• 200 Missouri High Schoolers Walk Out Because Trans Student Wants to Use Girls’ Bathroom
    491 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48611383]I never said they where?[/QUOTE] If the goal is for someone to use the bathroom they want to avoid bigots then how is the solution to move them from the men's room to the women's room?
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48611421]I dont get where you're going with this line of discussion other then semantics.[/QUOTE] Well, it seems like you, and many others who hold your point of view believe that basically everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. They aren't wrong, they aren't ignorant, etc. They are bad people who want to hurt you. It's very much an us versus them attitude where you're the good guys and they're the bad guys. I'm just trying to understand why it's impossible for you to believe that people can't honestly disagree about social norms without hating trans people in any way. You can't deny that there's real differences between MtF trans individuals and people born both physically and mentally as a woman. The key is that it's possible to acknowledge that difference without saying that trans people are bad just like I can say that men and women should follow different rules without hating one or the other. I'm not even against trans people having the hormones and surgeries. If it helps solve your mental issues (in a totally non-negative sense), then more power to you! I will call you by your preferred pronoun, and I will use your new name, but I don't think it's necessarily bigoted to recognize a difference where a difference exists and change rules based on that difference. [editline]3rd September 2015[/editline] Like in this case where a large group of women don't feel comfortable changing around a person who looks like a man, and who they can't really know for sure isn't a man. I don't think a person must be a bigot for being OK with that social norm.
If some of those 200 sincerely are upset about transsexual people, I can understand that, but I bet most of them just wanted to get outta school. I think the trans girls should be allowed to use the restroom.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48608403]Gender segregation norm began a lot longer than 100 years ago. It can easily be traced back thousands of years.[/quote] That's true, varying by place. I was thinking of bathroom segregation in western societies, but as for changing/locker rooms, I don't know what their history is or how long they have been a thing. [QUOTE=sgman91;48608403] You're taking evidence from the tiny minority of outliers and making a conclusion about the general public, that's not how it works. For essentially all non-trans individuals it's extremely easy to identify their sex and gender. For the vast majority of people the segregation is easy and obvious. The fact that a tiny minority can't be directly identified doesn't lead to the logical conclusion that no one can be identified.[/quote] My point is that no means of identification are absolute. If someone contests your "obvious" gender distinction, how are you going to disprove them if there is no single way that's guaranteed to work? And what do you accomplish by going through the trouble and humiliation of trying to? [QUOTE=sgman91;48608403]Right, and in some tribal societies people are cannibals with no adverse effects. If you want to appeal to some objective moral standard, then I would love to see how you know that your standard is right.[/QUOTE] How is that even remotely analoguous? Cannibalism is a convoluted moral dilemma on whole another scale, and a discussion for another time. Frankly, I don't care what goes on in tribal societies because it's not my business. [QUOTE=elowin;48608470]there's actually a pretty simply and practical reason why there is this seperation the vast majority of people are attracted to the opposite sex even with a bathroom i'm sure the issues with this should be fairly apparent, but in a locker room, where people change clothes, this is an incredibly obvious issue, solved very easily through segregation[/QUOTE] I don't quite see it. Are you saying people of opposite sex can't not fuck when they see each other casually naked or something? Pretty sure it's illegal to have sex in a changing room as well as any public place. Again I'm not sure what this "fairly apparent issue" of yours is.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;48611532]That's true, varying by place. I was thinking of bathroom segregation in western societies, but as for changing/locker rooms, I don't know what their history is or how long they have been a thing.[/QUOTE] I don't know about changing rooms, but athletics have been split up since at least ancient Greek society where men and women had their own, separate, games. [QUOTE]My point is that no means of identification are absolute. If someone contests your "obvious" gender distinction, how are you going to disprove them if there is no single way that's guaranteed to work?[/QUOTE] Technically, maybe, but socially, not so much. Whatever the variables are, real people are able to discern sex and gender in all but the most extreme outlier cases. Since we are talking about social issues and not scientific classification, this seems to be more relevant in my opinion. [QUOTE]How is that even remotely analoguous? Cannibalism is a convoluted moral dilemma on whole another scale, and a discussion for another time. Frankly, I don't care what goes on in tribal societies because it's not my business.[/QUOTE] It's analogous because saying that some social norm works for one society isn't an argument for applying that norm to another society. The arguments for the norm must stand on their own.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48611132]Obviously not. The homoerotic experience of the school bullies point and stare at your penis builds character in highschool but for real, I think it'd be easier to just make the locker rooms something more like the changing rooms at a target. Just a bunch of cubicles. Nobody is showering, anyways[/QUOTE] As if puritanism in society wasn't bad enough already. Would I support gender neutral locker rooms in the long run? Yeah, I would. It's not going to happen for the time bein, though, but do we have to make the situation worse?
First time commenting on this site for years, so i'm just gonna give my thought on it, so here i go I feel like the issues of LGBTQA+ and their rights, are still fresh and new to society so it may be short or long, before immediate actions take place. It is hard for society to know the answer to these situation given a decade or more of what's happen (or prior history i am unfamiliar with). I feel everyone deserve a right to happiness and enjoy, as long as we don't tread on each other. These issues take time and it can be a difficult seeing slow progress, watching or experiencing through traumatic issues. I'm not advocating to sit and wait for things to happen, but to have perseverance and [U]patience[/U]. In this case I see both the 200 students and the girl did some wrong, about not understanding each other. Their needs to be more discussions on these situations or issues to take the next step to a solution, rather than demanding a quick, messy, or emotional answer that could harm everyone. My answer doesn't give a solution, I just wanted to comment on the issue.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48611558]I don't know about changing rooms, but athletics have been split up since at least ancient Greek society where men and women had their own, separate, games.[/QUOTE] What's the value of appealing to traditionalism? [QUOTE=sgman91;48611558]It's analogous because saying that some social norm works for one society isn't an argument for applying that norm to another society. The arguments for the norm must stand on their own.[/QUOTE] The norms change, above all. Hence the fact that we do no have slavery in our society. Equally, we do not need to have a society that places great deal of importance into one's sex and gender. That is only medically important, in any way. The difference is in semantics and has no real bearing on any of those individuals. It's an individual's take upon something that has no true impact. [editline]4th September 2015[/editline] Like a bunch of white people being bothered that there is a black person going to the same school as their kids, there is no actual reason for those 200 kids to be antagonized, outside of simply being used to something. Humans are capable creatures, we can adapt to changing circumstances, especially if we are capable of understanding them.
[QUOTE=gufu;48611819]What's the value of appealing to traditionalism?[/QUOTE] Look at the context of the post. I wasn't appealing to traditionalism. I was refuting his point about it springing up in the last 100 years. [QUOTE]Equally, we do not need to have a society that places great deal of importance into one's sex and gender. That is only medically important, in any way.[/QUOTE] I mean, that's your opinion. It's not some scientifically verifiable fact. [QUOTE]The difference is in semantics and has no real bearing on any of those individuals. It's an individual's take upon something that has no true impact.[/QUOTE] This is just false. There are scientifically measurable differences between men and women.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48611859]Look at the context of the post. I wasn't appealing to traditionalism. I was refuting his point about it springing up in the last 100 years.[/quote] Your point is irrelevant, since games themselves, and not the changing rooms, were divided amongst gender. [QUOTE=sgman91;48611859] I mean, that's your opinion. It's not some scientifically verifiable fact. [/quote] It's a logical conclusion. [QUOTE=sgman91;48611859]This is just false. There are scientifically measurable differences between men and women.[/QUOTE] I fail to see how those differences come into this specific topic.
[QUOTE=gufu;48611866]It's a logical conclusion.[/QUOTE] How about you offer an actual argument instead of saying an opinion, and telling me it's logical. How is it logical? What are your premises and how do they lead to that conclusion?
[QUOTE=sgman91;48611882]How about you offer an actual argument instead of saying an opinion, and telling me it's logical.[/QUOTE] What truly matter about the definitions of a person's gender and sex? What exactly do those define and enforce in our society, to be worth being noted non-medically?
[QUOTE=D0C H.;48601836]I don't see how. Male feels female. That's the bare-bones of it. So they decide that the rest of the world has to agree? Well ive decided I'm president. The rest of the world must agree or it's discrimination! Look, personally, I don't care what someone is attracted to. It's their own choice and I wish everybody would just shut up and let people make their own personal choices for their own life. It's when someone forces others to agree and change their lives is when it gets wrong. Whether the person doing that is trans, gay, Christian, whatever. No one has to agree with someone else. Modern society for some reason thinks that their opinions have to matter. They don't. No one's does, not even mine.[/QUOTE] I honestly thought you were so much better than this [editline]4th September 2015[/editline] And the post preceding it, especially
[QUOTE=gufu;48611897]What truly matter about the definitions of a person's gender and sex? What exactly do those define and enforce in our society, to be worth being noted non-medically?[/QUOTE] They define and organize lots of things, including, but not limited to (I'm including medical things because there's no reason to ignore them): - They push the idea of having two parents instead of one, or even none at all, with the mother/father dichotomy. Without any gender distinction this dichotomy would be arbitrary. Why not raise children alone? Of course we know that children of single parents are statistically much worse off. The family unit is extremely important, and the gender binary enforces this ideal. Even gay marriage is a reflection of the hetero norm. - Men and women are generally sexually attracted to one another. If you're a man, and want to define the thing that you're attracted to, then you generally talk about a woman. Without that dichotomy you no longer have a way to vocalize gender attraction in the extreme majority of the population. - Medically, men and women react differently to many treatments and medications. Recognition of that difference is necessary in order to better treat both men and women. - Generally, humans define themselves into two groups: men and women. There has never been a society without that distinction. It's impossible to know if society can even function without it. - Men and women are scientifically different. At the very minimum gendered language is useful to recognize these differences. These differences also lead to the logical conclusion that men and women will have consistent differences in accordance with their physical differences. [editline]4th September 2015[/editline] Just a quick real life example: let's say we have a sports team, but we no longer have any gendered language. If we can't divide teams up between men and women, then we will have a team completely made up of the best players... which will essentially all be what we define as men. This will successfully disallow the vast majority of what we refer to as women any ability to play in a sport.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48611934](I'm including medical things because there's no reason to ignore them):[/quote] I specifically defined them as irrelevant to this specific situation, but thanks for trying. [QUOTE=sgman91;48611934] - They push the idea of having two parents instead of one with the mother/father dichotomy. Without any gender distinction this dichotomy would be arbitrary. Why not raise children alone? Of course we know that children of single parents are statistically much worse off. The family unit is extremely important, and the gender binary enforces this ideal. Even gay marriage is a reflection of the hetero norm.[/quote] That is not relevant. Two parents are a thing, because two people are technically married. In truth, a child may have multiple non-biological or non-direct parents figures, who may operate in place of the "standard" mother-father family (which is not some general human standard anyway, as many communities bring child rearing as something the community does, not a single pair of people), in many cases. Family unit is concept that changed through the ages to encompass different meaning, from a large household of multiple generations to nuclear families. There is no actual family norm, just standards as they appear at the time. In addition, the gay marriage is only seen as a reflection of a hetero norm, is because the norm until recently was defined by heterosexuals, since they were the only ones allowed to marry. It was an enforced norm, and is therefore irrelevant. [QUOTE=sgman91;48611934] - Men and women are generally sexually attracted to one another. If you're a man, and want to define the thing that you're attracted to, then you generally talk about a woman. Without that dichotomy you no longer have a way to vocalize gender attraction. [/quote] "I like that person". Equally, not all men like all women, or even most women. This would assume that in polyamorous relations, the individuals would inevitably would have to encompass everyone of gender opposing to them (or specifically of their interest), because in your words, men attracted to all women. This also ignores different kinds of attractions as well. And a person may specifically call out things they find attractive: "I like people with great breasts", "I like people with vaginas". [QUOTE=sgman91;48611934] - Generally, humans define themselves into two groups: men and women. There has never been a society without that distinction. It's impossible to know if society can even function without it. [/quote] There have been societies with multiple genders. The fact that something has not been tried does not mean that it is a negative. [QUOTE=sgman91;48611934] - Men and women are scientifically different. At the very minimum gendered language is useful to recognize these differences.[/QUOTE] What are the definitions of those "scientific" differences? Again, if we are talking about medical needs, those are irrelevant and private to individuals, and thereby are irrelevant to the social issue at hand. [editline]4th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;48611934] Just a quick real life example: let's say we have a sports team, but we no longer have any gendered language. If we can't divide teams up between men and women, then we will have a team completely made up of the best players... which will essentially all be what we define as men. This will successfully disallow the vast majority of what we refer to as women any ability to play in a sport.[/QUOTE] This does not apply to all sports equally, as there are sports that women are considered more capable. [editline]4th September 2015[/editline] Of course, when it comes to such sports as fighting, the weight classes would have to be redone.
[QUOTE=D0C H.;48602264]Unless you're born with a set of each genital, I don't in any way see how gender can even not be black and white. Physically speaking, you either have male or female gender. It makes more sense to me to call it sexual identity. But then again, it doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense to me. It's not my personal life.[/QUOTE] You're making a typical mistake here in equating gender and sex. While for majority of the population those two cooincide. It's why transexual people pre transition don't actually suffer from sexual disphoria but gender disphoria. It's a bit more complicated though. In essence - sex - biological markings of either male or female Gender - socially, biologically, otherwise enforced behaviour of a sex. The big question is, and which is probably a lot personal and complicated, would be if a transexual person were to feel comfortable in their own body, if gender became a moot point. Some might, others probably not. Of course overall changing rooms and the like aren't generally segregated by gender but by sex, so it's kinda a moot point. But as both terms tend to coincide for the majority of the population...
[QUOTE=gufu;48611971]I specifically defined them as irrelevant to this specific situation, but thanks for trying.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I'm not going to arbitrarily ignore something because you said so. Medical knowledge is part of society, and can't be ignored. A society without gender differentiation can't have medical gender differentiation. [QUOTE]That is not relevant. Two parents are a thing, because two people are technically married. In truth, a child may have multiple non-biological or non-direct parents figures, who may operate in place of the "standard" mother-father family (which is not some general human standard anyway, as many communities bring child rearing as something the community does, not a single pair of people), in many cases. Family unit is concept that changed through the ages to encompass different meaning, from a large household of multiple generations to nuclear families. There is no actual family norm, just standards as they appear at the time.[/QUOTE] All family structures have depended on the male/female dichotomy in some way. Whether it's one man and many women, or one man and one women, you always had that dichotomy, and it always played a role in the family structure. Variation exists, but within a set structure. [QUOTE]In addition, the gay marriage is only seen as a reflection of a hetero norm, is because the norm until recently was defined by heterosexuals, since they were the only ones allowed to marry. It was an enforced norm, and is therefore irrelevant.[/QUOTE] Marriage is an effect of hetero relationships and how they lead to children. Beyond modern legal benefits, gay marriage has no purpose. Gay people can freely love each other and live with each other without the need for an institution. [QUOTE]"I like that person". Equally, not all men like all women, or even most women. This would assume that in polyamorous relations, the individuals would inevitably would have to encompass everyone of gender opposing to them (or specifically of their interest), because in your words, men attracted to all women. This also ignores different kinds of attractions as well. And a person may specifically call out things they find attractive: "I like people with great breasts", "I like people with vaginas".[/QUOTE] What are you even saying here... because you definitely didn't respond to my point in any way, shape, or form. I didn't say men are attracted to all women. Also, people aren't attracted to one thing like "vaginas" or "breasts." Men are generally attracted to what we call women, including many different attributes included in that, and vice-versa. For example, no matter how much a guy likes big breasts, he isn't going to be sexually attracted to an extremely masculine man with big breasts. [QUOTE]There have been societies with multiple genders. The fact that something has not been tried does not mean that it is a negative.[/QUOTE] Even societies that recognize more than two genders still always recognize men and women specifically. Any other genders are added on to those two. So you really haven't refuted my point at all. Also, the fact that it hasn't been tried means that you need a hell of a good argument for why it's better than what we have. "Hey, why not?" Isn't a good enough answer. [QUOTE]What are the definitions of those "scientific" differences? Again, if we are talking about medical needs, those are irrelevant and private to individuals, and thereby are irrelevant to the social issue at hand.[/QUOTE] - Brain differences - Hormone differences - Bone density differences - Muscle density differences - Different rates of disease - etc. etc. etc. They aren't irrelevant because you can't run a society with private gender, but not public gender unless you're some thought-crime imposing dictator. Gender exists because there are real, measurable, differences between distinct groups. [QUOTE]This does not apply to all sports equally, as there are sports that women are considered more capable.[/QUOTE] Fine, you would have some women marksmen, gymnasts, and horse riders, but that's about it. I don't think that really shows my point to be incorrect. In the vast majority of cases, men would absolutely dominate. [editline]4th September 2015[/editline] [U][B]Also, you still haven't actually provide any positive argument for your side, at all. I'm not even going to respond until you do so.[/B][/U]
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48610425]So what about gay and lesbian people? If the sole basis for the segregation is sexual attraction then should we not segregate gays and lesbians from the general populace of the campus as well? [editline]3rd September 2015[/editline] I like how people are saying we're making a big deal out of it but we just want to use the damned restroom. We're not the ones walking out of school or asking the world to adopt gender neutral bathrooms.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=strayebyrd;48608591]but surely by that logic gay people shouldn't be allowed into their own sex's locker room?[/QUOTE] You could have a very strong argument for that, yeah. You could also have a very strong argument that he shouldn't go to the women's locker room either, since they're still mostly attracted to men. It's not an easy problem to solve. Also, remember that it's the locker room, not just the restroom that we're talking about. [QUOTE=Talishmar;48611532]I don't quite see it. Are you saying people of opposite sex can't not fuck when they see each other casually naked or something? Pretty sure it's illegal to have sex in a changing room as well as any public place. Again I'm not sure what this "fairly apparent issue" of yours is.[/QUOTE] I'm saying most people are not going to be casual about seeing the opposite gender naked, or being seen naked by the opposite gender. [QUOTE=mugofdoom;48608890]Could you not just give everyone proper dressing rooms so they don't have to change in front of other people? I had the same issue in highschool. I downright refused to change in front of other people in the locker rooms, and we were all the same sex.[/QUOTE] That'd be the best solution, obviously, but it'd also be extremely expensive, to the point where it's not even remotely practical.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48612066]Sorry, I'm not going to arbitrarily ignore something because you said so. Medical knowledge is part of society, and can't be ignored. A society without gender differentiation can't have medical gender differentiation.[/quote] Social and medical do not have to coincide. You will not act differently is you would have known if a person has cancer or not, for example. Acting socially different to them because they have arbitrary physical differences is not relevant. This is what we are discussing here. [QUOTE=sgman91;48612066] All family structures have depended on the male/female dichotomy in some way. Whether it's one man and many women, or one man and one women, you always had that dichotomy, and it always played a role in the family structure. Variation exists, but within a set structure. [/quote] If you divide everyone into men/women, then yes, there are going to be men and women. That's irrelevant. [QUOTE=sgman91;48612066]Marriage is an effect of hetero relationships and how they lead to children. Beyond modern legal benefits, gay marriage has no purpose. Gay people can freely love each other and live with each other without the need for an institution.[/quote] Marriage is a function of confirmation of romance. Reproductive marriage is a concept that is irrelevant. Marriage does not assure child bearing nor is required for. To emphasize marriage as relevant to production of children, is to only simplify it to one's own needs. [QUOTE=sgman91;48612066] What are you even saying here... because you definitely didn't respond to my point in any way, shape, or form. I didn't say men are attracted to all women. Also, people aren't attracted to one thing like "vaginas" or "breasts." Men are generally attracted to what we call women, including many different attributes included in that, and vice-versa. For example, no matter how much a guy likes big breasts, he isn't going to be sexually attracted to an extremely masculine man with big breasts. [/quote] Considering that all people have their own selection of interest, you cannot simply generalize all the men ever, as there are going to be men who would want to be with a very manly man with breast. Just like some would like to be with very girly men with breast. Or with manly women with breast, and thus on. Out preferences are not something that is set in a binary, it's a combination of various variables that makes up our interests. Again, you are simplifying something that's more complex than you want it to be. [QUOTE=sgman91;48612066] Even societies that recognize more than two genders still always recognize men and women specifically. Any other genders are added on to those two. So you really haven't refuted my point at all. [/quote] You don't have a point except that we had a certain established view on concepts. Views change. [QUOTE=sgman91;48612066] Also, the fact that it hasn't been tried means that you need a hell of a good argument for why it's better than what we have. "Hey, why not?" Isn't a good enough answer.[/quote] Because it allows people to define themselves, rather than be forced labels from others. [QUOTE=sgman91;48612066] - Brain differences - Hormone differences - Bone density differences - Muscle density differences - Different rates of disease - etc. etc. etc. [/quote] Again, biological and medical differences that are also different between individuals. [QUOTE=sgman91;48612066] They aren't irrelevant because you can't run a society with private gender, but not public gender unless you're some thought-crime imposing dictator. Gender exists because there are real, measurable, differences between distinct groups. [/quote] Genders are extensions of sex. There is no private gender, since we define ourselves by gender. Sex is measurable, however, again, by factors that you have listed above. [QUOTE=sgman91;48612066] Fine, you would have some women marksmen, gymnasts, and horse riders, but that's about it. I don't think that really shows my point to be incorrect. In the vast majority of cases, men would absolutely dominate. [/quote] That doesn't even make sense, unless you are calling those people men retroactively, based on their sex. You can't have men dominate sports, because definition of themselves as men and women would be based on the athletes themselves. [/QUOTE] [editline]4th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;48612066][U][B]Also, you still haven't actually provide any positive argument for your side, at all. I'm not even going to respond until you do so.[/B][/U][/QUOTE] Apparently allowing individuals to choose for themselves is not a positive argument. Great discussion.
How many of these students walked out because of the trans student and not just for the ability to walk out of school with everyone else?
[QUOTE=gufu;48612123]Apparently allowing individuals to choose for themselves is not a positive argument. Great discussion.[/QUOTE] You've given an opinion, not an argument.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;48612444]To be fair, there are significant differences between transwomen and control males too. Most trans people display some extent of physiological intersexuality even if it isn't apparent, and this is particularly present neurologically. It's not entirely fair to say that transsexuality is a mental issue when it's becoming more and more obvious that it has neurological hallmarks somewhere in the realm of other, less subtle forms of physiological intersexuality. To take transwomen as an example, there is limited-to-no evidence that transwomen are neurologically female in a strict sense, but there's an abundance of evidence that they're [I]not[/I] neurologically male.[/QUOTE] I don't really disagree with anything you've said here. By "mental issues" I meant nothing more than HRT and SRS helping any gender dysphoria or mental anguish.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;48612493]In review of your argument, I only have one point to add: Just because social gender exists because of measurable physiological differences does not mean that social gender reflects accurately on the real differences, nor that the physiological differences necessarily have greater impact than the social differences derived from them. Not a refutation of any point of your argument, but a truth to keep in mind while you're making it.[/QUOTE] I would agree that the social differences may or may not be larger than the physiological differences call for, but I would argue that the social differences do have some foundation in physiological difference because no more plausible explanation exists. If social gender differences didn't sprout in some way from physiological differences, then they must either be random, or decided by someone directly on an arbitrary basis. I think the argument from physiology is better than the other two. (unless you can think of another, more plausible, source)
[QUOTE=PelPix123;48612522]All I'm saying is that the social differences could drift pretty exceptionally from their physiological soures.[/QUOTE] Sounds good, I agree completely. As a quick example, I would say the idea of a man who loves violence and defines himself only by his physical strength is an exceptional drift from the physiological source while still having a foundation in that source. Thank you for your input. Clarity is always a good thing.
[QUOTE=gufu;48612123]Social and medical do not have to coincide. You will not act differently is you would have known if a person has cancer or not, for example. Acting socially different to them because they have arbitrary physical differences is not relevant. This is what we are discussing here.[/QUOTE]Yes I fucking would, what the fuck? Of course I'd treat somebody differently if they had cancer! What the hell! I'd treat them differnetly if they had MS, or AIDS, or any number of illnesses, diseases, or disorders because ignoring important things like that is [i]stupid.[/i] I'm not going to have sex with somebody with chlamydia at all because there's a chance that the skin-to-skin contact (and all them tasty fluids!) could result in a transfer of the disease. Likewise I'm not going to ask somebody with fucking muscular dystrophy to help me move a couch because they have a disease that literally dissolves their muscles and [i]maybe[/i] they'd make a poor choice for a moving buddy. No, medical fact is very relevant and you can plug your ears and go "LALALA YOUR ARGUMENT IS IRRELEVANT I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" all you want but it's only going to make you look like a goddamn infant. [QUOTE=gufu;48612123]If you divide everyone into men/women, then yes, there are going to be men and women. That's irrelevant.[/QUOTE]Ignoring obvious fact doesn't make it suddenly untrue, and if there was some traction to the argument that gender roles are entirely make believe (hint: they're not, humans are not special sorry to be the one to tell you that nature is still supreme) you've completely destroyed any credibility it had by just declaring any opposition doesn't actually count. [QUOTE=gufu;48612123]Marriage is a function of confirmation of romance. Reproductive marriage is a concept that is irrelevant. Marriage does not assure child bearing nor is required for. To emphasize marriage as relevant to production of children, is to only simplify it to one's own needs.[/QUOTE]Romance is often irrelevant to marriage because... - Arranged marriages happen - Political marriages happen - Marriage because of an unplanned pregnancy is still a very real thing - Sometimes people get married because it allows them access to government benefits, this is [i]extremely[/i] common in the military - And finally sometimes people marry for financial gain, i.e. "gold diggers" and people who kill their spouses so they can cash in on the life insurance So ipso fucking facto your argument is irrelevant. [QUOTE=gufu;48612123]Considering that all people have their own selection of interest, you cannot simply generalize all the men ever, as there are going to be men who would want to be with a very manly man with breast. Just like some would like to be with very girly men with breast. Or with manly women with breast, and thus on. Out preferences are not something that is set in a binary, it's a combination of various variables that makes up our interests. Again, you are simplifying something that's more complex than you want it to be.[/QUOTE]what No that isn't how normal, sane people think. You're not attracted to raw sexual characteristics unless you're indulging a fetish. You accuse sgman91 of simplifying things when you literally just did that, do you honestly think that sexual attraction is basic sexual objectification? That actually makes me sad inside if this is how you believe people normally function because that means [i]you[/i] find it normal. That doesn't sound like something that can be treated, so, again... kinda depressing. [QUOTE=gufu;48612123]You don't have a point except that we had a certain established view on concepts. Views change.[/QUOTE]God damn it, this is why I hate what I am because the LGBTQ community is full of this shit. No, we can't accept that we're different! Nope, instead we're going to pretend like hundreds of thousands of years of evolution just doesn't count anymore, genders are bullshit you guys everyone can literally be living apache attack helicopter memes now. I mean bigotry is bad and everything and it sucks to experience raw discrimination but let's be honest here, I feel like a fireman trying to put out a fire and my team's spraying gasoline all over the place. [QUOTE=gufu;48612123]Again, biological and medical differences that are also different between individuals.[/QUOTE]XX and XY are not the same thing. Just accept that there's hard biological differences without taking the fat acceptance route and trying to weasel in the special snowflake angle. [i]Yes,[/i] everyone technically is unique and special but that only goes so far and at the end of the day we're still the same fucking species. You know what makes people different? Little things like blood type, some genetic predispositions for certain things... you know, the fine little bits of DNA that make us outwardly unique which allows us to identify other people. None of that changes the fact that probably like 90% of people are firmly cis and straight and they're that way because they're supposed to be, that's just how nature works. [editline]4th September 2015[/editline] We would have died out as a species long ago if everyone was just "oh I kinda feel like a bisexual lesbian double-queer transgay right now." People don't just make shit up, or sane people don't anyway, transgender individuals more or less try to conform to the male/female dichotomy. My issue, my [i]real issue[/i] is people who try to claim that male and female genders are entirely artificial and the gender roles in society are as equally artificial because that spits in the face of common sense and basic deduction. All I see are a bunch of people who can't swallow the fact that they're different and are cowards and hypocrites at their very core. They like to think they're brave for "speaking out," but the thought of being permanently on the outside of this stupid little box they've made in their head [i]scares them.[/i] Just suck it the fuck up, it's [i]okay[/i] to be gay/trans/bi/queer/whatever and it's [i]okay[/i] for the lion's share of other people to be cis and straight.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48611558]Technically, maybe, but socially, not so much. Whatever the variables are, real people are able to discern sex and gender in all but the most extreme outlier cases. Since we are talking about social issues and not scientific classification, this seems to be more relevant in my opinion.[/QUOTE] You seem to be repeating your argument rather than addressing mine. Even if identifying sex and gender doesn't cause problems for most people, what about the ones that it does? How do you prove they should not be able to classify themselves as they will? [QUOTE=sgman91;48611558]It's analogous because saying that some social norm works for one society isn't an argument for applying that norm to another society. The arguments for the norm must stand on their own.[/QUOTE] I was trying to appeal to your common sense using an anecdote. If it works here without the problems people claim it causes, why wouldn't it work in your country?
[QUOTE=PelPix123;48617185]The truth is somewhere in the middle tbh. Gender roles are technically artificial but that doesn't mean they aren't real. Artificial things are very real. The tumblr mistake is equating artificial with false, unimportant, or unjustified.[/QUOTE]I don't know, I think we only prescribe it as "artificial" because people actively think about it so therefore it isn't natural to them. Quite often our thoughts and emotions are raw instinct wrapped up in a thin blanket of conscious thought, we think we're so advanced but we're still mammals and we still have natural drives. Either way, what you responded with is exactly what I meant anyway, the people who go "well it's all fake anyway so we can make up whatever we want!" make me froth at the mouth in a fit of rage. One of these days I'm going to have a massive heart attack, I'm just going to get so goddamn angry because I bumped into yet a real-life tumblrina social justice warrior and their vapid, self-absorbed bullshit just up and kills me. I swear the first time I encountered a real one I was so shocked and dismayed that I seriously considered throwing myself off the bridge over I-35W as I walked home. [editline]4th September 2015[/editline] Also good luck with the GRS, my girlfriend's post-op 6+ years and there have been some complications. (it is a surgery after all) Hope everything goes well for you.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48610471]First of she's a she, using him simply shows that you have quite a bit of ignorance about the topic at hand. Second off why would a female NOT be entitled to use the womans restroom? She's female in literally every way that matters except for the unfortunate circumstance of having the wrong set of genitalia. Something that will literally never be seen in the restroom unless you have people going out of their way to peek into the stalls. Furthermore your comparison is not even remotely accurate. You do not "feel" transgender. There's quite a bit of physical neurological stuff that goes with it.[/QUOTE] You can call me ignorant if you like, i think you are excessively politically correct. Let me simplify. In scientific terms, a male has a penis and a female has a vagina. It gets a bit more complicated if someone has both sets, but that's not the case here. He may feel like a woman trapped in a man's body (or whatever psychological maelstrom is going on in this case), and out of consideration to her preferences, i would call her "she" if i ever had interactions with her (the same way i might call Johnathon "Jon" instead) but it doesn't change the fact that he has a penis, and therefore goes to the "penis" groups changeroom or the non-segregated changeroom. The segregation is not based on identity, it's based on physicality. Also, the community he is part of have previously known him as a male; that is tied to him personally, they don't need to see his penis to identify him as a male. A female has every right to use the female changerooms; but the people who do not want him in the female changerooms do not recognise him as a female, and are uncomfortable with a "male" sharing their changerooms. (apologies for the late reply)
There's unisex toilets in the school, therefore there shouldn't be an issue. Unisex toilets are the solution to this kind of pointless drama.
[QUOTE=mrknifey;48625902]You can call me ignorant if you like, i think you are excessively politically correct. Let me simplify. In scientific terms, a male has a penis and a female has a vagina. It gets a bit more complicated if someone has both sets, but that's not the case here. He may feel like a woman trapped in a man's body (or whatever psychological maelstrom is going on in this case), and out of consideration to her preferences, i would call her "she" if i ever had interactions with her (the same way i might call Johnathon "Jon" instead) but it doesn't change the fact that he has a penis, and therefore goes to the "penis" groups changeroom or the non-segregated changeroom. The segregation is not based on identity, it's based on physicality. Also, the community he is part of have previously known him as a male; that is tied to him personally, they don't need to see his penis to identify him as a male. A female has every right to use the female changerooms; but the people who do not want him in the female changerooms do not recognise him as a female, and are uncomfortable with a "male" sharing their changerooms. (apologies for the late reply)[/QUOTE] So where would you have us use the restroom then? Ignoring your obvious ignorance on the topic of trans people. Would you prefer we use the mens room and have a gaurunteed chance of being outted and verbally/physically/sexually abused? Or would you prefer all businesses to magically cough up the money to install a gender neutral bathroom? The fact of the matter is that even if you somehow made it illegal for trans people to use the bathroom of their identified gender it would be completely unenforceable unless you started groping people before they used the restroom or people somehow developed X-ray vision.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.