Transgender bathroom arguement.

[godsring]

@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 in some culture this is called "temptation" which is supposedly a "sinful" thing, but that's another outdated notion like "sin", "souls", "eternal damnation", etc..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..

[keylocke]

@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.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[keylocke]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[keylocke]

@mumble : facepalm.. sigh..

Your 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.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[keylocke]

You 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. 

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.

[Listen1]

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.

[Bob_Namg]

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? 

[Listen1]

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.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[Zombra]

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?

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.

Whoops, you fucked up.  Agenda revealed.

[mumblemumble]

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

[Zombra]

raping a girl in the bathroom before this law was almost non existing

...