Squeamish people have rights, you know.
TG according to whom?
According to the person? Then quite literally anyone has access who wants it, and there is nothing in this stance that enables you to report creepy staring guy.
According to you? Well now you aren’t being any more tolerant, you want to draw the same line somewhere too. The only difference is that the traditional line is a scientific factual, easily distinguishable one. Yours is a wishy washy opinion based one. In fact this is (in my opinion) more bigoted that traditional gender definitions. You are playing king of the restroom and deciding who is really trans gender enough and who doesn’t really deserve the designation and access.
No one has the right to be ‘creepy staring person in the bathroom.’ It doesn’t matter which bathroom they’re in, or what gender they are. TG protection laws do not change this fact.
1 Like
You didn’t answer the question.
Creepy is a matter of opinion. To a vast wealth of people someone like Krock being in the restroom/locker room with their daughter is more than creepy. It is inherently less creepy for a teenage girl to curiously peek at another teenage girl than for a grown man to do it. So yes biological gender does matter and what restroom you are in does matter to a vast majority of people. But, by your own admission people should report people that make them uncomfortable and for many people that includes the transgender. The only difference here is what your personal comfort level is.
By my own admission, people should report behavior that makes them uncomfortable. Being TG is not a behavior.
Then being naked isn’t a behavior. Holding a grenade isn’t a behavior. Having on a shirt with a pro-rape message isn’t a behavior. Standing in the restroom sporting a massive boner isn’t a behavior.
And you STILL haven’t answered my question.
Old joke…“I believe in freedom of speech, unless I disagree with you and then your ass is racist/sexist and should be banned…I think that everything I believe in should be provided to me at no cost. If you think that is wrong, clearly 100’s of years of white privilege has made you stupid”
Who are we describing?
In the end, why does the vast majority of society have to pay for the very minor vocal minority so they feel safe and special?
Is that the new norm? If the 1% screams loudly enough the 99% has to bow to it’s will, and pay dearly to do so?
We truly are the later stages of the Roman empire personified.
If you guessed Wellesley College students…YOU WIN!!
Students: Transgender Woman Can’t Be Diversity Officer Because She’s a White Man Now
To the contrary, those would all constitute behaviors. But someone’s gender status is just that–a status, not a behavior.
As for the question as to who gets to decide if an individual is TG, the presumption would go to the individual. If there was concern as to the veracity of the individual’s claim–ie, if someone lodged a complaint about the behavior of the individual–the matter would have to be adjudicated.
Not dancing at all. It wasn’t so long ago that large segments of our society dictated which restroom one could use on the basis of racial status. There were (and still are) people who sincerely felt/feel ‘uncomfortable’ sharing toilet and locker facilities with individuals of a different race. However, despite the existence of these people (ie, those who are not comfortable with BR/locker-room race-mixing), I assume no one here would argue that their discomfort should be (re)codified in laws dictating restroom use on the basis of racial status.
Status vs behavior is a real and important distinction.
1 Like
Isn’t this the same belief that started the whole micro-aggression phenomena.
I have a difficult time understanding why we legislate, causing undue hardship for the majority, to serve such a small minority.
I can’t say there is a clear solution, but there should be constraints on solutions, ensuring they do not:
A. Cause undue hardship on owner’s that have public restrooms.
B. Cause undue hardship on users of public restrooms.
If the answer is an ambiguous-gender-single-stall/ADA/family restroom, that is fine. In my experience, this is already occurring.
1 Like
Wouldn’t the owner of a public restroom be the government? In all other cases, I would imagine it being a privately owned restroom that is open to the public.
Because in our increasingly progressive society…you are a racist/bigot if you don’t.
1 Like
Being sexually aroused is a status. So is being naked. So is being a pedophile. They are states of a being, not an action. Granted to be any of those statuses in a bathroom would require previous action, but so does being transgender in the bathroom. Your arbitrary rule is getting ridiculous in practice. Pedophiles shouldn’t be excluded?
So, a court decides who’s really transgender enough whenever anyone complains about someone else? Really? A court is the vehicle of deciding what gender someone actually is? Yeah, that system is going to work out splendidly for sure.
In your opinion, does Krock qualify as female enough for you? He has a penis and is sexually straight (attracted to women). Does Krock get to change with your daughter?
Just thinking about other areas of identity politics here. Things get complicated, even with issues like race or ethnicity.
Remember Rachel Dolezal, the woman who had to leave her post as president of an NAACP chapter after saying she identified as Black? She was married to a Black man, had Bi-racial kids, and “felt Black.” She still had to step down. My son has a friend who’s family are Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe. They immigrated to Argentina after WWII, and later to the US. She identified as Latina for college admissions.
Now we’re in the process of trying to define gender. The definitions range from very narrow to incredibly broad, and it keeps changing as people write about it.
Sometimes I think that if you get enough PhD candidates thinking about something, you can end up in some really strange places that just don’t make any sense. - Like this. Seriously. Glaciers and gender.
edited because the link was long and I kept messing up the block quote function.
Just another comment on the larger issue of LGBT rights issues. You all may remember that Utah made national news with LGBT laws in 2015. Utah’s laws mainly focused on employment and housing, but they struck a balance between religious liberties and LGBT rights. It may not be perfect, but I have to think it’s a very positive example that most religious conservatives would be happy to support.
In that case, they stayed away from specific language about restrooms, except for very general wording related to “reasonable rules and policies”. “The bill does not prohibit employers from setting “reasonable dress and grooming standards” or “reasonable rules and policies” regarding sex-specific facilities, such as restrooms and showers.” I suppose that would leave things mostly as they are, and would allow for specific disputes to be settled in the courts. That already works most of the time, right?
I think it’s better if laws aren’t so complex that they try to outline every single possibility. That’s how we ended up with our crazy tax code. Whenever possible, “Keep it simple, stupid.” Try not to bury people under unintelligible language, or needlessly complicated regulations.