Transgender man gives birth

DragonLady said:
I'm sorry; I haven't seen that.



Who? Intact males in the women's restroom with harmful intentions? No...they never do any such thing. Really.
Click to expand...

It was similar to the skittles thing.

So what are the transgendered people being given that no one else is?
 
So what are the transgendered people being given that no one else is?
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Can you honestly not see that not only has a tiny group of people been able to force a change upon an entire population in the name of their personal safety, but at the end of the day failed to even make themselves safer doing it? The only thing accomplished by this change is putting more people into danger than there were before.

Can you honestly not see that?

Can you truly not understand that if an intact biological male is in danger of being attacked in the men's room, than he's also in danger of being attacked in the women's room because all men are welcome there now.

Can you truly not understand that a biological female who wanted to be able to use the men's room because she looks male, still has to be concerned about being attacked, because that room will still be full of men.

I do not understand how any one, any where thought this through and thought it would solve any one's problems, or make anyone safe.

Instead, all they did was open up previously reserved spaces, thereby increasing the traffic overall, and thus increasing the dangers to everyone by default.
 
DragonLady said:
Seriously?

Can you honestly not see that not only has a tiny group of people been able to force a change upon an entire population in the name of their personal safety, but at the end of the day failed to even make themselves safer doing it? The only thing accomplished by this change is putting more people into danger than there were before.

Can you honestly not see that?

Can you truly not understand that if an intact biological male is in danger of being attacked in the men's room, than he's also in danger of being attacked in the women's room because all men are welcome there now.

Can you truly not understand that a biological female who wanted to be able to use the men's room because she looks male, still has to be concerned about being attacked, because that room will still be full of men.

I do not understand how any one, any where thought this through and thought it would solve any one's problems, or make anyone safe.

Instead, all they did was open up previously reserved spaces, thereby increasing the traffic overall, and thus increasing the dangers to everyone by default.
Click to expand...
The harms you allude to are already crimes. Criminalizing behavior that harms no one in the name of stopping a harmful act is called "prior restraint." The government has to overcome major hurdles and demonstrate that no non-infringing measures work.

So if there is no massive bathroom assault epidemic, then the current sexual assault laws must be adequate.

ETA: plus sub in ethnicity to that same argument and see if you still agree.
 
ETA: plus sub in ethnicity to that same argument and see if you still agree
Click to expand...

What does ethnicity have to do with it?

Sexual assaults happen. They happen everywhere, including washrooms. The only thing this law does is make the conditions by which they happen easier, regardless who the victim or perpetrator is.

And, they managed to offend a bunch of people doing it.

Now, please explain to me: who won here?

What did any "typical" transwoman or transman gain here? What, at the end of the day, do you think transgendered individuals walked away with?
 
DragonLady said:
Seriously?

Can you honestly not see that not only has a tiny group of people been able to force a change upon an entire population in the name of their personal safety, but at the end of the day failed to even make themselves safer doing it? The only thing accomplished by this change is putting more people into danger than there were before.

Can you honestly not see that?

Can you truly not understand that if an intact biological male is in danger of being attacked in the men's room, than he's also in danger of being attacked in the women's room because all men are welcome there now.

Can you truly not understand that a biological female who wanted to be able to use the men's room because she looks male, still has to be concerned about being attacked, because that room will still be full of men.

I do not understand how any one, any where thought this through and thought it would solve any one's problems, or make anyone safe.

Instead, all they did was open up previously reserved spaces, thereby increasing the traffic overall, and thus increasing the dangers to everyone by default.
Click to expand...

They haven't forced anything. As far as I am aware anyone can pee in any bathroom. You get that right? What they want is for things to stay the same. Bathroom laws are the ones that force change.

They only came to be in danger when some people got obsessed with policing the genitals of people peeing near them.

Also I am not always on rape alert. I don't assume a man in the loo will be intent on rape. Obviously it is a possibility but the far more likely explanation is that they need to pee. Why would rape be the first thing you think of? I don't see every man as a potential rapist.
 
The harms you allude to are already crimes. Criminalizing behavior that harms no one in the name of stopping a harmful act is called "prior restraint." The government has to overcome major hurdles and demonstrate that no non-infringing measures work.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to wrap my head around what you're saying here.

If attacking someone in the washroom was already a crime, and the current assault laws are adequate, why did anyone want a change?
 
I don't see every man as a potential rapist.
Click to expand...

I get that.

But do you understand that people who have been raped by men often DO see every man as a potential rapist? This change simply takes away one of the places they were able to feel safer, so that some other group could feel safer....

Whilst not actually making anyone safer.
 
What they want is for things to stay the same
Click to expand...

Well, that's certainly not what they got, is it?

Now, those who were worried about being assaulted in the men's room can now worry about being assaulted in both rooms.
 
DragonLady said:
What does ethnicity have to do with it?

Sexual assaults happen. They happen everywhere, including washrooms. The only thing this law does is make the conditions by which they happen easier, regardless who the victim or perpetrator is.

And, they managed to offend a bunch of people doing it.

Now, please explain to me: who won here?

What did any "typical" transwoman or transman gain here? What, at the end of the day, do you think transgendered individuals walked away with?
Click to expand...

They haven't gained anything. It was never illegal. The risk you fear was always there.

Is there something I'm missing? TG people haven't demanded a change in bathroom law. They want things to stay the same. YOU are the one who wants a law change to ban them ,right? How did some people wanting a ban mean that TG people caused offence? They didn't do anything. I'm dizzy now.
 
DragonLady said:
I get that.

But do you understand that people who have been raped by men often DO see every man as a potential rapist? This change simply takes away one of the places they were able to feel safer, so that some other group could feel safer....

Whilst not actually making anyone safer.
Click to expand...

They need therapy for that.

The toilet isn't some safe space that people can claim as their own.

There has been no evidence that anyone is less safe either.
 
DragonLady said:
I'm trying to wrap my head around what you're saying here.

If attacking someone in the washroom was already a crime, and the current assault laws are adequate, why did anyone want a change?
Click to expand...

Prejudice. Transgenders make them feel weird so they make up a load of crap about little girls being molested and pretend they are only doing it for goodness and righteousness. Usually it is religious people.
 
Are you under the impression that TG people forced some kind of law change?
Click to expand...

No; social and culture change, as evidenced right here in this thread by those who want to argue the feelings and concerns of transgendered individuals should trump everyone else's.
 
DreamingNaiad said:
I'm dizzy now.
Click to expand...

You're dizzy - I've had bed spins that left me better off than this.

Maybe this is where the confusion lies:

In the past, transgender individuals would at some point start using the facilities they were transitioning to. It's part of the psychological transition, since we are conditioned from early childhood to use our biological-matching facilities. In fact I understand that it is often one of the difficult switch-overs because the conditioning can be so deep. It is important, however, if they are actually going to LIVE in society as a gender that they were not born with.

No one really got up in arms about this, most people were probably unaware it was even happening, as these individuals are a small segment of society. Then we started being made aware in places like our cultural entertainment. People like RuPaul and Laverne Cox challenge our ideas about gender and inclusivity.

When people DID start to get up in arms seems to be when children in high school and middle schools started coming out as transgender and wanting to use the opposite sex facilities. We are, of course, uber-protective about our children in at least some regards (not others, obviously). So people got upset and started demanding that the affected children use their biological facilities or have totally separate accommodations.

Evangelicals and various other mostly conservatives picked this up as the new boogeyman and have expanded their efforts to include preventing adults from using facilities they had already been using for years. Since they are unable to show that the transgender individuals themselves pose some threat to others in these facilities (not born out by statistics), the threat is couched as: Bad Men will pretend to be women and assault women and girls!

The Texas bathroom bill (possibly near dead for now) pro-arguments centered almost entirely on this premise, despite the fact that this is not something that HAS BEEN HAPPENING ALREADY (maybe Bad Men were not aware of this potential avenue of access?). Meanwhile the arguments totally ignore the fact that restricting people to bathrooms based on their birth certificates would result in people who totally look like men using women's facilities, thus removing the need for Bad Men to bother even TRYING to look like women.
 
DragonLady said:
Fine. I thought the "M&M argument" was pretty well known and would be understood by at least most. Obviously, I was wrong.
Click to expand...
From my understanding of the "M&M argument" you would then not permit your grandchildren to use ANY public facility, given that there is a risk of encountering one of the bad M&M's there. How you are applying it in your case is beyond me.
 
sylvan8798 said:
You're dizzy - I've had bed spins that left me better off than this.

Maybe this is where the confusion lies:

In the past, transgender individuals would at some point start using the facilities they were transitioning to. It's part of the psychological transition, since we are conditioned from early childhood to use our biological-matching facilities. In fact I understand that it is often one of the difficult switch-overs because the conditioning can be so deep. It is important, however, if they are actually going to LIVE in society as a gender that they were not born with.

No one really got up in arms about this, most people were probably unaware it was even happening, as these individuals are a small segment of society. Then we started being made aware in places like our cultural entertainment. People like RuPaul and Laverne Cox challenge our ideas about gender and inclusivity.

When people DID start to get up in arms seems to be when children in high school and middle schools started coming out as transgender and wanting to use the opposite sex facilities. We are, of course, uber-protective about our children in at least some regards (not others, obviously). So people got upset and started demanding that the affected children use their biological facilities or have totally separate accommodations.

Evangelicals and various other mostly conservatives picked this up as the new boogeyman and have expanded their efforts to include preventing adults from using facilities they had already been using for years. Since they are unable to show that the transgender individuals themselves pose some threat to others in these facilities (not born out by statistics), the threat is couched as: Bad Men will pretend to be women and assault women and girls!

The Texas bathroom bill (possibly near dead for now) pro-arguments centered almost entirely on this premise, despite the fact that this is not something that HAS BEEN HAPPENING ALREADY (maybe Bad Men were not aware of this potential avenue of access?). Meanwhile the arguments totally ignore the fact that restricting people to bathrooms based on their birth certificates would result in people who totally look like men using women's facilities, thus removing the need for Bad Men to bother even TRYING to look like women.
Click to expand...

Thank you! I thought I was going mad!

You are far more eloquent than I am :)
 
When people DID start to get up in arms seems to be when children in high school and middle schools started coming out as transgender and wanting to use the opposite sex facilities.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes.

But also: the resulting publicity has made it clear to everyone that anyone can walk into any bathroom, and no one is supposed to ask why they're there.

Further, those who assumed a restroom or shower was limited to members of their own gender discovered they would have to start expecting members of the opposite sex at any moment, and many find that offensive and creepy. Those who have complained are told "your concerns don't count" and "get over it".

Also, a person wanting to harm another individual might not have realized this vulnerability was there to exploit, but they do now.

Finally, this doesn't do anything to make anyone safer. Those who pushed this into the spotlight only succeeding in making sure no one can see either facility as being "safer" from those with harmful intentions.

It only makes sure those who are offended continue to be offended. It doesn't allay any concerns about assault, pedophilia, rape or any other criminal interaction.

It only allows those who are transgendered to be able to say "but, I'm afraid in that other room" without having any more justification for those fears than those who are offended; and simultaneously exposing the weak link in the argument: both rooms are equally dangerous -or equally safe, if you insist on seeing it that way- for everyone involved, because they're both open to all members of the public, both good and bad.
 
Last edited:
sylvan8798 said:
From my understanding of the "M&M argument" you would then not permit your grandchildren to use ANY public facility, given that there is a risk of encountering one of the bad M&M's there. How you are applying it in your case is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Because it's pretty obvious that with all restrooms being available to all with no questions allowed, and pretty obvious everyone will have to use a restroom or shower at some point, everyone is being forced to accept whatever dangers there are from everyone.

If you say "I'm a transwoman, and I want to be able to use the washroom of my choice, and I choose the ladies room because I'm afraid of being assaulted in the men's."

The only thing you're accomplishing is increasing the likelihood you'll have to interact with women, without decreasing the likelihood you'll be assaulted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom