Poll: A sensitive question about transgender and locker rooms

[Boris Goodenough]

I'm sorry to hear you think average men in a public locker room would care enough about something like that to make for a dangerous situation.
Sure, prison I can see being a problem, since it's supposed to be full of violent criminals.
Violent criminals who would most likely see a trans woman as a weak effeminate man, and thus not someone whom it is dishonourable to attack.
Normal men's locker rooms on the other hand are generally full of guys who just want to get changed so they can get on with their lives.

This, unfortunately, is not the case. Trans women in male areas are constantly being assaulted. For that matter, cis women as well.

In any case, those violent criminals inhabiting prison weren't born there, they were put there (in theory) for violent crimes they committed outside, when they were ordinary guys.

^ This. Criminals do not " grow" in prisons. The people in prisons were regular guys until they were convicted, neighbors, family co workers.. friends. they didn't just suddenly spring up from the ground from the cracks of prisons. They are the people we are around every day, until they are convicted of crime then they are considered prisoners.. and when they get out unless you know their history, they go back to being " regular guys" and you would never know.

It must be shocking I know.. but many people know rapist, interact with them every day and see them as regular guys like everyone else.

I think thaluikhain knows that, his wording was just off.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I'm sorry to hear you think average men in a public locker room would care enough about something like that to make for a dangerous situation.
Sure, prison I can see being a problem, since it's supposed to be full of violent criminals.
Violent criminals who would most likely see a trans woman as a weak effeminate man, and thus not someone whom it is dishonourable to attack.
Normal men's locker rooms on the other hand are generally full of guys who just want to get changed so they can get on with their lives.

This, unfortunately, is not the case. Trans women in male areas are constantly being assaulted. For that matter, cis women as well.

In any case, those violent criminals inhabiting prison weren't born there, they were put there (in theory) for violent crimes they committed outside, when they were ordinary guys.

^ This. Criminals do not " grow" in prisons. The people in prisons were regular guys until they were convicted, neighbors, family co workers.. friends. they didn't just suddenly spring up from the ground from the cracks of prisons. They are the people we are around every day, until they are convicted of crime then they are considered prisoners.. and when they get out unless you know their history, they go back to being " regular guys" and you would never know.

It must be shocking I know.. but many people know rapist, interact with them every day and see them as regular guys like everyone else.

I think thaluikhain knows that, his wording was just off.

I know he does I was agreeing with him.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

I know he does I was agreeing with him.

Sigh, I can't even use the excuse that I am sick atm...
>.>

 

[Gorrath]

I guess my feelings boil down to this: When women are abused, raped, or otherwise physically harmed, the perpetrator is nine times out of ten (actually far more often) going to have a penis. Why this is, you can debate, but the fact is there.

All concepts of identity, gender, etc. aside, I think all females - people born with vulvas, ovaries, breasts, etc. - have the right to certain spaces away from males - people born with penises, testicles, prostates, etc - because they are statistically far, far more likely to both experience violence in those spaces or have histories of violence that could be triggered in those spaces. Any transwoman who does not understand or respect that has no place being anywhere around women anyway.

Submitted for your consideration: All concepts of race aside, I think all white people - people born of two white parents - have the right to certain spaces away from minorities - people born with darker skin - because they are statistically more likely to commit a violent act against a white person than another white person or trigger a sense of distress in the white person because of racial fears. Any person of color who does not understand or respect that has no place being anywhere near white people anyway.

While the above is not a perfect analogy (none are), it does serve to demonstrate why people's fears do not constitute a proper reason for discrimination. The whole idea that a space is "safe" or "safer" because there are no men present is a sexist assertion. Anyone that argues that there is statistically a good reason for women to fear men may find making that same argument under any other context rather uncomfortable. I'd advocate that we are better off treating people as individuals and not boogeymen based on statistics. Our fear of one another based on race/sex/gender/sexual preference ect. ect. should be our own issue to deal with, not the burden of those we fear to bear.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I guess my feelings boil down to this: When women are abused, raped, or otherwise physically harmed, the perpetrator is nine times out of ten (actually far more often) going to have a penis. Why this is, you can debate, but the fact is there.

All concepts of identity, gender, etc. aside, I think all females - people born with vulvas, ovaries, breasts, etc. - have the right to certain spaces away from males - people born with penises, testicles, prostates, etc - because they are statistically far, far more likely to both experience violence in those spaces or have histories of violence that could be triggered in those spaces. Any transwoman who does not understand or respect that has no place being anywhere around women anyway.

Submitted for your consideration: All concepts of race aside, I think all white people - people born of two white parents - have the right to certain spaces away from minorities - people born with darker skin - because they are statistically more likely to commit a violent act against a white person than another white person or trigger a sense of distress in the white person because of racial fears. Any person of color who does not understand or respect that has no place being anywhere near white people anyway.

While the above is not a perfect analogy (none are), it does serve to demonstrate why people's fears do not constitute a proper reason for discrimination. The whole idea that a space is "safe" or "safer" because there are no men present is a sexist assertion. Anyone that argues that there is statistically a good reason for women to fear men may find making that same argument under any other context rather uncomfortable. I'd advocate that we are better off treating people as individuals and not boogeymen based on statistics. Our fear of one another based on race/sex/gender/sexual preference ect. ect. should be our own issue to deal with, not the burden of those we fear to bear.

But that would do you no good, you would be locked up with the serial killers and Rapist!
"Recent studies reveal that most school shooters are White males, with 97 percent being male and 79 percent White. Over the last three decades, 90 percent of high school or elementary school shootings were the result of White, often upper-middle class, perpetrators. "
http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/06/19/mass-shooters-have-a-gender-and-a-race/#
"Sex offenders are overwhelmingly white males."
http://sapac.umich.edu/article/196

So non whites should want to be separated from those white murderers and rapist? YIKES..

 

[Gorrath]

I guess my feelings boil down to this: When women are abused, raped, or otherwise physically harmed, the perpetrator is nine times out of ten (actually far more often) going to have a penis. Why this is, you can debate, but the fact is there.

All concepts of identity, gender, etc. aside, I think all females - people born with vulvas, ovaries, breasts, etc. - have the right to certain spaces away from males - people born with penises, testicles, prostates, etc - because they are statistically far, far more likely to both experience violence in those spaces or have histories of violence that could be triggered in those spaces. Any transwoman who does not understand or respect that has no place being anywhere around women anyway.

Submitted for your consideration: All concepts of race aside, I think all white people - people born of two white parents - have the right to certain spaces away from minorities - people born with darker skin - because they are statistically more likely to commit a violent act against a white person than another white person or trigger a sense of distress in the white person because of racial fears. Any person of color who does not understand or respect that has no place being anywhere near white people anyway.

While the above is not a perfect analogy (none are), it does serve to demonstrate why people's fears do not constitute a proper reason for discrimination. The whole idea that a space is "safe" or "safer" because there are no men present is a sexist assertion. Anyone that argues that there is statistically a good reason for women to fear men may find making that same argument under any other context rather uncomfortable. I'd advocate that we are better off treating people as individuals and not boogeymen based on statistics. Our fear of one another based on race/sex/gender/sexual preference ect. ect. should be our own issue to deal with, not the burden of those we fear to bear.

But that would do you no good, you would be locked up with the serial killers and Rapist!
"Recent studies reveal that most school shooters are White males, with 97 percent being male and 79 percent White. Over the last three decades, 90 percent of high school or elementary school shootings were the result of White, often upper-middle class, perpetrators. "
http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/06/19/mass-shooters-have-a-gender-and-a-race/#
"Sex offenders are overwhelmingly white males."
http://sapac.umich.edu/article/196

So non whites should want to be separated from those white murderers and rapist? YIKES..

Obviously I'd take exception to the point made based on the evidence presented.

- Mass murderers make up a tiny minority of murders committed.

- Gathering rape/sexual assault statistics remains massively problematic due to varying qualifications for what constitutes rape or sexual assault and the fact that men are even less likely to admit to being raped/sexually assaulted than a woman is.

- None of these statistics answer my point; personal fear is not a good reason to be discriminatory and that our personal fears should be our burden, not the burden of those we fear. This point seems to be accepted by my fellow progressives in every case EXCEPT when it comes to statistics regarding male violence against females.

How often might we hear the following?

- "I'm sorry you've had bad experiences but that doesn't give you the right to be racist."

- "Suicide bombings may be primarily committed by Muslims but that's no reason to fear Muslims or Islam."

Compare and contrast that with:

- "These women just want a safe space."

I'd easily expect to hear all three phrases come out of the same person's mouth. And to those that would agree with all three statements, please consider the hypocrisy involved. I advocate for the first two as being the proper way to approach these things.

Edited for a formatting error.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

sniped

Obviously I'd take exception to the point made based on the evidence presented.

- Mass murderers make up a tiny minority of murders committed.

- Gathering rape/sexual assault statistics remains massively problematic due to varying qualifications for what constitutes rape or sexual assault and the fact that men are even less likely to admit to being raped/sexually assaulted than a woman is.

- None of these statistics answer my point; personal fear is not a good reason to be discriminatory and that our personal fears should be our burden, not the burden of those we fear. This point seems to be accepted by my fellow progressives in every case EXCEPT when it comes to statistics regarding male violence against females.

How often might we hear the following?

- "I'm sorry you've had bad experiences but that doesn't give you the right to be racist."

- "Suicide bombings may be primarily committed by Muslims but that's no reason to fear Muslims or Islam."

Compare and contrast that with:

- "These women just want a safe space."

I'd easily expect to hear all three phrases come out of the same person's mouth. And to those that would agree with all three statements, please consider the hypocrisy involved. I advocate for the first two as being the proper way to approach these things.

The bigger issue is that our judicial system is failing victims. Prison should be a barrier between those that wish to harm and those that they intend to harm, and it is not. In fact nothing is. There is nothing to stop people who wish to cause harm, thus why people are in fear in the first place. The issue is this ISN'T uncommon, it isn't rare, it is happening all over the place many times a day, and the current measures and actions taken are not preventing it. This puts people in a position to "defend themselves instead" And then we have the other big issue with that, it is MUCH more difficult for a woman to fight off a man due to biological differences in build and strength. So when you put women in a compromised position such as a locker room or restroom, AND have them isolated, alone due to how restrooms are built, they have very little recourse to escape or defend themselves. Criminals know this and that is why so many are raped in restrooms currently as it is. The criminals target restrooms because they know they are more likely to 1) be able to commit the crime successfully ( actually finish) and 2) they are more likely to get away with it. since the privacy of the restroom prevented witnesses, and allowed them to have time to commit the crime in the first place.

You can avoid walking down a dark alleyway, you cannot avoid needing to pee, and restrooms are more dangerous than alleyways is the problem.

Edit: ALSO I would feel safer locked in a room full of muggers and robbers than be in the same room full of non criminals and 1 serial killer, they kill people because they need money or something was started with them, the serial killer will kill the whole room just for fun.

It is not racist or sexist to tell people to not walk down dark alleyways, the problem here is they have to go to areas more dangerous than dark alleyways and there is nothing being done about it.

 

[Gorrath]

The bigger issue is that our judicial system is failing victims. Prison should be a barrier between those that wish to harm and those that they intend to harm, and it is not. In fact nothing is. There is nothing to stop people who wish to cause harm, thus why people are in fear in the first place. The issue is this ISN'T uncommon, it isn't rare, it is happening all over the place many times a day, and the current measures and actions taken are not preventing it. This puts people in a position to "defend themselves instead" And then we have the pother big issue with that, it is MUCH more difficult for a woman to fight off a man due to biological differences in build and strength. So when you put women in a compromised position such as a locker room or restroom, AND have them isolated, alone due to how restrooms are built, they have very little recourse to escape or defend themselves. Criminals know this and that is why so many are raped in restrooms currently as it is. The criminals target restrooms because they know they are more likely to 1) be able to commit the crime successfully ( actually finish) and 2) they are more likely to get away with it. since the privacy of the restroom prevented witnesses, and allowed them to have time to commit the crime in the first place.

That is because there is no practical way for law enforcement or prison to be a barrier between victims and criminals. We are, all of us, mostly stuck in a position where we must defend ourselves. If there was a practical solution to this issue, I've yet to hear it.

You say that it is not uncommon for a rape in a rest-room to occur. I guess that depends on how you define "common" but I'll bite. Black people are around 8 times more likely to commit a violent crime than white people (I have reasonable objections to this statistic but there it is), violent crime happens all the time (subjective claim lacking context). Therefore, people have a justifiable fear of black people committing violent crime against them (a flawed claim based on treating individuals as statistics and ignoring cultural and racial issues involved). And so, people should be allowed to have "safe spaces" away from black people (An argument no progressive would buy.)


Nothing that you claim above appears to be wrong. All of your information is factual as far as I can tell. However, I do have a problem with the presumed conclusions people draw based on those facts. They are, as I've shown, conclusions we'd not accept in any other circumstance.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The bigger issue is that our judicial system is failing victims. Prison should be a barrier between those that wish to harm and those that they intend to harm, and it is not. In fact nothing is. There is nothing to stop people who wish to cause harm, thus why people are in fear in the first place. The issue is this ISN'T uncommon, it isn't rare, it is happening all over the place many times a day, and the current measures and actions taken are not preventing it. This puts people in a position to "defend themselves instead" And then we have the pother big issue with that, it is MUCH more difficult for a woman to fight off a man due to biological differences in build and strength. So when you put women in a compromised position such as a locker room or restroom, AND have them isolated, alone due to how restrooms are built, they have very little recourse to escape or defend themselves. Criminals know this and that is why so many are raped in restrooms currently as it is. The criminals target restrooms because they know they are more likely to 1) be able to commit the crime successfully ( actually finish) and 2) they are more likely to get away with it. since the privacy of the restroom prevented witnesses, and allowed them to have time to commit the crime in the first place.

That is because there is no practical way for law enforcement or prison to be a barrier between victims and criminals. We are, all of us, mostly stuck in a position where we must defend ourselves. If there was a practical solution to this issue, I've yet to hear it.

You say that it is not uncommon for a rape in a rest-room to occur. I guess that depends on how you define "common" but I'll bite. Black people are around 8 times more likely to commit a violent crime than white people (I have reasonable objections to this statistic but there it is), violent crime happens all the time (subjective claim lacking context). Therefore, people have a justifiable fear of black people committing violent crime against them (a flawed claim based on treating individuals as statistics and ignoring cultural and racial issues involved). And so, people should be allowed to have "safe spaces" away from black people (An argument no progressive would buy.)


Nothing that you claim above appears to be wrong. All of your information is factual as far as I can tell. However, I do have a problem with the presumed conclusions people draw based on those facts. They are, as I've shown, conclusions we'd not accept in any other circumstance.

I'm sorry I am going to have to disagree they are the same at all, simply because we have to look at why things happen , not just that they do, and actually try to make it better not just accept that this is the way it is going to be. It is well known that black crime is an issue, but not because " they are black" it is due to socioeconomic issues that resulted due to discrimination against them in the first place. Trying to compare the two is not comparable because they are very different issues, it is comparing apples to oranges and doesn't add up equally.

The using the woman's facilities as a refuge from the violence in the men's facilities is just a band aid, a temporary solution to try and put a barrier between those that wish to harm and those that are being harmed. This isn't discrimination against men, this is a result of nothing being done to prevent the violence in the first place. In fact, men are more at danger of being attacked, robbed or killed in a men's restroom as well, and what we need to do is address the violence and also make restrooms safer places at the same time. Not only have I had to phone the police when I was bar tending in college due to women being dragged into the men's restroom and assaulted, I have had to phone police for men being beaten in there as well, and one of my close friends from school was stabbed 7 times by an Asian gang in a club downtown while using a urinal. We have to find solutions to make these private facilities safer and reduce the violence otherwise this will only get worse not better.

People wanting to flee the violence and fearing it is only a symptom of a much bigger problem. It is not discrimination to want to address the problem and to try and actually prevent these things from happening, and that is what we need to do rather than just worry about treating the symptoms.

 

[Gorrath]

I'm sorry I am going to have to disagree they are the same at all, simply because we have to look at why things happen , not just that they do, and actually try to make it better not just accept that this is the way it is going to be. It is well known that black crime is an issue, but not because " they are black" it is due to socioeconomic issues that resulted due to discrimination against them in the first place. Trying to compare the two is not comparable because they are very different issues, it is comparing apples to oranges and doesn't add up equally.

And men commit rapes/violence because they're men? This is only an apples to oranges argument if you think that the statistics showing that black people are more likely to commit violent crime are due to social circumstances that have nothing to do with being black but that men are violent rapists because men are violent rapists, as if being violent or a rapist is somehow free of contributing societal factors and/or simply endemic to men.

The using the woman's facilities as a refuge from the violence in the men's facilities is just a band aid, a temporary solution to try and put a barrier between those that wish to harm and those that are being harmed. This isn't discrimination against men, this is a result of nothing being done to prevent the violence in the first place. In fact, men are more at danger of being attacked, robbed or killed in a men's restroom as well, and what we need to do is address the violence and also make restrooms safer places at the same time. Not only have I had to phone the police when I was bar tending in college due to women being dragged into the men's restroom and assaulted, I have had to phone police for men being beaten in there as well, and one of my close friends from school was stabbed 7 times by an Asian gang in a club downtown while using a urinal. We have to find solutions to make these private facilities safer and reduce the violence otherwise this will only get worse not better.

I'm not, at all, against sexually segregated washing facilities. Just because a policy is sexist does not indicate it is unethical. Sex-segregated washing facilities are actually one of the things I use to demonstrate that point. My objection is not to that practice but to the person who I originally replied to suggesting that male on female violence was a good reason to discriminate against trans-women. That person's reasoning appears to match your own in this debate, that male on female violence is a problem because people born male are simply more likely to be violent due to being born male and that that is a good reason to discriminate against them. That is the notion I object to.

You give some anecdotes and say that we have to find a way to reduce the violence in public restrooms. I agree, but unless you can actually demonstrate that banning trans-women from the female facilities will actually achieve this end, you aren't making a sensible argument. Your conclusion is not fitting your proposed reasoning here. Hell, if anything, there's evidence that trans-women would be much safer in the female facilities, given that the female facilities are by your reasoning, safer places to be, coupled with the amount violence against trans people.

People wanting to flee the violence and fearing it is only a symptom of a much bigger problem. It is not discrimination to want to address the problem and to try and actually prevent these things from happening, and that is what we need to do rather than just worry about treating the symptoms.

Wanting to address the problem is not discrimination, addressing it with a sexist policy is discrimination. You may argue that it is justifiable discrimination but it is discrimination nonetheless. You say that you want to address the problem and not just the symptoms, but if you conclude that violence is endemic to biological men because they are biological men, then what do you propose is the solution? Lastly, and again, people's personal fears are not an acceptable reason for society to push discriminatory practices. We do not accept that reasoning in any other argument, why should I accept it here?

 

[chinangel]

this is kinda tricky. on one hand. meh. but on the other there is a chance some random guy can just rock up and get some jollies because he is pretending "dude looks like a lady".

This isn't the 90's you know. If a guy wants to see naked women he can go to the internet. if he wants to see naked ladies doing things to eachother he can go on the internet.

Crossdressing to watch people in a change room is way too much work to see naked folk.

 

[Dollabillyall]

The real question should be:
Is a male to female transgender a woman or not?
The answer is no.
When my daughter is changing to go take a swim I don't want her to be confronted by what is more factually described as a mutilated man waving his dick and fake tits around.

I realise that I'm being a dick towards transgender people here but everyone needs to realise that how you FEEL inside does not make you BEING that on the outside. No matter how much surgery you get, no matter the hormones and no matter the prefix that you would like people to use... A transgender is and always will be the sex determined at birth genetically speaking. All surgery, makeup, hormones, clothing and drivers licenses in the world cannot change the fact that you are born in a certain gender and that you can only PRETEND not to be that gender. A man with fake tits and his dick chopped off is not a woman, its a man with fake tits and his dick chopped off. I am willing to say "she", I'm fine with that person changing name to something that suits him/her and I could not care less about the dress or pants discussion.

You're just not supposed to dangle that mutilated body in front of unsuspecting people who are not looking for what ammounts in many peoples' experiences to a freakshow.

You might feel like a volcano inside, but putting salsa up your butt and spewing it out does not make you a volcano. It makes you a weird human being. I know this offends people, but this is a legitimate way of viewing the issue and I am not obliged to lie to spare your feelings. God knows nobody lies to spare mine either. Being transgender does not entitle you to special treatment.

 

[Dizchu]

Being transgender does not entitle you to special treatment.

I'd like know how being treated like an ordinary member of society is somehow considered "special" for certain people.

Replace "transgender" with any other demographic (that isn't something harmful like murderer or child molester) and hopefully you'll see why this line of reasoning is troublesome.

 

[Dizchu]

An ordinary member of society, here defined as "most people", are born a gender and accept that fact.

So what you're saying is that transgender people are irreparable and should live a substandard life? I mean it's either that, or all transgender people are pretending. Both of these views are pretty messed up.

Regardless of what surgeries, hormonal treatments, clothing or makeup you get... if you are born a man you are a man and should change in the mens locker room. It's fine if you alter your body to look more like the gender you feel, but a pair of fake tits and long hair does not make you a woman... it makes you a man that has altered his body to look more like a woman. I'm fine with people living in fantasy land, but when you interact with people in the real world be prepared for some harsh truths.

So what you're saying is that if a biological male looks and identifies as a woman, to the point that most people would refer to her as a woman if she did not reveal that she was transgendered, she should use the mens' locker rooms anyway?

Because of course that'll go down well.

To reduce it to the absurd: Cats are allowed to poop and pee outside and to be naked 24/7.

I think the fact that you need to need to substitute transgenderism for transpeciesism or whatever the hell that is to make your point says a lot.

It's like saying gay marriage is wrong because "what next? People will be marrying their dogs". Those familiar with the slippery slope fallacy will realise that this is an effort to equate something truly ridiculous with something many people suffer with on a daily basis.

If you honestly think men and women are as different as humans and cats then I don't know what to say. It's like saying giving a car a new paint job and wheels is the same thing as turning it into a skateboard.

 

[Demagogue]

Found this on my facebook feed this morning, and thought it was quite fitting for the conversation at hand.

 

[Dollabillyall]

An ordinary member of society, here defined as "most people", are born a gender and accept that fact.

So what you're saying is that transgender people are irreparable and should live a substandard life? I mean it's either that, or all transgender people are pretending. Both of these views are pretty messed up.

Regardless of what surgeries, hormonal treatments, clothing or makeup you get... if you are born a man you are a man and should change in the mens locker room. It's fine if you alter your body to look more like the gender you feel, but a pair of fake tits and long hair does not make you a woman... it makes you a man that has altered his body to look more like a woman. I'm fine with people living in fantasy land, but when you interact with people in the real world be prepared for some harsh truths.

So what you're saying is that if a biological male looks and identifies as a woman, to the point that most people would refer to her as a woman if she did not reveal that she was transgendered, she should use the mens' locker rooms anyway?

Because of course that'll go down well.

To reduce it to the absurd: Cats are allowed to poop and pee outside and to be naked 24/7.

I think the fact that you need to need to substitute transgenderism for transpeciesism or whatever the hell that is to make your point says a lot.

It's like saying gay marriage is wrong because "what next? People will be marrying their dogs". Those familiar with the slippery slope fallacy will realise that this is an effort to equate something truly ridiculous with something many people suffer with on a daily basis.

If you honestly think men and women are as different as humans and cats then I don't know what to say. It's like saying giving a car a new paint job and wheels is the same thing as turning it into a skateboard.

What I'm saying is that it does not matter how a person identifies. It matters what you ARE. Some things you cannot change and having XY or XX chromosomes is just one of those things. I never said men and women are as different as humans and cats, I used that example to show that what you think is a solid principle does not hold up when used in a situation where the principle should hold as well if it were based on solid logic.
Also, the Catman is in only very few ways different from transgenders. Both identify as something they are biologically not and both use surgery and cosmetics to look more like the biology they identify with and in both cases the end result is not them becoming what they identify as but merely emulating the look. Granted, transsexuals are more "believable" thanks to at least being the same species... but that does not make them the chosen gender.

You also wrongly say I'm using a slippery slope argument because honestly I think it's fine that people have sex change operations, hormone treatments etc. I also think it's fine that people have cosmetic surgery to look more like a cat. What you called the slippery slope fallacy (wich is actually the slippery slope *argument*) is actually a reducio ad absurdum, taking a concept you say rings true and applying it to cases where it should work but actually fails to work in an absurd manner. The concept that you put forward as truth being "Identifying as a certain type of lifeform is as good as actually being it and society should make exceptions to accomodate this".
I am ofcourse saying its not true, identifying as something does not make you that thing and society certainly is not responsible for YOUR identity crisis. If I identify myself as the rightful God-King of mankind and suffer from not being accepted as such (because I don't get called your majesty and I don't get to demand tribute)society is under no obligation to accomodate my identity crisis.

 

[Dizchu]

I'm saying is that it does not matter how a person identifies. It matters what you ARE.

Sure. And I'm saying that the way someone presents themselves, behaves and interacts with society is more indicative of what someone is than their chromosomes.

And it's true because if you saw a woman on the street that looked, behaved and interacted with society the way you'd expect a woman to, you wouldn't demand a DNA sample to put your mind at rest. Do you ask every man and woman you meet to prove that they have XX or XY chromosomes before you trust their gender identity? I'd be quite concerned if you did.

I never said men and women are as different as humans and cats, I used that example to show that what you think is a solid principle does not hold up when used in a situation where the principle should hold as well if it were based on solid logic.

But it's not a valid comparison. Biological males can look like women. Biological females can look like men. Until humans can actually be mistaken for being cats, your comparison remains absolutely ridiculous.

Granted, transsexuals are more "believable" thanks to at least being the same species... but that does not make them the chosen gender.

"Chosen gender". Oh dear. I believe most transgender people would find it insulting to be told that they could just "choose" not to be discriminated against, to be the victims of hate attacks and "corrective rape", to face constant and unnecessarily scrutiny and suspicion.

You also wrongly say I'm using a slippery slope argument because honestly I think it's fine that people have sex change operations, hormone treatments etc.

Oh you can call your argument whatever you like, but it's still a slippery slope argument whether like it or not.

Okay joking aside, maybe it's not a slippery slope fallacy that you're using, maybe instead of believing that gender reassignment surgery will eventually lead to trans-species surgery you believe they should literally be treated the same. So that will change your argument from a slippery slope fallacy to a false equivalence fallacy. Your argument relies on a comparison not even you think is entirely valid. If "men and women are[n't] as different as humans and cats" then why even compare the two?

I am ofcourse saying its not true, identifying as something does not make you that thing and society certainly is not responsible for YOUR identity crisis.

Right. Time for the last-ditch attempt at making you understand what transgenderism even is.

I'll assume you're male but correct me if I'm wrong (though if I were to use your standards I'd just call you a male and refuse any corrections to my argument).

You look the same as you do now. You act the same. You are the same person inside and out... except you have female organs and XX chromosomes. If you are clothed you'd look 100% unmistakably male. Do you use the women's restrooms or the men's? Because you're saying that you should use the women's. And you know what will happen? Women will tell you to get out.

If I identify myself as the rightful God-King of mankind and suffer from not being accepted as such (because I don't get called your majesty and I don't get to demand tribute)society is under no obligation to accomodate my identity crisis.

Another false equivalence argument. How many god-kings exist? None. How many women exist? Half the population of the planet.

Transgender people do not want to be treated as if they are special or "different" they want to be treated the same as any other regular people. I don't know how many times I need to say this.

People often say that transgender people using the locker rooms of the gender they identify with will lead to men crossdressing as women just so they can spy on women in their locker rooms. According to you, men can go into the women's locker rooms, say "I was born as a woman" and everything will be fine.

Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[tippy2k2]

I want to thank everyone for their views and opinions but I think the thread has run its course. I have asked for a lock on the thread as it keeps derailing into people just kind of bickering and anything that can be argued one way or the other has likely been spoken by now.

 

[sky14kemea]