I suppose for the growing gay and homosexual community non-gender public bathrooms would become a thing eventually.
Still, it would become very expensive to accommodate such a small minority portion of the population.
Also, at my workplace there is single individual bathrooms that both men and women can utilize with locked doors for whenever in use. So, there’s that as well concerning a compromise.
But once again the cost to finance such accommodations for such a small portion of the general population becomes an issue even if you tried to force it under law.
The concept of genderless bathrooms doesn’t bother me and like I said using my own workplace as an example that is already a thing. Still, I refuse to believe that surgical alterations makes a man into a woman where they have a right to use female assigned bathrooms with biological women.
I will never consider such individuals biological females.
That’s just a silly perverse thing I cannot consider in practice. If transsexuals want genderless public bathrooms that’s fine and tolerable. But then the next question is financing such public works nationwide concerning accessibility.
Yeah, I figured, I was mostly joking. But genital inspection has to happen somewhere, typically birth (at least for the native-born population).
But I wonder why only women should get to decide. I imagine there are men who would be uncomfortable with a very femme-presenting transwoman using the bathroom beside them. Do they have no say in that?
If you take the logic bathroom policing to its end, you get to a world of legislated gender conformity: you’re assigned a sex at birth, and you need to dress and act in ways that make clear at all times what sex that is. If you don’t, you lose access to public services – whether or not you are sufficiently gender conforming is determined by the mob.
It’s not clear who’s being accommodated by it. Most transgender people are fine with people using whichever bathroom they feel most comfortable using. So it’s really an accommodation for people who think that all transwomen are sex pests trying to sneak into the women’s bathroom.
But I’ll also say that as the male parent of female children, unisex bathrooms were more accommodating to me during a portion of the years before my kids could go into a public restroom on their own.
I think that’s generally what people have in mind when they talk about unisex bathrooms. I’ve seen a system where they share a sink, but the ‘stalls’ were always more substantial than the stalls in single-gender bathrooms.
That’s why I mentioned space-efficiency: more square feet per toilet means fewer toilets or, as you note, higher cost.
1 Like
This is something I find very interesting. Supposedly some of the most non conformist, anti establishment people on philosophy forums want the government to decide what clothes you can wear, maybe even who you can fuck. Certainly at least a little paradoxical.
1 Like
I am a statist, interventionist, and authoritarian, so there’s that.
I just want the right kind of government to tell people what to do in litigation or dictation.
There shouldn’t be a shared sink at all.
Just like males are barred from entering female bathrooms or spaces it should be where transsexuals are barred from both male and female bathrooms.
If they want their own separate distinct unisex or genderless public bathrooms, that’s fine.
But once you go that route they’ll just complain that you’re not affirming their gender identity in how they see themselves as trans. They identify themselves as females where barring them from biological female spaces is a hate crime or some other kind of ideological liberal lunacy.
And do you think the government should tell men not to wear dresses? Would you be happy with government-dictated clothing rules for men and women?
I’m thinking of other posters when I said that, not you. Other posters who consider themselves non-conformist and anti-tyranny, but who oddly throw all that out the window when it comes to something like what clothes people can wear.
1 Like
I don’t like homosexuality or transsexuals but I tolerate both within reason to a very limited degree. We do have public decency laws in place, they don’t have to be rigidly followed to the extremes but a minimum of them are conpletely necessary.
Nonetheless the majority of human beings are heterosexual and cultural conservatism regarding the sexes is the best way of maintaining that. There will always be deviations to majority social and cultural norms I suppose, history certainly alludes to that constantly, but they will always be the minority to the general population. The majority shouldn’t have to bend to the whims of a deviant minority. Tolerance has limits.
Sure, that seems like the “democratic” solution to the problem until you consider the fact that there are an estimated 4.13 billion females on the planet which means that there will be 4,130,000,000 voters casting a ballot on the issue.
Now, if exactly half of those voters (plus one) votes in favor of allowing transgendered females (that’s males identifying as females) into women’s restrooms and changing rooms, etc., then what are you going to do with the 2,064,999,999 females…
(many of which would be our mothers, wives, daughters, and girlfriends)
…who are dead-set against it?
Obviously, you would still have an enormous problem.
Please forgive me for a copy and paste post, but in a similar conversation that took place several years ago on the PN forum, I offered the following (slightly paraphrased) argument…
I would never pass judgment on anyone who is truly experiencing gender dysphoria, because from my whacky spiritual perspective, the soul has no gender and is simply playing a role that is foisted on it for the few fleeting moments it spends on this planet.
However, the problem at the heart of the current craziness regarding the rights of transgender persons can be clearly seen by having a look at this guy…
He’s a YouTube prankster who goes by the name of “Joey Salads.”
A few years ago, he did a “social experiment” where he put on a wig and dress and went into a woman’s restroom claiming to be a transgendered female…
Most of the women (in a video no longer available) tore him a new one and made him leave.
However, one of them began a pleasant conversation with him and seemed to totally accept and support his decision to “identify as a woman.”
And therein lies the unmistakable (and clearly demonstrated) problem.
And that is that any male prankster, or, more importantly, any dangerous pervert can simply walk into the most private of female sanctums claiming to be a transgender female, and a certain percentage of gullible girls will take them at their word.
The bottom line is that we need to come up with a solution to the gender dysphoria issue that is not only empathetic of those who (for whatever reason) truly experience such psychological aberrations,…
…but it must be a solution that will never - under any circumstances - subject our moms, sisters, wives, daughters, girlfriends, etc., etc., to such an obvious danger.
Oh no, don’t want to collapse mate, relax not collapse…
1 Like
The same ones they’ve used since the inception of separate facilities. What else? Do you think something has changed?
Completely disagreed.
First: Gender does not exist. Its a twisted crutch word meant to replace “identity” or “self-identification”. Even when you strictly view it from a biological and social sense, its a concept that was coined by a clinically insane pedophile who ended up killing several children in order to justify his own thesis about gender. Which he btw ultimately failed to do so, but this shit still became mainstream.
Second: Specifically because the concept in essence is nothing more than a replacement word for self-identification, you can catch the completely backwards nature of it in politics.
Namely: Liberals telling those with zero affinity for critical thinking, that they need to petition the rest of society to identify them in a certain way. This creates a double contradiction:
a.) You dont need anyone’s approval to identify in anyway you like or prefer. In fact, nobody can have any input or effect on that.
b.) This narrative condemns these people to the role of perpetual victimhood because they lack the faculties for understanding that they have just been turned into an imaginary fictional creature that needs the affirmation of others otherwise they stop existing.
Religion is a category of it’s own. If identity is discovery then religion would be conversion. Its an adopted belief, not something that is self-evident through your own existence.
As for disability accommodation… i dont even understand that one. What does disability have to do with how you view yourself or how others view you? Do you think that if i lose a finer or a leg, im no longer human?
Having lost a limb becomes my identity?
I already placed my vote for a third option that benefits all, but if you want to force the issue then biological reality will always take precedence over thoughts and feelings.
Unisex bathrooms solve the problem period. Stop. And done.
There is no continuation to that sentence. “It takes more room now” is not a counter argument. Then it takes more room and thats that, and men can use a toilet the same way they can use an urinal.
This is the answer that actually solves the issue and that is precisely why i forwarded it.
Now, aside from this, i have my personal opinion about the entire thing which comes forward with the third bathroom issue:
People would have to police who is supposed to go into which bathroom? You mean just like how it has been the case for hundreds of years?
Trans people, cross dressers and all kinds of other classifications existed in the past too. Thats one of the great talking point of the trans community.
You know what they did for hundreds of years? They adapted to the needs of the majority and society.
Personally i have very little affinity towards this mentally ill narcissistic liberal concept that 99.9% of society has to literally f-ck itself over because 0.1% decided that they feel better in a dress or vice versa.
What in the cluster f on earth made your preferences so extra special that the rest of humanity has to forfeit all it’s rights for little more than your mood?
You took a concept and gave it a nice big swing with a snow shovel, smearing it all over the place.
First: You conflated taking note of the objective fact of your biological gender, with government mandating a role for you.
Do you realize that if that were the case then the very concept of trans people wouldnt exist?
With that you arrive at the classic twist:
Second: Relegating an internal quality to an external observer’s opinion.
No religion, no human, no government, no jack shit can prescribe to your brain how it sees itself.
You can no more tell a person who they are, than you can tell celestial objects how to orbit.
Third: You then conflated the previous two points with yet another layer which was the concept of decorum. That because certain situations and locations require you to behave certain way, you are now somehow living inside north korea and you have no rights or freedoms of any kind and the government will tell you how you can function.
The follow up question for that would be: What is your position in the first place? Are you arguing for complete anarchy? Nobody gets to tell you anything?
Because if i (in an exact similar fashion) wanted to take this “the government is regulating me and thats bad” logic to it’s end, then apparently everyone should have their way.
Trans men get to claim all female spaces, Zoophiles get to marry and screw animals and pedophiles gonna have a field trip too, because if they dont, then we live under government oppression.
Ofc also murderers, thieves and the rest. We dont want to seem fascistic or anything, everyone is free to do as they please.
When has anyone ever asked for ‘policing’? Odd that this has only become something that people consider in the past handful of years. There has always been an unwritten social contract where men just didn’t use women’s toilets and spaces. People knew what a pervert was. Now it’s ‘insensitive’ and ‘unkind’ to call a man a pervert. All the poor dears are doing is being their ‘true selves’ 
@Carleas
As a clarification to my previous post, first i apologize if i came over too strong.
I often hear that my way of writing is very… combative for a lack of a better word. In case you found it to be as such as well then i assure that nothing that has been written is meant personally.
In my mother language “you” is used a lot more liberally than in english and is often used as a hypothetical perspective or “what if”, subject to the opposition.
With that aside however, what i wanted to really clarify is the concept of identity.
Personally i do not subscribe to the mainstream notion that identity includes superficial concepts like belief or concepts born of social adaptation.
To me identity is singular. It is the way you fundamentally regard yourself at any given time.
That which (to the question of who you are) comes to your mind before its even conceptualized and transformed into words.
The core of your identity if you will. The bare essential that makes you, yourself.
This is where my largest gripe with trans people and any other similar “identity” niche groups comes from.
You are you regardless of what others think about you.
And this is meant literally. In both directions.
Nobody can take away your identity, and nobody can give you an identity either.
At the end of the day, all you are is what you recognize yourself as.
Not more.
And not less.
I am no Solipsist but i do understand for a fact that the brain is a subjective, closed system. It decides for itself what is what. And what is, is.
I find this claim interesting for implicitly treating sexuality as a learned behavior. I think most proponents for the rights of sexual minorities would disagree with that, though personally I think it’s uncertain, the truth is probably complicated, and it’s irrelevant to how we should respond.
But it’s a strange construction: “The majority is X, and Y will keep it that way”. Why keep it that way just because it happens to the majority? If there’s another reason why more people should be hetero, what does it matter what the majority is?
I’m willing to bet that a significant portion of what you like in the modern world would have been impossible if tolerance had been limited to the whims of mere majorities.
Until recently people just used whatever bathroom they identified with and it was fine. Is that what you mean?
I appreciate this, but please don’t worry about coming over strong. These are topics on which reason and emotion are hard to separate, and I interpreted your post as passionate rather than combative.
And I apologize in advance if my reply comes off as combative (and my dialect of English also uses the ‘generic you’).
Not sure if this was meant ironically, but I found it funny.
It seems we do disagree on the meaning of ‘gender’. In this context, I’m using it to referring to social/cultural/behavioral norms, as distinguished from the biological/genetic attributes of ‘sex’. Those things exist, and they vary over place and time independently from sex attributes.
That’s related to ‘identity’, but it’s not really a replacement for it. An individual can have a ‘gender identity’, but referring to a facet of identity, which encompasses lots of other aspects of an individual’s self-description, affiliations, allegiances, etc. (compare ‘racial identity’).
I agree with this description, but a singular thing can have facets, aspects of it that apply in specific circumstances: whether or not you are an atheist is part of your identity, but irrelevant when you are picking a bathroom.
One confusion in this conversation where it will be worth being more specific: there are two distinct things referred to as ‘identity’: how you see yourself, and how others see you.
How you see yourself is how you see yourself, and only reachable indirectly by others. But people can and do strip you of your outward identity, and assign you identities you do not want.
This is a bit tangential (it doesn’t matter who coined a useful term if it’s usefulWho are you talking about here? Wikipedia attributes the first use to Madison Bentley, further developed by Simone de Beauvoir.
Closest to your description is John Money, who coined ‘gender role’, and is described as “eccentric”. At least one of his patients later committed suicide (though it’s not clear how much of that can be attributed to Money’s influence), but there is no mention of pedophilia other than as a topic of study.
Religious persecution and disability accommodation are examples of where laws have applied on the basis of how one views oneself (de jure religious persecution has been applied on the basis of self-identified faith; the obligation to accommodate disabled person is often triggered by that person’s self-identification as ‘disabled’).
These were just the first two I thought of, I imagine there are more. My point was that it’s less unusual than you make it out to be for people’s social treatment to be determined by self-identification.
Until recently, they used the bathroom of the gender they identified as, and no one paid it much mind because it’s a fraction of a percent of the population and they’re just using the bathroom.
Can you be more specific here? What is the actual cost you see being imposed?
On the first point, that’s just the topic of the thread. In the US, states are passing laws providing for criminal penalties for using a bathroom that doesn’t align with biological sex.
On the second point, I agree with you that we should not tell people who they are, but that’s what these laws seeks to do: if someone says “I’m a woman” and the government says “You’re a man”, criminal penalties apply if that person acts on the basis of how their brain sees itself.
On the third point, what brings the first two together, is that the laws make breaches of ‘decorum’ into a criminal investigation. Someone who the government assigns ‘woman’ but who lives as a man (has had top surgery, takes testosterone, has a beard) must legally use the women’s restroom, but will also be subject to credible accusations of having broken the law when they do – i.e., any other user of the bathroom can call the police to report a crime, and the police have reason to stop and question that person until they can prove their government assigned sex.
The result of this is that people who don’t look like their government assigned gender have to choose between actually breaking the law and using the bathroom that matches their outward appearance, or complying with the law with the likely outcome of being stopped and investigated by the police.
That no-win situation functions as a penalty on anyone whose outward appearance doesn’t sufficiently match their government-assigned sex. It’s not ‘North Korea’, but it is a penalty on gender non-conformance.
There is a wide gulf between “not this” and “nothing”.
Start by being clear about the harms you’re trying to address – transwomen in women’s restrooms isn’t a harm in itself. You can’t decide on a rational policy without having more than a hand-wavey notion of what you’re trying to accomplish.
Kansas SB 244 (became law February this year):
(g)(1) It shall be a violation of this section for an individual to enter a multiple-occupancy private space designated for use only by individuals of the opposite sex, except as permitted under subsection (b) or (c). Upon receipt of a complaint that an individual entered a multiple-occupancy private space in violation of this section, the governing body, or chief administrative officer if no governing body exists, shall investigate and, upon a finding that such individual violated this section, shall provide written notice of such violation to such individual. Such notice shall include:
(A) The date and location of the multiple-occupancy private space where the violation occurred;
(B) a statement that repeated violations may result in fines or criminal charges; and
(C) the procedure to administratively appeal the finding that such individual violated this section.
(2) Any individual who commits a second violation after being found to have violated this section pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be liable for a civil penalty of $1,000. An action to assess such penalty may be brought by the attorney general if the violation occurred in a state building or by the county or district attorney for the county where the violation occurred if the violation occurred in a municipal building.
(3) Any individual who commits a third or subsequent violation shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
This law literally makes using the wrong bathroom a police matter.
It also provides for a private right of action, meaning anyone else in the bathroom can sue the person and claim damages of at least $1000, to encourage people to figuratively police each other.
1 Like
There is a difference between reasonable tolerance and unreasonable tolerance.
You know that.
1 Like
Most people would agree that there’s a difference. Most people wouldn’t agree where the line is drawn though, would they?
Just saying the word “reasonable” sounds… well, reasonable. But without going into detail, how do I know the things you would and wouldn’t tolerate are actually reasonable?
What are the parameters? If you’re abnormal in any way, can you justify why people should tolerate you?
1 Like
Usually the parameters of tolerance or even society’s permissiveness is formulated by the mental inclinations of the population majority. This is how societies, cultures, and civilizations work.
Can the population majority get things wrong which will probably be your next question and the answer of course is yes which is the main antagonisms of social political revolution everywhere when necessity forces a majority of people to take action to change their behavior.
Regardless, transsexuals are an extreme minority of the population where they’re very limited in their demands towards the population majority that is heterosexual.
Can they be accommodated within reason where everybody is happy? Maybe out of public goodwill but I doubt the majority general public will give into any unreasonable demands.
Society norms are an integral part of human civilization and social cohesion whether people like that fact or not. Dislike it all you wish but such is the natural reality of things.
Liberals I’ve notice over the years hate and despise collective structures where individuals cannot do whatever they want without limits. Liberals have this notion of total freedom and liberation from this world as an individual that when confronted by reality is shown that doesn’t exist at all anywhere especially politically.
They used whichever one their sex belonged to because the human race hadn’t quite gone completely insane yet. It’s not women’s problem anyway. All women want is their own spaces back. If you have a problem with that then perhaps you should join one of those men’s rights movements. I’m not interested. If men who claim to ‘feel’ like women are unhappy because women won’t indulge them in their little cosplay games then they can campaign for their own facilities. They haven’t, and they won’t, and the reason they haven’t is because they want to use the women’s. It’s about male control over, and subjugation of, women. Well they have a fight on their dainty little man hands because women aren’t going to give up.
1 Like
But as you yourself expressed, its simply a facet of your identity.
While i do not question that you can be influenced in regards of how you view yourself, the first and primary issue is that the last domino falls with you. You decide how you regard yourself, not others, and this is not some kind of life coach guru speech. Its a fact born from the way of how your brain works.
This (amongst the many) is something that people should be taught and made to realize.
But since this puts a hard cap on everyone’s ability to manipulate the masses as well… go figure.
We are of course talking about the first. The way you view yourself.
Thats on you.
How others view you, thats on them.
And thats the problem. They cant.
What you describe here is not an identity.
Chew it over in your mind for a few seconds.
Some random dude regards you some way → that is now supposedly an identity of yours, even if on the outside?
Please. People can label you, but labels have nothing to do with who you are.
Money decided it was a good idea to do “childhood sexual rehearsal play” and encouraged the two brothers to sexually explore eachother as he recorded. “for science”
The more you learn about the origin of the concept of gender, the more you regret having to know.
Thats a little bit too generous then. You can only reference such laws when you can prove yourself to be a practitioner of such beliefs, and even then most of those are usually grey areas (such as buddhists refusing to be conscripted because they wont kill). For obvious reasons the law usually does not grant you special privileges even if it generally considered to be a protected right.
In short: Most laws tell you that you have the right to believe whatever you want, and that the system will disregard it regardless because “good riddance”
Imagine if ww3 broke out and suddenly everyone converted to a pacifist religion.
Yeah, i dont think the government would give a single damn about it.
Oh sweet baby jesus… where would i even start this…
- Positive discrimination (affirmative action)
- Construction of two tier justice and class systems (protected class)
- Ruined lives (influencing of children at too early ages resulting in detransitioners)
- Erosion of parental rights (the government considers itself to be the primary caretaker)
- Compelled speech laws (forcing speech)
- Eclipsing and destroying other groups (i.e. homosexuals due to trans lobby convincing children that they are trans while they are simply gay)
- Fairness and safety in sports
- Hundreds of rape cases in female prisons
- Pharma creating long term care patients instead of healing
- Erosion of science and biological facts in a completely insane manner (because reality now changes depending on how you feel, but ofc only for certain groups)
- The “inclusivity” inquisition (because submit or get assaulted, erased, banned, censored)
And so on and so forth… lastly i think there is a special cost associated with the LGBTQ community itself which is (in my opinion) just being used by people who wish to transform society.
Because these bad faith actors use minority and disenfranchised groups as a battering ram for their own benefit, and once they served their purpose and the public turns on the “useful idiots”, the exploiters will jump onto the next bandwagon.
And dont be confused about this, because the trans community already destroyed every good faith there was towards the LGBTQ movement. We went from everyone standing up for the right of gay to marry, to essentially regarding the entire LGBTQ community as child exploiters, groomers and being awfully close to getting hunted down and hanged in the town border once again.
I mean… its just an extension of the already existing laws. Or am i wrong there?
Men could not just barge into women’s dressing rooms and toilets as they pleased even before this.
Correct but there is the issue. The government cannot dictate you who you are.
The government can make laws and hold you to decorum, but that has absolutely nothing to do with your identity.
Again: Identity cannot be given or taken.
Labels can. Decorum can. Identity cant.
I do not see the issue here to be frank.
Your biological sex is recorded at birth and you are required to follow the decorum laws associated with it.
Again, correct me if im wrong: This has been the case up until now as well. If you are a man, you could not just stroll into the women’s dressing room as you pleased. Does that mean that men are also oppressed?
Correct, however this is either a slippery slope or two tier system.
Why should only you be given exceptions based on your whims? You getting special treatment is a two tier system in and of itself.
And if you are not the only one being given special exceptions… then you are just doing anarchy with extra steps because everyone else gonna demand their own little special privileges too.