Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dadmonson

Public Bathroom Laws and Policies

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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.

I think the case you would have to make is that someone's rights are necessarily being violated. The law should not exist simply to prevent men from acting on their perversions. Bathrooms should be out of the hands of the government. Private property owners should be free to set whatever restrictions they deem necessary on the restrooms they provide to the public, should they even provide public restrooms at all. If it's a shared-sex bathroom, women who are concerned for their safety need not enter.

Share this post


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

For the record, I'm not one of those other members. I have no idea if the majority of gay men act in that manner or not, and I haven't seen evidence convincing me either way. I think that regardless of whether these cases represent the majority of gay men or the exceptional few, the frequency is significant enough to be problematic and commonplace in some areas. This is simply a far cry from saying it never or it only rarely happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the case you would have to make is that someone's rights are necessarily being violated. The law should not exist simply to prevent men from acting on their perversions. Bathrooms should be out of the hands of the government. Private property owners should be free to set whatever restrictions they deem necessary on the restrooms they provide to the public, should they even provide public restrooms at all. If it's a shared-sex bathroom, women who are concerned for their safety need not enter.

Certainly if a bathroom is privately owned and there is an explicit and clear statement to the effect that both men and women are allowed in at the same time, then the law should allow this. But otherwise, the expectation is that a bathroom labeled "women" is for women only and I do believe the law should be able to prosecute for more than just tresspassing if a man enters.

And of course, as has been pointed out, until all bathrooms are privately owned, we very much do have to deal with the problem of many of them being public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But otherwise, the expectation is that a bathroom labeled "women" is for women only and I do believe the law should be able to prosecute for more than just tresspassing if a man enters.

So, if I understand you correctly, you think that laws for criminal prosecution can be based on expectations rather than right violations? Is that correct, or can you demonstrate a rights violation that necessarily occurs when a member of the opposite sex enters the other bathroom?

I understand you believe that, I'm just looking for something more than what you believe.

Edit: Additional Comments.

You see, the issue I have here is you appear to want to make something illegal based on what may be a coorelation rather than something that is a causal factor. This is similar to illegalizing drugs because they may lead drug users to committing other crimes. In principle, there is nothing about going into a restroom of the opposite sex which causally means a person is committing or is going to commit a crime.

Edited by RationalBiker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You see, the issue I have here is you appear to want to make something illegal based on what may be a coorelation rather than something that is a causal factor. This is similar to illegalizing drugs because they may lead drug users to committing other crimes. In principle, there is nothing about going into a restroom of the opposite sex which causally means a person is committing or is going to commit a crime.

There can be excuses based on context, of course, but I don't know what you're asking for here. It is not sensible to wait before the cudgel has physically connected with your skull before reacting. A man in the womens' room is up to no good. This is a perfectly fair assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not sensible to wait before the cudgel has physically connected with your skull before reacting.

No one is saying it is, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. A man going into a woman's restroom, or having shared-sex restrooms is not even remotely close to a cudgel to the head.

A man in the womens' room is up to no good. This is a perfectly fair assumption.

Just the same as a person who uses crack is up to no good. I don't care for passing objective, criminal laws based on weak assumptions like that.

Edited by RationalBiker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There can be excuses based on context, of course, but I don't know what you're asking for here.

I guess this is the most clear and succinct way I can ask you this; what initiation of force, or attempted initiation of force is occuring when a member of the opposite sex goes into the other's bathroom, or if both sexes were to share a shared-sex bathroom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This may be a bad policy, but to label it as a result of a "homosexual agenda" suggests 1) a unity of opinion among homosexuals which does not exist, and 2) a negative value judgment of homosexuals by implication, which is not warranted.

I think the truth of this post is a sufficient reason for a moderator to change the title of this thread. For a casual visitor to the site, the presence of a thread with this title suggests that "the homosexual agenda" is a valid topic of conversation for Objectivists to discuss. For someone like me who doesn't visit this site as often as I used to, seeing titles like this on the right side of the screen makes it seem like the religious right has taken over since last time I was here.

"The homosexual agenda" is not a valid concept, and this thread's title is not becoming for a message board dedicated to discussing philosophy.

(I might as well add that I agree with Diana Hsieh's posts on this topic. I work with a transexual, before and after her transition. I do recall some awkward restroom incidents in the beginning, but I can sympathize with people in this predicament enough to see that it's ridiculous to expect them to continue using the opposite sex's facilities until the operation.. I shudder to think how such a policy would be policed. The assumption that every pre-op transexual who enters a lady's room is a potential rapist or voyeur seems overly paranoid, and the view that 'men's rooms are for people with penises only and women's room are for non-penises because that is the definition of man and woman' seems narrow and unnecessary, and fails to properly address the issues under consideration. *Why* should individuals' safety and happiness be sacrificed to this IMO oversimplified definition?) <-[i put that in parentheses to emphasize that my main point is the thread's title should be changed.]

Edited by Bold Standard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess this is the most clear and succinct way I can ask you this; what initiation of force, or attempted initiation of force is occuring when a member of the opposite sex goes into the other's bathroom...

The attempted initiation of force is to voyeuristically violate their privacy or to rape them. I would have thought that would have been obvious.

...or if both sexes were to share a shared-sex bathroom?

I already outlined a position on the permissibility of privately owned restrooms that are clearly marked as exceptional.

I don't care for passing objective, criminal laws based on weak assumptions like that.

I don't think it's particularly weak. Tell me, if you saw a man in a trench coat walk into a public womens' restroom on your beat, what would you do? If my assumption's so weak, then perhaps you are saying the proper assumption is that there is no reason at all to think he is up to no good and you will continue merrily on your way. Hopefully you'll still be within earshot when the screams start. Or perhaps it would also be a weak assumption at that point to think something is amiss.

I really don't know quite what you mean to say here.

*Why* should individuals' safety and happiness be sacrificed to this IMO oversimplified definition?

A perfectly valid question: if by individuals you mean the actual women. Why should their happiness and safety be sacrificed to people who are trying to force the rest of the world to defy the facts in service of their wishes.

And the original poster's faulty definition is not a part of the reasoning there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The attempted initiation of force is to voyeuristically violate their privacy or to rape them. I would have thought that would have been obvious.

Apparently its not obvious then. The fact that he or she may just be going to the bathroom might cross my mind. Your imagination and assumption does open up a new standard for arrest though; Possible Cause. I know some cops that would love to wield that kind of discretion.

Tell me, if you saw a man in a trench coat walk into a public womens' restroom on your beat, what would you do?

Well, because the law currently exists, I'd have to take some action. That's much the same as if I saw a man smoking a joint. However, neither of them are necessarily doing anything wrong. Just because a law is in place doesn't make it just law.

Otherwise, if no such law existed and if I thought the activity was suspicious, I may investigate it to see if he actually was violating or attempting to violate someone's rights. If that were the case and I had Probable Cause, as opposed to imagination and assumption, I'd arrest him. On the other hand, assuming no unjust law existed for simply entering the bathroom of the opposite sex, when I found him going number 2 on the toilet, I'd leave so he could finish his business.

I have to chuckle though (trench coat)... you wouldn't try to load the scenario would you? At least you could have added that he had no pants and his hands were somewhere in vicinity of his private parts. Come on, don't leave the stereotype unfinished.

What if the man were wearing an expensive business suit and was carrying the financial section of the New York Times? I have to tell you, my first assumption wouldn't be "he's obviously a rapist". I guess the appropriate preventive measure would be to arrest him on the spot because I can imagine he may rape somebody some day in the future.

I really don't know quite what you mean to say here.

I'm gathering that. I've stated it pretty clearly a couple times already so I don't see the need to repeat it yet again. I've contributed about as much as I care to at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently its not obvious then. The fact that he or she may just be going to the bathroom might cross my mind.

If he were going into the mens' restroom, then I'd agree with you.

If there's a men's bathroom not 5 feet away, then why is it reasonable to assume that he would commit a crime in order to accomplish his innocent goal when there is a perfectly crime-free means available to him? Given these facts, I'd say that going to the bathroom would be the last thing I would guess he was up to. He'd have to be really, painfully stupid for that to be the explanation.

Your imagination and assumption does open up a new standard for arrest though; Possible Cause. I know some cops that would love to wield that kind of discretion.

Well, call me Dirty Harry then.

When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross!

I suppose we simply disagree on what is a reasonable assumption in this case. For me, it is pretty obvious that a man walking into the womens' restrooms (without some obviously explanation like an "out of order" sign on the womens' or a cane and sunglasses) is up to no good. To you, not so much.

I have to chuckle though (trench coat)... you wouldn't try to load the scenario would you? At least you could have added that he had no pants and his hands were somewhere in vicinity of his private parts. Come on, don't leave the stereotype unfinished.

Oh, haha, I considered it. Describing how you could see he was barefoot and had no visible pants poking out from the coat, and having his hands in his pocket, and then asking what if that same man were wearing lipstick. But I figured you would get the idea with just the coat, and I see I was right.

I have to tell you, my first assumption wouldn't be "he's obviously a rapist". I guess the appropriate preventive measure would be to arrest him on the spot because I can imagine he may rape somebody some day in the future.

Where did I say you had to arrest him for rape? What is the status of the law right now? What is the crime/charge presently?

I'm gathering that.

I'm being honest when I say I really did not think that you really were saying what you are saying. But I won't ask you to repeat yourself again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Must be controlled. There must be a law against it.

Well, what is the law right now?

Your attempts to, well it isn't really arguing so much as making fun, of my position are basically emotionalism. If you actually examine what I have said, there would be no crazy totalitarian laws. As I said, any private bathroom owner can choose to have a different policy and simply label his bathrooms accordingly.

And making fun of the idea of keeping men out of the ladies' room is a little silly if you think about it. The only thing I'm doing is making explicit what is in fact the exclusive purpose of even having a womens' restrooms at all. If I am not just wrong but completely bonkers insane as you claim, then so is our entire society because that's how we've made our restrooms.

You people can stick your heads in the sand and say there are no differences between men and women at all. You can smear me with the brush of feminism because I think that women would have a legitimate privacy and safety concern to want to be separated from men in bathrooms. That somehow this means I am calling all men rapists if I say that statistically speaking, women are not rapists and so you can't just say that it is silly to separate them because it's equally likely for a woman to be a rapist. (which is just plain ridiculous - that simply isn't a reality)

And as a final absurdity, you're saying that I'm claiming that everyone with a penis is a likely pervert. Which is not true - I'm claiming everyone who has a penis and who has an itching desire to take it into the womens' restroom is a likely pervert. And such people would be indistinguishable from honest transsexuals, so it is kind of a problem and the best policy is to just continue to consider transsexuals to be men so long as they physically remain, in fact, men.

Why not repeal the law (it is even a law?) that makes them wait a year for the surgery if you're so concerned? Wouldn't that be a much more workable solution than forcing women to consider anyone who dresses as a woman to be a woman (at the expense of their safety)?

Edited by Inspector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your attempts to, well it isn't really arguing so much as making fun, of my position are basically emotionalism. If you actually examine what I have said, there would be no crazy totalitarian laws. As I said, any private bathroom owner can choose to have a different policy and simply label his bathrooms accordingly.

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.

And making fun of the idea of keeping men out of the ladies' room is a little silly if you think about it. The only thing I'm doing is making explicit what is in fact the exclusive purpose of even having a womens' restrooms at all. If I am not just wrong but completely bonkers insane as you claim, then so is our entire society because that's how we've made our restrooms.

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.

You people can stick your heads in the sand and say there are no differences between men and women at all. You can smear me with the brush of feminism because I think that women would have a legitimate privacy and safety concern to want to be separated from men in bathrooms. That somehow this means I am calling all men rapists if I say that statistically speaking, women are not rapists and so you can't just say that it is silly to separate them because it's equally likely for a woman to be a rapist. (which is just plain ridiculous - that simply isn't a reality)

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.

And as a final absurdity, you're saying that I'm claiming that everyone with a penis is a likely pervert. Which is not true - I'm claiming everyone who has a penis and who has an itching desire to take it into the womens' restroom is a likely pervert. And such people would be indistinguishable from honest transsexuals, so it is kind of a problem and the best policy is to just continue to consider transsexuals to be men so long as they physically remain, in fact, men.

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.

Why not repeal the law (it is even a law?) that makes them wait a year for the surgery if you're so concerned? Wouldn't that be a much more workable solution than forcing women to consider anyone who dresses as a woman to be a woman (at the expense of their safety)?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And making fun of the idea of keeping men out of the ladies' room is a little silly if you think about it. The only thing I'm doing is making explicit what is in fact the exclusive purpose of even having a womens' restrooms at all. If I am not just wrong but completely bonkers insane as you claim, then so is our entire society because that's how we've made our restrooms....And as a final absurdity, you're saying that I'm claiming that everyone with a penis is a likely pervert. Which is not true - I'm claiming everyone who has a penis and who has an itching desire to take it into the womens' restroom is a likely pervert. And such people would be indistinguishable from honest transsexuals, so it is kind of a problem and the best policy is to just continue to consider transsexuals to be men so long as they physically remain, in fact, men.

Really, I don't see what the problem is. If a transsexual goes to the women's restroom made up as a woman, most likely no one will notice. If a man puts on a dress to pretend to be a transsexual so's to go into the women's room and harass women, then that fact's easily observed and can be reported to security or the police and can be brought up in trial as evidence the person's not a genuine transsexual. The majority of cases in which I can see this coming up is if a transsexual is involved in a crime in a women's room (as witness or victim) or suffers a medical emergency, in which case I see no reason to prosecute him/her for using the facilities if no one else complains.

Edited by Adrian Hester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They may legally be women.

As I said, if the law says that, then the law is wrong.

They are not men.

Yes, they are. They are anatomically men. Period. I know that they don't wish to be, but as I said before, the law is here to recognize facts and not wishes. When they are anatomically altered, then they have grounds to declare themselves legally not men. Until then, they are just playing a game of pretend and the rest of the world is not obliged to play along. And it is wrong to force us to do so.

In your world, men cannot be trusted near women.

My world? Take a look around you man: is isn't my world; it's the real world. The one you see when you look out your window. As I said, I am doing nothing more than explicitly stating what is in fact the existing purpose of womens' restrooms - that men (i.e. people with penises) are not allowed. If I am bonkers paranoid to say that an isolated place where people take their pants off is not somewhere where women want to mingle with strange men then I guess our whole society is, too.

And if this leads to some kind of "SEPARATION;" separationatworkseparationatschool etc, then I suppose we would see this everywhere. But guess what? We don't! This crazy bonkers paranoid society in which we live has managed to keep this separation confined to bathrooms, locker rooms, and other places where clothes come off.

Gee, why is this?

Because maybe there is just a little bit of a difference between a bathroom and a public place where people don't take their pants off.

Transsexuals have no desire to bring a penis anywhere.

Well then that is their problem and they are obliged to deal with it and not force the rest of us to bend to their wishes.

Sometimes, with a vesigial penis.

If you bothered to read what I said, you would have noticed this:

I'm inclined to say that if one has a functional penis, one must go in the men's room. If it's vestigial, then I suppose it would be up to them.

What you're doing is context dropping.

No, you're entirely missing my point. Allow me to re-emphasize it:

...[Perverts] would be indistinguishable from honest transsexuals, so it is kind of a problem and the best policy is to just continue to consider transsexuals to be men so long as they physically remain, in fact, men.

If a person can no longer pass as male, they'll use the female rest room.

So some people will get away with it. Really, what has that got to do with anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, everyone is against you.

Everyone? Wrong. Case in point: me.

I certainly haven't been against him nor his replies, and stated that earlier in this thread, and I have yet to find something that I do not agree that Inspector has said since that reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A perfectly valid question: if by individuals you mean the actual women. Why should their happiness and safety be sacrificed to people who are trying to force the rest of the world to defy the facts in service of their wishes.

It's clear from the context that I mean the transsexuals, who are not men in trench coats intent on raping or spying on women in the restroom, but who are living as women and wearing women's clothing and probably not in the least bit sexually interested in women, and who only want to go to the bathroom.

To assume that these individuals are not only potentially but actually intent on committing a crime is ludicrous. Preventative law is the hallmark of dictatorship. (In this case it would be an important step towards a dictatorship of Christian Conservatism, which is perhaps the most dangerous threat in America at this time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have thought this would have been obvious in a place like this, but...

Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.

This is just not the way Objectivism deals with concepts. You seem to be entirely confusing the concept with its definition. There is much more to being a man or woman than having an innie or an outie! A concept entails all of its attributes. Yes, under normal circumstances men have penises and women have vaginas. Also, under normal circumstances, men have an X and a Y chromosome and women have two X's. What happens when someone has a vagina and an X and a Y chromosome? That happens, rarely, but it happens. Are they a man or a woman? If you make the epistemological mistake reducing a concept to its definition, then you'd never be able to solve this. [Edit, well you would maybe, but it would turn into an argument of which definition to accept.]

Perhaps you would benefit from re-reading Dr. Peikoff's essay, "The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy" in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Edited by Bold Standard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's clear from the context that I mean the transsexuals, who are not men in trench coats intent on raping or spying on women in the restroom, but who are living as women and wearing women's clothing and probably not in the least bit sexually interested in women, and who only want to go to the bathroom.

Did you not read the thread? I addressed this. See if you can find it. (you ought to have read my arguments before attacking them)

You seem to be entirely confusing the concept with its definition.

No, I am not. I am using the definition that fits the physical, provable facts - beyond someone's mere say-so that they feel they are not a man and the fact that they are willing to throw on some makeup and a dress. When a man brings his claim out of the realm of feelings and into the realm of physical facts - by actually changing his anatomy - then I am willing to play along and say that "he" is no longer a man. Until then, it is just a game of pretend and I am not obliged to play along and assume that he/she really is a transsexual and not just a pervert who wants to get into the ladies' room. And certainly, he is not right to force anyone else to play along.

Edited by Inspector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Not every born-males in women's clothing are true transsexuals. I don't know the statistics, but I'd suspect that the number of the latter is quite low both in absolute terms and relatively to the number of harmless cross-dressers, fanciful posers, and those with less savoury intentions. If the law were relaxed I strongly suspect that the proportion would collapse further still as the numbers of non-transsexual males in women's clothing rise through their taking advantage of the new law. As well as the disaster this would be for born-females, I can see that at the very least the outcry would make things even harder for true transsexuals to gain due legal recognition and get rightful law changes made, and worse yet the safety of true transsexuals would be even more endangered for the same reason.

As I said before there are no easy options for true transsexuals. Since they will have to deal with the legal system to get their legally recognised gender changed anyway I would rather keep the law on access to public toilets as it is and stick to the idea that true transsexuals should get the first stages of legal recognition first - whether they can pass or not - before entering the toilet of their intended gender. That then settles the issue of genuineness and sincerity should the police be called in. Changes in the law for the better should be at that broad-ranging legal-recognition level, guided by objective medical evidence as well as morality, and not be done in a fragmented way with different rules for different public institutions (that many such should not even exist is a separate matter).

JJM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you not read the thread? I addressed this. See if you can find it. (you ought to have read my arguments before attacking them)

I couldn't find any where you adequately addressed it. But this is a long thread, maybe I missed it. Since you wrote them and know where they are, you could link to it easier than me wading through it all again.

When a man brings his claim out of the realm of feelings and into the realm of physical facts - by actually changing his anatomy - then I am willing to play along and say that "he" is no longer a man.

I also couldn't find any posts where you responded to Diana Hsieh's comment that transexuals are legally required to live for a year as a female before they can have their operation. If someone has committed to that, it is more than a mere "wish" to be a female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn't find any where you adequately addressed it. But this is a long thread, maybe I missed it. Since you wrote them and know where they are, you could link to it easier than me wading through it all again.

I also couldn't find any posts where you responded to Diana Hsieh's comment that transexuals are legally required to live for a year as a female before they can have their operation. If someone has committed to that, it is more than a mere "wish" to be a female.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn't find any where you adequately addressed it.

Then in my opinion you have not read my posts carefully enough to effectively argue against me and it would be an exercise in frustration (for me) for you to continue it before you have adequately understood me. I suggest you continue re-reading what I have said until you do find where I have addressed that, and only then attempt argument.

I also couldn't find any posts where you responded to Diana Hsieh's comment that transexuals are legally required to live for a year as a female before they can have their operation.

I also addressed that point. Definitely, you need to re-read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His entire proof consists of the statement...

He is ignoring the scientific evidence...

All of his examples and statements...

He ignores...

Now, Bold Standard, I hope you can see that although you have not grasped what I am saying... it could be worse. Onivlas has really failed to grasp what I am saying and is instead responding with pure knee-jerk.

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.

Gee, you think maybe?!? Perhaps if you actually read what I have written, you would see that this is a key and central point of my argument. And that if you actually read what I said, you may not even disagree with me at all! Let me clue you in: this is not about transsexuals - this is about the fact that transsexuals are indistinguishable from cross-dressers!

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...