Seattle man tests transgender rule by changing in women's locker room.

You flat out admitted to assault on this forum lol. Ask your DA friend to look over the post and tell me what he thinks. It's f**king fine, nobody gives a s**t--but it's just funny because your story has more to do with people not enforcing laws than anything else. Anyways, that's a stupid aside. If you don't think you committed a crime, who is to tell you you have (besides your DA friend I guess).

If you don't think your story has any baring on encouraging anti-LGBT discrimination (and therefore little if any relevance in this thread), I suppose we are in agreement.

 

There's something called irrational discrimination that tends to be frowned upon in certain courts, most notably the Supreme one--I believe Justice Kennedy calls it "animus".

Sadly, no matter how small the group, that same spirit, if left festering in the American polity, leads to things like rule of men, and not of laws and is a direct attack against American values. The only plausible argument people have brought up against this measure is a vague implication that freeing up bathrooms will lead to a spate of indecent exposure, which makes a lot of sense since LGBT who have been persecuted their entire lives are really just in it to get with the ladies, indecent exposure style, in bathrooms :/

Data on all sorts of unisex bathrooms and states with accommodations for LGBT -friendly bathrooms have never had one incident of trans voyeurism (save Nook's beating, I suppose) but who knows, people should probably make policy choices based on discomfort and "otherness".

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/20/9574239/transgender-murders-epidemic

Spoiler

For the record, it's been well documented that biological men will be violent towards LGBT, hell it's even worked its way into the legal system as a justifiable defense for assault/murder that has reduced sentences.

^ juxtapose that one incident with the one that has happened in this thread :/

 

Man I've been snoozing and missed this gem.

You can't be this nonchalant with the story. I need more details because this doesn't seem like reality lol. I've never known you to bs before, but this one is pretty off the wall.

 

Actually, Northside hit most of this post up pretty well and said what I would have said.

Not that the Majority doesn't matter, not that women's opinions don't matter on this, but when that opinion is HARMFUL to a minority then yes, F that opinion or "Comfort" because according to that logic again, we would have never had gay marriage or many civil rights for minorities because at the time the majority wasn't favoring it or it made them "Uncomfortable." that's a nice way of just saying "We don't want you around, that's all."

Any ways you realize we are agreeing with the same thing right?

Exactly. Except I apply that rule for EVERYONE. No matter your gender or where you are at. If you pull off your pants and flash your genitals to people then that is against the law. Nothing is changing that. I think it's already been proven that TG people will do exactly as you expect any other person that has to use the public restroom. You know, go in and do their stuff and get out. These are not places people like to be.

Also, we can't legislate by asking random people on the street about this? That makes no sense. In fact the last time we had this discussion we had a woman in this thread say she didn't care about it at all and her opinion was completely ignored by those against it. Once again, if you are going to say "Most women feel..." I just want to know where you are getting that from, seems fair right?

Any ways, I think we know that when it comes to rights...the opinion of the majority is often not one you want to hold up and go "SEE! That settles it then!"

Now, as to your bit about data well here you go. I never said rape specifically though. But I find it funny that people think that men are so out of control that if you pass this law there will be tons putting on skirts and sneaking into women's restrooms meanwhile you will allow MTF transgender people into men's restroom and the men will be completely in control. The logic doesn't equate here. Any ways, your data...

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...d-Restrooms-and-Minority-Stress-June-2013.pdf

Now, since this is actually a thing (This whole MTF using women's restroom thing) in several places I am now waiting on the data that proves that opening up restrooms to transgender people is harmful and will lead to a spike of indecent exposure or worse.

If someone could show any actual proof to this happening then maybe we can discuss this.

 

I've skimmed through the thread since my last post and responding to this.

I have a question for Nook. If this man had been in the male dressing room acting in the same way, drunk and speaking inappropriately to young boys would you have acted the same or would you have dismissed it because he was a male in the male designated locker room?

 

If a male adult was drunk with his wang out talking to my hypothetical male child in a male restroom, I would still deck him if he continued to speak to my hypothetical male child. This had nothing to do with gender. Actually, the first thing I would do is move my hypothetical child from the hypothetical situation.

Your anecdote is nothing more than a **** anecdote this isn't applicable at all the the discussion in hand.

Drunk man with genitals out is having conversations with children. Yes, I believe anyone would think that is inappropriate regardless if it was in a woman's restroom, or in a catholic church. It doesn't matter.

 

I feel like we already had this argument and no one changed anybody else's opinion on the matter.

 

Welcome to every D&D thread ever made.

 

Let me set two things straight here; If you want to argue the sexual predator issue, then go find someone who wants to discuss that issue.

Secondly, LGB are different from T. Lets not lump the two together. LGB do not have bathroom issues. Any person who makes a public issue of their gender crisis needs to spend time with a psychiatrist, not forcing people to identify whatever sex they are struggling with. The apparel a person adorns themselves with is generally associated with a culture, not their sexual identity. If a person wants to wear makeup and pink glittery dresses, let them go to town. It doesnt change the biological sex.

We all disagree in some form or fashion and generally speaking, most people really dont care what others do as long as it doesnt affect them. It all comes back down to keeping your business private.

Is this really your argument? The likes of you are quick to note how there is homosexuality in other animals. News flash brah, but animals are just as likely to kill each other over the same thing.

Dont be ignorant and try to pass off gender deception as general bigotry. You know damn good and well those two are nothing alike. I am not advocating violence, but if you're completely shocked at those kind of results, then you are a fool. This is pretty much rape.

 

Yes, we are on the same page on much of the issue. Perhaps where we disagree is in what should be done. Personally, I appose any federal law. This should be left up to jurisdictions and private establishments. I dont find the predator argument invalid, I just do not find it significant. There will be people who will abuse this law, such as the original article of the man testing the transgender rule. These cases will be much more common than any transgender being thrown out. Why pass a law to complicate things more just to simply pander to an extreme minority.

 

By much more common, you mean two anecdotal stories and zero law enforcement reports?

Let me flip your question on its head.

Why do you think transgender people are an "extreme" minority? Is it because your political correctness radar only accepts two binary genders? Is there ANY logic-based reason behind that?

Is your characterization of "extreme" minority clouding your judgement when it comes to non-discrimination?

 

Oh, why won't somebody think of the children!!!1111

Oh wait, they did.

Is it a good thing for a man to expose his penis in front of 6 year old boys?

 

poor you. transgender people affect you so deeply their biological sex changes (which you will never see) impact your day-to-day?

Why should they be private? What harms are they causing you by merely existing? What makes them so different from LGB?

People can make a "public crisis" about gender without changing their sex. Gender, again, is a cultural construct. So when you say "If a person wants to wear makeup and pink glittery dresses, let them go to town."--they are manifesting their "public crisis" about gender. You seem to be a bit confused about this.

"Your business private"--do you have something against PDA? Sex in general? Do you go outside in a t-shirt that says "I am a heteronormative male please leave me alone."

The likes of me will note that the female praying mantis will kill the male one and eat it after mating, and that male clownfish turn female and mate with their children if the existing female dies because if your line of argumentation rests solely on the "God is great" and look "at the nature of homosexuality! It's UNNATURAL" track--well, that's a f**king stupid argument once you know what nature is about. If it makes you feel better, I deploy this same argument to people who are all "I eat healthy natural things!"--like "motherf**ker, nature is designed to KILL YOUR ASS."

Oh, you can let transgender people affect you just because they exist, but I can't be shocked that three biological males found a penis so threatening they murdered a person?

But here, how about cases that aren't as "grey" (since transgender people, by definition of making their "public" business "private" can be murdered).

http://time.com/3999348/transgender-murders-2015/

https://medium.com/hatewatch-blog/in-the-crosshairs-3700fbf2203d#.2ecb21qgi

There is an unacceptable amount of illogic and irrational fear/hate on this topic. Something that must change.

 

Leave the lawyering to those of us that have graduated from law school and have a history as a federal prosecutor.

What happened to my niece had little to do with not enforcing existing laws and more to do with a facility being afraid of facing the consequences for denying a man dressed like a woman from entering a locker room full of little girls. Common sense is to not to allow a drunk 35 year old man wearing a dress into the locker room full of little girls, but fear of a lawsuit carried the day and a bunch of little girls experienced something they will never forget.

Fortunately the logical adults in the room carried the day and the matter was handled appropriately. The predator will be/if isn't yet; let out of the hospital tonight after surgery.

 

I really don't care about this anymore, as it it has jack s**t to do with this topic, tbh.

 

I have no idea what you're banging on about here. I stated people should keep their business private. No where did I state that I had a problem with anyone who kept their business to themselves. You're convoluting mainstream arguments and forcing it into this discussion. I dont want to hear about your religion, I dont want to hear about your sexual preference or who you are sleeping with, I just really do not want people randomly approaching me forcing their beliefs on me.
How often does a transgender person really strip down in front of anyone? This is practically a non issue.

Another rant in which i have no idea what you're banging on about. When did we start talking about God?

Just to make sure there is no confusion, your original example consisted of 3 hetrosexual males engaging in sexual activities with what they believed to be a woman.
Your argument is that just because a person "feels" like a woman but has the full genetic makeup of a man, a man should just say "oh my bad. I didnt realize you were a transgender and you are really a female. Lets just continue to have sex so I dont offend you".
Do you realize how ignorant that sounds?

And stop pretending TG's are picked on simply because of their issue. If a person is at a bus stop wearing a robe open with a pink tutu, they are going to get comments made. Anytime anyone goes against the norms of society, this will always happen. Are you telling me you don't mock the guy on the street corner carrying a cross, screaming out to everyone and believing he is Jesus?

 

I would have still been upset, he was asking children inappropriate questions. Does it bother me more that they were little girls and he had penis hanging out? Yes, honestly.

What I also found upsetting was that people allowed the behavior because they were afraid to be labeled a bigot or face being a social pariah. Employees were afraid to act. Had this been someone that was discreet and taken care of buisness I wouldn't have said or done anything, other than possibly having to explain transgender to my niece. Drunk? Penis out? Talking to little girls? He is fortunate to only have needed surgery to address nerve ending issues.

 

Honestly all happened really fast and didn't seem like a big deal (the man dressed as a woman was a small part of it at the time). I don't look for conflict but as I have gotten older and have had children and close relationships with family children, I have developed very black and white lines and don't think about or worry about consequences when it comes to how my family and children are treated.

Within 10 minutes the CPD were there. I told the responding officers what happened and what shower the man was in. After speaking to parents and the supervisor I was allowed to leave and received an apology. I drove my niece home. An ambulance was called and I was given a buisness card.

 

Yeah, the first part of your screed seems to say that T have "bathroom" issues so they're not keeping their business to themselves, unlike other LGB who got same-sex marriage passed in 50 states. Unfortunately, their belief is that no irrational patterns of discrimination should be put on them for no reason so that "business" they shove in front of you is simply them existing, and the simple "business" of not being hated for no reason. There is no reason why you would seem to care about a "bathroom" issue if you don't think there is a policy-based reason to care (which you said you don't), so I'm curious why you're so resistant to T and not LGB.

Or is your policy preference to maintain irrational discrimination no matter what?

You also demonstrated marked ignorance by saying: "Any person who makes a public issue of their gender crisis needs to spend time with a psychiatrist, not forcing people to identify whatever sex they are struggling with.", as if part of the reason why LGBT have to spend so much time with psychiatrists isn't the irrational hate they get.

Re: God--you brought up nature and one of my prior arguments.

I gave you context to my original argument on homosexuality in other animals. And I should note that I don't know any animals that display irrational transphobia but let me know if you have concrete examples.

um, there's a big difference between "let's continue to have sex" and "hey, we're THREE people and your penis is such a threat we need to MURDER you. and yes, that's a legal defense." Do you see the spectrums of options between those extremes?

And lastly, to cast the absurdity of your line of thinking, no I don't actually mock people carrying cross signs (really don't give a s**t either way, if it makes them happy whatever), but neither would I murder them for it, mutilate their genitals and NOT have that be called a hate crime if I did.

This thread, when you break it down, is about having ZERO logical arguments against the motion proposed, and a whole lot of animus/irrational hate/fear. History tells us that policy built on animus will always fail.