

We teach children that certain parts of their bodies are something to be embarrassed about. We teach them that the mere sight of those parts or manual contact of the person with their own parts is "dirty"; that act is still, in some places, called "self-abuse" or even the "sin of Onanism". The old joke is that 60% of people will tell you they masturbate and the other 40% lie.

This is the safer approach, the easier approach. We do this so we don't have to rely on the child's immature judgment and (lack of) worldliness to keep him/her safe from predators, and so that we don't have to teach things that we ourselves find uncomfortable. But are we doing our children a disservice, teaching them that parts of their bodies are dirty, unacceptable, filthy, and "bad"?

Food for thought.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[churchmouse]

Churchmouse, with all due respect, I agree you have the right to be offended. What you don't have is the right to never be offended. We all have to tolerate things in others that we don't do ourselves, and to an extent, that includes acceptance. I don't mean you have to accept what they do as "natural" or whatever, I mean you have to accept the fact that someone living their life as they see fit, not causing you or anyone else any harm, has the right to do so. You have to accept that it is their choice to do so. You then have the right to decide if your response to that person living his/her life and not causing anyone any harm is to leave and disassociate yourself from them or to shrug and say "Meh. Not my monkeys, not my circus" and just leave them be. In much the same way that they have to either leave or "live and let live" with the idea that some people think they're perverts and a threat simply for having to empty their bladder and choosing to do so in a toilet. I imagine just as many people would call them perverts if they chose to wear a diaper so that no one else had to see their "naughty bits".



CB, I'm a little lost here... What is the harm to said young girl from merely seeing a body part that she does not have? I don't dispute that said body part being used in an act of aggression against her or anyone would be harmful, but that's not what we're discussing. For a similar example let's say that little Suzie was born without a left leg. Is she somehow harmed by seeing people who have both legs? Or is this postulated harm solely due to the massive hangup our society has about sex and nudity that in some ways is closer to Sodom and Gomorrah and in other ways makes Queen Victoria look like a porn actress.

We teach children that certain parts of their bodies are something to be embarrassed about. We teach them that the mere sight of those parts or manual contact of the person with their own parts is "dirty"; that act is still, in some places, called "self-abuse" or even the "sin of Onanism". The old joke is that 60% of people will tell you they masturbate and the other 40% lie.

This is the safer approach, the easier approach. We do this so we don't have to rely on the child's immature judgment and (lack of) worldliness to keep him/her safe from predators, and so that we don't have to teach things that we ourselves find uncomfortable. But are we doing our children a disservice, teaching them that parts of their bodies are dirty, unacceptable, filthy, and "bad"?

Food for thought.

Blessings,
Bill

To clarify.....There are several establishments here in Indy that caters to the alternative life styles. I have been in near everyone working on the HVAC/Refrigeration systems because the owner of the company I worked at for nearly 10 years was (I think) Gay. He knew all of those folks and I was the tech that got along with them and never had any issues so guess who did all the work.......yup.....me.
I have seen and heard more than most straight white males about that life. Never bothered me unless someone tried to push their "Rights" on me. I have the same rights as they do but if I get stomped for running my mouth it is not a hate crime.
I do live and let live. My issue comes when anyone or group of someones presses me to "Accept" their life choices. I will not. I will not call them names or belittle them (them being the group we are now discussing) but I do not accept it as normal. I am just tired of being told I have to accept something.
Again, I will defend anyones right to live their life. Just do not tell me it is normal for sally to wear her brothers cloths.

 

[churchmouse]

In full disclosure, one of my idiot (really) nephews decided to have his wedding on Halloween. My wife and kids dressed for the occasion. Me, I shaved my beard, got a really nice brunette wig, earth tone dress and matching accessory's, nice pumps, hat and had my wife do my make-up. I sat separately from my family and it took a bit for me to be recognized. I was a "Big" girl but not a bad looker if I do say so.

Did I feel pretty in drag.....hell no. But it was fun.

 

[churchmouse]

LGBT folks don't have a Constitutional right to life, liberty, and property?

Did you even read the thread CIB....did you.
You are grasping. Stop it please.

 

[Sylvain]

In full disclosure, one of my idiot (really) nephews decided to have his wedding on Halloween. My wife and kids dressed for the occasion. Me, I shaved my beard, got a really nice brunette wig, earth tone dress and matching accessory's, nice pumps, hat and had my wife do my make-up. I sat separately from my family and it took a bit for me to be recognized. I was a "Big" girl but not a bad looker if I do say so.

Did I feel pretty in drag.....hell no. But it was fun.

Let us judge how hot you looked ma'am!

Did you shave your legs as well and wear a sexy thong???







(P.S. : Don't ban me Sir!)

 

[Joe G]

Churchmouse, with all due respect, I agree you have the right to be offended. What you don't have is the right to never be offended. We all have to tolerate things in others that we don't do ourselves, and to an extent, that includes acceptance. I don't mean you have to accept what they do as "natural" or whatever, I mean you have to accept the fact that someone living their life as they see fit, not causing you or anyone else any harm, has the right to do so. You have to accept that it is their choice to do so. You then have the right to decide if your response to that person living his/her life and not causing anyone any harm is to leave and disassociate yourself from them or to shrug and say "Meh. Not my monkeys, not my circus" and just leave them be. In much the same way that they have to either leave or "live and let live" with the idea that some people think they're perverts and a threat simply for having to empty their bladder and choosing to do so in a toilet. I imagine just as many people would call them perverts if they chose to wear a diaper so that no one else had to see their "naughty bits".



CB, I'm a little lost here... What is the harm to said young girl from merely seeing a body part that she does not have? I don't dispute that said body part being used in an act of aggression against her or anyone would be harmful, but that's not what we're discussing. For a similar example let's say that little Suzie was born without a left leg. Is she somehow harmed by seeing people who have both legs? Or is this postulated harm solely due to the massive hangup our society has about sex and nudity that in some ways is closer to Sodom and Gomorrah and in other ways makes Queen Victoria look like a porn actress.

We teach children that certain parts of their bodies are something to be embarrassed about. We teach them that the mere sight of those parts or manual contact of the person with their own parts is "dirty"; that act is still, in some places, called "self-abuse" or even the "sin of Onanism". The old joke is that 60% of people will tell you they masturbate and the other 40% lie.

This is the safer approach, the easier approach. We do this so we don't have to rely on the child's immature judgment and (lack of) worldliness to keep him/her safe from predators, and so that we don't have to teach things that we ourselves find uncomfortable. But are we doing our children a disservice, teaching them that parts of their bodies are dirty, unacceptable, filthy, and "bad"?

Food for thought.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill - are you saying we don't have the right to expect that our kids won't see the genitalia of the opposite sex if they choose to use a restroom that is marked as for their sex? If you choose to live a nudist lifestyle, in your home or even in a community of like-minded people, that's your choice. Previously it was expected that we, as parents, could choose when and where our children (and ourselves) would see such a sight. Society is slowly telling us that it's NOT our choice if we go out to any public facility. I think that's where I have the most issue.

Now I know some will jump in and say nothing sexual is going on (or shouldn't be), but I don't think I should have to work NOT to see the opposite sex in a private area such as a locker room, bathroom etc. If girls want to join a boys club and vice versa, I personally couldn't care - just keep everything seperate when genitals are out. Why can't that be simple enough for everyone to understand? Want to earn your archery badge together? Fine. Want to bake cakes? Go for it. Knot tying? Not an issue. Just don't force me to pull my kids out of a great club/class/area because YOU (the general "you" not someone specific here) want to let the "lady with a penis" into the same room my little girl is.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Did you even read the thread CIB....did you.
You are grasping. Stop it please.

How am I grasping? In earnest. I was equating the anti-gun folks' intolerance at seeing someone OC in public to the anti-LGBT folks' intolerance at seeing a transperson in public. You mentioned how RKBA was a Constitutional right. I agree. I just fail to see how that is a legitimate counterpoint to the transperson being in public.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In full disclosure, one of my idiot (really) nephews decided to have his wedding on Halloween. My wife and kids dressed for the occasion. Me, I shaved my beard, got a really nice brunette wig, earth tone dress and matching accessory's, nice pumps, hat and had my wife do my make-up. I sat separately from my family and it took a bit for me to be recognized. I was a "Big" girl but not a bad looker if I do say so.

Did I feel pretty in drag.....hell no. But it was fun.

You should have gone with the thong panties...that would have made the difference.


Umm....


So I'm told.



I have heard that myself.............

 

[churchmouse]

How am I grasping? In earnest. I was equating the anti-gun folks' intolerance at seeing someone OC in public to the anti-LGBT folks' intolerance at seeing a transperson in public. You mentioned how RKBA was a Constitutional right. I agree. I just fail to see how that is a legitimate counterpoint to the transperson being in public.

I understand but in my mind it is apples/oranges.
JMHO from an old fat man.....

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

All people, no matter how strange I may find them, have a right to be in public. Private individuals and communities ought to be free to set policies on how their facilities are to be used. If Planet Fitness or the city of San Francisco wants to smudge, blur, and obliterate the lines of normalcy,where most of America has drawn them, they should be free to do so. But please, let's not once again involve the feds in forcing all the rest of us into conforming to whatever folks in other states and cities decide is best for them.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I'll remember you said that, the next time some community somewhere wants to pass a "bathroom bill".

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hopefully they'll do it by the will of the people instead of some court abusing the commerce clause or 14th amendment yet once again.

 

[oldpink]

CIB, the big beef people like me have is that people like you want to decide for the rest of the world what will be allowed in locker rooms and bathrooms.
It's astonishing how people want to force people with very young kids to have to deal with other people who have identity issues to going in there and exposing themselves in the process of doing whatever.
You may not have a gripe with it and think it's perfectly okay, more than likely because you have some friends with those identity issues; but don't you consider it just a wee bit arrogant to tell other people that their desire to not have their kids exposed to that is invalid?
As someone mentioned upthread, we could resolve this by having facilities specifically for those with these identity issues, but they won't have that, saying that it's "discriminatory."
No, instead we are told that we have to bend to the will of a very powerful and vociferous group...not a hint of compromise or willingness to see the other side at all.
It's not about meeting in the middle at all; it's all about supremacy and domination.
That's obvious for anyone paying attention at all.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Hopefully, no group tries to force their will upon another group and people can go to the bathroom in public restrooms that match their gender, not just their physical sex, by whatever means that physical sex is to be arbitrarily determined.

Old Pink: And it's not about domination and supremacy for the majority to tell gender non-conforming people that their sincerely held gender identity is invalid and when they are in public, they have to choose to utilize the restroom facilities associated with some legalistic definition of their gender?

My politics is that of an arch Conservative, Objectivist Libertarian. As far as I'm concerned, the individual is the supreme unit of society. I can see no legitimate reason to restrict individual choice with regard to gender identity, so any place that is exclusive to a particular gender is inclusive of everyone with that gender identity. If there are legitimate reasons to restrict an individual's personal choices, and there are legitimate reasons to allow an individual's personal choices free reign, the rights of the individual must be given free reign, as that is the only way such an individual vs. society as a whole balancing act can be guaranteed to NOT ultimately devolve into an authoritarian hellhole.

Once upon a time, there were places in this country where I could be restricted by law from wearing pants. All attitudes that would restrict a person who looks like a woman, sounds like a woman, or thinks like a woman from visiting the women's restroom are just atavistic remnants of the same Neanderthal laws and deserve to leave skidmarks on the bowl of history as all gender-based laws before them have.

 

[Sylvain]

Hopefully, no group tries to force their will upon another group and people can go to the bathroom in public restrooms that match their gender, not just their physical sex, by whatever means that physical sex is to be arbitrarily determined.

With public bathrooms I don't even care what's the gender of the person in the next stall.Nore should they care about my gender or sex.It doesn't need to match the sign on the door.

Since you do your business in a closed stall it doesn't matter.
I have no problem going to the ladies bathrooms just like I have no problem with ladies going to the men bathrooms.

I have seen moms take their young boy to the men bathrooms just like I have seen dads take their young girl to the ladies bathrooms.
Nobody has a problem with that so I assume it will be the same with gender.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Sylvain: France is not a nation founded by Puritans.