|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 25, 2017 1:07:55 GMT
So, of course, another new Trump action has prompted strong responses. This time, he's revoking the whole business concerning trans people using bathrooms.
So, where do you stand on the matter? Think it's an easy fix, or something that's harder to reach a universal consensus ala abortion. Naturally, be civil.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 25, 2017 1:13:11 GMT
I think you more or less have to let people choose, it doesn't really matter what I feel about it all, or anyone else really, there is a reality to deal with, and I don't mean the reality of someone sex (which modern science, even without drugs, surgery and social development) is telling is far more fluid and grey than many thought in the past, someone who looks like a man, needs to go the male toilets, personally I don't think I really care, but I can see that in a huge number of situations where someone that looks like a man using the women's toilets is going to cause alarm, concern and perhaps even get the police involved.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Feb 25, 2017 8:43:34 GMT
You probably don't want to know just how absurd I think the discussion is (not that it's being discussed here, that potty privileges are actually being discussed at the highest levels of government). Personally, I think if someone wants to enforce the lack of eligibility of any particular gender for something, they probably need to be able to define a gender first, which is no doubt best left to an individual to define for themselves.
Even after that, however, can (or should) anybody guarantee that a public restroom is some sort of sanctuary against a different gender? If ever someone of a different gender than a facility is designated for has to accompany or assist a very young child, an elder, or a disabled person in using that public bathroom, then there are probably already perfectly valid exceptions to be made to any rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 9:20:31 GMT
Considering people don't tend to make eye contact with one another when they use the restroom anyway, I wouldn't have a problem with it personally. I'd have a problem with the mono-gendered male shouting -- "THIS IS MY LAVATORY!" to whoever entered. That would put me off.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Feb 25, 2017 9:25:22 GMT
This brings up something interesting actually. When I was filming as part of my course at a primary school the toilets were all unisex. It made me wonder if in the future all toilets, not just in the UK or in Trump's case the U.S. but all over the world, will be unisex to support transgender.
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Feb 25, 2017 9:32:29 GMT
Just go to whatever sex, you feel you are. My cousin was gendered as a boy till, she was three......but as she got older it was clear something was wrong.....to cut a long story shot they found everything inside was female so that's what she became.
That's over 40 years ago
Once inside your stall, who is watching! And if they are its them that's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 25, 2017 11:31:28 GMT
So, of course, another new Trump action has prompted strong responses. This time, he's revoking the whole business concerning trans people using bathrooms. So, where do you stand on the matter? Think it's an easy fix, or something that's harder to reach a universal consensus ala abortion. Naturally, be civil. For years, I noticed transgender folks using the wrong bathroom. Like it or not, there are some folks who I cant tell what sex they are. And I have met women who turn out to be men, and men who turn out to be women. Just by havin a beer at Applebees. Hey, transgender folks like beer and baseball too. And after an Astros game, I like to go by and watch more baseball, my wife's drivin and she likes the food... Transgender folks are different than me, I get that, they think different and I try not to judge em, And it's not the transgender folks we are trying to keep out of the wrong bathroom. Now hear me out. All of us on here, have enough common sense to know there are some very sick, disturbed people out there. There are folks out there who will kidnap and kill women, and children, for God's sake. That's the worst of them, some out there would rape a woman or a child in a bathroom, if they thought they could get away with it. And if anyone who reads this, doesn't think these people exist, then you are really deluding yourself. Since this North Carolina law has passed, I have talked to some of the transgender folks I know, and to some homosexual friends I know, including my youngest daughter and her girlfriend. And I told all of them, exactly what I know, from first hand information, from some of the local police officers, and from some of the local DA's, that I know. There is no practical law in the state of Tennessee that prevents pedophiles, convicted rapists or other degenerate, from following a woman or a child into a bathroom. Does this need fixing, IMO it sure does. Does this adversely affect transgender people? Well, i'll answer that question with another question, does anyone enjoy using a public bathroom, are you ever comfortable in a public bathroom? The only public bathrooms I have ever been comfortable using, have a single toilet and a locking door. I did not enjoy it, I just had to use it. Have I ever been in an uncomfortable feeling bathroom, just a thousand times. Taking a leak, next to a total stranger is not a natural act. Taking a crap next to one is even more unbearable. I don't care if the person on the toilet next to me is a woman or a man, but I'm 6'4 425 pounds, as long as I'm not crappin next to a bear, and I don't hear gunshots (and the older folks called them thunder boxes for a reason), then I aint worried bout who's next door. I would love to hear from the ladies on this forum. The ladies who use the women's room. I want to know how they feel, If they have any fear of men taking pictures of them in public restrooms. If they have ever been in a situation that they felt uncomfortable with in a public bathroom. My wife hated stopping at rest areas. Some are really spooky, and more than once, she asked me to stand at the door, while she went, in the middle of the night. I believe every person on this forum, would rather carry around an iron bucket to use, than to ever, in any way subject a woman or a child to potential physical or mental harm. But if we don't do something, we are making a choice not to make a choice, which is a choice. And we are putting the most vulnerable of us, in potentially bad situations. So how can you relieve my fears? That's the biggest question, it's fear of what could happen against someone being uncomfortable using a public toilet. It's only fear until a video shows up a man dressed as a woman following a 10 year old into the girls room, then ? I DO SO WANT THIS FEAR TO REMAIN, UNSUBSTANCIATED! But I'm not willing to gamble on it. My advice to transgender folks, for now, act like whatever your transgender is, If you look like a woman, then use the women's room, if you look like a man, use the men's room, do NOT draw unneccesary attention to yourself, cause that's just askin for trouble, get your business done, always wash your hands, and get out. Just like this heterosexual man does. But if you are a transgender man, who wants to use the women's bathroom, and you look like a man, for your own safety, either use the men's room, or find a restroom with a door and alock on it. Most of the travel centers have them. And many of the older looking convenient stores still have a single men's and a single women's, and we don't care who uses who's, but remember, men are freakin nasty in public restrooms, I don't know bout women. Hope that didn't upset anyone too awfully bad, this is what I think, I never said, I thought everything I wrote here is morally right, but it's far from the biggest problems we have in this country and this world. Now, If you wanna talk, then we can talk, PM or on here, I told you my concerns, if you can address them, I'm very willing to listen and think bout what you have to say.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 25, 2017 11:46:40 GMT
You cannot legislate for every possible danger, and you cannot legislate based on fear response whilst not taking into account facts.
Now I have no idea how many people have been attacked or abducted from public toilets, but unless the number of attacks etc shows a substantive peak vs other places (the street, the home, school, night clubs, etc etc) then no matter what fears exist legislation is not needed to protect people.
BTW, according to Trumps Whitehouse, the reason for the repeal of the protections given to transgender people is not based on anything anyone has said here, it was because "It's a matter for the States."
|
|
|
Post by TinDogPodcast on Feb 25, 2017 11:50:18 GMT
These loos are in cubicles. ... right?
So... erm... What's the issue?
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Feb 25, 2017 11:51:11 GMT
I find it bizarre this is even up for debate of course everyone should be able to the public restroom that's the Gender they identity with.
Would anyone have a problem if I being a man used the woman's restroom because they have the only Wheelchair Accessible cubical (which I have had to do)?
To be honest I just don't get the idea that the comfort of the majority is more important than the individuals.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by TinDogPodcast on Feb 25, 2017 11:51:45 GMT
Oh and the NHS require you to live as your destination gender too...
|
|
|
Post by kimalysong on Feb 25, 2017 12:01:22 GMT
You cannot legislate for every possible danger, and you cannot legislate based on fear response whilst not taking into account facts. Now I have no idea how many people have been attacked or abducted from public toilets, but unless the number of attacks etc shows a substantive peak vs other places (the street, the home, school, night clubs, etc etc) then no matter what fears exist legislation is not needed to protect people. BTW, according to Trumps Whitehouse, the reason for the repeal of the protections given to transgender people is not based on anything anyone has said here, it was because "It's a matter for the States." Human rights should never be up to the States
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 25, 2017 12:05:11 GMT
Oh and the NHS require you to live as your destination gender too... In the UK the NHS require those that seek gender reassignment surgery at the monetary expense of the community to first live as their destination gender for a period of time.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 25, 2017 12:19:29 GMT
You cannot legislate for every possible danger, and you cannot legislate based on fear response whilst not taking into account facts. Now I have no idea how many people have been attacked or abducted from public toilets, but unless the number of attacks etc shows a substantive peak vs other places (the street, the home, school, night clubs, etc etc) then no matter what fears exist legislation is not needed to protect people. BTW, according to Trumps Whitehouse, the reason for the repeal of the protections given to transgender people is not based on anything anyone has said here, it was because "It's a matter for the States." Human rights should never be up to the States I'm not clear on what is and is not something that should be reserved to the States vs Federal, but purely from a moral stand point, surely any person or organisation can take a stand on human rights issues? To which, what I mean is, surely if a State sees what it thinks of as human rights issue it should be able to act even if at the Federal level nothing happens? Having said all that, I don't actually for a second believe what Trumps Liehouse says on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 12:27:44 GMT
Oh and the NHS require you to live as your destination gender too... In the UK the NHS require those that seek gender reassignment surgery at the monetary expense of the community to first live as their destination gender for a period of time. Seems logical to me. A trial run to ensure that the procedure is truly what they want and to acclimatise themselves to that new aspect of their lives. You cannot legislate for every possible danger, and you cannot legislate based on fear response whilst not taking into account facts. Now I have no idea how many people have been attacked or abducted from public toilets, but unless the number of attacks etc shows a substantive peak vs other places (the street, the home, school, night clubs, etc etc) then no matter what fears exist legislation is not needed to protect people. BTW, according to Trumps Whitehouse, the reason for the repeal of the protections given to transgender people is not based on anything anyone has said here, it was because "It's a matter for the States." Human rights should never be up to the States I would say that the matter of personal identity, whether it be national, social, sexual, cultural, gendered or otherwise should be personal. Who you are should not be subject to the whims of other people's politicking and no one has any right to say who you can or cannot be other than yourself. No democratic government can force me to adopt an identity that I do not consent to. Not ever.
|
|
|
Post by kimalysong on Feb 25, 2017 12:30:52 GMT
Well what I mean by Human Rights should not be up to the States is they should be Universal and therefore protected by the federal government. You shouldn't have the right to use the bathroom of your choice in PA but then be restricted in North Carolina. You should be protected across the country. This is not a States issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 12:37:31 GMT
Well what I mean by Human Rights should not be up to the States is they should be Universal and therefore protected by the federal government. You shouldn't have the right to use the bathroom of your choice in PA but then be restricted in North Carolina. You should be protected across the country. This is not a States issue. Ahh... You mean a state-level issue. Right, sorry. My point still stands and that's an excellent one to make as well. It should be a federal-level decision. Human rights should never be up to the States Having said all that, I don't actually for a second believe what Trumps Liehouse says on this. Sweden's Biscuit is all I have to say. #MakeBiscuitDryAgain That was just silly, citing a country that's noted for its low crime rate.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 25, 2017 12:52:12 GMT
In the UK the NHS require those that seek gender reassignment surgery at the monetary expense of the community to first live as their destination gender for a period of time. Seems logical to me. A trial run to ensure that the procedure is truly what they want and to acclimatise themselves to that new aspect of their lives. And for the community to help ensure that it is not paying for something that ultimately does more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 25, 2017 17:59:11 GMT
You cannot legislate for every possible danger, and you cannot legislate based on fear response whilst not taking into account facts. Now I have no idea how many people have been attacked or abducted from public toilets, but unless the number of attacks etc shows a substantive peak vs other places (the street, the home, school, night clubs, etc etc) then no matter what fears exist legislation is not needed to protect people. BTW, according to Trumps Whitehouse, the reason for the repeal of the protections given to transgender people is not based on anything anyone has said here, it was because "It's a matter for the States." It's my opinion that the government can try to legislate for apparent dangers, why wait until the worst case scenario happens until acting? I have no idea how many people have ever been attacked in a public toilet either. But I do know it has happened. And as long as there is a possibility of it happening, it is the governments job to try to stop it. Being blunt, I would much rather look a teenage transgender boy in the face and tell him I'm sorry for your embarrassment, than I would tell a teenage girl I'm sorry that you were attacked in the bathroom. Is this a bad situation? Yes it is. Should we have federal bi-partisan debate going on over it, yes we should. It's not fair to a transgender person, I recognize that. There is no one, in their right mind, who wants to see anyone else attacked in a public bathroom for being transgendered, or just because there are deranged people out there. Let me tell you, I would feel more secure letting my wife take my grand daughters into some crowded bathroom with a transgender person, than I would with some of the trashy looking women ive seen. But what I wont condone, is letting a full grown sick and twisted heterosexual man, dress up like a woman, and go into the bathroom just to get his jollies, and if that only happens once, then it's just once to many times. We got smart people on here, so lets figure out the middle ground. How do we protect our children, and women from sexual predators while letting real transgender folks use the bathroom they identify with? Do we need to build 2 more sets of public restrooms? One for transgender men, and one for transgender women. Do we need to put up signs on public toilets that identify them as safe zones, and perhaps have cameras on the inside of the bathroom? To me this would help...I don't mean cameras that invade the cubicle of the bathroom, but one that gives a broad shot of the doors to the cubicles. If they wanted to put up cameras in front of the urinals and they could see my back while I take a leak, It wouldn't bother me, I don't want them seeing me at all while I'm on the toilet, and I'm sure women wouldn't either. If we have to pay more taxes to build 2 more sets of bathrooms at rest areas, and government owned places, I could stand using my tax dollars for that. I don't like it, but, I'm willing to do it. It helps me feel more secure about my grand daughters using public restrooms, and I would hope it would help transgender folks feel more welcome wherever they may be having to use a public restroom.... But like ive said in the past, if you feel comfortable using a public toilet, then you aint right!
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 25, 2017 18:22:36 GMT
Well what I mean by Human Rights should not be up to the States is they should be Universal and therefore protected by the federal government. You shouldn't have the right to use the bathroom of your choice in PA but then be restricted in North Carolina. You should be protected across the country. This is not a States issue. Human rights is a federal issue...But do you want to involve the federal government in the handing out of penalties for breaking the law? Or do you want states to do that? There's a lot more involved in this issue than just human rights. I don't mind sending a sexual predator to a federal prison. If no one on here minds that, then I can take that out of my equations, and hopefully out of the conversation.
|
|