Transgender Thread.

[Danoff]

It is for equal rights, but not in the I-have-more-rights-than-you-I-deserve-special-attention rights. There is evidence that trans people experience higher amounts of harassment, assault and bullying.

Same with nerds. What's your point Vanessa?

There's a disproportionately high amount of homeless youth who are LGBT (i.e. the percentage of LGBT youth may be 5-10% but the percentage of LGBT among homeless youth is around 20-40%).

Is it the right of LGBT people to be homeless at the appropriate percentage? You post this as though it is evidence of a human rights violation, it isn't.

There isn't a lot of protection as well. 33 states don't have laws surrounding workplace security, meaning that someone could be fired from their job for being trans.

So you want to make it illegal for someone to stop employing someone for being transgender. That's the exactly opposite of protection of rights, that's violation of rights. Forcing someone to do something against their will (employment) is a violation of their rights.

It's also asking for general respect.

...and then some.

they just want the general public to see them as their neurological gender.

Nobody can see anyone's thoughts.

I'll put it this way: in areas that do have employment protection of sex (i.e. biological gender), race, religion and sexuality, there is no protection of gender identity. In that case, trans people are asking for equal rights.

A better argument would be equal protection under the law, which is a right. Here's a parallel scenario:

Imagine the law says that red haired people could kill whoever they wanted. When a blonde person asks for the same legal status, they can argue equal protection under the law, and they'd be totally right in doing so. But they'd also, simultaneously, be asking for legal protection to commit rights violations.

 

[dylansan]

The issue of the rights of employers to hire or fire based on whatever qualities they choose is a tough one. On the one hand, I think employers do have that right, even if it means people being fired because of their race, gender, etc. This is often supported by the idea that companies which practice discrimination will be hurt economically by public disapproval, and therefore be disincentivized from doing so.

On the other hand, it's hard not to be disheartened by the numerous companies that, among other grievances, treat their employees like garbage, and still make comfortable profits year after year.

The only real solution I see, that doesn't violate anyone's rights, is a more informed society, and one in which people are more strongly willing to hold companies accountable for their decisions by boycotting their services and products. Unfortunately, with large numbers of people in poverty who can't afford to be choosy, a general feeling that all companies are shady and it's too hard to find reputable sources for every product, and perhaps a general sense of apathy, there's still a long way to go. Fortunately, however, the public opinion of race, gender, and sexuality topics seems to be trending in the right direction. In the meantime, I'm not sure what the best solution is.



I wanted to add something about the whole transgender bathroom thing:

Why have I never heard complaints about gay people using their gender's bathrooms? I mean, a gay guy could theoretically creep on other men, or the same with a lesbian. Of course, if you force a lesbian to use the men's bathroom, or a gay guy to use the ladies room, that would probably make things worse, to say nothing of bisexuals. I mean, barring a separate bathroom for every individual, there's no way to assign people in a way that there's no potential for people to be uncomfortable.

Then again, that's sort of what stalls are for, isn't it?

 

[squadops]

The only real solution I see, that doesn't violate anyone's rights, is a more informed society, and one in which people are more strongly willing to hold companies accountable for their decisions by boycotting their services and products. Unfortunately, with large numbers of people in poverty who can't afford to be choosy, a general feeling that all companies are shady and it's too hard to find reputable sources for every product, and perhaps a general sense of apathy, there's still a long way to go. Fortunately, however, the public opinion of race, gender, and sexuality topics seems to be trending in the right direction. In the meantime, I'm not sure what the best solution is.

I pay close attention to who I do business with, sure I'm a bit blessed with a pretty easy life but if something is not available in a way pleasing to me I will abstain out of protest I guess you could say. Poor people here are forced to shop at walmart and eat at mcdonalds I suppose, they still have an opportunity to better themselves if they so choose, so many social programs to give a man a hand up.

The best solution is less government on all sides of the isle.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The only real solution I see, that doesn't violate anyone's rights, is a more informed society, and one in which people are more strongly willing to hold companies accountable for their decisions by boycotting their services and products. Unfortunately, with large numbers of people in poverty who can't afford to be choosy, a general feeling that all companies are shady and it's too hard to find reputable sources for every product, and perhaps a general sense of apathy, there's still a long way to go. Fortunately, however, the public opinion of race, gender, and sexuality topics seems to be trending in the right direction. In the meantime, I'm not sure what the best solution is.

Speaking of boycotts and holding people accountable:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...-target-transgender-bathroom-policy/83491396/

A conservative Christian activist group has gained more than half a million signatures and counting from people pledging to boycott Target over its transgender bathroom policy. The petition started by the American Family Association on Wednesday raises concerns that Target's inclusive stance on transgender rights encourages sexual predators and puts women and young girls in danger, because "a man can simply say he 'feels like a woman today' and enter the women's restroom."

 

[FoolKiller]

Half those people pledging are the same ones that said they would ban it for all these reasons over the years.

Target has weathered through a dozen boycotts from conservative groups. They'll be fine. If they struggle they'll cut some prices. I doubt that will happen though, because just like Hobby Lobby and Chic-fil-a saw increased business by supporters of their policies during a boycott, so will Target. I mean, if people with gender identity issues need to go shopping, why not go to the one that's being accepting of them?

 

[Ialyrn]

WARNING!! The video contained within the spoiler contains profanity, If you do not wish to hear such language, do not open the spoiler and play the video. This is a disclaimer and significant warning to such, owing to the rules of this website and forums 'Acceptable Use Policy' (Link).

"You will not use profanity in the forums, nor link to content which contains offensive language without sufficient warning."

This video is offensive, this video is likely to upset some, watch at your own risk; you have been warned.

Spoiler: WARNING, WATCH VIDEO AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!

Edit: Also, another video that is not offensive. It is a snippet from a tv show.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I wanted to add something about the whole transgender bathroom thing:

Why have I never heard complaints about gay people using their gender's bathrooms? I mean, a gay guy could theoretically creep on other men, or the same with a lesbian. Of course, if you force a lesbian to use the men's bathroom, or a gay guy to use the ladies room, that would probably make things worse, to say nothing of bisexuals. I mean, barring a separate bathroom for every individual, there's no way to assign people in a way that there's no potential for people to be uncomfortable.?

Well, perving on people in the toilets is a bit weird anyway... unless, y'know, that's your fetish...

... but what about changing rooms at sports centres, or gyms?

 

[Denur]

Edit: Also, another video that is not offensive. It is a snippet from a tv show.

Thank you for sharing this John Oliver video. I have seen it before, but it's just so god damn educational. 👍

 

[dylansan]

Well, perving on people in the toilets is a bit weird anyway... unless, y'know, that's your fetish...

It's more than weird. It's really just sexual harrassment.

Which is the whole point of these laws. Unfortunately these laws won't prevent anything, though. The basic premise is flawed: that if you're genetically male, you're going to be attracted to women, and vice-- Actually, I don't even think they care about the vice-versa.

They've ignored sexuality completely and pinned harrassment entirely on gender, which is beyond stupid. The only upside is that it's as stupidly unenforcable as it is stupidly stupid.

... but what about changing rooms at sports centres, or gyms?

That's a good question. I don't go to the gym, but if it's anything like the movies, the male changing rooms are already full of guys chasing each other around with twisted up towels, even when everyone's straight. Not sure about the women.

It's not an obvious solution. A trans woman might make other women uncomfortable but feel uncomfortable around men. Personally, I never understood why gym lockers never had the expectation of privacy that bathrooms do. Even I've been uncomfortable in rooms with other guys. If comfort is a concern, the whole "open concept" thing probably has to go, and I suspect in a lot of places it has. Can anyone chime in, whether gym locker rooms tend to have private stalls?

 

[Famine]

Oh. Someone in the USA has gone to the trouble of making transgender toilet policies? That explains it - I thought people were just obsessed with toilets for some reason.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's a good question. I don't go to the gym, but if it's anything like the movies, the male changing rooms are already full of guys chasing each other around with twisted up towels, even when everyone's straight. Not sure about the women.

It's not an obvious solution. A trans woman might make other women uncomfortable but feel uncomfortable around men. Personally, I never understood why gym lockers never had the expectation of privacy that bathrooms do. Even I've been uncomfortable in rooms with other guys. If comfort is a concern, the whole "open concept" thing probably has to go, and I suspect in a lot of places it has. Can anyone chime in, whether gym locker rooms tend to have private stalls?

I've been to many a gym and never witnessed any towel flicking or chasing each other around. From what I understand, that behaviour is confined to the ladies locker room

All the gyms I've been in, which are generally large gyms in large chains like Goodlife Fitness, featured wide open changerooms with benches and lockers and no privacy. Usually they were laid out in a series of short rows of lockers (20-30 feet is common) in the middle with the surrounding walls full of lockers. There is no privacy nor expectation of privacy but if it's not too crowded you can always choose a set of lockers shielded from the others to some degree. I've never seen a private stall.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I've been to many a gym and never witnessed any towel flicking or chasing each other around. From what I understand, that behaviour is confined to the ladies locker room

All the gyms I've been in, which are generally large gyms in large chains like Goodlife Fitness, featured wide open changerooms with benches and lockers and no privacy. Usually they were laid out in a series of short rows of lockers (20-30 feet is common) in the middle with the surrounding walls full of lockers. There is no privacy nor expectation of privacy but if it's not too crowded you can always choose a set of lockers shielded from the others to some degree. I've never seen a private stall.

They have them at my gym, but then we don't have separate areas for men to change in. I'm not sure why they'd be needed? It's rather like modern toilets, the costs of providing separate male/female facilities for people to shut themselves in identical cubicles seems a little wasteful.

 

[squadops]

Reasons to have locker rooms? A place to shower after swimming? How about after getting all sweaty and wanting to put your work clothes back on and go back to work? Do you even gym bro?

.....

 

[TenEightyOne]

Reasons to have locker rooms? A place to shower after swimming? How about after getting all sweaty and wanting to put your work clothes back on and go back to work? Do you even gym bro?

Lol, etc, brap. I said I'm not sure of the reason for separate changing rooms for different sexes. Unless you want to do the whole 70s towel-whipping ball-grabbing all-change-in-a-big-open-room nonsense. Rarr.

 

[MatskiMonk]

That's a good question. I don't go to the gym, but if it's anything like the movies, the male changing rooms are already full of guys chasing each other around with twisted up towels, even when everyone's straight. Not sure about the women.

It's not an obvious solution. A trans woman might make other women uncomfortable but feel uncomfortable around men. Personally, I never understood why gym lockers never had the expectation of privacy that bathrooms do. Even I've been uncomfortable in rooms with other guys. If comfort is a concern, the whole "open concept" thing probably has to go, and I suspect in a lot of places it has. Can anyone chime in, whether gym locker rooms tend to have private stalls?

To be fair, gym's are a slightly different situation since it's more of a choice thing anyway, unlike needing the toilet. The gym I go to is very open changing room wise, and there's a lot of buff dudes there happy to let the tackle flap in the breeze - if I were gay I'd probably go to the gym a lot more often, if I was transgender/transexual I would feel immensely exposed.

 

[Johnnypenso]

They have them at my gym, but then we don't have separate areas for men to change in. I'm not sure why they'd be needed? It's rather like modern toilets, the costs of providing separate male/female facilities for people to shut themselves in identical cubicles seems a little wasteful.

What gym do you go to that has a unisex changing room?

 

[squadops]

Lol, etc, brap. I said I'm not sure of the reason for separate changing rooms for different sexes. Unless you want to do the whole 70s towel-whipping ball-grabbing all-change-in-a-big-open-room nonsense. Rarr.

The most likely reason would be the paying customers want it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What gym do you go to that has a unisex changing room?

Would you like me to PM you the address? I've never actually been in a gym that didn't have unisex changing rooms... but then the doctor didn't start telling me off until a few years ago

The most likely reason would be the paying customers want it.

But what difference does it make?

 

[squadops]

But what difference does it make?

Oh I don't know, perhaps wanting to stay in business and turn a profit? If you are asking what it actually matters I would say none, but then again I'm a flower child so no, some people would like some privacy.

I'll tell you a funny story real quick, I took a young gf to some natural springs once, I thought nothing of getting naked and jumping in, aah , however my date did not like that so much, especially when there were quite a few other females in the pond.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Would you like me to PM you the address? I've never actually been in a gym that didn't have unisex changing rooms... but then the doctor didn't start telling me off until a few years ago

But what difference does it make?

I don't see what the big secret is but sure, if you want to PM it to me go for it.

 

[LeMansAid]

My heart breaks for people like the one in this story.

In choosing to simply focus on creating more pigeon holes, rather than limitlessly expanding what is acceptable for each sex, modern society puts these people through a hell far greater than it need be. Instead of telling people that their appearances and behaviours can take any form and that the sex thing is merely academic, "we" tell them that they may or may not fit in one of our increasing list of pre-defined boxes.

What I see as a pale and stymied form of acceptance is really quite cruel in the way it plays out.

 

[Tornado]

I'm curious what she expected him to say.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm curious what she expected him to say.

I think they hoped that POTUS would answer their question, which he did. BBC. That's "they", not "she"

 

[Tornado]

I think they hoped that POTUS would answer their question, which he did.

No, the first article noted that she felt his answer wasn't up to par:

"I've been imagining this situation for quite some time. His answers were never going to live up to that, but his answers were not of the calibre that I would expect of an outgoing President," the student told Sky's Jonathan Samuels.

"I felt that as someone who has eight months to establish his legacy once and for all, in order to be the face of change, he really needs to start doing something about transgender rights."

Should Obama have committed to invading the United Kingdom, topple David Cameron's regime and establish non-binary protection laws (though I'm also curious what protection isn't being applied in this case anyway)? Go to war with a Carolina (again) to keep them from doing the things the Carolinas have traditionally done? It's very brave of her to champion a social issue that a lot of people don't and will continue to not buy into, but what was Obama supposed to say to meet the expected caliber?

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, the first article noted that she felt his answer wasn't up to par:

True, here's a quote carried by a non-Murdoch source;

This response, Munir said, showed that the president was “quite thrown” by the question. “He could have said more, but then people can always do more. From what I believe, that was the first time in the Q&A that he actually sat down on his stool. It seemed almost as though he was completely unprepared for even talking about non-binary gender or lack of. He didn’t even say the words ‘non-binary’, he essentially said someone in your situation, which to me implies that he didn’t truly understand what I meant.

“I think this is because of a lack of education around the issue. It’s almost perfect in a way that even the president of the United States isn’t fully informed on non-binary issues, because it really puts it home that so many people around the world need to be informed on this.”

...she...her...

Is that a deliberate choice of words? If so, why, and why not "they" and "their"?[/QUOTE]

 

[Johnnypenso]

True, here's a quote carried by a non-Murdoch source;

Is that a deliberate choice of words? If so, why, and why not "they" and "their"?

He sat on his stool and didn't use the words non-binary. Sounds like an international incident to me.

 

[TenEightyOne]

He sat on his stool and didn't use the words non-binary. Sounds like an international incident to me.

I'm not sure I'm arguing with you about any of it

I wouldn't blame Obama for not saying "non-binary" if he's not exactly sure of the meaning/context, particularly on an overseas diplo-trip. Definitely no international incident, we'll save that for when he congratulates London's first muslim mayor

 

[Tornado]

True, here's a quote carried by a non-Murdoch source;

I'm kind of limited when it comes to these things by the links provided to me.

Is that a deliberate choice of words? If so, why, and why not "they" and "their"?

"They" and "their" were pretty thoroughly beaten into my head in school to not be used for singular entities when possible. I'm not going to go against how the language is structured (or was taught in structure) to follow what I believe is a social construct.



Or, to be more blunt, this person who looks like a girl whose name is Maria doesn't want to be identified as a woman or a man. So?

 

[TenEightyOne]

"They" and "their" were pretty thoroughly beaten into my head in school to not be used for singular entities when possible. I'm not going to go against how the language is structured (or was taught in structure) to follow what I believe is a social construct.

Come on, seriously? You were never taught to use "they" or "their" for non-gender personal pronouns? I refuse to believe that - I've read your posts for goodness knows how long and you learnt English very proper!

Or, to be more blunt, this person who looks like a girl whose name is Maria doesn't want to be identified as a woman or a man. So?

So... nothing, you brought the story up... for Maria you seem to be deliberately choosing out of the three natural English pronoun options to be choosing one that you know they don't want when it would be very simple to use the "third".

 

[Famine]

Come on, seriously? You were never taught to use "they" or "their" for non-gender personal pronouns?

More taught not to - and appropriately as 'they' and 'their' are for groups. It should be 'it' and 'its', though I suspect that being described as an 'it' may cause offence.