More bathroom politics

[fromderinside]

Bullshit. While communities do not identify idividuals, they identify customs. People that appear male, use the men's room. People that appear female, use the ladies room. It is quite simple. Always has been. Transgender is not new. The ability for any asshole to be widely heard is the only new thing here.
It is a men's room, not a 'sexually interested in females room'. It is a lady's room, not a 'sexually interested in men room'.
I personally do not want to know the sexual interests of strangers.. why do you?

The division is to make the people using the facility comfortable. What makes people comfortable is that they are sharing it with people that have the same pee-pee organs. not that the use their pee-pee organs the same way for fun.

Its a place for persons to perform a periodically necessary biological function that the state stands up to provide. Individual stalls with latches cost more that's all. There is no standard to which one needs to adhere. Unless, of course, you choose to have cafeteria style service. There is no constitutional right for that.

So put your social customs BS back on the shelf and get with solving the 'problem' with those who have one rather than trying to justify how to make things difficult for those who already have fought the battle.

 

[Derec]

When choosing which urinal to use, pick the one that is most distant from all other users. It is impolite to choose an adjacent urinal when another option is available.

Also known as Hund's Rule for urinals.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[repoman]

So is this going to end up like the shower scene in "Starship Troopers"?

 

[Sarpedon]

I hope so!

 

[bilby]

I find the residual puritanism that causes Americans (and the inhabitants of other British colonies and ex-colonies) to resile from the idea of shared washing, changing, defecation and urination facilities for men and women faintly amusing.

There is no non-religious reason why such facilities cannot be shared. The most common 'reasons' proposed are completely lacking in any kind of actual reasoning.

The fact is that naked humans are only more arousing than clothed ones because of their rarity in our society - in societies where nudity is habitual, clothing and arousal are not associated with each other in any way (and apart from the novelty factor, that's true of societies where nudity is taboo, too; people are easily aroused by attractive people, even if they are fully clothed).

And when it comes to facilities used mainly for defecation and urination (confusingly and euphemistically called 'bathrooms'), visible nudity is rare anyway. What (other than God's wrath at our lack of formalized and codified shame) are we supposed to be scared of?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do lefties want peope who are cisgendered to be able to go to the opposite gender restroom or locker room?

In one of our venues we are eliminating gendered restrooms altogether. These restrooms are busy and if something were to happen there would be dozens of witnesses.

As for locker rooms. I already have women in my locker room and we dress in front of each other. Once you get used to it, it is no big deal. We are human.

Which is certainly how it should be with restrooms. Stalls and urinals, forget about gender.

I would think it would be the right answer with locker room also but I'm not as sure there.

- - - Updated - - -

So is this going to end up like the shower scene in "Starship Troopers"?

View attachment 6714

For the military that's certainly the way to go. Under field conditions you won't always be able to have privacy--get over the body shyness before you're in a situation where it matters.

 

[Derec]

As for locker rooms. I already have women in my locker room and we dress in front of each other. Once you get used to it, it is no big deal. We are human.

What context is that in? And can I join?

 

[Angry Floof]

Holding to this original purpose, the proposed guidance is to go with biological standards, not psychological.

What do you see as the problem with that?

How are you going to do this without a genital check? Or issuing IDs at birth?


And then there is this problem of Intersex Humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

I think they'll probably go with a yellow star or something easy like that for simpletons to notice and respond as conditioned with some level of violence.

 

[bigfield]

So is this going to end up like the shower scene in "Starship Troopers"?

View attachment 6714

More like this:

just mixed-gender.

 

[Jarhyn]

Because it essentially defines predators as 'people with penises' and further assumes that a supernatural sky daddy will get all manner of angry if a guy with a manhole instead of a manpole walks into a bathroom to do his business with the rest of the guys. It assumes that there will for whatever reason be some echoing effect if we just stop caring what people have between their legs. It's a continuing assumption that separate is not just equal but necessary.

 

[Malintent]

I find the residual puritanism that causes Americans (and the inhabitants of other British colonies and ex-colonies) to resile from the idea of shared washing, changing, defecation and urination facilities for men and women faintly amusing.

There is no non-religious reason why such facilities cannot be shared. The most common 'reasons' proposed are completely lacking in any kind of actual reasoning.

The fact is that naked humans are only more arousing than clothed ones because of their rarity in our society - in societies where nudity is habitual, clothing and arousal are not associated with each other in any way (and apart from the novelty factor, that's true of societies where nudity is taboo, too; people are easily aroused by attractive people, even if they are fully clothed).

And when it comes to facilities used mainly for defecation and urination (confusingly and euphemistically called 'bathrooms'), visible nudity is rare anyway. What (other than God's wrath at our lack of formalized and codified shame) are we supposed to be scared of?

I agree and actually, evidenced by the popularity of "Victoria's Secret" and the like, certain clothing can be more of an enticement than total nudity.

I don't see the big deal with how people work out which bathroom to use... I have never seen it as a problem, and if the direction people are thinking is to have unisex bathrooms, then the "problem" seems even more contrived and BS.
how can one claim there is a problem with certain people using a certain bathroom, and then say the solution is that everyone uses the same bathroom?

 

[TSwizzle]

They are going with what they call "common-sense" definitions. {snip}
What do you see as the problem with that?

I think it's the "common sense" part that is the problem.

They really are bonkers.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

More like this:

just mixed-gender.

This is the perfect reply to Derec's Inquiry. Lots of fat lumps, bruises, and patchy hair, even on the athletes.

 

[Derec]

This is the perfect reply to Derec's Inquiry. Lots of fat lumps, bruises, and patchy hair, even on the athletes.

Are you a part of a co-ed boxing league or what?

 

[braces_for_impact]

http://abc11.com/politics/gov-pat-mccrory-faces-feds-deadline-on-lgbt-law/1329642/

This is the argument they are going with?

Really?

They are going with what they call "common-sense" definitions. The purpose of biologically segregated bathrooms is to separate people by biology, not by sexual identity. Holding to this original purpose, the proposed guidance is to go with biological standards, not psychological.

What do you see as the problem with that?

To turn an old adage on it's head. I personally find that "common sense" is all too common, and rarely makes much sense. It lacks nuance, and is often plain wrong. Common sense tells us the sun revolves around the earth. I mean, just look at it.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

This is the perfect reply to Derec's Inquiry. Lots of fat lumps, bruises, and patchy hair, even on the athletes.

Are you a part of a co-ed boxing league or what?

Roller derby.

- - - Updated - - -

They are going with what they call "common-sense" definitions. The purpose of biologically segregated bathrooms is to separate people by biology, not by sexual identity. Holding to this original purpose, the proposed guidance is to go with biological standards, not psychological.

What do you see as the problem with that?

To turn an old adage on it's head. I personally find that "common sense" is all too common, and rarely makes much sense. It lacks nuance, and is often plain wrong. Common sense tells us the sun revolves around the earth. I mean, just look at it.

It also tells us the sky is blue, but I've seen it pink, purple, red and orange!

 

[Malintent]

This is the perfect reply to Derec's Inquiry. Lots of fat lumps, bruises, and patchy hair, even on the athletes.

Are you a part of a co-ed boxing league or what?

That's what I'll call it... thanks!

 

[ronburgundy]

It was never a problem before a vocal minority declared it a problem of some sort.

Yes, it is a small group of conservatives who have declared it a problem. Otherwise it ain't been a problem for years.

So, I sincerely don't know the timeline of how this became such an issue. I know that starting a couple of years ago, several conservative states passed laws that criminalized use of bathrooms by transgenders, no matter how passable they were for that gender or how accepted they were in that bathroom.

OTOH, I get the sense that such laws were themselves reactions to various incidents happening in schools. It really all comes down to schools. Everyone at school knows what kids are transgender, because they are around them all the time. Even, externally "convincing" transgenders are known. Thus, whenever they enter the bathroom of their non-biological sex, all the females in their know that a biological male is in there with them. I get the sense that it was actually transgenders and their advocates who ignited the issue by pushing for transgenders using female restrooms in schools (the vast majority are M to F), where it is inherently an issue because of the larger social context in which the biological sex of the transgender is well known and all the students involved have daily interactions, and the bathrooms are commonly used for changing and primping, and things that expose oneself. Plus, in several places transgenders have pushed to have the transgender with full male anatomy change along side biological girls.

It is not just conservative politicians reacting to that, but the girls themselves, many (if not most) who feel as or more uncomfortable with that as the transgender does using the bathroom or locker corresponding to their biological anatomy. It is perfectly legit to question why the psychological comfort of a transgender should trump the psychological comfort of numerous young girls, who are not being bigots but just having natural insecurities and emotional reactions about exposing themselves in front of biological males and being exposed to male genitalia, no matter what type of underwear is being taken off to expose it.

Conservatives are making the wrong arguments and most are likely just reacting based on bigoted fears. But there is a very legit basis to doubt the reasonableness, ethics, and fairness of forcing biological females to defecate and get naked in the same room as biological males. It is no more bigoted or intolerant of the females who object than it is bigoted or intolerant for the transgender to not want to use the room that males use.

The blindness of so many on the left to such legit concerns and the psychological welfare of young women on this issue is just part of their general ideology that the only struggles, preferences, or concerns that matter are those of people who belong to non-majority categories.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I don't know what goes on in the bathrooms in your part of the world, but we have stalls. I've never seen the penis of another man in any public restroom.