Transgenders and bathrooms -- is there a solution?

[barmar]

Are you trying to claim that mixed gender urinals wouldn't work because people would then be looking?

People don't actually look, it's a cultural taboo to do so. But people are uncomfortable with the idea that someone of the opposite gender could look.

 

It's not rational, but it's why we have separate restrooms, locker rooms, and showers in the first place. We have all sorts of silly rituals like this -- if a woman needs to change her clothing in a room with a man she's not intimate with, he'll be expected to turn around to avoid glimpsing her private parts. Breastfeeding used to be unacceptable in public; now it's considered OK, but the woman still has to cover up the breast area so we don't all get traumatized by seeing a nipple.

 

If people think about it, they realize that there's no real danger from sexual predators in restrooms, at least no more so than in any other venue (people get raped on the street, but there's no call for segregating which side of the street men and women walk on). But they don't think about it. These are considered sacred places, with long-standing cultural rules about them, and it's hard for them to give up on these notions. Even harder than things like gay marriage, because that's unlikely to directly impact one's own children (unless they turn out to be gay, then the parents will most likely change their attitudes).

 

It's really easy to say in the forum that none of this is important. It's much harder to actually change widespread attitudes. It's not impossible, we've become accustomed to many other things that used to be taboo: inter-racial couples, interfaith marriages, homosexuals, etc. But these were all gradual, you can't just make a proclamation and expect everyone to go along easily. And when it applies to one of our most private experiences, as well as fear (however unwarranted) for the safety of our children, it's likely to be that much harder.

[blackshoe]

I'm beginning to understand why in Mycroft's (not our Mycroft, a different one) reply to Manny's query about why he never talked to the other people who worked on him he said "wanna talk to not-stupids!"

[helene_t]

I think ill cruise into all of the ladies restrooms at work next week.

I assume you are male (unambiguously). So what's the relevance to the OP of that experiment?

[Trinidad]

Don't get me wrong. I agree with your opinion. But it is an opinion and not more than that.

 

If you want to present it as a conclusion from logical reasoning, then you have to reason logically.

 

If one has any doubt, consider that toilets, in terms of flushing facilities, etc, are a very recent invention in terms of human history, let alone pre-history. Do dogs and cats worry about this? No.

 

We are therefore dealing with fear and bigotry.

So, from the fact that we didn't do something in the past and the fact that cats and dogs don't do something it automatically follows ("therefore") that it is fear and bigotry?

 

We started playing bridge on BBO long after the development of segregated toilets. Before that we never did that. Neither cats nor dogs worry about whether to finesse or play for the drop.

 

According to you, we are, therefore, dealing with fear and bigotry. ?!? :o :( :unsure:

 

It doesn't help your case when you try to present your opinion as a consequence of logical reasoning when the logic in the reasoning simply isn't there.

 

QED.

I would leave the QED's to the mathematicians, since your flawed reasoning doesn't "D" much.

 

Rik

[barmar]

Dogs also sniff each other's butts. Is it just "fear and bigotry" that keeps us from doing this?

[mycroft]

Does the "playing for the finesse or the drop" decision lead to one third of the affected class not eating in public(*) to minimize the chance they might have to play BBO?

Does "should IMP pairs or MP pairs be the default" lead to 40% of the MP lovers attempting suicide?

 

No?

 

Similarly, is there an issue with the IMP people being damaged by MP being available - that actually happens more often than lightning strike?

 

No?

 

Then, false equivalency.

 

I know that Stonekettle states that we must recognize and deal with the fear. I realize I'm belittling the fear rather than dealing with it in a successful way, and doing exactly what Jim says won't work. My problem is that there is a fear machine that makes very good money finding new ways to keep stoking the current fears, and replacing the ones that no longer work with new ones on demand, and I am only an egg.

 

I'm also not American, but I do live in Republican North, where our new Catholic Bishop of Calgary is almost, but not quite, as "these kinds of sinners are damned anyway, so it would be wrong to change anything that could possibly make people believe that *we* don't think they're damned" as the last one. Pfui.

 

(*) Note that this does not mean "not eating or drinking where others can see them"; it means "self-imposed fast, including water, any time that may lead to requiring a public bathroom." It means dawn-to-door fasting, every day (even Ramadan only lasts a month!) It means not going to bars or restaurants because if you don't drink or eat, you have to face *that* uncomfortable question. It means no sports of any sort, either because of the changing issues or the dehydration issues. As the quote in my first missive here implies, it means taking away from them "a normal life" as defined by self-defined "normal" people. "But it's just a tiny thing." A very carefully crafted, lovingly (hateingly?) cultured, no-step-off-message (or the consequences could be seen by even the permanently enfeared), tiny thing.

[olegru]

Neither cats nor dogs worry about whether to finesse or play for the drop.

My dog always plays for the drop during my dinner. His success rate is much higher compare to mine.

 

I'm beginning to understand why in Mycroft's (not our Mycroft, a different one) reply to Manny's query about why he never talked to the other people who worked on him he said "wanna talk to not-stupids!"

I actually asked once if I can talk to someone who is not an idiot.

The reply was "No, I am the only one here today."

[mycroft]

Please note, Ed: I'm almost certain that that Mycroft is the one I'm named after, not the one *he* was named after.

 

I could be wrong - Manny could be Asimovian rather than Heinleinian, I guess - but knowing you as poorly as I do, I'm not betting against it.

[Trinidad]

Dogs also sniff each other's butts. Is it just "fear and bigotry" that keeps us from doing this?

Exactly my point. MikeH reasons that because dogs and cats don't have a problem with unisex bathrooms, we are driven by fear and bigotry when we do have a problem with unisex bathrooms. It's a nonsensical reasoning.

 

The exact same reasoning that he is using to frame "problems with unisex bathrooms" is used by real bigots who have a problem with homosexuality: "We weren't homosexual in the past, cats and dogs don't do it, therefore it is wrong to be homosexual."

MikeH wrote: "In prehistoric times we didn't have a problem in unisex toilets, cats and dogs don't have a problem with unisex toilets, therefore, it is wrong to have a problem with unisex toilets."

 

And then he finishes this nonsense with "QED".

 

____________________

 

I agree with Mike's opinion, but that is another matter altogether. He tried to "prove" his opinion and took his eye of the ball.

 

Rik

[mikeh]

Exactly my point. MikeH reasons that because dogs and cats don't have a problem with unisex bathrooms, we are driven by fear and bigotry when we do have a problem with unisex bathrooms. It's a nonsensical reasoning.

 

The exact same reasoning that he is using to frame "problems with unisex bathrooms" is used by real bigots who have a problem with homosexuality: "We weren't homosexual in the past, cats and dogs don't do it, therefore it is wrong to be homosexual."

MikeH wrote: "In prehistoric times we didn't have a problem in unisex toilets, cats and dogs don't have a problem with unisex toilets, therefore, it is wrong to have a problem with unisex toilets."

 

And then he finishes this nonsense with "QED".

 

____________________

 

I agree with Mike's opinion, but that is another matter altogether. He tried to "prove" his opinion and took his eye of the ball.

 

Rik

Ok, I left out the middle bits of my reasoning, such as it was, assuming that anyone sufficiently interested to read that far would be able to figure it out.

 

Historically, men and women did not have separate toilet facilities, if only because, until relatively recently (in terms of the species) we didn't have toilets! Before we had toilets, we, I assume, didn't have the hangups and privacy concerns that are, these days, so strongly attached to toilets, including privacy issues.

 

Concepts of privacy appear pretty clearly to be cultural. We have developed taboos, which are fear based.

 

We become uncomfortable when our particular taboos are violated: this is a fear-based reaction. That, at least, is my understanding and operating assumption.If I am in error, and taboos are not based on fear...and fear doesn't play a role in our reactions to seeing taboos violated, then my arguments fail.

 

The argument most often advanced against trans use of bathrooms aligned with their subjective gender is that trans women are actually men, and that women ought not to have to share bathroom/toilet space with 'men'.

 

That suggests to me that, at least on one level, the antipathy towards trans access to bathrooms of their choosing is based on concerns that a taboo is being broken. In particular the taboo against male and females sharing the same facilities.

 

Since taboos are fear-based, this argument, being taboo-based, is thus also fear-based.

 

You may disagree with one or more of the underlying assumptions, but I suggest otherwise the logic flows reasonably well.

 

Another argument, and maybe the 'real' or 'predominant' argument is prejudice against trans people. It is increasingly unpopular to actually express hatred and fear towards trans people in general, so (in my view) many of those who are impelled by such hatred and fear hide their motives by resort to the argument described above....most clearly expressed in the argument that men might dress as women in order to be able to molest women in bathrooms.

 

There is really no historical or pre-historical element to this part of the argument. I am not saying that trans people didn't exist in earlier days. It seems pretty clear that they did, and indeed trans people have been well-known in a number of cultures, such as Thailand and, I gather, at least some First Nations populations in NA.

 

However, in the NA context, trans people were basically forced into the closet or lumped with gays, who were also historically the subject of fear and hatred.

 

Again, this appears to be culturally driven since there are examples from history and from other cultures wherein homosexuality appears to have been at the very least tolerated: Sparta was one such, if my vague memories of ancient history are correct.

 

In addition, zoology teaches us that homosexual behaviour occurs naturally in many animal populations, without (again, as I understand it) any repercussions by the 'straight' animals against the 'gay' or 'bi' animals.

 

Fear and hatred based on perceived differences that do not actually impact on the safety, well-being, or economic prospects of the one harbouring the fear and hatred seem to me to amount to bigotry. Why hate or fear someone whose way of life or appearance do no harm to oneself or one's family? Why imagine dangers for which there is no basis in reality, and then punish the subject of one's fear and hate?

 

To me, that amounts to bigotry.

 

Your assumptions as to what words mean...what, for example, is meant by 'bigotry'..may differ from mine. Your understanding of behaviours or underlying arguments, voiced by those who want to discriminate, may differ from mine.

 

If so, then you can legitimately argue that my reasoning is wrong, not because it is illogical, but because the argument is based on mistaken premises.

 

Otherwise, I believe, I do think that my assertion that the discrimination is driven by fear and/or bigotry is valid. I confess that perhaps I ought to have framed it as 'and/or' originally, but I point out that in my view bigotry is itself usually a product, at least in part, of fear.

 

I apologize if I sidetracked your following my argument by what was, at the time, a throw-away line about dogs and cats. That line was intended to stand in for a far longer argument that taboos are cultural constructs, and that one way of seeing that as true is to consider the animal kingdom, including animals with whom many of us are familiar. Cats and dogs don't have taboos about genders urinating or defecating in close proximity to each other. Neither, as far as I know, do other mammals, including primates. We do...at least the vast majority us of do. However, the precise taboos are different society to society, and thus, I argue, they are cultural constructs.

 

Cultural constructs, especially taboos, are, in my view, largely driven, in terms of observance and reaction to non-observance, by fear...but I repeat myself :D

 

I hope that makes the QED part of my earlier post a little easier to accept.

 

When I read your criticisms, I flashed back to an exam I wrote when I was studying chemical engineering. I got the answer right, and had used the correct reasoning, but when writing it out, I had skipped a few steps, since the steps seemed trivial and I could do them in my head. The professor deducted marks for my failure to pedantically set out all of the intermediate steps. 45 years later I am still annoyed :D

[WellSpyder]

When I read your criticisms, I flashed back to an exam I wrote when I was studying chemical engineering. I got the answer right, and had used the correct reasoning, but when writing it out, I had skipped a few steps, since the steps seemed trivial and I could do them in my head. The professor deducted marks for my failure to pedantically set out all of the intermediate steps. 45 years later I am still annoyed :D

When I read your comments, I flashed back to one of my own grievances from my school days. There was a question in a geography test asking something like "what is the main way in which the climate of place A differs from that of place B?" My answer - "it has heavy rainfall". Unfortunately I only got half marks because I missed out a crucial fact. Apparently I should have said "it has heavy rainfall while place B is relatively dry". My argument that that was implied, since otherwise heavy rainfall would not have been a difference at all just didn't seem to be understood. 44 years (I think) later, I'm also still annoyed when I think about it, but I try to tell myself that it was a useful lesson in how stupid teachers can be....

[mycroft]

I got to school for first period, and we have our weekly pop quiz. The only warning I get is my teacher's offhand comment "I hope you don't mind..."

 

Q1. [Mycroft] throws a computer into the air at a speed of ...

 

Q2. [Classmate] throws [Mycroft] into the air. He reaches the height of ...

 

I kept the quiz in my memorabilia box, to this day, but I think I'm still annoyed when I think about it... Not sure which is worse, the no warning/no permission, or the class being forced to ask the teacher (and then the teacher asking me) for a critical piece of missing information - my weight.

[kenberg]

When I read your comments, I flashed back to one of my own grievances from my school days. There was a question in a geography test asking something like "what is the main way in which the climate of place A differs from that of place B?" My answer - "it has heavy rainfall". Unfortunately I only got half marks because I missed out a crucial fact. Apparently I should have said "it has heavy rainfall while place B is relatively dry". My argument that that was implied, since otherwise heavy rainfall would not have been a difference at all just didn't seem to be understood. 44 years (I think) later, I'm also still annoyed when I think about it, but I try to tell myself that it was a useful lesson in how stupid teachers can be....

 

There are many such instances, and assuming we can take a bathroom break here is one.

 

I was taking a course in reading German. There was something about a ship and a torpedo, and the literal translation was that the ship "went under". I so translated, and it was marked wrong. "went down" and "sank" were acceptable. I never really understood the explanation.

 

But revenge was mine. I later had to pass a German reading exam independent of the course. I was a grad student in mathematics, and they took the exam from German mathematics literature. I won't try to get the German phrasing exactly right, but it had something to do with "der Fundamental Theorem der Algebra" and "der Theorem der Liouvillie". The German looked tough but I was thoroughly familiar with the connection between Liouville's Theorem and The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra so I wrote an off the cuff essay on the subject using whatever German I could translate as hints. I passed.

 

And then there was the humanities course I took. We were reading Aquinas and the assignment was to read his five proofs of the existence of God and decide which argument we found to be the most compelling, Me being me, I asked what we should do if we didn't find any of them compelling. I was told to decide which one I found the least compelling. No surprise, the next period I was called upon to give my argument. I felt I did a reasonable job of demolishing the argument from first cause.

Prof: Did you notice that he said "efficient cause""

Me: No

Prof: You missed the whole point, sit down.

 

I am not complaining, in fact this was perhaps one of the two best courses I took as an undergraduate (the other being the mathematics of fluid flow). Maybe I am a sucker for tough grading. In the fluid flow class I turned in my solution to an assigned problem. The problem was tough, the solution went on for several pages, it was correct except that I did not put the final answer in the exact form that he asked for. The difference was very minor. I got 2 points out of 20.

 

I could go on. But I need to go to the bathroom.

[mike777]

Again folks given I lived in the city that started this issue in the media for some reason,,,,,,, I live in a heavy democratic city, very liberal for the South...

 

I can only tell you I have not met a single person who talks about this issue. but then I live a sheltered life.

 

 

I, we only hope that at some point the state of NC will give up and overturn.

 

 

fwiw it seems the issue has shifted to school bathrooms, school gym locker rooms...

 

 

for me I go back to the lack of people in jail who are customers of having sex with kids.....even this thread seems to want to do nothing regarding this issue besides saying it is bad.....

 

people prefer threads where they can feel they are good and righteous

[Vampyr]

for me I go back to the lack of people in jail who are customers of having sex with kids.....even this thread seems to want to do nothing regarding this issue besides saying it is bad.....

 

So you believe that any issues affecting LGBTQ individuals involve paedophilia? You are not alone in this, but your belief is incorrect.

[mike777]

So you believe that any issues affecting LGBTQ individuals involve paedophilia? You are not alone in this, but your belief is incorrect.

 

 

v I understand you may believe transgenders rape kids

 

but just because you believe it does not make it true. but you are not alone thus threads such as this.

 

 

what you also do not believe that there are adult customers out there raping kids and they are not in jail

IN fact few, very few seem to be in jail in the united kingdom AS OF 2017.

[Vampyr]

v I understand you may believe transgenders rape kids

 

but just because you believe it does not make it true. but you are not alone thus threads such as this.

 

Ummm, sorry, you brought up the sex with children, and obviously think that it is relevant to this thread. Soooo?

 

what you also do not believe that there are adult customers out there raping kids and they are not in jail

IN fact few, very few seem to be in jail in the united kingdom AS OF 2017.

 

i hope this is not true, but in any case you should take your facts and figures to the relevant authorities, and if you get no joy there, to an investigative reporter.

[barmar]

Ok, I left out the middle bits of my reasoning, such as it was, assuming that anyone sufficiently interested to read that far would be able to figure it out.

 

Historically, men and women did not have separate toilet facilities, if only because, until relatively recently (in terms of the species) we didn't have toilets! Before we had toilets, we, I assume, didn't have the hangups and privacy concerns that are, these days, so strongly attached to toilets, including privacy issues.

I found this Quora thread about privacy during defecation:

 

https://www.quora.com/When-prehistoric-humans-needed-to-defecate-did-they-go-do-it-in-private-like-we-do-now-or-explicitly-like-animals/answer/Lukas-Werth?srid=uU3gw

 

Summary of the specific post I linked to: he's an anthropologist who spent time with a primitive tribe (the general assumption is that these are the best approximations of prehistoric human societies that we can get). Since they didn't have toilets, they would go out into the fields to do their business. While they might go out in groups, they would be single-sex groups.

 

So it seems like the stereotype of women going to the ladies room together may be human nature. But not unisex bathrooms.

 

BTW, the people who think that homosexuality is not "natural" are also wrong. There are well-documented cases of homosexuality among animals. And evolutionary biologists have theories about why a certain fraction of the human population is likely to be homosexual -- they serve useful societal roles, so they enhance group fitness.

[Zelandakh]

I was taking a course in reading German. There was something about a ship and a torpedo, and the literal translation was that the ship "went under". I so translated, and it was marked wrong. "went down" and "sank" were acceptable. I never really understood the explanation.

Literal translation is often incorrect Ken. Untergehen is a verb made up of gehen (to go) and unter (under) but its normal translation is indeed to sink. In another context you might use to go under, to go down or even to disappear or to cease to exist. That does not make the text as written good English, which is the object of the exercise when doing a translation. This is a problem I encounter often living as I do now in Germany. As an example from the weekend, someone told me they were going to freeze in the broccoli. Of course the correct German verb here is einfrieren - that does not make the "in" correct when speaking in English. This sort of thing comes up often. Recognising it is part of learning the language, which apparently was a successful lesson as you still remember it to this day!

[mike777]

Ummm, sorry, you brought up the sex with children, and obviously think that it is relevant to this thread. Soooo?

 

 

 

i hope this is not true, but in any case you should take your facts and figures to the relevant authorities, and if you get no joy there, to an investigative reporter.

 

V...I actually live in the city/town which is at the epicenter of this entire debate. We passed the law which in turn motivated the state to pass a counter law regarding banning trangenders in the bathroom. The whole issue is about adults raping kids, customers paying to rape kids and not going to prison.....now if you want to argue what does that have to do with transgender...welcome to my world....but that is the connection people make....right or wrong.

 

IF you want to disagree with the connection fair enough( I agree wyou) but that is the underlying connection in this issue.

 

 

I only pick on the UK because you live there and because it seems 1400 kids in this one incident were raped possibly tens of thousands of times and as of 2017 the number of customers(not pimps) in prison is close to zero and the world including gthe usa seems to care little, very very little.

 

So it feels like the whole transgender issue is really about posters feeling good about themselves, about how they are good people...everyone else are bad people.