Ludeon Forums

TRIGGER WARNING : Don't read this if you aren't particularly thick skinned. I'm not liable if you get your jimmies rustled. You have been warned.























So LGBT people argue trans need rights and protections in order to be safe, and respected.

This of course, is causing massive backlash from many.

One of the arguments is that men or women could "claim" to be transgender to enter the other bathroom, and little could be done to prevent it. And really this is true, what verification can you make? ask them how they "feel" if they "feel" trans? Any man could just answer yes and be defended by LGBT rules.

Many say that "no trans people have been arrested", yet, this is a moot statement as "trans" as a defining factor can be removed just as easily as given. Say a "trans" man wears a dress and takes photos in a girls bathroom, gets arrested. Will he be declared trans in the statistic? Maybe, maybe not. That is a problem, the "statistics" are so incredibly flexible that people could claim to be trans to get in, yet when arrested, be called not trans and just "a pervert", despite claiming to be so. This is even more likely when you consider news RARELY gives trans people their preferred gender title, so its easier to hide this.

So, what do you think would help? There is obviously no "real" way to verify it, and the risks involved are huge. I personally think, that, given trans are generally adults and an extremely small minority, its better to give them the shaft than to risk openly tolerated perversion under the guise of tolerance. Its comparing risks to a few to many, many women and children.

And don't think there haven't been issues, there have.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/5-times-transgender-men-abused-women-and-children-amanda-prestigiacomo

It seems all a guy needs to do to get into a bathroom, womens shelter, locker room, ect, is say "trans" and hes in. After all, arguing against is considered bigoted.

So what do you guys think?

I honestly think this shows the endless complications, headaches, problems, and issues that come with transgenderism. It isn't verifiable, keeping a neutral zone is harder ; mens and womens areas work wonderfully, minus the occasional violent gay / lesbian, but trans people are IMPOSSIBLE to put into a public area without drawing attention of some sort particularly if not 100% passable nude (99.9% of trans are not) and theres also risk of exposure to children, which is a massive headache / heart ache of having to possibly give sex ed to a 6 year old girl because she sees a transgenders penis in the locker room.

Not to mention most women are absolutely NOT ok with a trans "girl" entering their bathroom as seen here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHt7EBCgJnI

But regardless, I want to hear what you guy think.

Well it's simple. The world needs to stop taking sex so seriously...
Think gender neutrality.. if we didn't make such a big deal about sex then it wouldn't be a big deal ... such as not even having a male female bathroom and always just having "family" bathrooms.. It has been proven to work well.

Just make everyone use bathroom stalls.

Proven in what sense? I've not seen proof of it working, and family bathrooms working don't work just because "family" is in the name. It also depends on the area, demographics, security, and other factors.

And really, sex IS a serious thing, it can cause countless diseases if done improper, sex drives are in everyone, and can often lead to very bad decisions if not carefully controlled / kept away from temptation, sexual assault can cause debilitating injuries to someone mentally / emotionally, and as I pointed out with the links above, this has ALREADY lead to several assaults / other problems, when a random guy claims "yo, im transgender, let me into the female shelter" and the authorities cannot deny him because discrimination is illegal. Then when assaults happen several times, after emotional scars are made in these women, THEN it is dealt with. Not to mention, your "solution" doesn't at all touch on these assaults, and its pretty much saying "everyone else needs to change", rather than policy. I wasn't asking what society should do, but what policies should be made to protect people.

Besides, no matter what, many people will ALWAYS be against transgenderism, if not outright hate them. It will quite literally never go away, ever. Even if you eliminated religion, there's too many people who will grow to hate them from last minute "by the way I'm a trans" situations, people becoming trans after marrying someone, or just people noticing psychological trends in them. So no, your solution won't work, because it isn't possible, sorry.

Stalls is really not a solution, women's restrooms are nothing but stalls already, so that literally is a pointless suggestion. Plus, honest, more people are worried about assaults in the womens room than mens. Generally few men care about a woman taking testosterone entering the mens room, though men taking estrogen can be extremely uncomfortable in the mens room as well. Really, there's no "good" place to put them without isolating them. And that would mean a separate 3rd restroom for all places, could you imagine that kind of cost?

Also, I'm starting to sense perhaps nobody checked my links... There is proof of issues there, of people abusing this "rule". The one in Toronto is particularly bad, as the guy harassed multiple girls who were already in a very bad place, being in a shelter, and hurt them far worse. Those girls didn't choose to be homeless, though, like it or not, trans people CHOOSE to take the ACTIONS of being trans ie hormones, dress, habits, ect. Trans people will devote massive amount of time,  money, and resources willfully to get hormones, to get clothes, surgery, ect, and nobody forces them to go out spending money on them.

Try reading a little about sweden's gender neutral schools and how effective it is

http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2016/feb/02/swedish-schools-gender-alien-concept

On another note of course we couldn't just stop with our current mindsets we are humans.

But say 100 years from now doing what sweden is we could eliminate the problem in the long term.. which is imo more important.

Ever wonder why Sweden?

Because Sweden men are far, far, FAR less masculine on average, due to a culture shaming, and trying to discourage it. They didn't used to be that way, but they were changed by the feminism shoehorning into the culture. This is part of the reason the birth rates there were lower a while back, rad feminism is rampant there, and any display of masculinity is pretty much shunned. This is also a problem with the whole "rape capitol of the world" situation, the men who would of protected the women from those immigrants attacking are now less masculine, and thus, less combative.

Where as, some place like, say,  brazil, life is much harder, masculinity is much more prevalent, this would not work. Course, brazil is crazy anyways, so I doubt people there would give 2 shits about the rights of a transgender anyways, theres much more important stuff to worry about than that over there.

Its cultural things that make it that way, where such bathrooms can "work", but there's a heavy price for shunning masculinity.

Oh, and bathrooms being for all genders essentially combines all problems together, the only one being fixed is "do you have a right to be in here", which by getting rid of that only causes more. Trans people can still get assaulted in them, both by males, and females, people WILL be made uncomfortable by them (the bathrooms), sexual assault / misconduct will be more prevalent since separation of males and females aren't a thing, ect. Literally only problem solved is preventing arguments of "who goes where", which is really the least of the problems once that happens.

And 100 years time I doubt people will find it different. If there are reasons for people thinking something, even if you disagree, people will eventually discover / act on these reasons, even if such thinking had been suppressed. So when someone notices a bunch of sexual harassment in bathrooms, they might, in those 100 years say "hey, I know a way to cut sexual misconduct, give men and women different bathrooms". And besides that, getting people to be ok with unisex bathrooms is an uphill battle.... I sense people tolerate it, but don't actually like it, like MANY things.

Mumble, I'm confused and concerned by what I'm seeing here.  It seems that you go out of your way to point out all the negatives related to a small subset of humanity (LGBT community) while ignoring those SAME negatives in larger/dominant subsets (hetero community).

Examples:  Trans using either bathrooms causing harassment?  What about hetero school/workplace sexual harassment?  It's way more common and just as damaging.  LGBT sex spreads disease?  So does hetero sex, only there's a LOT more people engaging in hetero sex if you're right about your numbers.  I could be more specific, but you get the idea.

You don't strike me as a bully, but why else would you single out a minority group with negative intent?  Do you just need to be right about something?  Are you looking for something to control?  I don't get it.  I want these forums to be safe for all participants, but I know I wouldn't feel safe if I belonged to a minority group you didn't approve of.

EDIT - Thanks for clarifying, and for the OP edit.  Carry on! :)

I can appreciate the concern milon, and no, you are right, I am not a bully. I bring it up because frankly, I think dialog must be had on such topics : not to spread "hate" or try to hurt people, but to point out very real, very dangerous realities of our world. Transgenderism will always be a delicate topic, there will always be hate, and violence will always be a possibility. Its just a fact, and I think cases of a transgender woman getting maced, or tazed, or otherwise by a woman in a womans room isn't too farfetched, so is it really that much of an improvement for "safety"?

I'm aware heterosexuality has its own faults. Men vs women dynamic is such that I could write a book on it, each gender views the other as an "enemy" even covertly, and often works for their best interests, and against the opposite sex, while really both selflessly focusing on the other would build much more solid, healthy, and powerful relationships. That and the delicate balance of sexism where men and women are indeed different (and people MUST realize and accept this) but neither should be viewed as "fully" inferior or superior due to any set strength / weakness of the gender. But I don't think any heterosexual issue is as pressing, or as urgent as the topic at hand, concerning the safety of everyone, and plausible solutions to it. It is very clear to me, as asinine as I think the idea is, it won't be vanishing soon. So I might as well talk, and see if any consensus can be reached on the topic. After all, this topic effect EVERYONE, not just transgendered.

Sorry if I seem a bit hostile milon, not my intention at all. As to why I am pointing out so many negatives, I suppose its because my argument against the bathroom thing would be instead trying to move people away from the idea of transgenderism. Even if people have gender dysphoria (I've had it before, it fucking SUCKS, I don't blame anyone who has had it) I do think trying to address the underlying causes of dysphoria is better than trying to transition, and arrange something like this, and attempting to keep things safe and secure. Its about minimizing damage to society; every option presented, to an extent, will cause damage, no solution is ever perfect, especially not for this. Question is, how do we hurt the least amount of people? One might think the simple answer is instate such bathrooms, BUT, as shown in the articles, this leads to more grey areas than 50, and again, since transgenderism is such an incredibly vague, open definition, literally any man can call himself transgender and get into the womans restroom if they want, saying they just started yesterday. People won't like it, will know its bs and the guy might be a creep, but legally, there's absolutely no way to stop them once they say the magic words "I identify as a girl". This is exactly what happened in Toronto, and that ended badly.

At very least, quantifying and weighing the persons transition status as part of it would be a huge thing. For instance, how long (on record) have they been on hormones? Have they had surgery? ect. Such things could at very least keep random dudes from hanging in the women's room just on this basis, if they have no hormones / surgery yet. Its nowhere near a perfect solution (I would personally prefer a different idea of course) But its a compromise to say the least. Something I haven't seen on either side, much less cross position dialog, which I'm trying to coax out right now, with little luck... But I guess very few people feel even remotely comfortable discussing worse case scenarios of this.

Final notes, I mean no harm to anyone, trans, gay, or otherwise, so feeling safe shouldn't be an issue, unless of course you mean someone being harmed by criticism , in which case, I will put a trigger warning in the first post JUST for this reason. For the harassment, harassment of all kinds (hetero, gay, lesbian, trans bashing, ect)  could still occur with a neutral bathroom, so I'm kinda grouping it together. Even if harassment wouldn't be done by / against genuine transgender people, it opens the doorway to much more harassment of all kinds by effectively removing gender barriers to anyone who wishes them gone if they only say the magic words. This is the core of my concern. There is, legally speaking, no distinguishing between a 5 year transitioned transgendered, and a sex offended who out of the blue calls himself trans and tries to enter a place.

Thanks for the clarification.  I think I lost the track of what you were saying after reading a few instances of "there will ALWAYS be hate, and violence too".  I believe that to be technically true, but I didn't really see anyone else bringing it up, so that colored my reading of you.  That was my mistake, and I'm sorry about that.

You mention that "very few people feel even remotely comfortable discussing worse case scenarios", and that may be true too.  But personally, I didn't realize the goal was to discuss worst case, so again I was reading negativity where it wasn't intended.  It may be helpful to begin by stating that, or people may assume that you're coming at it from a this-is-how-it-is perspective, rather than a this-is-an-extreme-edge-case-worth-talking-about perspective.  (But you know what they say - opinions are like armpits; everybody has them.  This is just my opinion. ;) )

That's actually one of the reason I haven't clicked any of your links.  I assumed you had a this-is-how-it-is perspective, so I assumed the links were random articles with the same attitude and didn't bother.  In all honesty, you can find an article in favor of pretty much anything no matter how crazy or insane (and with slight data manipulation you can make it look like the stats back it up).  Again, my assumption, and my bad.

The other reason I didn't click anything was because tldr.  I quickly get lost in word-walls and either skim for key words or skip it entirely.  I recognize the irony I'm creating with a long post of my own, but as good authors will tell you, "If I had more time, I would have written less."  Getting more across with fewer words is one of the best things any writer can accomplish, and I have to go to work now, so there's no more time to edit this down.

Cheers!

Mumble, I'm glad you explained what you meant, and i'm gonna try to show my opnion on this subject:

I live in Brazil and in here it's commum to see 12 year old girls pregnant, mass rapes happening, "parties" for underages use drugs and have sex to be later used on sex slavery, young girls being forced to prostitution because of debts that her family made.

And i'm not talking about one case or another that splashes in the news. That happens with thousands people everyday. Rio's civil police state that in the first quarter of 2013, 1,822 rapes were committed, while only 70 persons were arrested for these crimes. That is one city, on one quarter of a year where our economy was on the rise. Things got pretty grim this last three years. In Brazil where the man are "manly"... I'd rather live in Sweden.

On the bathroom problems, Gay people don't need another bathroom. Transgender shouldn't need one too. I've already saw Transgender that looked and behaved exactly like a woman. If she didn't talk we wouldn't even know she was a man.

If an argument is Transgenders raping people on the oposite sex bathroom, the problem is not the transgender, it's the rape. How do you solve this? the same way you solve Heterosexual rape (Don't know how to solve it easily). If someone is an actual transgender, he/she will behave like the oposite sex. And he should use the bathroom of the oposite sex knowing that he may get some bad looks. If he/she decides to become one, he has to be ready to face this prejudice.

Now about the "Weird" feeling you might get when you see a transgender in the toilet, I have the same weird feeling when I see two men kissing, when there is a drunk playboy using a "yolo" cap puking on a table just because, or an artist filled with huge piercings an all-body tatoos.

I've made peace in my mind that this are the new days, I live in a small 30.000 inhabitants city, and the stated is not very comum here. But when I go to the big centers and see this, I feel weird seeing this, like this is not part of my reality. But I will not object to this. I'll try to understand and

EDIT: Just my opinion =) Feel free to discuss it

   America is unusual in two ways: fast food and nerdy young people talk about the problems of society.

Glad to see we got the misunderstandings flattened out.

As for the links, they are this :

First is a list of 5 instances of something going wrong with the transgender law. Guys getting let into womens shelters and sexually assaulting women using that as an excuse, masculine men who do not even try to appear girly laying around naked in womens locker rooms, ect...  And besides the sexual assault, nothing could be done at all, since the law is based ONLY on what the person says... I can literally,  legally speaking, go from cis to trans 30 times in as many minutes, if I just say so, and that is the terrifying part, its ONLY if the person says so how they determine it, atm. I have no big issue for fully hormoned, surgery done people using the restroom : I really could not give a rats. But the fact that any guy, even myself, could walk into a womans bathroom by saying that, and legally be allowed is scary.

The second is a video of a social experiment of a guy dressing as a trans, despite being a full on dude, and entering a restroom to see how average women react. 3/4 scream at him and tell him to GTFO. So women are obviously very uncomfortable with it on average. Its maybe less relevant to the discussion, but I wanted to show it just to bring home why it effects "comfort". Especially because most people think of trans as fully transitioned, hormone filled, and surgery done, while most trans are, at least to start out, just in clothes of the opposite sex.

And yes, while these are "worst case scenarios", since they make them much more possible than they are currently, I don't think dismissing them as such is a good idea. Particularly when attempts / general lewdness like a grown man lounging naked around little girls can be legally defended.

@Rockbass

I'm sorry to hear about the situation in brazil, I'm well aware its pretty grim there. However, do not forget rape is actually quite high in sweden lately, so if it were to escape that, it wouldn't be the best plan.

Again (I'm honestly getting tired of repeating this lol) I'm far less worried about a male on estrogen attacking a girl in the bathroom, as I am if an outwardly masculine guy CLAIMED to be trans entered, and assaulted : as this is much, much more likely. I agree that trans should "act" like their "gender", but this still doesn't touch gender fluid, ect. And the law doesn't care, in current status, how they act, so long as they say they are x or y. I agree with you, they should act the part, but how would you define it legally to prevent such atrocities? Its an extremely delicate balance : Every bit of rules which protects women and children from potential perverts trying to abuse the rule also forces potential trans people into a non proffered bathroom / locker, and vice versa. The question is, where do we draw the line? how much of each do we value?

And yes, I'm aware that there's all kinds of differences....but I've for several years now, always asked the WHY of things. Something which the west has pretty much stopped doing entirely as a people.

@ carl : I kinda, sorta agree, except few ask questions as to why what happens. Most just hear things, parrot it, don't examine hard whys, and shoot down hard questions as racist, homophobic, bigoted, or strangely, even ignorant. I'm not one of those though, I believe truth can fear no questioning, as questioning is like gasoline to a flame : it only makes it stronger, it won't extinguish it. Though an electronic candle which "acts" like flame might go out if doused with gas, short circuiting. =)

I essentially agree with Rockbass & mumble.  The problem is less how people identify, and more what they do regardless of identification.

@ Carl Marks (LOL), what you're touching on is convenience and gossip.  And last I checked, those are 2 things that most humans love, American or not. ;)

I would actually say the problem is, legally it's only bound to saying it,  absolutely nothing else.  Its like a kid getting away with something because he says "sorry".  They might not be sorry, but simply making that noise from your mouth excuses you some.  Same principle,  except very dangerous. I cannot overstate enough. "i am transgender".  See? Legally speaking,  I'm now considered as such due to saying that.  I can now legally enter womens rooms where the law exists,  just based on that. Scary right? The fact that any man,  on a whim,  can enter a womans room with just these little words.  Because lets face it,  most places are too terrified of a lawsuit to argue.

That,  and there are already documented cases of people un- transitioning after,  which COMPLETELY destroys the "born this way"  theory which was already a leaky vessel (its not just from birth,  theres causes).  The fact that people can transition back,  and are often left humiliated, damaged, and with a massive part if their life wasted says a lot about how much water the trans idea holds in general.

More importantly, why can't I criticize transgenderism? I'm not advocating for violence or anything, just pointing out countless flaws.

i think it boils down to 2 things :

-attraction
-consent

once physical (maybe even mental and psychological) "attraction" becomes a more level playing field via genetic modifications or just the natural breeding of sexy hawt people going on a population explosion (there are more beautiful/smart people today compared to the past, thanks to natural selection), "consent" would be easier to achieve or at least have multiple available alternatives that the "risk vs reward" of getting sexy times vs punishment becomes a moot point.. hence lowering (maybe completely obliterating) the need for "exploitative sexual behavior".

so gender issues intermingling with each other also becomes a moot point, coz attraction and consent gets a new paradigm shift.

ie : beautiful/handsome people walking around buttnekid would rarely get complaints for indecency from the other grownups, because everyone is like a walking piece of art..

other than from the "we must protect the kids from lewdness" crowd and the religious high-horse brigade, which are a completely separate topic of "morality" focused on other archaic terms like "innocence" and "censorship".. etc..

Uhm,  what? Excuse me? I.... Humn..

I really have no idea where to start with you.

But ill give it a shot.

First off how in the actual hell does attraction / consent have even anything to do with this.  Really confused how you made such a jump,  and it kind of scares me,  as I'm sorta interpreting it as "if everyone is sexy enough, rape can't exist because everyone is sexy",  which is twisted  wrong, and frightening in several levels. Sorry if I'm grossly misinterpreting,  but i really have no idea what else to make of what you said.

Innocence is most definitely a real thing,  we form habits with everything we do, and while we all have sex drives,  CHOOSING to restrain it,  or completely submit to temptation DRASTICALLY effects who we become,  and the type mentality we get.  Children initially,  assuming not molested,  raped, or having ideas "implanted",  aren't incredibly perverted alone,  but there is so many implanted thoughts, this is hard to see in a first world country.

Even in adults,  sexual habits are easily formed,  through porn,  casual encounters,  toys,  ect, and unless one consciously restricts things,  the thoughts generally don't get restricted,  short of being unable to do such activities.

I also want to say your comment on "nobody complains about sexy people being indecent."  is a crock of shit : I've myself complained in the past about girls being too lewd, for 2 reasons. 1 : if I'm in a monogamous relationship, i DO NOT  want temptation. 2: unless I'm seeking sex,  its annoyingly distracting.  There's a time and place for everything,  and sex is not for everywhere / all the time,  and neither is thinking about it.

Now, i really don't want to be that guy,  but what you describe sounds really fucking unhealthy,  and you still didn't even touch on the aspect of perverted males using it as an excuse to peep at girls in the showers.  Again,  because some guy can just say "I'm transgender",  there's little keeping a guy from hanging in the woman's shower,  watching other girls as he strokes himself,  using an excuse of "im applying lotion for a rash"  or something. Such case is very hard to punish the guy,  almost impossible.

Granted some places ban trans women from female facilities until the snake has been slain,  but Obama is suing schools left and right because people make this decision,  even if schools provide a 3rd room.  So its not even "providing a safe place for trans",  but giving anyone the right to go anywhere if they claim it.

And for the umpteenth time,  besides the modification of the rule which insists the penis must be gone, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING preventing a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER even, from entering the womens room under this excuse. Yes, a guy who has raped / killed women in the past can now enter the womans room with these few words "I am transgender, and Identify as a female". Even if he has an ankle bracelet, is on severe lock down, ect, they can enter. If I'm wrong (provide PROOF of this, some legal documents on all provinces baring sex offenders) PLEASE tell me, because I would be relieved to hear that rapists cannot indeed enter a womans bathroom. But as it stands, from the vagueness of the law, this is just ridiculous and extremely dangerous

hmm.. maybe coz when i look at things i look at it from a "long enough timeline"

as in : when biological creatures already have the capacity to digitize their own consciousness and transfer it to other organic or mechanical bodies, and vice versa when true AI becomes practically indistinguishable from a digitized consciousness.

your "body" is little more than a temporary "meat sack".

so things like "beauty", "attraction", "consent", etc.. tends to be ephemeral in a "long enough timeline" in the age of post-scarcity when sentient creatures no longer gives a damn about meat sacks or some other drama..

-----------

edit :

the other thing to look at in the more "immediate future" is genetic manipulation/artificial eugenics. (which was what my first post was all about) it's not "far enough the timeline", but i see that it's already too far from the contemporary mindset.

next to look at are stuff like the prevalence of secularism and rational thinking.

so stuff like "lewdness", etc... seemed, so backwards in a progressive society, while being "politically correct" is gonna get so overwhelmingly cliched.

i think that in a "long enough timeline", people would be more concerned about uploading to a galactic cloud server their own consciousness and synchronizing the memories of multiple host bodies from across the universe. but i'm getting ahead of myself.

----

so nope. people trying to take a piss in an adjacent room that is not meant for their meat-sack "gender" doesn't make me feel like it's the end of the world. i'm actually hoping this "phase" of the timeline gets over soon so our descendants can laugh at how primitive and small minded people are in this current "phase".

I see your point keylocke, and in the future there will be nothing other than meat sacks. Yeah, that's the word, sometimes I feel the right way to treat people (legally) is like they are meat sacks.

Moviments like Feminism, Machism and LGBT should not have a place in the law, where everyone should have equal rights. Rape is a fellony, peeping is a crime, getting stalked and threatened in a bathroom is a crime. Indenpendent of gender or sex option.

There is no easy fix.
Let's say we put survailence: Everyone would be unconfortable.
Put a panic button on the Bathroom: People would hit it and run as a prank, bothering the police force.
Forbid people independent of the sexual option to use a bathroom other than their gender: Have the same problem you have right now.

The quickiest way to solve this would be towards fear, If you caught raping your pinky will be cut off or an giant R will be scarred into your face.

The human way would be through education, and we know how this will turn out.

And the best way... I don't know. Sesame Credits?

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 10, 2016, 08:04:06 PM
More importantly, why can't I criticize transgenderism? I'm not advocating for violence or anything, just pointing out countless flaws.

You can criticize any idea, including transgenderism.  You just have to be careful to keep criticism of an ideal separate from criticism of a person. This is especially true when the idea is considered to be a part of someone's identity.

You see there is all this talk of feminism here and masculinity....going back to my original post on gender nutrality... given time why would it matter what seems to be "eliminated" as long as humanity is better off because of it.. seeing how well sweden is doing give their methods.. not saying that I agree they shame "masculinity" ... as then you would also need to say they shame feminism.. they are attempting to create a new culture from the ground up one that is better than how we are now and how we have been in the past..

Put simply there isn't an immediate fix this is something that will take time, teaching, change of culture... which could take hundreds of years...and as i said imho is more important than an immediate fix as this is the future of humanity we are talking about... we will be around for say the next few hundred thousand years what is a few hundred changing our culture to better our social interaction... sweden is the perfect experiment in doing so .. do you disagree?

Locke,  lewdness can lead to temptation,  which can cause all sorts of problems potentially. Extramarital affairs,  divorce,  violence, social dysfunction, substance use  ect,  things can slowly deteriorate if there's no line drawn. Families suffering from divorce alone face massive problems,  children have more issues on average coming from a 1 parent family. And yes,  lewdness can indeed cause relationship problems,  meaning,  unhealthy sexual habits can deteriorate a relationship. Keep in minm lewdness is not sexuality in general,  but sexuality with no limits,  stuff like porn,  anal sex, other activities start to have psychological effects. 

So really the issue is preserving a good generational mentality. Even if things are to the point where nobody needs to work (we are practically there,  if powers LET US be this way) bringing up children to be healthy is still important,  hence the idea.  Even if people became vatgrown,  emotional development would be essential, and having a mother / father is proven to  raise a better child on average than not.

And again locke,  you don't address the real risk of men using this to be perverted around women and children.  The best way to deal with such problems IS NOT  reaction,  but prevention, especially because sexual charges in court are rather hard to get really,  all factors considered. So preventing it by not having the law would be the best solution. Keep in mind,  arresting every rapist is not solving the problem,  it is reacting to it.  The girl is still raped, will never be unraped. Preventing future rapes is the best approach.

Rock,  the "problem"  right now,  of trans people getting the shaft in restrooms is acceptable to all the alternatives. Its much less people at risk,  and transgender people tend to suffer mental illnesses as well ontop of being trans (which in and of itself is its own illness)  so instability will certainly be around with this.  This is why i think letting the minority population get the brunt of this problem,  which is arguably self made (while trans don't choose to feel gender dysphoria,  surgery,  cross dressing,  hormones, are all a consciously made decision.) is an acceptable outcome,  especially considering gender dysphoria can be cured,  and people can successfully detransition.

Ring,  I don't really agree,  criticism of others is part of what can improve them,  "as iron sharpens iron,  as does a man sharpen a man" .  I do disagree with transgenderism as a whole,  and arbitrary limitations to only talking about it in general,  and not to someone specifically is kind of counter productive,  if I'm indeed wrong,  they can,  and will choose not to listen. If they see fallacies or half truthes in my argument,  i encourage them to be pointed out.  But otherwise,  sharing my opinion politely,  even of someone else,  i see no reason to censor it just because it is potentially uncomfortable. Particularly if they could potentially benefit.

I agree with godsring, it's not something that can be solved easily. Gender neutrality may lead to a bunch of problems that I do not want to talk in this topic.

But the situations meantioned by Mumble are happening right now. Right now we should find a solution to this problem, even if it just a patched thing.

So how do we act in a situation that takes alot of time to fix but needs to fix right now? If we wait for it to be fixed right now, many people may be harmed, raped and scared for life.

If we try to fix it right now we will intervine in the free will of people and privacy and etc etc.

If this decision was up to me, I'd demand that independent of the choice of sexuality people would use the bathroom of their gender.

Men will not be able to enter the bathroom of the oposite gender and vice verse, regardless of your sexual option or how you dress. If that is not obeyed people will be reported and will have to face consequences (fine, jail time, etc). Will this cause problems? Yep. Will it help? I think so. No man shall be present in the women bathroom, and vice versa.

About lewdness, there's no problem if you and your partner agree to do it, but you have to keep in mind that your freedom ends where another persons freedom begins. Relationships are about mutual respect, that's how me and my wife conduct our marriege.

It is indeed a tricky thing. I really think, in terms of sheer numbers of who to protect, not allowing biological sexes in the wrong rooms is a good call. Just make sense on a "how many people are at risk" level.

With lewdness, keep in mind, its the same level of harm as say, alchohol. A beer every once in a while is harmless, but regular drinking is bad, and excess is dangerous. I hope that makes sense : hell, I'm no saint, but I try to curb my lewd thoughts when I can just because I know it can cause problems. Some might be almost imperceptibly minor, some might be devastating, depending on severity, but changes to ones psyche do happen. In a relationship, particularly committed one, its much less so, but can still cause problems if let out of hand.

Sex acts which are more extreme lead to certain habits possibly being formed, like sadism, masochism, devaluing your partner, aggression, ect. I also recall reading how having more and more relationships presents diminishing returns on females for relationship satisfaction. This is another reason I'm picky. I don't want to expend emotional energy / stamina on someone not worth it. Even though the study applied to women, I suspect it applies to men as well.

So yeah, lewdness isn't ALL bad or good, a bit of play here and there doesn't cause huge problems, but care should be taken to moderate it, and maintain mental health outside sex.

@rockbass :

well, if you're talking about immediate solutions to exploitative behavior that might result from this bathroom scenario.

going on a disguise to go to a bathroom of the opposite gender can be done by almost anybody who has the will to do this. exploitative behavior can also be done by the janitorial/maintenance staff. etc..

gist is : this change in the bathroom situation wouldn't deter any determined offender dozens of years ago, nor will this deter this kind of exploitative behavior dozens of years from now.

what this does though is to prevent the advancement of tolerance in people's mindsets..

-------

@mumble : "lewdness" is a matter of perspective. try looking at pics of native tribes with boobs hanging out like ripe melons. nobody who grew up in such a culture would think that boobs = lewdness.

same thing goes for notions of "temptation". some people do get "horny" when they see something attractive to them, the same way that people do get hungry or thirsty or any other biological urges.. in some culture this is called "temptation" which is supposedly a "sinful" thing, but that's another outdated notion like "sin", "souls", "eternal damnation", etc.. very archaic.

so people keeps tripping themselves over trying to cater to the whimsical nature of being "offended", which is why people tries too hard to be "politically correct". but this egocentric idea that the rest of the entire world needs to cater to the whimsical nature of a person or a group's shared preference for what is tolerable or offensive, is mindboggling.

when the world succumbs to the mindset of "nope you can't do X thing because it offends me", society starts devolving back to the dark ages where the solution to anything that goes against the tyranny of the majority is to be hanged and burned at the stake. it's like an aborted evolution, because the majority has decided that they wanna purge anyone who disagrees with them to preserve the status quo.

but all of these : "the way things are" are ephemeral. gender and sexuality are just base notions of us primitive biological creatures. our physical bodies are really nothing more than "meat sacks" and our mindsets are mostly the products of our cultures and personal preference.

in the end, the most important thing to acknowledge is the current "mortality" of us as a biological specie (for as long as we are trapped in our meat sacks), so anything that would bring harm to another entity should be avoided.

however, i also think that "tolerance" is the key to all this.. what is "offensive" and "lewd" to you does not mean that this feeling is shared by everyone. tyranny of the majority often dictates which side gets catered by society, but the thing is : "tolerance" allows both sides to coexist peacefully.

it's what rationally intelligent/sentient creatures would do.

Locke, the difference between a janitor and a random sex offender is the janitor can be fired for misconduct. Random sex offender can't get asked to leave, and can only be arrested if he DOES something, but if he just sits around oogling girls? perfectly legal.

This is the thing : while offenders would do this (I knew a sick guy in high school who did it) They now have a cover for the already hard to catch perversions. The guy was going into the girls bathroom for around 5 months before caught, now imagine he could make the excuse of "Oh im trans" ontop of it (he wasn't btw), now not only do you need to catch them in the bathroom, but you need to catch them beating off, taking pictures, or whatever they are doing, which is even harder. Its not that they weren't deterred before, its now they pretty much have an INVITATION, and a get out of jail free card. (seriously, I'm surprised so few are addressing this)

I think the whole perception of tolerance is very broken. Tolerance shouldn't meaan I cannot speak out against what I don't like, it should mean I'm civil. Non violent unless needed. Yet the "nope, you cant do x because it offends me" is applied to people anti LGBT all the time. In new york, you can get arrested for using the wrong pronoun on a transgender person. Guess I'm never going there...not that I wanted to anyways.

I do agree that mindsets are products of environment, but also of our observations too. I didn't use to be anti LGBT, and it wasn't till I had a few encounters of my own that I started thinking that way. I was judgemental on that movement before I was religious. However,  I say the mindset of transgenderism is also a product of the environment.

A lot of the anti LGBT arguements aren't even "it offends me", but observations of trends of mental unwellness associated with it, records of people coming away from gender dysphoria just fine, even detransitioning.

As for majority / minority, its just kind of a fact, the majority rules in most situations, and especially in this context where, apparently, both sides are "unsafe" (though again, transgender treatment is self inflicted usually, except for very unfortunate kids) its better to go with the majority, simply because, in this case, ensuring safety for more people is better.

hmm.. maybe coz we think of sexual acts in public as a "crime".

i mean if we think of this in the "now". masturbation in public is a pervy thing to do and people would overwhelmingly agree if their cultural mindsets share such opinions, though the act of "masturbation" itself (if done in private) can be contested about it's morality.

so like i said, it still boils down to attraction and consent.

ie : what are the things that causes "attraction" to a person. (masturbating in public to sexy women? furry? anything with a hole? etc.. this is generally based on culture and personal preference) vs what are the things they are allowed to do that others would "consent" to (ie : would you be offended if someone was jacking off to a teletubby or are you simply offended by the idea that someone was jacking off live and in front of sexy women without your/their consent? again this is based on culture and personal preference)

some people would consent to sexual acts in public, while others won't (some of the women might enjoy the spectacle, even if majority of them would get offended). just like some people think that jacking off to sexy women is the bestest ever, others would disagree and think that ponies are more hawt.

the side which society enforcers are often the side of the majority.

but in an alternate society where masturbation in public is normal or boobs hanging out is normal, then nobody would get offended. etc.

--------

i think the only caveat to this is the acknowledgement that we are currently just mortal creatures. our bodies takes damage (hardware), our way of thinking can get "corrupted" (software).

so anything that can harm either should be avoided.

getting "offended" is like trying to run an incompatible file that leads to the blue screen of death on one operating system, but running the same file is just normal data for another system. it's a matter of perspective.

i'm a horrible analogist so yea.. that's as close as i can get.

-------

my general perspective is that, meat sacks are prone to following base urges. and i often think about a world where people are no longer restricted to such mindsets.

ie : where a person can endlessly duplicate their digitized mind into multiple bodies simultaneously regardless of whether it is humanoid or mechanoid or whatever across the universe, and then just synchronize all the experiences of each host body into an intergalactic cloud server.. so that all these multiple bodies are actually just a single entity.

then there's also a world where pleasure can easily be dynamically simulated, etc..

when i think about that world.. topics such as "what room should people piss in?" starts getting a half "meh"/half troll reaction.

(i'm actually not sure why i still replied. maybe i should stop? lel)  ;D

------

in the end, once we got post-scarcity and humans have reached technological apotheosis, then yea all these things would be moot.

edit : coz in that world, "gender" becomes just an abstract concept, the moment that sentient creatures are no longer restricted to a single host body.

but simplest answer to this current dilemma would be, just piss in the men's room if you got a schlong, and to the women's room if you have a vagoo. and if there's only one bathroom, then wait for your turn like everyone else.

hahaha..

edit : actually nah.. if someone disguises themselves good enough and they are determined enough, unless someone actually makes a physical and ocular inspection of genitalia to inspect whether you're a dude or a chick, then people would still just exploit it sneaking in. or get ready to put xrays to every entrance of bathroom stalls to prevent androgenous looking masturbators sneaking in.  ;D

down the rabbit hole we go.

Quote from: keylocke on May 11, 2016, 01:22:28 PM
but simplest answer to this current dilemma would be, just piss in the men's room if you got a schlong, and to the women's room if you have a vagoo. and if there's only one bathroom, then wait for your turn like everyone else.

hahaha..

Keylocke, I agree with you, will not change any mindset. Acting in fear is what I did in the statment. Yeah, if someone does it right now he may claim that he is a Crossdresser and was confused by which bathroom he should go. If a law did forbid this people of using the other gender bathroom, he would go from a slap to the hand to a serious felony.

It is a "devolution", a regression, because is something we can't control. When things get out of control, I believe we the human beings will always go towards fear. Fear for my life, fear for my things, fear for my ideas, fear for my freedom. That's why I choose an option that would not help in the long run. Fear that one day my daughter will look to the side and see a men/women taking pictures of her peeing.

Since we got into the topic of education, on how to face other mindsets and live together... What about Sesame Credit? It's china's "social game" where the governmant gives you a score on how well you behave and on how good are your friends. Your friends score affects yours.

Now we have a tool, that maybe, and that's a BIG MAYBE, can help people be a better society. Not on our perception, but in theirs. This system will be mandatory, and something like Cross-dressing or being gay may be abolished from their culture. Is that a good thing? I'm afraid to say yes, I know alot of problems that may appear thanks to that but... is it a bad way to live? It may be ways better than ours where we have this many options and things to deal with.

I want to hear your opnion on this subject Keylocke, you seem to have a *Danm, I don't know the long words with cool meaning in english, gotta improvise* View of humanity that lies beyond the physical realm

i don't know the full details of sesame credits yet so i'm gonna need to browse up on that eventually.

but the idea of sesame credits the way you mentioned it, reminds me of doctorow's "down and out in the magic kingdom". and iirc, that kind of system can still be gamed. but it's a cool social experiment nevertheless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI)

i think this one seems to explain it good enough. apparently, it's a gamified tyranny of the majority, giving rewards and penalties for enforcing the status quo propagated by the government.

i actually think it's still open to exploits. ie : a person can simply pretend to go along with the system and then enjoy all the perks, even though they don't really agree with it.

eventually once people realized that the game can be exploited, more people will start exploiting it. so just like those things that are "too big to fail", it's probably gonna collapse under it's own weight (but this collapse will not be readily apparent, heck it might not collapse in a single person's lifetime.)

-----


edit : oh wait, even the banking systems and the taxation systems are essentially like unsustainable pyramid schemes. even though they've been around for ages.

ie : massive withdrawals and defaults could break a bank, same as massive civil disobedience by not paying taxes could also break the government.

but people keeps playing along anyways, coz they get "benefits." and the benefits often outweighs the other crap that people have to deal with.

so yea, in one way or another, we're already operating under different forms of sesame credits.

-----

this topic is starting to get off topic. haha.

Yeah! That went waaay off topic.

But back on Transgender bathroom argument, The Sesame Credit may be a way to further enhance the "damage" that a single act like the one said "A so called transgender enter's a womans bathroom and takes picutre/other stuff of them"

Imagine a permanant damage on the score. *-1500 on the score for 5 years* If he get's caught up on this, and the points on everyone linked to him drops thanks to this (According to what Extra Credits say, and they may get one sided) everyone linked to him will suffer it's penalties. Not only people will fiscalize their friends and family, but they will also intervine directly.

This can mold a society. Not saying it's perfect and in 5 secounds I can tell 10 things that might be wrong with this being applied to over a billion people. But like you said, this may last more than a lifetime, and that is enough to change society.

So maybe in ten years (supposing that china will let gay/trans/bi into their regime[dunno if they do]) The bathroom problem will not exist.

Only problem is,  rape and sexual assault is rarely even reported,  hence prevention is important. Especially in "random"  encounters, it is easy to get away with it.  This is why parents are very protective of kids,  limiting interactions when alone,  because most sexual assault does go unreported. So reactionary tactics are far less effective than proactive policies.

This is also a bit of concerning information,  and I ironically found it on a feminist run site,  a link to this.

https://outofmypantiesnow.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/when-is-90-not-substantially-all/

That most "transgender", are mtf,  and most of them have a psycho sexual disorder as well.

I've also heard that most grievous sex offenders have a tendency to at least cross dress,  if not more.

So considering most abuses won't be caught,  catching them doesn't heal the injured girls in question,  things suggest a HUGE increase in assaultive behavior,  ect,  is it really worth risking it all for someone's feelings? I say absolutely not.

Even if said trans is at risk,  is it worth putting EVERYONE ELSE at risk to possibly protect them? I think not... And tbh,  i think this bill will trigger a surge in transgender murder, simply out of defense of women and girls.  I guarantee it will increase, they have been already recently, and i don't see it stopping.

Also,  "tyranny of the majority"  is also known as democracy,  preventing this is censorship / tyranny itself.

Quote from: keylocke on May 11, 2016, 11:16:48 AM
@rockbass :

well, if you're talking about immediate solutions to exploitative behavior that might result from this bathroom scenario.

going on a disguise to go to a bathroom of the opposite gender can be done by almost anybody who has the will to do this. exploitative behavior can also be done by the janitorial/maintenance staff. etc..

gist is : this change in the bathroom situation wouldn't deter any determined offender dozens of years ago, nor will this deter this kind of exploitative behavior dozens of years from now.

what this does though is to prevent the advancement of tolerance in people's mindsets..

-------

@mumble : "lewdness" is a matter of perspective. try looking at pics of native tribes with boobs hanging out like ripe melons. nobody who grew up in such a culture would think that boobs = lewdness.

same thing goes for notions of "temptation". some people do get "horny" when they see something attractive to them, the same way that people do get hungry or thirsty or any other biological urges.. in some culture this is called "temptation" which is supposedly a "sinful" thing, but that's another outdated notion like "sin", "souls", "eternal damnation", etc.. very archaic.

so people keeps tripping themselves over trying to cater to the whimsical nature of being "offended", which is why people tries too hard to be "politically correct". but this egocentric idea that the rest of the entire world needs to cater to the whimsical nature of a person or a group's shared preference for what is tolerable or offensive, is mindboggling.

when the world succumbs to the mindset of "nope you can't do X thing because it offends me", society starts devolving back to the dark ages where the solution to anything that goes against the tyranny of the majority is to be hanged and burned at the stake. it's like an aborted evolution, because the majority has decided that they wanna purge anyone who disagrees with them to preserve the status quo.

but all of these : "the way things are" are ephemeral. gender and sexuality are just base notions of us primitive biological creatures. our physical bodies are really nothing more than "meat sacks" and our mindsets are mostly the products of our cultures and personal preference.

in the end, the most important thing to acknowledge is the current "mortality" of us as a biological specie (for as long as we are trapped in our meat sacks), so anything that would bring harm to another entity should be avoided.

however, i also think that "tolerance" is the key to all this.. what is "offensive" and "lewd" to you does not mean that this feeling is shared by everyone. tyranny of the majority often dictates which side gets catered by society, but the thing is : "tolerance" allows both sides to coexist peacefully.

it's what rationally intelligent/sentient creatures would do.

Exactly locke if you change our culture in such a way that it is accepted then no one will even think of there being a problem such as brothers who grow up bathing with their sister some would say "That's TABOO and disgusting you're promoting incest" While the children would never had thought of it that way unless mentioned... it's all cultural.. When a father gives his daughter a bath there shouldn't even be a thought in your mind about molestation and at one time there actually wasn't.. and because of a few incidents where mentally unstable people had children and did think in a lewd way ... our whole culture shifted for the worse... infact only increasing the problems..

@mumble : the thing about democracy is that it goes both ways.

for example : you see someone doing X action that you find offensive (ie : you see someone jacking off in the women's bathroom), then you or others take pics and share it in social media. stuff like that already happens all the time when people do something embarrassing in public.
at least both sides get to defend themselves to society.

result? : problem solves itself. some people think of women as automatically helpless "victims". but they are not. women have more power in this society than people gives them credit for.

there are stuff like rape, theft, murder, etc. but we already have laws for that.

whether people establish a strict law preventing people from entering bathroom stalls that is not of their gender, the problem would always be detection and enforcement.

but just like i said in the above scenario, if the women saw a dude entering their bathroom gawking at them or taking pics/vids, then take a picture back if it offends them. simple.

but if they saw some trans or whatever entering, not making a scene, just being normal, and the girls didn't mind, then i don't see a problem. (my girlfriend have tons of gay friends that are like her sisters. so yea, i don't see a problem as long as they don't show exploitative behavior, and even if they did, those actions already have a huge negative social impact to deter them)

edit :

a more simple solution is that, most stalls already have male/female janitorial staff. so if/when they see someone acting suspicious (regardless of gender), in most cases they are tasked to call security if they have a valid reason to do so.

i started joining this thread for lulz as a half-meh/half-troll, but it seems i got drawn into the whirlpool. hahaha.. noo. i must escape this serious business.

Problem is, trans is so vague its practically meaningless. I could go into target RIGHT NOW and chill in the womans restroom if i want,  and its acceptable,  so long as i say i identify as a girl.  Its my word,  absolutely nothing else.

As for "there's already laws",  well,  those laws don't stop people do they? Laws are to deter and punish things, but they still happen.  So good prevention is absolutely necessary.  After all,  beating a transgender person to death with a bat is a illegal,  and that never happens right? Oh wait. It does,  even though its it is illegal.

As for "just take a picture back"..  Are you saying this just to normal pictures,  or invasive ones? Because you are dangerously close to sounding like a sick pervert,  supporting sexual harassment / voyeurism.  Not saying you are,  but unless you clarify,  it sounds EXACTLY like that.  And lewd photos can really damage lives, so that kind of thinking is beyond wrong,  and destructive. Beyond that,  theres absolutely no deterrent that way.  However, arresting,  or better,  mob justice on someone taking pictures of girls in a bathroom is a deterrent,  as nobody wants to get beaten.

So please clarify,  otherwise,  I'm assuming you are sick for thinking that.  That is like saying if someone gropes you,  grope back. That encourages it,  and increases the problem.

But considering you said "if everyone is sexy,  rape won't exist"  or something like that,  I'm inclined to believe you have a warped perception on sex.  Feel free to clarify either statement,  but as I'm interpreting it,  you sound potentially dangerous.

Not trying to harass,  but such ways of thinking are incredibly dangerous and unhealthy.  So if those are indeed your views,  i recommend taking a good,  long hard look at them, and asking if you are really completely ok with it, and if you would be absolutely fine it happening to people close to you.

And if you indeed mean exactly as I'm interpreting, and fully stand by it...well... yeah no.  You are wrong, twisted, damaged, and are normalizing what is wrong, perhaps because it happened to you. Taking videos / pictures of those in compromised situations is damaging, humiliating, and can destroy people, relationships, carreers, ect. So saying "eh its fine, just do it back", not only does NOTHING to discourage it, but also encourages it.

Its like if the suggested defense against rape was "if you get raped, shove a finger up their butt to get back at them.". Does abssolutely nothing to help, and normalizes sexual assault, and if anyone seriously suggested this, they would be outcast by society.

I really, really, REALLY hope I'm misunderstanding you key, because otherwise, you scare me, and I think you need serious help.

sigh.. you're starting to sound like a preachy old prude.

when i said take a picture or a video back when you see someone doing something suspicious, then isn't that considered as evidence? does it make you a voyeur? that depends on the context isn't it? post it on social media and you usually get instant justice.

QuoteProblem is, trans is so vague its practically meaningless. I could go into target RIGHT NOW and chill in the womans restroom if i want,  and its acceptable,  so long as i say i identify as a girl.  Its my word,  absolutely nothing else.

sure you can. try it. then tell us how fun it was getting lynch mobbed IF you started showing signs of exploitative behavior. <---- exploitative behavior is different. like if the janitorial staff or females saw you just chilling in the restroom without actually using it, or if they see you taking pics/vids.. then they WILL react.

here's a chill fact : <---- most women have brains. they see something suspicious and they would react. heck most women would probably overreact. so have fun trying that out.

QuoteBut considering you said "if everyone is sexy,  rape won't exist"  or something like that,  I'm inclined to believe you have a warped perception on sex.  Feel free to clarify either statement,  but as I'm interpreting it,  you sound potentially dangerous.

nope. i think because rape is about consent. chances of consent increases based on sexual attraction. you do know how probabilities work right? so if everyone is dropdead gorgeous, and one person declines consent, there would be plenty of alternatives without taking the risks of rape.

rape is about risk vs reward for the aggressor. IE : if aggressor perceives that their level of sexual attraction is higher than the risk and punishment of getting caught, then rape occurs.

but in the timeline where eugenics made everyone dropdead gorgeous, consent is so friggin easy to acquire that the risk vs reward almost becomes a moot point.

i mean, rape could still exist, but why bother? this makes rape such an unappealing option.

----

edit :

seriously, bring out the pitchforks! lelelel.. this is absurd.

here's a more fun fact on HOW i think.

i think "gender" is just based on the current organic host body. but the mind has no gender. the mind might be affected by the physical attributes and limitations of it's current meat sack, but the moment we get the technology to transfer minds to different host bodies, gender, or heck even the specie becomes a moot point.

same thing applies to sexual attraction.. as in what could be sexually attractive to a singular entity that can occupy multiple and varied host bodies?

imagine a dolphin or an ape's mind gets digitized. the maximum parameters of the "mind" or the "consciousness" or the "self" are often limited to it's physical "host-bodies", "personal preference", and the "culture".

given enough time and access to different types of host-bodies, all forms of sentience (including true AI) essentially has NO gender and specie.. those things are just attributes of the physical host bodies for meat sacks.

sigh.. i'm not even sure if you're getting what i'm trying to get here. lel.  :P

gist is : males are only males for as long as they occupy a male form meat sack, same as dolphins are only dolphins because they live inside dolphin bodies.

but SENTIENCE itself (artificial or organic based) have no gender or age or specie.

the closest thing i can use an analogy is that sentience is like water and that it takes up the attributes of the container, which means that different containers will apply different attributes to the water but the water is NOT the container.

Ah, I see...well, this is a bit unpheasable for a quick picture or video to in turn get one of the perp. Sorry for misunderstanding, But I've heard crazier stuff.

The huge problem is LEGALITY.

Legally, all I have to do is say im trans and I'm in.

Legally, so long as I'm not doing something illegal (recording, assaulting, ect) There is no way to bar me from the restroom just because I've been in there a while.

Legally, people are liable for "discrimination", if they tell me to fuck off in such context, and ESPECIALLY if I'm assaulted.

These are the problems, legally its essentially a defense for anyone to go into anywhere, if they want. And even questioning it is grounds for "discrimination" charges.

Yes most women have brains, but legally these women can be IMPRISONED for telling me to fuck off. Just look at the story of the guy in toronto who entered the womans HOMELESS SHELTER and creeped on girls, everyone knew it was bs, but LEGALLY, could not do anything without being liable until there was an assault. This is the huge problem, it AIDS sex offenders to offend. Even "likely to re-offend" people, with gps bracelets can potentially use this to abuse people, which is sick.

Your view on rape is skewed as all hell. I've said no to attractive women before for moral grounds, and I'm not alone. I don't  think everyone being pretty would make rape less likely at all. And rape isn't just about attraction. There is an element of control, especially for the mentality of rapists who aren't incidental in raping. For many of them, they enjoy PARTICULARLY the idea of controlling, and perhaps harming a person.

More importantly, you are again viewing people exclusively as "meat" which is a broken view. I like people based on personality, as do many. refer to my old signature "if I can't get along with her, I'm not putting my shlong in her". Even if there are, hypothetically several girls around, all pretty, and willing, obsession over a person can still form if one feels a certain way about a particular person. And obsession would indeed cause targeting a specific person.

You really do sound like you have issues unfortunately, to view interpersonal relationships as "physical attraction is the only element, everyone would get laid if everyone was pretty". It is just not that simple, physical attraction is NOT everything, and not everyone wants to fuck random people all the time. I myself know I would start going crazy if I had regular casual sex, as emotionally I would die a little, sharing my body with strangers regularly, and then having my feelings discarded the next day. I would much rather have one person who cherishes me, cares for me, loves me, than different girl every night, who possibly doesn't give a crap about me, and with no good way to really open up, or have TRUE emotional intimacy. And MANY people are the same, not wanting to give themselves to someone they might never see again. Its emotionally damaging to do that.

Call me a prude if you want, I suppose the title is apt.... But I notice focusing less on sex actually makes me happier. Sex can get addicting, and the crash from it can be debilitating, as is the craving. I've been there, and I try to avoid that.

I also notice I am harder to manipulate by women if I'm healthy enough to not care about sex outside a deep personal relationship. Granted that level is hard to get to, but damn it feels good to be in that mindset, freeing almost, as sex is no longer a weight on my shoulders, constantly bothering me any time I see a woman exposed.

@mumble : facepalm.. sigh..

QuoteYour view on rape is skewed as all hell. I've said no to attractive women before for moral grounds

if you've said "NO", then isn't this still all about consent? you called it "skewed", but i think you practically have the same POV. "no" = "lack of consent"

then you have this prolonged tirade about blah blah. but it still boils down to consent (or lack thereof) amirite?

so no consent = rape. simple.

being dropdead gorgeous only increases the chances of getting consent, and having tons of dropdead gorgeous options lowers the probability of rape.. (if you need definitions of what the words "chances" and "probability" implies, look it up) <---- this is important, because you seem to be unable to comprehend the meaning of "chances" and "probability".

ie : a beautiful person would get a higher chances of consent than an ugly person. but their chances are NOT 100%, but it's certainly higher chance than that of an ugly person. same thing with having tons of alternate options. having like jillions of alternative options would help lower the probability of someone getting obsessed with a singular choice. again the operating word here is "probability", which means it's still not 100%.

i really don't want to keep repeating myself so i hope you finally get what i meant by "chances" and "probability". i also don't want to seem condescending but you seem be purposely misunderstanding what i'm saying just to suit your agenda.

------

as for when i talked about "meat sacks", i was trying to illustrate to you that concepts such as "gender", "specie", etc.. are just ephemeral mindsets.

SENTIENCE has no gender. it's like liquid that takes the form of it's physical container.

so we only feel sexual urges because we still occupy physical bodies with these reproductive urges.

transfer and occupy someone's sentience into a different host body and give it time to acclimatize to it's new body, then it's behavioral patterns would also change.

i often look at things both in the "now" and the "long enough timeline".. but i don't blind myself with the "now".

------

as for the sob story that happened in the homeless shelter, i was wondering why people haven't beaten the crap out of the offender?

in some other countries, those offenders just gets shot in the back of the head multiple times for "resisting arrest". lel.

but that's just me thinking about how weird us humans are. we wage wars in far off places to kill tons of innocent people and then there's an offender right in our faces and we rationalize why it's not ok to just "off" them.

but like i said, these kinds of things mostly get a lulzy attitude from me.

too much serious business. i wonder if humans are gonna bring all this nonsense to mars or the rest of outer space..

ugh.. humans.

You obsessing over looks for determination of rape is completely wrong. Brazil, Sweden, both have very beautiful people, both have VERY rape rates. Also, there are of course rapists who are still extremely attractive, and even a guy getting plenty of sex might rape. So yeah, your theory is completely wrong, attraction is an aspect, but prettier people does not mean less rape.

The hypothetical idea of getting a new body is still hypothetical. And really, getting a new, different gender body WOULD cause depression and "gender dysphoria" EXACTLY like trans people feel, I imagine, because one is comfortable and used to being one gender, and then is forced into another.  I suppose eventually people could become comfortable, but it would be jarring. And again, it is hypothetical. And more importantly since you say "people would acclimate", isn't that also saying trans people who don't acclimate into the body they have, have problems? Because I agree, but I want you to be aware what you said.

With the shelter, its because "civil  rights" of criminals are respected more so than the rights of an upstanding citizen. If they were beaten and killed in the street, there would be a field day, arrests, ect. I do agree this should be the approach (many, many people who are just impossible to reintegrate into society, it seems the only solution is putting them down) however its not very possible. Hell, even in cases of legitimate self defense killings, people are accosted and tried for "murder", and even if not convicted, people will try to put out hits for those who did it.

As for war, those aren't waged by humans in general, but the people who manipulate and control society at large. Don't put down humanity in general, due to the decisions and manipulations of those ontop.

QuoteYou obsessing over looks for determination of rape is completely wrong. Brazil, Sweden, both have very beautiful people, both have VERY high rape rates. Also, there are of course rapists who are still extremely attractive. So yeah, your theory is completely wrong, attraction is an aspect, but prettier people does not mean less rape.

i'm not obsessing about it, you're the one that keeps bringing it up. i'm like : "dude, sentience have no genders so the only reason people are too obsessed about sex is coz of biological urges.." <-- this is me.  :P

but i agree, the sweden rape stats seemed counter-intuitive.

even if there is high attraction (many beautiful people), but there's also tons of non-consent (ie : for whatever personal or cultural reason), then yea. it skews up the probability.

mostly coz of the simple equation : no consent = rape.

i may have to rethink my initial hypothesis as you pointed out. maybe because more attractive people might also equate to more horny people and each of these people having proportionately higher standards for "attraction" than the norm?

so this "higher-standard for sexual attraction" translates to "lower consent". hmm..

----

as for the body swap.. i'm not just talking about gender swap for humans. bodies can be humanoid, mechanoid, virtual, or just about anything that is capable of hosting a sentience.

sentience are also not restricted to humans. dolphins, apes, cows, pigs, aliens, whatever.. if their sentience can be digitized, then it applies to them.

i'm also not just talking about a single body in a single planet. i'm talking about a single entity being able to place digitized copies of itself into different planets across the galaxy and then being able to synchronize all of those data in an intergalactic cloud server. (maybe via quantum states)

so concepts such as gender or specie or even individuality becomes a moot point.

as for acclimatization, this is i guess one of the problems that needs to be resolved in the path that all sentient creatures would have to take towards technological apotheosis.

the concepts such as gender or self or specie might take a long time for an organic creature to acclimatize (like your reference to transgenders), but perhaps it can be simulated first in a virtual setting (the higher the computational power the better to make the process faster). then once that sentience has adapted, it can start practicing acclimatizing to different types of host bodies at a time.

and so on..

i mean things like "psychosis", or "depression" or whatever.. just like how the scientists are breaking the human genome and pinpointing the causes of our physical ailments (hardware). digitizing sentient minds could eventually lead us to pinpoint the causes and sources of those mental and psychological ailments.(software)

similar to like how scientists are able to simulate pleasure and pain directly into the brain.

there's also the option for creating custom-built host bodies that would be very compatible to the sentience to be transferred. to make acclimatization easier.

like you said, it's all just hypothetical. but once possible : genders, specie, etc.. becomes a moot point.

------

i also don't believe in an impending future robot war, coz a true AI will most likely lead to similar conclusions. ie : sentience has no gender and or specie.

The discussion is taking another direction again.

I see both points and I believe I don't have anything else to contribute into the subject.

But, I'd be glad to turn the direction of the subject to "How to raise a gender neutral society IN an existing society." Boy, now that's a smelly pickle. The one that you don't want to it but you smell it because of reasons, yeah, that smell.

But before that, is it even possible to solve this through education? If someone decides to take the joker (batman) as his role model, he may end up conducing crimes. It's not something we can control, the individual.

For anyone approving the whole dudes using the ladies' WC thing:
Would you let a burly grown man with a dress and wig on go into the restroom after your daughter?
Also why the hell is making a third unisex restroom unacceptable? 

Quote from: Bob_Namg on May 12, 2016, 01:11:09 PM
For anyone approving the whole dudes using the ladies' WC thing:
Would you let a burly grown man with a dress and wig on go into the restroom after your daughter?
Also why the hell is making a third unisex restroom unacceptable? 

I don't think anyone said something about letting dudes use the ladies room.

Also, why would every store/mall/hotel/tea house/studio/factory/whatever place that have a bathroom should make an third bathroom for the, what, 3% of the population that is doing it by choice? They choose to be Trans/Cross dressers, there's no way a country's companies would accept that.

Quote from: Flying Rockbass on May 12, 2016, 01:57:09 PM

Quote from: Bob_Namg on May 12, 2016, 01:11:09 PM
For anyone approving the whole dudes using the ladies' WC thing:
Would you let a burly grown man with a dress and wig on go into the restroom after your daughter?
Also why the hell is making a third unisex restroom unacceptable? 

I don't think anyone said something about letting dudes use the ladies room.

Actually, I DID, SEVERAL TIMES, that men would try this, and there are RECORDED CASES OF THEM DOING IT. And men wearing dresses (or not, clothing has nothing to do with the law, just SAYING you are trans) are 100% indistinguishable from "real" trans people. "DUDES" USING THE RESTROOM HAS LITERALLY BEEN MY ENTIRE PROBLEM I'VE HAD, ANY "DUDE" AT ANY TIME, AT ANY PLACE, ANYWHERE CAN CLAIM THEY ARE TRANS, AND GET ACCESS, AND THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO STOP THAT. The fact laws are being made on a "status" which is 100% unverifiable is completely bullshit. Imagine if I could legally call myself a gynecologist, and get all the legal perks with it, if only I said "I'm a gynecologist". Its the same principle. There's absolutely nothing from stopping random perverts from doing that, just like there WOULD be nothing stopping a guy from doing that for the opportunity to mess with random girls under the excuse of "being a gynocologist"

So yes, we ARE TALKING ABOUT MEN IN WOMENS RESTROOMS, because A FULL GROWN, HAIRY, BURLY MAN, is LEGALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from a person WHO HAS HAD AN AMPUTATED PENIS, simply because both claim "they are trans". And it does not even matter if they only claim it for 5 minutes to enter the bathroom, then never claim it again, it counts, because they "identify" themselves in that moment.



Example...

"I am transgender, I identify as a girl".

Legally, THAT gets me into a restroom now, absolutely nothing else matters, and no matter what your argument, so long as I'm not doing anything illegal, you cannot kick me out without risking discrimination charges. It does NOT even matter if I say that today, with 0 history of being trans, dressed in masculine clothes, and no change in voice or hormones or surgery, its only my words, everything else has 0 bearing on it.

THE FACT I PUBLICLY CRITICIZE LGBT HAS NO BEARING, LEGALLY.

THE FACT I DRESS AS A MAN HAS NO BEARING LEGALLY

THE FACT THAT I HAVE NEVER BEEN TRANS(ie saying i am), AND MIGHT NOT BE TRANS(ie saying i am) 5 MINUTES LATER HAS NO BEARING LEGALLY

THE FACT I DON'T TAKE HORMONES HAS NO BEARING LEGALLY

IF I HAD AN EXTENSIVE, LENGTHY RECORD OF SEXUAL ASSAULT THAT FACT WOULD HAVE NO BEARING LEGALLY

So you could get dudes going in and jizzing on toilet paper / toilet seats in the stalls, and nobody can do shit. Because to catch someone ejaculating all over a girls stall, you need to see in the stall, and that is a privacy violation. THIS, is the kind of stuff which will lead to murders, and a violent resistance, yet LGBT say they want to decrease that....well, that isn't making their cause any more attractive. And not these are not threats, just reality. People are fiercely protective of their children, and I can see this potentially leading to several people beaten / maced / tazed / shot / killed, just because someone is afraid for their child (which isn't unreasonable if you read my articles I posted, which IM GUESSING YOU DID NOT). I can also see brothers / fathers going in with "sisters", using this excuse just to ensure safety.

So any burly dude could do this, this essentially makes ANYONE able to ANY bathroom if they say the password. This is why I find it stupid people now pushing for single bathrooms : with law we pretty much have it now, its just having a password to get it.

And I agree that making restrooms for 3% of the population is retarded, but so is risking over 60 % of the population for 3% of the population. But 3% of the population sounds a bit high, and these people have mental health problems anyways.

OK, let me see if I have this straight.

Prior to the new law, sketchy guys would approach the women's restroom, and then helpful citizens who happen to be passing by would go, "But you can't do that!" and the sketchy guys would go, "Oh really?  Very well then, I'll just be on my way."

And now after the law, sketchy guys are approaching women's restrooms, and upon confrontation, they simply say, "It's all right!  Transgender!" and then the helpful citizens just say, "Ah!  Very well; that's all right then, please go about your business and enjoy that restroom!" and then the guy proceeds to go in and rape to his heart's content, because the helpful citizens jump straight from "concerned" to "completely ignore the situation"?

Is that about right?  That's what we're worried about?

Couldn't sketchy guys just, you know, go into the bathroom and rape people before?

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2016, 05:39:57 PMAnd I agree that making restrooms for 3% of the population is retarded, but so is risking over 60 % of the population for 3% of the population. But 3% of the population sounds a bit high, and these people have mental health problems anyways.

Whoops, you fucked up.  Agenda revealed.

Zombra, the thing you are ignorantly ignoring is BEFORE this law, the guy can get thrown down, arrested BEFORE laying his hands on a woman, where now, you are forced to wait till after someone gets hurt. And and really, arresting them BEFORE, is much better than after, but now its impossible to arrest before, and honestly raping a girl in the bathroom before this law was almost non existing, same with raping a girl in a homeless shelter, because MEN WERE NOT ALLOWED IN, thus the odds of getting in were incredibly fucking low.

The point you are completely ignoring in your density, is this pervert can SUE a person telling him to GTFO, and the courts WILL SUPPORT HIM. So people will be legally discouraged

Ever had a family member raped? Perhaps if your mother got raped this way, you might be less callous.

How about this : how about I'm allowed in your house at any time, as long as "I don't steal anything", even if you aren't home......see how long be

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2016, 06:12:39 PMraping a girl in the bathroom before this law was almost non existing

...

It existed, but compared to date rape at homes, assaults in dark areas, just "general assult", ect, this was unlikely, as any person seeing a man in a womans restroom IMMEDIATELY had legal recourse to apprehend, to do the crime of rape in a girls bathroom one first had to do the crime of being in a womans restroom. Now a guy waiting around cannot even be questioned, or the OTHER person is liable.  Also if you mean "date rape", that is much different in how its done, you can't just walk into a random bathroom and date rape a girl, so for that argument, it doesn't count.

I think most rapes in bathrooms before now were around raves or such, where the drug scene was the problem more than anything, that and nobody really cared IN these scenes. Clubbing, raves, ect... generally people are there to party, drunk, possibly high, and less caring because of this, which is why in those situations it could happen. But a restroom at a restaurant? community center? Those were extremely rare, if ever.

I just want 1 question answered : how would you keep a sex offender from using this rule (LEGALLY, WITHOUT BEING LIABLE FOR LAWSUIT / DISCRIMINATION) to use the womans restroom?

Most of those people are opportunists, and this is a HUGE opportunity to do so, as a guy could wait around in a bar bathroom waiting for a drunk girl at a time of low activity to assault. 

Listen.  Have you ever been at a restaurant with some friends, a girl says, "I'm going to the bathroom," and then another girl says, "I'll go with you?"  Like women have been doing since the dawn of time in every public place?

Why do you think that is?  Hint: it's not because they want to swap makeup tips.

This is not guaranteed to be protection, NOR is it always availible, that is not a sufficient defense, and you did not answer my question. Plus, it was rarely used for that on average, in places that aren't ultra ghetto / dangerous. It was normally used for gossiping / talking about things with guys not around. Anyways, answer please?

HOW DO WE KEEP SEX OFFENDERS OUT OF THE WOMENS ROOM?

Even if not sex offenders, how about random men who, on a whim, claim to be trans? Unless you can suggest a checks / balance system to prevent this, there will only be backlash. This is literally the entire reason I made this thread, and so far nobody has even TRIED to get a good answer for this, most are just saying I'm wrong and that there's no more risk than there was before, which is COMPLETELY wrong.

It is, intended or not, giving offenders a legally approved hunting ground to go into, and hang out in.

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2016, 06:50:02 PM[Women watching out for each other] is not guaranteed to be protection, NOR is it always availible

Of course it isn't.  So what?  It's still a fact this this is a long standing practice among women, precisely because bathroom rape is and has been a major, major, major issue for a long, long time.  You're acting like this new law means that now bathrooms are dangerous for the first time in history.  That's stupid.

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2016, 06:50:02 PMHOW DO WE KEEP SEX OFFENDERS OUT OF THE WOMENS ROOM?

This is certainly a good question, but it's not particularly more important now because of this new law.  Bathrooms have never been secure, and despite your hypothetical imperviousness of exploiters, this law doesn't really provide an awesome new opportunity for guys who go in screaming "IT'S OKAY I'M TRANS".  That's not a great way to deflect suspicion, and rapists everywhere aren't rejoicing that finally they will be invisible.  I agree that offenders are opportunists, but the best opportunity is not being seen going in at all, and this law doesn't give that opportunity to anyone - kinda the opposite.

You are missing on both points the LIKELYHOOD of it being secure. America itself, police stations, banks, none are 100% secure, NOTHING EVER IS. But you can make it MORE secure, and having a rule where men need to stay out, and legally being allowed to throw men out / arrest them for entering is what made it MUCH MORE SECURE. Since this is now impossible, it is now LESS secure, as an entire first (and really only, since if a girl is raped its too late) line of defense is gone, and not only gone, but YOU can be arrested for TRYING to use that defense. Because of this, that "filter" which would stop 90% of offenders before, is now gone, so those 90% of offenders are no longer stopped.

Think of it this way : A mugging.

Now nothing can really keep you from being mugged, but theres several factors which make you safer. Such as...

Time of day

Neighborhood

Police patrols

How you carry yourself (perceived as weak / strong)

Being armed (being able to pull out a gun makes it extremely unlikely someone you will get mugged, cause ABSOLUTELY NOBODY wants a bullet in them)

What sex you are

How crowded an area is

Ect.

No single one of these things ensure you will never get mugged, but collectively they make your odds either extremely low or much higher.

A man, in a good area, daytime, seeming confident and carrying a pistol is extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely to get robbed, while a girl, at night, seeming afraid, in a bad neighborhood, unarmed, is MUCH more likely to be in danger.

Odds, likelihoods, risk factors, ECT, this is what we are talking about. Something you evidently are refusing to acknowledge, that letting men (read, any biological male with a penis who says the magic words) in the womans room is a huge risk factor to assault and harassment. Same reason employees wash hands in food service : granted this doesn't  guarantee  no sickness, nor does not washing guarantee  sickness, but it makes it more likely.

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2016, 06:50:02 PM
HOW DO WE KEEP SEX OFFENDERS OUT OF THE WOMENS ROOM?

How do we keep sex offenders out of schools/parks/neighborhoods/etc

It is and always will be a constant fight against the mentally challenged....the best we can do is keep doing what we are doing when someone is sexually assaulted press charges.. when a pedo is stalking your neighborhood call the cops... there is a public database of all sexual offenders.. look it up look at the names faces keep an eye out... call the police

Sure, of course another factor is another factor.  This is blindingly obvious and needs no explanation.

But ... you are seriously overestimating the importance of this factor.  You literally said

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2016, 06:12:39 PMraping a girl in the bathroom before this law was almost non existing

That means that you think that now suddenly it's a huge problem, where it was no big deal before.  That's still stupid.  And I'm being careful to restrain myself here, because my instinct is to talk about just how stupid it is.  But I'll keep it cool although you threw the first insult.

So ... OK.  Maybe this is providing another opportunity for sneaky offenders who like drawing attention to themselves.  "Hi!  I'm VERY suspicious!  But please don't keep an eye on me!"  (Note that keeping an eye on someone suspicious is not forbidden by this law.)  If bathrooms are even 1% more dangerous than before, that's a bad thing, sure, we agree on that.

But ... the law was also passed for a reason.  To protect the rights of minority citizens that you clearly think shouldn't have rights at all.

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2016, 05:39:57 PMBut 3% of the population sounds a bit high, and these people have mental health problems anyways.

Notice that bolded part at the end?  I did.  It's fucked up.  "They're subhuman, so they can just shit their pants in public or stay off my streets."

You want to make bathrooms safer, great, me too.  But I'll be damned if I'll let you write off a minority as disposable because their existence makes that problem more complicated.  Freedom isn't free, buddy.

Quote from: Zombra on May 12, 2016, 07:48:52 PM
Sure, of course another factor is another factor.  This is blindingly obvious and needs no explanation.

But ... you are seriously overestimating the importance of this factor.  You literally said

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2016, 06:12:39 PMraping a girl in the bathroom before this law was almost non existing

That means that you think that now suddenly it's a huge problem, where it was no big deal before.  That's still stupid.  And I'm being careful to restrain myself here, because my instinct is to talk about just how stupid it is.  But I'll keep it cool although you threw the first insult.

So ... OK.  Maybe this is providing another opportunity for sneaky offenders who like drawing attention to themselves.  "Hi!  I'm VERY suspicious!  But please don't keep an eye on me!"  (Note that keeping an eye on someone suspicious is not forbidden by this law.)  If bathrooms are even 1% more dangerous than before, that's a bad thing, sure, we agree on that.

But ... the law was also passed for a reason.  To protect the rights of minority citizens that you clearly think shouldn't have rights at all.

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2016, 05:39:57 PMBut 3% of the population sounds a bit high, and these people have mental health problems anyways.

Notice that bolded part at the end?  I did.  It's fucked up.  "They're subhuman, so they can just shit their pants in public or stay off my streets."

You want to make bathrooms safer, great, me too.  But I'll be damned if I'll let you write off a minority as disposable because their existence makes that problem more complicated.  Freedom isn't free, buddy.

They do- Report is here http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

Quote from: godsring on May 12, 2016, 07:38:58 PM

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2016, 06:50:02 PM
HOW DO WE KEEP SEX OFFENDERS OUT OF THE WOMENS ROOM?

How do we keep sex offenders out of schools/parks/neighborhoods/etc

By banning them?  This is pretty standard practice. Have you never heard sex offenders usually cannot go within 200 yards or whatever of a school or park, or "any place children congregate"? this is to prevent it. if they enter, they can IMMEDIATELTY go to jail. We should do the same for bathrooms, and honestly some LGBT leaders are sex offenders too, fyi.

Quote from: Zombra on May 12, 2016, 07:48:52 PM
Sure, of course another factor is another factor.  This is blindingly obvious and needs no explanation.

But ... you are seriously overestimating the importance of this factor.  You literally said

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2016, 06:12:39 PMraping a girl in the bathroom before this law was almost non existing

That means that you think that now suddenly it's a huge problem, where it was no big deal before.  That's still stupid.  And I'm being careful to restrain myself here, because my instinct is to talk about just how stupid it is.  But I'll keep it cool although you threw the first insult.

So ... OK.  Maybe this is providing another opportunity for sneaky offenders who like drawing attention to themselves.  "Hi!  I'm VERY suspicious!  But please don't keep an eye on me!"  (Note that keeping an eye on someone suspicious is not forbidden by this law.)  If bathrooms are even 1% more dangerous than before, that's a bad thing, sure, we agree on that.

But ... the law was also passed for a reason.  To protect the rights of minority citizens that you clearly think shouldn't have rights at all.

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2016, 05:39:57 PMBut 3% of the population sounds a bit high, and these people have mental health problems anyways.

Notice that bolded part at the end?  I did.  It's fucked up.  "They're subhuman, so they can just shit their pants in public or stay off my streets."

You want to make bathrooms safer, great, me too.  But I'll be damned if I'll let you write off a minority as disposable because their existence makes that problem more complicated.  Freedom isn't free, buddy.

Zombra, if men ARE NOT allowed in womens restroom, men ASSAULTING women in a womans restroom is less likely, as a certain percentage WILL be caught and dealt with JUST for entering. That percentage caught before entering, DIRECTLY lowers the rape / harassment rate, as they get stopped before they can do it.

Suspicion is one thing, and yes people will try to keep an eye on it, but keeping an eye alone does not stop things, sometimes there aren't enough eyes, and again, it cannot be stopped prior, since until they do something, theres nothing that can be done. Just like the guy in the homelsss shelter, women were suspicious, but, according to the law, and you, its essentially "cant do anything till he tries to rape you, even if you see it a mile away".

As for the law passing, it wasn't voted on. It was forced federally in america by the obama administration, and is attempted to be forced on states as well. That is not democracy.

I never said they were subhuman, DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, I ask you to stop, and I'd appreciate any mod watching to keep an eye for that too. That is charecter assassination, and I'm well aware PLENTY of people want me banned for even discussing this, and I do not want someone to even TRY to start a fire under me by someone putting words in my mouth. I said they have a much, MUCH higher level of  mental health issues, including but not limited to depression, pyromania, sadism, skitzophrenia, dissociative disorder, self harm, ect. THESE ARE FACTS. They have incredibly higher levels on average, and transgender feelings can come and go, and people have even de-transitioned, so strictly speaking its not "born this way", but can infact be an attained trait, and removed as well if issues are addressed.

Sigh...

You know I'm all for talking and all especially about really sore topics, but if you goofballs are going to bash each other with rocks because of conflicting opinions the least you could do is not do it publicly, do it in a PM so I don't have to warm up the temp-ban oven.

No but seriously keep this civil or I shall slapeth all of thine troubles away!

Guys, please ... you don't have to multiquote an entire long post to give a one-line reply.  Some basic editing skills would be great.  Just quote the part you're responding to.

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2016, 08:46:42 PMZombra, if men ARE NOT allowed in womens restroom, men ASSAULTING women in a womans restroom is less likely, as a certain percentage WILL be caught and dealt with JUST for entering. That percentage caught before entering, DIRECTLY lowers the rape / harassment rate, as they get stopped before they can do it.

Yes.  If you read my previous post you'll know that I just agreed with you on that.  "Less likely, more likely", of course.  Again: it's obvious.  No need to keep repeating it.

QuoteSuspicion is one thing, and yes people will try to keep an eye on it, but keeping an eye alone does not stop things

I know.  I just agreed with you on that.  There isn't a perfect solution.

QuoteI never said they were subhuman, DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, I ask you to stop, and I'd appreciate any mod watching to keep an eye for that too. That is charecter assassination, and I'm well aware PLENTY of people want me banned for even discussing this, and I do not want someone to even TRY to start a fire under me by someone putting words in my mouth.

I don't want you banned.  I just think it's very instructive that your whole argument comes down to "We shouldn't be protecting these people's rights, because they're sick/bad/whatever".  You clearly have a low opinion of transexuals, dress it up in science if you like, but you're willing to write off the rights of a minority for the safety of a majority.  That's un-American, period.

EDIT: Thank you Ramsis.  Not sure where the line is on this board.  (I spend a lot of time on RPG Codex if that tells you anything.)  I think we all knew what we were in for with the first post in the thread, and mumble needs to take his own advice about thick skin.  If I were you I'd lock the thread and call it a day.  :)  Until then, I'll continue to disagree with him, perhaps with hostility, but I hope with civility.

Uhm, nope, actually sacrificing the minority for the majority is the basis of societal survival. A few soldiers go and risk death to protect the many, a few janitors get covered in filth to keep everyone clean, Men of the house put their bodies on the line to provide for the women and children, ect.  Sacrificing the majority for the minority is unsustainable, and wrong.

Plus if everyone is equal, isn't protecting everyone equally (ie, protect as many as possible) the right decision? if you disagree, are you REALLY viewing everyone as equal? I think not, because otherwise the the fact that they are a minority would mean they get the shaft, due to numbers involved. Protecting half the population, over 2% of the population. If you don't agree, you clearly view them as more important than full normal biological women.

Quote from: Zombra on May 12, 2016, 09:04:54 PM
:)  Until then, I'll continue to disagree with him, perhaps with hostility

Isn't this pretty much an admission that you aren't going to be nice, and won't be civil? You are intentionally trying to agitate people.

I went to a school with coed bathrooms/showers and everything was fine. American here. If people are so worried about sex offenders in bathrooms, why don't they just give us stalls without gaps in the doors and which go down to the floor? They do that in other nations. Most American's don't even realize that those are intentional design features in the US.

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 12, 2016, 09:13:29 PMIf everyone is equal, isn't protecting everyone equally (ie, protect as many as possible) the right decision? if you disagree, are you REALLY viewing everyone as equal?

No, and yes I am.  First: there's a huge difference between protecting everyone equally and protecting as many as possible, so that question is nonsense.  Second, I'm not talking about physical protection of a number of individuals in the first place.  I'm talking about the rights of all citizens.  See the difference?  If you disavow the rights of a minority, America is fucked.  Yes, I'll say it: equal rights are more important than the safety of individuals, however many.  It is up to us to protect our citizens as individuals after we have guaranteed equal rights and freedoms to all of them.  If you disagree, you are un-American, straight up.

Note that I'm not throwing all women under the bus and saying all bathrooms should be rape factories.  I just don't think that this law is anywhere near that dangerous.  Maybe a little more, like, microscopically more, but not significant enough to worry about.  Again: public bathrooms have always been dangerous for women.  "Now I can be a secret non-transexual!" is still a really stupid way for offenders to nonsuspiciously infiltrate the ladies' room.  Like, they can also wait until no one is watching and walk in.  Like they've done for centuries?

Quote

Quote from: Zombra on May 12, 2016, 09:04:54 PM
:)  Until then, I'll continue to disagree with him, perhaps with hostility

Isn't this pretty much an admission that you aren't going to be nice?

Let's just say "I'm not liable if you get your jimmies rustled."

Entirely freedom is anarchy, just fyi....society has rules which infringe on "freedom" to protect people, and these rules often aren't even made by the government, but the people. If PEOPLE are saying "you cannot enter the woman's bathroom", and you jail them, this is then infringing on THEIR rights to have their own rules at their own establishment, AS WELL as putting someone in danger. Rights are always at odds, because peoples wants often clash, and we need to look at what is more beneficial to society at large.

See, anarchy, and having "all right allowed" are simply not sustainable. If you had no noise ordinance, no limits on drug use, and no other rules, society would rip itself apart, or eventually move to small groups using martial law enforcing it, which just loops back into it with a "smaller" government, the government being, in that case, a bunch of people with guns saying "Be good or ill kill you", which is pretty much how the wild west was. 

Furthermore you are completely wrong about america being screwed if rights are not allowed to minorities IS COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED, WRONG, AND MADE UP. Sex offenders, felons, children, ALL have extremely limited rights, and I think most of us are ok with this, as apposed to the alternative (not saying felons rights shouldn't be adjusted, felons get absolutely screwed by society and forced into lifelong crime) As for saying rights are more important than safety, how many peoples rights, for how many lives? Is it worth, potentially, killing millions for the rights of a few thousand? Where is the line where "shit, this isn't worth it". If you don't have one, you should. Rights mean nothing if everyone is at risk, as "rights", only exist if people are safe.  If law, enforcement, and a stable society isn't around, you have no rights that cannot be stripped away by force. And you claiming I'm "UN-america" is a fallacy, "no true Scotsman" fallacy, not to mention American historically speaking is against this kind of stuff. (though since america is rather young, speaking of things being "unamerican" is dumb to begin with)

As for your last comment, theres a huge difference between someone discussing a sore, emotionally charged topic (what I'm doing) and someone putting words in someones mouth (what you are doing). So yeah, no, that defense doesn't count. What I'm doing can upset people, but is not wrong, what you are doing is wrong, and impolite, and can offend people.

What the fuck?  Who is advocating anarchy?  :lol:  Do you really not understand the concept of equal rights, and why it's important to this country?

And yes, of course the rights of criminals are limited.  You just equated transexuals with criminals, you know that, right?

Jesus Christ.

I'm not American and I know very little about its history, but what's with this sexual orientation segregated toilets? I'm sure they tried it once with race and it went very badly.

Why not just build one toilet for everyone like the ones the Romans used? Or just do it outside like the ancient Greeks.

In the end, this is a tug of war between privacy and security, as usual.

forgot already?

Quote
If you disavow the rights of a minority, America is fucked.

They (felons) are a minority. Their rights are oppressed, their rights are limited. Therefor, either you are wrong in saying America is fucked if a minority is oppressed, you need to provide classification for when rights can be taken away and for why, OR, you are have to say you also support full freedom for felons. Otherwise, you are contradicting your statements. Take your pick.

keep in mind you cannot say a blanket statement like

Quote
If you disavow the rights of a minority, America is fucked.

And then support felons having less rights without being a hypocrite.

And if you have absolutely no rules (rules are limitations of freedom inherently) then that IS anarchy, fyi. So rules DO need to be put in place (which inherently limit freedoms) to avoid full anarchy. It just depends on weighing what rights, and what protections are more important.

Story master, I'm speaking at Americas (very young) history of demographics. Primarily christian, has been for quite a long time. Now, you could claim something is "unamerican" for reasons other than history, but it is still a no true scotsman fallacy, as you aren't providing a reason, you are just pointing a finger and saying "UNAMERICAN" with no basis. I can do that too, but I will maintain my maturity.

As a non-American, I am the last person to say anything is un-American. I'm just saying, rather than making a toilet specifically for transgenders, let's just drop the walls altogether and go in one room for everyone.

Is that not equality?

another weird counter-intuitive thing are the rape stats for nudist colonies.

most sources say that rape or any sexual assault in nudist colonies are either low or nonexistent, does anyone got stats for this? i can't seem to find a good source.  :-\

Man.  mumble, you are really arguing about the wrong things here.  I have to assume it's a deliberate deflection and not sheer stupidity.  Do you really believe I was arguing for complete anarchy and abolishing the very concept of crime?  Or are you just desperate to try (weakly) to make me look like a hypocrite because you're not competent to talk about the real issue: the importance of equal rights?

If you're incapable of using basic common sense and elementary school education to distinguish between concepts like freedom and lawlessness, or what a criminal is, without me spelling it out for you, there's no point in talking to you about anything.  We could spend 50 posts arguing about what you mean by "bathroom" every time you get scared of the actual conversation.  It's sad, really; for a minute there it looked like we could have an honest debate.

Oh well!  That's it for now, and remember kids: fuck minorities!

Quote from: Zombra on May 12, 2016, 11:02:16 PM
Oh well!  That's it for now, and remember kids: fuck minorities!

And remember, minorities: fuck...eh, wait a minute. As jokey as I am, I'm not going there.

Hahaha.  Boo

YES! Let's derail this argument with jokes! Red with laughter is always better than red with anger!

Of course those natives are always red anyway.

(Oh here we go again with minorities!)

Quote from: StorymasterQ on May 12, 2016, 10:51:17 PM
Is that not equality?

Equality is a crappy, very flawed argument.

Is a man equal to a woman? A child equal to an elder? fork equal to a spoon?

Really depends what you are judging...

A man is more valuable to have on a hard labor job, while protecting a woman would be more important. Neither one is "inferior" across the board.

A child has much more potential than a late life old person as they have their entire life, while (generally speaking, mental illness and dementia aside) Elders are vastly more experienced. Neither one is "inferior" across the board

A fork is good for impaling foods and lifting them, puncturing, lifting and straining the moisture from foods. A spoon is better for moving liquids or highly loose / fine materials. Neither one is "inferior" across the board.

This is my problem with equality, people mistakenly figure pointing out a weakness of someone, or a group is saying they aren't equal, or are "subhuman" or whatever, just like Zomba was trying to say I was attempting to defame me for.

@zomba, wasn't saying you were advocating for anarchy but having "full freedom for everything" means "no rules" means "anarchy". Just putting that out there.

I never said "fuck minorities", only in situations where its strictly x benefits for minority or majority, majority should rule. Now most situations aren't this cut and dry, for instance disabled are a minority, but everyone agrees that you need accommodations for them, but this is because no MAJORITY suffers from it, and the minority is greatly suffering without it. Not so for the bathroom issue.

As for derailing the thread with jokes, I don't it appreciate attempting to lock me thread with such a tactic : I hope  mods instead temp ban people for such attempts, as this is a clear tactic to shut me up, by making the thread crazy to get it locked.

You're right. I apologize. I shall respectfully de-ass myself from this thread.

Over a problem no one in this forum can do anything about... this topic has gotten VERY heated and is going nowhere at this point.. I feel everyone has contributed as much as they can

Yeah, I agree with godsring, I didn't see this post for a day and what the f***

The discussion was being heated all along, most of us are not native english speakers and have some kind of difficulty expressing and understanding expressions in english. Hell, when mumble started it looked like a pure hate mail, even milon warned him. But it's not what he meant.

Now i'm very sorry to say, if equality could be a thing, it would've showed up in history. Even in your RW colony the task distribution is not equal. Imagine trying to put it on a culture of 500 people. That's already really hard.

Now put it in a country that has 18 million people. Yeah, there's no way you can archive true equality. Even in socialism we have a pyramid economic scheme. The top of it is sustained by the botton.

Now let's only apply that to the bathroom. Breaking down the walls you can have at the same time. "Everyone is equal and will use the same bathroom." Now, in the same bathroom you may have:"A child, a rapist, a drunk chick, a cop, a businessman, an ugly woman, a beutiful man, and etc."

What's the difference from the actual bathroom? The genders are mixed up. If a rapist tries something on the drunk chick, do you believe everyone will help? Maybe yes. What if he has a knife? Maybe no. What if they were alone in that bathroom at that time?

That situation may come up in a mixed bathroom, way easier that it may happen in 2 separete bathrooms. So I'd say that this would not work towards our problem.

Needless to say, I don't have anything towards anyone, i'm just debating the idea.

I don't believe 'nobody can do anything about it' ... Lawsuits are being issued all over,  and there's a political push to reverse such an asinine decision.

Even if nobody here does anything,  talking about it helps,  as then its not ignored. Also,  i hope maybe someone sees this and realizes the danger involved.

That said,  i kinda agree for at least myself,  I've touched on almost everything,  and explained almost everything. That said,  assuming the thread isn't locked over a dumb reason,  I'd rather let the thread naturally "die"  than be locked,, just so others can possibly post opinions and ideas,  particularly on how to solve things.

Rock,  yeah,  it did get heated,  sorry for that.  I just get really REALLY pissed off when people say something along the lines of "oh,  random men can go into womens shelters and rape women? Rape happens anyway so it doesn't matter.". That kind of talk is maliciously callous at absolute best,  and I don't want to go into what it is at worst.  That got me extremely  heated,  rape warps people,  damages them.

I do appreciate how you get what i mean about equality. Obviously I'm not great at everything,  some things you are better at than me,  vice versa,  same for men and women,  and trans / not trans.  Hell,  even in rimworld,  people who can only clean are useful,  because they clean.  This doesn't mean we shouldn't be in denial about problems and weaknesses,  as this only hurts everyone more.

And yeah,  bathrooms are pretty private. But I'm realizing something. If this trans stuff keeps up,  and especially if people push for only 1 bathroom,  males going with females for protection could be a not unheard of thing,  since all a husband or bf has to do is smile and say "I'm a girl"  and he can go in with her.

My concern is this won't always be available,  and especially for young girls,  this scares me. I suspect maybe cameras might be put in bathrooms too,  since privacy is already kinda being destroyed. But regardless,  security measures need to be put in place IN ALL BATHROOMS EVERYWHERE for this to work ,  and the simple solution is to force transgender people (particularly mtf)  to use the bathroom that matches the genitals. Course if they pass its different,  but by then,  i think mtfs are less risky to assault.  But a 5 o'clock shadow,  in drag "trans",  has absolutely no business in a womans bathroom.  Really,  just base it off if people pass,  if people question,  use the other one. Pretty simple.

Wow, what the hell was this thread. Also, that random deviation about swedish men lol. That is by far the dumbest theory I've ever heard.

I'm going to go off topic a bit to address something mumblemumble touched on.  It's relevant because of how this thread & related threads have gone.  If you don't like it, report it.  ;)

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 13, 2016, 07:18:43 AM
Rock,  yeah,  it did get heated,  sorry for that.  I just get really REALLY pissed off when people say something along the lines of ...

I can say from personal experience that posting while angry is usually a really bad idea.  And this isn't just for mumble - I'm talking to anyone and everyone who is tempted to rage-post.  While it may feel cathartic in the moment, it usually contributes nothing constructive and often goes beyond the boundaries of what's acceptable on the forum.  I'm not saying that "getting heated" is wrong, but I am saying it's always wiser to not flirt with the line.  (You'd be surprised if you knew how many posts I've written and tossed without actually posting - probably more than I've actually posted!)  And remember - regardless of your mental state, you are always responsible for what you post.

tldr = Keep calm and carry on!

Yeah, and i'm not complaining, I know this is expected, but like a heated discussion at a bar, someone should always be there to tone down the conversation

I reached a personal veredict for this subject, and am content with it. There are other things that I think should be discussed, like How much privacy is healthy? Would you sacrifice your personal privacy for general safety?

I would throw all my personal rights on public spaces without a doubt if it helped a crime. I wouldn't mind being observed or if there was a camera in the bathroom.

Another subject that I would love to discuss is... Freedom. Lately I feel that the more freedom you give to someone, the less productive, the less happy and the more frustrated the person gets. The old "You can be anything you want" while true right now, is it really a good thing? Because sometimes you will have to do things you don't want to do. A person that always thinks that could be anything, when faced against a situation where he can't control and has to accept grows tired and depressed, because that "You can be anything you want" is slowly killing you from inside.

Quote from: Flying Rockbass on May 19, 2016, 08:22:42 PMThere are other things that I think should be discussed, like How much privacy is healthy? Would you sacrifice your personal privacy for general safety? Another subject that I would love to discuss is... Freedom.

Great questions, I suggest new threads.  It would be nice to keep this one focused on the subject at hand.

Made it:

https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=20349.0

Just so that you guys know, I'm horrible at starting subjects, but like discussing it.

Hello, just coming to throw a stone into the water, make ricochet on the surface.
Being someone with a keen interest in the concept of transhumanism, I tend to "naturally" have a way of thinking perpendicular to most people. You should understand later why I don't answer-quote to specific point of view.

So, PUT ASIDE THAT THIS WHOLE "TRANSGENDER BATHROOM PROBLEM" IS CLEARLY A POLITICAL ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE DOGMA...
...the problem come from our common inability to reason solely in term of sentient being, negate cultural bias and a maybe innate resistance against accepting change (it is no surprise that people who have a problem with it usually follow set dogma) until we get used to it (a 16th century Pope would surely burn a 20th century one for heresy).
Yet the above would be the first step before treating it as a purely practical problem.

Thus (IMHO) any arguments related to :
- "biological urge" is worthless as they are from principle : empirical assumption, people are innocent until proven otherwise.
- "normalcy" is subjective as nobody was ever normal to begin with.
- "society" is pointlessly relative as in 500years from now we might be "casually switching-body" into different ALIEN body with sex between immortal people 100years apart.
- "tolerance" is often misaimed, reasoning in term of "third sex" rather than "ideally gender shouldn't matter", doesn't help that we have yet to treat women equally.
- "Media coverage/statistic" suffer to the point of irrelevancy from biased network, loud minority, non-representative pool-set and many other problems preventing us from having a clear view of the problems.

Just to be clear : I'm not claiming to be the only one thinking in a practical way. I too was brainwashed culturally educated into preferring to be heterosexual (rather than bi or polysexual).

I just aim to only consider the world in practical ways :
- WHY do we have gendered facility in the first place ? -> Old dogma, then luxury, we can and have done without. No reason to stop doing so if it don't cause problem... which it could
- WHAT is that luxury aimed at ? -> Old dogma at first, then because women-looking and male-looking individual like their private rooms.
- DOES this goal conflict with Trans "agenda" ? -> No, "trans" simply want to switch appearance and feel at ease, no secret-DNA-order to rape people was ever proven or even hinted at.
- Are transgender people mentally/physically incompatible ? -> No, they aren't the one causing 99% of problems. Straight or Bigot however...
- What is safer/will reduce crime ? -> Having a dong is only known to facilitate rape NOT cause it, however morons do cling to VISIBLE women-like appearance even more than having a dong, so it's safer to let gender-looking people go to use the gender bathroom they want to be recognized as part of.
- Would people notice if we let Trans go in the room they aim to fit in ? -> Probably not as the goal is to look like they always belonged there.
- It is incompatible with "particular-trans" who want to feel at ease in both side ? -> Yes, but only because some country can't accept (yet) non-binary gender. So this is an entirely different problems (I can tell you that France do have a genderless status now (http://www.thelocal.fr/20160205/first-french-gender-neutral-defends-being-neither-man-nor-woman)).
- Should religions have a say on this ? No, sects are not Government and don't represent a democratic decision.
- It is "natural" ? Yes, because nature don't care if we murdered people to eat them Rimworld-style.
- Is there any universal/divine rule against ? None have ever been discovered. We simply can.
- Would it cause problems to discriminate over biological difference ? -> Historically everything say yes.

I think the above cover my reasoning and the logical solution to the problem.
If you think I missed an important aspect, please tell, I'll be happy to learn if that's the case.

Aside: I find it funny we are reworking laws for some of the places we will probably never bother to Police. Hopefully it should set a Juridical Precedent against facism and bigotery in the future.

That's all from me.

Interesting and also very "exotic" line of thinking if I'm allowed to describe it that way, I think I agree for the most part.

Well keg,  looks like you put a lot of thought into it, but not enough. You really need to look at things logically, and a little emotionally removed to properly judge.

Biological urge is by FAR,  nowhere near "worthless". Every man (read,  person with a biologically grown,, functional phallus) has a certain amount of attraction, and desire to mate,  even if it is variable, or other mental issues cause problems. Regardless of what someone self identifies as (keep in mind,  self identification is worthless because it is only a word, saying it means you are by legal definition, which is ambiguous as you can get)  the genitals,  bone structure,  brain wiring,  muscle levels,  and everything else do not change because some says so.  Also men (read : those with a biological phallus)  are astronomically more likely to assult.

Normalcy is a very difficult thing to pin down. I'm sure we can all agree suicide, torture,  self mutilation,  and plenty of other stuff are not "normal",  so normality exists. Nornality is the widely accepted way thing are within any place, society,, or government. What you might call normal i might call disturbed,  and vice versa,  but hopefully it should be based on facts,  weighing pros and cons,  as well as risks / potential rewards.

Society is important in terms of the now,  and next 20 years.  Even if in the future,, cannibalism,  openly killing the mentally broken,  and other things were deemed ok (aka normal) i know it is not in today's society. Also,, the future could very well have humanity enslaved by an evil race as well. Thoughts of the future are speculation and nothing else.

Tolerance is a willingness to tolerate that which goes against someone's "normal '.  Its voluntary being tolerant. Also,  men and women are like forks and spooms. Neither is superior,  it depends what you want to do.

Lgbt would be the loud minority in media fyi,  and statistics still have immemim value. You cannot dismiss them all by insisting they are imperfect.

Brainwashing into being straight isn't a thing imo.  Quirks in sexuality ebb and flow dependant on reinforcing factors, temptations,  stressors, and other triggers. Overwhelming majority of population is straight,  i think that is because its default thinking.

Gendered facility is to prevent men (thoth with a phallus) from assaulting or bothering women. The fact assault and harassment is illegal is irrelevant. People still do it,, and many times don't get caught, and even if caught,  damage is already done.

Its not a luxury,  its a precaution.

The issue is again,  trans is ambiguous as fuck,  and unverifiable. If someone goes into a womans restroom,, is not caught doing anything despite heavy suspicion,, tge transgender argument pretty much stops all questions, because how can you prove a "feeling?".  You cannot. Also what exactly makes straight,  or even "bigots"  worse? And would you consider a "trans woman"  straight if he got with women? I would...  And again, this is ambiguous. A cross dressing man who identifies as straight and a trans, no hormone treatment "woman"  who hasn't had surgery identifying as lesbian are indistinguishable physically speaking,, they can only be discriminated between if they inform you.

Having trans all use mens room is safer. Pure numbers show more are at risk if anyone under the name "trans"  can enter a womans restroom. Keep in mind, ALL sex offenders get a free pass to enter a girls room with 10 year olds with this,so long as they claim trans status. Where as trans willingly do things to endanger themselves. Dressing girly is a choice,  and nobody forces them.

Trans people very,  very rarely 100% indistinguishable,, even with surgery. Most can easily tell,  both by appearance,  and how one acts. Even if people don't say it openly (as this is punishable)  doesn't mean people are unaware.

Religion is part of population,  and thus part of democracy. Unless you wish to compromise democracy, religion should have a say if religious people are voting / voicing an opinion.

Nature argument is broken, you are essentially saying  NOTHING is natural, and something being a natural occurrence isn't a thing. See the "normal" argument, except it it occurs commonly in completely healthy situations, with no causation... Well, It typically does not, and besides that, its an extreme minority.

And biggest issue is you are tying legal status to what someone CLAIMS. This is extremely dangerous as theres absolutely 0 verification that can be done. All you need to do is claim, and that is it. Even if you have raped dozens of women, have an ankle bracelet, just got released from jail, none of that matters in this rule so long as you SAY "I am transgender". That is hands down my biggest problem, and nobody has addressed this. And no, saying "People won't do that", is not an acceptable answer.

Another thing is not realizing the problem where people who WILL and HAVE assaulted people using this excuse are not "your average trans people" who are "just trying to live their lives", but sick people who use the title as a means to an end to do whatever the are trying to do. BUT, legally speaking, they are 100% indistinguishable from a "legitimate" trans person who offends.  Infact, its completely impossible to legally define what makes someone transgender without huge privacy violations, and without this, we do risk security.

Infact, what is to keep reports from labeling transgender rapists as "men" to hide the real rate of transgender attackers? Theres literally nothing, and considering most news "mis gender" people anyway, I don't see this as an impossibility, for statistics to never show it (remember the whole trans NEVER attack people argument?) because anyone who IS caught attacking gets COUNTED as a man (thus straight men in general look worse, and transgender people would statistically look saintly in that aspect, despite reality.

The huge thing is, "transgender" status can be attained / removed at any time, whatsoever, at all, because it isn't TIED to anything other than what someone says. So if someone says they are trans? They are trans. If they say they arent? they aren't. Even if this changes on a daily basis, theres 0 legal means to combat this kind of game-playing, as someone isn't supposed to question it at all.

Effectively, it lets ANYONE in ANY restroom if they say so, if the rule is actually enforced. Its silly, because theres no restrictions, limitations, ect, so long as one SAYS they are... And this is alone, the source of the outrage by most people.

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 04, 2016, 09:25:53 PM
Overwhelming majority of population is straight

Says who

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 04, 2016, 09:25:53 PM
i think that is because its default thinking.

I think a lot of people in the west identify as hetero for largely cultural and historic reasons, or for reasons of simplicity; not simply because the majority are 100% hetero. I identify as straight, but it's not like I'm blind to male beauty. Without going into detail, I can assure you my 'public' orientation is a convenient fiction to avoid a bunch of men hitting on me.

Quote from: sadpickle on June 12, 2016, 10:14:57 AM
I think a lot of people in the west identify as hetero for largely cultural and historic reasons, or for reasons of simplicity; not simply because the majority are 100% hetero.

Citation needed, or else that's just your opinion.

I'm 100% hetero, I have zero attraction to other guys, and I can also appreciate male beauty. I guess I don't fit into your worldview.

Quote from: milon on June 12, 2016, 10:29:35 AM

Quote from: sadpickle on June 12, 2016, 10:14:57 AM
I think a lot of people in the west identify as hetero for largely cultural and historic reasons, or for reasons of simplicity; not simply because the majority are 100% hetero.

Citation needed, or else that's just your opinion.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/16/half-young-not-heterosexual/
Article from August 2015 about results from a Kinsey-scaled gender orientation survey taken in Britain. Younger people are more likely to identify as non-exclusively hetero; sign of the times or just people being more honest?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-percent-of-the-population-is-gay-more-than-you-think-5012467/?no-ist
2013 Smithsonian article explaining the result of bias in surveys of sexual orientation. This is primarily why I believe hetero is the 'majority' in the west. Although in America there is a cultural 'tidal shift' towards accepting gays, there is still stigma attached to (particularly) male-male intimacy. I believe a lot of people experiment when they're younger, then drift into hetero relationships because of reasons of convenience, or to start a biological family, or perhaps simply as a disguise.

Anecdotally, to go into a little more detail, I've been intimate with men and I still identify as straight, mostly for reasons of convenience, nothing more.

Interesting, and thanks for the info.  I've always heard that homosexuality was minority group, and I would have guessed it to be around 10-12% (no idea where I got that range from).  It made sense, so I didn't question it.  Looks like I was wrong.

I can certainly believe that there are cultural & social reasons that non-exclusive-hetero individuals would want to identify as such.  And to answer your rhetorical question, it's probably both a sign of the times AND people being more honest.

I learned something today.

I'm not trying to stickle a heated discussion here sadpickle, but I don't quite understand how you would separate being bisexual and being heterosexual plus sometimes being in relation with people of the same sex for convenience. Sorry, but that screams bisexual to me, I am in no way saying that I know your labels better than yourself but I can't see the difference here. For example, I know for sure that I would never, not under normal circumstances, have any intimacy with the same sex, simply because there's no way I would ever desire that, so I don't know why you think you fit into the same category as I.

Look like I've let someone hanging for an answer.
This one will be a pretty classic one.

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 04, 2016, 09:25:53 PM
Well keg,  looks like you put a lot of thought into it, but not enough. You really need to look at things logically, and a little emotionally removed to properly judge.

I'm afraid you are not following any of these precepts. Looking at your vast bulk of flawed logic and appeal to emotion to justify your obvious prejudice against transgender.
The way it transpire in your post make those "recurrent themes (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=20030.msg225018#msg225018)", exactly as I said : "pointless". And for the same reasons.

Let's begin :
You are making a baseless, empirical assumption over biological urge despite common-knowledge and example throughout history showing that it is nowhere to be hardwired.
Example of faulty logic : "If A have a chance to cause B, then A cause B all the time".
Just replace A with "penis" and B with "rape" and hopefully you should understand the error you just did. It's jarring that following your "logic" we should forbid any male to be alone with women because their biological urge "will" take over.

Another fault of logic is implying that the gendered nature of a (bath)room is a critical-factor when it is actually very minor.
Rape and Sexual Harassment don't happen because a room hasn't been "gendered" (your own logic would lead to radical islamic rules), those crimes happen because we have yet to counter the REALLY critical-factor still causing those.
- 50years ago it was because raping/harassing a women wasn't considered much of a crime and women were segregated away.
- Nowadays it is more because some morons believe they can go away with the excuse "it was a biological urge", and other morons actually buy that excuse.

One in the contradiction vein :
How dismissing that female-looking/re-gendered trans being forced into male-room would following your own "logic" led them to get raped.
While we are on that, that's the arguments used by other bigot to say that transgender surgery should be illegal at all.

Next are a few case of misunderstanding or tunnel vision...
- Normalcy :
You seem to have a hard time grasping the concept that "Normalcy" precisely mean that "considering facts currently available" something is considered normal.
For example : It is now considered normal in civilized country for persons of the same gender to have the right to fuck, marry, have child / raise them. The pro & con weighting in their favor : more freedom for everybody at the cost of a few bigot being vocal or murderer.


- Nature :
You got it completely wrong, it's the opposite of what I said. I'm saying that EVERYTHING is natural. Becoming bi-homosexual is a natural occurence, it happen in nature all the time. The fact that it is rare don't make it unnatural, it just make it naturally rare.

For example : some very very rare person are born naturally with no clear gender, they are literally a third gender under all criteria we know, from appearance to DNA (being XXY)
Another funny fact : All fetus start female.

- Society :
A society is only defined in the now but is built over time, any amount of time.
100 years ago, "progressive" country like America or France were (to our current standard) very misogynists, racists, homophobics and believed to be rightly justified in being so, some people fighting against gender/race equality. Those society became the ones we live in right now over tiny change 20years per 20years.

The current ruckus might look petty but protecting LOGICAL CHOICE FROM LGBT people is another small step to improve the current society. And you cannot prove that letting transgenders' act like the gender they now identify as could never become another social progress.
For the same reasoning, 500 years in the future "gender" might be seen as utterly irrelevant and people looking back at transgander hate a barbarric.

- Religion :
Religion is just belief and opinions, nothing more. A population isn't <type religion here> by birth, they are only if they willingly side with those.
And NO, religion aren't democratic organization. Their dogma aren't added/removed by democratic means.
So to rephrase it for you : A religious organization/sect have no legitimacy to impose a dogma against the will of the majority.
The US is still pretty bad in term of separation between state and religion but even they don't give those much influence anymore.

- Vocal Minority :
You are confusing "few peoples being discussed/with a lot despite being rare" with "few people acting as if their belief was shared by a vast majority of person despite it not being the case".
I can only give you that "vocal minority" is very context-dependent but you should known better.
ex : LGBT are definitely not vocal minority in the US, the anti-LGBT however will try to pass laws in on the sly to pretend they have support...


A little note about that "Brainwashing into being straight" thing : I also said "culturally educated into preferring to be heterosexual".
You do realize that even in progressive country some people are hiding their bi/homosexuality because they would get mocked, right ? This is a clear form of culture/social pressure, being told that trans are rapist is another a form of indoctrination.

QuoteAnd biggest issue is you are tying legal status to what someone CLAIMS. This is extremely dangerous as theres absolutely 0 verification that can be done. All you need to do is claim, and that is it. Even if you have raped dozens of women, have an ankle bracelet, just got released from jail, none of that matters in this rule so long as you SAY "I am transgender". That is hands down my biggest problem, and nobody has addressed this. And no, saying "People won't do that", is not an acceptable answer.

I had to quote this. How the HELL can you get a logic so biased as that ? This is beyond bias. It's like you have been brainwashed to believe that Transgender are beast/criminal by default.

Let's try to get at least your scenario straight.
- If someone raped dozens of women...
- Have an ankle bracelet, released from jail...etc
Him being/pretending to be a transgender don't have any sort of importance in any of the context discussed, even the bathroom isn't important.

1) You said "he was released from jail" :
It mean he purged his sentence. Remember, the whole "punishment dissuading recidivism" thing ?
2) But well, let's speculate the case it didn't work :
Well, big new : It wouldn't make any difference whether he is a trans or not !
- Since you are talking of a criminal, we wouldn't care where he'll rape.
- Since this is a rape, the criminal will attack an unsuspecting victim anywhere.
- Since any rape is messy, a women bathroom never was a "safe place".
- Lastly, since a rapist is mentally unstable : a crazy man wouldn't care to follow a woman in or hide in.
3) You are trying to apply that contrived speculation to a NORMAL context where the transgender isn't a criminal.
- Why would a transgender need to justify that he isn't a criminal first ?

There's your obsession with that "FREE PASS" based on basically nothing. It's as if you said "pretending to be christian is a free pass to rape with impunity".

No, nothing, NOTHING in being/treating transgender equally allow anyone to escape justice or commit crime. You are spouting utter nonsense here.

QuoteInfact, what is to keep reports from labeling transgender rapists as "men" to hide the real rate of transgender attackers?

Why would the status of transgender matter for any crime ?
Why would reports purposefully hide that information ? Actually, they would be more likely to point it out.

If you wanted statistical evidence, Transgender people are in fact proportionally less involved in sexual assault, as the attacker at least.
Trans & LGBT are being attacked much more ... we all know that.

You could hardly be more prejudiced if you tried.

My 2 cents.

Men are men. Women are women. It does not matter what you 'think' you are, if you have a penis, you are male. You use the Mens bathroom even if you 'identify' (Delusion) as something else.

Quote from: Pactrick Willis on June 14, 2016, 11:47:55 PM
My 2 cents.

Men are men. Women are women. It does not matter what you 'think' you are, if you have a penis, you are male. You use the Mens bathroom even if you 'identify' (Delusion) as something else.

Not even transgenders are going to say anything else, genius. Everyone knows it and transgender people themselves also know that they have gender disphoria, they are not under any delusion, they know what their original biological sex is. Gender disphoria is a very real and medically recognized disorder. At the moment, reassignment therapy is the only thing that can most effectively lower the already insanely high suicide rate of transgender people. Also, post transition female transgender people phenotypically look like men, so if anyone really thinks that a guy who looks like a manly guy but was born female should be forced to enter a female bathroom is the real one with delusions. And yes, they exist, females who underwent transition and now look like men would be forced to enter the female bathroom, it's best to just not enforce any rules for bathrooms and let general courtesy decide, everything else is just a giant mess.

And this is why, in my opinion, issues like this should remain under the verdict of psychologists and medical professionals, the general population, including me, is not experienced and informed enough to take a correct stance. Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion and is free to express it.

Adding to what Skissor said, gender is certainly more complicated that looking at the outside of the body.

Doctors in my country (USA) used to shout "It's a girl!" or "It's a boy!" when a woman gave birth.  They don't anymore.  Sometimes infant anatomy is vague (small male genitals and large female genitals look identical), and sometimes there's a been developmental anomaly that leaves doctors scratching their heads.  Doctors now clean the baby and take a close look before announcing gender - if they do announce it at all.

Also, it's rare, but sometimes a human being with an XY chromosome set is immune to testosterone.  The presence of testosterone in utero is what triggers development as a male, and without it we would all develop as female - unless you're immune to it (which I believe means a lack of testosterone receptors).  The result is a human being who looks and functions purely as a female, but a genetic test reveals they're technically male.  And that's not even touching on people who have 3 chromosomes, like XXY.  What then?  :P

Quote from: Kegereneku on June 14, 2016, 07:45:58 PM

QuoteAnd biggest issue is you are tying legal status to what someone CLAIMS. This is extremely dangerous as theres absolutely 0 verification that can be done. All you need to do is claim, and that is it. Even if you have raped dozens of women, have an ankle bracelet, just got released from jail, none of that matters in this rule so long as you SAY "I am transgender". That is hands down my biggest problem, and nobody has addressed this. And no, saying "People won't do that", is not an acceptable answer.

I had to quote this. How the HELL can you get a logic so biased as that ? This is beyond bias. It's like you have been brainwashed to believe that Transgender are beast/criminal by default.

@Kegereneku, I could be mistaken, but I don't think mumble is saying they're criminals.  I think he's saying there are criminals who aren't transgender who will say they are in order to have access to a bathroom they really shouldn't be in.  It's still a spurious argument - by the same logic, a transgender person (really, ANY person) could also enter the "wrong" restroom (really, ANY restroom) for nefarious reasons just by saying or not saying certain things.

Quote from: milon on June 15, 2016, 03:01:25 PM
@Kegereneku, I could be mistaken, but I don't think mumble is saying they're criminals.  I think he's saying there are criminals who aren't transgender who will say they are in order to have access to a bathroom they really shouldn't be in.  It's still a spurious argument - by the same logic, a transgender person (really, ANY person) could also enter the "wrong" restroom (really, ANY restroom) for nefarious reasons just by saying or not saying certain things.

I've re-read his entire post to make sure nothing was lost in the quote.
Yes, I know that's the first layer of what he said, but I don't see how he could not be implying more than that (both on the social construct and biological aspect).

He spent a while building a CLAIMS of men biological urge to "inevitably lead" to rape, next a claim of gendered bathroom to be "protection against inevitable odds".
Following the double standard that 100% female-looking trans somehow wouldn't get raped if forced in men's bathroom, probably aided in that he don't seem to think of trans as anything but men/women in disguise (thus denying any tidy-bit operations or intent to be indistinguishable of target gender from being fact).
Then come the rapist part, where all his previous constructed-view of what a transgender is(n't) are used to assemble "men will rape" and "men>fem trans never stopped being men" into a fallacious "transgender into other bathroom will inevitably become criminal".

Even if that's accidental. It is very worth pointing out, either to clear off a misunderstanding or to deconstruct a belief.

As I said a while ago (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=20030.msg225018#msg225018), I consider there's very subjective social construct (society, normalcy, naturalism...) that are being forced into the debate despite being actually -irrelevant- if you take the most critical and practical perspective.

On the topic of transhumanism we can easily come up with a lot of hypothetical situation that our(~developed country) current code of ethics couldn't deal with.

Edit : In case that wasn't clear, I consider the social recognition of whether a trans is identifiable as such to be irrelevant by definition : a trans intend to SWITCH, this is a different case than someone wanting to be Something ELSE (see my point about third gender), and all these cases are easy to classify in practical terms

Quote from: Pactrick Willis on June 14, 2016, 11:47:55 PM
My 2 cents.

Men are men. Women are women. It does not matter what you 'think' you are, if you have a penis, you are male. You use the Mens bathroom even if you 'identify' (Delusion) as something else.

By your logic people who have penis/vagina transplant do in fact change gender and stop having "delusion problem".

And if you insist on "what it was first", then causally speaking, everybody was first "female" before changing to male due to DNA.
So, since our very growth include a change from physically female to male. Then by this logic we are all female with 50% of delusion.

Quote from: Pactrick Willis on June 14, 2016, 11:47:55 PM
My 2 cents.

Men are men. Women are women. It does not matter what you 'think' you are, if you have a penis, you are male. You use the Mens bathroom even if you 'identify' (Delusion) as something else.

QuoteBy your logic people who have penis/vagina transplant do in fact change gender and stop having "delusion problem".

And if you insist on "what it was first", then causally speaking, everybody was first "female" before changing to male due to DNA.
So, since our very growth include a change from physically female to male. Then by this logic we are all female with 50% of delusion.

By your logic, then, everyone was really carbon before anything. Null and void.

I'm saying that naturally, you are male and female. I feel we are treating a mental issue wrong, its like allowing little children to thrown temper tantrums instead of teaching them not to.

QuoteI'm saying that naturally, you are male and female. I feel we are treating a mental issue wrong, its like allowing little children to thrown temper tantrums instead of teaching them not to.

If you were to ask the medical community as to what the best and preferred treatment was, would you accept their response? Would you accept it when a medical professional told you that gender reassignment is the best treatment for it?

I would, because I trust the community of medical professional, it's the only rational thing to do. So, would you?

Quote from: Skissor on June 24, 2016, 08:12:10 AM

QuoteI'm saying that naturally, you are male and female. I feel we are treating a mental issue wrong, its like allowing little children to thrown temper tantrums instead of teaching them not to.

If you were to ask the medical community as to what the best and preferred treatment was, would you accept their response? Would you accept it when a medical professional told you that gender reassignment is the best treatment for it?

I would, because I trust the community of medical professional, it's the only rational thing to do. So, would you?

This same 'medical professionals' recommended blood letting and leeches for a cold 500 years ago; Sometimes they are off.

May I also remind you, some don't- read http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120

Oh right, so you're the type of person who thinks the medical community is simply wrong because 500 years ago some things were made wrong? Okay, do you know it better than most doctors then? You do realize that leeches can be therapeutical still, right?

Are you also one of those people who don't trust the scientific community of biologists about the theory of Evolution? Or the scientific community of physics about the Big Bang? I mean, 1000 years ago we thought the earth was flat, so do we simply dismiss all the geography teachers then?

Quote from: Skissor on June 28, 2016, 01:57:56 AM
Oh right, so you're the type of person who thinks the medical community is simply wrong because 500 years ago some things were made wrong? Okay, do you know it better than most doctors then? You do realize that leeches can be therapeutical still, right?

Are you also one of those people who don't trust the scientific community of biologists about the theory of Evolution? Or the scientific community of physics about the Big Bang? I mean, 1000 years ago we thought the earth was flat, so do we simply dismiss all the geography teachers then?

I never said that- simply that sometimes their treatment methods can be wrong, especially in a new(ish) disorder.

Quote from: Pactrick Willis on June 28, 2016, 08:09:43 AM
I never said that- simply that sometimes their treatment methods can be wrong, especially in a new(ish) disorder.

You implied it. To my question whether you would agree with the medical community, your answer was "Well they sometimes are wrong." So yes, you're implying you disagree with the majority of doctors because they "might be off". So then my question is, if you really disagree, who knows it better? People who are not doctors? Yourself?

Quote from: Pactrick Willis on June 28, 2016, 08:09:43 AMI never said that- simply that sometimes their treatment methods can be wrong, especially in a new(ish) disorder.

That's both unhelpful and misleading.  Yes, doctors can be wrong.  But so can patients.  And you can be wrong too.  I could be wrong.  Anyone can be wrong.  By putting the spotlight of 'potential wrongness' on a subset of humanity you're communicating the assumption that that group is more wrong (or more likely to be wrong) than the rest.  Which is why your statement was unhelpful and misleading.

Well put milon, I just generally don't like it when somebody brings forth the argument that "The group of experts for X cannot be trusted with the topic X." So then who can? Somebody who's not an expert on the topic?? How does that make sense?

Quote from: Skissor on June 29, 2016, 01:48:02 AM
Well put milon, I just generally don't like it when somebody brings forth the argument that "The group of experts for X cannot be trusted with the topic X." So then who can? Somebody who's not an expert on the topic?? How does that make sense?

This shows up alot in my country, I believe in here we have a majority of people that would rather trust the internet and do a home made treatment than going to a doctor.

I get it, I once had a Synus crisis and the doctor just gave me paracetamol, sometimes they are just plain stupid, but that was a general doctor at 3am.

But We have to trust the health specialists that can help us, not trusting that drinking "cachaça" with honey and ginger will help you get over Influenza H1N1

To recenter the debate :

Quote from: Pactrick Willis on June 22, 2016, 10:04:31 PM
I'm saying that naturally, you are male and female. I feel we are treating a mental issue wrong, its like allowing little children to thrown temper tantrums instead of teaching them not to.

QuoteI never said that- simply that sometimes their treatment methods can be wrong, especially in a new(ish) disorder.

I see two flaws :
1) You assume that Nature adhere to your personal vision of it. But people modifying themselves to be whatever they want is part of nature and so, natural. It's been a while since Homo Sapiens Sapiens lived as tribes with no concept of "family" or "gendered bathroom", but the use of fire, the invention of tools, clothes, and the abandon of tribes-based lifestyle was is is still all Natural.
2) I won't disagree that transgendering is a distinct mental state, but your claim that it is a "disorder" (in what I assume the pejorative way) is arbitrary.

Wikipedia def :
""A mental disorder (also called a mental illness,[1] psychiatric disorder, or psychological disorder) is a diagnosis, most often by a psychiatrist, of a behavioral or mental pattern that may cause suffering or a poor ability to function in life""

Transgender don't fit this definition anymore than the common person. Many live as healthily than any other persons or god-fearing great ape.
At least, when they aren't being persecuted by people with behavioral or mental pattern that make them incapable of accepting change, cause suffering to them and other, and lead them to be unadapted to life in a socially and technologically evolved society.

In short,
The pressure from anti-LGBT people cause more problems than the existence of atypical persons.

Quote from: Kegereneku on July 02, 2016, 02:53:23 AM
To recenter the debate :

Quote from: Pactrick Willis on June 22, 2016, 10:04:31 PM
I'm saying that naturally, you are male and female. I feel we are treating a mental issue wrong, its like allowing little children to thrown temper tantrums instead of teaching them not to.

QuoteI never said that- simply that sometimes their treatment methods can be wrong, especially in a new(ish) disorder.

I see two flaws :
1) You assume that Nature adhere to your personal vision of it. But people modifying themselves to be whatever they want is part of nature and so, natural. It's been a while since Homo Sapiens Sapiens lived as tribes with no concept of "family" or "gendered bathroom", but the use of fire, the invention of tools, clothes, and the abandon of tribes-based lifestyle was is is still all Natural.
2) I won't disagree that transgendering is a distinct mental state, but your claim that it is a "disorder" (in what I assume the pejorative way) is arbitrary.

Wikipedia def :
""A mental disorder (also called a mental illness,[1] psychiatric disorder, or psychological disorder) is a diagnosis, most often by a psychiatrist, of a behavioral or mental pattern that may cause suffering or a poor ability to function in life""

Transgender don't fit this definition anymore than the common person. Many live as healthily than any other persons or god-fearing great ape.
At least, when they aren't being persecuted by people with behavioral or mental pattern that make them incapable of accepting change, cause suffering to them and other, and lead them to be unadapted to life in a socially and technologically evolved society.

In short,
The pressure from anti-LGBT people cause more problems than the existence of atypical persons.

http://publisher.attn.com/sites/default/files/suicide%20attempts%20williams%20institute.png

Yes the suicide rate is high, so?

Who really cares. Trans people were using what ever bathroom before and no one really cared until some law was passed protecting their use and target jumping on the train of announcing how progressive they are. There is alot of people who are confused and have some primitive thoughts on how society should be run. I dont really see bathroom use as a huge issue. If the person taking a shit next to me has a penis or a vagina, really doesnt mean much to me after I wash my hands and leave the restroom.

Quote from: Pactrick Willis on July 05, 2016, 11:12:18 AMhttp://publisher.attn.com/sites/default/files/suicide%20attempts%20williams%20institute.png

Remember when I said : "The pressure from anti-LGBT people cause more problems than the existence of atypical persons." ?
I'm not surprised they are more likely to kill themselves when there's more morons telling them "You are not natural, go kill yourself !".

Aside, that's like arguing "women can't drive" using a chart about the "number of women driver in Saudi Arabia" (so you know : Saudi law forbid women to drive, I hope you see the point).
A great number of country still apply retarded laws forcing LGBT person (or other minority) to live miserably for no valid reason. (for all we hear about the USA being the land of Freedom it's pretty bad at this)

So your link is basically pushing the point that we should accommodate LGBT people better in our society, legalize same-sex marriage, recognize gender switch, fight against any form of gender discrimination ...etc

Quote from: Kegereneku on July 09, 2016, 06:51:34 AM

Quote from: Pactrick Willis on July 05, 2016, 11:12:18 AMhttp://publisher.attn.com/sites/default/files/suicide%20attempts%20williams%20institute.png

Remember when I said : "The pressure from anti-LGBT people cause more problems than the existence of atypical persons." ?
I'm not surprised they are more likely to kill themselves when there's more morons telling them "You are not natural, go kill yourself !".

Aside, that's like arguing "women can't drive" using a chart about the "number of women driver in Saudi Arabia" (so you know : Saudi law forbid women to drive, I hope you see the point).
A great number of country still apply retarded laws forcing LGBT person (or other minority) to live miserably for no valid reason. (for all we hear about the USA being the land of Freedom it's pretty bad at this)

So your link is basically pushing the point that we should accommodate LGBT people better in our society, legalize same-sex marriage, recognize gender switch, fight against any form of gender discrimination ...etc

I've decided to change my point of view on Trans. Sure, be a 'man' or 'woman'. Just don't expect a single dime to come out of my pocket to make accommodation- your fantasy, your money. Nor expect me to allow you to use the bathroom of the opposite sex- if you where born with a penis, you go to the men's, and vise versa. Other than that, go ahead and pursue your delusion.

If your money is your only preoccupation I'll say "don't worry then".
The only subject as hand is how to rework old rules to copes with modern paradigm and dismiss old dogma.
If there's any cost in this, it will not be to pay for anyone's fantasy, it will only be in the pursuit of equal Human Rights regardless of gender, beliefs, skin color &    ...future-tech surgery**.

anyway it's not like it cost anything to accept transgender into the bathroom they relate to, you simply have to NOT make discriminatory laws that goes against established equal Human's Right.
*We will only have a real conundrum the day when medical science create an actual "third gender" or human hermaphrodite.

I like people who change their point of view but I have to say that your opinion still look like the same.

IMO, what organs you were born with isn't relevant in the debate, the idea that it determine what you "actually are" (in the "light of god" or something) is an old dogma that should be dropped (just like we stopped thinking that disease were "bad blood" to flush away). Same goes for the idea that males and females must necessarily be segregated for some reason that transcend all.
Even the rationalization that Gendered-bathroom "exist to protect women" is more of an man-made embellishment to eclipse that at the time rape-prevention was more like preventing "property damage" (and women were punished if they failed to protect themselves).

I'm repeating myself but nowadays gendered-room are only a matter of practicality and luxury.

It seems to me like Patrick Willis still thinks it's either a delusion or a fantasy (depending on where I quote). Just keep in mind that gender dysphoria is a medically diagnosed disorder, so the probability that those people don't chose their disorder is really high. To say otherwise and disagree with doctors just because of ideological reasons is unprofessional imho.

Technically speaking everything can be reworded as a disorder. Including traits human evolved out of natural selection, were beneficial in the past, but are problematic today (ex : job burn-out). As such many societal rules and medical diagnosis we use everyday also double as social engineering.

Our civilization is basically in the process of rationalizing old dogma around "gender-roles". Which is much needed if we are to face one day prospects like Immortality or Intelligent-enhancing treatments, let alone other crazy futuristic concept.

Yes granted I do not know enough about what constitutes as disorder etc, the medical word is not exactly my field of expertise.

This conversation is still happening? I swear this was an old thing last time I visited the forums months ago.

Anyway. I personally don't care which bathroom whoever uses. They have stalls for that. I guess I can't speak for non-north american rooms, but it's not like most of us waddle around in there with our pants down or spend our time peeking under the aforementioned stalls. Anyone doing so has some more serious issues than gender confusion.

I'd agree that I shouldn't have to use my tax money to fix whatever the "problem" is here though. Something like 40% of what I earn already goes to shit I don't really care about much. Let the people who don't like sharing bathrooms pay for new ones, and let the people who want a new body pay for that.

Quote from: Skissor on July 19, 2016, 09:16:59 AM
It seems to me like Patrick Willis still thinks it's either a delusion or a fantasy (depending on where I quote). Just keep in mind that gender dysphoria is a medically diagnosed disorder, so the probability that those people don't chose their disorder is really high. To say otherwise and disagree with doctors just because of ideological reasons is unprofessional imho.

Gender DYSPHORIA is NOT transgenderism. Gender dysphoria is a feeling of insecurity / self hate at ones gender, transgenderism is attempting to BE the other gender.

One is a CURABLE mental illness (ive had it, and have been cured) Another is a VOLUNTARY choice of lifestyle. And since these thoughts can be cured WITHOUT transition (and is much better this way) Calling it a fantasy, or delusion is not far off, as it can be cured.

This is like a black person being insecure about being black, and bleaching their skin. The insecurity is real, them being "white" is not.

Also http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

Regret happens, and most who go through the full transition regret it. And many who transition transition back later. The fact that people are supported in such delusions is harmful to more than just them.

Quote from: milon on June 15, 2016, 03:01:25 PM
Adding to what Skissor said, gender is certainly more complicated that looking at the outside of the body.

Doctors in my country (USA) used to shout "It's a girl!" or "It's a boy!" when a woman gave birth.  They don't anymore.  Sometimes infant anatomy is vague (small male genitals and large female genitals look identical), and sometimes there's a been developmental anomaly that leaves doctors scratching their heads.  Doctors now clean the baby and take a close look before announcing gender - if they do announce it at all.

Also, it's rare, but sometimes a human being with an XY chromosome set is immune to testosterone.  The presence of testosterone in utero is what triggers development as a male, and without it we would all develop as female - unless you're immune to it (which I believe means a lack of testosterone receptors).  The result is a human being who looks and functions purely as a female, but a genetic test reveals they're technically male.  And that's not even touching on people who have 3 chromosomes, like XXY.  What then?  :P

This is 1, a false argument, saying "SOME people are this way, therefor everyone who is trans is this way". Most trans people do not have both genitals, or SRS would be MUCH easier. The stuff you mention are abnormalities, dysfunctions, mutations, ect : Not normal. And again, its not representative of all, or even most trans people. Even if you say you aren't trying to say this, this data has nothing to do with the argument. Smaller or larger than average genitals doesn't change WHAT genitals they are. A monster clitoris is NOT a penis, and a micropenis is NOT a vagina. And testosterone receptors is also not representative of most, because most trans "women" are functional men with testosterone before all the medical malpractice.

As for 3 chromosones, this is clearly a mutation, an error, many deformed / retarded children, and the body USUALLY aborts them via miscarriage, detecting they are unhealthy, are dysfunctional, broken. Nature has a way of trying to weed them out, some get through, and those humans have down syndrome, or other stuff...you saying down syndrome is a sexuality? Brings a whole new meaning to "I'm down for sex". In  all seriousness though, in nature these things would not survive, and certainly not reproduce. the odds of them being born, being brought up, surviving alone, and managing to mate is very slim.

Quote from: milon on June 28, 2016, 02:00:39 PM
That's both unhelpful and misleading.  Yes, doctors can be wrong.  But so can patients.  And you can be wrong too.  I could be wrong.  Anyone can be wrong.  By putting the spotlight of 'potential wrongness' on a subset of humanity you're communicating the assumption that that group is more wrong (or more likely to be wrong) than the rest.  Which is why your statement was unhelpful and misleading.

Well, maybe they ARE wrong? maybe they ARE delusional? Most trans people have no physical basis for their transition, and all their feelings are entirely mental. Going back to you mentioning abnormalities, chromosome changes, ect, first off, do these people go trans ? Often no. Do people who are trans have these traits? Not as often as you would lead me to believe. Trans people feel this way entirely on a mental and emotional basis. And many people stop transition, regret it, feel embarrassed, commit suicide, or even go through SRS and have DRAMATICALLY increased suicide rates, and as posted above, MANY people regret going through it,  and these are just recorded ones (a person who kills themselves with regret without voicing it isn't counted statistically)

This is an awful argument, yes, he might be wrong sometimes, but this doesn't mean because hes wrong sometimes, that trans people are right. This is discrediting via a possible past history at absolute best. If they ARE more wrong, and DO have more problems, than they have more problems. Your indication that hes saying "most trans people are wrong" is also dubious : If they are actually more wrong, what is bad about saying this? If I say most women are weaker than most men, is this sexist? It IS true, sure, some women are stronger than me, but they aren't representative of the average. And theres plenty of evidence showing things are not right with trans people : Higher drinking rate, drug use, self mutilation, risk of abusive relationships (and willingly STAYING in them, because they know they aren't wanted by most, so take any form of acceptance they can get, even if they get hurt) Temper issues, incarceration for violent crimes, higher std rates, higher rates of other mental illnesses, ect ect... Generally speaking, being transgender is EXTREMELY unhealthy. And really, show me a person who has been transgender for 40 or so years?...You often don't find a trans person whom has transitioned while young, and becomes old, you find young trans people who went trans in the past 10 or so years, or old people for the same. This is because most die by suicide, OD, or whathave you, or detransition (YES, it exists) so this I think this is evidence as well that the SRS doctors, and trans people are wrong. It DOESN'T help longterm wellbeing.

You know, I'm not gonna start a new argument again, because you mumblemumble, are notorious in this particular forum for jumping onto every discussion about transgenderism or the whole "bathroom argument" every time when there is a chance. And I know that your discussions can be dragged out very long.

So don't take it as an insult when I just go trough this briefly without actually addressing all of your points. So if you feel like I left something out, pardon me, it's not supposed to be an insult.  8)



Okay. So my original comment in this thread (if you scroll back) was basically "if most doctors agree that the best method to treat gender disphoria is trough gender reassignment, then so be it."

That's actually already it. I do find your website interesting, however you're implying that pretty much the majority of transgender people fall into the category of "I regret my reassignment". I'm sorry to tell you but a website falls short in proving that, statistics are the only way to go. Whether there is data about it or not, I do not know but I'd be happy to know.


But the most important point should be repeated here again. If someone thinks that medical professionals/experts are wrong, then you need to provide empirical proof for that, otherwise it's just your fee fee's. Just saying "many regret it and many feel bad about it" doesn't cut it.

I don't take offense, I know I have a rep on here for my beliefs (and I'm sure, given the opportunity, a few people wouldn't mind trying to assassinate me for it) So I don't mind you trying to distance yourself, no offense taken.

Problem is with "most doctors" is this ITSELF is an issue of institution. Many doctors ARE open about being against transgenderism, this said, laws are in place preventing "discrimination", and doctors who disagree face extremely heavy pressure if they disagree with the status quo.

As for MOST regret it, well yes, at some point, but CERTIANLY not openly. If you got convinced that doing something like say, cutting off your hand and "replacing it with a bionic one" was a good idea, but it turns out to be nothing like what they said, would you enjoy talking about it? Certainly not! nobody likes being made a fool of, and few would have the fortitude to admit "I felt insecure, I got my dick chopped off, I regret it". Instead they would feel even more insecure, scared, frightened, helpless, and would hide, and maybe kill themselves to escape the shame.

And while I agree with evidence, most institutions WONT do studies on them because its "discriminatory". But many medical experts HAVE noted that theres trends where transgenderism :
-Does not actually improve mental function
-Worsens things later, and has a DRAMATICALLY higher suicide rate, particularly for SRS. At this point they can even be passing with hormones, so the bullying theory is faulty.
-Can go away by itself much of the time. many people encounter gender dysphoria, have depression for a while, but eventually get over it like I did. Its insecurity, is all it is

And sure, these are not empirical statistics, but I've not really heard of many old transgender people. And by OLD, I dont mean they are old AND trans, I mean they have been trans for 20 years or so. I actually googled old trangender people, and got a bunch of people who are trans, but only became so in the past  5 years. So this is also an indication, how long is this sustainable in someones life? After all, dickheads come and go, but truth NEVER dies... and you can't really run from it.

also, what SPECIFIC statistic would you need to see? higher suicide rates? those exist. Higher drug use? those exist. Higher rate of mental illness? Those exist. Higher rate of violent crime? Those exist. Higher STD rate? Those exist.

So what statistic is not covered which would PROVE its unhealthy? Theres proof of all those, what SPECIFIC thing would have to be proven atop all this, to make you believe? What study? What measurable factor? What statistic, what effect, how MUCH indications that they have higher risks problems, and unhealthy traits would we need before you say "Alright, I agree, it is unhealthy and wrong"? Where is the line?

A lot of claims here. I think the time has come where I have to ask for you to carefully back up your claims. Otherwise, I'm just going to take this as your personal opinion.

QuoteMany doctors ARE open about being against transgenderism, this said, laws are in place preventing "discrimination", and doctors who disagree face extremely heavy pressure if they disagree with the status quo.

So you're claiming conspiracy. You're claiming that a medical field, which is a scientific field, is actually wrong because of agenda/politics/conspiracy. That's going to be very difficult to prove. So, citation needed.  ;)

QuoteAs for MOST regret it, well yes, at some point, but CERTIANLY not openly.

Citation needed.

QuoteAnd while I agree with evidence, most institutions WONT do studies on them because its "discriminatory"

Citation needed.

Quote-Does not actually improve mental function
-Worsens things later, and has a DRAMATICALLY higher suicide rate, particularly for SRS. At this point they can even be passing with hormones, so the bullying theory is faulty.
-Can go away by itself much of the time. many people encounter gender dysphoria, have depression for a while, but eventually get over it like I did. Its insecurity, is all it is

3 different citations needed.

Quotealso, what SPECIFIC statistic would you need to see? higher suicide rates? those exist. Higher drug use? those exist. Higher rate of mental illness? Those exist. Higher rate of violent crime? Those exist. Higher STD rate? Those exist.

That is an excellent question actually. What am I looking for specifically? I'll try to frame it as unambiguous as possible:

Quote"I want statistics that show which medical treatment is the most beneficial to transgender people. This means that statistics are needed which show that the treatment in question leads to lower suicide rates and higher quality of life in general. I think as of now, the treatments included are hormone therapy, gender reassignment and the last one, which would be only psychological treatment instead of medical treatment."

Oh boy....

Medical might be based off science, transgenderism is NOT. SRS is not. None of those treatments has a scientific basis for being beneficial long term. So I guess its up to you, provide proof that its beneficial long term.

As for regret, a citation is a dumb request, because of what I said in my quote : Its rarely open, its suppressed, and internalized, not something they would willingly put on a census report, but can be exposed with a bit of digging, prodding, and finding insecurity in such people. So its not up to me to provide evidence they are wrong (which the statistics on drinking, drugs, stds, incarceration, abuse, ect, indicate) But them to prove they are right. I mean, they are doctors in a science based field right? So they must have more evidence than I could cover on why its worth it...RIGHT?! I mean, the 20 fold suicide rate can TOTALLY make sense if you provide something, right?!

Considering GOVORNMENT STATISTICS of trans get looked at as discriminatory, do you really think studies would be SUPPORTED if they indeed showed stuff completely disproving it? no. And how do you COUNT detransitioning statistically? If they no longer get hormones? If they go to the doctor and cancel hormones? If they vanish from treament? If they formally declare "I am not trans anymore"? Depending what you classify as detransitioning, it DOES happen, but somewhere along the lines you figure some would fall through the cracks and not be counted. If a person simply never went to their doctor again, stopped buying hormones, would they be counted? These are questions we need to ask, and it also provides a difficult thing on transgender people in general : How do you classify and count them? If I wore a dress, someone could count me as transgender, despite identifying as a man.  Crossdressers, butch / fems, hormone takers, surgery recepients all count. But its also very easy to choose TO, or TO NOT count someone : Hypothetically, lets say you want to say trans people are common. You could do a study and count anyone who crossdresses, anyone who admits to gender dysphoria as any sort (I would be counted as trans in the past, figure that) anyone who says they dont feel incredibly masculine / feminine as transgender. Because of this, the numbers would INFLATE! So you could say "wow, look, all these trans people exist!" and then it looks like they are very common, even though you dont specify some of them just have crossdressed at some point. Conversely, you can say, look at violent statistics... how do you count if a trans person is say, doing a murder? If they are wearing a dress, are they trans? if they are on hormones, are they trans? If they had surgery, are they trans? For criminal, and court statistics mind you : And most trans still get put into born gender cells. So theres a good possibility a pervert wearing a dress, going in a bathroom and snapping pictures would get counted as "male" on the statistics for crime, because he has a penis, masculine features, ect, and most cops obviously won't give a crap. So for crime, they could be underrepresented. So this presents a very interesting question. what EXACTLY makes a person trans? If we do not answer this, all statistics on this are potentially GROSSLY inaccurate. If you say crossdressers are trans, then ALL crossdressers should be considered trans all the time. Otherwise its left up to statistical discretion what gets counted as what. And science doesn't have room for that many variables to throw off data

Please provide proof it DOES improve mental function. Theres proof theres a higher suicide rate, which indicates otherwise. Why is a 20x suicide rate healthier, you figure?

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/lgbt/transgender-suicide/ http://transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm Done, suicide rates. Surprised I have to look this up considering LGBT talk about the suicide rate so much, but if you want to feign ignorance, I will play along. Though, if you want to feign ignorance, you will be viewed as ignorant. Keep in mind, this is EVEN with the challenge of "What is transgender" mentioned above, where statistics are hard to get, but it mentions a 20 FOLD INCREASE in suicide.

Google detransition. It happens. This alone is proof that it goes away sometimes. also http://www.sexchangeregret.com/ incase you forgot. Pretty sure there might be stories of detransition there too, wouldn't shock me. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2224753/Ria-Cooper-Britains-youngest-sex-change-patient-reverse-treatment.html#ixzz2AyFR0XCs This person was in the news for being trans, and detransitioned. Figure that.

Well lets see, conversion therapy and  trying to disuade someones delusions about gender is ILLEGAL in most places, so its kinda hard to show statistics if you get arrested for showing them, now isn't it? Not to mention even when there was people going in, people would say it was "suppressing who they were" and stuff, with no regard for if life quality improved. And again of "what is transgender". One could easily argue if someone was cured by conversion and felt better that "they were never trans to begin with, and were just confused". But that is a double standard, and more proof we need a CLEAR, CONCISE DEFINITION of what transgender is that CANNOT be flexed on a whim. Imagine if I ran a club, that was secretly murdering folks, but I state "people only are in this club if they SAY they are in the club at the time", then I could absolve all guilt from the club by having anyone caught saying they aren't in the club. Same premise, transgender is counted by if they SAY they are, but people can pick what they say.

LOOK, IM TRANSGENDER! see? I'm transgender, because I say I am. I IDENTIFY as transgender, so therefor I am right? nevermind the rest of my post, that was in the past!

....see the problem? Its so ridiculously ambiguous, so vague, that any person can identify at any time, and WITHDRAW identity at any time. Theres nothing stopping this, is there? Absolutely nothing, because by definition its "who identifies as", so all outside opinion is 100% irrelevant, by that definition.

oh and side note on the kinsey scale study : Young people are stupid generally, and haven't learned to think completely properly yet. Keep in mind im 25, grew up with LGBT indoctrination (Tolerate! Gay is normal! Trans people aren't different! Acceptance! Don't treat them different!) And had a trans "best friend" for 5 years. Yet despite all this, I'm anti LGBT... why? because I grew, and learned, and asked enough questions. Young people generally ask less questions. What I would LOVE to see, is a 15 year study asking gay, bi, and trans people about their status, then returning later to see what changed. I'm sure many would be dead by suicide or drugs, and many would be back to normal.

I think you misunderstood me. I generally want to know whether gender reassignment is a better therapy than hormone therapy or psychiatric counseling, not whether the existence of transgender people is "legitimized" or whatever thing you're trying to prove, which quite frankly is fucked up and I do not agree with you.

So pretty much 99% of what you wrote can be thrown in the gutter, you misunderstood me. Best example: Your 20 times higher suicide rate. That suicide rate is for transgender people in general, not for people after gender reassignment. It's not what I'm even disputing.

There are no statistics proving that people with gender dysphoria have higher suicide rates after a gender reassignment.

Actually, your own source says that's not the case at all. Your own source disagrees with you, maybe read it next time instead of posting it to feel legitimate?  ;) (http://transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm)

Gender reassignment 1 : 0 No Gender reassignment

Still waiting for you to back up any of your claims. No citation for "regret". No citation for "doctors face hard pressure". No citation for "higher suicide rate after reassignment". No citation to back up your claims at all, which you wan't to pass of as fact but they are actually your opinion.

Also, I'm older than you. (It has no relevance here anyway)

I understood you just fine. Gender reassignment is ineffective because http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939 . Legitimacy is also low because of that, and shows its mentally unhealthy. I don't care if you think its fucked up, its facts. DEAL WITH IT.

NEGATIVE. Read the big black letters http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939 : "Long-term (30 years) follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: cohort study in Sweden" . Apparently, you cannot read.

Again http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939 . Also nice wording. How is "people with gender dysphoria" different? Also aren't people considered "cured" of gender dysphoria when they do srs, because the symptoms go away (I think so, but legitimately asking because I don't know)? Is that worth it, even when they kill themselves?

Your article you posted is complete bullshit.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corecgi/tileshop/tileshop.fcgi?p=PMC3&id=475851&s=24&r=1&c=1)As you can see, this is the graph from the article it talks about. it follows along 30 years.

They say that this cannot show the results of SRS....well, what would you call results? How DO we see the results? They did this, and the results were higher suicide rates. What is the argument that this is NOT caused by this, but by something else? How WOULD we test for the results?

The treatment for mood stabilizing and anti-psychotic treatment is ALSO bull : Why would someone, who is cured, and fine, need mood stabilizing treatment, or ESPECIALLY anti psychotics (especially for over 10 years)? And why would mood stabilizing treatment cause suicide? Unless its shitty mood stabilizing. Should we do a study where its the same, but NO mood stabilization is given? We just do the surgery, shuffle them out the door? Do you really think this would mean LESS suicide?

Also, along 30 years, people should, if this indeed work, taper off after a while. Yet suicides continue, years in. Sooooo....mood stabilization was the killer, after 20 years? This is your story?

Also, you bringing up you being older than me (possible, but doesn't mean you deserve extra respect) And then saying that has no relevance only makes you look like an idiot....if its not relevant, why did you type it, and send it? Did you have a brain fart? Did you forget the backspace key? Did you have a stroke and type that?  Or was this just a pathetic jab at me saying I'm "young" by comparison, and trying to cover it with "its not relevant" right after, so I supposedly cannot bring it up? Because you brought it up first. So you are saying something irrelevant, at ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, you must admit you did that. Its also funny since most older people against LGBT are called "old farts stuck in the past", yet you say that.

Also, him saying the 2 groups from different time periods is heresay. I'd like to see some proof of this, outside a trans advocate site. Theres nothing to indicate what hes saying being true. If I published a study, and dislike the results, me posting something else seperate does not mean the results were different. This detail was NOT part of the results, so theres no way to tell if this is true, or a dirty lie. If you want to find the part in the document (meaning this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939 and ABSOLUTELY no other place) SHOWING that this is the case, please do, otherwise, I'm rejecting it as there's no evidence. Also, that man is NOT my source, the STUDY is my source. If I buy you a car, am I the source of your ride home? NO, the car is.

And reminder, legally speaking, absolutely nothing prevents a MAN from SAYING hes trans at ANY point to abuse this law. Nothing whatsoever. This includes sex offenders, and child molesters. Literally any man who states "I am a woman" has access.

QuoteAlso, you bringing up you being older than me (possible, but doesn't mean you deserve extra respect) And then saying that has no relevance only makes you look like an idiot....if its not relevant, why did you type it, and send it? Did you have a brain fart? Did you forget the backspace key? Did you have a stroke and type that?  Or was this just a pathetic jab at me saying I'm "young" by comparison, and trying to cover it with "its not relevant" right after, so I supposedly cannot bring it up? Because you brought it up first. So you are saying something irrelevant, at ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, you must admit you did that. Its also funny since most older people against LGBT are called "old farts stuck in the past", yet you say that.

I..... what.... I.... Dude you said your age first, that's why I ironically responded my age. You said that "You're 25 and younger people tend to be dumber". That was you implying I was younger than you, that's why I responded with my age saying I'm actually older. Don't try to accuse me of playing foul when I didn't.

Also, thanks for bringing in the first swear word against me. ;)  2 : 0


And to pretty much end this discussion, again:

High suicide rates for transgender people aren't surprising. You again wrote around 3000 - 4000 characters explaining to me how transgender people have a high suicide rate.... Yet my whole point here was that transgender people don't have a higher suicide rate after a gender reassignment.

QuoteAlso, him saying the 2 groups from different time periods is heresay. I'd like to see some proof of this, outside a trans advocate site. Theres nothing to indicate what he's saying being true.

First, I want you to acknowledge that you posted a source that you now suddenly disagree. Do you or do you not acknowledge this? Because if you do, I think it's a really unfair move of you, because it implies that you just started googling for stuff that reaffirmed your view and then posted it without fully reading the actual article.

QuoteI'd like to see some proof of this, outside a trans advocate site. Theres nothing to indicate what he's saying being true.

The transgender advocate article actually features the very lead author explaining the study that you cited.

QuoteYour article you posted is complete bullshit.

The article that I posted (which, by the way, is exactly the same article that you also posted  ::)) is bullshit, so then explain why? Our article that we posted is a discussion with the lead Author of this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939) study discussing and explaining why it is being severely misinterpreted.

Now I'm not sure if this would be too tedious if I started quoting stuff from the article... Since it's an online article, everyone can open it up and read if for themselves. But the fact is, and you do have to acknowledge this, is that the article is featuring the lead author of this study, and the lead author of the study explains why his study is being misused and misrepresented.

You really need to lay back, read things two times and then start to write.

Gender reassignment 1 : 0 No gender reassignment

alright, fair point on age, but younger demographics are almost ALWAYS less aware.

Look at the study....SPECIFICALLY....SAYS... AFTER...SURGERY.... CAN....YOU....READ! Are you saying sexual reassignment surgery IS NOT sexual reassignment? Or are you just intentionally dodging the question?

I disagree with the man SAYING he disagrees with the data he made, essentially denying the work he did. Disagreeing with him, and his data are 2 different things. Weak-sauce argument.

Like stated above : NO PROOF that hes NOT lying about going back on it. He could of been bribed

Figure this way.... if I do a study...proving WHATEVER.... I can, if someone pays me later say "no no no no no, this was out of context, so much out of context" in an interview, but with 0 scientific data SAYING its out of context. I think this is what the guy did. Granted, its a theory, not a fact, but YOU have no proof him saying his original study was wrong is true. Theres no evidence saying the 2 groups had different rates. Unless you can show a part in the actual STUDY, the one from .gov, you have no argument. You have no way to tell hes not lying.

And EVEN IF apparently suicide is not higher for people after  a certain period (not saying it is ) the death rate is STILL much higher. Care to explain?

Unless you answer, or at least TRY to answer each of these, it is EXTREMELY obvious you are not having any points, or reasoning.  So far ALL you have is a swear word (which one? Screw it) and the mistaken idea on age, BUT, you have presented nothing, and are ignoring my data repeatedly

Haha, transgender again, it's a thing I heard.
Can we discuss "violence is not a solution IRL and ingame"? The Munich attacker played Counterstrike, our minister of interior will put computer games on the agenda.

Please Tynan, hurry up, make Rimworld a teletubby land for distribution in Germany. With purple ponies please. And as we are morally so inferior, for anybody on earth. TIA, scnr

Just reminding a perspective that is getting ...scissored and lost among the mumbling.

From a Transhumanist point of view the gender have no importance, only the "person" as a thinking entity do.
So the choice/envy/willingness to change sex is not a disorder nor a deviation from a "normal & sane" baseline. It is to be separated entirely from distinct mental state (that may or may not be wrote off as "disorder") or pressure from (current) social environment, all of which can be changed.

To rehashbring back an earlier example : It is pointless to mention that LGBT have an higher suicide-rate. For starter because our society is still growing out of old  sexist,homophobic,racist and anti-progress dogma, then because we know there's whole community of people with mental disorders that make them harass anybody who threaten their worldview. Be it physically, psychologically, or socially by making up false medical study (http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/12/15/scary-science-johns-hopkins-university) to outcast people they dislike.

Said short : It is entirely context-dependent.
Gender may be biologically different, but for all practical purpose the mind, intelligence, consciousness, "soul" or whatever you want to call it, is the only thing that matter and are to be considered as equal (for practical purpose again).

Again from a transhumanist point of view, the gender-switch surgery itself is also simply a procedure (sometime required medically) that can be improved a lot (including the psychological aspect). It obey the same consideration for safety than any other technology and if there's one things we know it's that Technology reshape society. You can control it, but you can't prevent it.


To lighten the mood, here's a webcomic strip showcasing the concept of transhumance a post-scarcity world with ultimate mind/body reconstruction.
(It's called "Schlock Mercenary" and I recommend it)
(https://www.schlockmercenary.com/strip/4218/0/schlock20111229.jpg?v=1443894922523) (https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2011-12-25)
For the spoiler, it goes badly, but for very out of the box reasons.

Quote from: Tortuosit on July 25, 2016, 10:18:59 AM
Haha, transgender again, it's a thing I heard.
Can we discuss "violence is not a solution IRL and ingame"? The Munich attacker played Counterstrike, our minister of interior will put computer games on the agenda.

Please Tynan, hurry up, make Rimworld a teletubby land for distribution in Germany. With purple ponies please. And as we are morally so inferior, for anybody on earth. TIA, scnr

Be careful with what you ask ! Don't you know that colorful talking pony have their own particularly odd fandom and is rip to become the next source of everything that is wrong in the world.
Soon you'll have Extremist trying to make the "CONVERSION BUREAU (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanFic/TheConversionBureau)" a reality.
** shudder **

Joke aside, if you made a topic "Is there a link between Video-game and Violence ?" you are sure to get answer.

The main issue I have with this perspective, is I believe it is an inferiority complex : That males (or females) Think females (or males) are superior, or that they are inferior because of their sex. Think of it this way : If you absolutely, and with no doubt believed men were evil, worthless, inferior, stupid, disgusting, ect, ect, would you want to BE that thing? Most likely not. Now, connect those traits with your gender : one might want to deny that they ARE that gender, so they could deny they are such traits, even just internally. You see this many places with say, white guilt (lol) and people doing their absolute damnedest to say "No no no! I might look white, and be 80% irish, But I'm a native!", or something along those lines, Or men surrounded by feminists trying to appear less masculine to be perceived as "less evil"

I ask you show me ANY transgender, that has ever said "I would have shit so much better, so much easier, and so much happier in my life in general if I was the other gender". MANY normal people think this, and have inferiority complexes, but don't transition, but I have never heard of a transgender doing it : not once. So if it is INDEED the body not aligned with the mind, and NOT the mind having inferiority about the body, I would think this would have happened, especially in the gender polarized culture. Also, if trans people did this, they would perhaps think on Detransitioning....which does happen..BUT, if its the mind not matching the body AS YOU SAY, Then one could totally say this, but still be trans because they aren't matching, yes?  You would find an mtf saying occasionally "Damnit, I wish I was a man so I could get all these benefits of men" or the opposite with MtF

If you have evidence of this happening, PLEASE show me. Except, I think any trans who would ever think this would start detransition

Oh and I've seen many times where this perception is evident. TS pornstar "big dick bitch", in an interview she saw his seductress mother as powerful as she always took advantage of WEAK men. Blaire white herself has said before "she became trans because she FAILED as a man". Trans I have known said that, after being raped as a child, that they wanted to be a "big strong man, who couldn't be raped" (yes I know, men can be raped, but this is verbatim what she said)

This all ties back to negative and positive association : If one has an INTENESELY negative view on something, they won't want to be it anymore. And if something you AREN'T has a VERY possitive association, you will strive to be this.

A few examples outside transgenderism. If you were say, a meat eater, and saw things EVERY day, of animals being tortured, beaten, skinned, ground up alive in giant processing machines (yes this happens) and hearing in videos the deafening shrieks of dying, and about to be killed animals, while workers ignore it and kill them by the numbers without the slightest care.... Guess what? You will perhaps feel a bit insecure about meat. Even if you LOVE meat, you now have an association drawn with cruelty and meat. And anyone whom isn't psychotic will not WANT to be cruel as a general rule without reason. So, theres multiple psychological branches. One can ignore it, and act like they didn't see it. Fixate on it, and internally demonize eating meat. Or even come to the realization something along the lines of "death is the way of the world, and the cruelty done by the butchers is not my own", and accept that this DOES happen, yet is not their fault. Which can end either with being a vegetarian, being in denial, or being in acceptance while eating meat.

At the inverse : if smoking is looked at as cool : a kid sees the boys with cars in middle school smoking, sees the guys getting laid smoking, ect ect, one might figure "smoking will make me LIKE THEM". So despite the fact smoking itself holds no alure, the association does : They wish to be LIKE the cool kids, and smoke to be a little more LIKE the cool kids. This is a possitive association: Where smoking associates with "cool" so people want to do it to BE "cool". Granted, this can go multiple ways like the last one : a kid can try to smoke, to be cool, bending to the perceived pressure, which will also be reinforced by new social opportunities. ("hey man, got a smoke?" is a very good way to make a friendship). They can deny it (which, honestly, is healthier) and simply ignore, OR, they can connect that, while these people are cool, the smoking itself is NOT the cause of them being cool.

please keep in mind the third requires processing a lot of emotions, something which trans people are VERY bad at, they always try to escape, or ignore unpleasant feelings.

Oh also, blaming bullying is a cop out : passing trans would have much less problems then, yes? Thus, a lower suicide rate? Except its higher, shown in the study? I guess it is a stretch to say SRS recipients are all passing, but I would argue most are , given the hormones for so long. Please show a study where life IMPROVES for these people.

And another point: Bullying exists everywhere. People get shit for being gay, christian, jewish, black, white, cis, everything under the sun. And bullying will always exist. This said, at least on LUDEON : I am the EXTREME minority for my views against transgendered, and I am NOT a bully. I have never said anything bad like all trans people need to be killed, Infact I've said the exact opposite. And I get opposition for it. If I was spouting stuff like "kill all trannies", I GAURENTEE, I would be banned within the hour, permanently.

But, while I do not do it, people doing outright bullying are VERY quickly shunned almost everywhere, can be legally prosecuted, shunned socially, economically attacked, fired, arrested, even KILLED for such views. So how is the culture against LGBT in most of society if theres LAWS protecting them, MOST people accept them, and people QUESTIONING (not even harassing) them will be shunned? If this is the case, why am I not a nervous wreck, suicidal over people saying I should kill myself, and they will find and kill me for some of my traits? Maybe because trans people AREN'T suicidal because of that, but because something else is the cause. After all, religious folks are shunned FAR more than trans by mainstream culture, so shouldn't they be less stable?

And theres no proof, or evidence indicating bullying is the cause : Its a theory, with no basis, no hard proof, and plenty of evidence against it.

This discussion will lead nowhere if you ignore other opinions and simply regurgitate what you believe to be true in the hope it stick.
I say that because I don't think you understood said Transhumanist perspective enough to give an opinion. If you did I would expect you to address a lot of its core-idea that are in direct conflict with yours. (like the idea that a Mind/consciousness is not bound to his body)

I gather that you believe the "mind need to be aligned with body(gender)", which resonate with an upbringing that males and females have different "roles" and mentality. But those are old cultural dogma and misconception which have been and keep being disproved as soon as Societies stop enforcing the socials rules that created those beliefs.
In practice our brain's plasticity is more than capable of handling a gender change just like it already cope up with the incredibly complex and numerous layers of abstract rules that make a Civilization, to say nothing of a technological one with multiple layers of Augmented-Reality.

Society change and so must obsoletes socials codes, like "Women can't fight on the front-line" or "homosexual are dangerous deviant".
Ultimately, if we push our quest for Individual freedom to its conclusion there is no reason to forbid anybody from changing sex if they so wish to. Only the current difficulty of the task, the length of the process and the responsibility shared by doctors on the outcome make it require more precaution. But if it get easier and safer in the future... we will discover that there is little to no reasons either to forbid some much more disturbing body modification.

QuoteI ask you show me ANY transgender, that has ever said "I would have shit so much better, so much easier, and so much happier in my life in general if I was the other gender"

...
Well, for starter I have one in my own frigging family who did it for that very reason : He live happier now.
Second, that probably the case of every of those who weren't born transsexual or those who had the choice later. If someone chose to change sex because they consider it's better for them. Who are you to pretend to know better than themselves ?
Even if they come to regret it later, it still not anyone's place to decide for them.

To repeat what I said in an precedent answer to you (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=20030.msg228396#msg228396) (that I wonder if you noticed) your argumentation is plagued with logical fallacies, nitpicked example & absurd generalization, when it's not "making shit up".

For example, your idea that transgender is mainly about escapism is devoid of proof outside your own personal interpretations.
Same can be said about the so called "correlation of sexual insecurity & rape leading to transgenderism". Those nonsense originated from religious propaganda (like the "Chick tract's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_tract)") who sometime entirely made up a rape story for a trans who actually changed for their own reasons.

After some research on "Blaire White" have yet to see any sign of her defending anything close to your opinion. (you'll excuse me if I don't trust you to interpret someone else opinions objectively). The Pornstar example is also nowhere near a generalized case. By the way, I'm interested to know why you consider her situation concern anybody else.

QuoteA few examples outside transgenderism.
[...]meat eating [...]smoking

Let's be careful not to launch a sub-topic.
Frankly, I don't see how those examples explain or justify your perspective in any way.
The question of Killing animals show that what would be clearly ethic (like recognizing a transgender right to be recognized as another gender) is not always enforced as much as it should.
The example of smoking show that people can do stupid thing (like being Transphobic) because of social pressure, no matter how bad it is.

Quoteplease keep in mind the third requires processing a lot of emotions, something which trans people are VERY bad at, they always try to escape, or ignore unpleasant feelings.
{{CITATION NEEDED}}

That's probably one of the clearest sign of your transphobia so far.
It's as if someone said "all transphobic persons are mentally retarded and VERY bad at thinking rationally".

QuoteI am the EXTREME minority for my views against transgendered, and I am NOT a bully.

Are you trying to cast yourself as a victim of something ? what ?
I wish to believe you do not have any bad intent. Only genuine ignorance. But know that willingly spreading misinformation, rumors, or study that your know to be false about a minority group (to make them look bad or make their life hell), count as 'bullying' (or harassment, or spreading hate).

Being another sort of minority yourself don't make it fair, or yourself a more persecuted one.
Basic history knowledge show that LGBT people had and still have it far worse than you. You are unlikely to get harassed (or killed) for the opinions you've shown and your "kind" never was treated as madman/tortured/killed/burned for most of history.
People against social progress only get arrested if they commit a crime. Being Lesbian/Gay/Bi or Trans should never have been a crime.

I'm myself a minority group of exactly one person, nobody else think exactly like me about the usage of sarcasm.

QuoteOh also, blaming bullying is a cop out : passing trans would have much less problems then, yes? Thus, a lower suicide rate? Except its higher, shown in the study? I guess it is a stretch to say SRS recipients are all passing, but I would argue most are , given the hormones for so long. Please show a study where life IMPROVES for these people.

You misunderstand this so hard, one can really question if you are doing it on purpose.
Passing trans are precisely the one more likely to be "bullied", and ARE in fact insulted, harassed, persecuted and stigmatized. Explaining that the higher suicide rate come far less from any "inner problem", but from social pressure.

Basic common sense say that NOT BEING HARASSED/OSTRACIZED for what you are DO IMPROVE your life... which is the point. LGBT people's life improve if you stop trying to pretend most have mental disorder.
Also, because of how the internet work, even Transgender who are nearly unnoticeable risk the same if it get known.

BTW : claiming something to be a cop out, can be a cop out itself.

QuoteAnd theres no proof, or evidence indicating bullying is the cause : Its a theory, with no basis, no hard proof, and plenty of evidence against it.

Err.... that's so common knowledge, you are either in denial... or being knowingly negationist.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662085/
...
Just search yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

I reject opinions if they have no basis, and no proof behind them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If there's no evidence, ignoring them is better than taking them as fact. But, I even CONSIDER them, i just don't take them as proof.

Gender roles are actually better for people : mother and father filled houses create better offspring. https://www.aei.org/publication/children-in-two-parent-families-do-better-in-life/ Please note, some say this is due to income, but again, 0 evidence is provided. Oh and many transgendered DITCH their families because of it, which is incredibly irresponsible.

As for your studies, first off I find it Ironic you bring up suicide, when I brought it up too : The idea of them committing suicide in droves because "Da bullies" is just asinine. I got the shit kicked out of me in middle school for being white. Then I committed suicide. Oh wait, No I didn't because I had thicker skin than that, and I had a semi healthy mindset.

But honestly, lets break these down.... Keep in mind, being trans (NOT feeling gender dysphoria, this is entirely different) Is absolutely volentary : Nobody threatens to kill them if they DON'T make conscious efforts to be trans.


Suicide attempts among trans men
(46%) and trans women (42%) were
slightly higher than the full sample (41%). 
Cross-dressers assigned male at birth
have the lowest reported prevalence of
suicide attempts among gender identity
groups (21%). - Ok, so basically it scales with how much the derangement goes.
•
Analysis of other demographic variables
found prevalence of suicide attempts
was highest among those who are younger (18 to
24: 45%), multiracial (54%) and American Indian or
Alaska Native (56%), have lower levels of educational
attainment (high school or less: 48-49%), and have
lower annual household income (less than $10,000:
54%). - Young people in general commit suicide more... So do broke people, and multiracial is its own bag of worms.
•
Prevalence of suicide attempts is elevated among
those who disclose to everyone that they are
transgender or gender-non-conforming (50%) and
among those that report others can tell always (42%)
or most of the time (45%) that they are transgender
or gender non-conforming even if they don't tell them. - So they are depressed about reality? This didn't even MENTION any form of bullying. Only conclusion is the reality that they ARE their born gender depresses them, and they are in DENIAL. I would like to hear any theory besides this : The fact most trans get insulted, and depressed, when you remind them what they are lends even more evidence to this. And if you ask for a citation, try going to a closeted trans and tell them they are trans : They WILL get upset.
•
Respondents who are HIV-positive (51%) and
respondents with disabilities (55-65%) also have
elevated prevalence of suicide attempts.  In particular,
65 percent of those with a mental health condition
that substantially affects a major life activity reported
attempting suicide. - Yup, aids is higher if you are sexually promiscuous as hell, which most transgender people are, as they invite any sex they can get sometimes : Wanting approval of any sort before safety. If most people WILL NOT date you, you will jump at the opportunity for attention, even prostitution, or being casually fucked. Its far more likely than if people are lining up down the block to date you

Respondents who experienced rejection by family and
friends, discrimination, victimization, or violence had
elevated prevalence of suicide attempts, such as those
who experienced the following:
—
Family chose not to speak/spend time with them: 57% - This is volentary, and frankly something all of us will deal with - If I, say, joined the KKK, or something (not interested in them, but this is just an example) Then some of my family wouldn't speak to me, or would be weirder out. More importantly, you cannot FORCE someone to be comfortable around you.
—
Discrimination, victimization, or violence at school,
at work, and when accessing health care
•
Harassed or bullied at school (any level): 50-54% - This is school, bullying is common as fuck. More importantly "any level" means absolutely nothing. Essentially someone being called a bundle of sticks (synonym, you know what Im talking about) would be harassment. And again, they CHOOSE to dress these ways, if they wanted to not be bullied? Don't do it. Also, I'm guessing this counts a few men trying to get into girls locker-rooms, and being denied
•
Experienced discrimination or harassment at
work: 50-59% - Discrimination is a very slippery term : I gaurentee you that many of these cases are the person looking incredibly awkward / creepy / gross when transitioning, and the company NOT wanting that as their image. I mean if THIS https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c9/f1/b9/c9f1b9b350fd26a8c45d9840eb3043ab.jpg Came in for work , and creeped litterally everyone out....kicking them out would be "discrimination". Keep this in mind. And even besides the level of dress, many transgenders can start to enter the uncanny valley, which as I'm sure you know, tends to creep out folks. And again, ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY to do so at work.
•
Doctor or health care provider refused to treat
them: 60% - Treat them fooooooooooooooor? Seriously this is so open ended. If its for general trans stuff, most doctors don't want to touch that due to liability, and ethical reasons. And many doctors simply aren't experienced in that.
•
Suffered physical or sexual violence: I just want to say, I love how physical and sexual violence are LUMPED TOGETHER. I bet "Just sexual violence" at work would be somewhere under 10%, if that. Very misleading
—
At work: 64-65% Really would like some assault reports here... like, you know, police reports? If you get assaulted, or ESPECIALLY raped at work, someone WILL get arrested or minimal fired.
—
At school (any level): 63-78% "At any level". So spitwads? being called a "faggot"? I mean....both are, in some interpretations violent.
—
Discrimination, victimization, or violence by law
enforcement
•
Disrespected or harassed by law enforcement
officers: 57-61% - I would be disrespected by law enforcement if I got arrested, said I was a girl, and wanted to bunk with girls.  Also, "disrespect" is vague as all hell.
•
Suffered physical or sexual violence: By law
enforcement officers: 60-70 - Again....putting them (sexual assault, regular violence) together. Please list how often a cop sexually assaults them, SEPERATE from physical violence. Also, this does not account for if it was deserved. If you get violent, you might get tazed, or beaten. I would too, and I'm "normal".
—
Experienced homelessness: 69% - As someone who has been homeless, I wonder exactly how these numbers are separated. Couch surfing, living in a vehicle, living in a shelter, and living in the woods are all "homeless" but some of them are more brutal than others. I could also argue, like everything else, their transgender status is chosen - Nobody to blame but themselves for any effects from it. Even so, I'm less sympathetic of people in shelters or couch surfing than a person living under a fucking TARP in the woods

Societal codes have damn good reasons. Women aren't put on the frontline for out and out war, because men are stronger, more durable, more able to handle intense stress, and women are needed to have kids. 1 man and 10 girls could repopulate, 10 men and 1 girl would just cause problems. And homosexuals do have a higher rate of issues. Higher drug,  alcohol use abusive relationships, mental illness, ect, so this isn't entirely a wrong idea.

You seemed to have entirely missed my question. I'm saying, for a TRANSGENDER (meaning, someone who HAS GONE THROUGH transition) Show me any who, as a mtf think men have it easier, or FTM, think being females are easier to be. They don't exist, I'm confident to say, mostly because if a trans thought they were getting the short end of the stick being a female, they WOULDN'T want to be a female, and WOULDN'T be trans.

Your experience is 1 of many. Also, if a person wants to do something, it doesn't mean its good for them. For one, it WILL elevate their rates for drug use, homelessness, being assaulted, and everything else ACCORDING TO YOU, So yes, I have a reason to believe NOT being homeless, suicidal, on drugs, mentally ill, and with no family would be BETTER. So yes, I care for people when I DISCOURAGE such risk

Blaire white has joked, in a few videos about becoming a trans because "she failed as man". Granted it wasn't very serious, but the fact he says this at all is rather telling. I will see if I can find the video. It was around 6 months ago IIRC. As for the porn star, the fact they ADMIT because they did it BECAUSE he thought women were better says everything. He wanted to be a strong, powerful woman, NOT a weak, broke, useless man, as she viewed it.

Subtopic or not, it covers the psychology behind WHY people want to change. Nobody says "Smoking crack makes me a failure, worthless, a piece of shit, so I want to smoke crack". Nobody. absolutely nobody. My point of these comparisons is the transgender have NOT worked out their inferiority complex, and are emotionally unstable because of it. They need to work out that the idea of "what a man and woman are" is incorrect, and they can be their born gender without being inferior. Cause at the end of the day, even with all the effort available, none with be indistinguishable from a woman. You can actually detect them via examining bone structure most of the time.

As for social pressures, ask yourself : What social pressure is there to be trans-phobic? Where? How? who? Who faces consequences for NOT being trans-phobic? (phobic is such a misterm btw,  this is like saying you are addictophobic if you don't like drug addicts. Is it because you are scared? No...you know there are problems)

The rates of mental illness for trans ARE higher, and the fact they cannot shrug off things anywhere near as good as normal people (If someone says im an asshole who should kill myself, it doesn't bother me more than a couple minutes, and I tell them to fuck off...thats...pretty much it) I've never seen a trans person be heckled and remain calm, or even be joked about and laugh about it : Because they are incredibly insecure.

Not saying im a victim, just stating that if I am litterally the only person against transgender on all of LUDEON right now : How is 1 person social pressure? Compared to everyone ELSE who DEMANDS acceptance. Seems social pressure goes the other way. And no, it is not bullying, and its not disinformation : Speculation on some points, perhaps, but not disinformation. I have not threatened, insulted, or anything else. One cannot say someone who disagrees is bullying, that isn't right, and is totalitarian censorship. IF you don't like my points, fine... Disprove me, provide evidence directly disproving me. You haven't done this, so my theory I will continue to stand by. Oh also, historical context holds little meaning on the now : Irish people were enslaved before, but I don't hold this up and expect to be treated better. LGBT have it pretty damn good as far as institutions respecting them.

Please explain how a passing MtF on the street, would get more harrassment than a man with a beard in a dress (this counts as transgender). I would think that passing, and being un-noticed, and accepted as a girl would REDUCE suicide rates, according to your theory. But somehow they are higher? Why?

Also, people don't just commit suicide when harassed, its generally a bunch of other INTERNAL feelings which combine to make this possible. EVERY ONE OF US was bullied at some point, but obviously all are still alive... So this shows maybe having a semi healthy mind helped. And again, just like dressing up in the wrong gendered clothing, suicide is a CHOICE.  Nobody does it BUT THEM. And again, I am the VAST MINORITY, for my view, so why are they committing suicide when main stream media accepts and protects them? Christians are called mentally ill too, do they commit suicide as much? No.

Also again, your findings show that they have an elevated rate of suicide, but has 0 proof that bullying is the cause, and NOT their screwed up mentality. Its a claim, nothing else, I have never seen a study showing that all of a transgenders persons problems "go away" when in an accepting environment. Its generally caused by being reminded in any way "you aren't a man / woman", which is true. They will NEVER have full functional genitals, they will NEVER get the chromosomes they want, they will NEVER get the opposite sex bone structure, they will NEVER be indistinguishable from the opposite sex. These facts are triggering, and depressing for them, but still facts. The fact they get so upset by them SHOWS they cannot handle reality. Its generally regarded that transgenderism is a lot like fight club : You don't talk about it to these people, you PRETEND its not there. Well, I don't do that, nothing is beyond talking about if its civil.

Minor Edit : Noticed some typing/syntax error.

You refuse to recognize evidence that goes against your belief no matter how many we provide, and you won't question back your belief no matter how incorrect we demonstrate them to be. And it's clear you are not against twisting the truth to spread a baseless hate against LGBT (hoping nobody check your bluff).
By the end of your post I could hardly believe you were serious.

You are not being "oppressed by pro-LGBT" because you talk against. No, at worse you are simply being looked down because your arguments are wrong and your 'logic' divide us by 0.

Anyway let's start :

Quotehttps://www.aei.org/publication/children-in-two-parent-families-do-better-in-life/

Not only it only talk of income, but it also has absolutely nothing to do with "gender roles" or offspring despite what you seemed to imply (it even explicitly rule it out in the third paragraph). It simply stating the obvious : Two parents have more money/time to raise their child than single. It could as well be a couple of Gay, Les or Trans it would stand the same. (btw, I actually have 2 cousins living with a remarried gay fathers, they are more than healthy)
Or maybe you were saying we should forbid divorce ? (that's sarcasm) Because that's the only point this link could support on the topic of family. There's a lot to say about how artificial and damaging the "gender role" dogma are, but we are already stretching the topic enough.

Quote from: mumblemumble on July 26, 2016, 10:20:22 PM
Oh and many transgendered DITCH their families because of it, which is incredibly irresponsible.

That one don't even connect with what you've been writing, it's like you are writing randomly.
If anything, transgender in the US are actually often the one being ostracized by bigoted family, no matter how irreproachable and mentally healthy they are.

QuoteAs for your studies, first off I find it Ironic you bring up suicide, when I brought it up too : The idea of them committing suicide in droves because "Da bullies" is just asinine. I got the shit kicked out of me in middle school for being white. Then I committed suicide. Oh wait, No I didn't because I had thicker skin than that, and I had a semi healthy mindset.

There's so many fallacies here I can hardly count them. I wonder if I should even teach you something so basic.

Your personal experience cannot be considered equivalent to that of others, especially in a vastly different context. You only got the shit kicked out of you for being white ? (reminder that there is globally LESS racism against white people)
The LGBT persons who commit suicide usually do so because they were harassed physically, psychologically, insulted constantly, may had their stuffs stolen repeatedly, and for years and sometime couldn't count on justice because sometime law enforcement are ALSO bigot.

I gave you scientific paper, with hard peer-reviewed fact. Stop your denial it's ridiculous.

QuoteBut honestly, lets break these down.... Keep in mind, being trans (NOT feeling gender dysphoria, this is entirely different) Is absolutely volentary : Nobody threatens to kill them if they DON'T make conscious efforts to be trans.

That's soooooo wrong. Nothing strike you as wrong in that ?
Do you realize you basically said "it's normal to threatens to kill someone because they WANT to do something (that yourself you object to)"  ?
Ever heard about the whole HUMAN RIGHTS things ?

Trans are not the one being in the wrong, they shouldn't have to refrain from going trans if they want to.
Aside, even people who were born asexual also face threat because of stupid bigot who believe that any trans are mentally instable (and even biblical daemon for fundamentalist).

Quotecommenting quote from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

Wow I didn't knew you where a professional researcher to be able to point out error made by a Ph.D. ... oh wait. No you clearly aren't. - You didn't even think of quoting and coloring your comment to facilitate reading
You really look desperate to ridiculize data that you can't understand right.

Let's take some example :

QuotePrevalence of suicide attempts is elevated among
those who disclose to everyone that they are
transgender or gender-non-conforming (50%) and
among those that report others can tell always (42%)
or most of the time (45%) that they are transgender
or gender non-conforming even if they don't tell them. - So they are depressed about reality? This didn't even MENTION any form of bullying. Only conclusion is the reality that they ARE their born gender depresses them, and they are in DENIAL. I would like to hear any theory besides this : The fact most trans get insulted, and depressed, when you remind them what they are lends even more evidence to this. And if you ask for a citation, try going to a closeted trans and tell them they are trans : They WILL get upset.

No that's absolutely not how it is to be interpreted.
First : it PRECISELY MENTION BULLYING. The whole point of this section is to show that suicide attempt rate change if they tell others that they are trans (including when it would be impossible to tell if they didn't).
What it mean is that among all the specific transgenders who openly disclose that they are trans (plus subgroup), 50% suffer more suicide attempt. showing a direct correlation with the social implication of other knowing about them.

QuoteRespondents who are HIV-positive (51%) and
respondents with disabilities (55-65%) also have
elevated prevalence of suicide attempts.  In particular,
65 percent of those with a mental health condition
that substantially affects a major life activity reported
attempting suicide. - Yup, aids is higher if you are sexually promiscuous as hell, which most transgender people are, as they invite any sex they can get sometimes : Wanting approval of any sort before safety. If most people WILL NOT date you, you will jump at the opportunity for attention, even prostitution, or being casually fucked. Its far more likely than if people are lining up down the block to date you

First it seem you believe it mean "50% of trans have HIV", that's not it. The correct interpretation is that 51% (of the respondent who made suicide attempt and have HIV) and 56% of those who had disability, had elevated prevalence of suicide attempt (greater than over US value).
Second, you are just spouting baseless shit to smear them. Everything I ever heard about gay actually show them as MORE PRUDENT precisely because HIV exist and because they know they won't get dumped for wanting to play safe. (like do so many hetero dickshit if they meet girls who want to play safe)
You could hardly sound more homophobic than that.

QuoteFamily chose not to speak/spend time with them: 57% - This is volentary, and frankly something all of us will deal with - If I, say, joined the KKK, or something (not interested in them, but this is just an example) Then some of my family wouldn't speak to me, or would be weirder out. More importantly, you cannot FORCE someone to be comfortable around you.

Just quoted this one to show that you are stupid enough to claim that being Trans is like joining a hate-group.
You can't force someone to be comfortable around you, but it doesn't mean you have to abandon your aspiration.
People who aren't comfortable with trans can become later if you explain them there's nothing wrong with Transexuality.

QuoteExperienced discrimination or harassment at
work: 50-59% - Discrimination is a very slippery term : I gaurentee you that many of these cases are the person looking incredibly awkward / creepy / gross when transitioning, and the company NOT wanting that as their image. I mean if THIS https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c9/f1/b9/c9f1b9b350fd26a8c45d9840eb3043ab.jpg Came in for work , and creeped litterally everyone out....kicking them out would be "discrimination". Keep this in mind. And even besides the level of dress, many transgenders can start to enter the uncanny valley, which as I'm sure you know, tends to creep out folks. And again, ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY to do so at work.

1) I've meet NORMAL person at work more creepy than "visible trans".
2) You are making a strawman here. Unlike what you imply, trans aren't morons who dress like your picture everywhere they go. You might have worked with transgender without knowing it.
3) You miss the point that this show Trans experience discrimination and harassment at work because of what they are.
Necessary reminder for you : "HUMAN RIGHT" mean that it is not legal to discriminate someone for no valid reasons, someone "being a trans" isn't a valid reason.

QuoteDisrespected or harassed by law enforcement
officers: 57-61% - I would be disrespected by law enforcement if I got arrested, said I was a girl, and wanted to bunk with girls.  Also, "disrespect" is vague as all hell.

1) You shouldn't be. You have the protected human right to be and do whatever you want.
A girl letting show that she is a lesbian shouldn't be disrespected by Policemens.
Same for a Trans telling he intend to have its gender changed on its ID-card, or that he is still interested in girls even after switching.
2) Some form of "Disrespect" can be more than clear : like a Policemen calling a black "nigger" or a Trans a "tranny/transvestite".

QuoteSocietal codes have damn good reasons. Women aren't put on the frontline for out and out war, because men are stronger, more durable, more able to handle intense stress, and women are needed to have kids. 1 man and 10 girls could repopulate, 10 men and 1 girl would just cause problems. And homosexuals do have a higher rate of issues. Higher drug,  alcohol use abusive relationships, mental illness, ect, so this isn't entirely a wrong idea.

1) Women can now fight on the frontline in the US army. (Edit : and they do because they passed exactly the same entry tests)
2) They are as good as soldier (when not better) than men. Even when sexist prevented them from demonstrating it (google "WASP pilot")
3) Societal codes change with times for even greater reasons. Nowadays women have the rights to vote, to own and to be considered as an equal of men, for obvious reasons.

Then the rest of your rambling miss something very important : It's not ethic for you or society to decide what fundamental liberty another person have access too or what their "role" should be.
If a women don't want to have children, you have no right to force them.

QuoteYou seemed to have entirely missed my question. I'm saying, for a TRANSGENDER (meaning, someone who HAS GONE THROUGH transition) Show me any who, as a mtf think men have it easier

Easy : said trans (MtF) in my family is perfectly aware that men "have it easier" on some aspect (ex :men don't have to deal with misogynist job employer for example) but still wanted to change for his own reason.
You seem to have brainwashed yourself into thinking that everything is black and white. Fifty Shade of grey is a very bad book but this is no excuse...

QuoteI'm confident to say, mostly because if a trans thought they were getting the short end of the stick being a female, they WOULDN'T want to be a female, and WOULDN'T be trans.

Except that is is false. You have just too many prejudice against Trans to understand it yet.
Aside, women shouldn't be getting a worse deal than men for being female. It's because of "gender role" bigot that gender equality progress too slowly.
If the world worked RIGHT a transgender wouldn't "lose" anything. He would just change whatever he want.

QuoteBlaire white has joked, in a few videos about becoming a trans because "she failed as man". Granted it wasn't very serious, but the fact he says this at all is rather telling. I will see if I can find the video. It was around 6 months ago IIRC. As for the porn star, the fact they ADMIT because they did it BECAUSE he thought women were better says everything. He wanted to be a strong, powerful woman, NOT a weak, broke, useless man, as she viewed it.

1) Careful, it's "she" all the way now.
2) Nope, I still have no reason to consider you a good judge or interpret.
3) It's actually telling nothing. He changed into She because he wanted too. We have no reason to judge.
As for the Porn star, it's only HIS reasons, that's doesn't mean it apply to everybody else and in practice it doesn't matter if they do.

QuoteNot saying im a victim, just stating that if I am litterally the only person against transgender on all of LUDEON right now : How is 1 person social pressure? Compared to everyone ELSE who DEMANDS acceptance.

Psychologist time :
Yes, you do feel the pressure of everybody else considering that you are wrong. But I can tell you that it's not much of a pressure. You aren't going to get your ass kicked, see your family ostracize you and be bullied for that sort of opinions (Your family didn't kicked you out right ?). You are not even going to be banned just for being a idiot. People simply stop caring about you and go back at playing Rimworld (like I should).

Transgender however usually suffer a much much worse form of peer pressure. They can have bigoted parents who can reject them, they have peer who may judge him as crazy (despite it being false), they'll fear to be bullied... and because they aren't hiding behind a pseudonym on the internet they can't just Log off be done with it.

Do you get the point or will you stay in denial ?

QuoteOh also, historical context holds little meaning on the now : Irish people were enslaved before, but I don't hold this up and expect to be treated better. LGBT have it pretty damn good as far as institutions respecting them.

No Irish is enslaved or treated like dirt today, LGBT still are treated badly despite the effort of institutions.
Stop trying to pretend that LGBT bullying is a myth, you only come of as either too stupid to do the research or as a bully.

QuoteAnd no, it is not bullying, and its not disinformation : Speculation on some points, perhaps, but not disinformation. I have not threatened, insulted, or anything else. One cannot say someone who disagrees is bullying, that isn't right, and is totalitarian censorship

This is not disinformation if you genuinely don't know, but you clearly do insult and badmouth transgender several time in your post.
You are not the victim of a totalitarian "pro-LGBT" regime, you are just nowhere as right as you think you are.

QuotePlease explain how a passing MtF on the street, would get more harrassment than a man with a beard in a dress (this counts as transgender). I would think that passing, and being un-noticed, and accepted as a girl would REDUCE suicide rates, according to your theory. But somehow they are higher? Why?

This one look like a fair question.
Firstly bigot can be quite irrational which led to a lot of counter-intuitive case.
Because some 'passing' prefer telling they are trans (and close peer usually already know). If the 'passing' happened to meet a group of hateful person who know (or have been told) about her and can't stand the idea that SHE might live a normal female live, there's known case of "Heteronormative Crusader" being much more violent/hateful than with equivalent "bearded dress" because they only consider those as loonies not worth their time.
Then, because a MtF passing is essentially a Female, there's also been more known case of sexual harassment/rape because the Attacker/Bully know that he can both be a dick AND be sexist/pleasure himself (knowing that a Trans might not be as prepared against sexual harassment than a women-born would)

To drive the point further, the very surgery itself is seen as crossing a critical line. A bigoted god-fearing family will start hating their "lost son" much more AFTER the surgery that make him a 'passing'. Because before it they considered he could be "brought back".

QuoteAlso again, your findings show that they have an elevated rate of suicide, but has 0 proof that bullying is the cause, and NOT their screwed up mentality.

Let's conclude with this...
I gave far more study and proof (if you can understand them of course), than you and your "interpretation".
I've also know of Trans and Gays in person. Free to you to not believe me on those, bu if sot don't ask me to believe you blindly. Especially since you seem to HATE transgender so much, we can legitimately wonder if you actually ever asked some their own reasons.


Ps : I warn you that I may not answer your next post. This one already took too much of my time.

Hey just wanted to say that I started with my exams and that's why I didn't have time to answer here anymore, but mumblemumble, I thought that analysis of our original paper there would be interesting to do so I will be back to analyze it shortly after I finished.

I look at the evidence, but none of it PROVES that its bullies, it SUGGESTS it. Want to know how to prove it? Show LGBT people across a 20 year period in an "accepting" area with suicide, drug use, mental illness, ect, ALL baseline and normal. Except this study doesn't exist, wonder why.

The problem with this theory is its misleading. All people get bullied. But drawing a correlation itself doesn't prove it : You must test, if REMOVING the suspected cause fixes it....you know, SCIENCE! Lets say I keep mixing baking soda, vinegar, and grape juice together to cook something (don't ask what) and when it bubbles I say "hummn this happens EVERY TIME I ADD GRAPE JUICE!!!". If this was realy the case, removing the grape juice would stop it entirely. Except it doesn't, VINEGAR and BAKING SODA are the culprits, and this can be proven.

However these studies ALWAYS just say "humn, lgbt people get bullied, therefor bullying and lack of the acceptance CAUSES EVERY PROBLEM UNDER THE SUN" with 0 proof. Not only 0 proof, but they state that they cannot test it, because its untestable because "homophobia" is too deep to remove. If this is the case, why try to remove if its impossible?

Didn't say I myself was actively oppressed but : I can be kicked out of schools, shops, buisnesses, fairs, arrested, and socially ostracised by MAINSTREAM society for my views. You compare this to family. Family is like 2-8 people, and I can find families who would shun you for eating cheese. Does this mean eating cheese is an oppressed act? No....because its a few people, compared to many, many more whom say the opposite. LGBT have laws, schools businesses, ect on their side, and they have.... ...a bunch of individuals against them. Very few of them having any institutions.

"Schulz points to an Economic Mobility Project analysis that shows that among children who start off in the bottom third of the income distribution, only 26 percent with divorced parents move up, compared to 42 percent born to unmarried mothers (who may marry later, of course) and 50 percent who grow up with two married parents."

So, even WITH lower income, they are more likely to be better off. Meaning a broke family who is married is more likely to raise a child who is successful. Yes, theres also human capitol, but human capitol tends to be better if married, as both parties are discouraged from leaving. I will also note, THEY LIST NO information on gay marriage, which I find very interesting, and the reasoning is "its still stigmatized". Sounds like an excuse to hide data. I suspect gay upbringings would be less effective on average : mostly because the role of mother and father is to teach the child what the ideal man, and ideal woman are. Ever heard the expression "I want to be just like daddy!". This cannot happen if daddy isn't around, because the boy has no male role-model. And with gay families, they are missing a male / female role-model respectively. Think about that word btw. Rolemodel. We all know rolemodels are good, but they are a MODEL.....for the ROLE...gender roles...Yeeeeaaaah.

I do not mean for trans who are under 20, I mean those OVER 40, with wife, kids, responsibilities, ect, and they say "know what? I want to be trans" and LEAVE THEIR WIFE AND KIDS. This happens, and is devastating to the family. The wife loses the husband, the kids lose the father, it basically amputates a large chunk of the family unit.

If I'm making fallacies, point them out, otherwise theres no reason to speak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Go ahead and look, I appreciate pointing any out, but unless you give specifics, I will assume you are full of it.

"White people have less racism" - citation needed. Keep in mind they genocide in parts of Africa, and Germany / France / Sweden they are currently being raped and attacked in droves. That and in college, whites are the only race called evil. Imagine the hate I would get if I said all BLACK people were evil. I would be lynched

Your papers, again, never ONCE say "And in this test, we put them into an accepting environment, AND EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM VANISHED" - This in and of itself is a texas sharpshooter fallacy, Theres nothing PROVING that bullying is the cause : All these papers say they are bullied : Ok I acknowlege that. So are fat kids, jews, blacks, whites, christians, virgins, ect.  But unless you show that removing the cause removes the problem then Its a theory, and nothing more.

When I break down the statistics, you ignore the uncomfortable fact : Transexuality is a choice. There's judging people for what they CHOOSE, and judging people by circumstances they cannot change. Judging a black person for being black is MUCH worse then judging a trans person for being trans, because the black person never sat down and said "know what? I want to be black", Where as the trans did. Same with tatoos, religion, opinions, ect : All these are choice, so should be open to scrutiny. Now if a guy was born with a deformed hand? Sure, leave him the fuck alone, he never chose that. But  thats ONLY because he never chose it. IF he amputated his hand voluntarily, or a girl blinded herself because she wanted to be blind, damn right I would judge them : as a massive idiot.

Trans can choose what they wan't and because they choose, I can choose to judge. Simple. Also trans ARE more mentally unstable, this has been established before. Much higher rate of mental illness and substance abuse. "Not all trans", sure, but enough where a person might look at a trans and say "this person is more likely to be unstable". Because statistically, this IS true.

In that 1, small tidbit of statistics it is NOT listed. Oh, actually and I just noticed, they never listed trans people who NOBODY CAN TELL. Hmmn, I wonder why? Surely some passing people exist....the suicide rate should be DRAMATICALLY lower, yes? except we cannot tell, as they didn't show this.

Woah, an actual honest, real criticism! Alright, I'll give you that, thanks. And raise you this http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/ Point still valid. HIV rates are higher, mostly because they use risky sex behaviors, because they are desperate for attention

"You can't force someone to be comfortable around you, but it doesn't mean you have to abandon your aspiration." So by your logic, whining about family rejecting them is ok. I agree. Good  :D

1) if the person is creepy for a volentary reason, like panting or giggling like a creepy mother fucker, they would be fired too. If its just scars, or something that cannot be stopped, its less likely.
2)Not all trans are creepy, but many are, and make people uncomfortable. obviously the man in the picture is creepy, and he is trans, so SOME OF them are.
3) "You can't force someone to be comfortable around you, but it doesn't mean you have to abandon your aspiration.". Your words Not mine.

1) sOoooooo....If I'm visibly a guy.... chest hair....penis...beard...ect....and I say I'm trans.... You are saying its all good for me to shower with another girl, and be in the same room a girl is using a toilet?
2) Please cite where in the document it says SPECIFICALLY calling someone a tranny. ;D

1)Can doesn't mean should. I can legally make a company which has very small print, saying its free normally, but then empties your bank account if you post your credit card info. I CAN do this, it IS legal (fine print) but it isn't right.
2)No women are not. Women are weaker, more emotional, and not built for the job. This is why we typically say men cannot hit women. If a woman hits a man, generally its not a big deal. If a man hits a woman, we take it serious, because we know the muscle difference, and the woman is not going to take a beating as well. If you really support this idea, lets arrange a boxing match, 10 guys of my choosing vs 10 girls of your choosing...see who gets the shit kicked out of them. Or see if the women even show up at all. And a pilot is much different than a front line grunt. A pilot is akin to a computer programmer. A frontline fighter is akin to a firefighter. On ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES physical performance, the other doesn't. You wouldn't get a computer tech to work as a firefighter.

Erm, except this logic goes against your logic of protection of LGBT. "If a person wants to not hire LGBT people, and lgbt people are discriminated against, you cannot force them to hire". Or are you suggesting this only applies to minorities? Oh also "fundamental rights" are just rights that the fed protect, nothing more. Don't say "they are fundamental" because they aren't , fundamental is just a title.

As I said, PLEASE show me 1 example of a trans lamenting that his transitioned gender gets shit everywhere, and he would be better off if they were their born gender again. I'm confident this doesn't exist. It also is interesting that trans also get special treatments, and so a trans "man" often, in certain places gets treated better than a normal man.

As said above, please provide any evidence I am wrong, besides just saying "you are wrong". Also, changing appearence also changes what we get in life. Its not just "how we look", but what we GET for how we look. Walking in for an interview in jeans and a grubby shirt, compared to slacks and a dress shirt get different results. Same for being seen as a man or woman. So most trans consider how they are treated, and often look forward to being TREATED different, BASED on looks. And if a man transitions to a "woman"? he DOES lose his man card, and all the benefits it brings. Same for an FTM losing her woman card. Man card earns respect, bigger voice, confidence of others in you, while a woman card gives protection, attention, desire and plenty of gifts by seekers. Gaining one, loses the other.

1)Bone structure, chromosones, and biological function say its a man. If blaires bones were found, it would be seen as a MANS bones. Unless you make him indistinguishable from a woman, its not a woman. Oh and blaire white himself says gender roles "not being a thing" is a crock of shit. So I'm supported there, by a transgender.
2)Ok, whats your theory on why this would be said?
3)Ok, if its only his reasons, then why aren't you acknowledging HIS reasons? Also, why are you saying HIS, are you some sort of BIGOT? ;D

I actually have been pressured occasionally. I have been threatened, and swung at, I  HAVE been judged by family and kicked out, and while ludeon is rather amazing with its impartial mods, most other forums would kick me out for so much as asking questions.

Trans face pretty much the same stuff I faced for being the opposite...yet have laws protecting them, and laws AGAINST me for my opinion. Since, statistically they are more likely to have mental illness, calling them crazy is a dubious argument : Are they crazy? if so, is calling them crazy wrong? Think of it this way. If a skitzo homeless dude is viewed as crazy, should he be less crazy if hes trans?

Uhm, some places irish people are still discriminated against, as are black people, jews, atheists, Christians, ect. Plus, these surveys are VAUGE. They lump in assault, namecalling, desire to not be around them, ect. All of those together under the name of "bullying" which makes "bullying" sounds worse than it is. Imagine if I said that  "here is the amount of time I've been assaulted" and I say like 100 times a week, and under assaulted I include rape, being shot, stabbed beat up, robbed, and called an asshole... Granted, rape and being shot might be the ABSOLUTE minority (or not even happen in my case) but since I included them, its suggestive that I've been severely messed with and tortured, when in reality, maybe its 99 times a week I get called an asshole, and very rarely I get swung at. This would be misrepresentation, unless I specify how much EACH happens, NOT grouping them together. Also lay off the ad homin, and appeal to ridicule. Both are fallacies  :)

Criticism =/= insult. More importantly, if theres evidence to suggest it, its a theory. I might not know, but I have much evidence suggesting my theory, and have no evidence saying otherwise, or DISPROVING my theory. I have also listed what I would need to disprove me. And on say, college campuses, I kinda am, as I can get kicked out for anything  judging them even remotely, while I get looked at as an evil white guy because im white, in some places  ::)

Interesting theory, but I find this  questionable. First off, show some data showing the harrassment rates for passing, and not passing trans. GAURENTEE the passing will be lower. Second, people doing the supposed raping  (wat) make no sense in the motivation. I've heard this same argument, for raping gay people straight. If a gay man already likes dick up his ass, what is putting a dick up his ass going to do to make him STOP liking dicks up the ass? No, these people are closet gays who use this as an excuse to get man ass, otherwise how would they be attracted to man enough to achieve erection enough to RAPE?
I know I couldn't rape a sack of potatoes....not because I feel bad for potatoes, but because potatoes are not sexy to me. This is even funnier when they say such people are christian. "Thou shall not lay with a man how one lays with a woman" - Translation : Don't put your dick in another dude. So these guys doing the raping would be the sinners, perhaps more so than the one taking it.

Oh so, people with surgery WILL ALWAYS BE SHUNNED.  So the man who runs this site http://www.sexchangeregret.com/ who had his penis cut off for SRS, then detransitioned, christians hate him because he went THROUGH with something?... I would also attribute most of the assaults on passing people to trans who ARE NOT transparent, and spring the suprise on people during sex - Which, will cause immense anger, and sense of betrayal, which CAN manifest itself with violence. Not saying this should happen, but can, and does.

Actually, no you didn't. You said transgenders who kill themselves are bullies, NOT that, if you remove the bullying, everything fixes itself. Same idea for everything else. You are assuming causation where theres no STRICT proof of it. I would argue suicide is far more likely from say, being molested as a child, abused, or having an inferiority complex than bullying BY ITSELF. Like I said, you get me a study with transgender people who are absolutely in an accepting environment, and the suicide, chem use, premiscuity, mental illness, and everything else is FIXED, and then I might believe you. Till then, no.

Also poet, while southpark is indeed parody, that is a very valid point : people CAN do this to get special treatment. And really all you have to do is say "I am transgender" and maybe wear a dress.

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I'd like to voice my opinion.

In my opinion it's all a matter of a freedom of choice. Anyone should be able to choose to change whatever they want in their body - it's their body and their life - they can do with it what they want to.

Having said that, I'm also a strong opponent to any laws trying to regulate against the so called 'discrimination' in any voluntary interactions. First of all, they become a kind of 'go to' excuse / accusation for any rejection that happens to those 'protected minorities' (in my opinion they should be called state-privileged minorities instead) and so the said minorities lack the incentives to get better. And secondly, but more importantly IMO, it's simply immoral to force others to act a certain way to enforce well being of the minority! If some guy saved a million bucks, starts an enterprise and doesn't want to hire transsexual people based on his own preference it's his prerogative - it's his own money! If such hire would have made his enterprise less efficient - then this was a right choice and the transsexual person will have an incentive to become better (make better impression, become a better employee), if it would have made it more efficient - it's the owners loss and some other company will hire this transsexual person and will be better off, also making general opinion about transsexual people better.

In other words - I believe such laws are not only immoral, but also harmful to everyone in the long run.

And when it comes to the bathroom argument - IMO they are split by sexual organs and not some "perceived sexual/social role". If you have a penis - go to the men's room, if you have a vagina - go to the women's room. If you underwent some "sex change operation" IMO you have neither, so go somewhere else, or wherever you want provided only a single person can enter at once. Majority does not have any duty to provide for every "wish" that minorities have.

FlayedOne, this is not one of the points in here.

The biggest problem to manage is the "Fake Transgenders" going into the opposite sex bathroom and comitting harassment and rape. Right now you can be a Fake Transgender just by saying that you are a Transgender or dressing up as the opposite sex.

Since there is no "Sign" saying that you are a transgender, people may take advantage of it and commit crimes. But, independent of the transgenderism, a crime is a crime, should be treated as such.

Quote from: Flying Rockbass on July 28, 2016, 09:02:05 AM
FlayedOne, this is not one of the points in here.

The biggest problem to manage is the "Fake Transgenders" going into the opposite sex bathroom and comitting harassment and rape. Right now you can be a Fake Transgender just by saying that you are a Transgender or dressing up as the opposite sex.

Since there is no "Sign" saying that you are a transgender, people may take advantage of it and commit crimes. But, independent of the transgenderism, a crime is a crime, should be treated as such.

I believe this is solved by my take on the bathrooms dilemma, which is why I didn't make any specific comments on it, or is there some specific situation I didn't notice?

I 100% agree on the crime part of course.

By this logic rock,  try letting 10 random dudes in the ghetto hold your wallet while you tie your shoe.  I mean,  theft is a crime,  right? So there's no reason to be careful. This is entirely the problem. Rape,  murder,  robbery,  theft,  ect,  are ALL illegal,  But we ALL take steps to avoid them. If you disagree,  please for thit next week : keep everything unlocked,  including your front door -  let a stranger hold your wallet while you tie your shoes -  give 10 random people your address,  preferably those you view as enemies. -  walk around at night in the most shady area you have near.  Do all these,  and get back to me on the results,  because obviously crime means it can't happen right? And nothing can be done to make it less likely, right? So doing these things doesn't matter, right? And a sex offender known for raping old ladies dressing as a woman and following your mother in the bathroom isn't the least bit concerning. right?

Flayed,  you do raise a valid point,  and this is a theme of society in general : people think they don't have to become better,  or grow.  This is why i think the triggering stuff is bs.  Not because I've never had triggers (i have)  but because people need to overcome them,  or else it WILL cripple them FOR LIFE. anxiety surrounding sex used to cripple me when younger,  to the point an exposed girl would give me a sense of panic,  and i would quite literally flea it. Extremely debilitating,  but i worked past it,  and I'm proud to say i went to a rave (not far from a strip club tbh)  and despite the twerking,  grinding,  borderline nudity,  i was happy to see i remained calm,  and in control of my emotions completely. If people did this more,  people would be better  off.

On a side note,  don't care for raves,  but I'm also a teetotaler for the most part.  I'm also a sexual conservative (don't want screw girls I'm not dating,  don't want to see a girl naked unless we are dating)  so since most people are high / drunk there,  or there to grind on girls,  this holds little interest in me.

Wow,  i think this is my shortest post in a while.

One thing is sure Mumble... I stopped giving you the benefit of the doubt about it. You clearly are trying to smear trans while advocating views that were already considered against Human Rights in the 70s. You just don't realize how ...uneducated you sound.
I did say before that you couldn't be banned for being stupid, but smearing and spreading lies are crimes so I'm not surprised you get bashed.

I wouldn't even worry about you accidentally convincing someone, I was originally checking if you were willing to change your opinion. But since it's don't actually seem to be the case I don't care any more about continuing to point out your personal prejudice, fallacious double standard, moving goalpost, parody of science, misunderstanding of fallacy and all around mumbling.
Furthermore, discussing with you is like discussing the most ethic application of basic human right to someone who don't believe everybody should have human right. (that's been demonstrated by earlier post. But again, I bet you'll pretend I didn't)

So to give you one last feedback about your writing style :
Let's just say that IMHO you can usually replace around 40 lines per 40 lines of text with formulation like "I believe children should be raised following old-school roles model" and lose absolutely nothing in the meaning, because the concept of "role model" and the subtext of "old-school" already include the meaning of your 40 others lines. Same apply for 90% of yours last post.

Short :
I'm no more interested in discussing with you (like that) and you would gain to be concise.

Quote from: FlayedOne on July 28, 2016, 08:07:40 AM
And when it comes to the bathroom argument - IMO they are split by sexual organs and not some "perceived sexual/social role". If you have a penis - go to the men's room, if you have a vagina - go to the women's room. If you underwent some "sex change operation" IMO you have neither, so go somewhere else, or wherever you want provided only a single person can enter at once. Majority does not have any duty to provide for every "wish" that minorities have.

IMO, even if it started different nowadays gendered-bathroom is only a luxury based appearance because, (1) both gender can and do use the same "Throne of Power" in unisex room, (2) Nobody can, in fact, see said sexual organs, socially speaking we associate gender base on everything BUT sexual organs.

Quote from: Flying Rockbass on July 28, 2016, 09:02:05 AM
FlayedOne, this is not one of the points in here.

The biggest problem to manage is the "Fake Transgenders" going into the opposite sex bathroom and comitting harassment and rape. Right now you can be a Fake Transgender just by saying that you are a Transgender or dressing up as the opposite sex.

Since there is no "Sign" saying that you are a transgender, people may take advantage of it and commit crimes. But, independent of the transgenderism, a crime is a crime, should be treated as such.

I consider the example a non-issue precisely for the reasons you have pointed out.
Including : Anybody is innocent until proven otherwise, there is no reason to say "you are Trans so we will preemptively apply known-sex-criminal rules to you", you either committed a crime or you never.

Lesbian use women bathroom too and we don't preemptively accuse them of voyeurism for their bias do we ?
And when a girl (in a changing room) take a nude photo of another girl to mock her on Snapchat (this one is a real recent news), the crime stay the same and we won't forbid smartphone to prevent it.

To me there WASN'T a problem in the first place and the North-Carolina religious pundit knew it. They didn't wanted a rules to prevent crimes (because letting trans chose didn't change the crime-rate), they just wanted a rule that created a crime of being Trans in a very religious country.

Edit : I've been doing some rewording before someone answer, + typo fix

If you would like to quote specific LIES, be my guest, otherwise I will disregard you if you just say I'm lying. I've quoted many studies, many documents, all supporting my argument. Calling them lies is inaccurate : At most you could call them theories you do not support, which nothing disproves yet

Please also point out fallacious double standards : If I've done so I wish to correct this immediately. But unless you give a specific, nothing can be done.

Both men and women use the bathroom yes, but both have different hardware. Whens the last time you heard a girl pee in a urinal? Oh wait, no penis to aim the urine on demand. Also, we CAN see sex, just many don't ALLOW it, because its a little personal to be fiddling someones junk. So we can, I can tell if you wore a dress, make up, ect if you were a man by your junk (and by bone structure, proportions of the hands, head / shoulders, muscle mass, ect) but these are a bit harder than just looking at someones clothes. Also, this problem was CREATED by transgender folks, it wouldn't exist, if not for them.

Problem isn't innocence, its if something LOOKS like it is potentially risky. For instance, walking around at 3 am : technically not a crime, but nothing good generally happens that late. So cops, neighbors, ect, WILL be wary of you, especially if you look out of place. A dude with facial hair, penis, ect will also look out of place, people will be skeptical because it LOOKS like it could be something very bad. Now, we cannot ban walking at 3 am (shit happens) but banning a dude with a penis going in a girls room is fine, as there's nothing there but an inconvenience to 1 person

Did you know lesbians are at higher risk for sex crimes against women than straight women? Same for domestic abuse, violence, ect. So statistically speaking, maybe we should have precautions? Also a smartphone, just like a gun, can do NOTHING without a user. Certain users are more dangerous than others.

And daily reminder, the lgbt bathroom law essentially let literally anyone go literally any bathroom, if they said the 3 magic words "I am trans". If you do not understand the problem of a sex offender who raped and killed multiple girls going in after a girl, then I can't help you.

Oh, also edit your posts all you want, I will still call out the BS which will be leftover.