Fort Worth schools jam through new trans policies

[AURaptor 1,126]

channonc - you're that 1 in 100 guys at the gym who dresses in the shower.

[channonc 466]

channonc - you're that 1 in 100 guys at the gym who dresses in the shower.

I'm not a guy. I rarely go to a gym, but when I do, that's what I have found to be most convenient mostly because I usually don't have a lock for the locker and prefer to just keep all of my stuff with me.

[AURaptor 1,126]

channonc - you're that 1 in 100 guys at the gym who dresses in the shower.

I'm not a guy. I rarely go to a gym, but when I do, that's what I have found to be most convenient mostly because I usually don't have a lock for the locker and prefer to just keep all of my stuff with me.

Then I stand corrected & that explains much.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Nope, but I also am not uncomfortable with gender neutral spaces.

Understood. I don't have a problem with that either, to a certain extent. But some women prefer not to have such spaces be their living quarters. I only ask because you seem to be dismissive of the desire or need for such spaces by other women.

I think your supposition that a transgender person "Jessica standing there with her wang dangling out." tells me all I need to know about your experience with those who are transgender. The idea that one is comfortable with their anatomy is patently false. This is why they are transgender in the first place. Many have horrible body image issues, and are not going to feel comfortable being "exposed" to anyone.

I'm not saying Jessica did it on purpose. I'm just saying, living in dorms and tight living quarters for long enough usually results in seeing one another naked or close to it eventually even if it was unintentional.

Transgender people have been sharing spaces (dorms, locker rooms, restrooms) with us for decades with little to no notice. As far as restrooms, dorm rooms, locker rooms being co-ed, I generally have no problem with it provided everyone has some privacy. Stall doors, partitions in locker rooms, and restroom doors in dorms provide this reasonable level of privacy that everyone in the situation appreciates, including the transgender person.

I think some of the privacy issues can be mitigated in a bathroom for instance. I think locker rooms, while possible, are not typically done this way and present more challenges and more expense. Dorm rooms are much different. There's just a different level of comfort and privacy that is reasonably expected there.

Not being dismissive at all, but you are working off the other extreme that I am enigma, which is certainly not true. As far as living situations, again, if someone presents as female, who am I to question. I wouldn't. But you are also assuming that a transgender person would feel comfortable living with a complete stranger as well. My guess is that the situation is incredibly personal and not one that someone who is transgender is just going to reveal (or in your mind "display") to just anyone. I just think that the situation would be rare and could be dealt with on a situation by situation basis if someone feels uncomfortable. Mandating that you must present or be inspected to prove your gender is not something I would wish upon anyone. Again, I just don't see this situation as being any different as any of the other above scenarios I presented earlier. You could be a roommate with someone who has homicidal tendencies, how is that not more of a problem? What if someone is suicidal and is constantly threatening to take their own life? Those are situations with which there is much more risk and danger.

In terms of locker rooms partitions... it wouldn't have to be everywhere, but there could be a few designated private spaces. Frankly, when I shower in a locker room, I usually end up changing in the shower stall. I am usually mostly clothed when I come out (maybe don't have on my jacket or have put on socks/shoes).

Again, I think you are over blowing this situation. JMO.

That's really where I ultimately fall on the issue. After considering just how few transsexuals there are, I see no real need for legislation in either direction. People are so passionate and emotional about this issue, when the reality is that you're probably more likely to be a victim of violence or abuse than to even encounter a transsexual.

The concern about predators masquerading as transsexuals makes sense to me, but there is a simpler answer to that than requiring trans women to use men's facilities: make gawking at or recording people in bathrooms or locker rooms a felony like sexual assault, and enforce it. As for dorms, there's bound to be at least one person in a dorm that has no issue with a transsexual roommate, unless we're talking about Liberty University. Were transsexuals not using bathrooms, locker rooms, or not going to college five years ago?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Not being dismissive at all, but you are working off the other extreme that I am enigma, which is certainly not true.

I don't think you're enigma, I just don't think you represent the majority.

As far as living situations, again, if someone presents as female, who am I to question. I wouldn't. But you are also assuming that a transgender person would feel comfortable living with a complete stranger as well. My guess is that the situation is incredibly personal and not one that someone who is transgender is just going to reveal (or in your mind "display") to just anyone. I just think that the situation would be rare and could be dealt with on a situation by situation basis if someone feels uncomfortable. Mandating that you must present or be inspected to prove your gender is not something I would wish upon anyone.

I think a simple set of questions whose answers are guarded for privacy by the school would help:

1. Are you cisgender (your sex assigned at birth and your gender identity are the same)?

2. If the answer to #1 is "no," and you identify as female, have you undergone sex reassignment surgery?

A set of questions elsewhere on the application would be "Would you be comfortable having someone who is not cisgender but has not undergone reassignment surgery as a roommate?"

Then pair people up accordingly. If someone isn't comfortable with that, they would either be assigned a cisgender female roommate or a transgender female who has gone "all the way" so to speak.

Again, I just don't see this situation as being any different as any of the other above scenarios I presented earlier. You could be a roommate with someone who has homicidal tendencies, how is that not more of a problem? What if someone is suicidal and is constantly threatening to take their own life? Those are situations with which there is much more risk and danger.

It follows the fallacy that if you can't screen for or fix every problem or danger, then screening for certain other problems/dangers can't or shouldn't be done. And I know that's not a line of reason that you apply to other areas.

In terms of locker rooms partitions... it wouldn't have to be everywhere, but there could be a few designated private spaces. Frankly, when I shower in a locker room, I usually end up changing in the shower stall. I am usually mostly clothed when I come out (maybe don't have on my jacket or have put on socks/shoes).

Again, I think you are over blowing this situation. JMO.

And I still think you are being dismissive because it doesn't bother you.

[homersapien 11,451]

These types of situations you pull out though suggest that someone is hiding their "true gender" because they want to assault someone.

No they don't. But they are hiding their true biological sex. And to most women, telling them you are trans and feel like you are really a woman isn't going to change much about how they feel. And I imagine someone finding out 6 months later that they've been sharing private spaces, changing clothes and so on with a person who is biologically and anatomically male is not going to make them very happy.

And if they are a rape survivor, there's no telling what kind of triggering episode that discovery might be.

I would think with HIPPA and other privacy laws, disclosing this type of thing would be a huge violation of someone's privacy and medical condition. You also aren't entitled to not have a disabled roommate, or someone who hasn't been diagnosed with severe depression, who is bipolar.

But if you chose a single-sex dorm (as a girl), you do have a right and an expectation that you are actually sharing your intimate living quarters with an actual girl. That you aren't going to walk in and discover that your "female" roommate is actually a boy in every way except what they perceive between their ears.

Nor are you entitled to even know such things. If you aren't comfortable with a "blind roommate" situation then you either come to college with a roommate or live off-campus.

There is no such thing as a dorm where you could request "no cripples" or "sighted only." But there are single-sex dorms and they exist for very good reasons. It is not right to put someone in a room with someone who is not a biological female, particularly if they haven't had a sex change operation, and not tell them.

I get that we don't want to unnecessarily bring emotional distress to the trans person here and I'm trying to be nice about this, but they aren't the only person's feelings and concerns that matter here.

It's very obvious you have not ever spoken to/interacted (knowingly) with someone who is transgender. I don't think you realize just how tough it is. I would just urge you to open your mind a little bit. You don't have to agree, but just try to understand. You keep bringing up your daughters. What is one of them was transgender?

Watch some of these interviews.

Most mental illnesses are very tough. Why would gender dysphoria be any different? I empathize with them and their problems, I simply disagree that I have to be an enabler of that problem by accepting their delusions as reality.

APA on transgender treatment

In my world, study of any given idea is complete when it can be proven manifestly false. I'm not personally preoccupied with the transsexual phenomenon primarily because sex is a genetic proposition and is determined by chromosomes - not by emotional confusion. I find it an utterly preposterous proposition that a woman could, in reality, be trapped inside a man's body or vice versa. If you choose to believe that which can be proven manifestly false by determining what sort of package any given individual is carrying, then have at it. I'll stick to the bounds of reality. In my view, caving into these delusions is part of the problem not the solution.

Denial is really your schtick, isn't it?

[homersapien 11,451]

......edit.......

Titan, usually you are not this irrational and emotionally driven on these issues. I mean no disrespect as I find your opinions to often be very thoughtful even if I disagree. This time, you seem to be caught in the trap of fear, and reacting purely on emotion instead of putting yourself in the other person's shoes. I suspect this is really just a case of the fear of the unknown.

You're right, but he's the father of young girls. Even though I don't have daughters, I get it.

You know what they say: have a son and you have only have to worry about one little prick, have a daughter and you have to worry about them all.

[channonc 466]

......edit.......

Titan, usually you are not this irrational and emotionally driven on these issues. I mean no disrespect as I find your opinions to often be very thoughtful even if I disagree. This time, you seem to be caught in the trap of fear, and reacting purely on emotion instead of putting yourself in the other person's shoes. I suspect this is really just a case of the fear of the unknown.

You're right, but he's the father of young girls. Even though I don't have daughters, I get it.

You know what they say: have a son and you have only have to worry about one little prick, have a daughter and you have to worry about them all.

Sure, but I also get the parents of transgender kids and what they have to go through too just for their child to have as much of a normal childhood as possible.

[homersapien 11,451]

......edit.......

Titan, usually you are not this irrational and emotionally driven on these issues. I mean no disrespect as I find your opinions to often be very thoughtful even if I disagree. This time, you seem to be caught in the trap of fear, and reacting purely on emotion instead of putting yourself in the other person's shoes. I suspect this is really just a case of the fear of the unknown.

You're right, but he's the father of young girls. Even though I don't have daughters, I get it.

You know what they say: have a son and you have only have to worry about one little prick, have a daughter and you have to worry about them all.

Sure, but I also get the parents of transgender kids and what they have to go through too just for their child to have as much of a normal childhood as possible.

But there's not enough of them to ever matter.

Most people have to be personally exposed to such differences before they can accept them. There are enough homosexuals that most people either know one or have one in their family. Transexuals are just out of luck.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I have worked closely with and been friends with quite a few gay people over the years. They are dear to me and they know this. We had many long, in depth talks on these matters over beer or coffee. Used to travel on business trips with some of them and be hanging out every evening after the trade shows for a week solid several times a year. I've been to their houses and they to mine.

While you're right that spending time with people and getting to know them lends itself to a greater understanding and compassion (hopefully both ways), it doesn't necessarily change ones core beliefs on a matter. I imagine I would gain a great deal of insight if I was to get to know a trans person better. But that doesn't mean I ultimately would change my mind on this.

[Strychnine 1,804]

I have worked closely with and been friends with quite a few gay people over the years. They are dear to me and they know this. We had many long, in depth talks on these matters over beer or coffee. Used to travel on business trips with some of them and be hanging out every evening after the trade shows for a week solid several times a year. I've been to their houses and they to mine.

While you're right that spending time with people and getting to know them lends itself to a greater understanding and compassion (hopefully both ways), it doesn't necessarily change ones core beliefs on a matter. I imagine I would gain a great deal of insight if I was to get to know a trans person better. But that doesn't mean I ultimately would change my mind on this.

I do know a few trans women, but I've never met a trans man that I know of. While they are not my best friends, they are close enough that they can call me for a favor. In discussing this issue with them, they did not want a law one way or the other; they prefer to just be left alone. Prior to meeting them, I'd never cared or even thought about transsexuality. As you surmise, I did gain a great deal of insight from getting to know them. They think of using women's facilities as the path of least resistance, not a statement. Their male genitalia is a constant source of shame to them, and it is something they are constantly self-conscious of. For lack of a better way to describe it, they are OCD in that regard. They are more concerned with anyone seeing it than you, your wife, or your kids ever would be. They consider themselves women, and they go to VERY great lengths to convince everyone else that they are.

While my own experience is obviously a very small sample size (and I'm sure there are exceptions to it), I'm inclined to think it is the dominant perspective of trans women.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

We have reached peak gender idiocy. For frick's sake...

You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use

That’s the official legal guidance from the New York City Commission on Human Rights:

The NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law] requires employers[, landlords, and all businesses and professionals] to use an [employee’s, tenant’s, customer’s, or client’s] preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.

Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. [Footnote: Ze and hir are popular gender-free pronouns preferred by some transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals.] …

Examples of Violations

a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses …

Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.

So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie.

We have to use “ze,” a made-up word that carries an obvious political connotation (endorsement of the “non-binary” view of gender). We have to call people “him” and “her” even if we believe that people’s genders are determined by their biological sex and not by their self-perceptions — perceptions that, by the way, can rapidly change, for those who are “gender-fluid” — and that using terms tied to self-perception is basically a lie. (I myself am not sure whether people who are anatomically male, for example, but perceive themselves as female should be viewed as men or women; perhaps one day I’ll be persuaded that they should be viewed as women; my objection is to being forced to express that view.) We can’t be required to even display a license plate that says “Live Free or Die” on our car, if we object to the message; that’s what the court held in Wooley v. Maynard (1978). But New York is requiring people to actually say words that convey a message of approval of the view that gender is a matter of self-perception rather than anatomy, and that, as to “ze,” were deliberately created to convey that a message.

What’s more, according to the City, “refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.” The label “harassment” is important here because harassment law requires employers and businesses to prevent harassment by co-workers and patrons and not just by themselves or their own employees; this is particularly well established for harassment by co-workers, but it has also been accepted for harassment by fellow patrons. So an employer or business that learns that its employees or patrons are “refus[ing] to use a transgender employee’s preferred” pronoun or title would have to threaten to fire or eject such people unless they comply with the City’s demands. (The logic would also apply to landlords having to threaten to eject tenants who refuse to use co-tenants’ preferred pronouns or titles, but that’s less certain.)

But of course “ze” and “Ms./Mrs.” are just examples. We have to use the person’s “preferred … pronoun and title,” whatever those preferences might be. Some people could say they prefer “glugga” just as well as saying “ze”; the whole point is that people are supposed to be free to define their own gender, and their own pronouns and titles. Seems improbable that some people would come up with new terms like that? Well, 10 or 20 years ago it would have seemed pretty improbable that today New Yorkers would be required to call some people “ze.” Check out this list, which already includes “zie,” “sie” (not the German version), “ey,” “ve,” “tey,” “e,” “(f)ae,” “per” and “xe.” Why wouldn’t some creative folks decide they want to add still more?

Or what if some people insist that their title is “Milord,” or “Your Holiness”? They may look like non-gender-related titles, but who’s to say? What if someone decides that one of the 56 genders is indeed especially noble or holy and that those really are the preferred gender terms? Or even if “Your Holiness” is understood as purely religious (again, why would that be so, given that the point is that people are supposed to be free to define their own gender self-conception and the words that go with it), presumably the same logic that applies to gender-related self-chosen titles would apply to religion-related self-chosen titles. Both sex and religious discrimination are, after all, prohibited by the same laws; by the City’s logic, if you call a Catholic priest “Father,” you’d have to use whatever other self-chosen religious titles people insist on. Nor is the mandated “ze”-talk analogous to simple requirements that people be treated the same regardless of race or religion (requirements that may themselves be constrained by the First Amendment in some situations). The analogy would be if the government demanded that people have to be addressed using their own preferred race- or religion-linked titles — hypothetically, enforcing people’s demands that “you need to use the title ‘Sun Person’ when you refer to me, because I’m black,” or “you need to use the title ‘rav’ with me because I’m Jewish,” or “you need to use the title ‘friend’ with me because I’m a Quaker,” or “you need to address me as ‘thee’ rather than ‘you’ because I’m a Quaker.” Such a requirement would be just as bad as the “ze” one.

And this isn’t just the government as employer, requiring its employees to say things that keep government patrons happy with government services. This is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak. Nor is this likely to stay in New York City: The New York officials are arguing that this is just what the New York gender identity discrimination ban requires, and indeed it is part of the standard ideology expressed by many transgender rights activists; the same logic would be easily applicable by jurisdictions that have gender identity discrimination bans, or will have such bans; the federal government is taking the view that existing federal bans on sex discrimination also in effect ban gender identity discrimination, and the New York analysis would equally apply to that view; and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has already taken the view that it is illegal under federal law to persistently call employees by pronouns that correspond to their anatomical sex but not their gender identity, though it has not yet had occasion to opine about “ze.”

Feel uncomfortable about being forced to use terms that express social status views (“Milord”) or religious views (“Your Holiness”) that you may not endorse? Well, you should feel uncomfortable about people being forced to use “ze,” which expresses a view about gender that they might not endorse. And, more broadly, I think we should all feel uncomfortable about government regulators forcing people to say things that convey and support the government’s ideology about gender.

Thanks to the pseudonymous Richard E. Thompson (Federalist Society Blog) for the pointer; Prof. Josh Blackman also blogged about this issue a few months ago.

https://www.washingt...d-that-you-use/

[TheBlueVue 177]

We have reached peak gender idiocy. For frick's sake...

You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use

That’s the official legal guidance from the New York City Commission on Human Rights:

The NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law] requires employers[, landlords, and all businesses and professionals] to use an [employee’s, tenant’s, customer’s, or client’s] preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.

Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. [Footnote: Ze and hir are popular gender-free pronouns preferred by some transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals.] …

Examples of Violations

a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses …

Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.

So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie.

We have to use “ze,” a made-up word that carries an obvious political connotation (endorsement of the “non-binary” view of gender). We have to call people “him” and “her” even if we believe that people’s genders are determined by their biological sex and not by their self-perceptions — perceptions that, by the way, can rapidly change, for those who are “gender-fluid” — and that using terms tied to self-perception is basically a lie. (I myself am not sure whether people who are anatomically male, for example, but perceive themselves as female should be viewed as men or women; perhaps one day I’ll be persuaded that they should be viewed as women; my objection is to being forced to express that view.) We can’t be required to even display a license plate that says “Live Free or Die” on our car, if we object to the message; that’s what the court held in Wooley v. Maynard (1978). But New York is requiring people to actually say words that convey a message of approval of the view that gender is a matter of self-perception rather than anatomy, and that, as to “ze,” were deliberately created to convey that a message.

What’s more, according to the City, “refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.” The label “harassment” is important here because harassment law requires employers and businesses to prevent harassment by co-workers and patrons and not just by themselves or their own employees; this is particularly well established for harassment by co-workers, but it has also been accepted for harassment by fellow patrons. So an employer or business that learns that its employees or patrons are “refus[ing] to use a transgender employee’s preferred” pronoun or title would have to threaten to fire or eject such people unless they comply with the City’s demands. (The logic would also apply to landlords having to threaten to eject tenants who refuse to use co-tenants’ preferred pronouns or titles, but that’s less certain.)

But of course “ze” and “Ms./Mrs.” are just examples. We have to use the person’s “preferred … pronoun and title,” whatever those preferences might be. Some people could say they prefer “glugga” just as well as saying “ze”; the whole point is that people are supposed to be free to define their own gender, and their own pronouns and titles. Seems improbable that some people would come up with new terms like that? Well, 10 or 20 years ago it would have seemed pretty improbable that today New Yorkers would be required to call some people “ze.” Check out this list, which already includes “zie,” “sie” (not the German version), “ey,” “ve,” “tey,” “e,” “(f)ae,” “per” and “xe.” Why wouldn’t some creative folks decide they want to add still more?

Or what if some people insist that their title is “Milord,” or “Your Holiness”? They may look like non-gender-related titles, but who’s to say? What if someone decides that one of the 56 genders is indeed especially noble or holy and that those really are the preferred gender terms? Or even if “Your Holiness” is understood as purely religious (again, why would that be so, given that the point is that people are supposed to be free to define their own gender self-conception and the words that go with it), presumably the same logic that applies to gender-related self-chosen titles would apply to religion-related self-chosen titles. Both sex and religious discrimination are, after all, prohibited by the same laws; by the City’s logic, if you call a Catholic priest “Father,” you’d have to use whatever other self-chosen religious titles people insist on. Nor is the mandated “ze”-talk analogous to simple requirements that people be treated the same regardless of race or religion (requirements that may themselves be constrained by the First Amendment in some situations). The analogy would be if the government demanded that people have to be addressed using their own preferred race- or religion-linked titles — hypothetically, enforcing people’s demands that “you need to use the title ‘Sun Person’ when you refer to me, because I’m black,” or “you need to use the title ‘rav’ with me because I’m Jewish,” or “you need to use the title ‘friend’ with me because I’m a Quaker,” or “you need to address me as ‘thee’ rather than ‘you’ because I’m a Quaker.” Such a requirement would be just as bad as the “ze” one.

And this isn’t just the government as employer, requiring its employees to say things that keep government patrons happy with government services. This is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak. Nor is this likely to stay in New York City: The New York officials are arguing that this is just what the New York gender identity discrimination ban requires, and indeed it is part of the standard ideology expressed by many transgender rights activists; the same logic would be easily applicable by jurisdictions that have gender identity discrimination bans, or will have such bans; the federal government is taking the view that existing federal bans on sex discrimination also in effect ban gender identity discrimination, and the New York analysis would equally apply to that view; and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has already taken the view that it is illegal under federal law to persistently call employees by pronouns that correspond to their anatomical sex but not their gender identity, though it has not yet had occasion to opine about “ze.”

Feel uncomfortable about being forced to use terms that express social status views (“Milord”) or religious views (“Your Holiness”) that you may not endorse? Well, you should feel uncomfortable about people being forced to use “ze,” which expresses a view about gender that they might not endorse. And, more broadly, I think we should all feel uncomfortable about government regulators forcing people to say things that convey and support the government’s ideology about gender.

Thanks to the pseudonymous Richard E. Thompson (Federalist Society Blog) for the pointer; Prof. Josh Blackman also blogged about this issue a few months ago.

https://www.washingt...d-that-you-use/

Its these kind of things that wont let us forget that Mao Zedong was the originator of political correctness. Of course Mao went on to murder 40 million plus of his fellow countrymen to insure the correct political point of view. The direction all of this is taking here sure resembles tyranny to me and begs the question....where does it all end?

[lca408 366]

I do know a few trans women, but I've never met a trans man that I know of. While they are not my best friends, they are close enough that they can call me for a favor. In discussing this issue with them, they did not want a law one way or the other; they prefer to just be left alone. Prior to meeting them, I'd never cared or even thought about transsexuality. As you surmise, I did gain a great deal of insight from getting to know them. They think of using women's facilities as the path of least resistance, not a statement. Their male genitalia is a constant source of shame to them, and it is something they are constantly self-conscious of. For lack of a better way to describe it, they are OCD in that regard. They are more concerned with anyone seeing it than you, your wife, or your kids ever would be. They consider themselves women, and they go to VERY great lengths to convince everyone else that they are.

While my own experience is obviously a very small sample size (and I'm sure there are exceptions to it), I'm inclined to think it is the dominant perspective of trans women.

I'm inclined to agree with this though I have very little personal experience to back it up. As I understand it, TG and TS people are generally very passive and unassuming. Someone who is genuinely trans won't want to call attention to their private parts, etc. Again, that's a limited sample size from what I know.

But to me, the problem here isn't about trans people or people who are legitimately afflicted with gender dysphoria and trying to transition. I think the problem is what Titan has harped on a lot - there's little to no rigor in establishing what is or is not a "genuine" person in transition. Anybody can self-identify with another gender and if they are committed enough to begin HRT and take other steps, I think they can legitimately be called TG or TS. But just because they start that process, does that mean they are automatically entitled to enter an opposite gender restroom without complaint or batting an eye? HRT doesn't take effect over night - it takes months and in some cases, even years to get to that point and only after the HRT has begun to really alter the appearance do TGs begin to dress like the opposite sex. Granted, the vast majority of TG and TS would not enter a woman's bathroom the day after they begin HRT, but what if someone did? Someone who was legitimately gender dysphoric, had begun transitioning and either because of their financial constraints or other factors, couldn't transition as quickly. What if this person decided that because they knew they were a "man" or a "woman" inside, despite the sex they were born with, they could and should enter bathrooms of the opposite sex even if they dressed and appeared like their natural born sex? While that is probably a very rare scenario for the above stated reasons, couldn't a man wanting to be a creep and pervert use this as an excuse? Under these proposed societal norms, would it even be possible to turn away a person undergoing HRT from the bathroom they identify with because they don't "appear" to be of that sex? Could that then open up the door for actual threats like straight men who wish to "identify" as a woman to purposefully enter a woman's bathroom, claim that they are on HRT and just starting the process? What do staff at the place of business, school, gym, etc. do in that case? Will the person have to present paperwork confirming that they are transitioning? Will TG or TS people have to carry a separate form of ID that they can show that "proves" they are who they say they are?

That sounds like an undue burden to me and something which could potentially be very upsetting for those hoping to transition one day. You can argue that such a scenario with a man walking into a bathroom wouldn't occur but why not? If such a scenario is within the realm of possibility, why couldn't someone actually carry it out? That person may be the 1% of TGs that would be in any way comfortable doing it but all it takes is one case to set precedent. That starts the ball rolling and opens the door for people trying to take advantage of the situation and eventually leads to unhappiness among straight, gay, and TG and TS folks all around.

[channonc 466]

Women are now getting harassed in bathrooms because of the anti-transgender hysteria

[maxwere 82]

Its these kind of things that wont let us forget that Mao Zedong was the originator of political correctness. Of course Mao went on to murder 40 million plus of his fellow countrymen to insure the correct political point of view. The direction all of this is taking here sure resembles tyranny to me and begs the question....where does it all end?

Surely this time is different for the left? The next totalitarian regime will surely be the one that loves social outcasts. Think progress.

[Mikey 16,737]

Women are now getting harassed in bathrooms because of the anti-transgender hysteria

Gee golly. I believe that most truly transgendered people wish that those dogs that had been sleeping for decades were simply left alone to lie quietly in the shade. Nobody needed to kick this sh** bucket and the controversy is only hurting those who are legitimate.

[channonc 466]

Women are now getting harassed in bathrooms because of the anti-transgender hysteria

Gee golly. I believe that most truly transgendered people wish that those dogs that had been sleeping for decades were simply left alone to lie quietly in the shade. Nobody needed to kick this sh** bucket and the controversy is only hurting those who are legitimate.

I guess you didn't read the article.

[Mikey 16,737]

Women are now getting harassed in bathrooms because of the anti-transgender hysteria

Gee golly. I believe that most truly transgendered people wish that those dogs that had been sleeping for decades were simply left alone to lie quietly in the shade. Nobody needed to kick this sh** bucket and the controversy is only hurting those who are legitimate.

I guess you didn't read the article.

Of course I read it. My conclusion about this entire affair is that had sleeping dogs been left to lie, none of this would be going on.

[homersapien 11,451]

Its these kind of things that wont let us forget that Mao Zedong was the originator of political correctness. Of course Mao went on to murder 40 million plus of his fellow countrymen to insure the correct political point of view. The direction all of this is taking here sure resembles tyranny to me and begs the question....where does it all end?

Surely this time is different for the left? The next totalitarian regime will surely be the one that loves social outcasts. Think progress.

Really? Who are these "social outcasts" as you would define them.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Lol.

Not in Austin. In Fort Worth...

Author was butt-hurt that he didn't get to take shots at Austin lol.

This thread has like the same arguments and statements as all the other threads about transgenders.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Lol.

Not in Austin. In Fort Worth...

Author was butt-hurt that he didn't get to take shots at Austin lol.

This thread has like the same arguments and statements as all the other threads about transgenders.

No, the author was simply pointing out that this wasn't happening in a liberal enclave of the state like Austin. And if this kind of brainless stuff can happen in relatively conservative Ft. Worth, it can (and likely will) happen everywhere else.

Indeed, this thread does have all the same arguments and statements about transgenders...on both sides.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

A woman is outraged after she says a man was permitted to use the women’s dressing room at a Mesquite, Texas, Ross department store on Monday.

Lisa Sickles said she was using the women’s dressing room when she suddenly “heard a man’s voice.” She said she immediately told the store’s manager.

“She went inside the dressing room, came right back out and called me to the side and told me… he was representing himself as a woman today (emphasis mine),” Sickles told CBS DFW.

However, Sickles said the man “was in no way dressed as a woman.”

“He had on jeans, a t-shirt, 5 o’clock shadow, very deep voice. He was a man,” she recalled.

A Ross spokesperson reportedly said the company does not discriminate against transgender individuals, but refused to comment on this particular case.

Sickles said the incident left her feeling as if her feelings didn’t matter.

“What about me? Or my feelings?” she said.

Sickles claimed the manager told her if she “felt uncomfortable in the dressing room with him there,” she should “wait until he’s finished.”

Ross isn’t alone in its bathroom policy. Target, TJ Maxx and Marshalls all reportedly allow customers to use restrooms and dressing rooms based on their gender identity.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/18/woman-claims-she-was-in-ross-dressing-room-when-she-heard-a-mans-voice-she-couldnt-believe-managers-response/

Viva la progression!

[maxwere 82]

Its these kind of things that wont let us forget that Mao Zedong was the originator of political correctness. Of course Mao went on to murder 40 million plus of his fellow countrymen to insure the correct political point of view. The direction all of this is taking here sure resembles tyranny to me and begs the question....where does it all end?

Surely this time is different for the left? The next totalitarian regime will surely be the one that loves social outcasts. Think progress.

Really? Who are these "social outcasts" as you would define them.

Small minority groups and groups that threaten state power. Lenin was very open, but Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Nicolae Ceaușescu all criminalized non heterosexual behavior.

[homersapien 11,451]

Its these kind of things that wont let us forget that Mao Zedong was the originator of political correctness. Of course Mao went on to murder 40 million plus of his fellow countrymen to insure the correct political point of view. The direction all of this is taking here sure resembles tyranny to me and begs the question....where does it all end?

Surely this time is different for the left? The next totalitarian regime will surely be the one that loves social outcasts. Think progress.

Really? Who are these "social outcasts" as you would define them.

Small minority groups and groups that threaten state power. Lenin was very open, but Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Nicolae Ceaușescu all criminalized non heterosexual behavior.

You are as obscure as 78.