Transgender bathroom arguement.

[mumblemumble]

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

[keylocke]

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".

[Listen1]

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?

[milon]

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.

[godsring]

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?

[mumblemumble]

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.

[Listen1]

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.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[keylocke]

@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.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[keylocke]

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) 

------

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. 

down the rabbit hole we go.

[Listen1]

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

[keylocke]

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

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.

[Listen1]

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.

[mumblemumble]

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.