In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On December 05 2015 07:44 Plansix wrote: So it amounts to the school saying:
"Wait, we need to treat other transgender students the same way, not just this one? WHAT!!!!!?!?!?!?!? What do you mean that is how civil rights works? We can't threaten to litigate each time this comes up to discourage transgender kids from coming forward?"
Also, I don't get the concern. Are they worried the evil transgender child will check out the girl/boys when they are changing? I got bad news for them, gay students exist and they use the same locker room as straight students. This dark horrible reality has been fact since there were locker rooms.
Do you not feel any conflict with your vigorous extensions of "sexual harassment" stance? What about the feelings of those being oogled. Ha. Anyways, people need to stop being so prudish - if you feel insecure / want privacy, there's always the stalls. I'm all for some COED locker rooms / bathrooms as well. You learn to adapt a who gives a fuck attitude after playing HS sports (wrestling especially...hahaha + don't get me started about boot camp and military barracks in general lmao), about this type of stuff, but of course you would probably balk at coed ideas....
If any of them start sexually harassing others then that can be addressed in the exact same way it would be if a gay student was sexually harassing or sexually harassed by someone who they shared a locker room with.
This fight isn't an elaborate way to oogle girls.
Feel free to use this argument as well about gun rights, but I'll be holding my breath. It just seems to me that there are so many people who advocate this "preventative" non-sense as if that's justification for their positions to revoke rights. I just wanted to put people on record that espouse this preventive ideology in one sphere, but not in another sphere, which you know, is a conflict with their personal preference espousal. In any event, I stand by my people are too prudish here in the US, and treating people like kids until they're well into their adulthood. Hell, we used to have "kids" fight in wars when they were younger than 13 (James Farragut comes to mind).
Could you explain what you mean by this? I have no idea how we got from allowing trans people to use the right facilities to sending James Farragut to war over his right to bear arms.
1) You justify revoking gun rights using preventative ideology instead of the laws all ready on the books (e.g. murder, larceny, manslaughter, et. al) that cover aggressive violent acts 2) You then crucify preventative ideology (in this case, sexual harassment worries - as this has been expanded to ludicrous levels in recent years) in this case with your post that there are all ready sexual harassment laws on the books so no need to prevent this transgender person from using the girls restroom/locker room.
You don't see your own cognitive dissonance here? Purposefully perhaps.
My second point was a general observation of contemporary society and its mores. You see shit like parents getting arrested and their kids taken by CPS for letting them play outside by themselves and shit, and the whole helicopter parent and radical safety at all costs ideology that is so prevalent today that treats kids like property instead of living breathing human beings with their own rights. This was in my lambasting of those who want to shelter their children from "the world" so to speak. It creates a very unhealthy environment and generation - which you see with the 15-22 year olds (safe zones, anti free-speech, censorship of different values, etc. that was just big news not that long ago on insert X and Y campus here).
By the way I agree with your argument - that there shouldn't be a preventative rider argument to stop a person from exercising their rights - now hopefully you will take a moment to reflect and perhaps apply that principle universally, but I don't hold out hope.
PS: My Farragut reference was how Americans used to be raised and treated, to how they are now like spoiled, sheltered, babies far into their 20s. It's really quite the phenomena.
I really don't see the comparison, sorry. If some Americans were born with firearms and I was advocating segregating those Americans in a special ghetto then maybe the comparison would be apt. But failing that I don't see how the threat of a penis is comparable to a loaded gun and both equally in need of taking away. She was born with a penis but she still has civil rights. If some Americans were born with firearms attached to them I'd defend their civil rights too and rather than segregate them I'd rely upon our laws against the misuse of those firearms. In both cases segregation would be the greater of two evils, in both cases giving the person their civil rights would be the correct choice. But I don't accept the comparison of a loaded gun to a loaded penis. They're just not the same.
As for sheltering, every generation that has ever existed has accused the next of being babied and overly lazy. It's basically a sign of progress. If it's any consolation I'm sure people said the same about your generation.
Are you obtuse? I'm not talking about comparisons vis a vis a transgender person and a gun, I'm talking about the PRINCIPLES used in defense of rights. You're against preventative ideology in this case with your comment that there are sexual harassment laws on the books if he (she?) indeed commits these acts, but you are blind to the fact that there are all ready laws against murder, robbery, etc. that deal with violent aggressive acts, but you put forth a preventative ideology in the case of guns - that they need to be banned/restricted to prevent murder, robbery, etc. HELLO. You don't see your dissonance here? Come on, man.
Welp according to my Facebook feed we now have people randomly accusing Middle Eastern individuals of having bombs on subway trains in Boston then when they demonstrate otherwise not apologizing. Guess they're subscribing to the Danglars school of counter-terrorism.
As for locker rooms, if there's a designated space for the trans individual to change (which is the current settlement for the district) it should be easy for anyone uncomfortable with having that individual see them change or uncomfortable with seeing that individual change avoid either thing happening right? It's probably not ideal or optimal but for now when that is a real concern(though I have seen no evidence that it is a concern in this case) it seems reasonable.
On December 05 2015 08:32 AngryMag wrote: I guess the the former dúde will have enough of SJW quickly as soon as a female entering the same bath room will blame him for sexual harassment, justified or not won't even matter.
Yup.. Pretty much this.
Either way, that person won't be happy.
edit: that being said, while i do not necessarily agree with parents arguing "i don't want a penis near my daughter when she changes", i do understand it. This is not something you just ignore, for that to work out you need to know the former guy, now female. That certainly sucks for the transgender person, but completely ignoring parents concerns can't be reasonable either. And while i would never say "he just wanna see teen boobies", there will be kids who're gonna do that. So there's that.
We don't put up with "I don't want blacks near my daughter". We tell them that while we recognize their concerns we don't share them and won't change the school system to reflect their values.
I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.
What did you think the parents who were against integrated schools were afraid of? Jesus.
News just in. Racists think the black thugs are going to rape their white daughters.
The fear of rape was far, far more of an issue for integrating schools than it is now. Additionally their daughters are probably already fucking boys and probably not that into the girl who was born with a penis, unless, you know, they're into that. No girl in a locker room is going to be going about her innocent business until, for the first time ever, she sees a penis and just has to have it inside of her immediately and damn the consequences. Seeing a penis isn't addictive, they're not going to see a glimpse of it in a locker room and escalate to bukkake a few weeks later. That's not a real fear.
If you find your daughter pregnant it's no good blaming the penis she glimpsed in the locker room as if it was some sort of gateway drug.
This is in the locker room, where children are essentially getting naked with each other. It's not a great analogy to allowing fully-clothed black boys to sit next to fully-clothed white girls in a supervised classroom, and it's not a great analogy to having girls of different races changing together... it's the combination of different sexes + a room made for changing and showering that makes it less analogous. Obviously, racism and sex/ gender discrimination are both examples of bigotry, but they don't parallel in every way.
I wasn't suggesting that the same sex different race changing rooms were the issue. I was suggesting that the very presence of the virtuous white girls would send the negros into an animalistic rage and expose our children to all sorts of filth. You see the negro doesn't care if the girl is fully clothed, an inch of flesh is enough to provoke him. But he is cunning, he'll wait until the teacher's back is turned or corner your daughters in the hallways or the playground.
Racists had very real fears about integration. The argument that "there will be a teacher there sometimes" would not have settled the matter for them. I would argue that they felt the threat of the presence of the African American children, even without mixed race mixed gender locker rooms, would be far greater than the threat felt by parents today.
On December 05 2015 08:32 AngryMag wrote: I guess the the former dúde will have enough of SJW quickly as soon as a female entering the same bath room will blame him for sexual harassment, justified or not won't even matter.
Yup.. Pretty much this.
Either way, that person won't be happy.
edit: that being said, while i do not necessarily agree with parents arguing "i don't want a penis near my daughter when she changes", i do understand it. This is not something you just ignore, for that to work out you need to know the former guy, now female. That certainly sucks for the transgender person, but completely ignoring parents concerns can't be reasonable either. And while i would never say "he just wanna see teen boobies", there will be kids who're gonna do that. So there's that.
We don't put up with "I don't want blacks near my daughter". We tell them that while we recognize their concerns we don't share them and won't change the school system to reflect their values.
I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.
She will be done the second some bad teen cries "sexual harassment". Her life will be destroyed by the accusation alone, regardless from wrong or right. What do you think who will be seen as the pervy? The dude wearing women clothes or blondie with tears in her eyes ( that is not necessarily my view but this is how it would be seen by general society).
So what are you advocating for? Forcing a girl to use the boys locker room? Building dozens of different locker rooms? (This could actually work, just have stalls for everyone instead of two big locker rooms. More expensive though) Just ignoring the whole situation and hoping it goes away on its own?
Fact is, it is hard to be trans. Do we really have to try to make it harder for them? I generally like the idea of compassion. Just be nice to people.
As long as biologically a dude= guy's bathroom When biologically 100% girl= girls bathroom
Any other suggestion will open up the transgender's destruction by wrong or right accusations by other teens. What do you think? This decision will hardly be unanimous and without opposition. Some teenage girl might just scream sexual harassment ala the dude grabbed my tits and then his life on that institution will be over.
Please define biological gender and please, make it all encompassing so that we can finally have no grey, just black and white.
As I wrote, biological sex. As long as either primary or secondary sex characteristics of a male= men's bathroom
As soon as primary and secondary sex characteristics of female0women's bathroom.
transition period while not being the finished article men's bathroom.
On December 05 2015 07:44 Plansix wrote: So it amounts to the school saying:
"Wait, we need to treat other transgender students the same way, not just this one? WHAT!!!!!?!?!?!?!? What do you mean that is how civil rights works? We can't threaten to litigate each time this comes up to discourage transgender kids from coming forward?"
Also, I don't get the concern. Are they worried the evil transgender child will check out the girl/boys when they are changing? I got bad news for them, gay students exist and they use the same locker room as straight students. This dark horrible reality has been fact since there were locker rooms.
Do you not feel any conflict with your vigorous extensions of "sexual harassment" stance? What about the feelings of those being oogled. Ha. Anyways, people need to stop being so prudish - if you feel insecure / want privacy, there's always the stalls. I'm all for some COED locker rooms / bathrooms as well. You learn to adapt a who gives a fuck attitude after playing HS sports (wrestling especially...hahaha + don't get me started about boot camp and military barracks in general lmao), about this type of stuff, but of course you would probably balk at coed ideas....
If any of them start sexually harassing others then that can be addressed in the exact same way it would be if a gay student was sexually harassing or sexually harassed by someone who they shared a locker room with.
This fight isn't an elaborate way to oogle girls.
Feel free to use this argument as well about gun rights, but I'll be holding my breath. It just seems to me that there are so many people who advocate this "preventative" non-sense as if that's justification for their positions to revoke rights. I just wanted to put people on record that espouse this preventive ideology in one sphere, but not in another sphere, which you know, is a conflict with their personal preference espousal. In any event, I stand by my people are too prudish here in the US, and treating people like kids until they're well into their adulthood. Hell, we used to have "kids" fight in wars when they were younger than 13 (James Farragut comes to mind).
Could you explain what you mean by this? I have no idea how we got from allowing trans people to use the right facilities to sending James Farragut to war over his right to bear arms.
1) You justify revoking gun rights using preventative ideology instead of the laws all ready on the books (e.g. murder, larceny, manslaughter, et. al) that cover aggressive violent acts 2) You then crucify preventative ideology (in this case, sexual harassment worries - as this has been expanded to ludicrous levels in recent years) in this case with your post that there are all ready sexual harassment laws on the books so no need to prevent this transgender person from using the girls restroom/locker room.
You don't see your own cognitive dissonance here? Purposefully perhaps.
My second point was a general observation of contemporary society and its mores. You see shit like parents getting arrested and their kids taken by CPS for letting them play outside by themselves and shit, and the whole helicopter parent and radical safety at all costs ideology that is so prevalent today that treats kids like property instead of living breathing human beings with their own rights. This was in my lambasting of those who want to shelter their children from "the world" so to speak. It creates a very unhealthy environment and generation - which you see with the 15-22 year olds (safe zones, anti free-speech, censorship of different values, etc. that was just big news not that long ago on insert X and Y campus here).
By the way I agree with your argument - that there shouldn't be a preventative rider argument to stop a person from exercising their rights - now hopefully you will take a moment to reflect and perhaps apply that principle universally, but I don't hold out hope.
PS: My Farragut reference was how Americans used to be raised and treated, to how they are now like spoiled, sheltered, babies far into their 20s. It's really quite the phenomena.
I really don't see the comparison, sorry. If some Americans were born with firearms and I was advocating segregating those Americans in a special ghetto then maybe the comparison would be apt. But failing that I don't see how the threat of a penis is comparable to a loaded gun and both equally in need of taking away. She was born with a penis but she still has civil rights. If some Americans were born with firearms attached to them I'd defend their civil rights too and rather than segregate them I'd rely upon our laws against the misuse of those firearms. In both cases segregation would be the greater of two evils, in both cases giving the person their civil rights would be the correct choice. But I don't accept the comparison of a loaded gun to a loaded penis. They're just not the same.
As for sheltering, every generation that has ever existed has accused the next of being babied and overly lazy. It's basically a sign of progress. If it's any consolation I'm sure people said the same about your generation.
Are you obtuse? I'm not talking about comparisons vis a vis a transgender person and a gun, I'm talking about the PRINCIPLES used in defense of rights. You're against preventative ideology in this case with your comment that there are sexual harassment laws on the books if he (she?) indeed commits these acts, but you are blind to the fact that there are all ready laws against murder, robbery, etc. that deal with violent aggressive acts, but you put forth a preventative ideology in the case of guns - that they need to be banned/restricted to prevent murder, robbery, etc. HELLO. You don't see your dissonance here? Come on, man.
I don't see guns as a natural right comparable with body parts. I just don't. I believe access to guns is up for debate, we argue about what is feasible, the costs, the benefits, if it's a good idea. Not being segregated because of the body you were born with, I think that one is a right.
If I believed guns were an absolute right then I would agree with you. I would think that inadequate laws that work around the right would be better than infringing the right. But I don't think that. I disagree with your premise which is why I don't find the two comparable.
On December 05 2015 08:32 AngryMag wrote: I guess the the former dúde will have enough of SJW quickly as soon as a female entering the same bath room will blame him for sexual harassment, justified or not won't even matter.
Yup.. Pretty much this.
Either way, that person won't be happy.
edit: that being said, while i do not necessarily agree with parents arguing "i don't want a penis near my daughter when she changes", i do understand it. This is not something you just ignore, for that to work out you need to know the former guy, now female. That certainly sucks for the transgender person, but completely ignoring parents concerns can't be reasonable either. And while i would never say "he just wanna see teen boobies", there will be kids who're gonna do that. So there's that.
We don't put up with "I don't want blacks near my daughter". We tell them that while we recognize their concerns we don't share them and won't change the school system to reflect their values.
I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.
She will be done the second some bad teen cries "sexual harassment". Her life will be destroyed by the accusation alone, regardless from wrong or right. What do you think who will be seen as the pervy? The dude wearing women clothes or blondie with tears in her eyes ( that is not necessarily my view but this is how it would be seen by general society).
So what are you advocating for? Forcing a girl to use the boys locker room? Building dozens of different locker rooms? (This could actually work, just have stalls for everyone instead of two big locker rooms. More expensive though) Just ignoring the whole situation and hoping it goes away on its own?
Fact is, it is hard to be trans. Do we really have to try to make it harder for them? I generally like the idea of compassion. Just be nice to people.
As long as biologically a dude= guy's bathroom When biologically 100% girl= girls bathroom
Any other suggestion will open up the transgender's destruction by wrong or right accusations by other teens. What do you think? This decision will hardly be unanimous and without opposition. Some teenage girl might just scream sexual harassment ala the dude grabbed my tits and then his life on that institution will be over.
Please define biological gender and please, make it all encompassing so that we can finally have no grey, just black and white.
As I wrote, biological sex. As long as either primary or secondary sex characteristics of a male= men's bathroom
As soon as primary and secondary sex characteristics of female0women's bathroom.
transition period while not being the finished article men's bathroom.
Opposite if you transition from femalte to male.
Unfortunately for you it's not that simple. People get born with all sorts. It's not an either or. It goes from multiple vaginas through mix and match and then over to multiple penises on the other extreme. Please define it again, and remember, no grey areas.
On December 05 2015 09:38 TheTenthDoc wrote: Welp according to my Facebook feed we now have people randomly accusing Middle Eastern individuals of having bombs on subway trains in Boston. Guess he's subscribing to the Danglars school of counter-terrorism.
People in hysteria about a group of people with no navy, no airforce, no capability of overthrowing the US Government, and a group that can't even take half of a sorry ass country (military wise) as Syria. Quake in your boots - give the Government more power! Follow Hollande's lead - no more due process..who needs warrants anymore. I'm sure the National Security apparatchik's will be out in force in no time. Also, can't let this go to waste, so might as well push the gun control narrative as well. Hooo-ray! Rights free by 2035.
On December 05 2015 07:44 Plansix wrote: So it amounts to the school saying:
"Wait, we need to treat other transgender students the same way, not just this one? WHAT!!!!!?!?!?!?!? What do you mean that is how civil rights works? We can't threaten to litigate each time this comes up to discourage transgender kids from coming forward?"
Also, I don't get the concern. Are they worried the evil transgender child will check out the girl/boys when they are changing? I got bad news for them, gay students exist and they use the same locker room as straight students. This dark horrible reality has been fact since there were locker rooms.
Do you not feel any conflict with your vigorous extensions of "sexual harassment" stance? What about the feelings of those being oogled. Ha. Anyways, people need to stop being so prudish - if you feel insecure / want privacy, there's always the stalls. I'm all for some COED locker rooms / bathrooms as well. You learn to adapt a who gives a fuck attitude after playing HS sports (wrestling especially...hahaha + don't get me started about boot camp and military barracks in general lmao), about this type of stuff, but of course you would probably balk at coed ideas....
If any of them start sexually harassing others then that can be addressed in the exact same way it would be if a gay student was sexually harassing or sexually harassed by someone who they shared a locker room with.
This fight isn't an elaborate way to oogle girls.
Feel free to use this argument as well about gun rights, but I'll be holding my breath. It just seems to me that there are so many people who advocate this "preventative" non-sense as if that's justification for their positions to revoke rights. I just wanted to put people on record that espouse this preventive ideology in one sphere, but not in another sphere, which you know, is a conflict with their personal preference espousal. In any event, I stand by my people are too prudish here in the US, and treating people like kids until they're well into their adulthood. Hell, we used to have "kids" fight in wars when they were younger than 13 (James Farragut comes to mind).
Could you explain what you mean by this? I have no idea how we got from allowing trans people to use the right facilities to sending James Farragut to war over his right to bear arms.
1) You justify revoking gun rights using preventative ideology instead of the laws all ready on the books (e.g. murder, larceny, manslaughter, et. al) that cover aggressive violent acts 2) You then crucify preventative ideology (in this case, sexual harassment worries - as this has been expanded to ludicrous levels in recent years) in this case with your post that there are all ready sexual harassment laws on the books so no need to prevent this transgender person from using the girls restroom/locker room.
You don't see your own cognitive dissonance here? Purposefully perhaps.
My second point was a general observation of contemporary society and its mores. You see shit like parents getting arrested and their kids taken by CPS for letting them play outside by themselves and shit, and the whole helicopter parent and radical safety at all costs ideology that is so prevalent today that treats kids like property instead of living breathing human beings with their own rights. This was in my lambasting of those who want to shelter their children from "the world" so to speak. It creates a very unhealthy environment and generation - which you see with the 15-22 year olds (safe zones, anti free-speech, censorship of different values, etc. that was just big news not that long ago on insert X and Y campus here).
By the way I agree with your argument - that there shouldn't be a preventative rider argument to stop a person from exercising their rights - now hopefully you will take a moment to reflect and perhaps apply that principle universally, but I don't hold out hope.
PS: My Farragut reference was how Americans used to be raised and treated, to how they are now like spoiled, sheltered, babies far into their 20s. It's really quite the phenomena.
I really don't see the comparison, sorry. If some Americans were born with firearms and I was advocating segregating those Americans in a special ghetto then maybe the comparison would be apt. But failing that I don't see how the threat of a penis is comparable to a loaded gun and both equally in need of taking away. She was born with a penis but she still has civil rights. If some Americans were born with firearms attached to them I'd defend their civil rights too and rather than segregate them I'd rely upon our laws against the misuse of those firearms. In both cases segregation would be the greater of two evils, in both cases giving the person their civil rights would be the correct choice. But I don't accept the comparison of a loaded gun to a loaded penis. They're just not the same.
As for sheltering, every generation that has ever existed has accused the next of being babied and overly lazy. It's basically a sign of progress. If it's any consolation I'm sure people said the same about your generation.
Are you obtuse? I'm not talking about comparisons vis a vis a transgender person and a gun, I'm talking about the PRINCIPLES used in defense of rights. You're against preventative ideology in this case with your comment that there are sexual harassment laws on the books if he (she?) indeed commits these acts, but you are blind to the fact that there are all ready laws against murder, robbery, etc. that deal with violent aggressive acts, but you put forth a preventative ideology in the case of guns - that they need to be banned/restricted to prevent murder, robbery, etc. HELLO. You don't see your dissonance here? Come on, man.
I don't see guns as a natural right comparable with body parts. I just don't. I believe access to guns is up for debate, we argue about what is feasible, the costs, the benefits, if it's a good idea. Not being segregated because of the body you were born with, I think that one is a right.
If I believed guns were an absolute right then I would agree with you. I would think that inadequate laws that work around the right would be better than infringing the right. But I don't think that. I disagree with your premise which is why I don't find the two comparable.
Only for the plebs I suppose - you don't question the Governments right to be armed...Anyways, you still don't understand, so I'll leave it be.
On December 05 2015 08:32 AngryMag wrote: I guess the the former dúde will have enough of SJW quickly as soon as a female entering the same bath room will blame him for sexual harassment, justified or not won't even matter.
Yup.. Pretty much this.
Either way, that person won't be happy.
edit: that being said, while i do not necessarily agree with parents arguing "i don't want a penis near my daughter when she changes", i do understand it. This is not something you just ignore, for that to work out you need to know the former guy, now female. That certainly sucks for the transgender person, but completely ignoring parents concerns can't be reasonable either. And while i would never say "he just wanna see teen boobies", there will be kids who're gonna do that. So there's that.
We don't put up with "I don't want blacks near my daughter". We tell them that while we recognize their concerns we don't share them and won't change the school system to reflect their values.
I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.
She will be done the second some bad teen cries "sexual harassment". Her life will be destroyed by the accusation alone, regardless from wrong or right. What do you think who will be seen as the pervy? The dude wearing women clothes or blondie with tears in her eyes ( that is not necessarily my view but this is how it would be seen by general society).
So what are you advocating for? Forcing a girl to use the boys locker room? Building dozens of different locker rooms? (This could actually work, just have stalls for everyone instead of two big locker rooms. More expensive though) Just ignoring the whole situation and hoping it goes away on its own?
Fact is, it is hard to be trans. Do we really have to try to make it harder for them? I generally like the idea of compassion. Just be nice to people.
As long as biologically a dude= guy's bathroom When biologically 100% girl= girls bathroom
Any other suggestion will open up the transgender's destruction by wrong or right accusations by other teens. What do you think? This decision will hardly be unanimous and without opposition. Some teenage girl might just scream sexual harassment ala the dude grabbed my tits and then his life on that institution will be over.
Please define biological gender and please, make it all encompassing so that we can finally have no grey, just black and white.
As I wrote, biological sex. As long as either primary or secondary sex characteristics of a male= men's bathroom
As soon as primary and secondary sex characteristics of female0women's bathroom.
transition period while not being the finished article men's bathroom.
Opposite if you transition from femalte to male.
Unfortunately for you it's not that simple. People get born with all sorts. It's not an either or. Please try again.
Since you apparently have all the knowledge, apart from what she identifies with (it doesn't matter at all anyway) - what's her legal status? Do the records state male, or female? Is she recognized by the state as a female?
On December 05 2015 08:32 AngryMag wrote: I guess the the former dúde will have enough of SJW quickly as soon as a female entering the same bath room will blame him for sexual harassment, justified or not won't even matter.
Yup.. Pretty much this.
Either way, that person won't be happy.
edit: that being said, while i do not necessarily agree with parents arguing "i don't want a penis near my daughter when she changes", i do understand it. This is not something you just ignore, for that to work out you need to know the former guy, now female. That certainly sucks for the transgender person, but completely ignoring parents concerns can't be reasonable either. And while i would never say "he just wanna see teen boobies", there will be kids who're gonna do that. So there's that.
We don't put up with "I don't want blacks near my daughter". We tell them that while we recognize their concerns we don't share them and won't change the school system to reflect their values.
I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.
She will be done the second some bad teen cries "sexual harassment". Her life will be destroyed by the accusation alone, regardless from wrong or right. What do you think who will be seen as the pervy? The dude wearing women clothes or blondie with tears in her eyes ( that is not necessarily my view but this is how it would be seen by general society).
So what are you advocating for? Forcing a girl to use the boys locker room? Building dozens of different locker rooms? (This could actually work, just have stalls for everyone instead of two big locker rooms. More expensive though) Just ignoring the whole situation and hoping it goes away on its own?
Fact is, it is hard to be trans. Do we really have to try to make it harder for them? I generally like the idea of compassion. Just be nice to people.
As long as biologically a dude= guy's bathroom When biologically 100% girl= girls bathroom
Any other suggestion will open up the transgender's destruction by wrong or right accusations by other teens. What do you think? This decision will hardly be unanimous and without opposition. Some teenage girl might just scream sexual harassment ala the dude grabbed my tits and then his life on that institution will be over.
Please define biological gender and please, make it all encompassing so that we can finally have no grey, just black and white.
As I wrote, biological sex. As long as either primary or secondary sex characteristics of a male= men's bathroom
As soon as primary and secondary sex characteristics of female0women's bathroom.
transition period while not being the finished article men's bathroom.
Opposite if you transition from femalte to male.
Unfortunately for you it's not that simple. People get born with all sorts. It's not an either or. Please try again.
Other dude is right, you are being or pretend to be obtuse. If you are a hermaphrodit you visit the bathroom of your dominant sex/ sexual identity.. Not that would be what we are talking about in this specific thread.
And it is not unfortunate for me, I don't care. So far no one over here really turned this into an issue aaand I am in the workforce where even fewer people care to invest time and ressources into an non issue that won't even concern 1% of the workforce. If the need arises people will just find an individual solution.
On December 05 2015 09:38 TheTenthDoc wrote: Welp according to my Facebook feed we now have people randomly accusing Middle Eastern individuals of having bombs on subway trains in Boston. Guess he's subscribing to the Danglars school of counter-terrorism.
People in hysteria about a group of people with no navy, no airforce, no capability of overthrowing the US Government, and a group that can't even take half of a sorry ass country (military wise) as Syria. Quake in your boots - give the Government more power! Follow Hollande's lead - no more due process..who needs warrants anymore. I'm sure the National Security apparatchik's will be out in force in no time. Also, can't let this go to waste, so might as well push the gun control narrative as well. Hooo-ray! Rights free by 2035.
I mean people got hysterical about Ebola, a disease that posed virtually 0 threat to the United States, to the point of quarantining healthcare workers against all scientific evidence showing that it was unnecessary, so I guess it shouldn't really be that surprising that people are going crazy over this. But it just absolutely sucks to be an individual in this country who looks even vaguely Middle Eastern right now.
(also checking your bags at the gate is probably the best way to not lose them but that's not really the point is it)
On December 05 2015 08:32 AngryMag wrote: I guess the the former dúde will have enough of SJW quickly as soon as a female entering the same bath room will blame him for sexual harassment, justified or not won't even matter.
Yup.. Pretty much this.
Either way, that person won't be happy.
edit: that being said, while i do not necessarily agree with parents arguing "i don't want a penis near my daughter when she changes", i do understand it. This is not something you just ignore, for that to work out you need to know the former guy, now female. That certainly sucks for the transgender person, but completely ignoring parents concerns can't be reasonable either. And while i would never say "he just wanna see teen boobies", there will be kids who're gonna do that. So there's that.
We don't put up with "I don't want blacks near my daughter". We tell them that while we recognize their concerns we don't share them and won't change the school system to reflect their values.
I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.
She will be done the second some bad teen cries "sexual harassment". Her life will be destroyed by the accusation alone, regardless from wrong or right. What do you think who will be seen as the pervy? The dude wearing women clothes or blondie with tears in her eyes ( that is not necessarily my view but this is how it would be seen by general society).
So what are you advocating for? Forcing a girl to use the boys locker room? Building dozens of different locker rooms? (This could actually work, just have stalls for everyone instead of two big locker rooms. More expensive though) Just ignoring the whole situation and hoping it goes away on its own?
Fact is, it is hard to be trans. Do we really have to try to make it harder for them? I generally like the idea of compassion. Just be nice to people.
As long as biologically a dude= guy's bathroom When biologically 100% girl= girls bathroom
Any other suggestion will open up the transgender's destruction by wrong or right accusations by other teens. What do you think? This decision will hardly be unanimous and without opposition. Some teenage girl might just scream sexual harassment ala the dude grabbed my tits and then his life on that institution will be over.
Please define biological gender and please, make it all encompassing so that we can finally have no grey, just black and white.
As I wrote, biological sex. As long as either primary or secondary sex characteristics of a male= men's bathroom
As soon as primary and secondary sex characteristics of female0women's bathroom.
transition period while not being the finished article men's bathroom.
Opposite if you transition from femalte to male.
Unfortunately for you it's not that simple. People get born with all sorts. It's not an either or. Please try again.
I am seriously confused by your point.
Do you have a definition, or do you merely reject definitions? Or is your definition what a person feels?
Because it seems to go like this:
Person A: Concerns about fake trans people. Person B: There is no reason to be concerned, being trans sucks because they have high hurdles to prove that they are trans, and they have no special rights. Thus, no one would be fake trans. A: Aren't you trying to change all those things. B: Yes. A: And when you succeed why wouldn't people be fake trans? B: ...You are a racist.
On December 05 2015 07:44 Plansix wrote: So it amounts to the school saying:
"Wait, we need to treat other transgender students the same way, not just this one? WHAT!!!!!?!?!?!?!? What do you mean that is how civil rights works? We can't threaten to litigate each time this comes up to discourage transgender kids from coming forward?"
Also, I don't get the concern. Are they worried the evil transgender child will check out the girl/boys when they are changing? I got bad news for them, gay students exist and they use the same locker room as straight students. This dark horrible reality has been fact since there were locker rooms.
Do you not feel any conflict with your vigorous extensions of "sexual harassment" stance? What about the feelings of those being oogled. Ha. Anyways, people need to stop being so prudish - if you feel insecure / want privacy, there's always the stalls. I'm all for some COED locker rooms / bathrooms as well. You learn to adapt a who gives a fuck attitude after playing HS sports (wrestling especially...hahaha + don't get me started about boot camp and military barracks in general lmao), about this type of stuff, but of course you would probably balk at coed ideas....
If any of them start sexually harassing others then that can be addressed in the exact same way it would be if a gay student was sexually harassing or sexually harassed by someone who they shared a locker room with.
This fight isn't an elaborate way to oogle girls.
Feel free to use this argument as well about gun rights, but I'll be holding my breath. It just seems to me that there are so many people who advocate this "preventative" non-sense as if that's justification for their positions to revoke rights. I just wanted to put people on record that espouse this preventive ideology in one sphere, but not in another sphere, which you know, is a conflict with their personal preference espousal. In any event, I stand by my people are too prudish here in the US, and treating people like kids until they're well into their adulthood. Hell, we used to have "kids" fight in wars when they were younger than 13 (James Farragut comes to mind).
Could you explain what you mean by this? I have no idea how we got from allowing trans people to use the right facilities to sending James Farragut to war over his right to bear arms.
1) You justify revoking gun rights using preventative ideology instead of the laws all ready on the books (e.g. murder, larceny, manslaughter, et. al) that cover aggressive violent acts 2) You then crucify preventative ideology (in this case, sexual harassment worries - as this has been expanded to ludicrous levels in recent years) in this case with your post that there are all ready sexual harassment laws on the books so no need to prevent this transgender person from using the girls restroom/locker room.
You don't see your own cognitive dissonance here? Purposefully perhaps.
My second point was a general observation of contemporary society and its mores. You see shit like parents getting arrested and their kids taken by CPS for letting them play outside by themselves and shit, and the whole helicopter parent and radical safety at all costs ideology that is so prevalent today that treats kids like property instead of living breathing human beings with their own rights. This was in my lambasting of those who want to shelter their children from "the world" so to speak. It creates a very unhealthy environment and generation - which you see with the 15-22 year olds (safe zones, anti free-speech, censorship of different values, etc. that was just big news not that long ago on insert X and Y campus here).
By the way I agree with your argument - that there shouldn't be a preventative rider argument to stop a person from exercising their rights - now hopefully you will take a moment to reflect and perhaps apply that principle universally, but I don't hold out hope.
PS: My Farragut reference was how Americans used to be raised and treated, to how they are now like spoiled, sheltered, babies far into their 20s. It's really quite the phenomena.
I really don't see the comparison, sorry. If some Americans were born with firearms and I was advocating segregating those Americans in a special ghetto then maybe the comparison would be apt. But failing that I don't see how the threat of a penis is comparable to a loaded gun and both equally in need of taking away. She was born with a penis but she still has civil rights. If some Americans were born with firearms attached to them I'd defend their civil rights too and rather than segregate them I'd rely upon our laws against the misuse of those firearms. In both cases segregation would be the greater of two evils, in both cases giving the person their civil rights would be the correct choice. But I don't accept the comparison of a loaded gun to a loaded penis. They're just not the same.
As for sheltering, every generation that has ever existed has accused the next of being babied and overly lazy. It's basically a sign of progress. If it's any consolation I'm sure people said the same about your generation.
Are you obtuse? I'm not talking about comparisons vis a vis a transgender person and a gun, I'm talking about the PRINCIPLES used in defense of rights. You're against preventative ideology in this case with your comment that there are sexual harassment laws on the books if he (she?) indeed commits these acts, but you are blind to the fact that there are all ready laws against murder, robbery, etc. that deal with violent aggressive acts, but you put forth a preventative ideology in the case of guns - that they need to be banned/restricted to prevent murder, robbery, etc. HELLO. You don't see your dissonance here? Come on, man.
I don't see guns as a natural right comparable with body parts. I just don't. I believe access to guns is up for debate, we argue about what is feasible, the costs, the benefits, if it's a good idea. Not being segregated because of the body you were born with, I think that one is a right.
If I believed guns were an absolute right then I would agree with you. I would think that inadequate laws that work around the right would be better than infringing the right. But I don't think that. I disagree with your premise which is why I don't find the two comparable.
Only for the plebs I suppose - you don't question the Governments right to be armed...Anyways, you still don't understand, so I'll leave it be.
I understand perfectly. The problem is we have different starting assumptions. I believe that trans rights exist and gun rights do not. You believe both exist. You, considering only your own beliefs, believe that my argument presents a contradiction. I have explained that while I acknowledge that if I shared your starting assumptions there would be a contradiction I do not share them.
I also don't believe the government has a right to be armed. I believe it's not a right, not for anyone, individual or government. I believe the people acting collectively can empower their representatives to use guns and I believe that they can empower their representatives to not use guns in the exact same way they can empower themselves. I believe guns and rights have no overlap, it is something that is up for debate, something that can be granted or not granted by the democracy. It is not intrinsic. You disagree and that's fine. But just so you understand my view, I don't think gun and rights belong in the same sentence unless it reads "there is no such thing as". I do not believe the government has a right to guns.
I also share your fears about popular overreaction the insignificant threat of ISIS.
edit: that being said, while i do not necessarily agree with parents arguing "i don't want a penis near my daughter when she changes", i do understand it. This is not something you just ignore, for that to work out you need to know the former guy, now female. That certainly sucks for the transgender person, but completely ignoring parents concerns can't be reasonable either. And while i would never say "he just wanna see teen boobies", there will be kids who're gonna do that. So there's that.
We don't put up with "I don't want blacks near my daughter". We tell them that while we recognize their concerns we don't share them and won't change the school system to reflect their values.
I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.
She will be done the second some bad teen cries "sexual harassment". Her life will be destroyed by the accusation alone, regardless from wrong or right. What do you think who will be seen as the pervy? The dude wearing women clothes or blondie with tears in her eyes ( that is not necessarily my view but this is how it would be seen by general society).
So what are you advocating for? Forcing a girl to use the boys locker room? Building dozens of different locker rooms? (This could actually work, just have stalls for everyone instead of two big locker rooms. More expensive though) Just ignoring the whole situation and hoping it goes away on its own?
Fact is, it is hard to be trans. Do we really have to try to make it harder for them? I generally like the idea of compassion. Just be nice to people.
As long as biologically a dude= guy's bathroom When biologically 100% girl= girls bathroom
Any other suggestion will open up the transgender's destruction by wrong or right accusations by other teens. What do you think? This decision will hardly be unanimous and without opposition. Some teenage girl might just scream sexual harassment ala the dude grabbed my tits and then his life on that institution will be over.
Please define biological gender and please, make it all encompassing so that we can finally have no grey, just black and white.
As I wrote, biological sex. As long as either primary or secondary sex characteristics of a male= men's bathroom
As soon as primary and secondary sex characteristics of female0women's bathroom.
transition period while not being the finished article men's bathroom.
Opposite if you transition from femalte to male.
Unfortunately for you it's not that simple. People get born with all sorts. It's not an either or. Please try again.
Other dude is right, you are being or pretend to be obtuse. If you are a hermaphrodit you visit the bathroom of your dominant sex/ sexual identity.. Not that would be what we are talking about in this specific thread.
And it is not unfortunate for me, I don't care. So far no one over here really turned this into an issue aaand I am in the workforce where even fewer people care to invest time and ressources into an non issue that won't even concern 1% of the workforce. If the need arises people will just find an individual solution.
So according to you hermaphrodites get to visit the bathroom that most closely matches their identity, not necessarily what they have going on down below. Interesting.
On December 05 2015 08:32 AngryMag wrote: I guess the the former dúde will have enough of SJW quickly as soon as a female entering the same bath room will blame him for sexual harassment, justified or not won't even matter.
Yup.. Pretty much this.
Either way, that person won't be happy.
edit: that being said, while i do not necessarily agree with parents arguing "i don't want a penis near my daughter when she changes", i do understand it. This is not something you just ignore, for that to work out you need to know the former guy, now female. That certainly sucks for the transgender person, but completely ignoring parents concerns can't be reasonable either. And while i would never say "he just wanna see teen boobies", there will be kids who're gonna do that. So there's that.
We don't put up with "I don't want blacks near my daughter". We tell them that while we recognize their concerns we don't share them and won't change the school system to reflect their values.
I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.
She will be done the second some bad teen cries "sexual harassment". Her life will be destroyed by the accusation alone, regardless from wrong or right. What do you think who will be seen as the pervy? The dude wearing women clothes or blondie with tears in her eyes ( that is not necessarily my view but this is how it would be seen by general society).
So what are you advocating for? Forcing a girl to use the boys locker room? Building dozens of different locker rooms? (This could actually work, just have stalls for everyone instead of two big locker rooms. More expensive though) Just ignoring the whole situation and hoping it goes away on its own?
Fact is, it is hard to be trans. Do we really have to try to make it harder for them? I generally like the idea of compassion. Just be nice to people.
As long as biologically a dude= guy's bathroom When biologically 100% girl= girls bathroom
Any other suggestion will open up the transgender's destruction by wrong or right accusations by other teens. What do you think? This decision will hardly be unanimous and without opposition. Some teenage girl might just scream sexual harassment ala the dude grabbed my tits and then his life on that institution will be over.
Please define biological gender and please, make it all encompassing so that we can finally have no grey, just black and white.
As I wrote, biological sex. As long as either primary or secondary sex characteristics of a male= men's bathroom
As soon as primary and secondary sex characteristics of female0women's bathroom.
transition period while not being the finished article men's bathroom.
Opposite if you transition from femalte to male.
Unfortunately for you it's not that simple. People get born with all sorts. It's not an either or. Please try again.
Biologically Male, female, intersex are all well defined categories that have nothing to do with being transgender. However, (and this is a critical difference) intersex is an identifiable characteristic. Being trans is not.
The law (in my state in the US, and many others) provides fairly straightforward and strict criteria for trans students. They must be allowed full access to the services/facilities of their gender identity (not their biological sex), regardless of hormone therapy/surgery/etc or stated sex on their birth certificate. Schools may provide access to a unisex facility if they want to (though that is tenuous ground, with some organizations saying that it creates an oppressive environment), but they cannot require it's use.
I don't think it's reasonable at all to say "that's too bad just deal with it" when someone says "getting naked with non-partnered opposite genitals to mine makes me uncomfortable." but the law protects the trans person in this case. It's a question that does not have a simple answer.
edit: that being said, while i do not necessarily agree with parents arguing "i don't want a penis near my daughter when she changes", i do understand it. This is not something you just ignore, for that to work out you need to know the former guy, now female. That certainly sucks for the transgender person, but completely ignoring parents concerns can't be reasonable either. And while i would never say "he just wanna see teen boobies", there will be kids who're gonna do that. So there's that.
We don't put up with "I don't want blacks near my daughter". We tell them that while we recognize their concerns we don't share them and won't change the school system to reflect their values.
I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.
She will be done the second some bad teen cries "sexual harassment". Her life will be destroyed by the accusation alone, regardless from wrong or right. What do you think who will be seen as the pervy? The dude wearing women clothes or blondie with tears in her eyes ( that is not necessarily my view but this is how it would be seen by general society).
So what are you advocating for? Forcing a girl to use the boys locker room? Building dozens of different locker rooms? (This could actually work, just have stalls for everyone instead of two big locker rooms. More expensive though) Just ignoring the whole situation and hoping it goes away on its own?
Fact is, it is hard to be trans. Do we really have to try to make it harder for them? I generally like the idea of compassion. Just be nice to people.
As long as biologically a dude= guy's bathroom When biologically 100% girl= girls bathroom
Any other suggestion will open up the transgender's destruction by wrong or right accusations by other teens. What do you think? This decision will hardly be unanimous and without opposition. Some teenage girl might just scream sexual harassment ala the dude grabbed my tits and then his life on that institution will be over.
Please define biological gender and please, make it all encompassing so that we can finally have no grey, just black and white.
As I wrote, biological sex. As long as either primary or secondary sex characteristics of a male= men's bathroom
As soon as primary and secondary sex characteristics of female0women's bathroom.
transition period while not being the finished article men's bathroom.
Opposite if you transition from femalte to male.
Unfortunately for you it's not that simple. People get born with all sorts. It's not an either or. Please try again.
I am seriously confused by your point.
Do you have a definition, or do you merely reject definitions? Or is your definition what a person feels?
Because it seems to go like this:
Person A: Concerns about fake trans people. Person B: There is no reason to be concerned, being trans sucks because they have high hurdles to prove that they are trans, and they have no special rights. Thus, no one would be fake trans. A: Aren't you trying to change all those things. B: Yes. A: And when you succeed why wouldn't people be fake trans? B: ...You are a racist.
No, of course I don't have a biological definition of sex that has no grey areas. None exists. It's a mess which is exactly my point.
He was attempting to argue that it was super simple and that the penis/vagina divide solved everything because biological sex was black and white. I, knowing full well that he was wrong but also suspecting he wouldn't listen if I just told him he was wrong, challenged him to define biological sex.
Regarding your made up conversation, I didn't say any of those. I didn't say that trans have high hurdles, that nobody would fake being trans or that you're a racist. You may have me confused with someone else.
On December 05 2015 08:59 KwarK wrote: [quote] We don't put up with "I don't want blacks near my daughter". We tell them that while we recognize their concerns we don't share them and won't change the school system to reflect their values.
I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.
She will be done the second some bad teen cries "sexual harassment". Her life will be destroyed by the accusation alone, regardless from wrong or right. What do you think who will be seen as the pervy? The dude wearing women clothes or blondie with tears in her eyes ( that is not necessarily my view but this is how it would be seen by general society).
So what are you advocating for? Forcing a girl to use the boys locker room? Building dozens of different locker rooms? (This could actually work, just have stalls for everyone instead of two big locker rooms. More expensive though) Just ignoring the whole situation and hoping it goes away on its own?
Fact is, it is hard to be trans. Do we really have to try to make it harder for them? I generally like the idea of compassion. Just be nice to people.
As long as biologically a dude= guy's bathroom When biologically 100% girl= girls bathroom
Any other suggestion will open up the transgender's destruction by wrong or right accusations by other teens. What do you think? This decision will hardly be unanimous and without opposition. Some teenage girl might just scream sexual harassment ala the dude grabbed my tits and then his life on that institution will be over.
Please define biological gender and please, make it all encompassing so that we can finally have no grey, just black and white.
As I wrote, biological sex. As long as either primary or secondary sex characteristics of a male= men's bathroom
As soon as primary and secondary sex characteristics of female0women's bathroom.
transition period while not being the finished article men's bathroom.
Opposite if you transition from femalte to male.
Unfortunately for you it's not that simple. People get born with all sorts. It's not an either or. Please try again.
Other dude is right, you are being or pretend to be obtuse. If you are a hermaphrodit you visit the bathroom of your dominant sex/ sexual identity.. Not that would be what we are talking about in this specific thread.
And it is not unfortunate for me, I don't care. So far no one over here really turned this into an issue aaand I am in the workforce where even fewer people care to invest time and ressources into an non issue that won't even concern 1% of the workforce. If the need arises people will just find an individual solution.
So according to you hermaphrodites get to visit the bathroom that most closely matches their identity, not necessarily what they have going on down below. Interesting.
Unfortunately for you it is not that simple.Some people are fifty/fifty. They can choose according to their sexual identity. Others have dominant biological sexes, they choose their bathroom according to their dominant sex. Please try again.
edit: that being said, while i do not necessarily agree with parents arguing "i don't want a penis near my daughter when she changes", i do understand it. This is not something you just ignore, for that to work out you need to know the former guy, now female. That certainly sucks for the transgender person, but completely ignoring parents concerns can't be reasonable either. And while i would never say "he just wanna see teen boobies", there will be kids who're gonna do that. So there's that.
We don't put up with "I don't want blacks near my daughter". We tell them that while we recognize their concerns we don't share them and won't change the school system to reflect their values.
I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.
She will be done the second some bad teen cries "sexual harassment". Her life will be destroyed by the accusation alone, regardless from wrong or right. What do you think who will be seen as the pervy? The dude wearing women clothes or blondie with tears in her eyes ( that is not necessarily my view but this is how it would be seen by general society).
So what are you advocating for? Forcing a girl to use the boys locker room? Building dozens of different locker rooms? (This could actually work, just have stalls for everyone instead of two big locker rooms. More expensive though) Just ignoring the whole situation and hoping it goes away on its own?
Fact is, it is hard to be trans. Do we really have to try to make it harder for them? I generally like the idea of compassion. Just be nice to people.
As long as biologically a dude= guy's bathroom When biologically 100% girl= girls bathroom
Any other suggestion will open up the transgender's destruction by wrong or right accusations by other teens. What do you think? This decision will hardly be unanimous and without opposition. Some teenage girl might just scream sexual harassment ala the dude grabbed my tits and then his life on that institution will be over.
Please define biological gender and please, make it all encompassing so that we can finally have no grey, just black and white.
As I wrote, biological sex. As long as either primary or secondary sex characteristics of a male= men's bathroom
As soon as primary and secondary sex characteristics of female0women's bathroom.
transition period while not being the finished article men's bathroom.
Opposite if you transition from femalte to male.
Unfortunately for you it's not that simple. People get born with all sorts. It's not an either or. Please try again.
Biologically Male, female, intersex are all well defined categories that have nothing to do with being transgender. However, (and this is a critical difference) intersex is an identifiable characteristic. Being trans is not.
The law (in my state in the US, and many others) provides fairly straightforward and strict criteria for trans students. They must be allowed full access to the services/facilities of their gender identity (not their biological sex), regardless of hormone therapy/surgery/etc or stated sex on their birth certificate. Schools may provide access to a unisex facility if they want to (though that is tenuous ground, with some organizations saying that it creates an oppressive environment), but they cannot require it's use.
I don't think it's reasonable at all to say "that's too bad just deal with it" when someone says "getting naked with non-partnered opposite genitals to mine makes me uncomfortable." but the law protects the trans person in this case. It's a question that does not have a simple answer.
I don't think "too bad, deal with it" is a good answer or an answer that will make everyone happy. If they can find a compromise that protects the civil rights of the trans students while making other people happy I'm all for that. I am pro happiness. That is my position on happiness. I'm happy to go on the record on that one. But if someone says "I'd be happier if someone else's civil rights were denied" then that person unfortunately doesn't get happier.
My stance isn't "fuck everyone else", it's civil rights come first, those are fundamental, work around them.
On December 05 2015 09:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.
She will be done the second some bad teen cries "sexual harassment". Her life will be destroyed by the accusation alone, regardless from wrong or right. What do you think who will be seen as the pervy? The dude wearing women clothes or blondie with tears in her eyes ( that is not necessarily my view but this is how it would be seen by general society).
So what are you advocating for? Forcing a girl to use the boys locker room? Building dozens of different locker rooms? (This could actually work, just have stalls for everyone instead of two big locker rooms. More expensive though) Just ignoring the whole situation and hoping it goes away on its own?
Fact is, it is hard to be trans. Do we really have to try to make it harder for them? I generally like the idea of compassion. Just be nice to people.
As long as biologically a dude= guy's bathroom When biologically 100% girl= girls bathroom
Any other suggestion will open up the transgender's destruction by wrong or right accusations by other teens. What do you think? This decision will hardly be unanimous and without opposition. Some teenage girl might just scream sexual harassment ala the dude grabbed my tits and then his life on that institution will be over.
Please define biological gender and please, make it all encompassing so that we can finally have no grey, just black and white.
As I wrote, biological sex. As long as either primary or secondary sex characteristics of a male= men's bathroom
As soon as primary and secondary sex characteristics of female0women's bathroom.
transition period while not being the finished article men's bathroom.
Opposite if you transition from femalte to male.
Unfortunately for you it's not that simple. People get born with all sorts. It's not an either or. Please try again.
Other dude is right, you are being or pretend to be obtuse. If you are a hermaphrodit you visit the bathroom of your dominant sex/ sexual identity.. Not that would be what we are talking about in this specific thread.
And it is not unfortunate for me, I don't care. So far no one over here really turned this into an issue aaand I am in the workforce where even fewer people care to invest time and ressources into an non issue that won't even concern 1% of the workforce. If the need arises people will just find an individual solution.
So according to you hermaphrodites get to visit the bathroom that most closely matches their identity, not necessarily what they have going on down below. Interesting.
Unfortunately for you it is not that simple.Some people are fifty/fifty. They can choose according to their sexual identity. Others have dominant biological sexes, they choose their bathroom according to their dominant sex. Please try again.
Yeah that comes across really smug
And what about the parents of the children crying out "she may identify as a girl but she has a penis" in the case of one who chooses? You understand that you lost this one right when you said that someone could choose according to their sexual identity, right? That was my point. You claimed that there was no element of choice, it was always one or the other, black or white. I challenged you to define biological sex to get you to this point where you admit that it's not always so simple and some people will always break that model. Here we are and you have lost.
edit: that being said, while i do not necessarily agree with parents arguing "i don't want a penis near my daughter when she changes", i do understand it. This is not something you just ignore, for that to work out you need to know the former guy, now female. That certainly sucks for the transgender person, but completely ignoring parents concerns can't be reasonable either. And while i would never say "he just wanna see teen boobies", there will be kids who're gonna do that. So there's that.
We don't put up with "I don't want blacks near my daughter". We tell them that while we recognize their concerns we don't share them and won't change the school system to reflect their values.
I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.
She will be done the second some bad teen cries "sexual harassment". Her life will be destroyed by the accusation alone, regardless from wrong or right. What do you think who will be seen as the pervy? The dude wearing women clothes or blondie with tears in her eyes ( that is not necessarily my view but this is how it would be seen by general society).
So what are you advocating for? Forcing a girl to use the boys locker room? Building dozens of different locker rooms? (This could actually work, just have stalls for everyone instead of two big locker rooms. More expensive though) Just ignoring the whole situation and hoping it goes away on its own?
Fact is, it is hard to be trans. Do we really have to try to make it harder for them? I generally like the idea of compassion. Just be nice to people.
As long as biologically a dude= guy's bathroom When biologically 100% girl= girls bathroom
Any other suggestion will open up the transgender's destruction by wrong or right accusations by other teens. What do you think? This decision will hardly be unanimous and without opposition. Some teenage girl might just scream sexual harassment ala the dude grabbed my tits and then his life on that institution will be over.
Please define biological gender and please, make it all encompassing so that we can finally have no grey, just black and white.
As I wrote, biological sex. As long as either primary or secondary sex characteristics of a male= men's bathroom
As soon as primary and secondary sex characteristics of female0women's bathroom.
transition period while not being the finished article men's bathroom.
Opposite if you transition from femalte to male.
Unfortunately for you it's not that simple. People get born with all sorts. It's not an either or. Please try again.
I am seriously confused by your point.
Do you have a definition, or do you merely reject definitions? Or is your definition what a person feels?
Because it seems to go like this:
Person A: Concerns about fake trans people. Person B: There is no reason to be concerned, being trans sucks because they have high hurdles to prove that they are trans, and they have no special rights. Thus, no one would be fake trans. A: Aren't you trying to change all those things. B: Yes. A: And when you succeed why wouldn't people be fake trans? B: ...You are a racist.
So you are saying that a student would fake being trans so they could see naked girls/boys in the locker room? I want you to think about how many ways there are to see naked people and com pair them to what you are suggesting? That would be a teenager pulling the longest con for the lowest gain ever. It would be like catch me if you can, but rather than traveling all over the world and faking be a doctor, all he was was a couple sets of boobs.
EPT
