Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Us Schools Are Put On Notice To Respect Transgender Rights
In the US schools have been warned to not discriminate against transgender kids using the loo of their choice:
http://
How would you feel about this approach being taken in the UK, in UK schools?
http://
How would you feel about this approach being taken in the UK, in UK schools?
Answers
well there are apparently 25+ "genders" so we need to do something or start building more kazis!
10:46 Fri 13th May 2016
I suspect, if you really thought it through from my point of view, you wouldn't be quite so happy to accept the disabled toilet solution as ideal. I'm sure you are trying to think about it from a transperson's viewpoint, but like so many other things personal, unless you actually are one, it's never truly possible.
And vice versa of course. But don't think I've not tried myself. Most of the reason it took me so long to be as open about this as I am now is precisely because I spent so long trying to think about it from everyone else's point of view.
And vice versa of course. But don't think I've not tried myself. Most of the reason it took me so long to be as open about this as I am now is precisely because I spent so long trying to think about it from everyone else's point of view.
Zacs-Master. Ahhh, poor chap. Still got that ageing little bee buzzing in your bonnet then. Never mind. On with the discussion.
Jim, The suggestion that you use disabled toilets isn’t, for you, an ideal solution - it’s a compromise – and I know…. you don’t want to compromise …. you want what you want. I can’t speak from personal experience, obviously, and I don’t pretend to but, in my opinion, your desire to be regarded as a woman shouldn’t take precedence over every other concern; the potential dangers other people have mentioned of having mixed-gender toilet facilities in schools for example, which you haven’t commented on. Doesn’t that matter to you?
Jim, The suggestion that you use disabled toilets isn’t, for you, an ideal solution - it’s a compromise – and I know…. you don’t want to compromise …. you want what you want. I can’t speak from personal experience, obviously, and I don’t pretend to but, in my opinion, your desire to be regarded as a woman shouldn’t take precedence over every other concern; the potential dangers other people have mentioned of having mixed-gender toilet facilities in schools for example, which you haven’t commented on. Doesn’t that matter to you?
I'm not convinced it's a very good compromise for anyone, really. But never mind. I've gone into that far enough.
"...potential dangers other people have mentioned of having mixed-gender toilet facilities in schools for example... doesn't that matter to you?"
It does matter to me, but I don't agree that it's as big a risk as is suggested. Moreover, there is the inverse risk to think about. Transpeople are far more at risk from the rest of the population than there are a risk to the rest (if nothing else, from the simple numerical argument that there aren't that many of them, so all other things being equal there are more non-trans perverts than there are trans perverts).
More to the point, the overriding consideration should be the principle about who the ladies'/ gents' toilet is for. All laws can be abused, because that's what nasty people do. But if you agree that the gender label on toilets refers to social gender, then transmen should be allowed in the gents' and transwomen in the ladies', and the associated risk is something to address as and when it comes up, by punishing the guilty not the innocent.
Of course, if you don't accept the principle that would allow *any* transperson to use the toilet of their choice, then the risk is unacceptable but, I would think, is a consequence of not accepting the argument rather than the cause of not accepting it.
"...potential dangers other people have mentioned of having mixed-gender toilet facilities in schools for example... doesn't that matter to you?"
It does matter to me, but I don't agree that it's as big a risk as is suggested. Moreover, there is the inverse risk to think about. Transpeople are far more at risk from the rest of the population than there are a risk to the rest (if nothing else, from the simple numerical argument that there aren't that many of them, so all other things being equal there are more non-trans perverts than there are trans perverts).
More to the point, the overriding consideration should be the principle about who the ladies'/ gents' toilet is for. All laws can be abused, because that's what nasty people do. But if you agree that the gender label on toilets refers to social gender, then transmen should be allowed in the gents' and transwomen in the ladies', and the associated risk is something to address as and when it comes up, by punishing the guilty not the innocent.
Of course, if you don't accept the principle that would allow *any* transperson to use the toilet of their choice, then the risk is unacceptable but, I would think, is a consequence of not accepting the argument rather than the cause of not accepting it.
// Of course, if you don't accept the principle that would allow *any* transperson to use the toilet of their choice, then the risk is unacceptable but, I would think, is a consequence of not accepting the argument rather than the cause of not accepting it.// Jim
jesus jim a bit subtle for a satdy morning - how many people do you think can follow that with a hangover ?
yeah - disabled bogs solution - just have single rooms with pan and basin and a label on the door " everyone " rather than enumerating ( oops ! ) all 25+ genders.
jesus jim a bit subtle for a satdy morning - how many people do you think can follow that with a hangover ?
yeah - disabled bogs solution - just have single rooms with pan and basin and a label on the door " everyone " rather than enumerating ( oops ! ) all 25+ genders.
Jim, the suggestion wasn’t that the risk comes from transgender people.
This from shoota at 14:26 Fri
//The ramifications of a (physical) girl wandering in to a boys loo full of a gang of leery lads is too horrible to contemplate. Imagine the fallout if she were assaulted or worse...//
… and this from TTT at 14:45 Fri
//what about a bunch of leary loos wandering into a girls lad?//
(He got his loos and lads mixed up there, but I’m sure you get the drift).
This from shoota at 14:26 Fri
//The ramifications of a (physical) girl wandering in to a boys loo full of a gang of leery lads is too horrible to contemplate. Imagine the fallout if she were assaulted or worse...//
… and this from TTT at 14:45 Fri
//what about a bunch of leary loos wandering into a girls lad?//
(He got his loos and lads mixed up there, but I’m sure you get the drift).
// //what about a bunch of leary loos wandering into a girls lad?//
(He got his loos and lads mixed up there, but I’m sure you get the drift).
"I am sure you get the flow" - is more of an apt phrase.
It doesnt strike me that the lads would 'drift' in....
Hasnt anyone heard of "locks" these days anyway?
(He got his loos and lads mixed up there, but I’m sure you get the drift).
"I am sure you get the flow" - is more of an apt phrase.
It doesnt strike me that the lads would 'drift' in....
Hasnt anyone heard of "locks" these days anyway?
It still amounts to either a refusal to do the right thing because it might not always work out perfectly (that's a horrible understatement, I'm sorry); or a refusal that it's the right thing to do in the first place. I think it's safe to say that you don't agree it's the right thing to do in the first place, given that you've talked about how "[transpeople] aren't women and will never be women," which amounts to a rejection of any notion that they'd have a right to be in the women's toilet (let alone anyone who wanted to abuse that privilege).
In that sense, talking of the risks is a red herring. Talking of the discomfort that may be caused is similar, I think -- that really just amounts to "some people in society aren't comfortable with transgenderism yet", since most people who wouldn't want to see a transwoman in the ladies' would hardly want to see them in the gents' either.
Which brings me back to the main point I am making. Should transgender people be able to use the toilet that matches their gender identity? The answer to this should depend entirely on whether you accept their gender identity or not. Everything else is a distraction.
In that sense, talking of the risks is a red herring. Talking of the discomfort that may be caused is similar, I think -- that really just amounts to "some people in society aren't comfortable with transgenderism yet", since most people who wouldn't want to see a transwoman in the ladies' would hardly want to see them in the gents' either.
Which brings me back to the main point I am making. Should transgender people be able to use the toilet that matches their gender identity? The answer to this should depend entirely on whether you accept their gender identity or not. Everything else is a distraction.
Jim, everything else isn’t a distraction and it’s not fair at all to deem other people’s genuine concerns ‘red herrings’ simply because they disagree with what you, personally, want. That smacks of a victim mentality. People don’t object because they dislike transgender people. They object for what they consider to be valid reasons. I assume that, like me, most people couldn’t give a hoot about whether someone else is transgender but if that lifestyle – or any other lifestyle for that matter - has the potential to impose upon them a situation which creates embarrassment or discomfort, or exposes others to potential danger, they are entitled to state their case. You are quite right. I don’t think it’s the right thing.
You say that you don't give a hoot, and yet clearly you do if it makes you feel so uncomfortable when transpeople are out in public -- in one particular setting, perhaps. But then you throw out the "lifestyle" thing, and in itself that reveals rather a lot. It's hardly a lifestyle. It's how they are; there is very little choice involved.
That's why the "Pandering" thing is so sad to read. It shouldn't be seen as pandering to ask that you consider that gender isn't about body parts. It shouldn't be seen as pandering to ask that you allow people to go to the toilet *they* feel most comfortable in. After all, that's the same choice you have. It isn't pandering to ask to be able to live in public as who you are, when in any meaningful sense beyond perception this has no impact at all.
So yes, everything else is a distraction, because it is trying, consciously or otherwise, to hide the fact that people arguing against this are usually arguing against the "lifestyle", or at any rate don't understand it nearly as well as they think they do. The toilet thing is just another mainfestation of this -- a more concrete way to show that there is still a lack of acceptance.
How would you know, anyway? Some transpeople do kind of stick out rather; others don't, except perhaps on close scrutiny. Are you planning to institute some kind of vigorous checking process to determine what sex people are? Ironically, that would be even more of an invasion of privacy than the one you seem to be worried about. How about whether there should be a line between "pre-op" and "post-op" transpeople? And so on and so forth.
I would have thought, then, that the obvious "common sense" solution is to avoid all of this and either come out and say that transpeople aren't welcome in public toilets full stop, or that they are, and then deal with such abuses as they happen.
That's why the "Pandering" thing is so sad to read. It shouldn't be seen as pandering to ask that you consider that gender isn't about body parts. It shouldn't be seen as pandering to ask that you allow people to go to the toilet *they* feel most comfortable in. After all, that's the same choice you have. It isn't pandering to ask to be able to live in public as who you are, when in any meaningful sense beyond perception this has no impact at all.
So yes, everything else is a distraction, because it is trying, consciously or otherwise, to hide the fact that people arguing against this are usually arguing against the "lifestyle", or at any rate don't understand it nearly as well as they think they do. The toilet thing is just another mainfestation of this -- a more concrete way to show that there is still a lack of acceptance.
How would you know, anyway? Some transpeople do kind of stick out rather; others don't, except perhaps on close scrutiny. Are you planning to institute some kind of vigorous checking process to determine what sex people are? Ironically, that would be even more of an invasion of privacy than the one you seem to be worried about. How about whether there should be a line between "pre-op" and "post-op" transpeople? And so on and so forth.
I would have thought, then, that the obvious "common sense" solution is to avoid all of this and either come out and say that transpeople aren't welcome in public toilets full stop, or that they are, and then deal with such abuses as they happen.
Jim, /everything else is a distraction, because it is trying, consciously or otherwise, to hide the fact that people arguing against this are usually arguing against the "lifestyle"….. Are you planning to institute some kind of vigorous checking process to determine what sex people are? …… I would have thought, then, that the obvious "common sense" solution is to avoid all of this and either come out and say that transpeople aren't welcome in public toilets full stop//
You’re becoming irrational. I think it’s time for me to call a halt to my part in this discussion.
You’re becoming irrational. I think it’s time for me to call a halt to my part in this discussion.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.