uggabugga uggabugga
* * *
Return to Dudeism.com |  recentposts2

Author Topic: No, Jane, I can't Spare a Square...and You Shouldn't be in the Men's Room  (Read 13175 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SagebrushSage

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
*deleting old posts*
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2016, 10:08:31 PM »
*deleting old posts*
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 03:00:21 PM by SagebrushSage »

Brother D

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 351
Quote
You know, as members and clergy of the Church of the Latter Day Dude, I don't recall any part of the sign-up process wherein it was stated that we either had to abandon our individual opinions (and the ability to express them) at the door or willingly accept the idea of our fellow clergy going all Walter on us for having an opinion that differs. I mean the whole idea of an enlightened group like this is being able to have a conversation without resorting to calling each other names that accomplish nothing more than the end of a sensitive conversation.

I agree, though sometimes opinions will cause offence no matter who we are.

Quote

For example, I happen to believe that this whole trans-toilet thing is yet another of the orchestrated efforts of people in power to divide the proletariat into smaller and smaller groups based upon nothing more than differences of opinion.


I disagree, I think having unisex/gender neutral facilities would, as I have said, breakdown social division.

 
Quote
I'm just saying that this is some borderline psycho bullshit. If you have a penis you go to the boys' toilet, if you have a vagina you go to the girls' toilet. If you can't make the distinction you maybe go to see a psychiatrist.

This is the kicker. I have issue with this statement, gender identity and sexual orientation, are NOT a mental health issue. This attitude is (partly) why people have difficulty with coming out and/or talking to people they want/ need to accept them as human beings.

LotsaBadKarma

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 263
Quote
I'm just saying that this is some borderline psycho bullshit. If you have a penis you go to the boys' toilet, if you have a vagina you go to the girls' toilet. If you can't make the distinction you maybe go to see a psychiatrist.

This is the kicker. I have issue with this statement, gender identity and sexual orientation, are NOT a mental health issue. This attitude is (partly) why people have difficulty with coming out and/or talking to people they want/ need to accept them as human beings.

The following is from the CDC page:

LGBTQ youth are also at increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors, suicide attempts, and suicide. A nationally representative study of adolescents in grades 712 found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth were more than twice as likely to have attempted suicide as their heterosexual peers.3 More studies are needed to better understand the risks for suicide among transgender youth. However, one study with 55 transgender youth found that about 25% reported suicide attempts.

This from the L. A. Times:
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/28/local/la-me-ln-suicide-attempts-alarming-transgender-20140127

Say again, this is NOT a mental health issue? And that's just 2 of the sites, there are a shit-ton more.

And as an aside from the guilt messages that are regularly sent to people who have difficulty with the idea of suddenly sharing the bathroom with someone who would physically be described as being of the "opposite sex" give people a little time to adjust, dude. From the standpoint of people who have grown up with the idea of men's rooms and ladies' rooms to suddenly be called a transphobe because they're having trouble adjusting to this idea is just as ridiculous as bullying someone who is transgender. All I'm saying is give people time, the harder this thing gets pushed the harder some people will push back. There's a "joke" that I've seen on FB about a dad who watches a grown man follow his young daughter into the bathroom. The guy self-identifies as a girl. The dad knocks out the guy's teeth and says he self-identifies as the tooth fairy. Distasteful, yes. Are a lot of people identifying with it? Judging by the number of times I've seen the thing re-posted I would say definitely. Whether the response is nature or nurture it can't just be shoved down peoples' throats. That's gonna cause some problems.

Here's the issue from my point of view. If I'm at the mall with a relative who is a juvenile female and we see a grown man walk into the ladies' room am I really going to give a shit? No, although I will definitely take notice. Is she going in there before he gets out? Hell no. If she's in there and he walks in after her am I going in to make sure that everything is kosher? You bet your ass I am! If my answers make me a "phobe" I guess I'll just have to delight in wearing that label because if I am in a position of being responsible for the safety of that child everything else takes a back seat including the transgender bathroom issue. By the same token, if I see a child who (for whatever reason) I know to be transgender being bullied am I going to step in? Well, if I don't I'm not much of a man, am I?

I also stand by my conspiracy theory.

Brother D

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 351
Are we splitting hairs here?

I am saying there are issues surrounding LBGTQ identity and being gay/trans etc is not a mental health issue in itself. People used to be chastised for being left handed/ ginger, which is not a problem, it's just how their bodies are.

 You are entitled to your opinion, man, I'm trying to get a better understanding of it that's all.

 Suicide etc in this case, is a result of societies attitude towards the demographic in question and I think if they were in an environment where it was totally cool and accepted, there wouldn't be so much of an issue. When my daughter told my wife and I she digs chicks, neither of us batted an eyelid, so long as she's happy and if she wants to be identified as something else, also fine by me.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule and not everyone is automatically going to feel comfortable right off the bat, but part of being human is supporting and protecting your friends and family regardless of who they are. (Unless they harm others, mentally and/or physically, then they should face the consequences of their actions).

Also, am confused with CDC thing, aren't the CDC to do with diseases? (Which is also not a gender issue). Help me out dude.

I'm also aware, this maybe straying off topic too.

SagebrushSage

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
*deleting old posts*
« Reply #19 on: May 15, 2016, 05:53:21 PM »
*deleting old posts*
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 03:00:12 PM by SagebrushSage »

RandoRock

  • Dude
  • ****
  • Posts: 209
I'm still shocked this is even an issue, wouldn't the easiest solution be to just use the bathroom that matches your parts? I don't mean the parts you were born with I just mean whatever parts your currently have. If you have a dick go to the men's room and if you have a vagina go to the women's room, what's so hard about that?

I get that there are people that identify as the opposite gender and haven't started the process of making the switch yet but I'm not convinced that justifies people getting to use which ever restroom they want. Some women probably aren't comfortable with big ol' Johnson in the same bathroom as them and then it becomes the issue of whose comfort is more important.

I have a younger daughter and honestly I'm not so much worried that she'll get attacked since if someone's going to do that the sign on the door wasn't going to stop them anyway, I'm more worried that she'll be exposed to a bunch of swinging Johnsons in a place she really shouldn't have to worry about that. But like every thing else that's just my opinion, Man. Plus I mainly believe this is all just another distraction technique by the media since trans people have been using whatever bathroom they choose this whole time anyway.

SagebrushSage

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
*deleting old posts*
« Reply #21 on: May 16, 2016, 01:17:35 AM »
*deleting old posts*
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 02:59:46 PM by SagebrushSage »

RandoRock

  • Dude
  • ****
  • Posts: 209
But at what point does the comfort level of a trans person become more important than the comfort level of a person who isn't trans? That's my only issue in all of this, we are saying as a society that feelings of the few out weigh the feelings of the many and anyone who disagrees with that is labeled a bigot.

I'm a 6'2, 230, bald headed, and big bearded man. If I went into the ladies room I can guarantee that I would make the women in there uncomfortable, not even through actions just by simply being in there so my point is at what point does my wanting to use their bathroom become more important than their feeling of security?

It goes back to the incident that pretty much made this a national discussion. The 16 year old boy who identified as a girl wanting to use the women's locker room at his high school. This made the girls uncomfortable and when they voiced their concern they were labeled as bigots. The boy refused getting his own locker room and the privacy screens when they were offered and the school still sided with him. Why are his feelings more important than all the girls? Don't those girls have the same right to feel secure?

People should be able to live whatever kind of life they want but it shouldn't come at the expense of others.

SagebrushSage

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
*deleting old posts*
« Reply #23 on: May 16, 2016, 10:32:20 AM »
*deleting old posts*
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 02:58:11 PM by SagebrushSage »

StAugustineDude

  • Dude
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • The Dude in St. Augustine
    • The Order of the Dude
You see, this is the difference between a bigot and a reasonable person.  A bigot, in this case, says "this diversity issue is cause for revolution!  growl!  hiss!  raar!".  A reasonable person says "I'm generally fine with these people, but I have specific, reasonable concerns a, b, and c..."  So, I do not call RandoRock a bigot.

So this is where nothing productive happens with this conversation Dude.  No matter how much you may disagree with the position as soon as you're resorting to calling him out as a bigot because of his position, no further reasonable discussion can occur.   While I don't think that LotsaBadKarma has thought his position out very well, I don't think it does anything productive to "Discuss" things while passing insults around.   It's a sensitive topic, for sure... but we're Dudes... take a breath, think how to discuss it. 

Now my take... and why I don't think the position is well thought out. 

The position you (LotsaBadKarma) take is that your concern is over how children will be confused, or not know how to process a transgender person using their restroom. While I agree with an earlier comment of the explanation of such an event shouldn't be that difficult to explain to the child, I think you are not thinking out what will generate the questions.  What would your child question or find more difficult to process, someone in the ladies restroom.... dressed as a lady.  Or someone dressed as a male using the ladies restroom?  A transgendered person is not going to be a woman, dressed as a woman generally, or a man dressed as a man.  They will be dressed as their sexual identity has lead them. So wouldn't there be much more difficulty in your child processing the idea of someone dressed as a woman using the mens restroom?  A child isn't going to be looking for an adams apple, their not going to be as visually critical as you.  Whether you know it or not you have been sharing restrooms with transgendered women for a long time.  The laws just mean that they can legally feel safe using the restroom of the gender they identify with.  Women's restrooms have doors on the stalls,  a pre-op transgendered person is not going to be using a urinal, and would also be in a stall.  What opportunity would a child have to see the genitals you are concerned with them seeing to bring up the question?  The child predator (or predator argument in general) is generally pretty ridiculous.  Someone with intent to break the law to perform a sexual act on an unwilling participant is NOT going to care if it is legal to go in a restroom or not.   Unfortunately people use fearmongering to push positions that can not stand up strong enough to scrutiny on their own.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2016, 03:43:11 PM by StAugustineDude »
StAugustineDude

Rule #1 - Don't suffer fools
Rule #2 - Don't be a dick
Rule #3 - Learn the first two rules

Brother D

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 351
Welp,

jgiffin

  • Dude
  • ******
  • Posts: 736
Having let the original post sit for some time and accumulate some responses (which I'm glad to have seen, thanks ya'll), I'm going to drop some much-needed knowledge on Sage. He needs the education ASAP. I'll respond to better posts (such as the eminently reasonable thoughts expressed by Losta) later.

Sage, you (perhaps quite intentionally) misrepresented my reasoning. My post was about an out-of-control federal government run amok, imposing unconstitutional and illegal mandates on local schools: a government so obsessed with exhibiting its tumescence that it seeks to govern our most private quarters (e.g., bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers) in contravention to a couple hundred years of established privacy rights and traditions. You have adduced absolutely no authority to the contrary, your dick-hurt feelings notwithstanding. I therefore presume you either agree or have not bothered to educate yourself on the factual and legal matters.

You have an agenda, Sage. Admit that and stop the accusations of bigotry. Your side (i.e., progressives) have lost all moral authority by wantonly, uncritically, and capriciously yelling racism, xenophobia, bigotry, etc. I am not a bigot simply because I point out your president is a power hungry dictator who abuses executive orders and, more to the point, issues advisory letters like this one to avoid the rigors of the Administrative Procedures Act. (Look it up, kid, you need to have some indication of the motive behind the action, even if you agree with it. The next guy in the office may well abuse the process in a way you don't find quite so comfortable.).

You want to make this about whether the trans-gendered  are prone to raping children? That's on you - it sounds like a psychological projection or defense of sorts.  I didn't say that was the issue. It helps to read a post before you respond, dude. I am very curious but won't speculate at why you jump there so readily.

By the way, the LGBTQ-LMNOP community has emphasized that sex and gender  are different things for the last, oh, 20 or 30 years. Ironically, however, it is only by conflating sex and gender that they now seek to cover trans-gendered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (And why, exactly, do you not even address this - it's the foundation of the legal argument your betters are espousing). That argument found a receptive argument in the 4th Circuit, but that was a political decision devoid of any actual reasoning or authority...which means the Supreme Court would likely agree. Such are the times in which we live. I will say you seem to grasp that sex is a biological fact. And it is - well, roughly, 99.7 of the time and we're not talking about the rare genetic disorders that are the exception. Yet you insist that one's subjective belief they are a boy, or a girl, or a unicorn, or the reincarnation of Milton Berle's cigar, must trump that biological fact. Astoundingly poor logic. You're better than that. By the way, do you disagree with my concerns over the unknown dangers of dosing young kids with hormones of the opposite sex? Because you didn't address that point, either...

You should also be aware the advisory letter expressly says that providing gender-neutral facilities is not acceptable. No, they mandate a full and unbounded acquiescence to their opinion under the threat of financial punishment. No dissent is permitted. Hmmm, that's rather fascistic, no? But we've changed the meaning of words, so no one knows. Orwell would laugh, but knowingly.

Tutoring you is laborious and likely unproductive. I'll close by emphasizing I'm not raising an "ethical opposition" to the existence of trans-gendered. I'm simply saying they're not members of a protected class (as the law is currently written) and not entitled to special protection. And the fact that a craven politician says otherwise and attempts to dictate rules so adverse to existing norms only proves his ignorance and irrelevance, not the correctness of his position. But, yes, I am advocating revolution and militant extremism (if we're talking about the same things). Not simply over this. It's long overdue on all accounts. (You can see my position on many of them in this very section of the forum). So you gave me too much credit there.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2016, 09:12:14 PM by jgiffin »

SagebrushSage

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
*deleting old posts*
« Reply #27 on: May 16, 2016, 11:59:28 PM »
*deleting old posts*
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 02:58:02 PM by SagebrushSage »

SagebrushSage

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
*deleting old posts*
« Reply #28 on: May 17, 2016, 12:34:33 AM »
*deleting old posts*
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 02:57:52 PM by SagebrushSage »

SagebrushSage

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
*deleting old posts*
« Reply #29 on: May 17, 2016, 12:47:51 AM »
*deleting old posts*
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 02:57:23 PM by SagebrushSage »

 

Recent Posts

Store

Dude Vinci
Get Dudeism tee shirts, ordination certificates and more. Help feed our monkey.
Click Here

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 30, 2021, 12:12:50 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recently Posted

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 54129
  • Total Topics: 6386
  • Online Today: 37
  • Online Ever: 7905
  • (January 16, 2020, 02:55:01 AM)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 32
Total: 32