|
On March 25 2013 13:45 shinosai wrote:
You've linked sex and reproduction together when they need not be. Gay people are very well capable of having children and the desire for children, and straight people are very well capable of having the desire to not have children. Sometimes straight people have sex strictly for children and then never again (it really does happen). In this case, they had no desire for sex, they just wanted to reproduce. When you unlink the sex and reproduction drives (they are not necessarily linked, only contingently), you can see that pathologizing homosexuality is rather absurd.
As an addendum, lack of desire to reproduce and/or engage in sexual intercourse is more common than people think, and does not appear to be influenced by sexual orientation. I did some research into this out of personal interest. I used to think I was the only one when I was a teenager, then I found the internet and realized it's simply a genetic variation.
|
On March 25 2013 13:48 NHL Fever wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 10:55 Alay wrote:On March 25 2013 09:35 NHL Fever wrote:
IE: Up until recently, in my state (CT) where the sexes are pretty well treated in terms of equality between them, an employer could force a transgender employee to use the bathroom mirroring their birth sex (the 'wrong' bathroom.)
Which would be pretty damn humiliating.
Was the person embarrassed in being told to use the wrong bathroom, in actually using the bathroom? That does sound like a tough situation, since the coworkers might also be awkward in sharing the bathroom with someone they perceive as of the other gender. So who's awkwardness takes priority? Good example though, any others you can think of? Well, the only time I've ever been in that situation was a shit employer who wanted to give me grief. Back then, Social Security had this fun policy of flagging someone whose application gender marker didn't match their records (which are only changeable by surgery. Fantastic, but silly pricey) so they found out, and decided all high and mighty that they'd terminate me if I used anything but the men's restroom. By this point, I was passing fine, so it was really irritating. I walked into the rest room one day when I really couldn't wait (up until then I had just waited until I got home) and had two older gentlemen started asking what I was doing when this was clearly the wrong restroom--asking if I had gotten lost etc lol. I did my business, told them they I was apparently just a bit confused, then just went to my boss and told him that he could find someone else and quit. I've read several cases where similar happened, and the person developed a bladder infection or the like from trying to hold it rather than be humiliated. My state passed a bathroom/housing/employment law last year that cut this shit finally--but not without the typical opposition arguments. Regardless though, there's a hell of a lot of different people at there. In all my years of living, I can't remember one time I really paid much attention to anyone else in a restroom. The whole "men pretending to be women to rape women in changing rooms/bathrooms!" boogeyman is a hilariously poor defense that a lot of people use too--as though there's some mystical barrier that the door sign gives to stop someone from doing that without bothering to pretend to be the opposite gender. Honestly, I think a personal policy of using whatever restroom/changing room results in the least commotion is best, and a hammer one way or the other is stupid--it causes just as much commotion for a passing trans person to enter the bathroom of their birth sex as a non-passing trans person entering one of their gender. But that may also be my passing privilege speaking, and I remember how much it fucking sucked to have to use the men's room in the past. Trust me, the amount of time a lot of trans people spend thinking about the choice when looking at this sign is way more than most cis people ever will. That being said, I think the "awkwardness" of the trans person takes priority in this case. Denying someone accommodation based on their gender identity seems like the greater evil. I mean, for example, I might find using the bathroom with someone that is mentally retarded or has a severe handicap very awkward, but I don't feel my ease should supersede their ability to use the same restroom as me. Again, perhaps a personal bias on the subject, so I can only give one side really. Another example could be things like security checks and pat-downs. In many cases, a person is offered a check by an individual of the same gender. If the trans persons gender identity isn't respected there, it could be quite uncomfortable for them (I personally don't mind much either way, but I know some people really wouldn't want to be felt up by the opposite sex like that.) Society has a ton of little gendered things that most people don't really ever think about, that in many ways could be use to humiliate or otherwise oppress a trans person if so desired, even if Men and Women have equal rights. That's some food for thought. Bad bosses are I suppose common. It sounds a lot more like your boss was making your life hard and the bathroom issue was really just a side point. You can correct me but it sounds likely that even with bathroom laws in place, your boss would probably have found some other issue to harass you on and it really wasn't about the bathroom? I'm trying to put myself in the situation where I would be forced to use the women's bathroom, and when I think about it I think I would not care. Would probably quickly become pretty normalized. Of course if I was forced to use it out of sheer spite it could be different, which is why again I would ask was the bath actually the issue? The advantage of the men's washroom is the existence of urinals and the shorter lines at events, not the other men inside. Would not anyone with the male equipment come to that same conclusion? I see your point about the mentally retarded, but disagree. You are talking about a group with a demonstrable and factual deficiency or inferiority. I doubt you are wanting to go with than analogy regarding trans right? The way I would look at it is no matter what somebody might be denied based on their gender. Either the trans is denied the washroom of their perceived gender or the cis is denied the privacy from the perceived other gender. In either case one can question whether those fears/concerns really make any sense.
Yes, he would have given me shit either way--the difference is, he was legally in the okay to give me shit, because there was no law protection. Up to the extent of terminating me from that position because I was trans.
With protection laws, I could sue his ass if he tried to do something like that (outright, of course. But it's better than nothing at least to know the law at least CARES about your situation.)
The truth is, using the bathroom isn't that big of a deal on its own--but it's a mix of everything. ALWAYS ending up being pigeonholed or expected to act to conform to a gender you cannot feel any identification or alignment with. At the time during transition it's just another shitty thing in the shitty day. Here's an analogy to try and explain: You have a horrible day at work, you have car and house payments that are late, your significant other is riding someone else's significant something and you just found this out. You decide you can't be fucked to cook dinner, so you grab a grinder from a little bakery and head home. Upon getting home, you realize that they messed up your order, didn't put pickles on your grinder (the pickles are your favorite part!) and they used some type of bread you hate. A big deal? Nah, not really, but in the situation the rest of your day has been going in, it seems like a huge kick in the stomach.
Not sure if that makes sense to you, what I'm trying to convey, but that's roughly the feeling I suppose.
And replace the idea of mentally challenged/physically disabled, and put some race there. Say I'm uncomfortable with using the same bathrooms as people from Poland instead. Are people from Poland inferior? Nah. Their names are a little hard to pronounce sometimes, but they're fine. But maybe they make me really uncomfortable for whatever reason. Does my awkwardness supersede their ability to use the bathroom stall next to me and the sink next to me? I would assert hardly.
As a side note, most trans women don't use urinals or pee standing up, and a lot of trans men will use urinals with certain hookups. It's kinda depressing in all honesty, or at least in my experience. I'd rather not bother.
|
The other issue about bathrooms is the whole 'voluntarily outing yourself' thing, the 'no, you aren't the gender you say you are/you're just CD' thing and the 'how can it be considered safe to use public bathrooms of the wrong gender, particularly with the amount of abuse you get outside of them' thing, amongst others.
Not sure I'd agree it's a little thing.
At any rate, Alay's analogy of 'just one more thing' is a good take too, though.
|
On March 25 2013 21:36 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 06:50 fusionsdf wrote:On March 17 2013 01:42 xM(Z wrote:On March 17 2013 01:17 fugs wrote:
A trans person's gender is different than their sex. Them growing up having a vagina does not mean that they naturally fall into gender lanes. Your brain decides who you are not your genitals. Basing arguments about gender stereotypes on trans people is flawed because being trans doesn't depend on outside sources. It's your instinct that tells you your gender not the doctor slapping your ass when you fall out of your mom. that is not really the problem at least from my perspective. what i'm having problems understanding is why the ego doesn't/can't reconcile the psychological female self with the physical male self for example (MtF case)?. i guess it's one of those "you'd have to be one to know" kind of thing. Because you have less control over your brain than you think you do. It's like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up. i meant, why wouldn't you like it in the first place?.
Because you don't. It's not like I had a rational train of thought about it, all I know is that from a very young age I had an ongoing identity crisis, and no matter how much I tried to avoid or suppress it, it continued and made my life miserable regardless of anything else. It's not something you can choose, just something you gradually realize.
|
The truth is, using the bathroom isn't that big of a deal on its own--but it's a mix of everything. ALWAYS ending up being pigeonholed or expected to act to conform to a gender you cannot feel any identification or alignment with. At the time during transition it's just another shitty thing in the shitty day. Here's an analogy to try and explain: You have a horrible day at work, you have car and house payments that are late, your significant other is riding someone else's significant something and you just found this out. You decide you can't be fucked to cook dinner, so you grab a grinder from a little bakery and head home. Upon getting home, you realize that they messed up your order, didn't put pickles on your grinder (the pickles are your favorite part!) and they used some type of bread you hate. A big deal? Nah, not really, but in the situation the rest of your day has been going in, it seems like a huge kick in the stomach.
Not sure if that makes sense to you, what I'm trying to convey, but that's roughly the feeling I suppose.
Oh ya we've all had days like those, everyone can relate to that. That's part of life, I'm not sure bathroom laws will change that. If people don't want to use the bathroom with a trans, will a law forcing them actually change that attitude? I think its doubtful, and even with a law the discomfort would persist for both parties, I suspect. Say law is in place. All that same crap happens during your day you're near your wits end. You go to the bathroom you want to, and somebody or several people give you the stink eye as a result. My guess, humans being emotional as they are, this would deliver an extra kick to the stomach all the same. No?
And replace the idea of mentally challenged/physically disabled, and put some race there. Say I'm uncomfortable with using the same bathrooms as people from Poland instead. Are people from Poland inferior? Nah. Their names are a little hard to pronounce sometimes, but they're fine. But maybe they make me really uncomfortable for whatever reason. Does my awkwardness supersede their ability to use the bathroom stall next to me and the sink next to me? I would assert hardly.
As a side note, most trans women don't use urinals or pee standing up, and a lot of trans men will use urinals with certain hookups. It's kinda depressing in all honesty, or at least in my experience. I'd rather not bother.
The Polish example makes more sense. Out of curiosity, if a potential MtF has not undergone an operation and still have the male equipment, why not use the urinals? So much easier. If fact women not uncommonly say they wish they could.
|
On March 26 2013 06:13 NHL Fever wrote:
Oh ya we've all had days like those, everyone can relate to that. That's part of life, I'm not sure bathroom laws will change that. If people don't want to use the bathroom with a trans, will a law forcing them actually change that attitude? I think its doubtful, and even with a law the discomfort would persist for both parties, I suspect. Say law is in place. All that same crap happens during your day you're near your wits end. You go to the bathroom you want to, and somebody or several people give you the stink eye as a result. My guess, humans being emotional as they are, this would deliver an extra kick to the stomach all the same. No?
If the law was about not being allowed to force a trans person to use the restroom that corresponds with their birth sex, then people who already pass as their identified gender could use the 'right' restroom without the people there knowing about their medical history. Hence there would be no problems as no one would even think they are trans.
Out of curiosity, if a potential MtF has not undergone an operation and still have the male equipment, why not use the urinals? So much easier. If fact women not uncommonly say they wish they could.
Because they'd rather not enter the men's restroom in the firstplace? And if they have to, then they'd rather not want to be seen?
|
Why is the title LGTB and not LGBT? The latter is pretty universally used.
Not that it matters, of course. Just curious.
|
On March 26 2013 06:13 NHL Fever wrote:
Out of curiosity, if a potential MtF has not undergone an operation and still have the male equipment, why not use the urinals? So much easier. If fact women not uncommonly say they wish they could.
In addition to what has already been said, upon consideration I don't have a rational reason for this, the idea of doing something so completely male would be somewhat disturbing.
|
On March 26 2013 05:57 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 21:36 xM(Z wrote:On March 25 2013 06:50 fusionsdf wrote:On March 17 2013 01:42 xM(Z wrote:On March 17 2013 01:17 fugs wrote:
A trans person's gender is different than their sex. Them growing up having a vagina does not mean that they naturally fall into gender lanes. Your brain decides who you are not your genitals. Basing arguments about gender stereotypes on trans people is flawed because being trans doesn't depend on outside sources. It's your instinct that tells you your gender not the doctor slapping your ass when you fall out of your mom. that is not really the problem at least from my perspective. what i'm having problems understanding is why the ego doesn't/can't reconcile the psychological female self with the physical male self for example (MtF case)?. i guess it's one of those "you'd have to be one to know" kind of thing. Because you have less control over your brain than you think you do. It's like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up. i meant, why wouldn't you like it in the first place?. Because you don't. It's not like I had a rational train of thought about it, all I know is that from a very young age I had an ongoing identity crisis, and no matter how much I tried to avoid or suppress it, it continued and made my life miserable regardless of anything else. It's not something you can choose, just something you gradually realize.
i understand that, Alay, Lynda and others said roughy the same thing. Lynda even linked that video showing a possible explanation/correlation as to why that could be happening (to which NHL Fever later replied).
i guess i wanted to see if there is a better explanation then: "because you don't".
|
On March 26 2013 00:31 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 13:45 shinosai wrote:
You've linked sex and reproduction together when they need not be. Gay people are very well capable of having children and the desire for children, and straight people are very well capable of having the desire to not have children. Sometimes straight people have sex strictly for children and then never again (it really does happen). In this case, they had no desire for sex, they just wanted to reproduce. When you unlink the sex and reproduction drives (they are not necessarily linked, only contingently), you can see that pathologizing homosexuality is rather absurd. As an addendum, lack of desire to reproduce and/or engage in sexual intercourse is more common than people think, and does not appear to be influenced by sexual orientation. I did some research into this out of personal interest. I used to think I was the only one when I was a teenager, then I found the internet and realized it's simply a genetic variation.
tryhard pseudo-intelectual. i hope one day you will sort out your complexes
|
|
|
Well it sounds like the religious groups are doing their best to stop it, I don't really understand what they have against a secular right to marriage for gay people. All that this ardent opposition accomplishes is making the religious institutions look intolerant.
|
On March 26 2013 07:46 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Well it sounds like the religious groups are doing their best to stop it, I don't really understand what they have against a secular right to marriage for gay people. All that this ardent opposition accomplishes is making the religious institutions look intolerant.
I don't see what the problem is either. In fact quite honestly I think it makes no sense whatsoever for the state to even get involved. Let people live in whatever arrangements they want, let them call it whatever they want. Don't give any particular benefit any special benefits nor drawbacks. Don't give tax breaks for any relational arrangement. Let everyone list whoever they want as their medical decision person or put whoever they want in their will.
But along with this, don't force anyone or any private institution to go along with anything they don't want to. It makes no more sense to force pastors or churches to marry gay people, than it does to force a gay rights meeting to open with prayer. Just leave people alone, don't elevate anyone's beliefs beyond others or reward them financially, and treat everyone equally.
|
On March 26 2013 06:13 NHL Fever wrote:Show nested quote +
The truth is, using the bathroom isn't that big of a deal on its own--but it's a mix of everything. ALWAYS ending up being pigeonholed or expected to act to conform to a gender you cannot feel any identification or alignment with. At the time during transition it's just another shitty thing in the shitty day. Here's an analogy to try and explain: You have a horrible day at work, you have car and house payments that are late, your significant other is riding someone else's significant something and you just found this out. You decide you can't be fucked to cook dinner, so you grab a grinder from a little bakery and head home. Upon getting home, you realize that they messed up your order, didn't put pickles on your grinder (the pickles are your favorite part!) and they used some type of bread you hate. A big deal? Nah, not really, but in the situation the rest of your day has been going in, it seems like a huge kick in the stomach.
Not sure if that makes sense to you, what I'm trying to convey, but that's roughly the feeling I suppose.
Oh ya we've all had days like those, everyone can relate to that. That's part of life, I'm not sure bathroom laws will change that. If people don't want to use the bathroom with a trans, will a law forcing them actually change that attitude? I think its doubtful, and even with a law the discomfort would persist for both parties, I suspect. Say law is in place. All that same crap happens during your day you're near your wits end. You go to the bathroom you want to, and somebody or several people give you the stink eye as a result. My guess, humans being emotional as they are, this would deliver an extra kick to the stomach all the same. No? Show nested quote +
And replace the idea of mentally challenged/physically disabled, and put some race there. Say I'm uncomfortable with using the same bathrooms as people from Poland instead. Are people from Poland inferior? Nah. Their names are a little hard to pronounce sometimes, but they're fine. But maybe they make me really uncomfortable for whatever reason. Does my awkwardness supersede their ability to use the bathroom stall next to me and the sink next to me? I would assert hardly.
As a side note, most trans women don't use urinals or pee standing up, and a lot of trans men will use urinals with certain hookups. It's kinda depressing in all honesty, or at least in my experience. I'd rather not bother.
The Polish example makes more sense. Out of curiosity, if a potential MtF has not undergone an operation and still have the male equipment, why not use the urinals? So much easier. If fact women not uncommonly say they wish they could.
That would require more of a social evolution than a legal one, I concur. Not much would change immediately, but it wouldn't give organizations or employers the grounds to discriminate against trans individuals. It's not going to make being trans suck too much less, but it does help some marginal cases. It also allows a transitioning individual to use whichever bathroom they would feel would be the better choice to cause the least commotion (as most will do for their own safety. I know I sure as shit was terrified of getting the crap kicked out of me by some asshole in my progressive-as-hell area. I'd hate to know what it's like in the more regressed social areas of this country/the world.)
As for using urinals... I dunno, it never felt all that more convenient to me. Kinda splashes a bit which is icky, then you got the weird shoulder to shoulder thing going on in some of the tighter spaced ones. If I ever had the so desire, I could just pee standing in a stall anyways *shrug*
Different strokes and whatnot.
edit; actually thinking about it, it might be something to do with gender social norms and not wanting to relate to them, though I've never really consciously thought about it though.
On March 26 2013 07:18 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 05:57 fusionsdf wrote:On March 25 2013 21:36 xM(Z wrote:On March 25 2013 06:50 fusionsdf wrote:On March 17 2013 01:42 xM(Z wrote:On March 17 2013 01:17 fugs wrote:
A trans person's gender is different than their sex. Them growing up having a vagina does not mean that they naturally fall into gender lanes. Your brain decides who you are not your genitals. Basing arguments about gender stereotypes on trans people is flawed because being trans doesn't depend on outside sources. It's your instinct that tells you your gender not the doctor slapping your ass when you fall out of your mom. that is not really the problem at least from my perspective. what i'm having problems understanding is why the ego doesn't/can't reconcile the psychological female self with the physical male self for example (MtF case)?. i guess it's one of those "you'd have to be one to know" kind of thing. Because you have less control over your brain than you think you do. It's like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up. i meant, why wouldn't you like it in the first place?. Because you don't. It's not like I had a rational train of thought about it, all I know is that from a very young age I had an ongoing identity crisis, and no matter how much I tried to avoid or suppress it, it continued and made my life miserable regardless of anything else. It's not something you can choose, just something you gradually realize. i understand that, Alay, Lynda and others said roughy the same thing. Lynda even linked that video showing a possible explanation/correlation as to why that could be happening (to which NHL Fever later replied). i guess i wanted to see if there is a better explanation then: "because you don't".
I would assert it's less of a "Because you don't" and more of a "Because you eventually realize it's not working, and you have two options that will." I know I tried to find some measure of being a dude that would make me at least neutral towards life for way longer than I probably should have bothered, considering how well that worked out.
|
If the law was about not being allowed to force a trans person to use the restroom that corresponds with their birth sex, then people who already pass as their identified gender could use the 'right' restroom without the people there knowing about their medical history. Hence there would be no problems as no one would even think they are trans.
?
Right but the issue (I think) that we're talking about is when someone has not undergone that, most likely because of cost. In that case they may look like a male but want to use the female washroom.
On March 26 2013 08:11 Alay wrote:
As for using urinals... I dunno, it never felt all that more convenient to me. Kinda splashes a bit which is icky, then you got the weird shoulder to shoulder thing going on in some of the tighter spaced ones. If I ever had the so desire, I could just pee standing in a stall anyways *shrug*
Not to get to off topic from something serious, but despite all those urinal problems (which are all true), it certainly beats sitting on a public toilet seat!
I can certainly see the argument for public washrooms. I don't think I would agree with those in private institutions. I don't think any private business should be forced into this choice. In fact if they don't want to build bathrooms at all....let them. If they want to hire only white people, let them. If they want to discriminate in any way they want, I say let them because they are private businesses. Let them make whatever choice they want on their own premises, and deal with the consequences of it. Those consequences would be a smaller potential hiring pool, less customers, and a bad reputation. The businesses that allow and accommodate for as many as possible will have the upper hand, so let the social and real market sort that out.
|
On March 26 2013 08:10 NHL Fever wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 07:46 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Well it sounds like the religious groups are doing their best to stop it, I don't really understand what they have against a secular right to marriage for gay people. All that this ardent opposition accomplishes is making the religious institutions look intolerant. I don't see what the problem is either. In fact quite honestly I think it makes no sense whatsoever for the state to even get involved. Let people live in whatever arrangements they want, let them call it whatever they want. Don't give any particular benefit any special benefits nor drawbacks. Don't give tax breaks for any relational arrangement. Let everyone list whoever they want as their medical decision person or put whoever they want in their will. But along with this, don't force anyone or any private institution to go along with anything they don't want to. It makes no more sense to force pastors or churches to marry gay people, than it does to force a gay rights meeting to open with prayer. Just leave people alone, don't elevate anyone's beliefs beyond others or reward them financially, and treat everyone equally.
I am detecting a faint hint of libertarian-ism in your post, would I be wrong in that judgement?
I do think married couples raising children deserve a tax break though to help with the cost of having a child as kids are really expensive. For that reason it only makes sense (in my opinion) that since there are benefits to marriage, all people should be eligible for them.
|
On March 26 2013 07:21 argara wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 00:31 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 13:45 shinosai wrote:
You've linked sex and reproduction together when they need not be. Gay people are very well capable of having children and the desire for children, and straight people are very well capable of having the desire to not have children. Sometimes straight people have sex strictly for children and then never again (it really does happen). In this case, they had no desire for sex, they just wanted to reproduce. When you unlink the sex and reproduction drives (they are not necessarily linked, only contingently), you can see that pathologizing homosexuality is rather absurd. As an addendum, lack of desire to reproduce and/or engage in sexual intercourse is more common than people think, and does not appear to be influenced by sexual orientation. I did some research into this out of personal interest. I used to think I was the only one when I was a teenager, then I found the internet and realized it's simply a genetic variation. tryhard pseudo-intelectual. i hope one day you will sort out your complexes
That was unexpected, and more than a little confusing. And it's spelled intellectual.
If you feel I was mistaken or my assertion was false, please explain how and why.
|
On March 26 2013 08:26 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
I am detecting a faint hint of libertarian-ism in your post, would I be wrong in that judgement?
I do think married couples raising children deserve a tax break though to help with the cost of having a child as kids are really expensive. For that reason it only makes sense (in my opinion) that since there are benefits to marriage, all people should be eligible for them.
You are correct. I'm not a raging libertarian, but I believe the economic benefits of sharing a home and such are already self evident. I see no reason why 2 people with a label should be handed any more money than 2 people without that label or 2 individuals living separately. If you're going to hand over money for kids, fine just give the same amount for each kid regardless of what combination of adults are taking care of them. But don't give tax breaks just for being married.
I don't believe any rights groups should get any cash or any special allowance, including special tax status for churches.
It's just shifting money around. If you remove the handouts, your can reduce the bureaucracy and the tax burden, and the cheaper standard of living for everyone will allow for the costs of kids.
|
On March 26 2013 08:38 NHL Fever wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 08:26 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
I am detecting a faint hint of libertarian-ism in your post, would I be wrong in that judgement?
I do think married couples raising children deserve a tax break though to help with the cost of having a child as kids are really expensive. For that reason it only makes sense (in my opinion) that since there are benefits to marriage, all people should be eligible for them.
You are correct. I'm not a raging libertarian, but I am against almost all forms of subsidy of any kind. The economic benefits of sharing a home and such are already self evident. I see no reason why 2 people with a label should be handed any more money than 2 people without that label or 2 individuals living separately. If you're going to hand over money for kids, fine just give the same amount for each kid regardless of what combination of adults are taking care of them. But don't give tax breaks just for being married. I don't believe any rights groups should get any cash or any special allowance, including special tax status for churches. It's just shifting money around. If you remove the handouts, your can reduce the bureaucracy and the tax burden, and the cheaper standard of living for everyone will allow for the costs of kids.
I completely agree on the subject of abolishing the economic benefits of marriage. It's an archaic and outdated institution that serves no real purpose. Give child support to those who need it all day, but remove the economic incentive of an arbitrary label that is also causing a massive amount of passionate, if not always well-informed opinions to generate conflict and division.
If marriage was not even a concern from a financial perspective, I doubt it would be anywhere near the issue it is today.
|
On March 26 2013 08:19 NHL Fever wrote:Show nested quote +
If the law was about not being allowed to force a trans person to use the restroom that corresponds with their birth sex, then people who already pass as their identified gender could use the 'right' restroom without the people there knowing about their medical history. Hence there would be no problems as no one would even think they are trans.
?
Right but the issue (I think) that we're talking about is when someone has not undergone that, most likely because of cost. In that case they may look like a male but want to use the female washroom. Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 08:11 Alay wrote:
As for using urinals... I dunno, it never felt all that more convenient to me. Kinda splashes a bit which is icky, then you got the weird shoulder to shoulder thing going on in some of the tighter spaced ones. If I ever had the so desire, I could just pee standing in a stall anyways *shrug*
Not to get to off topic from something serious, but despite all those urinal problems (which are all true), it certainly beats sitting on a public toilet seat! I can certainly see the argument for public washrooms. I don't think I would agree with those in private institutions. I don't think any private business should be forced into this choice. In fact if they don't want to build bathrooms at all....let them. If they want to hire only white people, let them. If they want to discriminate in any way they want, I say let them because they are private businesses. Let them make whatever choice they want on their own premises, and deal with the consequences of it. Those consequences would be a smaller potential hiring pool, less customers, and a bad reputation. The businesses that allow and accommodate for as many as possible will have the upper hand, so let the social and real market sort that out.
Except that attitude has been happening for decades where people discriminate against other people. The problem is when a majority of people either don't care, or encourage that discrimination. Just letting it happen doesn't work and isn't right. That's why we have women's rights laws, and fully integrated schools, and 'equal' pay in the states.
I don't want to come off as rude but it sounds like, from your post, that you've not been in a situation where people have blatantly discriminated against you. The ones suffering from discrimination are usually the minorities and they aren't called minorities for nothing.
You aren't dealing with chess pawns here, these are people's lives. People get killed over stuff like this, families starve, homelessness, beatings. The law needs to be there to protect them/us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
