@fredsbend They can boycott all they want, but the conservatives are going to lose this war. They're fighting not only big business, but common sense. Do you really want someone who looks, acts, and dresses like a woman going into the men's room, and vice versa? These "bathroom bills" make no sense, and they "address" a nonexistent problem. Transgender people are not perpetrators, but victims of (mostly) predatory men. Sending them into the restrooms of the other sex is a recipe for disaster.
What these bills really do is deny transgender people the use of restrooms altogether. Someone who identifies and dresses as a woman simply isn't going to go into the men's room, and vice versa. And if they did, they would cause all sorts of problems as people see someone of the opposite sex in their restroom. These bills are totally nonsensical. Their only purpose is discrimination against transgender people.
I think boycotting is stupid as well, but not because of the topic. I think boycotting is almost always stupid. I do think @LeeWoofenden that you are missing a larger concern that some people have. I wrote a post about it. modernaristotle.com/2016/04/27/…
@curiousdannii Yeah, it starts to get weird at that point, and frankly, I don't know enough about the parts on transgender persons to even know if that's a common, real problem.
@fredsbend Yes, gender-neutral bathrooms are common in Europe. But gender-neutral bathrooms are not what's at issue in the "bathroom bill" debates in the U.S. No one on either side is saying that all bathrooms should be gender-neutral. In fact both the bills and the opposition to them are based on separate, gender-designated bathrooms. Gender-neutral bathrooms (other than single-person ones) aren't coming to the U.S. any time soon. Your article is a red herring.
> There’s a recent activist movement that transgendered persons specifically may use whatever bathroom they identify with, presumably while the rest of us maintain use of the bathroom we appear to be equipped for. Never mind the total impracticality of enforceablity, which I may address in another post, but suffice it to say, the end game is, pragmatically, gender neutral bathrooms; everyone, regardless of gender or any other marker, has only one option available to them.
> Men and women and everyone in between will share a single public bathroom, simply because it is impossible to verify gender identity without a seriously long questionnaire.
@LeeWoofenden I think I address clearly what you're referring to. It's not a red herring. It's the end game result if this process continues.
I see single person toilets being a likely response.
@fredsbend I disagree. It's a classic "domino theory" based more on fear than on reality. No one on either side of the question is pushing for gender-neutral bathrooms.
@fredsbend That would simply not be practical in large, heavily-used facilities. It is possible, however, that multiple-use bathrooms will develop more privacy in their stall designs.
@LeeWoofenden We already know bathrooms are a common place for violence, so I think there's more to the concerns than unfounded fear.
@LeeWoofenden The practical thing is that people will just use the bathroom for the gender they most resemble, as they've done for years. If you're somewhere in between due to lifestyle choice, like wearing a dress, then I'm no longer convinced this is an equal rights issue.
But there surely are transgender people in between surgeries, or hormones, or whatever, but again, is that a lifestyle choice or something they were born with and can't help?
Which, while I'm on the topic, I don't understand the lumping of transgender and gay/lesbian. The message of the gay and lesbian community for years was focused on being happy with yourself and accepting who you are. Extreme measures to change your gender doesn't sound like being happy with your own body to me.
@fredsbend Now you're mixing issues. Violence in bathrooms is one issue. Gender-neutral bathrooms is another issue.
@fredsbend Yes, and even with these silly laws, it's likely that people will go right on using the bathrooms of the gender they identify with and most resemble. Unfortunately, the laws will make it possible to persecute and prosecute them for doing so in the states where those laws exist. And that will introduce more fear than the fear of being assaulted in a bathroom.
As for bathroom assaults, the solution for that is not more government regulations on bathrooms, but rather vigorous prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators. It is the perpetrators, not the victims, who should be targeted by government action.
@fredsbend There are always gray areas. We're talking about human beings here.
@fredsbend The connection is not so much in physiology as in the person's internal sense of gender identity and sexual orientation. The basic idea is that internal factors trump external ones. A person who is biologically male may be (internally) attracted to other males rather than to other females. Or a person who is biologically male may internally feel like a female and not a male.
@fredsbend No one undergoes sex-change surgery due to a mere "lifestyle choice." It involves a whole series of radical procedures, and doctors won't even start on it unless the person seeking it shows a sustained pattern of identifying with the other sex. This is not something that people just do at the drop of a hat.
@fredsbend And it's totally beside the point of the debate in the U.S. about the bathroom bills that have been passed in several states. They're simply not about gender-neutral bathrooms.
@fredsbend Beyond that, the article relies mostly on a lot of speculation, with very few facts to back it up.
@fredsbend Yes, I do. And in fact, I believe the bathroom bills will actually increase the likelihood of bathroom violence as rednecks take the laws as a licence to taunt and attack transgender people in bathrooms.
Further, such laws will give a legal cover for perpetrators, who can argue that their victims were breaking the law, and they were just "defending themselves." It's a totally bogus argument, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be used as an excuse.
The laws themselves are discriminatory, and they will be used for purposes of discrimination.
@LeeWoofenden Indeed, yes, but I'm not convinced heavier punishments are as much a deterrent as you think. A dead or life sentenced criminal does little to comfort a victim.
@LeeWoofenden How does that change the fact that it is an extreme measure, entirely elective, and flies in the face of "be happy with who you are"?
@fredsbend Fear of punishment is the only thing that deters perpetrators. No, it's not perfect. But if perpetrators know there's a high likelihood that they'll end out in jail, they'll think twice. And if they don't . . . then there's a high likelihood the'll end out in jail, where they cannot prey on innocent victims out in society.
@fredsbend For transgender people, "who they are" is not who they physically are, but who they are in their psyche. And isn't it our mind, rather than our body, that distinguishes us as human beings?
@fredsbend And once again, that's a domino theory based more on fear than on reality.
@fredsbend No, it's not going to change any time soon. The overwhelming majority of the U.S. population is not comfortable sharing bathrooms with the opposite sex. And both politics and business must respond to the wants and needs of the people. If they don't, they get booted out of office (politicians) or the people stop buying their products and using their services (business) which results in a loss of profits and bankruptcy.
@LeeWoofenden Yet the same crimes continue to be committed ... Prosecution surely lowers rates, but heavier punishments than we have now? I don't think so.
@LeeWoofenden We're delt the hands we have. They were born with a perfectly healthy body. It's not like they are deformed or dysfunctional in some way. Extreme gender reassignment surgery is akin to gay therapy, yet only one is resoundingly chastised as wrong.
@LeeWoofenden Nope, I don't. And you're making it worse.
@LeeWoofenden That's an issue with the practicality in prosecution. A joint is obvious, physical evidence. Victim testimony is typically all that remains after a sexual assault.
@fredsbend With one difference. "Reparative therapy" for gays doesn't work.
@fredsbend Yes you do. You might not like the term "redneck," but it exists for a reason.
@fredsbend No, victim testimony is not all that remains. There's physical evidence of bodily harm, DNA evidence, evidence from surveillance cameras in the building, and so on.
@LeeWoofenden Lol. And extreme surgery makes you actually a different gender? It's just a smoke screen. You may look like a different gender now, but under the hood you are not a normal functioning body of that gender type.
In some cases, yes, but not typically. Proving opportunity is a far cry from proving guilt. It's to the point where they won't even make an arrest if there's no marks on the victim.
@fredsbend And have you ever actually had a conversation with a transgender person? Or have you watched interviews in which they tell their story?
@fredsbend The legal system will never be perfect, and there will always be people who get away with crimes. But that's no excuse not to take every reasonable step to bring perpetrators to justice. And that starts with creating a culture in which such actions are simply not acceptable. The "bathroom bills" are a big step backward in that respect. They provide legal cover for discrimination and mistreatment of transgender people.
@fredsbend By biggest problem with your article is that it seems to have been written without doing any actual research on the subject it addresses.
@fredsbend Perhaps you should have made an effort to research and answer the questions you ask at the end of the piece before you wrote it.
@fredsbend And it's not just you. When I was researching my homosexuality article for my blog, I found a shocking ignorance and lack of the most basic knowledge about homosexuality in the Christian anti-homosexual articles that came up as primary authorities for that perspective. They seem to have never even bothered to learn anything at all about actual homosexuals.
@fredsbend It certainly sounds as though that's what you're saying. That biological sex is the determinant of gender identity.
@fredsbend "Redneck" is nowhere near as pejorative as the N word. You're making a big deal about a word, and ignoring the point.
@fredsbend So everything new is inferior to everything old? Would you consider that perhaps now we actually understand many things better than we used to?
@fredsbend I agree. And the jury is still out on the nature/nurture debate with regard to sexual identity and sexual orientation. Some believe it's purely genetic, others believe early environmental influences are also a factor. But for most gays, lesbians, and transgender people, their sexual identity and sexual orientation was already determined before they reached the age of sexual self-awareness.
IOW, if you ask them, the vast majority will say that it is not a choice at all. It's simply how they are.
@fredsbend If you want to avoid everything I'm saying because I used the word "redneck," be my guest.
I also use the word "Swedenborgian," which was originally applied as a pejorative term to people who accepted Swedenborg's theology by their theological opponents. Perhaps you should ignore everything I say about Swedenborg because I used a dirty word in reference to those @#$% Swedenborgians!
And yes, some people who accept Swedenborg's theology still think "Swedenborgian" is a bad word.
And incidentally, Jesus used "Pharisee" as a derogatory term.
I personally have been called many derogatory names. But if the person using those names seems willing to have a conversation, I'll ignore their language and focus on the real issues. I think people are way too sensitive these days.
@LeeWoofenden I'm not sensitive about it. The word didn't bother me, but it is an indication of your stereotyping a whole people group. Since you're the "tolerant" one here, I find it ironic.
@LeeWoofenden I also didn't say that. "New" in this context correlates with unproven and simplistic.
@LeeWoofenden People tend to believe what they want to believe. That's the biggest hurdle with the cognitive sciences. Humans are masters at self deception. Every time done poll and psych questionnaire is done, subject distortion is always called into question. It's a very grey science.
@fredsbend I don't think "redneck" is anywhere near as pejorative as you're making it out to be. I've lived among rednecks. Many of them wear the term as a badge of honor. Such as:
@fredsbend I think you should talk to some actual transgender people. Or at least watch some videos in which they tell their stories. For them, it's not a theoretical issue for cognitive science to study.
They don't just wake up one day and say, "Hmm, I feel like a woman. I think I'll go get a sex change operation."
@LeeWoofenden Again, I didn't say it bothered me, and it doesn't bother most everyone else either, but when you use it the way you did, it stands out what you really mean, and it is just as bigoted as any other word you might use that lumps entire groups of people into a negative idea.
@LeeWoofenden Again, I didn't say they do. In fact, what I've been saying is that it is a very complicated subject and simply taking their word for it is not really how cognitive sciences work, yet at the same time that is often all we have to go on.
Never mind the logical problem with "well, I've always felt like this so it is therefore normal and healthy."
@fredsbend So do we have to wait for the cognitive sciences to solve this deep mystery before doing anything for people who are living with the situation every day?
And by "situation" I mean prejudice, misunderstanding, and mistreatment of people who, by no action or choice of their own, are in a situation where their physical body does not match the gender they feel themselves to be.
@fredsbend I don't think of it as being as negative as you do. If the word bothers you, then I'm happy not to use it. And yes, I think it does bother you, or you wouldn't be making such a big deal about it.
@LeeWoofenden Oh, it's not that you used it, it's that you used it pejoratively. You mentioned rednecks and then immediately implied that they were all Trump supporters.
@fredsbend: Re: the article you posted... Are places actually going the way of gender neutral bathrooms as opposed to gender-specific restrooms?
Every place I've ever seen with a gender-neutral bathroom has either been a single-occupancy restroom (so sexual assault is obviously a non-issue), or in addition to existing traditional gender-specific restrooms.
@Flimzy If they want to address this issue equitably, they'll come to that as a real and fair option. Alternatively, they may make single occupancy rooms.
@fredsbend I'm not sure what you're suggesting (yay ambiguous pronouns!) Are you saying that a single restroom is fair? Or 3 is fair?
(incidentally, often the gender-neutral restrooms have doubled as handicapped-accessible, with baby changing station, etc, too... sort of a "catch all special needs" restroom)
One particular Starbucks in Chelsea, London, comes to mind, as having a GN restroom like this... in addition to gender-specific restrooms
@Flimzy I think I've seen those. That may work too, but my understanding is that transgendered don't like the idea of taking up a handicap room when a legitimate special need is in need.
IMO, use the restroom you want. Honestly, I wouldn't care if woman walked into the mens room to use a toilet. (if she was using the urinal, that might be strange)
I consider the gender segregation primarily a matter of hygienic courtesy for the women.
Which is why I'm still in favor of gender-specific single-occupancy restrooms.
@El'endiaStarman It's that he implied that they are inherently violent. Considering the image of a redneck is quite specific (white, male, Christian), I find the stereotype deplorable.
@fredsbend No. I'm talking about even small establishments, which have only two single-occupancy restrooms. I'm in favor of still labeling them specifically male and female.
Even though there's no opportunity for predators to intrude, because nobody's sharing a room.
And the reason I'm in favor of such segregation, is because I think it's respectful to women to have their own restroom for hygiene reasons. Women tend to be more neat in the toilet (at home or in public).
they're less likely to urinate on a public toilet seat by accident
or even miss, and hit the floor
Women are, in general, neater in the bathrooms. It's fair to let them have their own bathrooms.
On the other hand, if the ladies' room is occupied, I think a woman should be free to use the men's.
and vice versa. It should be a guideline, not an enforced rule, for single-occupancy restrooms.
But on the rare occasions when I do use a women's single-occupancy room, I'm always extra careful to be tidy.
In larger establishments (airports, Wal-Mart, whatever), I think the existing large restrooms with stalls make sense. And permitting transgender people into whichever they prefer makes sense. Baring that, create a third restroom for them.
But having to go into a private stall with its own toilet and sink all the time would annoy me.
Was it proscribed in the act of supremacy of 1532?
The Upper Room
The Upper Room