Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dadmonson

Public Bathroom Laws and Policies

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I disagree. What's uncivil is to allow people with penises into the womens' restroom - on nothing more than their say-so that they aren't interested in using them for ill.

That's true of every single *woman* who uses the rest room too. A woman could always mug, attack, rape, or kill another woman in a rest room. With even greater plausibility than a transsexual, such a woman could claim that she was just going to the bathroom.

As for getting beaten up if they go to the mens' room - that's really a separate problem.

If it's part of the motivation for using the women's room when dressed as a woman, then it's definitely not a separate problem.

As for the "demand" that they risk life and limb - nobody's demanding that they dress as a gender that they physically are not and then attempt to use the public restrooms of said gender. Nobody is forcing them to put themselves in that situation.

The same could be said of assaults on atheists who refuse to attend church or parents who refuse to send their kids to public schools. No one is forcing those people into those choices either.

(Edited to fix line breaks)

Edited by dianahsieh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's true of every single *woman* who uses the rest room too.

No, that's not true of every single woman who uses the rest room, unless women suddenly acquired penises while I wasn't looking.

A woman could always mug, attack, rape, or kill another woman in a rest room. With even greater plausibility than a transsexual, such a woman could claim that she was just going to the bathroom.

Are you suggesting that a woman, who lacks a penis mind you, can rape -properly speaking rape - another woman?

To be sure, there are plenty of unpleasant things that people can do to each other in any circumstance anywhere. Nobody is claiming that restrooms can be made perfectly safe. But womens' restrooms aren't labeled "non-muggers." Or "non-attackers." They're labeled women. The expectation is that there will only be actual women in there.

The entire point of a womens' restroom is that nobody with a penis is allowed inside. What transsexuals are demanding is that everyone else must ignore the physical fact that they do have penises and allow them in anyway - because their feelings and wishes trump the physical facts.

If it's part of the motivation for using the women's room when dressed as a woman, then it's definitely not a separate problem.

No - one breach does not excuse another. If there are specific criminals who threaten or attack a transvestite, then what that does mean is that those criminals ought to be prosecuted. It does not mean that transvestites get to force innocent people to pretend that the physical facts are other than what they are.

The same could be said of assaults on atheists who refuse to attend church or parents who refuse to send their kids to public schools. No one is forcing those people into those choices either.

No, the same could not be said. Forcing someone to go to a place is not the same thing as forbidding someone from going to a place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "sex-separate bathrooms" is an optional social construct, which may or may not exist in different kinds of ideal societies. Rational reasons I see for separating the sexes:

For women:

  • Make-up advice
  • Possibly more convenient access to femenine products like tampons when one has accidentally ran out

For men:

  • none

It is nonsense to suggest that mixing male and female adults in public restrooms will elevate raping, heckling, child molesting, or anything else that may or may not occur in restrooms as they presently exist. There is nothing inherent in a penis or vagina that suddenly changes the nature of using a restroom, minus the design of the toilets and how one necessarily uses one's physiology. A penis and vagina only become relevant to each other in a sexual context, which is not the (intended/usual) purpose of a restroom. Genitals are not equal to sexually active genitals.

In fact, concrete examples of this happening every day are the gays: gays use restrooms with other men (or gays) just fine without engaging in any sexual activity, innuendo, or even any thoughts at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is nonsense to suggest that mixing male and female adults in public restrooms will elevate raping, heckling, child molesting, or anything else that may or may not occur in restrooms as they presently exist. There is nothing inherent in a penis or vagina that suddenly changes the nature of using a restroom, minus the design of the toilets and how one necessarily uses one's physiology.

LISTEN. You've just called my position "nonsense" so I think it's way overgenerous for me to even respond to you.

In fact I won't. Not until you apologize. I don't have to put up with abuse for daring to offer some truth around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, concrete examples of this happening every day are the gays: gays use restrooms with other men (or gays) just fine without engaging in any sexual activity, innuendo, or even any thoughts at all.

Ohio must not have some of the public beach and park restrooms like our city. They are frequently used by gay men trying to find other gay men. Some airport restrooms seem to attract this activity too. Somehow they don't pay full attention to the purpose of a restroom.

As to how you have determined other gay men don't have sexual thoughts about other men in restrooms, I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...whether you like it or not, so conduct yourself accordingly. 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.

Alternatively, if you look down and don't see the ol' twig and berries, then you're a girl.

Conversely, should you look down and find both forms of genitalia...well...then take a trip to your local medical establishment so that they may examine you to determine which is your dominant sexual orientation, based on physical and physiological disposition, and allow them to construct you accordingly (a matter which your parents should have resolved long before you reached puberty).

Oh, and it would have been really helpful if you/your parents had avoided drug usage, the most likely cause of chromosomal cross pollination/contamination/intermingling...outside of arbitrary environmental influences, e.g., radiation exposure.

BTW, excluding the last citation in your post, it's always a good policy when endeavoring to establish the validity of one's claims of homosexual legitimacy to avoid the usage of sites specifically oriented to, authored/sponsored by, and intent on the championing of, homosexuals...i.e., of course they're going to say it's o'kay/appropriate/true, it would be antithetical to their cause for them to do otherwise.

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).

The problem I have with the transgender movement - which partly crosses with the feminist movement - is that it operates on contradictory premises. Activists cry that "gender is a social construct." But if that's true, then why the need to change yourself... to fit a construct?

Take a man who has always "felt feminine." Rather than question the "construct" of femininity, which transgender activists claim to do, they would encourage the man to change himself to fit said "construct."

Wouldn't it be more "radical" to keep your body the way it is and live /act as you are, rather than change it to fit the constructs you so despise? :)

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.

I disagree. What's uncivil is to allow people with penises into the womens' restroom - on nothing more than their say-so that they aren't interested in using them for ill.

As for getting beaten up if they go to the mens' room - that's really a separate problem.

As for the "demand" that they risk life and limb - nobody's demanding that they dress as a gender that they physically are not and then attempt to use the public restrooms of said gender. Nobody is forcing them to put themselves in that situation.

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.

No, that's not true of every single woman who uses the rest room, unless women suddenly acquired penises while I wasn't looking.

Are you suggesting that a woman, who lacks a penis mind you, can rape -properly speaking rape - another woman?

To be sure, there are plenty of unpleasant things that people can do to each other in any circumstance anywhere. Nobody is claiming that restrooms can be made perfectly safe. But womens' restrooms aren't labeled "non-muggers." Or "non-attackers." They're labeled women. The expectation is that there will only be actual women in there.

The entire point of a womens' restroom is that nobody with a penis is allowed inside. What transsexuals are demanding is that everyone else must ignore the physical fact that they do have penises and allow them in anyway - because their feelings and wishes trump the physical facts.

No - one breach does not excuse another. If there are specific criminals who threaten or attack a transvestite, then what that does mean is that those criminals ought to be prosecuted. It does not mean that transvestites get to force innocent people to pretend that the physical facts are other than what they are.

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.

Ohio must not have some of the public beach and park restrooms like our city. They are frequently used by gay men trying to find other gay men. Some airport restrooms seem to attract this activity too. Somehow they don't pay full attention to the purpose of a restroom.

As to how you have determined other gay men don't have sexual thoughts about other men in restrooms, I'm not sure.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ohio must not have some of the public beach and park restrooms like our city. They are frequently used by gay men trying to find other gay men. Some airport restrooms seem to attract this activity too. Somehow they don't pay full attention to the purpose of a restroom.

As to how you have determined other gay men don't have sexual thoughts about other men in restrooms, I'm not sure.

Those kinds of gay men and those kinds of restrooms are exceptions to the rule, which is why I noted "usual," but I'll concede that the exception doesn't seem to correlate to female gays. Most gays use the same restrooms as everyone else and nothing happens besides normal bathroom behavior.

As to the sexual thoughts, I was a little unclear. By "even" I meant "often," which is based on my own experience and also on some statistical guesses. Consider a heterosexual male/female interaction in a single bathroom (or anywhere else): one individual is unlikely to be attracted to a majority or very large amount of his "sexually available" populace, and thus no sexual thoughts will arise. The same goes for gays.

LISTEN. You've just called my position "nonsense" so I think it's way overgenerous for me to even respond to you.

In fact I won't. Not until you apologize. I don't have to put up with abuse for daring to offer some truth around here.

Is it abuse to disagree with an opinion/position? I don't think so, especially when there is evidence against that (your) position. If you think the opposite of what I wrote, I think you're talking nonsense, unless you'd like to provide a good argument that will convince me otherwise. An apology would only be appropriate if I both insulted you and "insulted" your position, if I willfully misrepresented what I thought about it myself, or if I consciously evaded something concerning the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

[NOTE: For those that don't wish to read about gay bathroom experiences, don't click the links below. They are merely provided as anecdotal examples of my post above.]

What you say he was trying to say and what he said are two different things though. Just in case he really thinks that, I wanted to demonstrate that it is quite commonplace for some bathrooms to be used for the purposes he appears to be denying.

I disagree that there is anything irrational about each of the sexes desiring to have some privacy from the other sex while engaging in a private matter like going to the bathroom. Additionally, it is entirely rational that some women would not want to be around men while they were attending to their menstrual issues.

While I have empathy (to some degree) with those who have gender identity issues, that does not mean I don't also have empathy for all the other individuals who know what sex they are and desire privacy when engaged in private bodily functions.

My basic opinion is, go to the specific restroom for the organ that you have. However, I do agree that the government shouldn't run restrooms nor should they force businesses to have them. Likewise, gay advocates should not be able to use force of law to dictate how a private property owner can use their restrooms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're labeled women. The expectation is that there will only be actual women in there.

The entire point of a womens' restroom is that nobody with a penis is allowed inside.

I'm with Inspector on this. Restrooms have labels, they are usually gender specific, but there are unisex ones, but regardless, the owner of the restroom has those signs up, and they are to be respected, because it is their property, rules, and so forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those kinds of gay men and those kinds of restrooms are exceptions to the rule,

Okay, but I'd rather not have to sort through which men are "those kinds of gay men" when I go into a restroom. How do you spot those men? Okay, I'm being a little facetious I know, however, you recognize my point that it does in fact happen. I won't bother arguing as to what degree must exist for that to be the "exception" as opposed to being commonplace. I'm assuming our experiences differ.

Is it abuse to disagree with an opinion/position?

The point is, that kind of wording will quickly detract from having a conversation to resolve the facts. If you want people to listen to what you have to say, which is I assume at least part of why you post on this forum, you might consider a less abrasive way to state your argument. I wouldn't be surprised if I've alienated some folks from reading my posts for the very same reason, regardless of whether or not my position was the rational position. And this is a thread about sex. It happens every time, and I say it just about every time, things getting heated in sex threads. It seems to be unavoidable.

Likewise, I don't think that Inspector has the monopoly on truth in this thread either, despite how daring he may be. He has an opinion that he has derived from his best estimations of what it might be like to have shared-sex bathrooms, but I haven't yet seen him present evidence that, in fact, rapes would go up, etc. etc. I don't know that I necessarily disagree, but I'd have to consider it more to see if in fact they did go up, that it would change the right or wrong of shared-sex bathrooms. Perhaps he can provide evidence from his observations of shared-sex bathrooms from this or other cultures, though I'm not aware of any in this culture (the US).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've realised I was being grossly unfair in my original post to quite a number of homosexuals. Really, I should know better than to be making character judgements about entire groups based on the wrongful actions of a proportion of the members of that group. There are plenty, both Objectivist and not, who don't subscribe to the wrongful impose-social-change-by-force agenda. I unreservedly apologise to those I insulted by saying otherwise.

The problem I have with the transgender movement - which partly crosses with the feminist movement - is that it operates on contradictory premises. Activists cry that "gender is a social construct." But if that's true, then why the need to change yourself... to fit a construct?

Not all transgendered people (or homosexuals or any other people you're waving a tarry brush at for that matter) hold to the construct idea.

Also, I *think* the point of the idea was about the sexual elements of personality (along with the rest of personality) being entirely imposed from the outside through upbringing etc. It is the idea of that personality not evolving from the inside arising from physiology, but of social imposition of personality in response to physiology. It is not a denial of the existence of that physiology, just of its importance as a determining factor in what general kind of personality someone ought have. Simone de Beauvoir said, for instance, "one isn't born a woman, one becomes one" (ie through being brought up by others to be one). That's just what I can remember from some class I had ten years ago, and I could be being too generous in interpretation there as well as outrightly mistaken.

Wouldn't it be more "radical" to keep your body the way it is and live /act as you are, rather than change it to fit the constructs you so despise? :)

"As you are?" The determination of what-someone-is is the entire point about transgender, how they deal with themselves and how the rest of us should act accordingly.

The body includes the brain - see Onivlas's links. It's not all just psychology and activism gone loopy over constructs but goes right into the actual layout of the brain, how it operates, and what it expects the rest of the body it is part of to be. For true transgenders it isn't about being radical but trying to get the outside as close as possible to what is consistent with the inside. Irrespective of whatever the person's genome might say should have happened during construction, if the brain structure is in conflict with the body structure, which of the two is less difficult to change to fit the other?

JJM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider a heterosexual male/female interaction in a single bathroom (or anywhere else): one individual is unlikely to be attracted to a majority or very large amount of his "sexually available" populace, and thus no sexual thoughts will arise. The same goes for gays.

I think this can vary widely depending on location. For instance, the amount of "sexually available" people one might be attracted to could be different in a bar versus a high class restaurant.

Additionally, as a point of argument as it pertains to whether rapes would increase (or not), sexual attraction isn't the issue. Rapes are about anger, not sexual attraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never intended the goverment in any of this. At what point did I advocate legislation?

In the context of what started this thread, I took what your dissent about my saying pre-ops should use the toilets for their pre-existing external gender as suggesting support for that kind of bad law.

Government run toilets are a non-issue (to me), those shouldn't exist.

If you don't use them at all, fair enough for you, but others not only do but must do. They go beyond just the simple public toilets and include those in institutions over which the government has direct control, such as government-run universities. So long as government owned public-access toilets exist they have to be dealt with until they can be privatised. There are also those that will never be privatised, in the halls of government offices and agencies themselves. Thus the issue will never go away, and will stay larger than it should be for some time.

Again, at no point did I try to advocate government sanctions.

And again, that is the way I took being corrected.

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 do apologise for displaying my ignorance here. To the extent that passing is easily successful, that they've done the right thing and gone about the proper way of seeing that the law already recognises a change in gender for that particular person backed by sound medical opinion, then I have no problem with that and what I originally said is indeed in need of correction. What constitutes the content of the proper way I leave to others, while I only note that, 1), it actually has to be the proper way as unbiased medical evidence indicates, and that, 2), pursuing it is conclusive to me of sincere intent and I recognise their right to enter the bathroom they can pass as being expected to enter irrespective of what is under the clothing.

If someone can pass easily but hasn't gotten the legal recognition, then I do have a problem. The person may well get in and out without running into trouble, I may personally sympathise with their situation but I am not comfortable with either ignoring the rule of law or what it suggests about their propriety of purpose when entering women's toilets if they're not going to follow the proper procedure. Again, I am even less comfortable with relaxing laws for social-agenda purposes even if the users of the amended law can pass.

If someone can't pass easily, whether because it just doesn't work (I don't agree that difficulty passing can be pinned down to mere incompetence) or because the others there know her, then things get difficult, with or without legal recognition. It is just as likely (and some instances more likely and with less compunction) that other women in there will cause a ruckus and encourage or otherwise occasion others to attack the transgender as it is that those others will attack her of their own accord if she enters a men's toilet and they see what she is. Again here I can only fall back on the principle of accepting the rule of law. With legal recognition, enter which is safer (or rather, less unsafe) at the time. Without, then toilet of birth-gender.

JJM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you don't use them at all, fair enough for you, but others not only do but must do. They go beyond just the simple public toilets and include those in institutions over which the government has direct control, such as government-run universities. So long as government owned public-access toilets exist they have to be dealt with until they can be privatised. There are also those that will never be privatised, in the halls of government offices and agencies themselves. Thus the issue will never go away, and will stay larger than it should be for some time.

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.

I do apologise for displaying my ignorance here. To the extent that passing is easily successful, that they've done the right thing and gone about the proper way of seeing that the law already recognises a change in gender for that particular person backed by sound medical opinion, then I have no problem with that and what I originally said is indeed in need of correction. What constitutes the content of the proper way I leave to others, while I only note that, 1), it actually has to be the proper way as unbiased medical evidence indicates, and that, 2), pursuing it is conclusive to me of sincere intent and I recognise their right to enter the bathroom they can pass as being expected to enter irrespective of what is under the clothing.

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.

If someone can pass easily but hasn't gotten the legal recognition, then I do have a problem. The person may well get in and out without running into trouble, I may personally sympathise with their situation but I am not comfortable with either ignoring the rule of law or what it suggests about their propriety of purpose when entering women's toilets if they're not going to follow the proper procedure. Again, I am even less comfortable with relaxing laws for social-agenda purposes even if the users of the amended law can pass.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, yeah that was the thought. But kind of predictable, I thought the picture would of been unexpected and convey the same point. Is it bad that I put this much thought into it? :worry:
Yeah...that is pretty bad as it's all about spontaneity, right? (LOL)

But it's the thought that counts. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, concrete examples of this happening every day are the gays: gays use restrooms with other men (or gays) just fine without engaging in any sexual activity, innuendo, or even any thoughts at all.

This statement is wrong on so many levels, afterall, we've the observable fact of George Michaels getting busted in a restroom for lewd and lascivious behavior (later reduced to public indecency), and then there's the recent incident of a state's senator (Larry Craig) being busted for (homo) sexual solicitation...in a restroom.

In actuality, public restrooms have become the modern day version of the antiquated Roman bath houses of the past and for you to deny the factual content of this undeniable reality is an excursion into deception.

Edited by -archimedes-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

You've taken my comments out of context in an effort to, I can only conclude, promote your position/agenda of homosexual/trans-gender legitimacy by disguising it as a dissenting opinion in that the/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".

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).

Alright...I'm waiting.

Edited by -archimedes-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've taken my comments out of context in an effort to, I can only conclude, promote your position/agenda of homosexual/trans-gender legitimacy by disguising it as a dissenting opinion in that the/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".

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.

Alright...I'm waiting.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Alright, I said:

Disregarding the actuality of physical, physiological and biological orientation/disposition in favor of some fanciful indulgence is what constitutes "ignoring reality".

The intent of the phrase in question ("fanciful indulgence") was to imply that for a 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.

My comment was not given in reference to those unfortunate individuals born as hermaphrodites, though I did address this sexual ambiguity later in my post. As I've asserted, and have now demonstrated, you've taken my comments "out of context".

You said:

About the citations, if you don't like the sources provided, I can find many more with a simple google search.

To which I expressed an interest in whatever other resources that you might be able to provide in support of your position, i.e., merely taking you up on your offer which, I believe, is commonly considered as being quite respectful of another individual's views, perspective/opinion.

Oh, and I read e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g...which is why I asked for additional input (perhaps even a link to the parenting article from "Nature" itself"?")

You stand corrected and duly so.

Edited by -archimedes-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In actuality, public restrooms have become the modern day version of the antiquated Roman bath houses of the past and for you to deny the factual content of this undeniable reality is an excursion into deception.
I don't think this is true, and the big stories we read about fall under the "exceptions" I referred to. Do you think that the majority of gays act like this?

Additionally, as a point of argument as it pertains to whether rapes would increase (or not), sexual attraction isn't the issue. Rapes are about anger, not sexual attraction.
Are you saying then that bathrooms should be sorted based on a person's typical anger level, instead of sex?

About the language I chose in my first post, I am sorry if "nonsense" came across as a flame to the roaring topic of sexuality on this board. My main aim in posting was just to present what I think about it in a brief, lucid, and supported way. Admittedly, I wrote in response to Inspector's position, which I really do see no validity in; I view my position as pretty self-evident. I was not trying to enter into an argument with him, which is why I didn't address him directly. (Inspector: I tried to make clear in my follow-up that I was not insulting you, but that I disagree wholeheartedly with your conclusions on this topic). Anyway, hopefully that is that, and I'll try to redouble my efforts to remain clear and nonabrasive on a controversial topic.

I like the other approach to this thread better, though, which bypasses the sexual element altogether: privatize all bathrooms and the issues will be fixed perfectly according to each person's choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it abuse to disagree with an opinion/position?

You called my position "nonsense." That is not disagreement - it is abuse.

Since you have not apologized, I will not engage with you on this. I will only say that it is in fact your position that is nonsense. I can't believe that you would spout such ridiculous nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is it uncivil to bring a penis into a women's restroom, if no one sees it, there is no indication thereof?

You're missing the point. The purpose of a Womens' restroom is that women rationally desire separation and privacy from men when in an exposed and partially undressed state. And despite their wishes to the contrary, transsexuals are - anatomically - MEN. PERIOD. It's all well and good that transsexuals say that they aren't men - but don't you see what letting them go into womens' restrooms means? It means that any man can just throw a dress on and waltz into the womens' restroom to engage in his perversions unhindered by law.

If somebody claims to be "trapped in a woman's body," then really all we have to go on is their say-so. That's not good enough to risk womens' safety - or privacy. Until they actually get the operation and make good on their claims, they're just going to have to deal with it. Which is not an unreasonable thing to ask of them because FACTS (their anatomy) are superior to WISHES (their claim of "orientation").

Being locked in a separate stall is a greater degree of separation than sitting next to a person.

That is patently untrue. Sitting in the same room with your pants off in an isolated place away from the public is worlds different in terms of safety and privacy from sitting fully clothed in public.

You can pooh-pooh it all you like, but having a designated zone where if a man is caught entering he can be assumed to be up to no good and prosecuted by law is a valid safety measure. And as I said, it is not strictly safety but also privacy at stake.

If you think the only bad part about rape is the actual insertion, you're missing the point (and damaging effects) of rape.

First, I have already addressed this point: while there are plenty of awful things that women can do to other women, protecting from these things is not the explicitly stated purpose of a womens' bathroom. Keeping penises out is.

Furthermore, you would do well to investigate how many women are rapists versus how many men. (exclude the school-teachers with underage shenanigans) By your argument, you can't just say that women lack the equipment, as dildos are inexpensive and easy to acquire. So where are all these women rapists you are talking about? To say that a woman can have ill intent may be technically possible, but it just isn't in line with how things work out there in the real world.

If a person is legally female, but has the "twig and berries,"

If a person is legally female but anatomically male then the law is wrong. A person is male so long as they are anatomically male, and wishing won't make it otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying then that bathrooms should be sorted based on a person's typical anger level, instead of sex?

Not even remotely. In fact, I very plainly stated that bathrooms should be sorted by the organ 'twixt one's legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think this is true, and the big stories we read about fall under the "exceptions" I referred to. Do you think that the majority of gays act like this?

The resounding answer to this question, as has already more than aptly been addressed by other members hereto, is... YES!!

But here's a little more reference materials to support the magnanimous contention:

http://conservativethoughts.us/2007/07/26/...ne-they-expect/

http://pervscan.com/2007/04/15/airport-bathroom-hookups/

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/category/sex/

http://sovo.com/2006/11-24/view/bitchsession/

But come on man, do your own research! (Please)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...