I would like to ask some questions about this topic. I'm having trouble understanding how someone can 'feel' male or female. Can someone give me an example of a non-biological gender trait? This is the part of this subject that I don't understand.

"if done by biological sex, it makes sense that it would be to make the members of each sex more comfortable, knowing that they all have the same "setup" so no one would have to look at male genitalia if they were female and vice versa."

I don't understand, what is so scarey about genitalia?

But ok, i will argue that it was never done based on sex because people were worried they might see a pee-pee; (though it probably did include not wanting someone to see their pee-pee)

I believe it was done to prevent public sex acts in private cubicles.

And my only point about homes was that custom in private homes doesns't have a problem with this. Individual cubicles are the norm in most toilets. And also in many changing rooms (though in places i frequent, there are also family changing rooms, which are bigger cubicles, and allow children change with their parents)

School Locker room scenarios may be more difficult, but i believe people can still change in private if they feel the need; that is, i think trans people should be offered privacy when changing.

Everyone should have this same right, if they feel the need. If you are ok walking around the changing room naked then more power to you, but if others are not comfortable, then give them the option.

"My follow-up was that since a majority of people do care, everyone who disagrees needs to live by the rule of the majority since they are not being harmed by it."

Harmed is a pretty weak claim. but also very hard to prove. But i would claim that the trans people i know are harmed; they are also some of the most resilient people i know, who have been bullied, physically and verbally abused, and still get up every day and go to work. (contrary to what Krellin thinks i am saying)

The evidence of attempted suicide rate is all i have to demonstrate this harm.

If you present as a man, and live as a man everyday, do you really want to be forced (by law) to use the woman's toilets because you haven't chosen to have surgery (and a lot of trans-men don't bother, because having a barely functional penis which you can't get much sensation from is probably worse than owning a strap-on; you don't have to undergo serious surgery for one... But i don't think the personal choice of whether someone has surgery should limit a person's rights! That would be like saying - 'No, you can't go to school unless you have laser eye surgery, because we can't be having the teachers put out that you're unable to see properly...' - i believe most anti-discrimination laws requires reasonable accomodation to be made, at least here in ireland.)

"I would like to ask some questions about this topic. I'm having trouble understanding how someone can 'feel' male or female. Can someone give me an example of a non-biological gender trait? This is the part of this subject that I don't understand. "

Can you feel attracted to men and/or women? It is a biological trait to be attracted to a person; and there are many humans who 'feel' that being a man or woman is wrong to them. That when people treat them as the 'wrong' gender, they feel uncomfortable and anxious.

Gender identity disphoria has been a recognised medical condition for many years; as has some kind of body disphoria.

Your identity is made up of lots of things, not just gender, and it would like make you uncomfortable if someone ignored or rejected them. Flat out denying someone's identity is really disconcerting; you literally feel 'i am me' and gender is among the things which makes up your identity.

"It's quite funny to mute krellin then go back and read the conversation.

I advise everyone do it once in a while. "

Oh yes...it's hilarrious to mute krellin and find out what all the brain-dead sheeple have to say, as opposed to listenign to people with thoughtful dissent.

If you want to here the mindless opinion of Politically Correct lapdogs...mute me. Fucking cowards.


Yeah...wjessop is a coward. He is a PC piece of shit too afraid of expressing an individual opinion to actually state an indivual ciew point. And he is actually PROUD of being a single-minded sheep. Good lord...what a fucking moron.

That would be fine, except that you invent half of your "opinions" just to provoke a reaction, Krellin. You admitted so yourself on previous occasions.

lol aJamie, you ignorant twat ( and by "twat" i mean the tranny BOY version of twat, by which I mean half-wiped smelly shit/ass...)

You are too much of a bitch to answer my actual questions, huh? So you complains about some imaginary past discussions and pretend that gives you cover in this discussion

As always, you are a mindless pathetic boy-twat. Go ooze your shit somewhere else, asshole.

Jamiet and Krellin enough. Jamiet you clearly have nothing to contribute to this thread aside from harassing Krellin. Krellin, you were doing a rather nice job of explaining your point of view, in a rather non-hostile way. Please go back to that and ignore the people who started trolling you.

@ora

I think it was about seeing pee-pees, not preventing sex acts. I have no idea if there's any way to prove one way or the other but it is an interesting question. I'm not trying to start a debate about it, I'm just commenting that I always thought it was the other way around.

I also agree that it's tough to prove harm. You seem open-minded, so I encourage you to look at both sides. You obviously argue that for someone who sees themselves as a woman, but with a man's body, using the men's changing room can cause harm. That person could be exposed to bullying or shaming. Certainly if dressed as a woman, people would comment. It would be hard to judge the severity or extent of the harm being done, assuming that it falls short of physical assault and we're talking about emotional harm.

On the flip side of the coin, women who have to change with someone who has male genitalia are also saying that they feel harmed. You obviously have strong opinions which are pro-trans, so you seem to view that harm as less, or possibly you believe that those people are only harmed because they are not open-minded and therefore perhaps deserve to feel uncomfortable. However, I don't think that you can gauge how much harm they are feeling either. Some of them may feel uncomfortable. Some may have personal or religious beliefs that prevent them from looking at male genitalia. Some may even feel threatened by having what they perceive as a male in the changing room. Certainly if they were nude and a straight male walked in, they would have reason to fear rape or at least lewd behavior.

I think what frustrates many people who are on the "don't allow" side of this argument is that the only concern seems to be for the feelings of the trans individuals and no concern is given to the others who are affected. Those others, I might add, outnumber the trans individuals by a large amount, so in a typical democratic society, they do get to make the decisions about what is proper and what is not.

Krellin obviously has a...unique...way of expressing himself, but that's what he means when he says that liberals treat trans people like they are somehow inferior. It seems illogical to assume that all the straight people who are being harmed by this will make it through just fine, but the trans person will shatter like glass if not given special treatment.

It's not special treatment to be recognized as the gender you are.

I am not trolling anyone in this thread and resent the accusation that I am.

@"I think what frustrates many people who are on the "don't allow" side of this argument is that the only concern seems to be for the feelings of the trans individuals and no concern is given to the others who are affected. Those others, I might add, outnumber the trans individuals by a large amount, so in a typical democratic society, they do get to make the decisions about what is proper and what is not. "

Ok, fair enough, i do have concern for the safety of people in our society. And changin rooms are different from toilets with individual cubicles.

I don't know what the easiest solution is - though clearly we should find one.

If i appear to be more concerned about the harm done to trans people, it is because i see tue consequences being more fatal. Even in cases where the trans people do not end up dead, they have serious psychological issues to deal with.

And i am willing to admit that cis women in changing rooms could easily be made feel ashamed of their bodies, by seeing other naked women, by actual bullying or body shape or people seeing their stretch marks or other 'abnormalities'. So trans people aren't the only ones who need protecting.

But if we are happy with gay women using the women's changing rooms (and not afraid of rape) then clearly there something wrong with men (either society's preceptipn of them as all potential rapists, or their behaviour and entitlement to have sex with or make lewd comments... I think this is an actual problem) So gender segregrated locker rooms 'protect' women. But i don't see why men can't be trained to act more responcibly; so women don't feel the need to be protected from them.

This goes into a completely seperate issue. But more naked bodies in public, not being harassed is the solution, in my mind, once it becomes the norm it will be boring and maybe we will have a society which doesn't sexualise women who are just being women (rather than women who are choosing to be sexual)

Lastly, you point about democracy has a flaw. If the majority votes to murder all the native americans and steal their land - that doesn't make it right. Maybe they are suffering from not having access to that land. Who knows why they vote this way.

In the US a least, the constitution makes certain laws illegal. It doesn't matter how the people in your state vote, you can't take fundamental rights away from a minority (lets take the most recent right, that of a gay couple to marry, as an example)

This would again come under trans rights, and your democracy arguement doesn't hold water.

You can vote or feel a certain way, but that doesn't make it right.

Now i don't know any religions which specifically forbid seeing the genitals of the opposite sex. I believe it is custom, are there specific biblical quotes you can offer? Or other evidence? Also customs change, and again, we can easily change in individual private changing cubicles, it is the norm in a lot of public swimming pools i have been to.

@bo,

I know you're both young and mostly lacking in political acumen, but I'd hope that even you would recognize that pushing your particular point of view using tired rhetoric is making the problem worse.

The sad thing is, millions of business and other institutions will probably need to start building extra bathrooms now that crossdressers are getting higher visibility in popular culture for mutual comfort, which is going to be monstrously expensive. Showing disdain for the people who quite rightly aren't happy about having to shoulder their share of this unfortunate economic burden, as well as disdain for people who already work hard to be successful at maintaining previous gender standards is kind of crappy.

I don't even know how to respond to that, so I just won't.

@orathaic
"Lastly, you point about democracy has a flaw. If the majority votes to murder all the native americans and steal their land - that doesn't make it right. Maybe they are suffering from not having access to that land. Who knows why they vote this way.

In the US a least, the constitution makes certain laws illegal. It doesn't matter how the people in your state vote, you can't take fundamental rights away from a minority (lets take the most recent right, that of a gay couple to marry, as an example)

This would again come under trans rights, and your democracy arguement doesn't hold water."
There are, of course, hierarchies of rights, and some rights CAN be suppressed or restricted in a democracy. This in and of itself doesn't mean that trans rights SHOULD be suppressed, but your argument seems to read that a person's right to life, right to marry, and right to be publicly accommodated in right of his/her gender identity are all on an equal plane (otherwise, why would they all be equally, and fully, exempt from infringement under the usual principle of majority rule?).

"You can vote or feel a certain way, but that doesn't make it right."
How does this argument not apply to trans rights too, cutting in the opposite direction?

@Al, when segregation ended in the United States it required many businesses and other establishment to spend money to accommodate the new laws. What is right and what is easy are rarely the same.

@jmp - you are assuming it is "right" to build a separate bathroom to accommodate the mentally ill (my argument for why they are mentally ill has previously been laid out, so I won't repeat it).

In the case of tranny-boy in the high school, he was GIVEN a special bathroom, and refused it.

So the problem now is the suggestion that businesses may have to build a bunch of special bathrooms to appease some deviant super-minority...and still it won't be enough.

Because, bottom line, this isn't about "equal treatment"....this is about vengeance.

#BlackLivesMatter.....this isn't a movement about "equality"...it is a movement about vengeance, or else the leadership would be decrying the killing of cops.

What's the connection? The connection is that modern society has become expert at taking fringe movements, Twitterizing them in "mainstream" thought (becuase most Americans are sheep looking to believe in the "popular cause" and afraid of being left behind and being Non-PC), and then demanding not just equality, but special treatment.

Bathrooms are for SHITTING AND PEEING.

I shit through my ass....everyone (straight, gat, trans, etc) has an ass....so that is covered equally.

Peeing is done through a dick, or a urethral opening proximate to a vagina. That is pretty much your only selection, even if you are a person who is truly not gender specific. (ie not the mentaly ill tranny, but people who are genetically non-specific).

So....we don't need three, four, whatever bathrooms.

We need bathrooms for DICKS, and NON-DICKS.

Anything else is just someone trying to make a political point.

Seriously, if your fucking self-worth is wrapped up in where you fucking take a piss, then you seriously have fucking mental issues and are a deep need of therapy.

"I shit through my ass....everyone (straight, gat, trans, etc) has an ass....so that is covered equally."

And yet....you know there are some people that, either through birth defect, or through medical conditions, cannot shit normally.

So....really....if we were *truly* a compassionate society, we would ALSO create special bathrooms for the people with shitting problems.

And NO....it would absolutely NOT be acceptable to say the the shitting-problem people should use the same "gender nuetral/tranny" bathroms....because telling a "normal/straight" person with a shitting problem that they need to be lumped in with the sexual deviants would possibly be insulting and hurtful to the problem-shitters...

....so fuck....now we need Boy, Girl, Tranny, and Problem-Shitter bathrooms...

Good lord...pretty soon I'm going to have to double the size of my store just to accommodate the peeing and defecating needs of my society. Fuck....

...I guess I'll just close the store and be done with it....my small business dream is dead. Now the only businesses that will be able to met the needs of all the deviants will be the huge multi-nationals...and we ALL KNOW they are destroying humanity and ruining lives and blah blah blah blah....

The Trannies and whatnot are really just shills for the multi-nationals!!!! OMG....I just figured it out!!!! Only the evil multi-nationals can afford all the necessary bathroom accomodations!!!

DAmn...it's fucking BRILLIANT!!!

"We need bathrooms for DICKS, and NON-DICKS."
As a practical matter (and relating only to bathrooms/washrooms/toilets, rather than changing rooms, locker rooms, or public showers), this is a fair point. Urinals are not placed in women's rooms for obvious reasons, and different anatomical arrangements do conduce to different methods of urination, so I think there is a purely practical case for distinguishing bathrooms on the basis of ANATOMICAL differences. Of course, one could just do away with urinals entirely and simply create stalls and toilets in all restrooms for all comers -- which I wouldn't object to in principle, although, speaking strictly for new construction, I'm not sure what the cost implications would be. Perhaps they would be negligible.

Along these lines (and rather more tongue-in-cheek, though not entirely so), a whole new, yet elegantly simple symbology for denoting bathrooms would be appropriate: an I for the penises and an O for the non.

Urinals provide the opportunity for inconsiderate men with no sum to pee without violating a toilet seat for the next user.

Removing urinals from bathrooms and making them all uni-sex petty much guarantees no woman will every have a clean toilet seat again.

In part, because women are stupid and selfish and demands toilet seats be left down, even though most men will not dare lay hands on a filthy public toilet seat to lift it up to pee. (Which is why they prefer urinals)

I.e. making all bathrooms non-gender-specific and removing gender-specific toilets (urinals) of an insult and an offense to all women.

Again.... You do more harm to more people just to appear a few mental deviants.

WRONG

"Removing urinals from bathrooms and making them all uni-sex petty much guarantees no woman will every have a clean toilet seat again."

Clearly you're not familiar with hover-peeing in ladies' bathrooms (yes, it's a thing).

"most men will not dare lay hands on a filthy public toilet seat to lift it up to pee. (Which is why they prefer urinals)"
Clearly I am not most men (which, now that I think about it, should have been obvious, since I've never been most men, I've always been just me).

"You do more harm to more people just to appear a few mental deviants."
I don't know, I don't think it's "harmful" for non-dysphoric men (and women) to try to strike blows against their (apparent) germophobia, just as I don't think it's "harmful" for the "deviants" to try to strike blows against their dysphoria.

@ATC
"Clearly you're not familiar with hover-peeing in ladies' bathrooms (yes, it's a thing)."
I believe you.

My wife also believes you, even though she has no personal experience with this method except in the context of backwoods camping..

Yoga strengthens core muscles which are used for hover peeing.

How the fuck else would a girl pee in a cup?

I know a few cis-females who can pee at a standing urinal with no technological assistance.

Also, seriously, it wouldn't be hard to have a "stalls room" (unisex) and a "urinal room". Probably cheaper overall, and I bet more efficient from a queuing perspective.

Urinals should be in the stalls and stalls should all be handicap accessible.

Also let's have flushing squat toilets whilst we're at it, that would be excellent. (I don't think this has actually been developed yet, but if not it totally should be.)

I would be interested to see how many Christians who support self-identification within their religion are against self-identification between genders.