aztec
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,849
|
Post by aztec on Feb 26, 2017 15:17:09 GMT
Except even if you force that onto people that feel they have the wrong physical plumbing, there are quite a number of people who have plumbing which could be either, or both, or neither. Personally I am left wondering if some transgender stuff at the moment is because its a soft of fashion, much like alien abduction reports were fashionable a few years back. A lot of abductees are and were reporting things they genuinely believed had happened to them, although I see no evidence that it did. I do believe that there are quite a number of genuine transgender people, but I fear some may have unwittingly found themselves caught up in a trend. Well, I don't know much about transgenderism, but I don't see the point of having the operation if you still don't know which gender you are afterwards... I'm pretty sure people who get as far as having the operation would have a very solid idea of their gender identity having spent years and lots of money on counselling, hormones, therapy etc and getting professional medical advice for months before hand, its not a decision you could make on a whim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 15:22:09 GMT
Well, I don't know much about transgenderism, but I don't see the point of having the operation if you still don't know which gender you are afterwards... I'm pretty sure people who get as far as having the operation would have a very solid idea of their gender identity having spent years and lots of money on counselling, hormones, therapy etc and getting professional medical advice for months before hand, its not a decision you could make on a whim. What I mean is that surely just a he or a she, based on the hormones and by that I mean the original ones (if you keep one) and the new ones (if you get them). The only case I can understand it is when people are literally born with both parts, but this is transgender. If someone gets them swapped, then there the gender that they have the hormones and parts for, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Feb 26, 2017 15:33:43 GMT
What I mean is that surely just a he or a she, based on the hormones and by that I mean the original ones (if you keep one) and the new ones (if you get them). The only case I can understand it is when people are literally born with both parts, but this is transgender. If someone gets them swapped, then there the gender that they have the hormones and parts for, I'd say. I think the headache I just got trying to figure out what you said here must be nature's way of telling me that people should be allowed to just use whatever restroom makes them feel most comfortable. :-)
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 26, 2017 18:40:50 GMT
Are there really people out there that are ...how shall I put it...that shallow? I know some folks who absolutely worship some celebrities, But to emulate a transsexual because it's fashionable seems, well, pretty extreme to me. That's not what I meant. Many "alien abductees" genuinely believed that they had been abducted, just like many people, especially teenagers, who wonder about themselves, their sexuality, why they don't fit, what wrong with them etc etc come to genuinely believe its because they are the wrong sex. My comment about fashion, is that, if you are wondering those things about yourself, the go to answer of the moment is transgenderism. I'm not suggesting that waves of people saw Caitlyn Jenner on TV and magazines and thought "wow, yeah, I want to be like that!"
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 26, 2017 19:39:46 GMT
Several thoughts. Let people go to the restroom with the gender they identify with. Trangender people have more to fear from the people peeing around them than the people have to fear from them. The fear whipped up in conservative circles over this is a tempest in a teapot and frankly absurd. Go get hysterical over something important. And no it really isn't as simple as just going to the bathroom which fits ones equipment. People don't wake up and say oh yeah, I'm transgender. What an easy party of a life this is going to be. They are struggling with their identity just like we all struggle with ours but in a different way. If so called Christians would actually start practicing their faith, instead of getting whipped up into a lather of fear & exclusion, this would not even be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Feb 26, 2017 19:49:46 GMT
Except even if you force that onto people that feel they have the wrong physical plumbing, there are quite a number of people who have plumbing which could be either, or both, or neither. Personally I am left wondering if some transgender stuff at the moment is because its a soft of fashion, much like alien abduction reports were fashionable a few years back. A lot of abductees are and were reporting things they genuinely believed had happened to them, although I see no evidence that it did. I do believe that there are quite a number of genuine transgender people, but I fear some may have unwittingly found themselves caught up in a trend. Well, I don't know much about transgenderism, but I don't see the point of having the operation if you still don't know which gender you are afterwards... Transgenderism isn't about having the procedures, it's about your true identified gender regardless of the biology. There are many trans folk who don't have procedures who, although they may, for example, identify as a woman, might not want to undergo surgery, for a variety of reasons. But they're still women. That's the point. A starting point for people might be checking out Cordelia Fine's "Delusions of Gender".
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 27, 2017 2:58:59 GMT
Are there really people out there that are ...how shall I put it...that shallow? I know some folks who absolutely worship some celebrities, But to emulate a transsexual because it's fashionable seems, well, pretty extreme to me. That's not what I meant. Many "alien abductees" genuinely believed that they had been abducted, just like many people, especially teenagers, who wonder about themselves, their sexuality, why they don't fit, what wrong with them etc etc come to genuinely believe its because they are the wrong sex. My comment about fashion, is that, if you are wondering those things about yourself, the go to answer of the moment is transgenderism. I'm not suggesting that waves of people saw Caitlyn Jenner on TV and magazines and thought "wow, yeah, I want to be like that!" Ok, that makes sense. One thing that does concern me, is the high number of teens and even pre-teens who think they are transgendered. It was a long time ago, but I still remember how screwed up I was at 17. There's a lot of stuff goin on in your life in those teen years. Moods change daily, feelings get hurt, you go from love to hate, and everything in between.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 3:36:23 GMT
That's not what I meant. Many "alien abductees" genuinely believed that they had been abducted, just like many people, especially teenagers, who wonder about themselves, their sexuality, why they don't fit, what wrong with them etc etc come to genuinely believe its because they are the wrong sex. My comment about fashion, is that, if you are wondering those things about yourself, the go to answer of the moment is transgenderism. I'm not suggesting that waves of people saw Caitlyn Jenner on TV and magazines and thought "wow, yeah, I want to be like that!" Ok, that makes sense. One thing that does concern me, is the high number of teens and even pre-teens who think they are transgendered. It was a long time ago, but I still remember how screwed up I was at 17. There's a lot of stuff goin on in your life in those teen years. Moods change daily, feelings get hurt, you go from love to hate, and everything in between. I think that's a side effect of the growing homogeny between... Well, everything really. Traditional masculine and feminine roles are still applied (albeit in a very garbled fashion) through the exercised values of generations previous and the current standards seen in media advertising. It's an idea that's slowly unfurling itself and becoming a great deal more indistinct, which is hard for adolescents trying to find concrete terms to define themselves with. They get hit with so much stuff nowadays from all circles of life that sometimes it's easier for adolescents to simplify certain aspects of their behaviour. It's too stressful and frightening for it to be a combination of things, so they whittle it down to what they think fits and sexuality/gender identity is a huge component of normalising that. Teenagers don't feel comfortable in their own bodies, so the next logical step is... "Maybe I feel comfortable in the other gender?" And sometimes that's exactly what they need, sometimes they aren't the right sex or gender and that was what ate away at them. Other times, it's a reaction to being so uncomfortable in your own skin that you reject that traditional masculine/feminine role that has been built up in your head. They haven't gotten to the stage where they can accept that they have aspects perceived as being typical of the other gender in their own personality. That comes with time and this can be a solution until adulthood kicks in and your brain has sorted itself out. Maybe it was hormones, maybe it was true, it depends on the individual.
|
|
|
Post by TinDogPodcast on Feb 27, 2017 7:55:09 GMT
We are wandering off topic...
Should people be allowed to use bathrooms... yes.
Next question.
You know. As a dad of a daughter... when she was a kid... which public loo did I take her to use?
I can't go into a woman's. ..
I didn't want her in the gents...
Thank god for the accessible / disabled loos.
Gender less
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 8:18:30 GMT
We are wandering off topic... Should people be allowed to use bathrooms... yes. Next question. You know. As a dad of a daughter... when she was a kid... which public loo did I take her to use? I can't go into a woman's. .. I didn't want her in the gents... Thank god for the accessible / disabled loos. Gender less And while the debate rages on, a perfect solution for the meantime.
|
|
|
Post by fingersmash on Feb 27, 2017 8:45:23 GMT
I think we're forgetting the major thing about this debate. This isn't about bathrooms any more than the debate about water fountains in the 60s were about water fountains. A bunch of male WASPs who know nothing about what they're talking about are forgetting one of the key tenants of their religion ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12) because they've decided that they get to decide what is and isn't unnatural. It's almost like they think Christianity is the national religion (it ain't, at least here in the US) and they think a book written over 2000 years ago should be the single deciding factor in how we govern and make laws.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 13:16:36 GMT
I think we're forgetting the major thing about this debate. This isn't about bathrooms any more than the debate about water fountains in the 60s were about water fountains. A bunch of male WASPs who know nothing about what they're talking about are forgetting one of the key tenants of their religion ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12) because they've decided that they get to decide what is and isn't unnatural. It's almost like they think Christianity is the national religion (it ain't, at least here in the US) and they think a book written over 2000 years ago should be the single deciding factor in how we govern and make laws. It's an old problem sadly. If such a text is treated as such now, why not The Myrmidons which portrays Achilles and Patroclus as lovers or the stories of Dionysus who was regarded a patron god of hermaphrodites and transvestites? I think the problem here isn't organised religion, so much as it is people using it as a front for their own biases about people. For instance, the Quran is perceived as problematic like most religious texts, yet it still nevertheless has this passage: Which could very easily be interpreted as their own version of "do unto others" with an almost wry implication that their god may reward them for their charity later on. Likewise, David Whitaker had this to say about the historical Sultan of Egypt and Syria, Saladin, in his 1965 novelisation Doctor Who and the Crusaders: I think the unfortunate truth is that people tend to see only what they want to see when it comes to various interpretations of texts. Religious or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Feb 27, 2017 13:27:43 GMT
I think we're forgetting the major thing about this debate. This isn't about bathrooms any more than the debate about water fountains in the 60s were about water fountains. A bunch of male WASPs who know nothing about what they're talking about are forgetting one of the key tenants of their religion ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12) because they've decided that they get to decide what is and isn't unnatural. It's almost like they think Christianity is the national religion (it ain't, at least here in the US) and they think a book written over 2000 years ago should be the single deciding factor in how we govern and make laws. Technically I don't think The Bible actually states which restroom people should use ;-) but thank you for making the sort of observation that I was trying muster the courage to try to make. Truth be told, I've had a sinking feeling what this debate is really about is that this is maybe the first time since we achieved certain civil rights that certain types in power have really been able to tell certain people they don't like which restroom they can use (albeit in more of a passive-aggressive sort of manner this time), then it's dressed up as some noble cause like protecting women or children, just as the blatant bigotry currently evident in immigration issues is being dressed up as some noble act of protecting us from terrorism, when it's clearly no such thing. I keep wanting to rest the blame on the perpetrators, and I keep wanting to think they're totally taking advantage of mainly decent, caring, well-meaning citizens - but if the same people are going to keep falling for the same thing again and again, shouldn't maybe they share in the blame just a little? Also agreed we have some that might want to brush up on what is meant by separation of church and state, because I'm not sure it actually means running for election on religion-based platforms or abusing government as the vehicle for advancing a particular religious agenda. Religious favoritism in itself probably shouldn't be pleasing to anyone even if it is their religion being catered to. That too is more dressing up, though - these are of course not likely terribly religious people who are coming up with this stuff, and that would be our government and their religion both that are being exploited. Not like I'm some kind of historian, but if you do care about your country at least try to pick up enough of its history via slow osmosis that you have some dim awareness of the categories of some of the tricks being pulled (many have their own names) and what they looked like the last few times they were being pulled (or even who was pulling them). Your religion values truth? Then dig down deep for it and hold your elect's feet to the fire when they lie instead of letting them get away with inventing "alternate" truths, please.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Feb 27, 2017 19:21:26 GMT
"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 think it is unfair play to over-simplify the question in that manner. The question is not whether or not "the government can try to legislate for apparent dangers." It never is. The questions start with "what is the nature and scope of any danger (severity of event, probability of its occurrence, etc), what are the costs/benefits of its existence vs. its non-existence, what expenditure of resources is required to address the danger (will the plan work?), and what side of the bargain does society want to come out on? I'm sure I missed about a thousand more questions. If the decision comes down to whether or not one is scared of the possibility of someone claiming trans status so as to gain access to a bathroom and commit a sex crime, BUT who would never be willing to do this absent the bathroom law, then I consider one to think about this logically rather than emotionally. At least youre makin some sense. But understand, over simplifying questions is what I do. One thing I do very well, is worry. It's just my nature. I have no doubt that there are as many homosexual sexual predators as there are heterosexual sexual predators, and you cant just ban all people from using the bathroom. But, I would like to see a way for law enforcement to arrest and punish those that abuse the use of public bathrooms, in a predatory fashion. So what do we do with sexual predators who do take advantage of the lack of laws on the subject? (Can we "take them rascals out in the swamp, put em on their knees and tie em to a stump, let the rattlers and the bugs and the alligators do the rest"?) or is that too extreme? What do you mean lack of laws? There are laws against everything from being a Peeping Tom to committing rape. In fact, the laws regarding sexual offenses go far beyond other criminal laws. For example, in MA and other states, someone who is convicted of a qualifying sexual offense can be committed civilly after serving their criminal sentence, perhaps for life. The entire point is that people who are already willing to risk the far greater criminal and civil penalties for sexual offenses are not going to be deterred by an extra law about what bathroom they should pee in. If they're going to rape, they're going to rape. If they're going to molest, they're going to molest.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 27, 2017 19:27:42 GMT
We are wandering off topic... Should people be allowed to use bathrooms... yes. Next question. You know. As a dad of a daughter... when she was a kid... which public loo did I take her to use? I can't go into a woman's. .. I didn't want her in the gents... Thank god for the accessible / disabled loos. Gender less That's what I did, until they were old enough to go into the bathroom by themselves, and what I try to do now with my grand daughters, there are a severe lack of them, though. The Ingles we shop for groceries at doesn't have one. Wal-Mart only has 1 in the back of the store. And most small businesses don't have one. Many of the rest areas, in this area, don't have one, because they are older than I am. It is the most sensible solution. There is no person I know of, that enjoys using the bathroom next to a total stranger, I don't enjoy it at home, but it sure beats the out houses I remember as a kid. Still, if the government would spend some money to invest in updated rest areas, it could be a win, win situation. It helps handicapped individuals, and gives everyone else, like me, a private bathroom to use. On a side note, I almost always use the handicapped stall. Because I am so big. In most of them, there is no way, you could get a wheelchair in there, and be able to maneuver it in any way possible. What they have marked as handicapped, is mostly a little bit wider, with handle bars to help you get up and down. The only decent handicapped accessible stall I even know of in my immediate are is at Wal-Mart, it's plenty big, but on the down side, it's at the very back of the store.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 27, 2017 19:34:20 GMT
At least youre makin some sense. But understand, over simplifying questions is what I do. One thing I do very well, is worry. It's just my nature. I have no doubt that there are as many homosexual sexual predators as there are heterosexual sexual predators, and you cant just ban all people from using the bathroom. But, I would like to see a way for law enforcement to arrest and punish those that abuse the use of public bathrooms, in a predatory fashion. So what do we do with sexual predators who do take advantage of the lack of laws on the subject? (Can we "take them rascals out in the swamp, put em on their knees and tie em to a stump, let the rattlers and the bugs and the alligators do the rest"?) or is that too extreme? What do you mean lack of laws? There are laws against everything from being a Peeping Tom to committing rape. In fact, the laws regarding sexual offenses go far beyond other criminal laws. For example, in MA and other states, someone who is convicted of a qualifying sexual offense can be committed civilly after serving their criminal sentence, perhaps for life. The entire point is that people who are already willing to risk the far greater criminal and civil penalties for sexual offenses are not going to be deterred by an extra law about what bathroom they should pee in. If they're going to rape, they're going to rape. If they're going to molest, they're going to molest. I always jump to worst case scenario, so don't get upset about it, ive explained, that's how my mind works. If a man goes into a womans restroom and exposes himself to a girl, and the police arrest him, and he lies his arse off and says he's a transgendered man, do you think our current laws can deal with that kind of thing? I'm asking because I don't know. I don't want to see the man walk away scott free, I want him held and helpfully helped, but I sure don't want him walkin around exposing himself to others. As I said, I don't know, I know a little about the laws, but I'm no expert.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 27, 2017 20:00:52 GMT
I think we're forgetting the major thing about this debate. This isn't about bathrooms any more than the debate about water fountains in the 60s were about water fountains. A bunch of male WASPs who know nothing about what they're talking about are forgetting one of the key tenants of their religion ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12) because they've decided that they get to decide what is and isn't unnatural. It's almost like they think Christianity is the national religion (it ain't, at least here in the US) and they think a book written over 2000 years ago should be the single deciding factor in how we govern and make laws. Yeah, this one's gonna get me in trouble... The major thing in this debate to me, is I don't worry about a little girl cozying up beside me at a urinal. If that ever happens, there is going to be a parent or guardian with an ass whippin. I don't worry about a transsexual takin a leak next to my grand daughters either. I do worry about the lowest scum of the earth tryin to take pictures or videos of her in the bathroom. This debate to me, is to find a way to let transgender folks use the bathroom they want, while at the same time, easing my mind bout havin to deal with an occasional piece of garbage. Some folks have helped me to understand that criminals are criminals and there aint any stopping them, but, ill always argue against that, and I will never accept it, as the end of the argument. It shouldn't prevent a transsexual from using whatever bathroom they want. Yall have got me to that point. But I'm not sure there is anything you can tell me that will put my mind to ease, about sexual predators using whatever loopholes they can find, in order to fulfill their twisted desires. Am I the only person on these boards who would support a law that says if you are convicted of child molestation 3 separate times, that you should be castrated? 1 time, somebody could lie, 2nd time, you need to get some help, 3rd time, get the dull razor.
Ive learned a lot in this thread, and I have managed to keep my faith out of it. It's not the Bible's job to conform to my views, its my job to change my life views, to conform to the Bible. (I would enjoy a thread about Christianity, if folks could keep from telling me how I am supposed to view things, I do know what the Bible says, and how to interpret it. I in no ways stand up for most so-called Christians, because, like the majority of folks, they haven't even read the whole Bible, and many who have, don't have a clue what it says, they only pick out a verse or 2 and live by them. I am trying hard to reconcile my views and conform them to what the Bible says, and that is not an automatic or easy thing to do. It's much easier just to stand status quo.)
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Feb 27, 2017 21:32:11 GMT
I think we're forgetting the major thing about this debate. This isn't about bathrooms any more than the debate about water fountains in the 60s were about water fountains. A bunch of male WASPs who know nothing about what they're talking about are forgetting one of the key tenants of their religion ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12) because they've decided that they get to decide what is and isn't unnatural. It's almost like they think Christianity is the national religion (it ain't, at least here in the US) and they think a book written over 2000 years ago should be the single deciding factor in how we govern and make laws. Yeah, this one's gonna get me in trouble... The major thing in this debate to me, is I don't worry about a little girl cozying up beside me at a urinal. If that ever happens, there is going to be a parent or guardian with an ass whippin. I don't worry about a transsexual takin a leak next to my grand daughters either. I do worry about the lowest scum of the earth tryin to take pictures or videos of her in the bathroom. This debate to me, is to find a way to let transgender folks use the bathroom they want, while at the same time, easing my mind bout havin to deal with an occasional piece of garbage. Some folks have helped me to understand that criminals are criminals and there aint any stopping them, but, ill always argue against that, and I will never accept it, as the end of the argument. It shouldn't prevent a transsexual from using whatever bathroom they want. Yall have got me to that point. But I'm not sure there is anything you can tell me that will put my mind to ease, about sexual predators using whatever loopholes they can find, in order to fulfill their twisted desires. Am I the only person on these boards who would support a law that says if you are convicted of child molestation 3 separate times, that you should be castrated? 1 time, somebody could lie, 2nd time, you need to get some help, 3rd time, get the dull razor.
Ive learned a lot in this thread, and I have managed to keep my faith out of it. It's not the Bible's job to conform to my views, its my job to change my life views, to conform to the Bible. (I would enjoy a thread about Christianity, if folks could keep from telling me how I am supposed to view things, I do know what the Bible says, and how to interpret it. I in no ways stand up for most so-called Christians, because, like the majority of folks, they haven't even read the whole Bible, and many who have, don't have a clue what it says, they only pick out a verse or 2 and live by them. I am trying hard to reconcile my views and conform them to what the Bible says, and that is not an automatic or easy thing to do. It's much easier just to stand status quo.) I'll not back castration but third time? Prison, and no short term either, no time off for good behaviour. And while I don't condone it I'm fully aware of how "regular criminals" view sexual predators and I still say prison for them. As for a thread on Christianity? I might lurk and read but I imagine someone of my views would maybe upset people, so...we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Feb 27, 2017 21:35:08 GMT
Of course as has been mentioned we all want sexual predators caught and punished but the elision of transgender with sexual predator is, quite frankly, an evil in itself and should be fought. It's the old bait and switch, how are you not against this?!! We are, honestly. Then you must stop et cetera, despite those not being the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 27, 2017 22:16:47 GMT
|
|