DescentBB

Posted: **Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:07 pm**

dude, editing your replies like that just makes you look weak.

and seeing as you went with 'a whole lot of things', you're including their facial structure, build, body shape and even their genitals. No matter how you paint it, you're still judging someone's sex based on what you see on the surface. If you went with a DNA test, not only is that backwards, that's invasive.

you have no right to judge someone by any of that. and you, nor anyone else, has the right to discriminate anyone based on those two factors.

Visions' point still stands.

Posted: **Thu Apr 07, 2016 7:16 pm**

All I was doing was making the point that bathroom usage should be based on sex, a physical trait and not gender which is a societal construct.

You were the one that went off on the “genital” thing, at that point, I just wanted out.

Posted: **Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:25 pm**

Spidey wrote:All I was doing was making the point that bathroom usage should be based on sex, a physical trait and not gender which is a societal construct.

Why? Unless you're a urinal creeper you're not seeing anyone else's plumbing anyway. Why shouldn't people just use the restroom that corresponds with their identified gender? Hell, as multiple people have pointed out here, your solution would see people who resemble The Rock being forced to walk into a ladies' room. How does that make any sense whatsoever?

Posted: **Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:21 pm**

You’re making the exact same mistake as Ferno by putting the emphasis on outward appearance.

You want the bull dyke gender bender to use the men’s room but your ok with an actual male using the ladies room. (who just might be The Rock)

To me…that makes no sense.

........

And what if the bull dyke gender bender "wants" to use the ladies room? Are you going to force people to choose the bathroom based on their chosen gender? Why would that be any different than forcing people to use the bathroom that matches their sex?

Posted: **Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:41 pm**

Spidey wrote:All I was doing was making the point that bathroom usage should be based on sex, a physical trait and not gender which is a societal construct.

You were the one that went off on the “genital” thing, at that point, I just wanted out.

so your line of logic is "if you look like a man, you go to the mens' bathroom, and if you look like a woman, you go to the womens' bathroom"?

what ★■◆●ing right do you have to dictate that?

You’re making the exact same mistake as Ferno by putting the emphasis on outward appearance.

You're doing EXACTLY what you're accusing me of right here, when you say this:

a physical trait

Don't piss on our heads and say it's raining.

Hell, your entire position revolves around 'use the mens bathroom if you look like a man'.

Are you going to force people to choose the bathroom based on their chosen gender?

None of us are trying to force anything upon anyone. Don't try to put that on anyone here.

Posted: **Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:45 pm**

Spidey wrote:...bathroom usage should be based on sex, a physical trait and not gender which is a societal construct.

Aren't we talking about societal constructs though? To use the example of Woodchip afraid of his daughter having to see the naked body of a hairy man, isn't that fear a societal construct too?

Posted: **Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:47 pm**

woody's example was to evoke the spectre of paedophilia to justify a bigoted stance.

Posted: **Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:47 pm**

Ferno wrote:Hell, your entire position revolves around 'use the mens bathroom if you look like a man

Absolutely wrong, how can you be so damn dense... no my point is you use the men's room if you "are" a man, regardless of what you look like, or what gender you "think" you are. (Man = Male)

Now I'm done with you.

Jeff...sorry but I'm not arguing woody's point, and that is a different context.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2016 12:42 am**

Spidey wrote:Jeff...sorry but I'm not arguing woody's point, and that is a different context.

What is your argument? I know your position, that chromosomes should determine what bathroom someone uses, but why do you think that? Ultimately, I think you need to bring your argument around to some of the reasons why we should have different bathrooms in the first place, and "because chromosomes," at least on its own, feels a few steps removed from that. For instance, if Spock visited our planet for the first time and asked why we have different bathrooms, I don't think he would find the answer "because we have different chromosomes" very convincing.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:18 am**

I agree, and personally I don’t really see the need for segregated bathrooms in the first place, and maybe someday we can just have unisex bathrooms, but our culture is not at that stage.

Right now as it stands we do use segregated facilities, so something has to be used as the metric, and I just see sex as the logical choice rather than gender.

Yea, I see what you are saying, and why it looks like I’m making the argument for why we should have different rooms in the first place, but no…I’m only making the argument on the choice of metric.

In my opinion, once you start giving people the choice of what bathroom to use, you have to give that choice to everyone, are you ready for that, is everyone ready for that?

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:14 am**

Spidey wrote:I agree, and personally I don’t really see the need for segregated bathrooms in the first place, and maybe someday we can just have unisex bathrooms, but our culture is not at that stage.

At the expense of a slight derail, I disagree with this strongly.

I'm going to direct a statement at the whole topic and beyond, however, in saying that no one should tamper with any aspect of anything (society, business, marriage, ...) based only on intellectual constructs, no matter how much merit or continuity they feel their theories have. It's presumptuous, irresponsible, and reckless. The proper way to change anything is through an experiential understanding of a real problem with real consequences, in light of a solution that alleviates those consequences based on sound/proven, superior concepts. This is the only safe approach (safe for you), because it ensures that the motivations for the change are specific solutions to the problems themselves, and not vendettas drawn from elsewhere with only a cosmetic justification for their application in any specific arena.

On the subject of segregated bathrooms, I would first boldly associate that segregation with civilization. It is more civilized to have separate public restrooms for men and women. It is safer for women, because the alarm sounds sooner when a man enters such a place, which is designed for seclusion. To put men with women in a public restroom together is kind of like being in a big city where it is the norm for people to walk around with their hands in other people's back pocket. Just because they have their hand back their doesn't mean they're a thief, but you won't know until your wallet is actually gone. Better to draw the line a ways before the wallet comes out, and assign some due importance to the security of your wallet, don't you think? There are other considerations which are more difficult to present, but suffice to say that certain sensitivities are natural and best preserved and protected. A woman doesn't need a strange man in the stall next to her doing his business while she is in an awkward or compromised position. Popular American culture seems bound and determined to stamp out all such sensitivities at as early an age as possible. It's insanity, at best.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2016 11:09 am**

Spidey wrote:my point is you use the men's room if you "are" a man, regardless of what you look like, or what gender you "think" you are. (Man = Male)

How can you sit there and say that, you say this?

usage should be based on sex, a physical trait

I'm not dense. I just see through your nonsense. and you hate it when I call you on your doublespeak.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2016 11:35 am**

Since this conversation has turned into a discussion about restrooms I would like to remind everyone that is is totally possible to have the best of both worlds. Just remember, everyone poops. And while most the arguments for separate bathrooms are rooted in immature views of sexuality, both men and women are vulnerable when "using the facilities." And let's not forget that men and women's bathrooms are significantly different from each other.

I have one friend who pisses in stalls exclusively because he isn't comfortable standing should-to-shoulder with dudes while urinating. He thinks it barbaric. Of course, he would never under any circumstances use "the troth." I explained the troth to a girlfriend of mine and she didn't believe such a thing existed until we were at a bar that had one and I dragged her into the restroom to see. She was speechless and thought it was bizarre and slightly repulsive. Both men and women's restrooms can be improved. The solution? Replacing segregated communal restrooms with separate unisex rooms. This is already happening.

A lot of major companies are installing "family rooms" in addition to men and women's restrooms. The reason is both obvious a in perfect alignment with the needs of today's consumers. Those of you who raised kids know that sometimes children past the potty-training age need help in the restroom. Sometimes the kids are old enough that it becomes slightly awkward being dragged into gender segregated restrooms. Sometimes that big hairy man needs to bring his daughter into a men's restroom.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2016 12:59 pm**

Thee most coherent solution I've heard from anybody here vision.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2016 3:33 pm**

Hey…I said it first…Waaaaa…kidding

But yea, unisex facilities would be a better solution than giving a small group special privileges to make them comfortable, while making a larger group uncomfortable…there is no net gain.

With unisex facilities everyone can be uncomfortable together…until they get used to it, then in a few decades it will be perfectly normal. (but, I see no need for three of them) And one large unisex bathroom will actually improve security, because your partner can go in with you, and things like cameras should also be installed. (no…not in the stalls)

One larger well lit room with more people in it is actually good for security.

Allowing people to choose bathrooms won’t do much to change the society, but will instead be a long term irritation.

But tc knows women won’t ever accept unisex bathrooms…because men are pigs…right?

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2016 4:26 pm**

f that. I've seen the line for the ladies room. I don't want to share.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2016 6:15 pm**

Vander wrote:f that. I've seen the line for the ladies room. I don't want to share.

Yep. The lines are killer. Women take a loooooong time in the John, not that they can help it when it's that time of the month. Cleanup is a pain. However, it's the women who are the messy bathroom pigs. They love to pee over the toilet doing the Roman Chair, which is a feat in itself, because they're afraid of seat cooties. They usually miss and hit the seat, so it's self-perpetuating.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:51 pm**

Spidey wrote:You’re making the exact same mistake as Ferno by putting the emphasis on outward appearance.

You want the bull dyke gender bender to use the men’s room but your ok with an actual male using the ladies room. (who just might be The Rock)

To me…that makes no sense.

........

And what if the bull dyke gender bender "wants" to use the ladies room? Are you going to force people to choose the bathroom based on their chosen gender? Why would that be any different than forcing people to use the bathroom that matches their sex?

...what are you even getting at here? No "actual males" would be using the ladies' room, and that's the entire point! Putting the emphasis on outward appearance is the only place we can put it, because for better or worse that's exactly how we judge people's genders as-is. If a transgender male has gone through full hormone replacement therapy, is totally ripped, is sporting chin stubble, and speaks with a deep voice, I'm going to look at them and immediately think "male," which is their identity in the first place. The same would apply for a transgender female. Both of them would be extremely uncomfortable using bathrooms for the opposite gender, which makes perfect sense, but what you seem to fail to grasp is that under laws like this, the discomfort would inevitably extend to everyone else in the bathroom too. Seriously, tell me what your reaction would be if an individual who appeared completely as a woman, complete with breasts, strolled into the men's room right next to you. You're telling me you wouldn't even bat an eye?

Posted: **Sat Apr 09, 2016 1:02 am**

tunnelcat wrote:
Vander wrote:f that. I've seen the line for the ladies room. I don't want to share.
Yep. The lines are killer. Women take a loooooong time in the John, not that they can help it when it's that time of the month. Cleanup is a pain. However, it's the women who are the messy bathroom pigs. They love to pee over the toilet doing the Roman Chair, which is a feat in itself, because they're afraid of seat cooties. They usually miss and hit the seat, so it's self-perpetuating.

T...M...I

Posted: **Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:11 am**

Top Gun wrote:
Spidey wrote:You’re making the exact same mistake as Ferno by putting the emphasis on outward appearance.

You want the bull dyke gender bender to use the men’s room but your ok with an actual male using the ladies room. (who just might be The Rock)

To me…that makes no sense.

........

And what if the bull dyke gender bender "wants" to use the ladies room? Are you going to force people to choose the bathroom based on their chosen gender? Why would that be any different than forcing people to use the bathroom that matches their sex?
...what are you even getting at here? No "actual males" would be using the ladies' room, and that's the entire point! Putting the emphasis on outward appearance is the only place we can put it, because for better or worse that's exactly how we judge people's genders as-is. If a transgender male has gone through full hormone replacement therapy, is totally ripped, is sporting chin stubble, and speaks with a deep voice, I'm going to look at them and immediately think "male," which is their identity in the first place. The same would apply for a transgender female. Both of them would be extremely uncomfortable using bathrooms for the opposite gender, which makes perfect sense, but what you seem to fail to grasp is that under laws like this, the discomfort would inevitably extend to everyone else in the bathroom too. Seriously, tell me what your reaction would be if an individual who appeared completely as a woman, complete with breasts, strolled into the men's room right next to you. You're telling me you wouldn't even bat an eye?

If you can’t tell the difference, then there is no point to this discussion, you would have to explain to me who is stopping people at the door and checking their actual sex.

Posted: **Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:59 am**

Spidey wrote:If you can’t tell the difference...

I can, and it seems like you have a real problem knowing the difference between a dyke and a trans-person. LGBT isn't a catch-all for types of people who aren't exclusively heterosexual.

Posted: **Sat Apr 09, 2016 12:47 pm**

I was just using the term loosely.

Posted: **Sat Apr 09, 2016 3:13 pm**

vision wrote:Since this conversation has turned into a discussion about restrooms I would like to remind everyone that is is totally possible to have the best of both worlds. Just remember, everyone poops. And while most the arguments for separate bathrooms are rooted in immature views of sexuality, both men and women are vulnerable when "using the facilities." And let's not forget that men and women's bathrooms are significantly different from each other.

I have one friend who pisses in stalls exclusively because he isn't comfortable standing should-to-shoulder with dudes while urinating. He thinks it barbaric. Of course, he would never under any circumstances use "the troth." I explained the troth to a girlfriend of mine and she didn't believe such a thing existed until we were at a bar that had one and I dragged her into the restroom to see. She was speechless and thought it was bizarre and slightly repulsive. Both men and women's restrooms can be improved. The solution? Replacing segregated communal restrooms with separate unisex rooms. This is already happening.

A lot of major companies are installing "family rooms" in addition to men and women's restrooms. The reason is both obvious a in perfect alignment with the needs of today's consumers. Those of you who raised kids know that sometimes children past the potty-training age need help in the restroom. Sometimes the kids are old enough that it becomes slightly awkward being dragged into gender segregated restrooms. Sometimes that big hairy man needs to bring his daughter into a men's restroom.

Correct. From a technical stance; mens and womens bathroom are almost identical. Mens bathrooms have urinals (as you'd expect), and a trough (which I find to be kind of gross, because it stinks like crazy), but the womens have nothing but stalls.

What I find interesting is women seem a lot less weirded out when you say you're in there to clean it. But if you say you're just going to use it (even though you've already been in there), they lose their minds.

------------

Tunnelcat wrote:They love to pee over the toilet doing the Roman Chair

And they have the audacity to complain to us men when we miss!

Posted: **Sat Apr 09, 2016 4:19 pm**

Spidey wrote:If you can’t tell the difference, then there is no point to this discussion, you would have to explain to me who is stopping people at the door and checking their actual sex.

...that's the exact argument that everyone has been raising against this law in the first place! Seriously, what side of this are you even on at this point?

Posted: **Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:02 pm**

Before I answer can you clarify exactly which law you are referring to?

I do have different positions depending on the situation.

Posted: **Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:57 pm**

The North Carolina law that was underlying this entire conversation (or at least I thought it was). One of the most obvious glaring flaws in it is the fact that you'd basically need to be checking down people's pants (or at the very least having them whip out their original birth certificates) in order to enforce it. My only point in bringing up the appearance issue was to hang a lampshade on how poorly-reasoned the law is, which one expects from something based on ignorance and fear rather than the need to solve a legitimate problem. But hell, if the state wants to be blatantly discriminatory so badly that it's willing to lose a ton of business in the process, then go for it I guess.

Posted: **Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:04 am**

Ferno wrote:four questions:

1) what do people believing their animals have to do with those who are trans

2) why do some think it's a mental affliction?

3) why the appeal to nature?

4) why hasn't anyone watched this yet?

Posted: **Sun Apr 10, 2016 7:26 am**

Ok, here is my position on the undetectable.

It falls under the “no harm no foul” exception, meaning if someone can use a bathroom without so much as raising a suspicion that someone is in there that doesn’t belong…then there is no problem.

Unfortunately the majority of people who could take advantage any “right” to use a bathroom based on their self identified gender won’t pass that test.

Personally I don’t see the need for any laws on either side of this issue, on the anti side we already see the problems, and if there were to be a law written permitting someone to legally use a facility based on their “self identified” gender, the majority of people who feel they are a X in a Y body that do not change their appearance or even wear the clothing of said gender, would also be allowed to use either facility. And to me, that is where the crux of the problem lies.

So the most logical position for me is to use sex as the basic metric, and turn a blind eye to those who can actually fly under the radar.

Posted: **Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:40 am**

Nightshade wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:
Vander wrote:f that. I've seen the line for the ladies room. I don't want to share.
Yep. The lines are killer. Women take a loooooong time in the John, not that they can help it when it's that time of the month. Cleanup is a pain. However, it's the women who are the messy bathroom pigs. They love to pee over the toilet doing the Roman Chair, which is a feat in itself, because they're afraid of seat cooties. They usually miss and hit the seat, so it's self-perpetuating.
T...M...I

Poor baby. I thought men were the stronger sex. Maybe if men had the curse........

But I did forget one thing that brings on the long lines, makeup primping and gossiping. Women can never get their makeup the way they want, nor can they resist trashing one of their cohorts with some juicy gossip.

Spidey wrote:Hey…I said it first…Waaaaa…kidding

Sorry. I thought vision stated it best.

Posted: **Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:58 am**

Hilarious, isn't it Tunnelcat? He's willing to rag on about the 'evil' muslims, post very graphic images... yet gets squeamish when you talk about how women mess up a bathroom.

Maybe I should talk about what I saw in the portable loos at camps and special events.

Posted: **Sun Apr 10, 2016 6:18 pm**

Spidey wrote:Ok, here is my position on the undetectable.

It falls under the “no harm no foul” exception, meaning if someone can use a bathroom without so much as raising a suspicion that someone is in there that doesn’t belong…then there is no problem.

Unfortunately the majority of people who could take advantage any “right” to use a bathroom based on their self identified gender won’t pass that test.

Personally I don’t see the need for any laws on either side of this issue, on the anti side we already see the problems, and if there were to be a law written permitting someone to legally use a facility based on their “self identified” gender, the majority of people who feel they are a X in a Y body that do not change their appearance or even wear the clothing of said gender, would also be allowed to use either facility. And to me, that is where the crux of the problem lies.

So the most logical position for me is to use sex as the basic metric, and turn a blind eye to those who can actually fly under the radar.

Do you have any actual evidence for this, though? Obviously personal anecdotes don't count as such, but I can say that the transgender individuals I know personally all present outwardly fairly clearly as the gender they identify as, or at the very least appear androgynous enough that one wouldn't raise an eye no matter which room they walked into. I just don't see there being any appreciable number of people who identify with a particular gender yet continue to present outwardly as a dead ringer for their birth gender. Like, I'd think that the people behind these sorts of laws might have a point (albeit a misguided one) if that were the case, but in fact it's the exact opposite that's true, and passing laws to solve a problem that doesn't exist is just about the worst way to do things.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:40 am**

Ferno wrote:woody's example was to evoke the spectre of paedophilia to justify a bigoted stance.

But it is a spectre based on reality, bigoted or otherwise.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 7:35 am**

No, there is no evidence of trans-gender people that still mostly look like their birth gender, because that is a small sub set of people who claim to feel like the opposite gender, but have taken steps to cross the Rubicon.

From what I have heard most simply choose to live with it.

So yea, if you grant a right to a small minority, you must ask the question…what about the rest.

Evidence, I’m not going to go there, these are just things I have come to know over the years seeing different documentaries and reading about such things, I have no motivation to start doing research on the web.

Everyone cries for evidence, then rejects whatever they are given, so let’s not pretend this is a board with some kind of proofing system, and stick to opinion.

But if you want to prove me wrong…knock yourself out.

And remember, I did say I don’t support laws on either side of this issue.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 7:40 am**

Want proof?:

She went to the front desk after someone who looked like a "man" entered the women's locker room while she was changing.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/07/living/fe ... er-member/

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:38 pm**

Spidey wrote:No, there is no evidence of trans-gender people that still mostly look like their birth gender, because that is a small sub set of people who claim to feel like the opposite gender, but have taken steps to cross the Rubicon.

From what I have heard most simply choose to live with it.

So yea, if you grant a right to a small minority, you must ask the question…what about the rest.

Evidence, I’m not going to go there, these are just things I have come to know over the years seeing different documentaries and reading about such things, I have no motivation to start doing research on the web.

Everyone cries for evidence, then rejects whatever they are given, so let’s not pretend this is a board with some kind of proofing system, and stick to opinion.

But if you want to prove me wrong…knock yourself out.

And remember, I did say I don’t support laws on either side of this issue.

So basically you have no evidence and are full of bull, which means I'm free to ignore any future statements you make on the matter. Thanks for saving me some time!

woodchip wrote:Want proof?:

She went to the front desk after someone who looked like a "man" entered the women's locker room while she was changing.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/07/living/fe ... er-member/

The only "proof" there is that ignorance should not be used to set policy. Fortunately Planet Fitness is wiser than that.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:48 pm**

If that’s the way you want to play it, I don’t really care, but try to remember you didn’t offer any “evidence” to your claim either.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 8:09 pm**

Nor did I intend to. But the burden on proof wasn't on me, as I wasn't the one attempting to solve a problem without any evidence that it existed in the first place. Much like woody's "onoz pedophiles!!!" hysteria, come to think of it.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:10 pm**

watch out topgun, he might accuse you of misunderstanding or some other nonsense; and throw an 'i'm not talking to you anymore lalalalalala' tantrum.

Posted: **Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:46 am**

Out of sheer curiosity TG, how many trans-gendered people do you know, and did they confide in you that fact, because otherwise they must not be passing the stealth test.

I find it hard to believe you know enough of them to make any kind of call either way.

Posted: **Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:42 pm**

I know at least two right off the top of my head. The most notable of them needed no confirmation on my part, because he identified as a female when I knew him in college, but in the past year or two publicly came out on Facebook as identifying as a male. If I had not known him beforehand, I would have absolutely no reason to believe based on outward appearance today that he had ever presented as anything other than male. Again, I'm not claiming personal anecdotes as overwhelming evidence, but given all the people I've seen interviewed about the massive push-back against the North Carolina law, and not having heard of any cited examples of such, I don't have any reason to believe that there's some horde of perverts out there just waiting to take advantage of transgender-protection statutes in order to creep on women's rooms. And even if someone did attempt it, we already have laws in place against such behavior, and they would be prosecuted under them.

DescentBB

Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!

Re: Happy transgender day!