Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 Apr 2016, 12:58 pm

Several US states seem to be seeing proposals for laws that govern who can use which bathroom.

The idea is that transgender people should stick to the place that matches their genitals. The justification, other than squeamishness at the idea and perhaps hostility towards LGBT in general, seems to be that there is a threat - particularly when a transgender male-to-female is in a women's toilet - of sexual predation.

But is there any evidence that this has actually happened? Are there a load of trans or pseudo-trans perverts who have been caught recently?

And what kind of guy moves such a law? Oh, here's one: https://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/gop-co ... obe-finds/

I wonder, what can we find more of, Republican lawmakers caught doing or seeking sexual activity in toilets, or transsexuals?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 Apr 2016, 1:55 pm

I think this is more of a "Your right to swing your arm ends at the end of my nose" issue.

There are single toilet bathrooms with a lockable door that would provide privacy for the occupant. The reason for this law being a prey on "unsuspecting women" is not the way it should be handled. The pre-operative transgendered desires should not outweigh the desire of others. After operation to change gender, then fine; urinate in the bathroom of your genitalia.

Why the need to enter a multi person bathroom anyway? Do you have a problem with a non-transgendered man entering a women's bathroom, or do only the transgendered get special treatment? Should there not be any difference at all in bathrooms?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 Apr 2016, 1:57 pm

Jon Hinson. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Hinson
Hinson was arrested again on February 4, 1981, and charged with attempted sodomy[2] for performing oral sex on an African-American male employee of the Library of Congress in a restroom of the House of Representatives.


Larry Craig. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig
On June 11, 2007, Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport for lewd conduct in a men's restroom,[42] where he was accused of soliciting a male undercover police officer for sexual activity


Bob Allen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_All ... politician)
He made headlines in 2007 after being arrested for offering $20 for the opportunity to perform fellatio on an undercover male police officer[2][3] in the restroom of a public park and was released on bail.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 Apr 2016, 2:07 pm

Are any of those people trans-gendered? I didn't realize if they were. Perhaps you are off topic...

Soliciting is a crime and should be punished.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 Apr 2016, 2:22 pm

bbauska wrote:I think this is more of a "Your right to swing your arm ends at the end of my nose" issue.
Sure. Please demonstrate how it harms you in any way if a transgender person uses the wrong toilet.

There are single toilet bathrooms with a lockable door that would provide privacy for the occupant. The reason for this law being a prey on "unsuspecting women" is not the way it should be handled. The pre-operative transgendered desires should not outweigh the desire of others. After operation to change gender, then fine; urinate in the bathroom of your genitalia.
So, you agree that the predation line is bunk. So what is the harm that it causes? Whose rights are impinged when a transgender person uses a toilet?

One point - some of the bills are based on sex at birth, so would even catch out a post-op transsexual.

Also, multi-person toilets tend to have separate cubicles - for women anyway, and even often for men.

Why the need to enter a multi person bathroom anyway?
Why? To take a leak (or a dump)? Because it's a convenient convenience?

Here is how it goes. One does not suddenly transition. There is a long period involving identity, use of hormones, etc that a trans person goes through before they have an op. The idea is to ensure that it is really the right move before life-altering surgery, and also that by the time of surgery they are already comfortably living in the new gender.

So a lot of pre-op transsexuals will look much more like their "to be" gender than their "as was" one. Part of reassignment is about adjusting to your new gender in all ways, and that includes using the toilet for people they identify with. And act like. And look like.

Do you have a problem with a non-transgendered man entering a women's bathroom, or do only the transgendered get special treatment? Should there not be any difference at all in bathrooms?
I don't have a big hang up about using the toilet. Got no problem with unisex personally. But you are not comparing the same thing. Why would a cis-male want to use the women's toilets if there are men's toilets available?

Of course women do sometimes use a men's room because the ladies tend to get long queues. Should they be criminalised (which is what such laws would tend to)

But a transgender does not go through reassignment just to get into the other toilet. A transgender male-to-female will want to use the women's toilets largely because they look like a woman and are "being" a woman. Should they go to the men's room?

And the same the other way around. A female-to-male who looks like a man and has been acting like a man outside the bathrooms then has to go to the ladies?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 Apr 2016, 2:25 pm

bbauska wrote:Are any of those people trans-gendered? I didn't realize if they were. Perhaps you are off topic...

Soliciting is a crime and should be punished.

No, they are all Republican Lawmakers who used toilets to break sex laws.

In my first post I wondered if there were more of those than there have been transgender perverts. Why? Because if we can't find many cases where transgender-toilet-use leads to sexual crime, what reason is there to write laws?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 Apr 2016, 3:32 pm

The same damage to a person's psyche that is caused by a cross on a hill.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 Apr 2016, 8:47 pm

bbauska wrote:The same damage to a person's psyche that is caused by a cross on a hill.
So you do object to that now? Or just scoring rhetorical points?

The cross on the hill when it is government land is against the Constitution. It (the one in La Jolla) also is a legacy of racial/sectarian discrimination, when non-Christians were blocked from living in the area.

Now. Please show me:

a) The way that allowing a transgender person to use the "wrong" toilet could be a violation of the Constitution, and
b) How it reinforces a historical prejudice

Seriously - you talked about freedom to swing arms ending at your nose. Where is your nose here?

Or is it just that you want to retaliate against "liberals" for another unrelated slight against your sensibilities?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 Apr 2016, 9:19 pm

Show the link to the person damaged by a cross in La Jolla and what that damaging offense was. They are offended. Just like people who have to share a bathroom with someone of the opposite gender. If there are damages against the people who put up a cross in La Jolla there should be a judgment against them giving damages to a specific person who can cite a damaging act.

Speaking of rhetorical points:
Isn't that what you did with the three solicitors of sex in a bathroom who have NOTHING to do w/ transgender?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 12 Apr 2016, 10:46 pm

I think there are some shades of grey around this issue that are going to need to be resolved. The emerging PC consensus around transgender issues would appear to be that a man can become a woman merely by assertion. Simply proclaiming themselves to be female without yet having gone through the necessary surgery places a social obligation upon the rest of us to adopt feminine pronouns when describing them and to treat them as female even when they are objectively male by any rational measure. While I don't especially have a problem with this if it's just a matter of politeness, it does raise a number of potential complications. The obvious one is prisons. Should a biologically male criminal who identifies as female be sent to a male or female prison ? Should a woman who has not yet gone through the surgery but identifies as male be expected to serve their time in a male prison ? I daresay most people would say no to the latter question at very least (inc the criminal most likely), but in that case why should the converse not also apply ?

Then there's the issue of professional sports. Should a man who self-identifies as female, or in this instance even a man who has undergone gender reassignment but still retains the advantages of an essentially male physiology, be entitled to compete as a woman in say the Olympics ? It would be a huge competitive advantage.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Apr 2016, 6:55 am

danivon wrote:Jon Hinson. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Hinson
Hinson was arrested again on February 4, 1981, and charged with attempted sodomy[2] for performing oral sex on an African-American male employee of the Library of Congress in a restroom of the House of Representatives.


Larry Craig. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig
On June 11, 2007, Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport for lewd conduct in a men's restroom,[42] where he was accused of soliciting a male undercover police officer for sexual activity


Bob Allen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_All ... politician)
He made headlines in 2007 after being arrested for offering $20 for the opportunity to perform fellatio on an undercover male police officer[2][3] in the restroom of a public park and was released on bail.


Ad hominem attacks on homosexuals! I'm shocked, just shocked.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Apr 2016, 6:57 am

sassenach
The emerging PC consensus around transgender issues would appear to be that a man can become a woman merely by assertion.

Why is it PC consensus, and not just consensus?

Tolerance tends to be a ever widening virtuous circle.

What about the poor cops who now have to stop and frisk all bath room attendees now?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 13 Apr 2016, 8:28 am

Why is it PC consensus, and not just consensus?


Because it's objectively false. Like I said, as a matter of simple politeness I'm ok with it, but it does open up ethical issues which need to be taken more seriously.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Apr 2016, 9:08 am

Sassenach wrote:
Why is it PC consensus, and not just consensus?


Because it's objectively false. Like I said, as a matter of simple politeness I'm ok with it, but it does open up ethical issues which need to be taken more seriously.


Thank you.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 13 Apr 2016, 10:31 am

The issue of how society treats trans people is a relatively recent social phenomenon, and it's become something of a social crusade among the right-on fraternity. To a very significant extent they have a perfectly valid point. I was subjected to a number of people who I like and respect but who are much more PC than I am explain to me at great length that continually referring to people who have a different gender identity by their biologically correct pronouns is insulting and belittling and something they find deeply hurtful, and therefore something that no decent person should be doing. I found it a bit weird at first but on reflection I came to the conclusion that they were right. It doesn't hurt me to be polite about it, and so now I follow the convention. Why not ?

However, there's a prevalent school of thought among the more shrill SJW crowd which is rapidly gathering pace on university campuses, facebook, twitter etc that merely to claim a particular gender is to make it so. By this way of thinking, Chelsea Manning, who is in prison and so presumably hasn't undergone any of the hormonal or surgical treatments involved in gender reassignment, IS a woman merely by the act of asserting it. Personally I find this to be ridiculous. She will always be a man by virtue of the Y chromosome, no matter how society chooses to address her for politeness' sake. What follows from this a number of interesting ethical questions, because there's a difference between how we treat people socially and how the state treats them legally. Like I said, we really need to resolve the issue of prisons. Could a man who commits a crime be permitted to opt for a cushier form of imprisonment in a women's prison simply be claiming to be a woman ? Keep in mind that trans people are not all gay btw. A woman I used to know who considered herself to be a lesbian was in a relationship with a man who was going through the hormonal stage of gender reassignment, but he hadn't had the surgery and they still occasionally had sex in the conventional way. That was a particularly messed up situation that didn't end well for either of them, but I'm sure it's not uncommon. Do we want to be placing what are essentially men who remain attracted to women into the environment of a female prison as inmates ? And what about the reverse ? Could a woman who has undergone gender reassignment then opt instead to be a woman again when faced with the prospect of being treated like a man when it came to sentencing ? Do these people get to pick and choose their gender as it suits them, or do we instead have to condemn them to the hell of a male prison ? These are not easy issues to resolve.