fate

. It is another entirely to suggest a law has to conform to the psychological needs of every single living person.

The Golden Rule can apply to every single person .
And every single person living in the US are covered by laws regarding voyeurism or sexual assault.

The laws in question only concern a very small number of people. Because it is assumed by the law makers that as a class they are uniquely capable of criminal behavior.

Fate

What makes transgendered persons impervious to committing crimes of a sexual nature

?
They aren't. (Although the number of reported incidents by transgender in bathrooms appears to be zero.)
But they are already covered by the laws that exist.
What makes you think they are likely to offend?

I'm just not sure why liberals feel compelled to make sure that little girls see the willies of strange men. What motivates you?

rickyp wrote:fate

. It is another entirely to suggest a law has to conform to the psychological needs of every single living person.

The Golden Rule can apply to every single person .
And every single person living in the US are covered by laws regarding voyeurism or sexual assault.

The laws in question only concern a very small number of people. Because it is assumed by the law makers that as a class they are uniquely capable of criminal behavior.

Wrong.

You assume that those who CLAIM to be transgendered would never lie.

That's just dumb.

Ever been around child molesters? They will say or do anything to have access. These sorts of laws (Washington State and elsewhere) virtually guarantee child molesters will soon claim to be transgendered. What a perfect defense. Prove that they're not. It's all subjective. There is no "evidence" to be found.

Well, unless we have a handy MRI at the bathroom or locker room we're not going to be able to tell the legitimate transgender from an imposter. That is the concern. Whether that is an over-hyped concern is something that can be discussed empirically. But I don't think there is any doubt that allowing any man dressed as a woman to go into the women's bathroom or locker rooms makes it easier for at least a voyeur to go there. And how would you prove that such a person committed a crime?

rickyp wrote:fate

. It is another entirely to suggest a law has to conform to the psychological needs of every single living person.

The Golden Rule can apply to every single person .
And every single person living in the US are covered by laws regarding voyeurism or sexual assault.

The laws in question only concern a very small number of people. Because it is assumed by the law makers that as a class they are uniquely capable of criminal behavior.

Fate

What makes transgendered persons impervious to committing crimes of a sexual nature

?
They aren't. (Although the number of reported incidents by transgender in bathrooms appears to be zero.)
But they are already covered by the laws that exist.
What makes you think they are likely to offend?

Do you think that transgendered people want their beliefs and opinions respected?

freeman3 wrote:Well, unless we have a handy MRI at the bathroom or locker room we're not going to be able to tell the legitimate transgender from an imposter. That is the concern. Whether that is an over-hyped concern is something that can be discussed empirically. But I don't think there is any doubt that allowing any man dressed as a woman to go into the women's bathroom or locker rooms makes it easier for at least a voyeur to go there. And how would you prove that such a person committed a crime?

Hammer, meet nail.

The toilets thing is not really a big deal at all. There are fairly significant issues around legal treatment of trans people that need to be worked out, but this isn't one of them, or at least not until we start to see complaints from women about it.

geojanes wrote:It saddens me that this topic is sucking up so much attention. You could be thinking about anything else and it would likely be more productive.

I would agree, but legislatures are considering and passing laws about it. When government gets involved in defining who can use which bathroom, we can let them, or we can question it.

danivon wrote:

geojanes wrote:It saddens me that this topic is sucking up so much attention. You could be thinking about anything else and it would likely be more productive.

I would agree, but legislatures are considering and passing laws about it. When government gets involved in defining who can use which bathroom, we can let them, or we can question it.

I agree. When Government starts to make decisions on societal issues, good seldom comes from it.

Sassenach wrote:I'm not sure if you were reading what I actually wrote Dan, so I'm not going to bother replying until you do actually acknowledge the points I raised.

Yes, inveighing against SJWs and the PC consensus that apparently one can just "assert" a new gender.

That is not what I am talking about, or defending. It is about people who go through a long, difficult, painful and often lonely process. That should not be being undertaken on a whim, and is not as far as I can tell. That is not about an external expression (asserting a new gender) but about how they experience their own bodies and lives.

Being polite sure is a start. Understanding that we should be ignoring both the "PC SJWs" and those who hide behind religion and paranoia to restrict the rights of the transgender would be a further step. Looking at what is actually going on for these people - and yes, acknowledging that there is some science that points to pre-birth causes for the apparent belief that one's gender should or does not match one's physical and/or genetic sex would be another.

Sure, there are issues about sports and prisons etc, but they should probably be approached with as much an objective view as possible while understanding the situations of individuals.

I don't disagree, but I did not respond to those points because they are not the actual issue as far as I see it. The issue is that lawmakers are seeking to impose limits and are not even really thinking about the ramifications, and certainly seem to be thinking more about their moral or religious qualms than about the position of the people they want to dictate to - and certainly not the evidence that suggests this is not some "Lifestyle Choice", but part of who a person is.

For what it's worth, the public toilet thing isn't something that concerns me in the slightest, but I do think there are other significant issues that ought to be looked at more closely.

Fine, but the reality is that legislators are making laws about toilets.

Having a different brain function doesn't make somebody a different gender btw. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.

Hmmm. On the one hand I have seen reference to a study that suggested there was a link. On the other hand I have a layman telling me it is ridiculous but offer no supporting scientific evidence. Which one to take more seriously?

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

geojanes wrote:It saddens me that this topic is sucking up so much attention. You could be thinking about anything else and it would likely be more productive.

I would agree, but legislatures are considering and passing laws about it. When government gets involved in defining who can use which bathroom, we can let them, or we can question it.

I agree. When Government starts to make decisions on societal issues, good seldom comes from it.

That is a little broad. Surely every decision made by a government affects "societal issues", that is why we have governments and elections etc to indicate which way we would rather they go. How much to tax what, how big a military, what the punishment for murder should be, etc etc. All are societal issues.

I think it is more when governments intrude on personal issues that we need to be wary. And when they explicitly legislate to discriminate or empower discrimination, then it needs to be very carefully looked at

Hence the word "seldom".

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.

Hmmm. On the one hand I have seen reference to a study that suggested there was a link. On the other hand I have a layman telling me it is ridiculous but offer no supporting scientific evidence. Which one to take more seriously

The effect of the Y chromosome on human biology is hardly a controversial theory. That's like asking me for scientific evidence that the sun rose this morning.

Sassenach wrote:

Hmmm. On the one hand I have seen reference to a study that suggested there was a link. On the other hand I have a layman telling me it is ridiculous but offer no supporting scientific evidence. Which one to take more seriously

The effect of the Y chromosome on human biology is hardly a controversial theory. That's like asking me for scientific evidence that the sun rose this morning.

Yes. But that does not mean that while the Y or X chromosome will determine genetic sex, and usually (but not always) physical sex, there are not other biological factors that contribute to gender.