A Person Uses Transgender Law To Expose Gender Discrimination

[Jux]

You are mocking him for trying to expose privilege and biases.

I assume you're referring to 'ladies night' discounts as female privilege? You do understand that the point of those discounts is just a roundabout way to get more men into the bar to drink right? It's not actually set up as a benefit for women.

Also, how do you know he isn't really trans and this is the only way he is comfortable coming to terms with it? It honestly feels very insensitive to judge him like that.

I would say a good indication is that this guy has a long history of this kind of stuff.

http://www.citypages.com/news/steve-horner-sues-to-stop-ladies-night-6745196

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2011/aug/19/mans-crusade-against-ladies-night-will-continue-af/

http://www.westword.com/restaurants/steve-horners-complaint-against-brewskis-ladies-night-falls-flat-6704209

https://www.amazon.com/C-U-N-T-Cant-Understand-Normal-Thinking-ebook/dp/B00KC5OI9M/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1470231415&sr=1-2#navbar

 

[McMarbles]

A disingenuous topic designed to foment alt-right outrage? On The Escapist, of all places? I am shocked, shocked I tell you!

 

[SeanSeanston]

In fairness, how can you prove that someone is or isn't "trans"?

Do you force them to wear a dress? Who gets to decide what counts as "gender non-conforming"? And what happens once fashion inevitably changes? Do all those people now wearing "gender-conforming" clothes that used to not be, all become "cisgendered" or what?

If a man with a short haircut wearing jeans and a t-shirt tells you in a gruff voice that he's a transwoman now, how can you say he's not? How can you say he's not "feminine" enough? Is a woman wearing similar clothing going to be forcibly recognized as a transman then? There seems to be no consistency.

And I still don't know why it's justifiable for the government to get involved and recognizes people's genders one way or another when they claim to support equality, i.e. gender would not be a factor and therefore we could save a lot of headaches by just ignoring it from a legal standpoint if that's how people want to live.

 

[SeanSeanston]

I assume you're referring to 'ladies night' discounts as female privilege? You do understand that the point of those discounts is just a roundabout way to get more men into the bar to drink right? It's not actually set up as a benefit for women.

In fairness though, it's worth pointing that the entire concept is based around women not having to pay for their own drinks due to how society is set up.

So really, it again comes back to women being advantaged, if we want to get into that.

...*Hides*

<_<

 

[Czann]

Don't women have money to pay for their crap?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

unless it's used specifically to invalidate people's gender identities.

Which either this will be or it will be useless.

That's not how medicine, or science works... While some people use a single factor to identify things, it's an inaccurate and bad practice, especially when dealing with complex issues like human gender identity.

If this test is ever used, and if it's positive the person is considered transgender while if it's negative the person is not considered transgender, then it has been used in a situation where it could invalidate someone's gender.

That's a leap of logic, because such a concept is a single factor identifier, any professional who isn't a quack will understand that a single factor is not proof positive. We already have gatekeepers who invalidate people on the most flimsy and disproved assumptions, that is not; however, a good argument to stop progress and limit our understanding of the mechanisms of trasgenderism. That's like saying chemo therapy is worthless because it kills some cancer patients, rather than eliminating the cancer.

If, on the other hand, that never ever happens, then the test is pointless.

Your whole argument to this point is that we shouldn't seek answers, that we should ignore factors, because it might be misused as a method harm someone... Sorry, but that's bullshit in it's purest form. We need the information for not only the sake of conformation, but also because it helps treatment. What you're arguing for is anti-scientific and anti-medicine, in the long run that will hurt more trans people than it could ever help. As it will be misused the same as inaccurate assumptions based on verifiable evidence. It will be the same ignorant bullshit we have now, where people have their gender identities invalidated purely on the basis of ideology, not scientific fact. When the truth is, once we have facts we can invalidate ideology, because we have proof that it's wrong...

Simply put, we can't ignore and reject the studies on this subject, nor can we ignore and reject the insight those studies provide. Doing such a thing backs up the biases of ideological bigots, who are going to reject the notion, regardless of the facts. We simply can't reject the science just because someone is going to misuse it, if we could, we might as well stop all human progress in all areas of life entirely.

P.S. Nice way to quote mine a short post just to try to invalidate me... That's not intellectually dishonest at all(massive sarcasm)...

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

I assume you're referring to 'ladies night' discounts as female privilege? You do understand that the point of those discounts is just a roundabout way to get more men into the bar to drink right? It's not actually set up as a benefit for women.

In fairness though, it's worth pointing that the entire concept is based around women not having to pay for their own drinks due to how society is set up.

So really, it again comes back to women being advantaged, if we want to get into that.

...*Hides*

<_<

Uh... not really.

The whole concept is based on bars kind of, sort of, maybe 'selling' women. Or the concept of women, anyway. Offer them free stuff to get a ton to come, and then advertise that fact to all the lady lovers so they'll come to the 'feeding ground.'

All around sleazy, really. But in a world full of things to get upset about, kind of near the bottom of the pile.

 

[Maze1125]

What you're arguing for is anti-scientific and anti-medicine, in the long run that will hurt more trans people than it could ever help.

Really?
What exactly is it that you think I'm arguing for?
Because you seem to be very angry about things I haven't said at all.

P.S. Nice way to quote mine a short post just to try to invalidate me... That's not intellectually dishonest at all(massive sarcasm)...

I quoted in that way because it was the part of the post I felt I needed to address.
The alternative would have been to quote the entire post but still respond in the exact same way. Thereby hiding the fact I was responding to a specific part but avoiding the backlash.

Yet, apparently, being explicit about what I'm doing is intellectually dishonest, while hiding it would be honest. Somehow.

 

[Maze1125]

Spoiler

I assume you're referring to 'ladies night' discounts as female privilege? You do understand that the point of those discounts is just a roundabout way to get more men into the bar to drink right? It's not actually set up as a benefit for women.

In fairness though, it's worth pointing that the entire concept is based around women not having to pay for their own drinks due to how society is set up.

So really, it again comes back to women being advantaged, if we want to get into that.

...*Hides*

<_<

Uh... not really.

The whole concept is based on bars kind of, sort of, maybe 'selling' women. Or the concept of women, anyway. Offer them free stuff to get a ton to come, and then advertise that fact to all the lady lovers so they'll come to the 'feeding ground.'

All around sleazy, really. But in a world full of things to get upset about, kind of near the bottom of the pile.

It's quite possible to notice injustice in something small while also fighting injustice in larger arenas.
In fact, the smaller stuff is quite often easier to deal with and if people are willing to do so it helps to create a culture where the larger stuff isn't tolerated.

Do we allow thieves to run free just because murder is worse?
Equally, if we did allow thieves to run free, don't you think that would create a culture where murders were more likely to occur?

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

Spoiler

I assume you're referring to 'ladies night' discounts as female privilege? You do understand that the point of those discounts is just a roundabout way to get more men into the bar to drink right? It's not actually set up as a benefit for women.

In fairness though, it's worth pointing that the entire concept is based around women not having to pay for their own drinks due to how society is set up.

So really, it again comes back to women being advantaged, if we want to get into that.

...*Hides*

<_<

Uh... not really.

The whole concept is based on bars kind of, sort of, maybe 'selling' women. Or the concept of women, anyway. Offer them free stuff to get a ton to come, and then advertise that fact to all the lady lovers so they'll come to the 'feeding ground.'

All around sleazy, really. But in a world full of things to get upset about, kind of near the bottom of the pile.

It's quite possible to notice injustice in something small while also fighting injustice in larger arenas.
In fact, the smaller stuff is quite often easier to deal with and if people are willing to do so it helps to create a culture where the larger stuff isn't tolerated.

Do we allow thieves to run free just because murder is worse?
Equally, if we did allow thieves to run free, don't you think that would create a culture where murders were more likely to occur?

Maybe if the core cause of this was sexism, I'd be inclined to agree, but it's not. It's just sleazy capitalism at work - 'Sex sells' at it's worst. Whoop-dee-doo.

Should it be illegal? Probably. It already is in several states, and it will likely continue to be challenged in the future. But anger is a finite resource, and I can't find it in my heart to throw a fit over something that's just pandering to boners.

 

[Gengisgame]

So everytime I bring up sexism towards women and get shut down, it turns out I should've been talking about how men are discriminated against for not saving money on drinks? That's where the real issue was? *Sigh*

This thread was about sexism towards men.

You then dismiss the complaint by saying sexism against women is dismissed.

Not much more I really need to say

Going by how these things work your unlikely to reflect on the hypocrisy.

Although I should state I am ok with women being charged less, this isn't a matter of fairness, the women are drawn with cheap prices to in turn lure more men.

 

[Maze1125]

Spoiler

Spoiler

I assume you're referring to 'ladies night' discounts as female privilege? You do understand that the point of those discounts is just a roundabout way to get more men into the bar to drink right? It's not actually set up as a benefit for women.

In fairness though, it's worth pointing that the entire concept is based around women not having to pay for their own drinks due to how society is set up.

So really, it again comes back to women being advantaged, if we want to get into that.

...*Hides*

<_<

Uh... not really.

The whole concept is based on bars kind of, sort of, maybe 'selling' women. Or the concept of women, anyway. Offer them free stuff to get a ton to come, and then advertise that fact to all the lady lovers so they'll come to the 'feeding ground.'

All around sleazy, really. But in a world full of things to get upset about, kind of near the bottom of the pile.

It's quite possible to notice injustice in something small while also fighting injustice in larger arenas.
In fact, the smaller stuff is quite often easier to deal with and if people are willing to do so it helps to create a culture where the larger stuff isn't tolerated.

Do we allow thieves to run free just because murder is worse?
Equally, if we did allow thieves to run free, don't you think that would create a culture where murders were more likely to occur?

Maybe if the core cause of this was sexism, I'd be inclined to agree, but it's not. It's just sleazy capitalism at work - 'Sex sells' at it's worst. Whoop-dee-doo.

Should it be illegal? Probably. It already is in several states, and it will likely continue to be challenged in the future. But anger is a finite resource, and I can't find it in my heart to throw a fit over something that's just pandering to boners.

Things along that line have been said a lot in this thread "It's okay because the lower price for women is actually for the men."

How is that okay? That means that the company isn't thinking "Lets have different pricing for men and women because that way we make more money from women." is means they're think "Lets have different pricing for men and women because that way we can sell the women to the men as commodities and make more money off the men."

I agree that's what the companies are thinking, but isn't that much much more horrific and much much more worthy of a fight and outcry?

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

I think we can safely categorize this dip with the people who gripe about sexy female characters.

Any point they have is smothered by the stupidity of what they're arguing against.

Seriously, as someone else mentioned he might as well be griping about senior citizen discounts.

 

[Proto Taco]

I really think that pic sums this up better than my words ever could...

 

[Trunkage]

It makes sense. I mean, it's petty, kinda stupid and ultimately a futile effort, but it does make sense.

Sexism against women has been a hot button issue for a long, long while now, being hammered into people through the media and schools, so it's no wonder that someone wants to point out the (in this case, perceived) hypocrisy. The guy is either desperate to see if he's the only person who "gets it" or to rouse some awareness of the fact that sexism is an overblown topic.
These topics often generalize men and to some it's hurtful and bigoted, not to mention the severe and actual consequences a mere rumour can do to a person, let alone an accusation. Luckily and/or unfortunately the same generalizations and rhetorics are slowly immunizing people to these things, to the point that victims of discrimination, or worse, will be taken less seriously.

It's been said for years, current feminism is overreaching and ruining things for everyone, including themselves and their cause.
So anyway, about the transgender thing - It's ridiculous. I don't mean having the right to be transgender (along with the recognition) is ridiculous, but the way that opinions are being forced down peoples throats. It's counterproductive and breeds hostility, by demonizing anyone who has questions about it to the extreme (yes, including bigotry).
The point is that people who wish to change their public gender shouldn't be a big deal, just another person being who they are, but instead it's being portrayed as brave as a uniform who's lost all their limbs while saving an orphan.

The moral of the story is that progressive politics, social media and media influence is creating backlash by the way it's behaving, making enemies to bring about "awareness" not just in the extremes but in average people who'd otherwise not care one way or the other.

You know I would agree with you, feminism does sometimes overreach. So do Capitalist and when they are not recognising that some parts of Capitalism doesn't work. I mean Property Rights and Rule of Law is something to fix (or regulate) Capitalism, not a part of it. Or Socialist and them not recognising the damage to the budget that universal health care, education and pensions have. They want it (which is fine), but don't make it cost effective and we all pay too much. "Anti-feminists" say that female should just abide the world as it is when females are more likely to be raped or subjected to domestic violence. They are more likely to be sexually harassed verbally and physically. For them is seems to be a non-issue.

Climate change advocate are also overreaching. The predicted temperature change and the effect of the world are over stated. Then when there is a change but not as big as predicted, the climate change denier say that there is no man made change - this is when Beijing shuts down regularly and most economies are effected by smog in some way (health cost, damage to structures and statues. The US government instituted a costly 10 year plan from the Clinton years to reduce smog which seems to have saved the US economy billions.)

The most important point about what I'm saying is that all side are yelling but no one is listening. In most cases, both sides are right at the SAME TIME. Their ideas are usually not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, overselling your position is the only way to get noticed.

Also, look up Brian Nosak and seeing how scientific experiments are effected in the same way. The only way to publish your results in a scientific journal is to make your results sensational, irrelevant of truth. That's how chocolate can kill you at the same time as it helps you loose weight.

 

[Worgen]

Oh oh oh, I've got a better analogy. Hes a douchbag pretending to be handicapped to show the hypocrisy of handicapped spaces.

 

[Mr. Popplewick]

Oh oh oh, I've got a better analogy. Hes a douchbag pretending to be handicapped to show the hypocrisy of handicapped spaces.

Nailed it. So what does that make the people defending him?

 

[jurnag12]

All I can really take away from this is, transgender law is pretty complicated. Either we create a system for legally recognizing people as male or female, or we just shrug and go with a system that anyone can abuse.

Actually transgender legal protections are insanely difficult to abuse, while the people who abuse them do such as blatant false flag political move... There really isn't any incentive to abuse trans protections in the law. For instance trans bathroom access laws don't make peeping in a public restroom any less illegal, there are already people who peep int their own restrooms, and trans people are easy to identify in these situations. No trans person who hasn't transitioned is going to have the need to, or will, use trans protections, that means any trans person who needs to be verified is transitioning, or has transitioned. Which in turn means there is a medical and often legal record of the transition, which means proving transness is rather easy. Gender non-conforming people are outliers, but also fairly easy to identify when evaluated.

Your idea is either throw the baby out with the bathwater in a way that hurts the most vulnerable in society, or anarchy... Which is unrealistic when there is a middle ground. That middle ground is to punish people who abuse the system, because they're not flipping hard to identify.

Well, if that's the case then I think this thread is officially concluded. I don't see any practical argument to be had from this incident other than the structural integrity of transgender law. My only question is, how do you legally prove that someone was abusing the system?

"Why hello there good sir, would you care to provide proof from a licensed physician/psychologist indicating that you've been diagnosed with gender dysphoria?"

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

What you're arguing for is anti-scientific and anti-medicine, in the long run that will hurt more trans people than it could ever help.

Really?
What exactly is it that you think I'm arguing for?
Because you seem to be very angry about things I haven't said at all.

Well first off I'm not angry, nor was I angry, exasperated, yes, angry, not really... Your argument is one of one that we shouldn't hold people to any standards where they have to prove what they're saying, or at least that's what it sounds like to me... Although if I'm just misunderstanding and we've come to contention just on the sexual dimorphism of the brain... I still disagree that it's a factor we should avoid using, we shouldn't use it to the exclusion of other factors, but it's one that should be looked at. The more and better data we have on the subject, the better we can understand the subject after all.

P.S. Nice way to quote mine a short post just to try to invalidate me... That's not intellectually dishonest at all(massive sarcasm)...

I quoted in that way because it was the part of the post I felt I needed to address.
The alternative would have been to quote the entire post but still respond in the exact same way. Thereby hiding the fact I was responding to a specific part but avoiding the backlash.

You can always dissect a persons post, like I'm doing here, by splitting the post into various quotes, just as you've done. You can also do an "emphasis mine" by making the relevant part of a quoted post bold. I just feel you ignored important details to contest a small part of my post.

Yet, apparently, being explicit about what I'm doing is intellectually dishonest, while hiding it would be honest. Somehow.

Well back to what I just said, it's always an option to bold a post or pick an emphasis with bold tags... I apologize for being hostile, I was cranky about other things at the time and I lashed out at you because I was already irritable and being exasperated with you didn't help. Still I'll be blunt here, addressing the entire post is something I generally find to be good form, unless you(or I, because I try to hold myself to this standard too. Don't always succeed, but I do try.) explicitly state that the part you took is the only part that's relevant, or that you have a problem with. Again sorry for being cranky with you. I do understand your position, I just find it to be rejecting a method on the basis it could hurt on the smaller scale, when on the larger scale it's important to understanding and backing up trans identities.

All I can really take away from this is, transgender law is pretty complicated. Either we create a system for legally recognizing people as male or female, or we just shrug and go with a system that anyone can abuse.

Actually transgender legal protections are insanely difficult to abuse, while the people who abuse them do such as blatant false flag political move... There really isn't any incentive to abuse trans protections in the law. For instance trans bathroom access laws don't make peeping in a public restroom any less illegal, there are already people who peep int their own restrooms, and trans people are easy to identify in these situations. No trans person who hasn't transitioned is going to have the need to, or will, use trans protections, that means any trans person who needs to be verified is transitioning, or has transitioned. Which in turn means there is a medical and often legal record of the transition, which means proving transness is rather easy. Gender non-conforming people are outliers, but also fairly easy to identify when evaluated.

Your idea is either throw the baby out with the bathwater in a way that hurts the most vulnerable in society, or anarchy... Which is unrealistic when there is a middle ground. That middle ground is to punish people who abuse the system, because they're not flipping hard to identify.

Well, if that's the case then I think this thread is officially concluded. I don't see any practical argument to be had from this incident other than the structural integrity of transgender law. My only question is, how do you legally prove that someone was abusing the system?

"Why hello there good sir, would you care to provide proof from a licensed physician/psychologist indicating that you've been diagnosed with gender dysphoria?"

No one here is demanding medical proof. This guy didn't even bother putting on a woman's pants suit when making his claim then contradicted himself when trying to explain how he was discriminated against when he claimed to be trans. All he proved was that he has no idea what being transgender actually freaking means. All that should be necessary is someone presenting as their desired gender's bare minimum identifiable presentation... Like a trans woman, cross-dresser, or drag queen might wear women's clothing, perfume, shoes, makeup, a wig, and/or breast forms. Medical conformation is only absolutely necessary if it becomes a point of legal contention and the person in question needs to prove they were discriminated against to a court of law.

Does that sound reasonable to you? It's not like a bar has anything to loose giving a cross-dresser, drag queen, or any visibly trans person the ladies' night benefits after all. Especially because that will attract people who are attracted to cross-dressers, drag queens, and trans people, which would diversify a bar's appeal that particular night.

 

[Worgen]

Oh oh oh, I've got a better analogy. Hes a douchbag pretending to be handicapped to show the hypocrisy of handicapped spaces.

Nailed it. So what does that make the people defending him?

Kinda jerks. Its the whole "someone might be getting something I'm not, we cant let that happen" thing. While gender identity is one of those very complex subjects, being trans itself seems to suck. I mean society has enough problems with gay people, it doesnt take much imagination to think of ways just dating would be potentially fatal for a transperson. Even in the US there are places were that kinda surprise probably would get the shit kicked out of you.