Poll: A sensitive question about transgender and locker rooms
- Thread starter tippy2k2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm with alot of others in the thread, it if's becoming a problem just make a unisex locker room, that way if you happen to be transgender you can go in their and people that would be "uncomfortable" can just not use the unisex locker room, simple solution, as for the woman I find it hard to believe she was kicked out "just for filing a complaint" their must be alot more to it than that
While I personally wouldn't go into the women's locker rooms (I literally have so little confidence when it comes to "passing"), the fact is, situations like these aren't about whether a man looks like a man or a woman looks like a woman. If you're a transwoman that is forced to use the men's locker rooms you'd be in an infinitely more dangerous situation that if you were a transwoman using the women's locker rooms.
I feel the same way about prisons. Sending a transwoman to a male prison is basically like throwing her to the lions.
I feel the same way about prisons. Sending a transwoman to a male prison is basically like throwing her to the lions.
What does that even have to do with the situation at hand and how is it even comparable?Chris Moses said:
I think we need a version of Godwin's law here.
"As an online discussion about transgenderism grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving homosexuality or otherkin approaches 1"
I think the worry isn't someone doing all that work to actually physically change to only peek on women (or less likely men but it's certainly possible a woman could do this too) but that a man could just say that they have always felt like a woman in a man's body and therefore should be able to use the woman's locker room. Our hypothetical man hasn't actually made any physical changes.Chris Moses said:
In the stories case, we don't know how far along (if at all) the transgender woman was at (and I haven't been able to find any story that states that). It is assumed that she had no or very minimal changes done based on the woman's complaint but her complaint is all we have to go on.
BiH-Kira said:
seventy two said:
Hypothetical here. So, we have a trans man who has gone through hormone therapy, and now possesses a face like Gerard Butler. So, by the arguments presented here, this "woman" ought to be going to the woman's changing womb, because of their doubled up X chromosome and vagina. However, do you really think that this transphobic bigot would actually be any more comfortable with a big, hairy, rugged, enwombed Gerard Butler? Fuck no. They'd still complain. However, they'd probably feel nowhere near as awkward as the man you're arguing should just admit they're a woman and deal with it, and they are in nowhere near the same amount of danger. So maybe we should stop worrying so much about the delicate sensibilities of bigots when they wouldn't even feel any better if they had their way anyway, and show a single shred of empathy for the woman this ***** feels so justified repeatedly misidentifying (that last line is directed towards no one in particular, and I am being honest there, no passive aggressive sniping).elvor0 said:
Depending on the news story you read, she was either kicked out for making the fuss (so complaining to management and when that failed, complaining to the corporate office) or she was kicked out for making remarks and complaining to other women of the gym.thewatergamer said:
I'd find option #2 more likely since complaining at the company alone shouldn't be enough but I know Planet Fitness has their "No Judgement Policy" (which is usually more for out of shape people going to the gym but I suppose this kind of counts) so maybe they just take that policy REALLY seriously...
In this day and age they're starting to include private stalls and the like when they renovate the sort of facilities with locker rooms. However as long as a choice must be made between M and F locker rooms I'd say the one that causes the least fuss with everyone is the right one. People wishing for unisex treatment everywhere are going to be wishing for awhile, I'm afraid.
Locker rooms are gross anyways. As a straight, both physically and emotionally male, I have little desire to see a bunch of old man penis, nor to be showing off my own to strangers.
So ideally, private change rooms for everyone. Barring that, sort by body parts, not feelings.
So ideally, private change rooms for everyone. Barring that, sort by body parts, not feelings.
I'm all for trans rights, but what? Perhaps he (in the physical form) does identify as a woman (in the mental form), good on her, but she has a penis. To cis women in a changing room that is not a usual thing. And ya know what, if a woman (in the physical form) who identified as a man (in the mental form) got naked in a male changing room I was in, I'd be uncomfortable too. Just because *you're* trans don't mean everyone around you is. Everyone should feel safe in a changing room, everyone.thaluikhain said:
Why is it that someone raising a concern immediately make someone 'transphobic bigot'? It is not like they chased the man out, she made a complaint against a decision she disagreed with. That kind of attitude makes it hard for me to consider any argument, because it seems like your thoughts are already set. With that said, to address your hypothetical, they made a choice, no one else should be expected to automatically accommodate for that choice if it interrupts their life. Trans people should not get special treatment, their comfort is valued equally to anyone else's, so if them changing with their gender makes enough others uncomfortable it shouldn't be done, out of respect for others. Honestly I don't get why trans people want to change with their gender, I cannot believe that it is honestly more comfortable creating the awkward situation than it is to just change with their sex and likely create no issue.Revnak said:
That does not mean that I feel Planet Fitness made the wrong choice, just that it is unfair to immediately consider it the right choice without taking time to consider the impact it has on the community. If that is moral they want community members to be accountable for that is within their rights to decide. However people should not be persecuted for dissent towards a policy they were unaware of.
Ok... Then what is the problem? If you aren't worried about being oogled by a homosexual in a locker room then what difference should it make if a transgendered person just uses the locker room nevermind if they get some sort of sexual kick out of it? (As long as they don't start staring, masturbating, and/or groping people, you know standard acceptable conduct that most people seem to be able to follow despite their gender and sexual orientation.)FirstNameLastName said:
My opinion: People are way too obsessed with dangly bits or lack thereof. Once upon a time, white people were uncomfortable with having black people eating next to them. Eventually we (well, most of us, at least) grew out of it and stopped giving a fuck.
Trust me, ladies, guys have already done plenty of things to sneak peeks into women's locker rooms/restrooms. They don't have to go through the hassle of going through a sex change to do it. Let it go.
Trust me, ladies, guys have already done plenty of things to sneak peeks into women's locker rooms/restrooms. They don't have to go through the hassle of going through a sex change to do it. Let it go.
I said she was a bigot for insisting a transwoman was a man after having been informed otherwise. When someone insists a cis woman is a man while knowing better we call that bullying, and we tend to frown on it. I don't see why it suddenly is just trivial ignorance when it is a transwoman they are purposefully misidentifying. It is hurtful, it is hateful, it is wrong. So yes, she is a *****, and she is a bigot. Also, you really shouldn't behave likewise here. It is not like they chased the woman out.seventy two said:
What the hell? This is some trippy ass shit you're promoting here, and I sincerely doubt you apply it evenly. Should people not insult religion because of the religious majority? Should people not be atheists because of the religious majority? Should people not be gay because of how it causes discomfort among the straight majority? Behaviour is not justified based upon the sensibilities of the majority, that is absolute nonsense. Certainly, behaviours are not justified arbitrarily, they ought to have some deep rationale behind their decision (which is why trans people have to go to psychiatric meetings to receive any treatment), but the comfort of the majority is effectively arbitrary without some independent rational basis, so it serves little better than there being no justification at all.
They weren't "unaware," they just didn't have a thorough understanding of what the gyms policy of inclusivity extended to. Though I will admit the primary motive for their actions is certainly ignorance, I don't think that said ignorance stems from any lack of explanation from the gym.
Clearly this conversation is not worth having with you since you choose to insult my opinion. I am sorry that I assumed we could have a reasonable discussion. But to answer your question, people should not insult anyone's religion, I know I don't defend people who do. People can be atheist, but like religion this should be a personal and should not be pushed on others who do not want it. Should people not be gay, no, but they should not promote themselves in a way that makes other uncomfortable, the same applies to straight people who are too forward. My point being, people should conduct themselves such that they are not intentionally causing discomfort for others, and if not, they cannot expect that of others.Revnak said:
Yes, because it is wrong. No idea is so sacred that it cannot be insulted. No principle so important that belittling it would tear society apart. What is wrong is wrong, and if it is such, then I will insult it as such.seventy two said:
I'm not. I assume the same, I just find it odd that you are so particular about this one little statement about the frankly absurd idea you put forth.
A strange choice, but consistent at least.
People should not keep their ideas to themselves if they think that they are right. That's just selfish and lazy if you ask me.
Simply living your life as a gay person makes many people uncomfortable. For example, if I were to come out as gay to my family (hypothetically, I'm not actually gay), they would find it very awkward. If I invited them to my wedding I doubt they would attend. Would doing such things be wrong in your opinion?
A line of thought that falls flat as soon as you are in a situation where no matter what, one of two groups is not going to feel comfortable with the situation. So, should we just arbitrarily side with the majority, as you are arguing here? No. First, that would just be arbitrary. As I said earlier, numbers do not guarantee reason. Second, the clear result of deciding disputes like that would be the total oppression of those who do not fall into the majority, as they will simply have to concede with every single dispute until they have nothing left.
This is a difficult issue, unless everyone gets to choose which locker room they use, you cannot just allow "this group of people to get a choice and no one else does", at which point, there is no point in having different locker rooms or restrooms since everyone is going into either. I do think there should always be an alternative to just male and female facility, as this is also an issue when people are bringing children in as well and the parent is of the opposite sex.
When you are talking about areas that people will be undressed in that are segregated by sex, that I think would apply to the biological sex due to the facilities being designed for specific body parts. It is not reasonable to expect a woman to be able to use a urinal the same way a man could, or for a man to have use for a tampon dispenser. In places like saunas, locker rooms, restrooms, men and women will be in various states of undress, for example, where a man would usually have a towel wrapped around his lower body at the spa, the woman will have it wrapped on her whole body and it would be very awkward for a biological woman living as a man to be able to pull that off. Locker room showers are frequently like this:
and in the locker rooms, we were completely nude, in close contact, even helping wash one another's hair at times.
While some of us have no issue with nudity, not everyone has the same levels of modesty, or religious beliefs, and allowing for both sexes into the same facility would create multiple issues. First, those that are not comfortable with this, would stop using the facilities and try to find alternative p-laces to go, which unfortunately would be a much greater number than the actual number of transgendered individuals involved. Even people who have no religious objections about being nude around the opposite sex, transgendered or not, are terribly uncomfortable with this to the point that it is traumatizing to them. One of my younger sisters was this way, and she actually cried for days due to a guy walking in on her when she was undressed, though I could not understand why it bothered her so much, for some it really takes a toll on them.
I think we must consider all involved here, including the transgendered, and I think the laws should be updated to reflect what is considered adequate facilities. I think there should be more options than just male or female, since that does not cover the actual scope of the needs of the people. Having private, unisex or family options available as well I think would greatly improve the current environment for everyone involved. Sometimes not all transgender people are better off even in the facilities of the gender they identify as, for example a biological sexed female who identifies as a male, may be more likely to be assaulted in a mens facility than in the women's, and a sexed male who identifies as a female may be maced in a female facility as well as women frequently become defensive when they are undressing. These things can happen too, and I do not feel that simply trying to force everyone to fit into the " male or female" only categories is solving the problems involved. In the current environment, a transgendered person may be tormented and embarrassed no matter which facility they use and there really needs to be more options.
When you are talking about areas that people will be undressed in that are segregated by sex, that I think would apply to the biological sex due to the facilities being designed for specific body parts. It is not reasonable to expect a woman to be able to use a urinal the same way a man could, or for a man to have use for a tampon dispenser. In places like saunas, locker rooms, restrooms, men and women will be in various states of undress, for example, where a man would usually have a towel wrapped around his lower body at the spa, the woman will have it wrapped on her whole body and it would be very awkward for a biological woman living as a man to be able to pull that off. Locker room showers are frequently like this:
and in the locker rooms, we were completely nude, in close contact, even helping wash one another's hair at times.
While some of us have no issue with nudity, not everyone has the same levels of modesty, or religious beliefs, and allowing for both sexes into the same facility would create multiple issues. First, those that are not comfortable with this, would stop using the facilities and try to find alternative p-laces to go, which unfortunately would be a much greater number than the actual number of transgendered individuals involved. Even people who have no religious objections about being nude around the opposite sex, transgendered or not, are terribly uncomfortable with this to the point that it is traumatizing to them. One of my younger sisters was this way, and she actually cried for days due to a guy walking in on her when she was undressed, though I could not understand why it bothered her so much, for some it really takes a toll on them.
I think we must consider all involved here, including the transgendered, and I think the laws should be updated to reflect what is considered adequate facilities. I think there should be more options than just male or female, since that does not cover the actual scope of the needs of the people. Having private, unisex or family options available as well I think would greatly improve the current environment for everyone involved. Sometimes not all transgender people are better off even in the facilities of the gender they identify as, for example a biological sexed female who identifies as a male, may be more likely to be assaulted in a mens facility than in the women's, and a sexed male who identifies as a female may be maced in a female facility as well as women frequently become defensive when they are undressing. These things can happen too, and I do not feel that simply trying to force everyone to fit into the " male or female" only categories is solving the problems involved. In the current environment, a transgendered person may be tormented and embarrassed no matter which facility they use and there really needs to be more options.
I believe that we should be more accepting and understanding of the LGTBQ community and allow them to choose which locker room, changing room, restroom, etc. to use. Though honestly, it's going to take some time before we all get to that point of comfort, security, confidence, and understanding for such an initiative.
In this point in time, I would often point to the South Park episode, The Cissy, and say that they handled this dilemma quite well.
In this point in time, I would often point to the South Park episode, The Cissy, and say that they handled this dilemma quite well.
Again, what does "in the physical form" mean? Someone who looks like a certain gender to you?Sarge034 said:
Just not trans people, it seems.Sarge034 said:
Nobody has the right to "feel safe" by deciding they get to exclude others. Do they get to "feel safe" by excluding ethnicities or religions they don't like?