NationStates

Olthar wrote:

Boineburg wrote:And no matter if transsexuals are allowed in the wrong bathroom or not, there will be people who will be uncomfortable with obvious members of the opposite sex sharing the same bathroom as them. This is unavoidable.

It would literally only take one generation of kids growing up with unisex bathrooms to completely eliminate such feelings. Then it would just be the old people talking nostalgically about segregation. Just like how people today aren't uncomfortable sharing a classroom with members of another race.

I'm uncomfortable sharing a classroom with members of another race.

Those damn Formula 1 fans. So arrogant and superior.

Won't this affect like a whopping 4 people?

Moulineaux wrote:Won't this affect like a whopping 4 people?

I should think four people is rather excessive...

Moulineaux wrote:Won't this affect like a whopping 4 people?

Remember, discrimination is OK so long as it only affects an arbitrarily low number of people.

Vassenor wrote:

Moulineaux wrote:Won't this affect like a whopping 4 people?

Remember, discrimination is OK so long as it only affects an arbitrarily low number of people.

no, but it certainly makes it harder to care.

Moulineaux wrote:Won't this affect like a whopping 4 people?

There's probably at least 50,000 trans people in North Carolina...

Vassenor wrote:

Moulineaux wrote:Won't this affect like a whopping 4 people?

Remember, discrimination is OK so long as it only affects an arbitrarily low number of people.

Depends how arbitrarily low...

You people are still complaining about this? I thought taxes were the thing we complained about now?

Val Halla wrote:

Moulineaux wrote:Won't this affect like a whopping 4 people?

There's probably at least 50,000 trans people in North Carolina...

prove it

The Undisputed Empire wrote:You people are still complaining about this? I thought taxes were the thing we complained about now?

Are we not allowed to have a problem with discrimination?

Vassenor wrote:

The Undisputed Empire wrote:You people are still complaining about this? I thought taxes were the thing we complained about now?

Are we not allowed to have a problem with discrimination?

At this point its less about discrimination on a societal level and more about peoples personal problems. forgive us for not giving into their whims.

Vassenor wrote:

The Undisputed Empire wrote:You people are still complaining about this? I thought taxes were the thing we complained about now?

Are we not allowed to have a problem with discrimination?

Are you yourself not discriminating against people who have a genuine religious belief?

(I jest, of course)

Moulineaux wrote:

Val Halla wrote:There's probably at least 50,000 trans people in North Carolina...

prove it

The population of North Carolina is about 10 million. Trans people make up about.5% of the population. Maths.

Moulineaux wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Are we not allowed to have a problem with discrimination?

At this point its less about discrimination on a societal level and more about peoples personal problems. forgive us for not giving into their whims.

Because telling a trans* individual they cannot use a given toilet is not discrimination?

Moulineaux wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Are we not allowed to have a problem with discrimination?

At this point its less about discrimination on a societal level and more about peoples personal problems. forgive us for not giving into their whims.

Hypocrisy of the highest order to attend to the whims of one group and ignore the whims of the other for the same reason.

As for a total population, nobody really knows, because many LGBT are still in the closet.

However, Gallup's estimate is at 7,000+ in North Dakota. http://www.gallup.com/poll/160517/lgbt- ... akota.aspx

So, no, it isn't just 4 people.

Even then, the size of a group matters not when it's being discriminated against. If anything, it means it should be given MORE attention, not less.

Vassenor wrote:

Moulineaux wrote:
At this point its less about discrimination on a societal level and more about peoples personal problems. forgive us for not giving into their whims.

Because telling a trans* individual they cannot use a given toilet is not discrimination?

"Trans*"? What's the start for?

New Owca wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Because telling a trans* individual they cannot use a given toilet is not discrimination?

"Trans*"? What's the start for?

Trans* is used to cover more than just those who wish to transition. It also covers those who are outside the binary. It is often just written as Trans without the asterisk. It is like the+ in LGBT+

New Owca wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Because telling a trans* individual they cannot use a given toilet is not discrimination?

"Trans*"? What's the start for?

To represent the encompassment of all gender nonconformist individuals. I personally think it's a bit of a pretentious affection and "trans" on it's own is fine, but I can't pretend to speak for the trans community.

Philjia wrote:

New Owca wrote:
"Trans*"? What's the start for?

To represent the encompassment of all gender nonconformist individuals. I personally think it's a bit of a pretentious affection and "trans" on it's own is fine, but I can't pretend to speak for the trans community.

I always thought LGBT+ would cover everyone, since the T stands for Trans, ergo making Trans* redundant.

New Owca wrote:

Philjia wrote:
To represent the encompassment of all gender nonconformist individuals. I personally think it's a bit of a pretentious affection and "trans" on it's own is fine, but I can't pretend to speak for the trans community.

I always thought LGBT+ would cover everyone, since the T stands for Trans, ergo making Trans* redundant.

That's for gay people as well. When referring trans people specifically, some people prefer to use trans*.

New Owca wrote:

Philjia wrote:
To represent the encompassment of all gender nonconformist individuals. I personally think it's a bit of a pretentious affection and "trans" on it's own is fine, but I can't pretend to speak for the trans community.

I always thought LGBT+ would cover everyone, since the T stands for Trans, ergo making Trans* redundant.

Whatever, really.

Back to the topic at hand about Moulineaux being a hypocrite.

Philjia wrote:

New Owca wrote:
I always thought LGBT+ would cover everyone, since the T stands for Trans, ergo making Trans* redundant.

That's for gay people as well. When referring trans people specifically, some people prefer to use trans*.

But why? Trans is trans. If you are going to include others, just say LGBT+ or whomever you are trying to include. Why make such a kerfuffle with neologisms when one could say outright what they mean?

New Owca wrote:

Philjia wrote:
That's for gay people as well. When referring trans people specifically, some people prefer to use trans*.

But why? Trans is trans. If you are going to include others, just say LGBT+ or whomever you are trying to include. Why make such a kerfuffle with neologisms when one could say outright what they mean?

*sigh* As that one quiz someone brought up, the spectrum of gender isn't considered signatory by some people.

And, really, it isn't... That's why it's a spectrum, and not boxy classifications.

For example, I'm apparently very queer when it comes to my gender. Didn't think about myself that way before, actually.

The Rich Port wrote:

New Owca wrote:
But why? Trans is trans. If you are going to include others, just say LGBT+ or whomever you are trying to include. Why make such a kerfuffle with neologisms when one could say outright what they mean?

*sigh* As that one quiz someone brought up, the spectrum of gender isn't considered signatory by some people.

And, really, it isn't... That's why it's a spectrum, and not boxy classifications.

For example, I'm apparently very queer when it comes to my gender. Didn't think about myself that way before, actually.

That quiz was awful. It thought one couldn't be both transgender and either Male or Female.

New Owca wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:
*sigh* As that one quiz someone brought up, the spectrum of gender isn't considered signatory by some people.

And, really, it isn't... That's why it's a spectrum, and not boxy classifications.

For example, I'm apparently very queer when it comes to my gender. Didn't think about myself that way before, actually.

That quiz was awful. It thought one couldn't be both transgender and either Male or Female.

Regardless, there are different identities other than male and female; there's androgynous, genderfluid, and genderqueer, for example, all of which fall between male and female but in different ways, and a lot of people will lean more towards male or female.