MPR MN Bathroom Bill
Not sure why a birth certificate is required... But if you have a penis and no breasts I think you should use the Men's room... And if you have a vagina and breasts I think you should use the Women's room. Seems simple to me. Thoughts?
Not sure why a birth certificate is required... But if you have a penis and no breasts I think you should use the Men's room... And if you have a vagina and breasts I think you should use the Women's room. Seems simple to me. Thoughts?
68 comments:
I think you should develop more sensitivity to transgender people. I don't mind sharing the women's rest room. If my kids saw someone at school who appeared they might be in the wrong restroom I wouldn't sue for damages.
Kansas Bill Would Pay Students A $2,500 Bounty To Hunt For Trans People In Bathrooms
Laurie,
I realize that I am a simple person...
Rule 1: Penis = Male Vagina = Female
I do not want a penis in the locker room with my daughters... As soon as the penis is removed and replaced with a vagina I am happy to be more understanding...
"state lawmakers have introduced a pair of bills that would prohibit transgender students from using restrooms that match their gender." See Rule 1...
I think you should develop more sensitivity to normal women and girls who do not to see a penis in their locker room...
It is interesting that some very very low percentage of people can be allowed to traipse on the freedoms and sense of propriety of the majority.
It amuses me that we are so ashamed of our bodies in this country. I'm certain it stems from the pervasive puritanical rot that we just can't seem to get rid of.
If a penis (never mind that it belongs to someone who identifies as female) is that upsetting to girls in a locker room, perhaps it's not the penis' problem.
Your previous two comments are full of shaming language. If you prefer to have blood on your hands, John, by shaming these people until they commit suicide, so be it. I will do what I can to thwart such bullying.
match their gender John, you might consider educating yourself on the difference between gender and biological sex. They should not be used interchangeably.
Joel
I think the folks who give us these scenarios about transgender folks walking around women's bathrooms with their penises hanging out are telling us a lot more about themselves than they are about transgender folks.
Sorry guys. I am no prude, however even I would be uncomfortable if I am standing at a urinal or drying off after a shower and some who has all the female parts walks in.
It is amazing that you are so sensitive to the wants of the Transgender person and so insensitive to the wants of the non-Transgender person.
Along those LGBT Supporters being intolerant and insensitive lines...
"It is amazing that you are so sensitive to the wants of the Transgender person and so insensitive to the wants of the non-Transgender person."
Historically speaking, who are the folks getting harassed and assaulted in bathrooms?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(Hint: it's not the non-transgender persons.)
If a physical man walks into a physical woman's bathroom I expect them to be chased out. If you have a man's body, just use the man's bathroom... Or is "she" uncomfortable about seeing a penis?
I wonder how she pees if she does not want to see a penis? This is so confusing. :-)
"Along those LGBT Supporters being intolerant and insensitive lines..."
So you only like it when companies like Hobby Lobby express their opinions on public policy issues?
"It is amazing that you are so sensitive to the wants of the Transgender person and so insensitive to the wants of the non-Transgender person."
Would we accept the following statement from one single person in this day and age?
"It is amazing that you are so sensitive to the wants of the slave and so insensitive to the wants of the slave-owner."
or
"It is amazing that you are so sensitive to the wants of the woman and so insensitive to the wants of a man."
Get over your fear.
Joel
Sean,
Hobby Lobby was asking to not be forced to buy "bullets". (ie abortificients)
I am fine with people raising their opinion, I just find it amusing when the "tolerant people" bash people who think and believe differently than them.
As for the "insensitive comment", I was having fun with Laurie's first comment. "I think you should develop more sensitivity to transgender people."
Your comment... "telling us a lot more about themselves than they are about transgender folks."
Joel's comments... "perhaps it's not the penis' problem." "Your previous two comments are full of shaming language. If you prefer to have blood on your hands, John, by shaming these people until they commit suicide, so be it."
No where in this string have vilified transgender folks for wanting to use a specific bathroom. I have only stated my belief that "body parts should determine the bathroom."
And yet I and people like me have been in essence accused of being insensitive, shaming, promoting suicide, etc. It is interesting.
Joel,
You won't here it about slavery because it is illegal and almost everyone in our society is against. The transgender support / against issue is much more balanced in our country.
By the way, I have not looked lately. Has science concluded the root cause of LGBT yet? Some way to scientifically determine if it is a physical/ neurological issue or a behavioral choice...
Of course I would say...
"It is amazing that you are so sensitive to the wants of the woman and so insensitive to the wants of a man."
Pretty much every time someone demands reverse discrimination that puts a less qualified woman in a job instead of a more qualified man. Demanding that it is the fair thing to do...
"And yet I and people like me have been in essence accused of being insensitive, shaming, promoting suicide, etc. It is interesting."
Have you ever considered the fact that you might actually be acting in such a manner, if you have multiple people telling you so?
Not in this case. I am considering the sources.
Folks who are only concerned regarding the wants, feelings and beliefs of those who self identify as LGBT.
And totally dismissive and condescending towards the wants, feelings and beliefs of people who self identify as Religious, Nervous around the other body parts, etc.
As I said. It is interesting how folks rationalize their actions and beliefs.
Interestingly, what the law would end up doing is forcing transmen, who look and act like men even though they may still have women's parts, to use a women's restroom. Now, how exactly do you think that will go over in the moment it is happening? Do you think a woman won't react negatively to a person with a beard walking into the same restroom as her? So, in essence, the transman will be forced out of the women's restroom, which the law would say he must use because of his biological sex, but he won't be able to use the men's restroom legally, also because of his biological sex. All because some people are too ignorant and fearful and full of disdain for something they don't understand.
Joel
In Minnesota, transgender persons have had equal rights to public accommodations since 1993. What has occurred in the last 23 years that would justify changing the law now? Has there been a surge of poor transgender behavior in restrooms? Or is it just fear?
"totally dismissive and condescending"
The most condescending thing in this thread was this statement:
"Or is "she" uncomfortable about seeing a penis?
I wonder how she pees if she does not want to see a penis? This is so confusing. :-)"
Sean,
They do have equal rights to public accommodations. The only question is which bath / locker room...
Most condescending thing... I think you folks have me beat by a ways. However I assume it is matter of perspective. Joel's latest is a good example. "All because some people are too ignorant and fearful and full of disdain for something they don't understand." And there are those I noted above.
I wonder how it would be taken if I labeled LGBT folks and their supporters as "ignorant and fearful and full of disdain"... Now that is what I would call totally dismissive and condescending.
"Transmen"... Lord I hope science catches up with this social norms issue sooner than later.
""state lawmakers have introduced a pair of bills that would prohibit transgender students from using restrooms that match their gender."
Excuse me, but can I just ask what the heck ever happened to common sense? People born with XX chromosomes are female, and those born with XY chromosomes are male. No amount of surgery or social conditioning or "wishing they were something else" changes that "sex" designation. Now we are told "gender" or what role one sees for themselves is "fluid" but we don't assign bathrooms and locker rooms by gender but by sex. And considering that a child psychiatric organization has determined that imposed or allowed gender dysphoria is child abuse, maybe we should stop upsetting the vast majority for the sake of a tiny few confused individuals.
"...but we don't assign bathrooms and locker rooms by gender but by sex."
Do we?
Would a trans person (XX chromosomes) whose outward appearance is decidedly male be welcome in a woman's restroom?
Would a trans person (XY chromosomes) whose outward appearance is decidedly female not get looks and comments in a man's restroom?
Perhaps you're thinking of transvestites.
And John, the only people I have disdain for are people with small minds and closed hearts, but perhaps I should have pity rather than disdain.
Joel
"Perhaps you're thinking of transvestites."
Exactly right. Putting on a dress doesn't make you a woman. Until you've had your surgery you should be using what Nature gave you. For those tiny few misguided folks who are so misguided they think otherwise, a private facility should be available for them, so that they aren't "getting comments" and so others aren't encouraged to make them. It's bad enough we have open locker rooms for our teenage girls, but to have some young lech decide he's a girl for the day? C'mon, where's the common sense in /forcing/ that by law, or even in allowing it? Time was any guy caught in the girls' was expelled, or worse.
If you want to close hearts and minds on something, pass a law about it. If you want it worked out best for "both sides," leave it to people to work out for themselves.
"Exactly right. Putting on a dress doesn't make you a woman."
Ignorance and condescension at its finest.
"If you want to close hearts and minds on something, pass a law about it."
This is exactly what Republicans are trying to do, in case you haven't noticed. For decades/centuries, we've never had a problem with people who look like women using a women's restroom and people who look like men using a men's restroom, but suddenly it's a BIG DEAL and we must pass laws so that NOT ALL people who look like men can use the men's restroom and NOT ALL people who look like women can use the women's restroom.
I guess they're trying really hard to create jobs. We'll have to have genitalia checkers at every restroom now to make sure nobody is breaking the law.
Joel
"with small minds and closed hearts"
The reality is that science has not conclusively weighed in on this topic, so "small minds" is not the issue.
We have Group 1 of people telling the world that LGBT is a physiological condition (ie like male/female), with almost no science to back it up.
We have Group 2 of people telling the world that LGBT is a behavioral choice (ie like choosing to own a pet), with almost no science to back it up.
Now allowing LGBT folks to marry and live their lives really does not directly impact the people in Group 2. Just as Hunters really don't directly impact PETA folks.
Now the bathroom / locker room and business association issues are kind of like if someone forced a PETA member to allow a Hunter on to their land. It definitely is a higher level of personal freedom impact, thus worthy of more discussion.
As for closed hearts. I think people in both Groups seem to have "closed hearts".
The Group 1 folks certainly don't to seem to care that they want to force others into an uncomfortable place that will cause them great anxiety. I mean some of the Group 2 people truly believe their souls are at risk for supporting and/or being exposed to a "sinful behavioral choice", and Group 1 folks just don't care.
The Group 2 folks certainly don't to seem to care that they want to force others into an uncomfortable place that will cause them great anxiety. I mean some of the Group 1 people have been tormented over the centuries, and Group 1 folks just don't care.
As I keep saying, hopefully science clarifies this soon...
"As I keep saying, hopefully science clarifies this soon."
Just like it has with climate change, right?
Joel,
"For decades/centuries, we've never had a problem with people who look like women using a women's restroom and people who look like men using a men's restroom, but suddenly it's a BIG DEAL and we must pass laws "
The reality is that the Group 1 folks kicked off this legal conflict 25 years by passing laws that must others accept and participate in their lifestyle / choice.
There would be no need to even have this legal discussion if the LGBT community had stayed living anonymously amongst the community. They chose to force societal and the legal fight began.
The Group 2 folks are just resisting laws that they think negatively impact their freedom. Just as the Group 1 folks are trying to create laws to promote their personal freedom.
No evil people here... Just self centered people...
"The Group 2 folks are just resisting laws that they think negatively impact their freedom."
They think this because they are "religious" (i.e. irrational), ignorant, and fearful.
Joel
Sean,
Climate change is huge with many many many causal factors, many possible reactions and change is very very very slow. Thus it is very hard to prove anything conclusively.
A simple DNA test can tell you if you are a man, woman, white, black, etc.
If being straight, LGBT or any of the other term Joel mentioned is a "state of being" like man, woman, white, black, etc (Group 1 Belief) it should be able to be repeatedly determined once that characteristic(s) is found.
Until then it could be just like PETA or Hunting. Something that people find interesting to do and feel very strongly about. (Group 2 Belief)
"There would be no need to even have this legal discussion if the LGBT community had stayed living anonymously amongst the community. They chose to force societal and the legal fight began."
And Rosa Parks should have just gone to the back of the bus, too, right? How dare people suggest that we face up to discrimination!
As we've gone over literally dozens of times, the science of LGBT behavior has nothing to do with the laws behind it. Stop using it as a crutch to justify bigotry.
Joel,
Again with your non-empathetic close minded condescension... No wonder Group 2 resists rolling over playing dead.
"religious" (i.e. irrational), ignorant, and fearful"
Until science proves otherwise, what I said is correct.
Joel
"Again with your non-empathetic close minded condescension..."
Also...No, I will not feel empathy for the bullies, the abusers, the oppressors. I will follow Christ's example and stand buy the bullied, the abused, and the oppressed.
Joel
And so says Group 1 and Group 2...
"Until science proves otherwise, what I said is correct."
And what will you do as you turn into the bully, abuser and oppressor who demands that ALL OTHERS believe and behave as you wish under threat of law?
As always... The path to hell is paved with good intentions...
"And what will you do as you turn into the bully, abuser and oppressor who demands that ALL OTHERS believe and behave as you wish under threat of law?"
Perhaps you should start with the Christian Right. They will know best what to do. They have a lot of experience demanding "that ALL OTHERS believe and behave as (they) wish under threat of law."
But the bullied, abused, and oppressed are only asking to be allowed to believe and behave as they wish without the threat of violence or the law. You are suggesting that the majority gets to rule as tyrants.
Joel
Joel,
And you are suggesting that the minority gets to rule as tyrants. Forcing free people to do things that they believe are improper, wrong, etc.
In the past is was the straight religious people demanding that the LGBT folks live by their belief system of what was correct. Now it is the LGBT folks who are demanding that all the straight religious folks live by their belief system of what was correct.
In essence it is like the roles have reversed. Ironic...
"Exactly right. Putting on a dress doesn't make you a woman."
"Ignorance and condescension at its finest." -- joel
Joel, what biology classes did you take in school? I think you are proving that a lot of liberal thought begins with an absolute denial of reality.
"Now it is the LGBT folks who are demanding that all the straight religious folks live by their belief system of what was correct."
That is just plain incorrect.
"...denial of reality."
And you deny the reality of real people's lives, hoping they'll just shut up and hide so you don't have to deal with something you don't understand or like.
What gives you the right to explain away someone else's psychology and physiology?
If you don't understand that biology and psychology are intertwined in humans...well...I have nothing nice to say.
Joel
"Plain Incorrect"?
It seems to me Group 1 is demanding that they be free to expose themselves (ie quite literally) to people in Group 2. (ie locker rooms, bathrooms, etc)
It seems to me Group 1 is demanding that people in Group 2 be forced to serve Group 1 people and participate in events that are against the Group 2 moral code. (ie photograph LGBT wedding, kissing, etc)
Pretty much the same as all those centuries that the religious straight folks demanded that the LGBT folk appear straight in public.
And now the Group 1 folks have no problem trouncing on the association and religion freedoms that our country was founded on. Meaning: They are becoming the bullies...
"What gives you the right to explain away someone else's psychology and physiology?"
What gives THEM the right to deny their physiology, substitute an aberrant psychology, and be supported and encouraged in it?
Look, you're perfectly entitled to think you are female, put on a red sequined cocktail dress and a long blond wig, and pretend you're Marilyn Monroe if you want. but if you want the rest of us to accept that about you, then you must accept that we think you're odd at the very best, and perhaps rightfully don't want to associate with your oddness.
Transgendered students have often been offered a private/faculty bathroom, but the bullies want to force mixing them in with "normal" students in these intimate settings. Why?
"It seems to me Group 1 is demanding that they be free to expose themselves..."
Ignorance of reality.
"...Group 1 is demanding that people in Group 2 be forced to serve Group 1..."
Public accomodations
"Pretty much the same"
Not at all.
"...religion freedoms..."
The last bastion in an argument for those who don't want to think for themselves.
Joel
"...don't want to associate with your oddness."
I'm sure there's an island somewhere you can live on by yourself if icky people upset you so much.
Joel
back at ya'
"...are only asking to be allowed to believe and behave as they wish..." -- Joel
AH! You have identified the crux of the problem. The "oppressors" do not and can not tell you how to think about your "gender." But when you BEHAVE contrariwise to your sex, they can have an opinion and you must tolerate that opinion.
And the argument is silly. We have laws against all kinds of behavior-- child abuse, polygamy, assault-- and ALL of them don't care a whit what the perpetrator's OPINION of right and wrong are.
"What gives THEM the right to deny their physiology, substitute an aberrant psychology, and be supported and encouraged in it?"
Just like a true Republican, not wanting people to have autonomy over their own lives.
You know absolutely nothing about these people and their personal journies, yet here you stand in judgment against them. Your God must be so proud of you.
Happy Good Friday, everyone.
Joel
"We have laws against all kinds of behavior-- child abuse, polygamy, assault"
More Republican B.S. equating personal identity with illegal acts. I should not be surprised anymore.
Joel
"But when you BEHAVE contrariwise to your sex..."
Like when women speak in public and work outside the home.
Joel
"More Republican B.S. equating personal identity with illegal acts."
Why do you have so much trouble separating "identity" from behavior? Nobody should have the right to jail a black man for being black, but if he shoots at you, we and the law should react accordingly. Nobody cares if you are gay or think your sex and gender don't match. But when you BEHAVE differently, say by putting on a dress and trying to enter the girls' room, you're making trouble. That isn't prejudice or discrimination or any of the other nasty words you throw around so freely. That is a standard of behavior that you claim the right to violate at will.
You don't know me, you're judging my words by your standards. Why am I not allowed the same judgments, by MY standards?
"Like when women speak in public and work outside the home."
There you go again, confusing sex and gender. Women who work outside the home are still female and have XX chromosomes (and other things) to prove it. They may not be conforming to (long past) traditional female gender roles at work, but I don't think most of them even see it that way. They're simply doing what they do, and hard-bound gender role restrictions don't matter. But they use the ladies room.
So you're okay with a man, or at least a person that looks like a man, using a woman's restroom. Good to know. Because how else would you know if the person in question is biologically a woman, even though they look entirely like a man, except by making them flash their genitals at you. Or should they wear pink triangles?
I used to think that people were generally intelligent.
Joel
Just like an LGBT supporter...
"not wanting people to have autonomy over their own lives."
John, I'm starting to understand Joel's argument and it goes like this: Anybody that disagrees with Joel, no matter how rational or reasonable they seem, are ignorant, stupid and evil. Why does that not convince me?
Jerry,
Since I have proposed that both side are self centered and willing to use law to limit the freedoms of others, do you as a member of Group 2 accept the following as reality? Why or why not?
"We have Group 2 of people telling the world that LGBT is a behavioral choice (ie like choosing to own a pet), with almost no science to back it up.
The Group 2 folks certainly don't to seem to care that they want to force others into an uncomfortable place that will cause them great anxiety. I mean some of the Group 1 people have been tormented over the centuries, and Group 1 folks just don't care."
if someone in your family was transgender, John, maybe you would become more open minded and empathetic. I was going to post some links to stories and videos of transgender children and their parents to educate you and help you to become more compassionate, but decided it was a waste of time (and I really didn't want to read your comments about these kids)
Anyway, if a child dresses/identifies as a girl, is referred to as she and wants to use the stall in the girl's bathroom is this really such a big deal? I think it is sort of a big deal if she is not allowed to. These kids have enough issues to deal with without adults freaking out and making their lives more difficult.
I sort of skimmed over your group 1 and group 2 comments. I don't really see the equivalence between discriminating against people and some parents feeling uncomfortable with the situation.
An interesting question that I don't even understand. Let's stick with the T part for the moment. You are born with XY chromosomes and have all the standard characteristics of a male. If something in your psychological makeup or your environment tries to convince you that you are female, does that make you female? I don't care what you THINK you are, or want to pretend you are, you're still a male, aren't you? Why should the rest of the world accept your opinion of yourself as overriding all the obvious physical evidence?
Laurie, if someone in my family was suffering from "gender dysphoria," I would try to get them some psychological help rather than surgery. Knowing that post-op Ts commit suicide at 20 times the normal rate, it seems the compassionate thing to do.
And just to be clear, restrooms with stalls aren't a big problem unless you're talking about adult males going into girls' facilities-- there is a potential problem there. The bigger problem is locker rooms and shower facilities. Sort of funny that we came to the conclusion a while back that gay soldiers would shower with those of the same sex, even though sexual preference was different. That is, lesbians showered with the women and gay men showered with the men. Why should this situation be different?
Laurie,
"discriminating against people"
Please remember that you are in Group 1. You see LGBT folks as "LGBT People" and Group 2 people as "just uncomfortable" folks...
Whereas I see both groups as humans with their own very real issues.
Laurie,
The little boy/girl story does pull my heart strings, however:
- the rules Group 1 want to impose on Group 2 don't just apply to that sweet innocent situation. They also involve adult he/she situations.
- there are 30, 60, 100's of other straight little developing girls who are equally impressionable and impacted by this example. Yet you only worry about he one...
Hi Jerry,
Thank you for confirming that you are firmly in Group 2, and are pretty insensitive to the very real concerns of the LGBT folks.
"I don't care what you THINK you are"
You make it sound like being in "Group 2" is a BAD thing. I disagree. Again, confining ourselves to the "T," there was a time when "Group 2" was called "normal" and everyone else was not. The compassionate thing was to try to help them become normal, not indulge them. And again, you fail to distinguish between status-- unknowable and not scientifically provable-- and behavior that has consequences beyond the self.
There have been cases where children have been raised opposite their sex because of parental desires. We consider these children to have been grossly abused and psychologically harmed. Why should we force the larger society to ignore this tragic situation and actually encourage it?
There was a time folks thought the sun orbited the earth. So?
so who is harmed by a transgender person choosing in which bathroom to use a stall? how are they harmed and to what extent?
if the transgender person is not allowed to use the bathroom of the gender in which they identify the harm is easy to see as they they have been ostracized.
it seems in situations which involve showering, facilites should be provided for private showering / changing areas for whomever wants to use them. I think many healthclubs have private rooms in place for families to use together. These private rooms could also be open to any one who is fearful that there is a transgender person in the locker room watching as they put on their shorts.
Do you really think the little girls aren't going to know a physically male boy is in their bathroom? And that this going to be okay?
It seems to me like a classmate called Katie who dresses like a girl, plays with the girls, and who uses the pronouns she and her is using the girl's bathroom. How the kids respond is likely to be highly influenced by how their parents respond. Your kids might freak out about it, I don't think mine would.
"There was a time folks thought the sun orbited the earth. So?"
There was a time that people thought your sex and gender were determined by your chromosomes at birth and couldn't be altered. Galileo was able to replace old superstitions with real science. This issue attempts to do the opposite.
"It seems to me like a classmate called Katie who dresses like a girl, plays with the girls, and who uses the pronouns she and her is using the girl's bathroom."
I think Laurie is absolutely right in this particular case, assuming that no one knows there is a little boy underneath. Older girls I suspect would guess the truth and should be free to have their own reactions. The problems will arise when it is no longer possible to conceal the reality-- not in restrooms with stalls, but in open locker rooms or shower situations (or sports, the next step). In these circumstances a male in the ladies' facilities would likely be arrested. Interestingly enough, while we are talking about gender equality and gender fluid, I suspect that a woman showering with the boys would not draw a peep of complaint. We are not all equal, yet.
As you know, I think science will determine that there is more to it in the future. Probably something to do with hormone levels at different points of the brains development.
I think it is highly likely that science will find a "continuum" on the male-female scale, but will only overlap at the most extreme ends of the bell curve. Everything else will be a matter of choice and behavior. And whatever accommodation we make as far as sex-separate facilities go in the future, we ought to start that change with adults and not children as the current push for change does.
Post a Comment