GOP & Policies toward/treatment of Transgender & other LGBTQ Americans

[ZenMode]

So, how often do you or anyone you know go into a public restroom and verify the biology of each person in the restroom?

You don't, none of us do. The fuss is made up.

If women are that worried about trans women, why wouldn't they be worried about straight men that might actually be attracted to women and be preditors?

I mean you do realize that the majority of trans women are not interested in women, don't you?

"The fuss is made up."

According to who?

While restrooms are probably the least concerning, you aren't in a position to speak for probably more than a couple of women, much less all women.

As I said originally, and as you reinforced with your "fuss" comment, there seems to be concern for the feelings and comfort of only one side of the issue on the Democratic side. I'm sure there are more Seth Moulton's that see the other side, but it seems to be rarely expressed in public or on TV/social media/chat forums, etc.

Yes, politics drives people to exaggerate and grandstand .

 

[finesse]

Yes, politics drives people to exaggerate and grandstand .

Since that is mostly the Republican side, lie seems more appropriate. I know all politicians do it but one party has made it their go to move.

 

[StrangePackage]

What is bad? In this thread, I've seen posters imply that women who don't want men in their restroom are prudes or are lying. I've seen posters expressing obvious contempt for females who don't want to compete against men in sports. I've seen the idea of using the restroom that aligns with your biological gender as obsessing over genitals or is the result of transphobia.

Maybe I missed it, not only here but in the liberal media in general, but I see virtually no concern for the side of biological females.

I can't tell if you're using inaccurate and inconsistent language intentionally.

No one wants men in the women's room. Trans women are women. Trans men are men.

Women in the women's room, men in the men's room.

 

[ZenMode]

Yes, politics drives people to exaggerate and grandstand .

Since that is mostly the Republican side, lie seems more appropriate. I know all politicians do it but one party has made it their go to move.

Yes, Republican politicians are maximizing the rage for political benefit. That can be true and it can also be true that there is legitimate concern among voters on the right, center and left regarding biological men in women's areas. A lack of acknowledgement for that legitimate concern is an issue, IMO.

 

[finesse]

A legitimate concern? Maybe. However, if this ever negatively affects .5% of people in the US directly and not because of feigned political outrage, I'd be surprised. I could start on the other million or so things that affect more people more directly but everybody can see it and you won't admit it. I don't expect good faith arguments from you so I seldom take you seriously. It's not like you offer much in the way of support of your positions other than anecdotes and a few heavily sanitized or out of context statistics.

However, you do amuse me so carry on.

 

[StrangePackage]

Yes, Republican politicians are maximizing the rage for political benefit. That can be true and it can also be true that there is legitimate concern among voters on the right, center and left regarding biological men in women's areas. A lack of acknowledgement for that legitimate concern is an issue, IMO.

Again you are using inconsistent and inaccurate language.

Male and female are biological terms. Man and woman are gendered terms. There's no such thing a a "biological man."

Is this conflation intentional?

 

[ZenMode]

Again you are using inconsistent and inaccurate language.

Male and female are biological terms. Man and woman are gendered terms. There's no such thing a a "biological man."

Is this conflation intentional?

When I use biological male or biological man, it's a reference to the same thing. I generally use the term biological male. You are welcome to use specific language and terms however you'd like.

 

[StrangePackage]

When I use biological male or biological man, it's a reference to the same thing. I generally use the term biological male. You are welcome to use specific language and terms however you'd like.

That's a non answer, and a particularly stupid one at that.

The term biological male is scientifically and linguistically accurate. The term biological man is neither, and in the context of this issue begs the question of whether or not trans people are valid.

Would you agree that trans men are men?

 

[finesse]

When I use biological male or biological man, it's a reference to the same thing. I generally use the term biological male. You are welcome to use specific language and terms however you'd like.

What if they have two separate DNAs in one body of different sexes but have fathered a child?

 

[ZenMode]

What if they have two separate DNAs in one body of different sexes but have fathered a child?

I don't know. I would probably call that a biological irregularity or abnormality. The fact that you are able to describe an irregularity based on two established norms, and I'm able to understand what you are getting at, only reinforces that we both understand that there are two established biological norms.

The people who are concerned about biological males in women's areas surely also understand the two established biological norms.

 

[finesse]

I don't know. I would probably call that a biological irregularity or abnormality. The fact that you are able to describe an irregularity based on two established norms, and I'm able to understand what you are getting at, only reinforces that we both understand that there are two established biological norms.

The fact that I point out those two biological norms can blend proves beyond doubt that your binary approach is a total fallacy.

I don't know how much you understand. I have a good idea about what you're willing to admit. I assume the former is greater than the latter. I like playing word games and the like and I can be disingenuous as well but I don't get the point in the overt dishonesty in your approach.

 

[StrangePackage]

I don't get the point in the overt dishonesty in your approach.

Don't you?

 

[farce©]

What is bad? In this thread, I've seen posters imply that women who don't want men in their restroom are prudes or are lying. I've seen posters expressing obvious contempt for females who don't want to compete against men in sports. I've seen the idea of using the restroom that aligns with your biological gender as obsessing over genitals or is the result of transphobia.

Maybe I missed it, not only here but in the liberal media in general, but I see virtually no concern for the side of biological females.

Your continued insistence on referring to trans women as "men" is your blind spot and devalues your opinion on the matter significantly.

 

[finesse]

Not really. You can engage in mockery much more believably with only a modicum of intellectual effort. I guess I've always hated sloppy craftmanship.

 

[ZenMode]

The fact that I point out those two biological norms can blend proves beyond doubt that your binary approach is a total fallacy.

I don't know how much you understand. I have a good idea about what you're willing to admit. I assume the former is greater than the latter. I like playing word games and the like and I can be disingenuous as well but I don't get the point in the overt dishonesty in your approach.

I agree they can blend. What we are talking about, as it relates to gender dysphoria, is different. We are talking about people who are biologically male or biologically female who believe that they are essentially in the wrong body.

The point of bringing this up wasn't necessarily to have a decisive conversation about athletics, restroom usage, locker room usage, shower usage etc. The topic is that there is a legitimate concern among voters of both parties and the feelings of those concerned voters are treated much differently than the feelings of the other side of the equation.

 

[superrific]

We are talking about people who are biologically male or biologically female who believe that they are essentially in the wrong body.

1. That is not actually a description of gender dysphoria. But what do I know? My wife only has about 30 kids in her practice with that condition.

2. There's one easy way to know the bathroom panic is bullshit: it came out of nowhere. Trans people have been around forever. Heck, there were multiple hit rock songs about them. Nobody in the 1970s worried about trans people in bathrooms. Not in the 1980s either. Or the 90s. The first time I ever heard about the bathroom issue was HB1. Hmm.

3. I'm old enough to remember when opposition to gay marriage was always framed as "protecting straight marriage." Do you remember all that bullshit? People saying that if gay people were to marry, it would somehow harm their own marriages.

Do you see the connection? The religious warriors understand that people don't like their real motivations -- i.e. controlling other peoples' private lives -- so they make up bullshit excuses to pretend as if they are merely defending themselves. Gay people can't be in schools because they will hurt our kids (that one has been recently revived after laying dormant for decades)! Trans people will be predators in bathrooms and on sports fields, even though this has never happened before despite the long history of transgenderism and transsexualism. Gay marriages will harm our marriages! Really, we're not trying to control people, we're just protecting ourselves from the other people who want to harm us!

It. Is. All. Bullshit.

The thing about trans in women's sports is simultaneously bullshit and also something that affects so few people that I'd be willing to give it up if it would pacify the culture warriors. But it won't, because that isn't actually what they are concerned about. It's just an excuse.

 

[farce©]

The thing about trans in women's sports is simultaneously bullshit and also something that affects so few people that I'd be willing to give it up if it would pacify the culture warriors. But it won't, because that isn't actually what they are concerned about. It's just an excuse.

This is the truth.

 

[ZenMode]

1. That is not actually a description of gender dysphoria. But what do I know? My wife only has about 30 kids in her practice with that condition.

2. There's one easy way to know the bathroom panic is bullshit: it came out of nowhere. Trans people have been around forever. Heck, there were multiple hit rock songs about them. Nobody in the 1970s worried about trans people in bathrooms. Not in the 1980s either. Or the 90s. The first time I ever heard about the bathroom issue was HB1. Hmm.

3. I'm old enough to remember when opposition to gay marriage was always framed as "protecting straight marriage." Do you remember all that bullshit? People saying that if gay people were to marry, it would somehow harm their own marriages.

Do you see the connection? The religious warriors understand that people don't like their real motivations -- i.e. controlling other peoples' private lives -- so they make up bullshit excuses to pretend as if they are merely defending themselves. Gay people can't be in schools because they will hurt our kids (that one has been recently revived after laying dormant for decades)! Trans people will be predators in bathrooms and on sports fields, even though this has never happened before despite the long history of transgenderism and transsexualism. Gay marriages will harm our marriages! Really, we're not trying to control people, we're just protecting ourselves from the other people who want to harm us!

It. Is. All. Bullshit.

The thing about trans in women's sports is simultaneously bullshit and also something that affects so few people that I'd be willing to give it up if it would pacify the culture warriors. But it won't, because that isn't actually what they are concerned about. It's just an excuse.

1. If you were to present your favorite and most accurate definition of gender dysphoria, I would bet the farm that it would not change the point that I am trying to make regarding how the two sides are treated.

2&3. I was on the wrong side of the gay marriage topic for some amount of time, but I still changed my views before Obama did. The difference between gay marriage and the question of biological males in women's areas is that gay marriage ultimately impacted nobody. Yes, there were and are evangelical Christians who paint a ridiculous picture regarding the collapse of society due to gay marriage, but nothing ultimately changed by allowing two men or two women to enter into a legal agreement in the eyes of the state.

That is not the case with the question of transgender men and women. Gay men used men's restrooms, showered in men's locker rooms and played men's sports against other males.

What's happening now is that we are supposed to accept males playing in girls sports, males in women's restrooms, locker rooms and showers.

Again, I don't have the answer to the best way to handle this, but it is clear that the two sides of the topic are treated very differently, as the majority of your post once again proved.

 

[wmheel1287]

1. If you were to present your favorite and most accurate definition of gender dysphoria, I would bet the farm that it would not change the point that I am trying to make regarding how the two sides are treated.

2&3. I was on the wrong side of the gay marriage topic for some amount of time, but I still changed my views before Obama did. The difference between gay marriage and the question of biological males in women's areas is that gay marriage ultimately impacted nobody. Yes, there were and are evangelical Christians who paint a ridiculous picture regarding the collapse of society due to gay marriage, but nothing ultimately changed by allowing two men or two women to enter into a legal agreement in the eyes of the state.

That is not the case with the question of transgender men and women. Gay men used men's restrooms, showered in men's locker rooms and played men's sports against other males.

What's happening now is that we are supposed to accept males playing in girls sports, males in women's restrooms, locker rooms and showers.

Again, I don't have the answer to the best way to handle this, but it is clear that the two sides of the topic are treated very differently, as the majority of your post once again proved.

While I am completely agnostic on the topic of restrooms and likely closer to your opinion than you imagine, your citing of gay men using male restrooms and lockerooms is not helping your case. The EXACT same arguments you're making about trans people now we're made for generations about gay males in restrooms and lockerooms. Those who sought to discriminate cited the supposed mass uncomfortable nature of the public with sharing with gay people. I grew up literally being petrified of being known to be gay in a bathroom or locker room. I wouldn't even shower in high school after football practice because of it.

So yeah, while your concern might be somewhat genuine (I don't know), your argument is grade A bullshit.

For the record, I don't think there is any legitimate concern to be had about transgender women in the restrooms. I think there could be some legitimate concern that it would be taken advantage of by pervs "pretending" just as accommodations for those with disabilities are hugely exploited. I tend to fall on the side of not letting those with ill intentions ruin things for everyone who is trying to do the right things.

 

[superrific]

Gay men used men's restrooms, showered in men's locker rooms and played men's sports against other males.

This is sadly hilarious. You're using this as a distinguishing factor when this was one of the primary arguments put forth by your side in the gay panic. OMG we can't look favorably upon homosexuality because then you have gay men in locker rooms ogling straight men and assaulting them or harassing them etc. That was the argument. And now you're saying, "well, gay men in locker rooms is perfectly fine, but let's not let trans women into women's locker rooms."

And can't you see the bullshit stacking? What did anti-gay people used to say, when presented with comparisons to racial segregation and discrimination? "Oh, this is different. Skin color doesn't harm anyone, but gay marriage!" Now you're saying, "Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone, but trans!" Cut. The. Bullshit. Everyone can see right through you.

The fact that you now recognize that you were on the wrong side of gay marriage, but continue with this trans stuff -- it's really pathetic. Hey, here's an idea: if your instincts failed you so badly on gay marriage, maybe they are similarly failing you now! I mean, did you learn anything from the experience of being on the wrong side? Did it make you want to, oh i don't know, avoid being on the wrong side again? Apparently not.