Transgender Thread.

  • Thread starter Com Fox
  • 2,232 comments
  • 133,017 views

Transgender is...?

  • Ok for anyone

    Votes: 5 33.3%
  • Ok as long as it's binary (Male to Female or vice versa)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wrong

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • No one's business except the person involved

    Votes: 8 53.3%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Total voters
    15
What do we teach them to do if any male bodied person can self ID into any female safe space?
They already do.

As I noted last time this came up, I have no idea what gender all the people sharing a toilet block with me are, because it's not a requirement to strip naked before heading into a cubicle, and it's generally not the done thing to gawk at other people's genitals at the urinal.


Also predatory lesbian paedophiles are still A Thing.
 
They already do.

As I noted last time this came up, I have no idea what gender all the people sharing a toilet block with me are, because it's not a requirement to strip naked before heading into a cubicle, and it's generally not the done thing to gawk at other people's genitals at the urinal.
No, they don't. Currently, you may have a number of transwomen who use the women's facilities. Recent proposals would see anyone who says they are a woman, no matter how they present, or if they have or haven't started any treatment or medication, able to use the women's facilities and women, no matter how uncomfortable they are with that, would not be able to say a thing for fear of reprisal. Many, many women are very unhappy about this and a solution needs to be found that is fair to both transwomen and biological women.
Also predatory lesbian paedophiles are still A Thing.
They are, however, when you note that the overwhelming percentage of sexual assaults are carried out by men, somewhere in the 80's most years, then it's not hard to understand why biological males being given free licence to female safe spaces is more of a concern to women than those of the same sex.
 
No, they don't.
There is no way to know, for the reasons I said above. Given that, it's almost certain that some do.

At no point in my many years of using public toilets have I ever been required to participate in, nor required others to participate in, nor observed others participating in, a genital inspection as an entry condition.

They are, however, when you note that the overwhelming percentage of sexual assaults are carried out by men, somewhere in the 80's most years, then it's not hard to understand why biological males being given free licence to female safe spaces is more of a concern to women than those of the same sex.
While that's the case, it's still not good practice to teach children that they are safe from strangers - or in safe spaces with strangers - if the strangers are women.

And half the time their abuser is their dad.
 
Last edited:
That must be a PITA when you are trying to get work done and people keep coming into your office ;)

Are they fully enclosed with handwashing facilities in each one?
Office as in office building. And yes.
 
Office as in office building. And yes.
Yeah, I know ;)

Good that they have enclosed handwashing facilities. One of the big issues I see women being concerned about sharing a safe space with a male-bodied person is the embarrassment they feel having to wash and dry their underwear if they flood whilst on their period.
 
We'll never be able to deter men from doing harm to women because too many of us are complete arseholes. And a sign is not going to stop anyone I agree.
Eliminate public bathroom facilities and you can't have men (or anyone) doing harm to women (or anyone) in public bathroom facilities. But keep in mind that leaves every other place as a potential locale where an individual may do harm to another individual.

Currently, however, we teach girls from a young age to be wary around men in certain situations and scream, shout and get out of other more dangerous situations.
We teach girls (and other children) a great many things from a young age. Not everything we teach them is something that should be taught, however. I presume the concept of "stranger danger"--wherein an unfamiliar individual presents a potential threat--is not unknown to you, and yet it's flawed because those who are not strangers are not ensured to be safe. Think mothers and fathers, estranged or not, aunts and uncles, teachers, childcare providers, members of the church, figures of the church (duh)...I'm not going to list everyone who isn't a stranger, and everyone who isn't a stranger is a potential threat.

We teach children to be prepared for situations we hope they will never find themselves in, and while our intentions may be good, doing so can itself do harm such as incite anxiety disorders.


What do we teach them to do if any male bodied person can self ID into any female safe space?
Why do we teach them anything in the event of such a scenario? They are not ensured to be safe in the absence of any male bodied person.

And what does my daughter or any women for that matter do if penis free spaces become a thing of the past?
Is this a legitimate concern? Moreover...

"What's so bad about a penis?"

A penis doesn't pose a threat in and of itself, and while one who has malicious intent may possess a penis, the penis they possess is a rather impractical implement with which to do harm.

Though, to be fair, some penises may be more effective implements than others. Wink, wink; nudge, nudge.

Still, a knife would be more effective. Or a metal bar. Or a whole frozen fish. Or a live cat, flailed by its tail. None of these things must be wielded by an individual who possesses a penis.

...

Incidentally, on more than one occasion it was necessary for me to take my young daughter (at the time; she'll be 23 on the 29th) into a men's public restroom for her use, and despite the fact that, to my knowledge, she was the only one present without a penis, I'm not aware that she ever actually caught a glimpse of one. I know I didn't.
 
There are three biological sexes (as a minimum), Male, Female and Intersex. Gender (or sexuality for that matter) are not the same as biological sex.

However, don't let facts hold back your bigotry.



More than happy to welcome them, the real question is why on earth would it bother you what anyone else wants to do in this regard? Does it somehow affect you personally?

You cant change your gender on a whim no matter how much modifications you do.

Even in sports men who became women easily beat women with ease.

Thats unfair to its core. Somehow we are bigots just for supporting natural biology like 2 genders.
 
You cant change your gender on a whim no matter how much modifications you do.

Even in sports men who became women easily beat women with ease.

Thats unfair to its core. Somehow we are bigots just for supporting natural biology like 2 genders.
You're mixing sex and gender - which ignores the first line of what @Scaff posted, even though you quoted it.

I made a post earlier in the thread to help explain the difference:

The issue is that the adoption of the term "gender" to mean an identity as a distinction from "sex" to mean a physical characteristic is very much new - the terms are pretty much interchangeable, although "gender" means "sort, or kind" and "sex" means "division in two". However, although "sex" as a verb means "to get jiggy with it", neither term has ever meant what kind of thing you're attracted to - sexual orientation doesn't belong in the discussion except as a way to baffle religiousists ("hey, is a dude who sleeps with a dude who used to be a chick still gay according to Leviticus? What about a dude who sleeps with a chick who used to be a dude? What if he sleeps with a chick who secretly wants to be a dude, or a dude who openly wants to be a chick?", and so on).


In essence you should keep four terms in mind:
* Trans - across, or opposed
* Cis - alongside, or the same; not a wholly necessary term, but one frequently used
* Gender - psychological sexual identity
* Sex - physiological sexual characteristics


There's a light muddying of the waters with biology here, because really you have two sets of physiological sexual characteristics - chromosomal (genotype) and physical (phenotype) - and they may not be the same thing. Someone with a male genotype may present as female, or indeterminate. And then there's external and internal physiology, where individuals with a male genotype may present externally as female but internally as male (such as in AIS). There's definitely an episode of House based on that one.

Thus you can see that someone who is "trans", "gender" is someone whose psychological sexual identity is opposed to their physiological sexual characteristics. There's a disorder name for it of "gender dysphoria" (gender is psychological sexual identity, and 'dysphoria' literally means 'bad body'). The surgical treatment is "sex reassignment surgery" because it reassigns your (external, physical) physiological characteristics - your sex - albeit in a non-functional manner. Still, there's plenty of people born with those bits that have non-functional ones.


There's a whole suite of types of transgender precisely because there's only really two types of sex - anything other than cis-male and cis-female (again, terms that aren't wholly necessary, but which mean "physiologically and psychologically male" and "physiologically and psychologically male", thus shorter to type) is by definition transgender. Maybe cis-neuter too - agender and... freak smelting accident.

Obviously there's the traditional ones you hear a lot, with simple opposition: male to female, female to male. Agender is someone who has no gender identity - they do not regard themselves as a gendered being, regardless of physical sexual characteristics. Genderfluid would be someone whose gender identity is not fixed. Genderqueer, perhaps a slightly less popular term for non-binary (because of the implications of 'queer' on sexual orientation, even though it's not really part of the discussion; queer in this context is a verb meaning 'to twist or question'), means someone whose gender identity is not described in terms of maleness and femaleness as they reject that such a distinction exists*.


Sexual orientation isn't part of the discussion simply because who you are doesn't have any effect on who - if anyone - you want to screw. You might be MTF and go for women, or for men, or for neither. You might be agender and still love a big old pair of titties. You could be monogamous, polyamorous, or just not get involved. You might have... a paraphilia. It's exactly the same as if you're a guy born a guy, or a girl born a girl, so it's not really relevant.
 
You cant change your gender on a whim no matter how much modifications you do.

Even in sports men who became women easily beat women with ease.

Thats unfair to its core. Somehow we are bigots just for supporting natural biology like 2 genders.
Stop using Sex and Gender as interchangeable terms, they are not.
 
Today I learnt that gender dysphoria is a "whim" and not a recognised psychological disorder. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I know ;)

Good that they have enclosed handwashing facilities. One of the big issues I see women being concerned about sharing a safe space with a male-bodied person is the embarrassment they feel having to wash and dry their underwear if they flood whilst on their period.
It seems to me that extending a similar arrangement to public washrooms may be a more effective guard against safe-space intrusion than barring male-bodied intersex people from female washrooms.
 
Quick question.
When I was 24, after having a child I found out I wasn't allowed a vasectomy because I was "too young" and might "change my mind".

I have an 12 year old son.
Let's say he wants to be a girl. How do I believe he won't change his mind and hate me later in life, knowing that supposedly I wasn't even capable of making life changing decisions at twice that age?

In societies that have long determined people can't make life altering choices at a young age because let's face it, a 12 year old isn't capable of looking at the big picture, how does this work?

Is it solely on the grounds that it works much better?
I can't find anything to indicate that a healthy 12 year old boy is allowed a vasectomy still to this day. Can a 12 year old boy not accidentally make a baby?
Why is it ok to arbitralily force 99% of serious life altering decisions wait until a certain age, regardless of consequence or relevance, while also accepting, what is probably, the biggest possible life change?

Why is it ok for a 13 year old to be stuck as a parent, but not stuck as a boy or girl?

I may have asked this before, I guess I'm mostly curious if the argument is solely reliant on "can't do it later".

Stop using Sex and Gender as interchangeable terms, they are not.
Don't let this distract you from the fact that the mere CONCEPT of gender and sex meaning different things, didn't even exist when my father was born.

Changing word meanings is ok.
Changing them and quickly expecting all of society to learn your new imposed meaning is just unreasonable.
A lot of us never even heard this concept until the past 5 years or so.
Word meanings don't change that quickly whether it makes people offended or not.
 
Last edited:
Don't let this distract you from the fact that the mere CONCEPT of gender and sex meaning different things, didn't even exist when my father was born.

Changing word meanings is ok.
Changing them and quickly expecting all of society to learn your new imposed meaning is just unreasonable.
A lot of us never even heard this concept until the past 5 years or so.
Word meanings don't change that quickly whether it makes people offended or not.

True, I always thought that woman/man are English words for adult humans and not some societal role without clear definition
 
Don't let this distract you from the fact that the mere CONCEPT of gender and sex meaning different things, didn't even exist when my father was born.

Changing word meanings is ok.
Changing them and quickly expecting all of society to learn your new imposed meaning is just unreasonable.
A lot of us never even heard this concept until the past 5 years or so.
Word meanings don't change that quickly whether it makes people offended or not.
The difference has been recognised since 1982, I think its fairly safe to use it as a valid distinction after nearly 40 years.

Particularly given that it's been pointed out numerous times in this very thread.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00376.2005
 
The difference has been recognised since 1982, I think its fairly safe to use it as a valid distinction after nearly 40 years.

Particularly given that it's been pointed out numerous times in this very thread.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00376.2005
Recognized by whom?
Not anyone I ever met in my entire life until after 2010, that's for sure.
It's a new concept, it's not like there was a worldwide English language update announced on television or in newspapers in 1982.
Also being pointed out on GTPlanet thousands of times still doesn't make it common knowledge.
Not trying to be argumentive but this is definitely a very new concept for a LOT of people.

It's not. It's illegal...
Blanket statements.

Doesn't it being illegal say something about what we think of people that age's ability to make life altering choices?
Also we could easily change that age number to a year or two higher if you need, for illustration.

I'm just asking if the sole reason for considering this as acceptable is based on scentific limitations reached after puberty begins.
Looking for moral justification to try and be more accepting of it, and not feel like there's going to be a lot of angry youth ahead.
 
Recognized by whom?
I provided a link, you even quoted it.

Not anyone I ever met in my entire life until after 2010, that's for sure.
I would argue a decade is enough time.

It's a new concept, it's not like there was a worldwide English language update announced on television or in newspapers in 1982.
It's really not a new concept, it's a 49 year old concept, it being new to you, well a decade old, don't make it new to all.

Also being pointed out on GTPlanet thousands of times still doesn't make it common knowledge.
Which might hold water if you were not posting in the very thread in the subject!

Not trying to be argumentive but this is definitely a very new concept for a LOT of people.
And some of those people repeatedly use it as a continued excuse to misuse it, even after they have learned they are doing so.

First time ignorance might be an excuse, repeated certainly isn't. As an example this was all explained to you over a year ago, yet you still carry on with the same nonsense, so ignorance really isn't an excuse in your case, which doesn't leave many other options aside from it being deliberate.
 
Last edited:
Also we could easily change that age number to a year or two higher if you need, for illustration.
That'd still be illegal, because it's still rape until they're 16.

That aside, the crux of your point - as per the following...

Why is it ok for a [child] to be stuck as a parent, but not stuck as a boy or girl?
... seems to be that we force children - or those who've ****ed children - to carry pregnancies to term, but also allow children to undertake life-altering gender reassignment surgery... which we don't in either case.

Literally no part of that is true. Under-16s are not prevented from elective abortions, and under-18s are not permitted gender reassignment surgery, in either the USA or the UK.
 
Literally no part of that is true. Under-16s are not prevented from elective abortions, and under-18s are not permitted gender reassignment surgery, in either the USA or the UK.

Also, the outwardly consistent positions generally line up. Pro-choice being more supportive of gender reassignment, and pro-life being less so.
 
Recognized by whom?
Not anyone I ever met in my entire life until after 2010, that's for sure.

I've never met The Pope, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

EDIT: Regarding women's safe spaces for those who were assigned female at birth; what do trans men do? They often still have a vagina and a female marker on their identity documents for many years, where do they go to use the toilet since they are likely to look very masculine?
 
I've never met The Pope, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

EDIT: Regarding women's safe spaces for those who were assigned female at birth; what do trans men do? They often still have a vagina and a female marker on their identity documents for many years, where do they go to use the toilet since they are likely to look very masculine?
I know this is probably wrong but if they look masculine and the only way to know they aren't is to take their clothes off, if they're okay with it they should use the Men's bathroom. No one will know they are trans because you walk into a stall and close the door. No one sees your private parts. Take care of business, wash your hands, go about your day.
 
I know this is probably wrong but if they look masculine and the only way to know they aren't is to take their clothes off, if they're okay with it they should use the Men's bathroom. No one will know they are trans because you walk into a stall and close the door. No one sees your private parts. Take care of business, wash your hands, go about your day.

That's what I was getting at really; people often say that "womens toilets should be for those born as women" while forgetting that trans men exist.

Meanwhile I'm over here seeing gender neutral toilets but still being too afraid to use them for fear of being ridiculed so that's fun.
 
That's what I was getting at really; people often say that "womens toilets should be for those born as women" while forgetting that trans men exist.

Meanwhile I'm over here seeing gender neutral toilets but still being too afraid to use them for fear of being ridiculed so that's fun.
All you can do it try it once and see what happens, and do your best to not let it get to you. You got this.
 
All you can do it try it once and see what happens, and do your best to not let it get to you. You got this.

I might have to wait a while given how long I'll be stuck in my house for now :lol: Sadly even getting the chance to try it out is rare, I only know of 2 places I've been to that have them and they're not local to me.
 
The idea that a public "safe space" can exist or that restricting certain people from entering certain bathrooms will actually protect anyone sounds a bit naive if I'm being quite honest.

I've generally been of the opinion that public bathrooms (except for the ones where it's just a single toilet and sink) were an undesirable place to be in general. I'm more uncomfortable with the fact that there are other people in there to begin with, rather than who exactly those people are or what junk they have.
 
The idea that a public "safe space" can exist or that restricting certain people from entering certain bathrooms will actually protect anyone sounds a bit naive if I'm being quite honest.

I can see both sides of the argument here; many people don't know anyone who is trans and find it difficult to understand what they might be going through. Instead they rely on what the media tells them which is often negative, incorrect, or misguided. If your only experience of transgender folk is that they use it as an excuse to get into public bathrooms and spy on people then you're probably going to be suspicious of people when using the bathroom. In reality of course this isn't the case 99% of the time, but that doesn't get clicks or views.

This is why I'll always take the time to point out the facts behind a story or call someone out on their ******** if they decide to assume that all trans people are somehow perverts or are up to no good. Sometimes people genuinely don't know any better until it is pointed out to them. I'll always try and enter into a conversation with them unless they're blatantly trying to wind people up. You never know, you might change their mind.
 
Last edited:
many people have never met anyone who is trans
I reckon almost everyone has, but don't know that they have.

At somewhere just above 0.5% of people (in the USA and UK) identifying as trans, you'd only have to meet 200 people on average to meet someone who does.
 
The idea that a public "safe space" can exist...

Shouldn't public spaces be safe for you? For your children? For your friends, parents, for everybody? Isn't that what we expect to create in our society when we elect representatives to form the legal framework that protects our social culture?

...or that restricting certain people from entering certain bathrooms will actually protect anyone sounds a bit naive if I'm being quite honest.

Stopping rapists, murderers, or known carriers of Bubonic Plague seems like a good start. Of course, rapists and those interested in perpetrating sexual assault exist in all flavours and their potential target types vary.
 

Latest Posts

Back