Doctor Fate wrote:Again, if you can stand when urinating, potentially father a child, and are in all ways a male save psychologically, you are a male. You should not use a women's bathroom or be able to play in the WNBA, participate in the women's side of the Olympics, etc.

I recently saw a story about some stupid woman in a Nordic country who believed she was a cat. She's not. It's science.

Similarly, when a man in every biological sense fancies himself to be a woman, he's not. It's science.

So what if one of those senses is neurological, and in that one they are less male than female?

As I said, this is not a "whim", and not the same as the Scandinavian woman (there is also an American man called "Cat" who has had extensive body modification surgery and tattooing to make him look like a feline).

I would argue that professional sports are a different thing to using the toilet. The latter is not paid for, competitive, or a spectator event. It is actually up to sporting bodies to define their rules, not governments. So why does government have to set laws on toilets?

By the way, indecent exposure is indecent exposure (and against the law in public regardless of whether you are in a toilet or not) . But women use stalls, so if using toilets properly need never see each other's genitals. why make another law?

Here is a condition where having a Y chromosome does not make one "male": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

A baby who is externally a girl is born and is normal in all anatomic respects except that the child has nonfunctional streak gonads instead of ovaries or testes. As girls' ovaries normally produce no important body changes before puberty, a defect of the reproductive system typically remains unsuspected until puberty fails to occur in people with Swyer syndrome. They appear to be normal girls and are generally considered so.

And there is another condition where someone with two X chromosomes and no Y will be physically male - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

XX males have two X chromosomes, with one of them containing genetic material from the Y chromosome, making them phenotypically male; they are genetically female but otherwise appear to be male

.

That is a genetic condition where there are some bits of a Y chromosome in one or more X chromosomes, but Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is not even that - there is variation, but in the "complete" version, someone with XY chromosomes (genetically male) will be physically female. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androge ... y_syndrome

Genes are not 100% determinative of physical / apparent sex. And Male and Female may appear to be the only sexes, but there are, as above, several "intersex" situations.

That is before we get to the question of whether neurology can tell us anything about how our brains are related to our sex/gender.

Hmmm wonder if anybody bothered to ask me about this. It's typically "our" community that gets up in arms about this issue.

The thing is, I'm gay but I identify as a man. I don't personally see why someone would want to change it, because with things being more open these days (despite the attempts of some state governments notwithstanding) I can be gay and not be arrested for it. I'm so comfortable in that that I don't understand why someone isn't comfortable with who they are and needs surgery to change it. Some gay men are more male acting, some more female-acting. Up to them/us.

So it seems to be a lot of the people with supposed sympathy for transgendered & transsexual people are actually heterosexual, white upper middle class liberals who aren't so much concerned with helping people, but are really more concerned with screwing the Republicans. It's not unlike the radical Republicans at the end of the American Civil war: they weren't so much interested in helping the plight of the slaves, they just wanted to screw the South.

Then again, there ARE a lot of us who seem concerned with the plight of the transgendered & transsexuals. And of course, I believe a person's right to want to change their body--or to represent a particular gender identity--is their sovereign choice, and ought to be respected.

But whoever brought up locker rooms has a good point. How far will this go? I'm on the fence, here, and I think some people on either side of it haven't thought it through, which is what I intend to do. Think it through. Maybe ask some people who are actually transgendered or transsexual.

Danivon, you started this thread. What's it like in the UK toward the transgendered & transsexual? Do they have the kind of bathrooms that the liberals are advocating and the GOP is trying to prevent from happening?

JimHackerMP wrote:Hmmm wonder if anybody bothered to ask me about this. It's typically "our" community that gets up in arms about this issue.

The thing is, I'm gay but I identify as a man. I don't personally see why someone would want to change it, because with things being more open these days (despite the attempts of some state governments notwithstanding) I can be gay and not be arrested for it. I'm so comfortable in that that I don't understand why someone isn't comfortable with who they are and needs surgery to change it. Some gay men are more male acting, some more female-acting. Up to them/us.

So it seems to be a lot of the people with supposed sympathy for transgendered & transsexual people are actually heterosexual, white upper middle class liberals who aren't so much concerned with helping people, but are really more concerned with screwing the Republicans. It's not unlike the radical Republicans at the end of the American Civil war: they weren't so much interested in helping the plight of the slaves, they just wanted to screw the South.

Not all transgender are homosexual.

Also, you impute motive there without any evidence. As long as governments of all hues don't start making silly laws about who can use which toilet, I see no problem. When they do, it is not about their party (although an awful lot of them seem to be Southern Republicans) but about their use of power.

Then again, there ARE a lot of us who seem concerned with the plight of the transgendered & transsexuals. And of course, I believe a person's right to want to change their body--or to represent a particular gender identity--is their sovereign choice, and ought to be respected.

The question is how much of a choice it really is. We are now finding that homosexuality is not so much a "choice" as an inbuilt characteristic. The science is not as far advanced on transsexual/transgender, but there is some overlap with sexuality and there are indications that it too has some innate causes.

But whoever brought up locker rooms has a good point. How far will this go? I'm on the fence, here, and I think some people on either side of it haven't thought it through, which is what I intend to do. Think it through. Maybe ask some people who are actually transgendered or transsexual.

I believe that transgender and transsexual people are already expressing themselves on the issue.

Danivon, you started this thread. What's it like in the UK toward the transgendered & transsexual? Do they have the kind of bathrooms that the liberals are advocating and the GOP is trying to prevent from happening?

Sorry, you will have to help me out here. What "kind of bathrooms" are "the liberals" advocating?

We have toilets. In most places women and men have separate toilets but there are unisex/non-segregated toilets sometimes. Where they are not single, the men's will tend to have some urinals and one or more cubicles; the women's a number of cubicles. The cubicles would have bolted doors in both. There are sinks, hand dryers or towels, bins (the women's will usually have bins for sanitary products).

In the UK we don't have laws about who can use the bathroom. There have been cases of "men" ejected from women's toilets (and sometimes they are a woman who just looks male).

It is not a big issue because we don't really have the culture wars that you guys do. There are bigots and those who don't understand or want to tolerate trans-, and that's a people thing.

There have been cases of "men" ejected from women's toilets

Then it sounds like you're having the same issue. The Chinese say that the strongest rules are the unwritten ones. Perhaps there isn't a statute on the books in the UK, but it sounds like your unwritten rules are just as strong as our written ones, perhaps?

It is not a big issue because we don't really have the culture wars that you guys do. There are bigots and those who don't understand or want to tolerate trans-, and that's a people thing.

And if it's "a people thing" then maybe laws promoting toleration (in this particular case) may not help?

some info on the subject. http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-ri ... stroom-faq

I don't think the issue is the government getting involved. Transgendered people face discrimination and social disapproval unless laws are passed to protect them. In fact, that is why the North Carolina law was passed in response to a local law protecting the transgendered.

If we say an outwardly looking male, who also dresses as a male but who identifies as female, can use a women's bathroom then what is the justification for having separate men's and women's bathrooms? If we say that women have a legitimate interest in having their own bathroom separate from men then that interest has to be balanced against the interests of the transgendered. It seems to me that there needs to be a solution that accommodates both the transgendered and women who are uncomfortable with men using their bathroom. Ultimately, to accommodate both interests there probably needs to be changes in bathroom design. Otherwise we are denying transgendered a basic human right--access to a bathroom--or denying that women have any legitimate interest in having a bathroom free from men. I think these are both legitimate interests and should be accomodated.

Here is an article regarding how California school districts are dealing with a California law mandating use of locker room corresponding to gender identify.http://www.latimes.com/local/education/ ... story.html

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Again, if you can stand when urinating, potentially father a child, and are in all ways a male save psychologically, you are a male. You should not use a women's bathroom or be able to play in the WNBA, participate in the women's side of the Olympics, etc.

I recently saw a story about some stupid woman in a Nordic country who believed she was a cat. She's not. It's science.

Similarly, when a man in every biological sense fancies himself to be a woman, he's not. It's science.

So what if one of those senses is neurological, and in that one they are less male than female?

As I said, this is not a "whim", and not the same as the Scandinavian woman (there is also an American man called "Cat" who has had extensive body modification surgery and tattooing to make him look like a feline).

"What if one of those senses is neurological, and in that one they are less human than feline?"

Preposterous? Unscientific? No less preposterous or scientific than your neurological guesswork.

I would argue that professional sports are a different thing to using the toilet. The latter is not paid for, competitive, or a spectator event. It is actually up to sporting bodies to define their rules, not governments. So why does government have to set laws on toilets?

The rationale is the same: the mental outlook of the transgendered person.

The government has the right to protect children and women. This is not a law "against" transgendered people as much as it is to protect women and children from men pretending to be transgendered.

There is literally no way to know if someone is "transgendered" or not. It's a matter of answering a few questions, which may or may not be indicative of a mental state.

By the way, indecent exposure is indecent exposure (and against the law in public regardless of whether you are in a toilet or not) . But women use stalls, so if using toilets properly need never see each other's genitals. why make another law?

Because once they are permitted access to the women's room, they have a defense. It may or may not hold up in a court of law, but why permit it in the first place?

Anyone can see this is the perfect ruse to enter an inappropriate facility for prurient reasons--if a person has such a desire.

freeman3 wrote:some info on the subject. http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-ri ... stroom-faq

I don't think the issue is the government getting involved. Transgendered people face discrimination and social disapproval unless laws are passed to protect them. In fact, that is why the North Carolina law was passed in response to a local law protecting the transgendered.

If we say an outwardly looking male, who also dresses as a male but who identifies as female, can use a women's bathroom then what is the justification for having separate men's and women's bathrooms? If we say that women have a legitimate interest in having their own bathroom separate from men then that interest has to be balanced against the interests of the transgendered. It seems to me that there needs to be a solution that accommodates both the transgendered and women who are uncomfortable with men using their bathroom. Ultimately, to accommodate both interests there probably needs to be changes in bathroom design. Otherwise we are denying transgendered a basic human right--access to a bathroom--or denying that women have any legitimate interest in having a bathroom free from men. I think these are both legitimate interests and should be accomodated.

Here is an article regarding how California school districts are dealing with a California law mandating use of locker room corresponding to gender identify.http://www.latimes.com/local/education/ ... story.html

Meanwhile, what is the percentage of the population that is "transgendered?" How have we survived for decades without separate restrooms for them?

It is a fraction of a fraction of the population. I think bbauska is on the right track: one-person bathrooms. I do suspect the cost will be unbearable for some small businesses.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Again, if you can stand when urinating, potentially father a child, and are in all ways a male save psychologically, you are a male. You should not use a women's bathroom or be able to play in the WNBA, participate in the women's side of the Olympics, etc.

I recently saw a story about some stupid woman in a Nordic country who believed she was a cat. She's not. It's science.

Similarly, when a man in every biological sense fancies himself to be a woman, he's not. It's science.

So what if one of those senses is neurological, and in that one they are less male than female?

As I said, this is not a "whim", and not the same as the Scandinavian woman (there is also an American man called "Cat" who has had extensive body modification surgery and tattooing to make him look like a feline).

"What if one of those senses is neurological, and in that one they are less human than feline?"

Preposterous? Unscientific? No less preposterous or scientific than your neurological guesswork.

Except that I have cited - TWICE - a study that does indicate that for transgender there is a neurological link. Not "my guesswork", but someone else's scientific research.

No such study has been undertaken for transspecies. Until then there is no science.

Do you get the difference?

Oh, and neurology is not the same thing as psychology - it is not concerned with "what" people think but the physics and chemistry of the brain - the "how" brains operate.

hacker

And if it's "a people thing" then maybe laws promoting toleration (in this particular case) may not help

Laws like Civil Rights, and equal treatment under the law aren't designed to "promote tolerance". They attempt to protect people's rights. They out law discrimination. Eventually, the application of the law does mean that people learn tolerance and acceptance. But the proactive part of the laws are protection of individual rights.
The bathroom laws will prohibit from people from asserting their own sexuality. And will be an invasion upon their privacy.
The argument that it intrudes on the public's right to privacy in public bathrooms breaks down when you examine how people use public restrooms. They don't go there and run around in public displays of nudity.

Now, there may be an argument for locker rooms and shower rooms, where nudity does occur.... There are accommodations made for people (girls on boys sports teams) in situations like this that people manage on a personal level. Legislatures have not had to leap in to defend "religious freedom" in shared locker rooms....

Laws being passed in North Carolina and other States protect people who want to discriminate against transgendered and gay people using religion as a shield from laws that prohibit discrimination. If one's religion can be used to avoid having to follow the law and treat transgendered people equally, why not then gays? Or Muslims? Or blacks?

The only reason you can be openly gay today, is because there is a long and painful history of over coming discriminatory laws against gays and lesbians. For instance, until 1966 it was illegal to serve alcohol to homosexuals in the state of New York...
every petty law that discriminated against gays was one more layer that had to be removed until equality had been largely achieved. But now, in some States, if you are Gay or transgendered its a reason you can be fired by a person claiming religious freedom.

hacker

So it seems to be a lot of the people with supposed sympathy for transgendered & transsexual people are actually heterosexual, white upper middle class liberals who aren't so much concerned with helping people, but are really more concerned with screwing the Republicans.

When defending individual rights, and fighting discrimination becomes perceived as synonymous with "screwing with Republicans", Republicans have a problem.

Fate

Meanwhile, what is the percentage of the population that is "transgendered?" How have we survived for decades without separate restrooms for them?

It isn't a question of how "we" survived... but how "they" survived.

Estimates I have seen are .3%. It does seem like a big accommodation for a tiny group of people. I play sports in a park where there are six separate, adjacent, individual co-ed bathrooms. Transgendered compatible, I suppose.

The MRI study is pretty compelling to me though and indicates there should be some accommodation for them.

danivon wrote:Except that I have cited - TWICE - a study that does indicate that for transgender there is a neurological link. Not "my guesswork", but someone else's scientific research.

Sure, but that study is hardly definitive.

No such study has been undertaken for transspecies. Until then there is no science.

Do you get the difference?

Yes, you have a feather's worth of pseudo-evidence.

Oh, and neurology is not the same thing as psychology - it is not concerned with "what" people think but the physics and chemistry of the brain - the "how" brains operate.

Stop. Don't even try to make it objective science. Can someone walk into their doctor, undergo a few tests and have a determination?

No.

Duplicate post.

Doctor Fate wrote:
Stop. Don't even try to make it objective science. Can someone walk into their doctor, undergo a few tests and have a determination?

No.

That is not the test of "objective science". That is a test of whether we have been able to apply science in a particular way.

But if an MRI scan can be used to differentiate between a "male brain", a "female brain" and an "in between brain", then it could well be used as a tool.

However, you have merely asserted that it is not "objective science". It looks to me as if you have worked back from not liking the outcome to rejecting the science without doing the "objective" bit yourself.

Do you have any methodological or process challenges to the study, or any others, that have looked at biological correlation with gender identity?

Do you have alternative studies that would suggest otherwise?

And here is a simple one: do you accept that a Y chromosome (or lack of) is not 100% related to physical genitalia?