Olufemi

High pressure tanks are arguably safer than the thin plastic containers of explosives that we carry around every day...gasoline, gas tank?

His entire proof consists of the statement, "Anyone who still has a penis is only indulging in a fantasy." He is ignoring the scientific evidence posted earlier in this thread that this is more than a wish. All of his examples and statements are about "men who put on a dress and makeup" meaning part time crossdressers, who my argument is not about. He ignores that this is not the trust of the counter-argument, and instead takes offense without refuting any argument. To John McVey- I agree that transsexuals are a small portion next to crossdressers. The difference is simple, however. Crossdressers are engaging in a fantasy for their own excitement. Transsexuals are attempting to fix a genetic flaw from birth. One is doing this for fun, the other is being forced into it (50% success rate of suicide shows this is a powerful force). One is taking hormones to have a female body, the other will always be a man after the clothes come off. Morally and legally, these should be two very different situations, and I don't believe that any transsexual should enter a woman's bathroom without passing as a woman. That's common sense. Inspector's argument actually is valid for crossdressers, as they're engaging in fantasy and we have no reason to go along with it. They haven't earned that right. To intellectualammo- I apologize about the clarity of my statement. I did not mean that no one could or is agreeing with Inspector's positition, but that was rather a response to this line that I quoted "you people can stick your heads in the sand." I took the implication of that line that "you people" meant the posters on this board and that "stick your heads in the sand" meant did not agree with. As you've proven, he's not alone. I was attempting to point out that he's not being persecuted, I should have been more clear.

We destroy the universe everytime we look at it. Really, that's it.

It's crazy. Brainwaves come out of your head and draw the universe to you. Paranoid schizophrenia, anyone?

I'm debating morality. You're the one that is suggesting that a penis in a women's bathroom is equitable to rape/molestation/voyurism/ect. That involves laws. I have no problem with keeping men out of women's restrooms. Again, you're missing the point. As a matter of fact, you're not even paying attention. I'm talking about people who to look at them, are women. They may legally be women. They are not men. I've proved this earlier, if you have an issue with it, refer to my above post. Of course, everyone is against you. There are differences between men and women (a point I proved earlier, if you would actually take the time to read before posting). In your world, men cannot be trusted near women. Seperation. Seperation at work? Seperation at school? If men cannot be trusted when there is a locked door between them and a female, should we quarenteen the sexes from each other completely? Following your logic to it's absurd end. So if a person has a desire to bring a penis into a women's bathroom, they're a pervert? I went over this earlier. Try reading. Transsexuals have no desire to bring a penis anywhere. They have no desire to have a penis in the first place. Their costs to appear female can strech into 150,000$. That includes the removal of their "rape tool." You're talking about crossdressers. Men who play act as women. Transsexuals are women, and are working on making their body match that. Breasts, hips, the whole bunch. Sometimes, with a vesigial penis. If they wanted to rape someone, it probably wouldn't even work. What you're doing is context dropping. You're arguing a completely different point than anyone else is speaking of. Not to mention that you're basing morality on statistics rather than what is right. Because long before that year, many cannot pass as male. They cannot enter the men's bathroom anymore. They no longer have male names. They're a women to anyone who doesn't have x-ray vision. Really, your nonsense that you keep saying here doesn't make any difference. If a person can no longer pass as male, they'll use the female rest room. The only way you'd stop them is by performing genitalia checks on every person entering a bathroom (as I stated before). If you want to continue this argument, please cite specific examples and sentances when you have a point to make, or dismiss what I'm saying as emotion. See how I quoted you and showed the flaw in each quote?

One of the best arguments is the crux of the book, "The Fountainhead." I can't do justice in a quick summation, but please read that book for the idea of a creative spirit bound to committee.

Inspector: Color me as done as RationalCop, because I have no idea what you're trying to argue at this point. A person with no pants, fondling himself, trenchcoat wearing, let's even assume it's summer. That person would be arrested for lewd behavior for touching himself in public, no matter if he was walking to the men's bathroom, the women's bathroom, or the mall. So since the person clearly should be arrested, regardless of where he is currently at, how does this fit into the argument? It doesn't. However, this is a good tool for figuring out what kind of image is in your mind. This was a discussion about people who were legally trying to change their sex trying to use the bathroom of the sex that they already look like, that they already pass as, that they already are called by name. If Mr. RationalCop saw one of them going to the bathroom, his only thought would be "A woman is going into the women's bathroom." However, you only imagine a shady character in a trenchcoat, who looks nothing like a female. The topic of discussion "should men and women's bathrooms be together" is another perfectly valid point, but since your hypothetical bathrooms are still seperate, you don't seem to be arguing this either. Of course, your image appears to be the same. Every man who would share a bathroom is a potential rapist and must be controlled. Must be controlled. There must be a law against it. Us men just cannot keep our penises out of women if we were to evacuate our bodies next to them, apparently. You obviously see mankind as a parade of sexual predators just waiting for a chance. However, your prevention via law technique is effective! I don't know if you were part of passing gun control laws, but when I lived in Wisconin, I certainly couldn't be trusted to wear a gun into public. How was I to be trusted that I just wouldn't start shooting people? On my "say so"? Isn't that exactly what you said about rape? Anyone who is so equipped gun/penis is untrustworthy and THERE SHOULD BE A LAW AGAINST IT. Oh please, think of the children/females!

Correcting is what I'm doing now. Any actual transexual is a hermaphrodite. What does this mean? It doesn't mean that they have two sets of genitalia, but that they're partially male, and partially female. Their brain developed into one sex, and their body into another. Their body may have all sorts of faults, or it may not. You cannot see their brain, but the study that I've posted proves that there is a physical difference in that transsexuals have the brain of the gender that they are physically not. These are the unfortunate people who were born as hermaphrodites, but you can't see their brain, so to you they have no excuse for the disorder they have. If you're claiming that the makeup of the brain is non-consiquential, please stop using it to argue with me. If you did in fact read everything, explain this: This statement is only possible if you've ignored the actuality of the physical, biological, and physiological differences of transsexual brain structures, as I posted: "Disregarding the actuality of physical, physiological and biological orientation/disposition in favor of some fanciful indulgence is what constitutes "ignoring reality". If you look down and see a twig and berries (euphemistically speaking), then you're a boy" This quote ignores the fact that the physical differences in body and brain cause the mental anguish, not mental insability. Sucessful suicide rate for transsexuals who try to ignore or "fix" their problems is above 50%. The sucess (happiness) rate of SRS surgery is above 80%: "You'll find that this method of approach to your life will save you needless harassment, familial alienation, psychological disassociation (along with a miasma of other psychological neurosis), societal confusion, emotional duress, and the endless expenditure involved in years of psychiatric counseling, among other issues." You claimed that Nature magazine (the source of this related quote) is: "specifically oriented to, authored/sponsored by, and intent on the championing of, homosexuals" And that my link of a medical study proving that homosexuals do NOT differ from straight males in brain structure was: "endeavoring to establish the validity of one's claims of homosexual legitimacys" At this point, you claim that what I've been speaking of this whole time has to do with sexual orentation. I've only spoken of gender, nothing to do with what that gender preferers: "my phrase "fanciful indulgence" is directed towards those individuals, though clearly born male, prefer a feminine orientation over that of their natural sexual orientation, ergo, "fanciful indulgence" You ignore that the basis of the medical study is that transsexuals have male bodies attached to female brains, and you're basing your argument off of non-existant people like Mr. Garrison? The character who felt unloved because his father DID NOT rape him? The character who brings Mr. Slave into a 3rd grade class and inserts animals into him? This is downright pathetic. That character is a parody of homosexuality and transgendered people (very funny at times, though). He is not a clinical case to base your argument off of. "man to desire to be/treated as a woman, though he is clearly a man (as in the case of the fictional character Mr. Garrison of the animated sitcom South Park, season 9, episode 901, entitled "Mr. Garrison's shiny new vagina"), is preposterous." You're equating transsexuallism to a mental disorder. I've stated proof that it is not a mental disorder, but a physical one. As such, physical disorders can be treated physically. You do not teach a Downs Syndrome person to not have Downs Syndrome, it is who they are. Do not equate my stance on this subject to homosexuality. Homosexuality has no proven physical cause. I am in a hetrosexual relationship. Do not paint me as the "gay guy wanting to force his opinions on others." You'd be wrong. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/...s/378068a0.html Here's a direct reference to proof of my statements per Nature magazine. References are in there, the thesis and results are included. The entire article is not for viewing unless you pay (as a direct link). If you want to show that transsexualism is a mental disorder, or a flight of fancy, feel free to post simular proof.

Out of context? You've taken what is a birth defect with chromosone based issues and are likening it to a whim of a person. You can just as well say that Downs Syndrome is a fanciful indulgence. The only way you can get away with a logical inconsitancy such as equating a medically proven set of chromosonal, hormonal and physical circumstances to a whim is by destroying context. Did you miss the other part of that quote you gave of me? Let me re-post for you: "About the citations, if you don't like the sources provided, I can find many more with a simple google search. The first link was an overview, an opinion piece. The other two were to back it up. That means that only the middle is the issue, and I only linked that one because it's a reprint of a different source. Please read on top "Reprinted with permission by the authors from NATURE, 378: 68-70 (1995)." Nature magazine is not, as of last time I checked, a homosexual magazine, or one made to legitimize homosexuality. Also, the purpose of the posting was in no way shape or form to be about homosexuality. Did you even take the time to bother to read the title of the article? They disected brains of women, men, homosexuals, and transgender people. The results? Homosexual men have the same brain structure as straight men. Women are different than men, and transsexuals are as women (in brain structure) but taken to a slightly greater extreme (away from a male brain structure)." You didn't bother to read the title of that citation. You didn't bother to read the source. You shot back a response trying to shoot me down for two sentances at the begining of the document that you didn't even bother to read. Now you're asking me for more sources. Read the one I posted first. Comprehend it. A snide commnent like "I'm waiting" for me to provide more proof to you after you completely ignore the proof I have given you is very disrespectful.

I should have been more clear. I'm trying say what is right to do, I'm not arguing at all about how the government should interact in all of this, but what moral guidelines there are for this issue. No need to apologize. I don't know everything either. If a person cannot pass as female, I believe they should do more work on their body before trying to get into a female bathroom. No one wants a "man in a dress" there. I can understand that, and see where you're coming from. I would like to let you know that in many cases, people are pushed to use the bathrooms of the sex they're beginning to look like, by their employers to reduce company issues. That's up to the private owners of course, but it is found to be the less troublesome way. (If it looks like a girl, sounds like a girl, has the visible parts of a girl...) Beside that, if one has to pass as their future gender (can't hide breasts, looks too of that gender) they will use the bathroom of that gender. Why? The threat of violence is simply too great to do otherwise. It's not always up to that person either. Sometimes, these people get caught in legal and governmental issues that prevent them from finishing what they've started for over 20 years (people in countries with nationalized health care, mainly). Twenty years. In that time they could adopt, raise a child, have a career, and have no one ever know that they started out as looking like another gender. One thing that I'd like to ask, the line of thought "penis = rape" in the bathroom just reminds me of feminism. "How having a penis makes you a rapist." Out of all the groups to target for that kind of thought, why specificly the ones that never wanted that appendige, have no desire to use it and in many cases are spending 60,000-100,0000$ of their own money to make it go away?

Fanciful indulgence? That's like saying that down's syndrome is a "fanciful indulgence." It's very unfortunate that BEFORE BIRTH these people didn't take the time to make sure their parents didn't use drugs. I know, that was very irresponsible of them. About the citations, if you don't like the sources provided, I can find many more with a simple google search. The first link was an overview, an opinion piece. The other two were to back it up. That means that only the middle is the issue, and I only linked that one because it's a reprint of a different source. Please read on top "Reprinted with permission by the authors from NATURE, 378: 68-70 (1995)." Nature magazine is not, as of last time I checked, a homosexual magazine, or one made to legitimize homosexuality. Also, the purpose of the posting was in no way shape or form to be about homosexuality. Did you even take the time to bother to read the title of the article? They disected brains of women, men, homosexuals, and transgender people. The results? Homosexual men have the same brain structure as straight men. Women are different than men, and transsexuals are as women (in brain structure) but taken to a slightly greater extreme (away from a male brain structure). In these movements, there are always people who want everyone to ignore reality for them. The first part, about constructs, is non-sense. However, therapy to cure transsexualism has been 100% ineffective, usually leading to drug use or suicide. If being fixed was an option, it would be much easier. How is it uncivil to bring a penis into a women's restroom, if no one sees it, there is no indication thereof? If a woman brings a dildo into a restroom, is that uncivil? With no intention of using it? Should that be unlawful as well? Is it uncivil to let women into schools with men? What if they get raped there? Work? Being locked in a separate stall is a greater degree of separation than sitting next to a person. If you think the only bad part about rape is the actual insertion, you're missing the point (and damaging effects) of rape. It's all about being made to feel powerless, and to make the attacker feel powerful. There are plenty of things that women can (and do) do to each other that can easily constitute sex (including insertion). If a person is legally female, but has the "twig and berries," which side of your law should the person be on? This is reality for a year before a person can get an operation. Oh, gay people have sex in bathrooms to be sure. As do men and women. I believe he was trying to say that not every (or the vast majority) gay person comes into a bathroom to use it for sex.

Do some research before speaking. It's not just a "game of pretend." Men and women are much more different than genitalia (brain and body): http://www.narth.com/docs/york.html Transsexuals have female constructed brains: http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm 1/2000 people are born without a clearly defined sex or both primary sexual characteristics: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm Ignore medical research, and you're ignoring reality.

I never intended the goverment in any of this. At what point did I advocate legislation? Government run toilets are a non-issue (to me), those shouldn't exist. Privately owned toilets, of course the owner can do whatever they want. No argument there. Again, at no point did I try to advocate government sanctions. The standards of care that I was talking about are a current procedure, not one that I feel should be enacted. My point is that a person who is living entirely as a gender, who legally IS that gender already (pre-op for 1 year prior to surgery, check any form of ID and it will show what they look like), who to friends, co-workers, bosses, people on the street, everyone they know might be in the dark they were born any different, then they're supposed to walk into what anyone looking on would consider the "wrong" bathroom? I mean that it is not going to happen, because you, I anyone will (usually, ignoring dares/bets/unusal circumstances) walk into the bathroom where we won't get kicked out or have the police called on us. (This event happened last time I was at a city fair, two women came into the men's bathroom, and upon leaving were picked up by security. Not sure what happened to them.)

This also needs a correction. The standards of care for transexuals states that the person must live as a person of his/her prefered (not yet physically having the genitalia) gender for an entire year before they can be operated upon. If pre-op transexuals were not allowed in the restrooms of the sex they are living full time as, that would be much worse. You work with a female/male, you call them by that gender name, you may have no idea their past, but you're supposed to make that person go into a bathroom where they will be considered the wrong sex? Not going to happen. Just because someone brings genitalia into a room, doesn't mean they're a rapist or are there to destroy your children's minds.

I believe we would have already had these technologies if not for the governments that we endure. These plans of actions and timelines may be viable in a world that has no restriction to output and creation. The aircar, certainly. Fusion? Much more possible if fission wasn't so controlled and reviled. Ect.