Transgender man gives birth

[Belz...]

I think we all know that uni-sex toilets are just being demanded as a form of discrimmination against males.

Personally I've been arguing for unisex restrooms for a while now. You're not likely to see people naked there, even with urinals. It's changing rooms and showers that are a bit different.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I took it to mean that she would feel abused by the people preventing her to speak her fears about this, but I may be wrong.

Well, that's an issue both (all) sides deal with. "I want to be heard" gets confused with "I want you to agree with my way."

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[DreamingNaiad]

I took it to mean that she would feel abused by the people preventing her to speak her fears about this, but I may be wrong.

Perhaps. I just never understand everyones preoccupation with others genitals

The problem is that pointing out that somone's fears are baffling and irrational isn't preventing speech. Asking for more substantial reasons than "It makes me feel icky and uncomfortable" , "mumble mumble rapists are everywhere mumble" and "people who make me uncomfortable should hide themselves away from society" isn't abuse.

I mean, seriously? Those kinds of views make me feel icky and uncomfortable but I don't propose banishment.

Why can't we just live and let pee?

 

[cullennz]

Just goes back to the same old argument

To make a few people feel more comfortable, some people think making a few other people feel uncomfortable (however irrational some think is the reason) is the way to go.

And you aren't allowed to call the first lot of people's discomfort irrational apparently, because it only counts as irrational if you are the second few people.

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps. I just never understand everyones preoccupation with others genitals

I wouldn't call it preoccupation. More like the thing it represents in certain contexts, I guess (for some, sexual violence).

Well, that's an issue both (all) sides deal with. "I want to be heard" gets confused with "I want you to agree with my way."

See, you can make sense when you put your mind to it!

 

[tyr_13]

Then what are you claiming? You're arguing against my pointing out that the argument has been made here in the past, so what is your point?

That your characterization of it as 'the answer' to the question is wrong. It being said somewhere by someone doesn't make it 'the answer'. Attributing it to those who disagree with your assertion that you can politely tell people they're not their gender is a straw man.

It isn't the 'pc liberals' here saying that not wanting to have sex with trangender people makes you a bigot.

It's the fact that Facebook thought they should add the list in the first place that shows that the idea has legs.

It really, really doesn't.

Same reason I don't think god exists: lack of evidence.

Your refusal to accept the evidence doesn't make that so. You won't even believe the dictionary, so this doesn't surprise me at this point.

Leaving aside that the term "non-binary" I was using refered to people who neither identify as male or female, it's trivial to point out that sex is controlled by a large number of genes, and that some of them might be on the "wrong" side in a particular individual. It does not follow that the person is neither male nor female.

Not 'male nor female', it's 'man nor woman'. Sex and gender are different. It turns out humans are complex; who knew?

'Intersexed' is the term for people who are neither male nor female (or are both male and female). 'Non-binary' is for people who don't fully identify as either men or women.

 

[tyr_13]

Just goes back to the same old argument

To make a few people feel more comfortable, some people think making a few other people feel uncomfortable (however irrational some think is the reason) is the way to go.

And you aren't allowed to call the first lot of people's discomfort irrational apparently, because it only counts as irrational if you are the second few people.

If only one group has a rational reason for their discomfort and concern, then well no duh the other is irrational.

 

[tyr_13]

How many other things that might cause arousal should we avoid? My libido frightens me, so should I just not be around women? I've never had any trouble avoiding raping someone just because something aroused me. Is this outside the norm?

This thread gets stranger and stranger. (No, not that one.)

 

[Belz...]

That your characterization of it as 'the answer' to the question is wrong. It being said somewhere by someone doesn't make it 'the answer'.

Who said or implied it was the only answer? It was the dominant answer back then, making it "an answer". You're adding content not in the post I made here:

Oh, we've had this discussion before. If person A rejects person B after learning this, they are a bigot.

It isn't the 'pc liberals' here saying that not wanting to have sex with trangender people makes you a bigot.

Again, not in this thread, because it largely hasn't been the topic of discussion.

It really, really doesn't.

Let me get this straight. You don't think that Facebook, one of the leading social media sites in the world, adding a gazillion genders to its profile options constitutes them embracing the concept of a "spectrum" of genders and thus legitimising the idea in the eyes of many of its members?

Why would Facebook not work like any group or community in human history, in your view?

Your refusal to accept the evidence doesn't make that so.

That's exactly what creationists say.

Not 'male nor female', it's 'man nor woman'. Sex and gender are different.

So you keep saying. But as I argued earlier one is a function of the other, like "running" requires legs.

'Intersexed' is the term for people who are neither male nor female (or are both male and female). 'Non-binary' is for people who don't fully identify as either men or women.

Exactly what I said. The first is a real thing. The second is, far as I can tell, a fad.

 

[tyr_13]

Who said or implied it was the only answer? It was the dominant answer back then, making it "an answer". You're adding content not in the post I made here:

Evidence?

Again, not in this thread, because it largely hasn't been the topic of discussion.



Let me get this straight. You don't think that Facebook, one of the leading social media sites in the world, adding a gazillion genders to its profile options constitutes them embracing the concept of a "spectrum" of genders and thus legitimising the idea in the eyes of many of its members?

Why would Facebook not work like any group or community in human history, in your view?

Wait, this is a goalpost move. We were talking about pronouns that were invented like 'xe', not the gender spectrum.

That's exactly what creationists say.

It's also what scientists say to global warming deniers and flat earthers.

So you keep saying. But as I argued earlier one is a function of the other, like "running" requires legs.

And you're wrong about that. You did argue it, but it wasn't correct.

Exactly what I said. The first is a real thing. The second is, far as I can tell, a fad.

Serious question; Have you read any of the links from this thread? 'As far as you can tell' isn't a standard I put weight in here.

 

[Belz...]

Evidence?

You're just being contrarian, now. I wish I could find the thread again, but the search function hasn't been good to me in a long while.

Wait, this is a goalpost move. We were talking about pronouns that were invented like 'xe', not the gender spectrum.

No, Facebook's options are for gender, not pronouns.

It's also what scientists say to global warming deniers and flat earthers.

That's my point: it's what everyone says. So it's not very convincing.

And you're wrong about that. You did argue it, but it wasn't correct.

You seem quite fond of arguing by fiat. You say I'm wrong repeatedly, and I'm supposed to just accept your word on it.

'As far as you can tell' isn't a standard I put weight in here.

That's why I said it; so you could tell it was my opinion. Apparently you can't tell an opinion from a statement of fact even when it's specifically worded to avoid confusion.

 

[cullennz]

If only one group has a rational reason for their discomfort and concern, then well no duh the other is irrational.

One persons rational is anothers irrational

To the people that are uncomfortable on either side, it is rational, and frankly that is all that matters

Why do you or I get to decide one sides isn't?

Seems a bit selfish and ego trippy to me

 

[bruto]

Just goes back to the same old argument

To make a few people feel more comfortable, some people think making a few other people feel uncomfortable (however irrational some think is the reason) is the way to go.

And you aren't allowed to call the first lot of people's discomfort irrational apparently, because it only counts as irrational if you are the second few people.

I sort of get your point, but I don't think it quite works for the groups in question because the groups are not equivalent. One group is a defined group of people who share a named characteristic which causes discomfort to an undefined group of people whose only shared characteristic is their expressed discomfort. There may be good reasons for any number of things to be done or not to be done, and this post is not about that. It is about the fact that those two groups are not commensurate and the issue of rationality or irrationality is not the thing that makes this so.

 

[sylvan8798]

One group is a defined group of people who share a named characteristic which causes discomfort to an undefined group of people whose only shared characteristic is their expressed discomfort.

And how large does the uncomfortable group have to be in order to have the right to exclude the defined other group from society? Hell, I have apotemnophobia, but I don't expect amputees to hide under rocks on my account or consider them rude for failing to take my fears and those of my fellow apotemnophobics into account.

 

[cullennz]

And how large does the uncomfortable group have to be in order to have the right to exclude the defined other group from society? Hell, I have apotemnophobia, but I don't expect amputees to hide under rocks on my account or consider them rude for failing to take my fears and those of my fellow apotemnophobics into account.

They aren't being excluded from a society and what exactly causes their discomfort?

The other groups discomfort has been discussed, and ridiculed by some at length, so maybe looking closer at the others might be useful

I'm assuming you are joking with amputees

 

[DragonLady]

The Romans had mixed bathhouses by the 1st century. These were serious centers of social life. Affairs of state were discussed and commerce bargained over in these places. In fact, one of the quirks of the setting was that once you'd taken off your purple-lined toga or commoner's rags, everyone was a lot more alike and all were welcome to bathe, discuss issues of the day, and otherwise exist as peers.

Public baths are not private baths. I would dare say attempts to engage in gate-keeping around communal spaces is the attitude in stark contrast to the arc of history.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

Right. We could completely derail the thread discussing the problems those caused.

Let's just keep it simple: it turned out to be such a bad idea the practice was almost entirely eliminated in favor of private baths.

 

[DragonLady]

I sort of get your point, but I don't think it quite works for the groups in question because the groups are not equivalent. One group is a defined group of people who share a named characteristic which causes discomfort to an undefined group of people whose only shared characteristic is their expressed discomfort. There may be good reasons for any number of things to be done or not to be done, and this post is not about that. It is about the fact that those two groups are not commensurate and the issue of rationality or irrationality is not the thing that makes this so.

I have to take issue with your wording here.

"share a named characteristic which causes discomfort"

vs

"only shared characteristic is expressed discomfort"

Is remarkably close, IMO, to saying:

"But, this group is in terrible pain and that group is telling lies!"

I would say: "expresses discomfort" means something "causes discomfort"; and its equally true -or equally false- with regards to both groups.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Why all this talk about feelings? Let's talk about harm.
What harm would it do to let trans people use the facilities of their choice?
There appear to be two arguments.
One is that people might see genitals they're not expecting. I'd imagine that most trans people who want to pass for their target gender aren't going to publicly display their genitals, especially since there's a lot of anti trans violence, and they don't want to out themselves to random strangers. But I agree, it is at least possible, though I'm not sure how it would constitute actual harm.
The other argument is that rapists, who up until now have been either too scared or too polite to enter women's locker rooms, will claim to be trans in order to somehow justify attempted rape. That argument is just ridiculous.

Now, what's the harm if we make people use the facilities intended for their birth sex?
Well, people who look like men will be in the ladies' room, and vice versa. This won't do anything to lessen the fears of people who are afraid of people of the opposite sex in their facilities, because superficially, they won't look like they belong there and people won't respond well to the perceived 'intruders'. And again, it's probably less safe for the trans folks to be forced to out themselves like this.

What's the harm of doing as Dragonlady suggested and expecting people to not use public facilities if they don't conform to the norms? Well, that would mean trans people could never change their clothes or use a toilet outside their own homes. I don't think it's fair to deny people access to public facilities because they look different.

So I'd say, for the least amount of harm, go with option one. You'll probably never see anyone's genitals anyway, and the rape argument is nonsense.

 

[Belz...]

One persons rational is anothers irrational

To the people that are uncomfortable on either side, it is rational, and frankly that is all that matters

Being uncomfortable isn't rational unless the perception of risk in this case is justified. But how much risk is enough to count as justified varies from one person to the next. That's why I don't play the lottery but other people do.

 

[cullennz]

Being uncomfortable isn't rational unless the perception of risk in this case is justified. But how much risk is enough to count as justified varies from one person to the next. That's why I don't play the lottery but other people do.

Fair point.

But that is the case for both groups of people