LGBTA Thread

Well, then why not write the bill in a way that clarifies matters regarding that subject? That would totally take the piss out of such propaganda.

The T wrote: And this is sadly what happens: this one possible transgender-toilet consequence of an anti-discrimination bill obscures the fact that other very serious types of discrimination will be allowed

BaldFriede wrote: A Person wrote: BaldFriede wrote: The T wrote: But (to narrow the ordinance to its LGBT implications) we are not talking about men using women's toilets. We are talking about transgender women (men who now are women) using them. Shouldn't that be OK?  As I said, I have a problem with that. No matter how much such a transgender person feels like a woman, bodily this person still is a man. I understand her feelings, but I want mine to be understood as well. I understand what you are saying, but I don't particularly agree with it. People have had similar feelings towards sharing facilities with black people in the past, nowadays however the fallout would be massive if a school or apartment were to segregate people by race. It is obviously not an easy situation, and not something most people know much about, but I think trans people should have that same protection. That's not the same at all. You are comparing apples and oranges. The logical consequence would be to use unisex bathrooms. Just as we removed the racial barrier we should remove the gender barrier

I'm disturbed by this myself. Not for myself. I'd probably cope just fine. In fact, I did make use of a unisex bathroom. I recall attempting not to linger long. We're not just talking about bathrooms, FYI. We're talking about showers, such as at workout gyms (@Teo, I'm speaking about institutional policies, not that bill, which I know nothing of). Anyway, there's real clash of interests here. We really should refrain from doing psychological damage to trans-gender people, but there are some who would be psychologically damaged by sharing facilities with someone of a different biological sex. I see both sides on this.

The T wrote: BaldFriede wrote: The T wrote: But (to narrow the ordinance to its LGBT implications) we are not talking about men using women's toilets. We are talking about transgender women (men who now are women) using them. Shouldn't that be OK?  As I said, I have a problem with that. No matter how much such a transgender person feels like a woman, bodily this person still is a man. I understand her feelings, but I want mine to be understood as well. I understand this and even agree with it. Sadly this was used to defeat a bill that would have prohibited other type of discrimination.

If the bill was flawed it should be amended, not passed as-is

BaldFriede wrote: A Person wrote: Pastmaster wrote: don't care about what someone feels their sexual orientation is, but they are still biologically male or female unless they get surgery and I know I wouldn't feel comfortable with a biologically female person in a men's restroom. A depressingly large amount of trans people can't afford surgery. Many others feel no need to have reassignment surgery and are satisfied with hormone therapy, or even just transitioning socially. Being trans is not synonymous with wanting or receiving gender reassignment surgery. A depressingly large amount of people of  any kind can't afford what they want.. If a trans does not want surgery then how is he or she a transsexual? If he or she just dresses in the style of the opposite gender it is in our opinion a transvestite, not a transsexual.

Sex and gender psychologically different. Gender is not dependent upon biological sex. It is not biologically bound. This of course makes things more complicated, hence the problem.

Edited by HackettFan - November 05 2015 at 22:56

BaldFriede wrote: A depressingly large amount of people of  any kind can't afford what they want..

It wasn't about getting what they want, it was about the fact that trans people would be restricted from using the bathroom that reflects their identity by something out of their control (in this case the cost of surgery). It would be silly.

If a trans does not want surgery then how is he or she a transsexual? If he or she just dresses in the style of the opposite gender it is in our opinion a transvestite, not a transsexual.

It is about identity. The most general way I can word it is that it is a situation in which an individual's personal identity doesn't match the one they received at birth (note: I am not referring to intersex people). This includes people who might identify as female despite being assigned male at birth, or vice versa, and also people who might identify outside of the gender binary. In general this means people will transition in various ways towards their identity. It very often means hormone replacement therapy, and gender reassignment surgery is generally wanted, but it also includes transitioning in other ways. For example, a big step is presenting as your gender, and yes this includes wearing clothing associated with that gender. But a trans person isn't wearing them because they just like wearing clothes of the opposite gender. They are presenting as that gender because it is how they wish to be recognized. Early in a transition, trans boy might adopt a short hair cut, while a trans girl will grow hers out.
In short, being transsexual is about the individual's identity, and not necessarily how far they can or want to transition.

Triceratopsoil wrote: The T wrote: BaldFriede wrote: The T wrote: But (to narrow the ordinance to its LGBT implications) we are not talking about men using women's toilets. We are talking about transgender women (men who now are women) using them. Shouldn't that be OK?  As I said, I have a problem with that. No matter how much such a transgender person feels like a woman, bodily this person still is a man. I understand her feelings, but I want mine to be understood as well. I understand this and even agree with it. Sadly this was used to defeat a bill that would have prohibited other type of discrimination.  If the bill was flawed it should be amended, not passed as-is

I feel uncomfortable if anyone is in the bathroom with me at all.

... So im guessing comfort doesn't matter.

I would never have guessed. I asked him why he wears a beard then. He said: "What else shall I do? Shave? Women don't shave. And they don't have beards either. It is a lose-lose situation".

Did you have to look up how to spell "lavatories", Dean? That little "1" at the end of the word tells a tale.