What frequency of discrimination against transgender people would you consider unacceptable. and requiring of action?
I'm not here to assert a position, other than challenging the mantra of "major problem". I'm skeptical of an argument that can not accurately quantify what constitutes a "major problem". I think the entire issue is driven in the name of identity politics, by both sides. To put it another way, the ordnance in Charlotte and subsequently the law passed by the N. Carolina state legislature were both passed using flawed premises and assumptions, and I think it was done purely for politics.
Absent this, I have to rely on my experiences and understanding of the world that tells me not too many people are going to get harassed about which bathroom they use. I do not doubt it does not happen, but to extent of passing laws? Show me some data and let me a draw a conclusion, instead of passing the buck to me to determine what it should be, I'm not the one with the problem, I don't know what it should be, or why.
To answer your direction directly. There is already a law making it illegal to discriminate against them (there is no doubt the courts are going to strike down the N. Carolina legislatures law). Your question is moot. You will not prevent all people from being idiots. We just have to put up with them.
Do you know what prompted that law and one of the reasons used to implement the ordinance?
Enlighten me.
Not until you quantify what's a "major problem". Fairs, fair, right?
Besides, I've provided the enlightenment you seek in another post. You can try to get me on the defensive, but I'm not the one making assertions, I'm challenging them.
EDIT: A major problem is an implicit call to action.
Which you are building into a strawman because for some reason you really want to talk about a hypothetical law giving trans people special protection.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Done. Now, if you're done being cute, it's your turn.
So, I have to go in this circle with you too? There is a major problem, 100% of a group of people have been the victim of something every 5,000 times they attempt to go scuba diving, its a major problem. You can keep tossing that 70% number out, but it does not indicate what you think it indicates. You still not have answered the question. You've cited an irrelevant stat. Of that 70%, how many times are they impacted, how many times do they experience no issues? I do not even think that 70% applies to the bathroom. I do not think you know, that stat has no context. Are you going to pretend I'm ignoring the stat after I just responded to it for the 5th time?
Post number #125.
Which you are building into a strawman because for some reason you really want to talk about a hypothetical law giving trans people special protection.
Funny, you don't mention my objection to the protection of women who do not feel comfortable going to bathroom with transsexuals, because the objection is the same, for the same reason, yet you only focus on one aspect of my objection and seem to not want to really go into the identity politics being played by both sides on this issue. It may be a straw man, but you are trying to pigeon hold my argument into a singular issue, when in reality it's multifaceted. Yeah, I really really want to talk about that ONE aspect.
So, I have to go in this circle with you too? There is a major problem, 100% of a group of people have been the victim of something every 5,000 times they attempt to go scuba diving, its a major problem. You can keep tossing that 70% number out, but it does not indicate what you think it indicates. You still not have answered the question. You've cited an irrelevant stat. Of that 70%, how many times are they impacted, how many times do they experience no issues? I do not even think that 70% applies to the bathroom. I do not think you know, that stat has no context.
I think everyone understands what the 70% means. It means that 70% of the transgender people surveyed reported being denied access to, or harassed over using a gender-segregated bathroom at least once. We all understand that it doesn't mean "70% of attempts to use a bathroom were met with denial or harassment" or that it means those 70% are harassed or denied every time they attempt to use a bathroom, or even a majority of the time. At a minimum, it might even be only once per person.
But I still think that's a major problem. Using the bathroom shouldn't be like scuba diving. When those of us whose gender and appearance match go to use a public bathroom, we have essentially zero chance of being denied access or harassed for using the wrong bathroom. Our analog to the 70% number would be 0%, and that's the way it should be for everyone.
I think everyone understands what the 70% means. It means that 70% of the transgender people surveyed reported being denied access to, or harassed over using a gender-segregated bathroom at least once. We all understand that it doesn't mean "70% of attempts to use a bathroom were met with denial or harassment" or that it means those 70% are harassed or denied every time they attempt to use a bathroom, or even a majority of the time. At a minimum, it might even be only once per person.
But I still think that's a major problem. Using the bathroom shouldn't be like scuba diving. When those of us whose gender and appearance match go to use a public bathroom, we have essentially zero chance of being denied access or harassed for using the wrong bathroom. Our analog to the 70% number would be 0%, and that's the way it should be for everyone.
Finally, some one addressed it. I disagree though, becasue you wont ever get to 0%. The logical conclusion is, it's a major problem until it gets to that point. We all have to put up with idiots and admittedly trans have to put up with more than their fare share. The problem with such arbitrary issuance of protections is, other people going to want them too, people like the N. Carolina legislatures, or, not to straw man, people are going to think of some really stupid stuff that are also "major problems", like women being uncomfortable with going to the bathroom with transgender folks. Am I the only one that understand the "major problem" can slice both ways?
You can keep tossing that 70% number out, but it does not indicate what you think it indicates.
You don't know what I think it indicates. I'm quite aware of what it indicates. I'm saying what it indicates is a problem. I have now quantified the problem. You have said you'd enlighten me when I did that, so enlighten me already.
Funny, you don't mention my objection to the protection of women who do not feel comfortable going to bathroom with transsexuals, because the objection is the same, for the same reason, yet you only focus on one aspect of my objection and seem to not want to really go into the identity politics being played by both sides on this issue.
How is identity politics being played by both sides on this issue? Only one side is asking for "special protection" here; the other side is asking for that "protection" to go away. You agree with them on that -- great. So why are we still talking?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Key points:
a) the number of trans-people assaulting people in public bathrooms has been sitting at 0 per year since forever.
b) pretty much everyone pushing for these laws are right wing Christian conservatives who're mad they can't legally abuse gay people anymore. The bosses of those groups actually say so in interviews.
c) since the adoption of these bathroom laws, harassment in bathrooms has gone up because people have decided they've an excuse to police others. Mainly cis-women have been targeted.
This stuff has been posted in the thread already so I'm not linking it.
You can keep tossing that 70% number out, but it does not indicate what you think it indicates.
You don't know what I think it indicates. I'm quite aware of what it indicates. I'm saying what it indicates is a problem. I have now quantified the problem.
Yep, you indicated a problem, not quantified it. I never denied there was a problem.
You have said you'd enlighten me when I did that, so enlighten me already.
How is identity politics being played by both sides on this issue? Only one side is asking for "special protection" here; the other side is asking for that "protection" to go away. You agree with them on that -- great. So why are we still talking?
Read post #125. I'm curious though, if you think it's a "major" problem, do you think women being uncomfortable in bathrooms is a "major" problem? My guess is no, or that you just do not care, or the frequency to which it occurs makes it not a major problem.
The problem I have with your line of thinking is, a great many of people think their discomfort in regards to interacting with other human beings is a major problem too.
Funny, you don't mention my objection to the protection of women who do not feel comfortable going to bathroom with transsexuals, because the objection is the same, for the same reason, yet you only focus on one aspect of my objection and seem to not want to really go into the identity politics being played by both sides on this issue. It may be a straw man, but you are trying to pigeon hold my argument into a singular issue, when in reality it's multifaceted. Yeah, I really really want to talk about that ONE aspect.
The objection is for a different reason though. Non-trans women would feel only uncomfortable going to the restroom with trans people for reasons of ignorance since trans people are not likely to assault anyone in a restroom. There is yet to be one case of a trans person using this protection to perpetrate assault. Trans people want this protection for actual protection since they are more likely than non trans people to be assaulted in a restroom.
Can you provide proof that non trans people are at risk of assault in restrooms from trans people? If not then phobias if trans people are entirely unfounded.
Funny, you don't mention my objection to the protection of women who do not feel comfortable going to bathroom with transsexuals, because the objection is the same, for the same reason, yet you only focus on one aspect of my objection and seem to not want to really go into the identity politics being played by both sides on this issue. It may be a straw man, but you are trying to pigeon hold my argument into a singular issue, when in reality it's multifaceted. Yeah, I really really want to talk about that ONE aspect.
I did ask whether it was transgendered people the women objected to, and if they'd feel just as uncomfortable in an all-gender bathroom that men and women both used.
Are you drawing an equivalence between a transgendered person's well-justified fear of abuse and/or harassment in a bathroom, and a woman's discomfort at sharing a bathroom with transgendered people because she thinks they're squicky?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
No, you indicated a problem, not quantified it. I never denied there was a problem.
Okay, yeah, you're just being difficult for difficult's sake. We're done here.
You said major problem. You failed to provide any sort of argument that distinguishes it from a minor problem, I provided an avenue for you to do that, all you could do is restate the problem. You entire argument was focused on getting me to deny a problem and ignoring my chief criticism, I see you as the one being difficult. I've answered your questions and you've answered mine with cheap ploys to distract from the question. Is it a major problem if they are only denied bathroom access once in their life? If you think it is, I find your interpenetration of what a major problem is lacking. I've also articulated why I think your line of reasoning is faulty, but you did not address that either. Your methodology of determining what a major problem is, is exactly the same methodology used to pass that law in NC, your argument is just based upon a different context. The methodology of determining what a problem is, is screwed up in this country. The bigots responded exactly the same way you did. The thinking is identical, just the context is different. I'm not saying you are a bigot, don't take it that way.
Finally, some one addressed it. I disagree though, becasue you wont ever get to 0%. The logical conclusion is, it's a major problem until it gets to that point. We all have to put up with idiots and admittedly trans have to put up with more than their fare share.
What do you disagree with? You think it's not a major problem because you don't think we'll eliminate it? That doesn't make any sense.
The problem with such arbitrary issuance of protections is, other people going to want them too, people like the N. Carolina legislatures, or, not to straw man, people are going to think of some really stupid stuff that are also "major problems", like women being uncomfortable with going to the bathroom with transgender folks. Am I the only one that understand the "major problem" can slice both ways?
I don't understand what protections we're talking about here.
Are you drawing an equivalence between a transgendered person's well-justified fear of abuse and/or harassment in a bathroom, and a woman's discomfort at sharing a bathroom with transgendered people because she thinks they're squicky?
What is the result of harassment and abuse? Discomfort, right? I do not think its a good idea to compare actions with a result. Compare the results. The transgender would not be in discomfort if not for the bigot and the woman would not be in discomfort with out the trans. You could make the argument that one person feels more discomfort than the other, but then that raises the issue of picking which persons feelings we care about more.
The problem I have with your line of reasoning is, you trivialize one persons discomfort while championing another. Are you arguing the trans discomfort takes precedence over the woman's? I can certainly agree with that is if the likelihood of discomfort is known for both sides and you can have some sort of measurement on the impact. This is why frequency is important. If you saying the woman should just shut up, well then, I find your line of reasoning horrible.
Take away the entire context of LGBT.
Who discomfort comes first, how do you decide? Your answer should be fair for everyone, right? It should provide the least imposition for everyone involved, right?
What do you disagree with? You think it's not a major problem because you don't think we'll eliminate it? That doesn't make any sense.
I disagree becasue your statement implicitly acknowledges it will always be a major problem, since its impossible to make it zero percent of the time. For instance, I do not think it's a major problem if they experience an issue once in their lifetime, but if they experience once a week, or some agreed upon measurement where its a constant in their life, I think that would constitute a major problem.
I don't understand what protections we're talking about here.
I'm sorry, I'm having a real hard to time grasping that some here cant understand I'm using the result of the argument you are making, as opposed to the argument itself. After all, I've only repeated this to like, four different people.
Once again I'll simplify it. Some women are extraordinarily unconformable with going to the bathroom with transgendered folks. Transsexuals are excruciatingly uncomfortable with going to the bathroom with bigots. While I do no not think the woman should be uncomfortable, and think Trans should be comfortable, its wrong to be dismissive about the woman's or the tran's discomfort. The woman has a "major" problem, and the trans has a "major" problem. My suspicion is, many would discount the woman's problem as not important or trivial. I do not like that line of reasoning becasue then, I would then be presented with a whole host of arguments that trivializes the trans problem. The results of these major problems result in laws and city ordinances that do more harm than good, in many cases.
I disagree becasue your statement implicitly acknowledges it will always be a major problem, since its impossible to make it zero percent of the time. For instance, I do not think it's a major problem if they experience an issue once in their lifetime, but if they experience once a week, or some agreed upon measurement where its a constant in their life, I think that would constitute a major problem.
So what? Even if we grant it's unlikely to be zero, that doesn't mean it's not a major problem. "Major problem" is not a synonym for "fixable problem". That being said, I disagree that it can't be fixed. Black people used to face way more harassment and denials if they tried to use the white bathrooms, and now we all manage to share bathrooms.
I'm sorry, I'm having a real hard to time grasping that some here cant understand I'm using the result of the argument you are making, as opposed to the argument itself. After all, I've only repeated this to like, four different people.
Once again I'll simplify it. Some women are extraordinarily unconformable with going to the bathroom with transgendered folks. Transsexuals are excruciatingly uncomfortable with going to the bathroom with bigots. While I d no not think the woman should be uncomfortable, and think Trans should be comfortable its wrong to be dismissive about the woman's discomfort. The woman has a "major" problem, and the trans has a "major" problem. My suspicion is, many would discount the woman's problem as not important or trivial. I do not like that line of reasoning becasue then, I would then be presented with a whole host of arguments that trivializes the trans problem. The results of these major problems result in laws and city ordinances, that do more harm than good in many cases.
I'm still confused. I thought you were talking about special protections for trans people. Do you consider being able to use the bathroom of their gender a "special protection" or are you talking about something more than that?
Once again I'll simplify it. Some women are extraordinarily unconformable with going to the bathroom with transgendered folks. Transsexuals are excruciatingly uncomfortable with going to the bathroom with bigots. While I do no not think the woman should be uncomfortable, and think Trans should be comfortable, its wrong to be dismissive about the woman's or the tran's discomfort. The woman has a "major" problem, and the trans has a "major" problem. My suspicion is, many would discount the woman's problem as not important or trivial. I do not like that line of reasoning becasue then, I would then be presented with a whole host of arguments that trivializes the trans problem. The results of these major problems result in laws and city ordinances that do more harm than good, in many cases.
The difference being Trans people are justified being uncomfortable (since they are often assaulted or harassed) while non trans people are being ignorant (since no trans person has ever used these laws to assault someone in a restroom.) It's not wrong to be dismissive about a non trans woman's discomfort because it is entirely based in ignorance.
I disagree becasue your statement implicitly acknowledges it will always be a major problem, since its impossible to make it zero percent of the time. For instance, I do not think it's a major problem if they experience an issue once in their lifetime, but if they experience once a week, or some agreed upon measurement where its a constant in their life, I think that would constitute a major problem.
So what? Even if we grant it's unlikely to be zero, that doesn't mean it's not a major problem. "Major problem" is not a synonym for "fixable problem". That being said, I disagree that it can't be fixed. Black people used to face way more harassment and denials if they tried to use the white bathrooms, and now we all manage to share bathrooms.
I'm sorry, I'm having a real hard to time grasping that some here cant understand I'm using the result of the argument you are making, as opposed to the argument itself. After all, I've only repeated this to like, four different people.
Once again I'll simplify it. Some women are extraordinarily unconformable with going to the bathroom with transgendered folks. Transsexuals are excruciatingly uncomfortable with going to the bathroom with bigots. While I d no not think the woman should be uncomfortable, and think Trans should be comfortable its wrong to be dismissive about the woman's discomfort. The woman has a "major" problem, and the trans has a "major" problem. My suspicion is, many would discount the woman's problem as not important or trivial. I do not like that line of reasoning becasue then, I would then be presented with a whole host of arguments that trivializes the trans problem. The results of these major problems result in laws and city ordinances, that do more harm than good in many cases.
I'm still confused. I thought you were talking about special protections for trans people. Do you consider being able to use the bathroom of their gender a "special protection" or are you talking about something more than that?
I'm sorry, I've clarified for you enough, if you do not want to respond to the substance of my post, that's okay, plenty of other people I can discuss this with.
I'm sorry, I've clarified for you enough, if you do not want to respond to the substance of my post, that's okay, plenty of other people I can discuss this with.
Whatever you say. I'd be happy to respond to the substance of your post, but it's lost in your rambling, grammatically ambiguous prose.
Once again I'll simplify it. Some women are extraordinarily unconformable with going to the bathroom with transgendered folks. Transsexuals are excruciatingly uncomfortable with going to the bathroom with bigots. While I do no not think the woman should be uncomfortable, and think Trans should be comfortable, its wrong to be dismissive about the woman's or the tran's discomfort. The woman has a "major" problem, and the trans has a "major" problem. My suspicion is, many would discount the woman's problem as not important or trivial. I do not like that line of reasoning becasue then, I would then be presented with a whole host of arguments that trivializes the trans problem. The results of these major problems result in laws and city ordinances that do more harm than good, in many cases.
The difference being Trans people are justified being uncomfortable (since they are often assaulted or harassed) while non trans people are being ignorant (since no trans person has ever used these laws to assault someone in a restroom.) It's not wrong to be dismissive about a non trans woman's discomfort because it is entirely based in ignorance.
There it is. "justified". So, the issue is not about discomfort, its about justified discomfort. Who decides which discomfort is "justified"? No discomfort should ever be "justified", becasue it leads to very bad results. I mean, you just basically said it's okay for some people to experience discomfort, if their reasoning does not align with yours.
Take the LGBT context away for a moment.
If I impose something on a person, and the person interprets it incorrectly and it cause discomfort for the ignorant person, is the persons discomfort justified?
You can say her reasons for being discomforted are unreasonable, but to be dismissive of her feelings is akin to someone dismissing the feelings of a trans person. I do not think anyone can reasonably talk about protecting someones feelings while dismissing another persons feelings becasue they do not agree with their rationality for those feelings.
One persons feelings are not more important than the others, no matter the reasons they have.
I'm sorry, I've clarified for you enough, if you do not want to respond to the substance of my post, that's okay, plenty of other people I can discuss this with.
Whatever you say. I'd be happy to respond to the substance of your post, but it's lost in your rambling, grammatically ambiguous prose.
No problem, it seems you think being denied access to a bathroom just one time in a persons life is major problem, if it happens to a certain kind of person. You say its a fixable problem and bring up racism, something we have not fixed in 200+ years. You think black people are not harassed in the bathroom by bigots? Oh, wait, that is a major problem too, since it occurs at some frequency (and if you face harassment in the bathroom it is a major problem, according to you) but that major problem is supposedly fixed, so not a major problem anymore? Needless to say, I find your entire rebuttal nonsensical and really missing the point of my response to you in an incredibly ironic way.
(Not to mention the same law that "fixed" racial segregation still exist and protects trans-gendered people)
No problem, it seems you think being denied access to a bathroom just one time in a persons life is major problem, if it happens to a certain kind of person.
Being denied access to a bathroom is a problem regardless of what type of person it happens to. It's just that it only really happens to transgender people, so they're the ones for whom it's a major problem.
You say its a fixable problem and bring up racism, something we have not fixed in 200+ years. You think black people are not harassed in the bathroom by bigots? Oh, wait, that is a major problem too, since it occurs at some frequency (and if you face harassment in the bathroom it is a major problem, according to you) but that major problem is supposedly fixed, so not a major problem anymore? Needless to say, I find your entire rebuttal nonsensical and really missing the point of my response to you in an incredibly ironic way. (Not to mention the same law that "fixed" racial segregation still exist and protects trans-gendered people)
You're missing the point. I'm not suggesting that racism has been fixed or has gone away. What has gone away is the social stigma of integrated bathrooms. If you asked white people in 1960 whether they were uncomfortable using the same bathroom as black people, many would have said yes. But we've progressed, and that's no longer an issue. Black people surely still face bigotry, and sometimes that occurs in a bathroom, but it's not bigotry about the bathroom situation. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who want to keep black people out of their public restrooms.
For transgender people, though, we're still in that 1960s situation. Many people would report that they're uncomfortable using the same bathroom as a transgender person. And that translates into harassment and denial of use and so forth, which is the "major problem". Over time, as people get used to the idea, I think that'll go away just like it has for integrated bathroom use. But until then, I consider it a major problem.
The law which prevents segregated bathroom is Title III of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While that does protect transgender people against discrimination on the basis of their "race, color, religion, or national origin," it does not protect them from discrimination based on being transgender.
For transgender people, though, we're still in that 1960s situation.
No one has demonstrated the issue is to that that extent. A black person could NEVER use a white bathroom. You do not know if trans are prevented from using the bathroom more than once year....
I agree, NEVER being allowed to use a bathroom is a major problem, not being able to use a bathroom some unspecified amount of time is not necessarily a major problem.
The law which prevents segregated bathroom is Title III of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While that does protect transgender people against discrimination on the basis of their "race, color, religion, or national origin," it does not protect them from discrimination based on being transgender.
Yes it does, seeing how you somehow did not read the last one, sex. You can not be discriminated against becasue of sex (except in some limited circumstances).
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").
The N. Carolina law is going to be struck down by the courts and a transgender can sue any institution that prevents them from using the bathroom on the basis of their sex.
I would say not allowing a student to use the bathroom at school is a major problem, and the courts will fix that based upon existing laws that protect everyone. With that said, this person is not being prevented from using the bathroom.
I'm not here to assert a position, other than challenging the mantra of "major problem". I'm skeptical of an argument that can not accurately quantify what constitutes a "major problem". I think the entire issue is driven in the name of identity politics, by both sides. To put it another way, the ordnance in Charlotte and subsequently the law passed by the N. Carolina state legislature were both passed using flawed premises and assumptions, and I think it was done purely for politics.
Absent this, I have to rely on my experiences and understanding of the world that tells me not too many people are going to get harassed about which bathroom they use. I do not doubt it does not happen, but to extent of passing laws? Show me some data and let me a draw a conclusion, instead of passing the buck to me to determine what it should be, I'm not the one with the problem, I don't know what it should be, or why.
To answer your direction directly. There is already a law making it illegal to discriminate against them (there is no doubt the courts are going to strike down the N. Carolina legislatures law). Your question is moot. You will not prevent all people from being idiots. We just have to put up with them.
Nobody here is advocating taking the "action" you're claiming there's not enough data to support.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not until you quantify what's a "major problem". Fairs, fair, right?
Besides, I've provided the enlightenment you seek in another post. You can try to get me on the defensive, but I'm not the one making assertions, I'm challenging them.
EDIT: A major problem is an implicit call to action.
Which you are building into a strawman because for some reason you really want to talk about a hypothetical law giving trans people special protection.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So, I have to go in this circle with you too? There is a major problem, 100% of a group of people have been the victim of something every 5,000 times they attempt to go scuba diving, its a major problem. You can keep tossing that 70% number out, but it does not indicate what you think it indicates. You still not have answered the question. You've cited an irrelevant stat. Of that 70%, how many times are they impacted, how many times do they experience no issues? I do not even think that 70% applies to the bathroom. I do not think you know, that stat has no context. Are you going to pretend I'm ignoring the stat after I just responded to it for the 5th time?
Post number #125.
Funny, you don't mention my objection to the protection of women who do not feel comfortable going to bathroom with transsexuals, because the objection is the same, for the same reason, yet you only focus on one aspect of my objection and seem to not want to really go into the identity politics being played by both sides on this issue. It may be a straw man, but you are trying to pigeon hold my argument into a singular issue, when in reality it's multifaceted. Yeah, I really really want to talk about that ONE aspect.
I think everyone understands what the 70% means. It means that 70% of the transgender people surveyed reported being denied access to, or harassed over using a gender-segregated bathroom at least once. We all understand that it doesn't mean "70% of attempts to use a bathroom were met with denial or harassment" or that it means those 70% are harassed or denied every time they attempt to use a bathroom, or even a majority of the time. At a minimum, it might even be only once per person.
But I still think that's a major problem. Using the bathroom shouldn't be like scuba diving. When those of us whose gender and appearance match go to use a public bathroom, we have essentially zero chance of being denied access or harassed for using the wrong bathroom. Our analog to the 70% number would be 0%, and that's the way it should be for everyone.
Finally, some one addressed it. I disagree though, becasue you wont ever get to 0%. The logical conclusion is, it's a major problem until it gets to that point. We all have to put up with idiots and admittedly trans have to put up with more than their fare share. The problem with such arbitrary issuance of protections is, other people going to want them too, people like the N. Carolina legislatures, or, not to straw man, people are going to think of some really stupid stuff that are also "major problems", like women being uncomfortable with going to the bathroom with transgender folks. Am I the only one that understand the "major problem" can slice both ways?
How is identity politics being played by both sides on this issue? Only one side is asking for "special protection" here; the other side is asking for that "protection" to go away. You agree with them on that -- great. So why are we still talking?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
a) the number of trans-people assaulting people in public bathrooms has been sitting at 0 per year since forever.
b) pretty much everyone pushing for these laws are right wing Christian conservatives who're mad they can't legally abuse gay people anymore. The bosses of those groups actually say so in interviews.
c) since the adoption of these bathroom laws, harassment in bathrooms has gone up because people have decided they've an excuse to police others. Mainly cis-women have been targeted.
This stuff has been posted in the thread already so I'm not linking it.
Art is life itself.
Yep, you indicated a problem, not quantified it. I never denied there was a problem.
Post #125.
Read post #125. I'm curious though, if you think it's a "major" problem, do you think women being uncomfortable in bathrooms is a "major" problem? My guess is no, or that you just do not care, or the frequency to which it occurs makes it not a major problem.
The problem I have with your line of thinking is, a great many of people think their discomfort in regards to interacting with other human beings is a major problem too.
Can you provide proof that non trans people are at risk of assault in restrooms from trans people? If not then phobias if trans people are entirely unfounded.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Are you drawing an equivalence between a transgendered person's well-justified fear of abuse and/or harassment in a bathroom, and a woman's discomfort at sharing a bathroom with transgendered people because she thinks they're squicky?
You said major problem. You failed to provide any sort of argument that distinguishes it from a minor problem, I provided an avenue for you to do that, all you could do is restate the problem. You entire argument was focused on getting me to deny a problem and ignoring my chief criticism, I see you as the one being difficult. I've answered your questions and you've answered mine with cheap ploys to distract from the question. Is it a major problem if they are only denied bathroom access once in their life? If you think it is, I find your interpenetration of what a major problem is lacking. I've also articulated why I think your line of reasoning is faulty, but you did not address that either. Your methodology of determining what a major problem is, is exactly the same methodology used to pass that law in NC, your argument is just based upon a different context. The methodology of determining what a problem is, is screwed up in this country. The bigots responded exactly the same way you did. The thinking is identical, just the context is different. I'm not saying you are a bigot, don't take it that way.
What do you disagree with? You think it's not a major problem because you don't think we'll eliminate it? That doesn't make any sense.
I don't understand what protections we're talking about here.
What is the result of harassment and abuse? Discomfort, right? I do not think its a good idea to compare actions with a result. Compare the results. The transgender would not be in discomfort if not for the bigot and the woman would not be in discomfort with out the trans. You could make the argument that one person feels more discomfort than the other, but then that raises the issue of picking which persons feelings we care about more.
The problem I have with your line of reasoning is, you trivialize one persons discomfort while championing another. Are you arguing the trans discomfort takes precedence over the woman's? I can certainly agree with that is if the likelihood of discomfort is known for both sides and you can have some sort of measurement on the impact. This is why frequency is important. If you saying the woman should just shut up, well then, I find your line of reasoning horrible.
Take away the entire context of LGBT.
Who discomfort comes first, how do you decide? Your answer should be fair for everyone, right? It should provide the least imposition for everyone involved, right?
I disagree becasue your statement implicitly acknowledges it will always be a major problem, since its impossible to make it zero percent of the time. For instance, I do not think it's a major problem if they experience an issue once in their lifetime, but if they experience once a week, or some agreed upon measurement where its a constant in their life, I think that would constitute a major problem.
I'm sorry, I'm having a real hard to time grasping that some here cant understand I'm using the result of the argument you are making, as opposed to the argument itself. After all, I've only repeated this to like, four different people.
Once again I'll simplify it. Some women are extraordinarily unconformable with going to the bathroom with transgendered folks. Transsexuals are excruciatingly uncomfortable with going to the bathroom with bigots. While I do no not think the woman should be uncomfortable, and think Trans should be comfortable, its wrong to be dismissive about the woman's or the tran's discomfort. The woman has a "major" problem, and the trans has a "major" problem. My suspicion is, many would discount the woman's problem as not important or trivial. I do not like that line of reasoning becasue then, I would then be presented with a whole host of arguments that trivializes the trans problem. The results of these major problems result in laws and city ordinances that do more harm than good, in many cases.
So what? Even if we grant it's unlikely to be zero, that doesn't mean it's not a major problem. "Major problem" is not a synonym for "fixable problem". That being said, I disagree that it can't be fixed. Black people used to face way more harassment and denials if they tried to use the white bathrooms, and now we all manage to share bathrooms.
I'm still confused. I thought you were talking about special protections for trans people. Do you consider being able to use the bathroom of their gender a "special protection" or are you talking about something more than that?
I'm sorry, I've clarified for you enough, if you do not want to respond to the substance of my post, that's okay, plenty of other people I can discuss this with.
Whatever you say. I'd be happy to respond to the substance of your post, but it's lost in your rambling, grammatically ambiguous prose.
There it is. "justified". So, the issue is not about discomfort, its about justified discomfort. Who decides which discomfort is "justified"? No discomfort should ever be "justified", becasue it leads to very bad results. I mean, you just basically said it's okay for some people to experience discomfort, if their reasoning does not align with yours.
Take the LGBT context away for a moment.
If I impose something on a person, and the person interprets it incorrectly and it cause discomfort for the ignorant person, is the persons discomfort justified?
You can say her reasons for being discomforted are unreasonable, but to be dismissive of her feelings is akin to someone dismissing the feelings of a trans person. I do not think anyone can reasonably talk about protecting someones feelings while dismissing another persons feelings becasue they do not agree with their rationality for those feelings.
One persons feelings are not more important than the others, no matter the reasons they have.
No problem, it seems you think being denied access to a bathroom just one time in a persons life is major problem, if it happens to a certain kind of person. You say its a fixable problem and bring up racism, something we have not fixed in 200+ years. You think black people are not harassed in the bathroom by bigots? Oh, wait, that is a major problem too, since it occurs at some frequency (and if you face harassment in the bathroom it is a major problem, according to you) but that major problem is supposedly fixed, so not a major problem anymore? Needless to say, I find your entire rebuttal nonsensical and really missing the point of my response to you in an incredibly ironic way.
(Not to mention the same law that "fixed" racial segregation still exist and protects trans-gendered people)
Being denied access to a bathroom is a problem regardless of what type of person it happens to. It's just that it only really happens to transgender people, so they're the ones for whom it's a major problem.
You're missing the point. I'm not suggesting that racism has been fixed or has gone away. What has gone away is the social stigma of integrated bathrooms. If you asked white people in 1960 whether they were uncomfortable using the same bathroom as black people, many would have said yes. But we've progressed, and that's no longer an issue. Black people surely still face bigotry, and sometimes that occurs in a bathroom, but it's not bigotry about the bathroom situation. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who want to keep black people out of their public restrooms.
For transgender people, though, we're still in that 1960s situation. Many people would report that they're uncomfortable using the same bathroom as a transgender person. And that translates into harassment and denial of use and so forth, which is the "major problem". Over time, as people get used to the idea, I think that'll go away just like it has for integrated bathroom use. But until then, I consider it a major problem.
The law which prevents segregated bathroom is Title III of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While that does protect transgender people against discrimination on the basis of their "race, color, religion, or national origin," it does not protect them from discrimination based on being transgender.
No one has demonstrated the issue is to that that extent. A black person could NEVER use a white bathroom. You do not know if trans are prevented from using the bathroom more than once year....
I agree, NEVER being allowed to use a bathroom is a major problem, not being able to use a bathroom some unspecified amount of time is not necessarily a major problem.
Yes it does, seeing how you somehow did not read the last one, sex. You can not be discriminated against becasue of sex (except in some limited circumstances).
The N. Carolina law is going to be struck down by the courts and a transgender can sue any institution that prevents them from using the bathroom on the basis of their sex.
I would say not allowing a student to use the bathroom at school is a major problem, and the courts will fix that based upon existing laws that protect everyone. With that said, this person is not being prevented from using the bathroom.