Federal government rules that dress-wearing freak must be allowed access to girls' locker room

[Arris]

@Matt504

Do you still agree with the views you expressed in this thread?

I personally felt you were being obtuse to support transgender rights without honest thought to reality of how things might potentially play out. To be fair transitionist might agree with the view that I'm espousing. What @VegasCAC said in this very thread that male genitalia should not be present in women spaces without consent.

A recent thread occurred where proof was shown where women were offended that male genitalia was openly shown to children because of transgender status. In any other circumstance that is exhibitionist pedo behavior but the establishment is forced to defend it.

What say you?

 

[Rozay Oro]

Someone photoshop with a wig on

@Pseudonym shawty gooooo!

 

[Matt504]

@Matt504

Do you still agree with the views you expressed in this thread?

I personally felt you were being obtuse to support transgender rights without honest thought to reality of how things might potentially play out. To be fair transitionist might agree with the view that I'm espousing. What @VegasCAC said in this very thread that male genitalia should not be present in women spaces without consent.

A recent thread occurred where proof was shown where women were offended that male genitalia was openly shown to children because of transgender status. In any other circumstance that is exhibitionist pedo behavior but the establishment is forced to defend it.

What say you?

Hey Arris,

I took time to read through the thread from the beginning to refresh myself. In this thread, I made a comparison between reactions, reactions to people being present in spaces where they apparently do not belong. I was not supporting anyone's rights, I was using a comparison to force people to defend their positions so I consequently defended the other position for the sake of argument, not based on my personal feelings.

So, how do I feel about this: I do not believe transgender persons should use the same locker rooms as cis-gender people, these spaces are gendered, and the people using them have an expectation that everyone present will be members of that gender.

You might imagine this as a social contract. Society has agreed that some spaces will be segregated by gender which is based on another agreement about what it means to be a member of a given gender. Introducing persons to these gendered spaces who were assigned one gender at birth yet identify as a different gender later in life breaks one or more of these social contracts.

We're asking a society of people to accept an amendment to a contract that has well defined criteria for what a male or female is and many members of society are rejecting this amendment proposal. I reject this amendment because I can empathize with women not feeling comfortable sharing their spaces with persons who identify as women yet are not women in the classical sense. Whatever uncertainty they might feel is completely valid and shouldn't have to be substantiated further because doing so comes at the risk of demonizing trans-women even if that isn't the original intent. If it's not enough to simply say "I don't feel comfortable", it's not hard to imagine why the next step would be to suggest that there is an inherent threat involved.

I believe that until society can figure out how to navigate there being members of society that don't identify as the genders they were assigned at birth, a possible stop gap solution as it relates to spaces where there's an expectation of privacy could be to introduce a third unisex space.

 

[Arris]

Hey Arris,

I took time to read through the thread from the beginning to refresh myself. In this thread, I made a comparison between reactions, reactions to people being present in spaces where they apparently do not belong. I was not supporting anyone's rights, I was using a comparison to force people to defend their positions so I consequently defended the other position for the sake of argument, not based on my personal feelings.

So, how do I feel about this: I do not believe transgender persons should use the same locker rooms as cis-gender people, these spaces are gendered, and the people using them have an expectation that everyone present will be members of that gender.

You might imagine this as a social contract. Society has agreed that some spaces will be segregated by gender which is based on another agreement about what it means to be a member of a given gender. Introducing persons to these gendered spaces who were assigned one gender at birth yet identify as a different gender later in life breaks one or more of these social contracts.

We're asking a society of people to accept an amendment to a contract that has well defined criteria for what a male or female is and many members of society are rejecting this amendment proposal. I reject this amendment because I can empathize with women not feeling comfortable sharing their spaces with persons who identify as women yet are not women in the classical sense. Whatever uncertainty they might feel is completely valid and shouldn't have to be substantiated further because doing so comes at the risk of demonizing trans-women even if that isn't the original intent. If it's not enough to simply say "I don't feel comfortable", it's not hard to imagine why the next step would be to suggest that there is an inherent threat involved.

I believe that until society can figure out how to navigate there being members of society that don't identify as the genders they were assigned at birth, a possible stop gap solution as it relates to spaces where there's an expectation of privacy could be to introduce a third unisex space.

To reiterate, I'm not attacking your viewpoint but I do want to again establish the complicated definition of "gender" in that your defense is not scientifically sound in which someone can say "you have to scientifically accept this as a fact". Do we conflate sex and gender, is it the same effect if we view male genitalia as female and vice versa through adolescence through adulthood?

a fully developed penis was witnessed in an established female "only" space"; currently that is viewed as wrong i.e. indecent exposure.(Both ways technically but viewed as worse on the opposite gender) However a scientific distinction is now commonly made between "sex" and "gender" but that distinction hasn't seem to have caught on as quickly.

is it alright for undeveloped minds to witness the opposite sex genitalia? if it is alright, is it time we as humans examine scientifically the affects if any that has on children?

 

[Matt504]

To reiterate, I'm not attacking your viewpoint but I do want to again establish the complicated definition of "gender" in that your defense is not scientifically sound in which someone can say "you have to scientifically accept this as a fact". Do we conflate sex and gender, is it the same effect if we view male genitalia as female and vice versa through adolescence through adulthood?

a fully developed penis was witnessed in an established female "only" space"; currently that is viewed as wrong i.e. indecent exposure.(Both ways technically but viewed as worse on the opposite gender) However a scientific distinction is now commonly made between "sex" and "gender" but that distinction hasn't seem to have caught on as quickly.

is it alright for undeveloped minds to witness the opposite sex genitalia? if it is alright, is it time we as humans examine scientifically the affects if any that has on children?

I'm not arguing in favor of anyone of any age seeing sex organs in any spaces and I'm dealing in very basic definitions of gender/sex, if you're born with a penis, you're male, if you're born with a vagina, you're female,

 

[Arris]

I'm not arguing in favor of anyone of any age seeing sex organs in any spaces and I'm dealing in very basic definitions of gender/sex, if you're born with a penis, you're male, if you're born with a vagina, you're female,

you gave me a very political reply and I kinda replied with a preconceived notion of how'd you would respond. From reading future posts on the topic I know your views fall similar to mine but...

more or less I'm wondering what the scientific definition of sex and gender even is nowadays(is it now permanent? will it change again in 100 years?) and how beholden the "human being" is to that scientific definition. I'm not nor will I ever be attracted to male to female transitioners(new word? ). no matter how convincing the change gets.

will that change for future generations with more acceptance? hard to say, but as it stands right now I don't know how anyone could argue against the emphatic statement vegascac put forward unless we turn a lot of how view sexuality on it's head

 

[Pseudonym]

@Pseudonym shawty gooooo!

 

[Pseudonym]

 

[Rozay Oro]