GOP & Policies toward/treatment of Transgender Americans

[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.

 

[Lando]

True, and many people who identify as Jewish don't believe in God. And of course, some people have a belief in a "higher power" -- which is so amorphous and vague as to effectively be atheist (but for the negative connotation of the word).

I think when it comes to things like the treatment of trans people. There are a lot of people that rely/relied on religion for community more than belief. As that community became less necessary people drifted away. And as that community became toxic they ran away. The research that the He Gets Us people did showed that the biggest problem their churches face is that many people consider Christians to be jerks (of course their solution is to argue against that rather than stop being jerks). There is a large group that isn't being swayed by anything Hitchens wrote or some change in belief. They just don't want to join the club.

People making it abundantly clear that the only thing keeping them from watching strangers poop is a few regulations doesn't exactly make them sound fun to join. Are the people who walk away because of some weird obsession with trans people (or any number of weird things that pop up) may be effectively atheist in a lot of ways, their motivations are different enough that using a blanket label misses what is actually happening. This also works in the other direction, and as the number of religious unaffiliated people rises I think that distinction will matter quite a bit.

 

[superrific]

I think when it comes to things like the treatment of trans people. There are a lot of people that rely/relied on religion for community more than belief. As that community became less necessary people drifted away. And as that community became toxic they ran away. The research that the He Gets Us people did showed that the biggest problem their churches face is that many people consider Christians to be jerks (of course their solution is to argue against that rather than stop being jerks). There is a large group that isn't being swayed by anything Hitchens wrote or some change in belief. They just don't want to join the club.

This is right, and that's why I favor Dems continuing to incorporate religious themes to messaging. Christians, of course, do not have to be jerks. Raphael Warnock is not a jerk. Of all the things you can say about him, being a jackass is simply not one of them. Barack Obama touched everyone when he sang, impromptu, at the Charleston funeral.

To all the people who think Christians are jerks: those are just the loud vocal ones who have a long reach because they have a lot of money because stupid people send it to them. Go to a UCC and see how many jerks are there.

 

[ZenMode]

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.

Ogling in a locker room/shower would be a problem if a trans person never walked the face of the earth. Let's take it easy with the straw man.

Since you seemed to have missed the point, here it is again:

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.

 

[superrific]

Since you seemed to have missed the point, here it is again:

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.

Um, I got that point. It's not complicated, and you've said over and over again.

The point being missed is that this has been happening for generations and it never affected anyone. What bathroom do you think transgender people have been using? Have you ever seen a person dressed like a woman in a male bathroom? I never have. And yet there have been "biological males" who dress as women forever. As I've said, it even features in multiple hit rock songs. Like, famous rock songs. Songs still listened to today. About trans people, and trans women in particular. And all this time that people have been aware of trans people, there have been zero incidents of trans women doing anything unseemly in women's bathrooms. Zero. I've never heard of a single incident.

I have heard of creeps who drill peep holes in bathrooms. Wasn't Erin Andrews' stalker doing that? But those are cis straight men.

So the point is that you've accepted "biological males" in women's bathrooms (and biological females in men's rooms) your whole life. You just didn't have outrage about it, because there was no panic about it.

And the other point also remains: the purveyors of discrimination always find some argument as to why the discriminated group is actually harming them, and then seek to justify the discrimination on that basis. And it's always bullshit. Surely we don't need to go through the litany of justifications that white people gave for slavery and Jim Crow and segregation, etc. See, they weren't discriminatory; they were just protecting white women from the savage black men coming to rape them. And then when the right-wingers turned their attention to gay people, same story: this isn't like with race; this is different; we're really being harmed now. And now the right-wingers are trying the same act again.

If you want to know how much right-wingers actually care about women's rights, read about the Equal Rights Amendment. We couldn't pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights for women. The exact same people who opposed that are now the ones saying, "OMG we have to protect women from predators OMG"

 

[ZenMode]

Um, I got that point. It's not complicated, and you've said over and over again.

The point being missed is that this has been happening for generations and it never affected anyone. What bathroom do you think transgender people have been using? Have you ever seen a person dressed like a woman in a male bathroom? I never have. And yet there have been "biological males" who dress as women forever. As I've said, it even features in multiple hit rock songs. Like, famous rock songs. Songs still listened to today. About trans people, and trans women in particular. And all this time that people have been aware of trans people, there have been zero incidents of trans women doing anything unseemly in women's bathrooms. Zero. I've never heard of a single incident.

I have heard of creeps who drill peep holes in bathrooms. Wasn't Erin Andrews' stalker doing that? But those are cis straight men.

So the point is that you've accepted "biological males" in women's bathrooms (and biological females in men's rooms) your whole life. You just didn't have outrage about it, because there was no panic about it.

And the other point also remains: the purveyors of discrimination always find some argument as to why the discriminated group is actually harming them, and then seek to justify the discrimination on that basis. And it's always bullshit. Surely we don't need to go through the litany of justifications that white people gave for slavery and Jim Crow and segregation, etc. See, they weren't discriminatory; they were just protecting white women from the savage black men coming to rape them. And then when the right-wingers turned their attention to gay people, same story: this isn't like with race; this is different; we're really being harmed now. And now the right-wingers are trying the same act again.

If you want to know how much right-wingers actually care about women's rights, read about the Equal Rights Amendment. We couldn't pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights for women. The exact same people who opposed that are now the ones saying, "OMG we have to protect women from predators OMG"

Ok, so I've brought up sports, locker rooms and showers multiple times, today and previously when talking about trans women, and every time it gets dropped for reasons that are obvious - it's easy to focus on the least concerning aspect and ignore the ones that are the bigger issues as a way to paint the other side a neurotic and making mountains out of mole hills.

Ultimately, I don't care. I'm just pointing out how differently many Democrats treat the two sides.

 

[finesse]

Ok, so I've brought up sports, locker rooms and showers multiple times, today and previously when talking about trans women, and every time it gets dropped for reasons that are obvious - it's easy to focus on the least concerning aspect and ignore the ones that are the bigger issues as a way to paint the other side a neurotic and making mountains out of mole hills.

Ultimately, I don't care. I'm just pointing out how differently many Democrats treat the two sides.

Because you're making the fucking Rocky Mountain Range out of an ant hill. The sports issue is the most questionable and affects the fewest people. The other two are nothing. There is less of a threat in either case from a trans woman that a lesbian. You know that. Do women shower together these days, anyway?

Personally, I don't view either as sexual venues and I can't think of a place less discreet except maybe in the middle of the road.

 

[ZenMode]

Because you're making the fucking Rocky Mountain Range out of an ant hill. The sports issue is the most questionable and affects the fewest people. The other two are nothing. There is less of a threat in either case from a trans woman that a lesbian. You know that. Do women shower together these days, anyway?

Personally, I don't view either as sexual venues and I can't think of a place less discreet except maybe in the middle of the road.

I'm not talking about a threat from trans women or men. I'm talking about the fact that males in female sports is a legitimate concern for some number of people. I'm talking about the fact that males in women's restrooms is a legitimate, even if minor, concern for some number of people. I'm talking about that fact that males in girl's/ women's locker rooms and showers is a legitimate concern for some number of people.

I'm also acknowledging the trans side of things. They want to use the facilities and play the sports of the gender they associate with.

The difference is how the feelings and concerns of the two sides are treated by the Democrats. The responses in this thread have been virtually nothing but downplaying and demonizing of only one side.

A Dem politician can't express a perfectly legitimate concern about males in female sports without his campaign manager quitting in protest.

 

[finesse]

Only one side is acting like a seminude body is sinful and an irresistible temptation to sex. Mostly, it's because, in the entire scope of problems in our nation, it's not one that deserves much time or attention. It only gets what it gets because of stupid gits.

 

[superrific]

I'm not talking about a threat from trans women or men. I'm talking about the fact that males in female sports is a legitimate concern for some number of people. I'm talking about the fact that males in women's restrooms is a legitimate, even if minor, concern for some number of people. I'm talking about that fact that males in girl's/ women's locker rooms and showers is a legitimate concern for some number of people.

The difference is how the feelings and concerns of the two sides are treated by the Democrats. The responses in this thread have been virtually nothing but downplaying and demonizing of only one side.

Just using the word "legitimate" does not make it so.

What you've written here is almost precisely the position of the white preachers to which Letter From A Birmingham Jail was written. There are two sides with legitimate concerns. We don't want to rush things. Let's cater to the prejudices of the majority.

You're right that we don't treat these feelings the same way. They aren't remotely the same feelings. One of them is irrational hate masquerading as a sudden, out-of-nowhere concern with girls' sports. The other is a plea to be treated with basic dignity. At no point ever in my life will I treat those as equally valid, and I won't apologize for it because it's not wrong to do so. It's in fact right to differentiate hate from love.

It just boggles the mind that you can be aware of white people "concerned" about black people in their schools or pools, and straight people "concerned" about gay people grooming their children, and be aware that these are the same white people, and still characterize those concerns as legitimate.

 

[Zoo_View]

No doubt they're missing the point, and no doubt there are no easy answers in reality, but we all know that to Trumpers and the athletes complaining about this issue that it is indeed a very simple issue, and they don't care about the complexities or how it looks or if it is a step backwards for women's sports. They want transgenders barred from playing in women's sports, period, and won't be satisfied with anything else. And given where we are politically right now it's very likely that they're going to get their way, both in red states and probably even at the national level if our GOP President, GOP Congress, and GOP Supreme Court wants to push it, which given the effectiveness of attacks on transgenders in the presidential campaign they likely will.

I doubt the Trumplicans and right-wing culture warriors want trans women banned from women’s sports.

Similar to the “border crisis,” “immigration crisis,” and the “fentanyl/opioid smuggling crisis,” the Trumplicans and right-wingers want trans women in women’s sports and the above crises as on-going urgent “problems” to rail against.

 

[UNCatTech]

"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 .

The other side didn't care until they figured out how to make it a political issue and use the fear to drive people to hate all LBGTQ people.

Trans people have been going to the bathroom of their choice as long as there have been trans people. Why is it suddenly a concern? Why, because the right sees this as a way to get people who would normally be for individual rights to hate trans people by planting seeds of a fake fear and outrage that really isn't there.

These stupid fucking laws do nothing but hide the true agenda of the right, to outlaw LGBTQ people, by inciting fear in something that based on numbers and data is basically never going to occur.

Even with these stupid laws, how is one really going to tell if someone is a trans woman or just a woman that doesn't look overly feminine?

I've read of many more women being harassed for looking trans than actual trans women harassing cis women.

And don't bring up cis males who are pervs and pretending, that's not trans women's fault.

Those men are the problem, but I don't see the outrage toward them, wonder why?

 

[UNCatTech]

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.

Where does this "legitimate concern" come from?

Where is all the data supporting trans women assaulting women in public restrooms?

If there were data to support this, then you might have an argument. But since there really isn't, it's more that the right is pushing the fear than a real concern.

 

[ZenMode]

Just using the word "legitimate" does not make it so.

What you've written here is almost precisely the position of the white preachers to which Letter From A Birmingham Jail was written. There are two sides with legitimate concerns. We don't want to rush things. Let's cater to the prejudices of the majority.

You're right that we don't treat these feelings the same way. They aren't remotely the same feelings. One of them is irrational hate masquerading as a sudden, out-of-nowhere concern with girls' sports. The other is a plea to be treated with basic dignity. At no point ever in my life will I treat those as equally valid, and I won't apologize for it because it's not wrong to do so. It's in fact right to differentiate hate from love.

It just boggles the mind that you can be aware of white people "concerned" about black people in their schools or pools, and straight people "concerned" about gay people grooming their children, and be aware that these are the same white people, and still characterize those concerns as legitimate.

"It just boggles the mind that you can be aware of white people "concerned" about black people in their schools or pools, and straight people "concerned" about gay people grooming their children, and be aware that these are the same white people, and still characterize those concerns as legitimate."

You're only making my point and are now escalating with ridiculous stereotyping. It's truly amazing the Democrats, like you, think that all Trump supporters are just a bunch of white, backward, racist, transphobic, xenophobic, homophobic hicks whose concerns are based in bigotry. It explains what I've been saying about how the feelings and concerns of the two sides are treated so differently, but doesn't make it any less amazing.

No skin off my back if the Democratic Party continues to try to burn itself to the ground by being so judgemental and out of touch with a significant portion of the country.

 

[UNCatTech]

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.

Exactly, the numbers don't support this legitimate concern.