Transsexual Toilet Trouble

[Beskar]

His Brexit view wasn't much, but his views on transsexuals pretty much amounted to "I don't want male perverts near my daughter in the bathroom". Clearly hasn't heard of this meme campaign, might change his view on how dumb he sounded.

[InsaneApache]

Don't tell me you've fallen for clownworld.

honk honk

[CrossLOPER]

Don't tell me you've fallen for clownworld.

honk honk

If you try to mock something hard enough, you'll eventually turn into a clown yourself.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

His Brexit view wasn't much, but his views on transsexuals pretty much amounted to "I don't want male perverts near my daughter in the bathroom". Clearly hasn't heard of this meme campaign, might change his view on how dumb he sounded.

Is that not a valid concern?

[Beskar]

Is that not a valid concern?

Why would it be a valid one?

The idea that allowing people who essentially are male and female to use the bathroom legitimately, see pictures:


- essentially opens the 'floodgates' that makes you want (after all, you are male) want to don a dress then try to peep on women peeing is absolutely absurd. They don't even need dresses if they want to do that, or even they might try to pose as a women even without allowing transgender people anyway. Anyone trying to 'perv' would be appropriately face the consequences. It is pure Daily Mail-esque Boogeyman trash with no basis in reality.

If we are worried about 'exposure' to the daughter. Which would be the weirdest one? I would argue it is the top picture of the FTM guy (and where the majority of people) wouldn't be able to tell and say "There is a man in the female toilets!".

[Viking]

people who essentially are male and female

That, they are not. If anything, they are artificially intersex.

[Beskar]

That, they are not. If anything, they are artificially intersex.

They are for all intents and purposes that gender.

You are also an artificially constructed consciousness manifested from a gurgling meat-suit made of billion of cells using an artificial box constructed out of inorganic materials transmitting photons to interact with other gurgling meat-suits.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They are for all intents and purposes that gender.

You are also an artificially constructed consciousness manifested from a gurgling meat-suit made of billion of cells using an artificial box constructed out of inorganic materials transmitting photons to interact with other gurgling meat-suits.

You believe in Intelligent Design now? Or Aliens?

Disregarding the rest of your colourful description wherewith is the human consciousness "artificial"?

If you respond "gender is artificially constructed" I'll simply respond "no it isn't" because you have no evidence for that claim - in fact your entire argument here rest on gender being spontaneously generated.

[Viking]

They are for all intents and purposes that gender.

The terms male and female often refer specifically to sex; they are the terms used in biology.

Separately, unless you can somehow define the genders in a manner that is completely independent of sex (good luck), that such individuals should be of the claimed gender for all intents and purposes does not seem reasonable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why would it be a valid one?

The idea that allowing people who essentially are male and female to use the bathroom legitimately, see pictures:


- essentially opens the 'floodgates' that makes you want (after all, you are male) want to don a dress then try to peep on women peeing is absolutely absurd. They don't even need dresses if they want to do that, or even they might try to pose as a women even without allowing transgender people anyway. Anyone trying to 'perv' would be appropriately face the consequences. It is pure Daily Mail-esque Boogeyman trash with no basis in reality.

If we are worried about 'exposure' to the daughter. Which would be the weirdest one? I would argue it is the top picture of the FTM guy (and where the majority of people) wouldn't be able to tell and say "There is a man in the female toilets!".

Argument ad absurdum is a fallacy and I know how you like to point out others' fallacies.

You haven't explained why removing the legal prohibition from someone society identifies as a man entering the women's facilities shouldn't be a concern.

The reason it is a concern is because it removes the prima facie case for arresting perverts BEFORE they do anything. I recall the pre-op trans-woman who persuaded the government to place her in a woman's prison and then assaulted several female inmates.

Even if society decides that changing the law is something that should be done that does not make the concerns foolish or illiterate or prejudiced. I saw Long Walk to Freedom with Idris Elba today - part of the plot relates to white fears of reprisal once blacks can control of the government. At no point does Mandela say these fears are not legitimate, he says, in fact, that he wants revenge - but he continues to insist on majority rule (and he says he wants peace more than revenge anyway).

[Montmorency]

*sigh* Pre-crime again? First, "concerns" without reasonable basis such as these must be prejudicial inasmuch as they are not merely delusional or otherwise arbitrary without reference to justification. Second, the bare possibility that someone somewhere may have concerns that are not "foolish or illiterate or prejudiced" gives no indication as to whether yours fall afoul.

One example of a possible non-prejudicial concern might appear as motivation to give every person a single-occupancy bathroom because of a generic fear that having any multiple persons in a bathroom creates an unacceptable risk of shenanigans. But whether or not unfounded, such a non-prejudicial concern could not arise suddenly with respect to transgender issues; it would have to be longstanding.

[Beskar]

You haven't explained why removing the legal prohibition from someone society identifies as a man entering the women's facilities shouldn't be a concern.

I like to use flair to makes points and I am lazy into going into details, but let's do a summary.

The burden of proof is on those expressing the concern, not me, but let's make it easy and just unpack what you are stating. You are arguing the following:
- Perverts are Males
- Perverts prey on women in bathrooms.
- Banning everyone born as a male from entering the bathroom would ban the perverts.
- By banning men, you prevent perverts from being perverts. (Pre-Crime)
- Perverts will exploit LGBT rights to be perverts.

Given the expressed concern did not state FTM going into the male bathrooms as a concern and you avoided my points about this. I assume it based solely on some distrust of males in particular.

If we bring some facts to your points:
- Perverts are unisex. Instead of an obscure unknown eference, I will just throw Myra Hindley into this one. Everyone knows her.
- Perverts generally speaking do all sorts and can do it legally with money or even free. It is also hard term to actually define, but I think we agree it is significantly far greater than simply males peeping on females peeing without their conaent. Let's change the term being used to 'unsoliciated acts for sexual gratification in bathrooms'. A fair alternative?
- As you bring up logical fallacies, all men does not equal all perverts as stated before. The acts can continue without males even being present. Also those who do that are likely to be in the statistically minority. What is a fair number, 1 on 100,000 ? Compared with the effect this ban has on individuals such as the female above who can be distressed or extremely uncomfortable given their presentation.
- Pre Crime arguments. Let's ban you from driving your car so you don't run someone over. There is a significantly higher chance of you running someone over (assuming you are a competent driver) than the incidences of 'perversion' being alluded too by trans people. Now you can rightly argue we recognise this risk as a society and don't ban people from driving for the greater good.
- Now, this is assuming the argument followed the example of someone who is not trans simply putting on a dress and walking into the ladies. Going to be honest, given the level of discrimination in a thread as well mannered as this one would make someone uncomfortable. Nevermind those individuals risk being abused and assaulted for simply wearing a dress. Again, it completely overlooks the real life examples which people posted who are genuinely just wanting to pee without sticking out like a sore thumb.

Personally I don't see any valid arguments for the claimed concern. As I said, it is trumped up hogwash by people who want to descriminate against trans individuals by a very flawed argument they are 'perverts in disguise'.

So let's turn this back to yourself. I have posted pictures of two individuals who shared their experience publicly for awareness. Do you genuinely think they should be forced into those bathrooms when they are so clearly out of place in them?

[Furunculus]

I like to use flair to makes points and I am lazy into going into details, but let's do a summary.

The burden of proof is on those expressing the concern, not me, but let's make it easy and just unpack what you are stating. You are arguing the following:
- Perverts are Males
- Perverts prey on women in bathrooms.
- Banning everyone born as a male from entering the bathroom would ban the perverts.
- By banning men, you prevent perverts from being perverts. (Pre-Crime)
- Perverts will exploit LGBT rights to be perverts.

Given the expressed concern did not state FTM going into the male bathrooms as a concern and you avoided my points about this. I assume it based solely on some distrust of males in particular.

If we bring some facts to your points:
- Perverts are unisex. Instead of an obscure unknown eference, I will just throw Myra Hindley into this one. Everyone knows her.
- Perverts generally speaking do all sorts and can do it legally with money or even free. It is also hard term to actually define, but I think we agree it is significantly far greater than simply males peeping on females peeing without their conaent. Let's change the term being used to 'unsoliciated acts for sexual gratification in bathrooms'. A fair alternative?
- As you bring up logical fallacies, all men does not equal all perverts as stated before. The acts can continue without males even being present. Also those who do that are likely to be in the statistically minority. What is a fair number, 1 on 100,000 ? Compared with the effect this ban has on individuals such as the female above who can be distressed or extremely uncomfortable given their presentation.
- Pre Crime arguments. Let's ban you from driving your car so you don't run someone over. There is a significantly higher chance of you running someone over (assuming you are a competent driver) than the incidences of 'perversion' being alluded too by trans people. Now you can rightly argue we recognise this risk as a society and don't ban people from driving for the greater good.
- Now, this is assuming the argument followed the example of someone who is not trans simply putting on a dress and walking into the ladies. Going to be honest, given the level of discrimination in a thread as well mannered as this one would make someone uncomfortable. Nevermind those individuals risk being abused and assaulted for simply wearing a dress. Again, it completely overlooks the real life examples which people posted who are genuinely just wanting to pee without sticking out like a sore thumb.

Personally I don't see any valid arguments for the claimed concern. As I said, it is trumped up hogwash by people who want to descriminate against trans individuals by a very flawed argument they are 'perverts in disguise'.

So let's turn this back to yourself. I have posted pictures of two individuals who shared their experience publicly for awareness. Do you genuinely think they should be forced into those bathrooms when they are so clearly out of place in them?

i think you have just demolished the very concept of bathrooms separated by sex [or] gender.

if these things are all imagined problems, then why have two sets of bathrooms at all?

[Pannonian]

Argument ad absurdum is a fallacy and I know how you like to point out others' fallacies.

You haven't explained why removing the legal prohibition from someone society identifies as a man entering the women's facilities shouldn't be a concern.

The reason it is a concern is because it removes the prima facie case for arresting perverts BEFORE they do anything. I recall the pre-op trans-woman who persuaded the government to place her in a woman's prison and then assaulted several female inmates.

Even if society decides that changing the law is something that should be done that does not make the concerns foolish or illiterate or prejudiced. I saw Long Walk to Freedom with Idris Elba today - part of the plot relates to white fears of reprisal once blacks can control of the government. At no point does Mandela say these fears are not legitimate, he says, in fact, that he wants revenge - but he continues to insist on majority rule (and he says he wants peace more than revenge anyway).

Bwahahaha. In the Brexit thread, a Brexiteer argues that just because people vote for something to be made law, does not mean the idea is not foolish. I agree with on re: this bare argument, but shouldn't this argument be applied to something rather more wide-ranging than who can go into a specific toilet?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bwahahaha. In the Brexit thread, a Brexiteer argues that just because people vote for something to be made law, does not mean the idea is not foolish. I agree with on re: this bare argument, but shouldn't this argument be applied to something rather more wide-ranging than who can go into a specific toilet?

So, what you got from my post was that majority-rule in South Africa was foolish?

Go read my post again, I said that just because someone does NOT vote for something that the majority believe is right does not mean that person is foolish. In the context of Brexit that means that I do not think Remain voters are foolish for being worried about Brexit.