bbauska

I have said that a transsexual use a bathroom after gender reassignment surgery is fine. Before, and it infringes on the rights of others

And how do you propose policing of this?

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I have said that a transsexual use a bathroom after gender reassignment surgery is fine. Before, and it infringes on the rights of others

And how do you propose policing of this?

If there is a concern, then the police would be called. The person would be questioned and problem goes away.

Same thing with shoplifting. If someone is suspected, the police come and check it out. People not breaking the law have nothing to worry about as long as everyone remains calm about it.

bbauska wrote:I agree. They are not the same. No more than Republican pols are transsexuals. But that didn't stop you, did it?

That was about who both makes laws, and breaks them.

I have said that a transsexual use a bathroom after gender reassignment surgery is fine. Before, and it infringes on the rights of others.

Can we at least agree on that?

Nope. I don't think it is as simple as genitalia.

that's what you seem to have boiled it down to Danivon: the genitalia. In fact, you called this threat "The Genital Police".

bbauska

If there is a concern, then the police would be called. The person would be questioned and problem goes away.

Please illustrate how you envision this line of questioning ?
In a case of shop lifting, it invariably ends with the police asking the suspect to "turn out his pockets", or with them searching the suspect... In this case, if the suspect denies....at what point do you body search them? (I'm assuming the duty will fall to the rookie cop .)
Also, explain why the cops have been called in the first place? If its because the suspect was a voyeur or exhibitionist aren't there already laws that cover those acts"
If it was about someones suspicion that someone using a women's public bathroom still had a penis.... but they don't.... is there also going to be a crime for falsely accusing someone of making this charge?
Further, if there has been no reported voyeurism or assault or exhibitionism ..... where's the harm to the supposed victims? Whats the point of the law then?

hacker

that's what you seem to have boiled it down to Danivon: the genitalia. In fact, you called this threat "The Genital Police"

Its about privacy and dignity.
For the individuals and for the police.
Its about treating people equally under the current laws, which can be accomplished, and not creating extraordinary laws that specifically target one small group and create nightmarish scenes for women who might appear a little masculine.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

If there is a concern, then the police would be called. The person would be questioned and problem goes away.

Please illustrate how you envision this line of questioning ?

Have you answered the question of the golden rule you brought up? No.

Should a transsexual care about the feelings and concerns of others?

Police question people differently all the time. I am sure there in no robotic response.

bbauska

Have you answered the question of the golden rule you brought up? No.

Should a transsexual care about the feelings and concerns of others?

Actually bbauska I think that I have. A transsexual who wants to keep their body private, would, when using a women's public bathroom use a closed stall. And would conform to public behavior and not peer or peak at other people. In others words, behave to others as they would have others behave to themselves.
Not different from cis women is it?

bbauska

Police question people differently all the time. I am sure there in no robotic response

No. But there is something in the manual telling them when it is appropriate, and how to search a suspect.
What's in the manual to guide them in deciding if and when they are to search the suspect for the offending penis? And what guides them on how to do the search?
Because, that's what you say it comes down to....
With a vagina, no crime. with a penis, crime. (Or for those using the men's the opposite...)
And the police need clear evidence to arrest and seek a conviction don't they?

That is NOT what I asked. Should they care about the feelings of others?

NOT should they care about the feelings of others enough to do what they want to do? NOT should transsexuals do what is felt to be the correct action based upon the transsexual's feeling about the matter. The Golden Rule is based upon other's feelings, NOT what you think they should be feeling.

Blanket statement, since you brought up the feelings of others, and the golden rule...

If someone does not feel comfortable about a transsexual in their bathroom, do their feelings matter?

JimHackerMP wrote:that's what you seem to have boiled it down to Danivon: the genitalia. In fact, you called this threat "The Genital Police".

My title is ironic. Bbauska has explicitly said that he thinks access should be legally determined by genitalia.

I would say it is more nuanced than that, and laws is not we really need.

bbauska wrote:Should a transsexual care about the feelings and concerns of others?

to the same extent as anyone else should
But should we make such feelings a concern of law?

And quite simply, if a transsexual just uses the bathroom in the way it is intended to be used (for going to the toilet in, and cleaning one's hands, maybe fixing one's face and hair in the mirror), what harm does it do if they are in the "wrong" toilet for their genitals?

And if someone abuses the access transsexuals might have for other reasons, is that abuse not already both illegal and socially unacceptable?

Police question people differently all the time. I am sure there in no robotic response.

I think the point is, if you make it about what genitals people have, along the line they may have to be made to show them to a cop to prove things either way.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Should a transsexual care about the feelings and concerns of others?

to the same extent as anyone else should
But should we make such feelings a concern of law?

That is why the Golden Rule is set up that way. It is a TWO way street and it appears to me that one side is taking up the whole road.

I am fine with a unisex bathroom (one-seater).
I am fine with post-operative access for transsexuals

Considering the cooperative nature of the Golden Rule, what conciliation do you recommend?

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Should a transsexual care about the feelings and concerns of others?

to the same extent as anyone else should
But should we make such feelings a concern of law?

That is why the Golden Rule is set up that way. It is a TWO way street and it appears to me that one side is taking up the whole road.

I am fine with a unisex bathroom (one-seater).
I am fine with post-operative access for transsexuals

Considering the cooperative nature of the Golden Rule, what conciliation do you recommend?

That people stop worrying about other people's genitals?

That we don't try to impose through law a simple and arbitrary line.

And to your suggestion, that it means pre-op, but considerably down the road transsexuals would look like they are in the "wrong" bathroom. It is more than just a bit of surgery - that is preceded by a long period of not just acting and dressing like their identity gender, but hormone therapy that alters their bodies.

bbauska

Blanket statement, since you brought up the feelings of others, and the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is based upon other's feelings, NOT what you think they should be feeling.

I think you have muddled the meaning of the Golden Rule.

One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive or directive form).[1]
One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form).[1]
What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathic or responsive form).[1]

There is no emphasis on "how the other person feels."
It is about respectful behaviour.

You can't always be sure how a person feels. A black person using a public bathroom might know that the guy with the confederate flag on his baseball cat might not be comfortable using the same wash room as he.... but that doesn't mean he should refrain from using the wash room because of that persons "feelings".

What you seem to be saying is that because some people might be upset using the same bathroom as someone that they suspect is trans gendered.... that all trans gendered people should respect these people's hurt feelings and pee somewhere else...
Although how someone who looks as male as say Chaz Bono would have trouble following the letter of the law and entering a women's washroom as that's sure to disturb some women. Probably their feelings even..
What the Golden rule should tell you is that all parties should treat the other with the common courtesies that respect their privacy within the public use facility.
And if they do, everything will be fine.

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.

Wisdom, Geo. Wisdom.

I am done with this as well. RickyP can bring up the Golden rule, follow it with Empathy being developed; and tells me it has nothing to do with feelings, but with acting as you wish to be treated.

I'm out. I can spend my time more effectively than this. Have a nice day.