Transgender bathroom arguement.

[milon]

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. 

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!

[Listen1]

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.

[Zombra]

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? 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.

[Listen1]

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.

[Kegereneku]

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).
- 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.

[RickyMartini]

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.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[sadpickle]

Overwhelming majority of population is straight

Says who

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.

[milon]

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.

[sadpickle]

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.

[milon]

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.

[RickyMartini]

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.

[Kegereneku]

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

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", 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.

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.

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.

Infact, 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.

[Pactrick Willis]

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.

[RickyMartini]

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.