|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 05 2023 15:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 15:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 14:50 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 14:49 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 14:15 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 12:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 12:13 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 11:14 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on.
You made up this dismissive attitude. It is not real. No women here have presented the idea to DPB that they do not want penises in their spaces. If they had, I'm certain DPB would respond charitably and include them in the conversation while pointing out that their spaces would still be protected within the shared space of a unisex room. From there, a conversation could be had. Yes, were this a real board producing a real decision, it would be important to have a few less dicks on the board. However, you're still a dick and while you're welcome to point out that there are too many dicks on the board, you can't appoint yourself a non-dick and say words for them. I, for one, encourage people to be dismissive towards people presenting themselves as the authority for a group they are not part of. He said “women being scared of penises is not a valid ethical concern.” Im other words women being afraid of people with penises should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed in women’s spaces. On July 05 2023 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on.
The space women are entitled not to have penises in is their bodies. They're not entitled to legislate that no penises be allowed in communal spaces intended for other people, some of whom have penises. Obviously. Is this not a dismissive attitude to what women may think on the matter? Edit: also there’s congressional testimony from one of Lia Thomases former teammates that some of the girls changed in the janitors closet because they felt uncomfortable. The idea that anyone is “inventing” women that are uncomfortable is off the mark. It’s not unfairly dismissive and women are coming out ahead in my “you don’t get to decide which shared public spaces are reserved for which sex” stance. For most of history people without penises haven’t been allowed in positions of power. I’m dismissive of the people wishing to continue that oppression and their desire to restrict access based on penises. If there’s a space that is intended for everyone and someone comes along and says “letting people with/without penises in makes me feel uncomfortable” then that’s their feeling but it’s not public policy. I mean come the fuck on, this is coloured water fountains all over again. You can feel uncomfortable if you like, as long as you accept that that’s your problem and don’t make it everyone else’s. I don’t disagree, I think this is logically consistent. I think a lot of times people want to have their cake and eat it too by saying it’s okay to banish cis people with penises but not trans people with penises from women spaces. It’s is okay to ban men from women’s spaces but not okay to ban trans women from women’s spaces because trans women are women. A bathroom is not a cis woman exclusionary zone. It’s for all women. Huh? Didn’t you just say it’s not okay to ban men from women’s spaces? You just compared it to coloured fountains. No. Read my posts again and let me know if you’re still confused by my stance once you’re done. Ok still confused It’s okay to ban men from women’s spaces. If anything it’s necessary to ban them from woman’s spaces. That’s kinda implied by the name. If both men and women are welcome then I would call that a unisex space rather than a woman’s space.
but why is it ok?
|
United States42251 Posts
On July 05 2023 15:34 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 14:33 Salazarz wrote:On July 05 2023 12:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 12:43 Taelshin wrote:
@Salazarz , I'm Canadian, What guns? You’re allowed to make these kind of tangential posts as long as you’re doing it to call conservatives bigots or hypocrites. Don’t feel safe around penises, what about guns?!?! These are called good faith arguments. Just don’t try to make posts like that about liberals. Take my word for it You're welcome to bring up any inconsistencies you find in the statements I make or stances I hold. I couldn't care less about some fairytale liberals somewhere out there who believe in whatever you think they believe in; my comment about hypocrisy and lack of consistency is aimed squarely at posters who are active in this thread, such as yourself. But of course, you'd rather deflect and bullshit away rather than explain how your stance is logical and consistent, I didn't really expect anything else from you. A few days ago when we were talking about threats trans faced and I made a point to say overestimating threats can lead to bad policy like how Democrats overestimated the threats to COVID your response was in part: Show nested quote +On July 03 2023 01:22 Salazarz wrote:
Take your rant about democrats who believe 50% of COVID cases end in hospitalization -- literally who cares? None of the posters here have ever claimed anything like that, it's an irrelevant point that has nothing to do with the conversation people are trying to have yet you somehow think that makes your inane bullshit more valid. It's ridiculous. But now here you are trying to draw some comparison between being uncomfortable around penises to being uncomfortable around guns. Literally who cares? Who in this thread is talking about guns? It's an irrelevant point that has nothing to do with the conversation people are trying have yet you somehow think that makes your inane bullshit more valid. It's ridiculous. You get to make some random tangential point to what...? Dunk on random MAGA Republicans that oppose gun control? "Pwn the cons" as it were? This is peak hypocrisy If I post a youtube of something a liberal said that I think is dumb everyone groans and moans... yet a good chunk of this thread is just a circle-jerk over the latest dumb thing that marjorie taylor-green has said. The double standard is palpable.
MTG is a somewhat influential leading and popular member of the highest legislature in the land. Her particular brand of insanity is newsworthy because she is, quite literally, a representative for her supporters. It’s not quite like dunking on some YouTube comment you saw.
If you want to dunk on AOC then feel free. This is a politics thread and she is a politician.
|
United States42251 Posts
On July 05 2023 15:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 15:49 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 15:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 14:50 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 14:49 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 14:15 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 12:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 12:13 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 11:14 Fleetfeet wrote:
[quote]
You made up this dismissive attitude. It is not real. No women here have presented the idea to DPB that they do not want penises in their spaces. If they had, I'm certain DPB would respond charitably and include them in the conversation while pointing out that their spaces would still be protected within the shared space of a unisex room. From there, a conversation could be had.
Yes, were this a real board producing a real decision, it would be important to have a few less dicks on the board. However, you're still a dick and while you're welcome to point out that there are too many dicks on the board, you can't appoint yourself a non-dick and say words for them.
I, for one, encourage people to be dismissive towards people presenting themselves as the authority for a group they are not part of. He said “women being scared of penises is not a valid ethical concern.” Im other words women being afraid of people with penises should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed in women’s spaces. On July 05 2023 11:04 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The space women are entitled not to have penises in is their bodies. They're not entitled to legislate that no penises be allowed in communal spaces intended for other people, some of whom have penises. Obviously. Is this not a dismissive attitude to what women may think on the matter? Edit: also there’s congressional testimony from one of Lia Thomases former teammates that some of the girls changed in the janitors closet because they felt uncomfortable. The idea that anyone is “inventing” women that are uncomfortable is off the mark. It’s not unfairly dismissive and women are coming out ahead in my “you don’t get to decide which shared public spaces are reserved for which sex” stance. For most of history people without penises haven’t been allowed in positions of power. I’m dismissive of the people wishing to continue that oppression and their desire to restrict access based on penises. If there’s a space that is intended for everyone and someone comes along and says “letting people with/without penises in makes me feel uncomfortable” then that’s their feeling but it’s not public policy. I mean come the fuck on, this is coloured water fountains all over again. You can feel uncomfortable if you like, as long as you accept that that’s your problem and don’t make it everyone else’s. I don’t disagree, I think this is logically consistent. I think a lot of times people want to have their cake and eat it too by saying it’s okay to banish cis people with penises but not trans people with penises from women spaces. It’s is okay to ban men from women’s spaces but not okay to ban trans women from women’s spaces because trans women are women. A bathroom is not a cis woman exclusionary zone. It’s for all women. Huh? Didn’t you just say it’s not okay to ban men from women’s spaces? You just compared it to coloured fountains. No. Read my posts again and let me know if you’re still confused by my stance once you’re done. Ok still confused It’s okay to ban men from women’s spaces. If anything it’s necessary to ban them from woman’s spaces. That’s kinda implied by the name. If both men and women are welcome then I would call that a unisex space rather than a woman’s space. but why is it ok?
Because of the meaning of words.
If I were to say that it’s okay to have 12 eggs in a dozen box of eggs but that it’s not okay to have 5 would you see why that is evidently the case? If so I really don’t see why you’re struggling with how a woman’s space, as opposed to a unisex space, must be exclusionary by definition.
It’s okay for a box of a dozen eggs to contain 12. It’s not okay if it contains 5. That would be wrong. You would open that box and say “this is not okay”.
|
@Uldridge
this is what Kwark said " Sex at birth isn't a working system for anyone."
I disagree, Clearly it is a working system for some, a Vast vast majority.
@Fleetfeet you still celebrating j1 bud? how high are you right now, bless our lord and savior Justin Trudeau for legalizing it the electric lettuce eh. It's what matters.
|
Canada2521 Posts
Being honest, I think that particular case is one where BJ has some validity. The recent commenting on DeSantis has parallels to Dark Brandon memery, where it's (vaguely) celebrated on this side of the fence. I think the message the meme sends is abhorrent, but it fulfils some sort of fantasy where your politician actually pursues your strongest desire and is the 'man' you wish they were. It isn't immediately parallel, but feels similar, and to be fair I remember most here being like "Yeah Dark Brandon is stupid" but...
I don't think this justifies BJ's bullshit argumentation on basically everything, but I figured it's worth a comment.
@Taelshin
This still isn't the canadian politics thread, and I've just had a few beers and some fuggin' cheese toast. To be honest, it's unclear if your inability to spell or engage in any sort of consistent capitalization is brought upon by inebriation or nature, but I was offering you the courtesy of assuming it was the former. You're welcome.
|
On July 05 2023 15:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 15:51 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 15:49 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 15:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 14:50 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 14:49 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 14:15 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 12:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 12:13 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:30 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
He said “women being scared of penises is not a valid ethical concern.” Im other words women being afraid of people with penises should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed in women’s spaces.
[quote]
Is this not a dismissive attitude to what women may think on the matter?
Edit: also there’s congressional testimony from one of Lia Thomases former teammates that some of the girls changed in the janitors closet because they felt uncomfortable. The idea that anyone is “inventing” women that are uncomfortable is off the mark. It’s not unfairly dismissive and women are coming out ahead in my “you don’t get to decide which shared public spaces are reserved for which sex” stance. For most of history people without penises haven’t been allowed in positions of power. I’m dismissive of the people wishing to continue that oppression and their desire to restrict access based on penises. If there’s a space that is intended for everyone and someone comes along and says “letting people with/without penises in makes me feel uncomfortable” then that’s their feeling but it’s not public policy. I mean come the fuck on, this is coloured water fountains all over again. You can feel uncomfortable if you like, as long as you accept that that’s your problem and don’t make it everyone else’s. I don’t disagree, I think this is logically consistent. I think a lot of times people want to have their cake and eat it too by saying it’s okay to banish cis people with penises but not trans people with penises from women spaces. It’s is okay to ban men from women’s spaces but not okay to ban trans women from women’s spaces because trans women are women. A bathroom is not a cis woman exclusionary zone. It’s for all women. Huh? Didn’t you just say it’s not okay to ban men from women’s spaces? You just compared it to coloured fountains. No. Read my posts again and let me know if you’re still confused by my stance once you’re done. Ok still confused It’s okay to ban men from women’s spaces. If anything it’s necessary to ban them from woman’s spaces. That’s kinda implied by the name. If both men and women are welcome then I would call that a unisex space rather than a woman’s space. but why is it ok? Because of the meaning of words. If I were to say that it’s okay to have 12 eggs in a dozen box of eggs but that it’s not okay to have 5 would you see why that is evidently the case? If so I really don’t see why you’re struggling with how a woman’s space, as opposed to a unisex space, must be exclusionary by definition. It’s okay for a box of a dozen eggs to contain 12. It’s not okay if it contains 5. That would be wrong. You would open that box and say “this is not okay”.
Why should an exclusionary space where cis men are not permitted to enter be allowed to exist in the first place?
|
BJ, if you want to make a point, go ahead. Because if this is an elaborate way of trying to make people see your point, it's getting very tedious.
|
@Fleetfeet I don't need you to hold my....You know....(hands obviously). I appreciate the heads up. Maybe a maybe PM me a post where I had some horrible grammar? wouldn't be the first time.
|
United States42251 Posts
On July 05 2023 16:01 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 15:55 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 15:51 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 15:49 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 15:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 14:50 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 14:49 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 14:15 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 12:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 12:13 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
It’s not unfairly dismissive and women are coming out ahead in my “you don’t get to decide which shared public spaces are reserved for which sex” stance. For most of history people without penises haven’t been allowed in positions of power. I’m dismissive of the people wishing to continue that oppression and their desire to restrict access based on penises.
If there’s a space that is intended for everyone and someone comes along and says “letting people with/without penises in makes me feel uncomfortable” then that’s their feeling but it’s not public policy. I mean come the fuck on, this is coloured water fountains all over again. You can feel uncomfortable if you like, as long as you accept that that’s your problem and don’t make it everyone else’s. I don’t disagree, I think this is logically consistent. I think a lot of times people want to have their cake and eat it too by saying it’s okay to banish cis people with penises but not trans people with penises from women spaces. It’s is okay to ban men from women’s spaces but not okay to ban trans women from women’s spaces because trans women are women. A bathroom is not a cis woman exclusionary zone. It’s for all women. Huh? Didn’t you just say it’s not okay to ban men from women’s spaces? You just compared it to coloured fountains. No. Read my posts again and let me know if you’re still confused by my stance once you’re done. Ok still confused It’s okay to ban men from women’s spaces. If anything it’s necessary to ban them from woman’s spaces. That’s kinda implied by the name. If both men and women are welcome then I would call that a unisex space rather than a woman’s space. but why is it ok? Because of the meaning of words. If I were to say that it’s okay to have 12 eggs in a dozen box of eggs but that it’s not okay to have 5 would you see why that is evidently the case? If so I really don’t see why you’re struggling with how a woman’s space, as opposed to a unisex space, must be exclusionary by definition. It’s okay for a box of a dozen eggs to contain 12. It’s not okay if it contains 5. That would be wrong. You would open that box and say “this is not okay”. Why should an exclusionary space where cis men are not permitted to enter be allowed to exist in the first place?
Because things may legally exist unless they’re specifically banned and this one exists.
Do you have any arguments for banning it? Because if not I’m really not seeing where you’re going here. You seem to be trying to make me defend its existence when the burden is really on you to first launch an attack. Hell, maybe if you make a sufficiently good argument I’ll agree with you that they shouldn’t exist. But you do actually need to make the argument first before demanding that I respond to it.
|
On July 05 2023 16:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 16:01 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 15:55 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 15:51 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 15:49 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 15:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 14:50 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 14:49 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 14:15 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 12:53 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I don’t disagree, I think this is logically consistent. I think a lot of times people want to have their cake and eat it too by saying it’s okay to banish cis people with penises but not trans people with penises from women spaces. It’s is okay to ban men from women’s spaces but not okay to ban trans women from women’s spaces because trans women are women. A bathroom is not a cis woman exclusionary zone. It’s for all women. Huh? Didn’t you just say it’s not okay to ban men from women’s spaces? You just compared it to coloured fountains. No. Read my posts again and let me know if you’re still confused by my stance once you’re done. Ok still confused It’s okay to ban men from women’s spaces. If anything it’s necessary to ban them from woman’s spaces. That’s kinda implied by the name. If both men and women are welcome then I would call that a unisex space rather than a woman’s space. but why is it ok? Because of the meaning of words. If I were to say that it’s okay to have 12 eggs in a dozen box of eggs but that it’s not okay to have 5 would you see why that is evidently the case? If so I really don’t see why you’re struggling with how a woman’s space, as opposed to a unisex space, must be exclusionary by definition. It’s okay for a box of a dozen eggs to contain 12. It’s not okay if it contains 5. That would be wrong. You would open that box and say “this is not okay”. Why should an exclusionary space where cis men are not permitted to enter be allowed to exist in the first place? Because things may legally exist unless they’re specifically banned and this one exists. Do you have any arguments for banning it? Because if not I’m really not seeing where you’re going here. You seem to be trying to make me defend its existence when the burden is really on you to first launch an attack. Hell, maybe if you make a sufficiently good argument I’ll agree with you that they shouldn’t exist. But you do actually need to make the argument first before demanding that I respond to it.
Here's a few arguments for why cis men shouldn't be excluded from women's bathrooms. I'm assuming you agree with all of them.
you don’t get to decide which shared public spaces are reserved for which sex
We shouldn't restrict access to things based on penises
If you can't handle the existence of other peoples' genitals then that's a problem that you should work on, not a demand that society must cater to
|
United States42251 Posts
On July 05 2023 16:20 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 16:07 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 16:01 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 15:55 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 15:51 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 15:49 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 15:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 14:50 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 14:49 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 14:15 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
It’s is okay to ban men from women’s spaces but not okay to ban trans women from women’s spaces because trans women are women.
A bathroom is not a cis woman exclusionary zone. It’s for all women. Huh? Didn’t you just say it’s not okay to ban men from women’s spaces? You just compared it to coloured fountains. No. Read my posts again and let me know if you’re still confused by my stance once you’re done. Ok still confused It’s okay to ban men from women’s spaces. If anything it’s necessary to ban them from woman’s spaces. That’s kinda implied by the name. If both men and women are welcome then I would call that a unisex space rather than a woman’s space. but why is it ok? Because of the meaning of words. If I were to say that it’s okay to have 12 eggs in a dozen box of eggs but that it’s not okay to have 5 would you see why that is evidently the case? If so I really don’t see why you’re struggling with how a woman’s space, as opposed to a unisex space, must be exclusionary by definition. It’s okay for a box of a dozen eggs to contain 12. It’s not okay if it contains 5. That would be wrong. You would open that box and say “this is not okay”. Why should an exclusionary space where cis men are not permitted to enter be allowed to exist in the first place? Because things may legally exist unless they’re specifically banned and this one exists. Do you have any arguments for banning it? Because if not I’m really not seeing where you’re going here. You seem to be trying to make me defend its existence when the burden is really on you to first launch an attack. Hell, maybe if you make a sufficiently good argument I’ll agree with you that they shouldn’t exist. But you do actually need to make the argument first before demanding that I respond to it. Here's a few arguments for why cis men shouldn't be excluded from women's bathrooms. I'm assuming you agree with all of them. you don’t get to decide which shared public spaces are reserved for which sex We shouldn't restrict access to things based on penises If you can't handle the existence of other peoples' genitals then that's a problem that you should work on, not a demand that society must cater to
Is that really the gotcha you’ve been building up to over the past dozen posts? A simple misunderstanding of my argument? Really? Did I not tell you already to go back and read it again?
The women’s bathroom is a shared space for women. All women. Cis women don’t get to decide that they’re not feeling comfortable sharing it with trans women. Just like how white women don’t get to decide they’re not comfortable sharing it with black women. It’s the women’s bathroom, it’s for women.
I stated all this earlier, work on your reading comprehension.
Are you attempting to make an argument that women’s bathrooms shouldn’t exist at all and that all bathrooms should be unisex? We covered that one already too. I’m open to the idea but we already have lots of bathrooms and I’m not interested in remodeling them.
Or are you attempting to make an argument that women’s bathrooms should exist, but that they should be for everyone? If so we covered that one when I explained that words have meanings and that if everyone is welcome in the women’s bathroom then that’s not a women’s bathroom anymore.
|
@Kwark here you are assuming trans women are women again.
|
United States42251 Posts
On July 05 2023 16:37 Taelshin wrote:
@Kwark here you are assuming trans women, Are women again.
0/10 must try harder
|
Must be nice to ignore reality.
|
Earlier Kwark mentioned that it is (or should be?) decided by ID - if your ID says "female/woman" then you're, otherwise you're not.
So unless someone has documents to prove it, they shouldn't be allowed.
It's not about what do you think or feel, it's about what your ID says.
Did I understand this correctly, Kwark?
|
United States42251 Posts
On July 05 2023 16:39 Taelshin wrote:
Must be nice to ignore reality.
0/10 must try harder
|
On July 05 2023 16:37 Taelshin wrote:
@Kwark here you are assuming trans women are women again.
It isn't an assumption. But you need to go back to the kiddie table, the grown-ups are having a conversation.
|
On July 05 2023 16:39 ZeroByte13 wrote:
Earlier Kwark mentioned that it is (or should be?) decided by ID - if your ID says "female/woman" then you're, otherwise you're not.
So unless someone has documents to prove it, they shouldn't be allowed.
It's not about what do you think or feel, it's about what your ID says.
Did I understand this correctly, Kwark?
Legally, yes.
I personally prefer to leave this absolute non-issue alone. We haven't even gotten anybody presenting a real case of cis women being upset over a real transgender woman being in their bathroom, regardless of what her ID says. So before we have actual problems, it's hard to talk details, and "what your legal ID says" is currently what bathroom you should enter.
|
@Acrofales Naw it's an assumption don't allow that to break your lil world view though.
|
United States42251 Posts
On July 05 2023 16:39 ZeroByte13 wrote:
Earlier Kwark mentioned that it is (or should be?) decided by ID - if your ID says "female/woman" then you're, otherwise you're not.
So unless someone has documents to prove it, they shouldn't be allowed.
It's not about what do you think or feel, it's about what your ID says.
Did I understand this correctly, Kwark?
I’m not in charge of coming up with an absolute and all encompassing set of rules on this and I wouldn’t want that responsibility.
IDs, as have been pointed out earlier, can be issued by a great many local, regional, and national authorities each following their own guidelines. A rule based on IDs wouldn’t be perfect.
By and large we’re discussing private property (most bathrooms are located on private property) so whatever rules they’re enforcing would most likely be the relevant ones. I don’t think this should really be a legal issue and I don’t see why bathroom laws have become a hot button political issue.
For example if my toddler runs into the women’s toilets I’m going to loudly announce myself and go in to retrieve him. I don’t think anyone would have any issues with that and I don’t think there’s any benefit to having a law that dictates whether that’s allowed. This is an area more governed by social custom than by law, the anti trans bathroom laws would not prevent inappropriate harassment by lesbians in a women’s bathroom but we all already know that sexual harassment isn’t okay and so they’d go to the staff and seek to have the individual banned from the premises or whatever. Not because their genitals were wrong but because their conduct was wrong. Conduct is what matters to me.
So let’s say we have a model trans woman. She’s passing, she causes no problems, talks to nobody, goes into the bathroom, enters a stall, takes a shit, and leaves. Someone who knew her pre transition recognizes her and complains. I would want the staff to have her back regardless of what her ID says because I want to live in a world where we can all shit in peace.
Now let’s say we have a straw trans woman who has an ID saying she’s a woman but spends her time in the bathroom taking upskirt photos. I would want her prosecuted, not because of bathroom laws but because of laws against upskirts. The conduct was wrong.
I think a legal ID can be used as a proxy for whether someone has taken transitioning seriously but it is far from the only or the most important indicator. It is one of many factors you would use to determine whether someone’s conduct in choosing their facilities is appropriate.
The gym I go to also has junior changing rooms and kids between certain ages are meant to use those. However I would not want it legislated that only kids between those ages can use those because some children are more independent than others and some need extra help from their guardians. It makes far more sense to me to allow kids to choose whether the junior bathroom is the right bathroom for them then have someone at the door checking birth certificates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
