NationStates

Des-Bal wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:1. And you also open up a larger class of people to come in and stop it. Twice as much traffic,
2. Oftentimes, no. That's why you have heterosexual men who rape other men.

1. True, it's why I support it.
2. So the likelihood of rapes should not be influenced by whatever we do with this whole damn mess?

If by mess, you mean the NC law, then not quite. It does nothing to address the nonexistent problem of people pretending to be trans to rape people in the other bathroom, but it does endanger transgender people who choose to comply with the law.

Des-Bal wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:Well... No.

Rape is rarely about sexual lust.

It is about anger and domination.

Though I suppose it would have minor impacts on someone who would rape's train of logic, no, it sometimes doesn't matter at all.

A good example is prison rape.

Prison rape is a great example of rape that doesn't involve gender presentation which torpedoes the whole fucking thing. At this point we're just talking about bathroom rapists on the prowl for warm bodies and it's turning me off the idea of bathrooms altogether.

Honestly... I don't know where this whole rape thing came from... A lot of violence towards transgenders is not sexual in nature.

http://time.com/3999348/transgender-murders-2015/

Des-Bal wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
No, the argument was the unisex restrooms are better for people in general, but barring that allowing trans people to choose their restroom (which would most likely be the restroom of their gender presentation) would be best as far as safety was concerned for trans people. Considering that the assaults and the such are based on gender presentation rather than sex or gender if restrictions must be in place (no idea why) then gender presentation may be the best way to segregate toilets as far as trans safety is concerned.

1. If safety is an issue why does that issue disappear when we have unisex restrooms. By the logic you are presenting it just opens a larger class of people up for rape.
2. So rapists are not at all interested in the genitals of their victims?

1. Because everyone will be in that restroom. More traffic tends to mean fewer rapes. Similarly since everyone will be using that restroom there is no reason to assault someone for using that restroom. And again more traffic tends to mean fewer rapes.

2. Some are, some aren't. Again I think the point of that particular argument was not the state of transition, but rather than woman can and do rape. In this particular case Void decided to talk about women who rape men since ftm transgender people would be the one's to use the woman's room based on this law.

Neutraligon wrote:
1. Because everyone will be in that restroom. More traffic tends to mean fewer rapes. Similarly since everyone will be using that restroom there is no reason to assault someone for using that restroom. And again more traffic tends to mean fewer rapes.

2. Some are, some aren't.

1. Fair, presuming the numbers balance out.

2. If you don't have a percentage then I don't see how you have an argument that gender presentation "may be the best way to segregate toilets."

Neutraligon wrote:

Northern Freikur wrote:I'm an American (although, I'm getting farther and farther from being proud of it), and I have completely lost faith in our public schooling. This shouldn't even be a debate. The Men's room is for those with "outdoor plumbing", the Women's room is for those with "Indoor Plumbing".

If I ever decide to have children, far be it from me to send them to public school here in America, the quality of education sucks, bathroom signs no longer matter, and they've all got a leftist bias (or at least they do in California). I'd either opt for online (which is my first choice), or just move out.

I also encourage any parents out there to do the same.

Wait, you have never met a woman who has used the men's room because the line to the woman's room is too long (or the other way around). I mean I frequently do this when on road trips because the line to the women's room is so long. I have seen men do the same thing at conventions where the attendance was like 80% men 20% women.

Also, why is the men's room for those with outward plumbing? There is nothing in those rooms that women cannot use, and that includes the urinal. That is especially true if the urinal is unisex.

If I ever see a woman use a urinal I'm gonna just leave. That's fucking nasty. Urinals are not unisex. They require aiming, something that women cannot really do, at least, in a manner that would be effecient enough for urinal use. I imagine a woman kinda, high squatting over urinal, and that's just, no.

The Rich Port wrote:
Honestly... I don't know where this whole rape thing came from... A lot of violence towards transgenders is not sexual in nature.

http://time.com/3999348/transgender-murders-2015/

It is the madness that occurs when you try to reach a conclusion totally divorced from logic. The reasonable conclusion is that unisex bathrooms are best, there's no other conclusion supported by logic.

Des-Bal wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
1. Because everyone will be in that restroom. More traffic tends to mean fewer rapes. Similarly since everyone will be using that restroom there is no reason to assault someone for using that restroom. And again more traffic tends to mean fewer rapes.

2. Some are, some aren't.

1. Fair, presuming the numbers balance out.

2. If you don't have a percentage then I don't see how you have an argument that gender presentation "may be the best way to segregate toilets."

The assaults you tend to see are assaults on people who do not "pass." In addition I would base it on gender presentation (barring any other choice) because a trans individual is less likely to have the police called on them if they look like the people who "should" be using the restroom.

Personally I of course support unisex restrooms (as I believe does Void) we were talking about what it should be based on if unisex toilets where not a possibility (ie should the segregation be based on sex, gender, or gender presentation).

Loxahatchi wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
Wait, you have never met a woman who has used the men's room because the line to the woman's room is too long (or the other way around). I mean I frequently do this when on road trips because the line to the women's room is so long. I have seen men do the same thing at conventions where the attendance was like 80% men 20% women.

Also, why is the men's room for those with outward plumbing? There is nothing in those rooms that women cannot use, and that includes the urinal. That is especially true if the urinal is unisex.

If I ever see a woman use a urinal I'm gonna just leave. That's fucking nasty. Urinals are not unisex. They require aiming, something that women cannot really do, at least, in a manner that would be effecient enough for urinal use. I imagine a woman kinda, high squatting over urinal, and that's just, no.

Women do have some ability to aim, and there are unisex urinals that dip out a little, so that they can act a bit like a squat toilet.

Loxahatchi wrote:
If I ever see a woman use a urinal I'm gonna just leave. That's fucking nasty. Urinals are not unisex. They require aiming, something that women cannot really do, at least, in a manner that would be effecient enough for urinal use. I imagine a woman kinda, high squatting over urinal, and that's just, no.

1. At a baseball game someone took the top off a garbage can and then four other men including myself huddled beside him and pissed into that garbage can. I'm not sure public restrooms are for you.
2. I lost a beer betting that a woman couldn't piss standing up.

Des-Bal wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:
Honestly... I don't know where this whole rape thing came from... A lot of violence towards transgenders is not sexual in nature.

http://time.com/3999348/transgender-murders-2015/

It is the madness that occurs when you try to reach a conclusion totally divorced from logic. The reasonable conclusion is that unisex bathrooms are best, there's no other conclusion supported by logic.

To be fair, it's an option unexplored, and I think people just want to explore it.

People have mentioned unisex bathrooms are equally effective compared to bathrooms... That aren't being guarded by conservatives with guns.

Neutraligon wrote:

The assaults you tend to see are assaults on people who do not "pass." In addition I would base it on gender presentation (barring any other choice) because a trans individual is less likely to have the police called on them if they look like the people who "should" be using the restroom.

So a male to female transsexual person who does not pass and uses the women's room would logically be at a heightened risk of assault?

Loxahatchi wrote:If I ever see a woman use a urinal I'm gonna just leave. That's fucking nasty. Urinals are not unisex. They require aiming, something that women cannot really do, at least, in a manner that would be effecient enough for urinal use. I imagine a woman kinda, high squatting over urinal, and that's just, no.

To be fair, the releasing of human waste in general isn't the most attractive thing, regardless of the gender of the individual involved.

Des-Bal wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:

The assaults you tend to see are assaults on people who do not "pass." In addition I would base it on gender presentation (barring any other choice) because a trans individual is less likely to have the police called on them if they look like the people who "should" be using the restroom.

So a male to female transsexual person who does not pass and uses the women's room would logically be at a heightened risk of assault?

The criteria are so vague and unexaminable that ANYBODY would be at risk of being harassed or assaulted.

Speaking of being divorced from logic...

Des-Bal wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:

The assaults you tend to see are assaults on people who do not "pass." In addition I would base it on gender presentation (barring any other choice) because a trans individual is less likely to have the police called on them if they look like the people who "should" be using the restroom.

So a male to female transsexual person who does not pass and uses the women's room would logically be at a heightened risk of assault?

As compared to one who does pass, I believe so. Unfortunately not passing in general means you are in a heightened risk of assault, but I believe that not passing and using the woman's restroom is indeed at a much higher risk (no I do not have statistics on this). And yes passing is rather arbitrary, which is the problem with basing it on gender presentation.

The Rich Port wrote:
The criteria are so vague and unexaminable that ANYBODY would be at risk of being harassed or assaulted.

Speaking of being divorced from logic...

Everybody IS at risk of being harassed or assaulted. The claim is that these assaults target people who don't "pass" which is in no way an argument in favor of basing it on gender identity rather than biological sex because if you are in the room that corresponds to your gender identity and you don't "pass" then it seems like this has not helped you.

Des-Bal wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:
The criteria are so vague and unexaminable that ANYBODY would be at risk of being harassed or assaulted.

Speaking of being divorced from logic...

Everybody IS at risk of being harassed or assaulted. The claim is that these assaults target people who don't "pass" which is in no way an argument in favor of basing it on gender identity rather than biological sex because if you are in the room that corresponds to your gender identity and you don't "pass" then it seems like this has not helped you.

Sex is not a good way to do it because trans individuals can and do pass. Gender identity in and of itself is not a good way to do it because of assault, rape and having the police called on you as a pervert. Gender presentation at least takes into account perceptions of the public, hopefully reducing the risk of assault and rape. Again I note this is if the restrooms must be segregated for some reason.

Neutraligon wrote:
As compared to one who does pass, I believe so. Unfortunately not passing in general means you are in a heightened risk of assault, but I believe that not passing and using the woman's restroom is indeed at a much higher risk (no I do not have statistics on this). And yes passing is rather arbitrary, which is the problem with basing it on gender presentation.

So why the actual fuck should we base it on gender identity? The safety issues we are trying to avoid are not being avoided, they're just being shifted. The issue is that if we do the NC thing then trans people who pass are at heightened risk but as you just pointed out if we go by gender identity then the people who don't pass are at risk. Unless you have a good reason why the one's who don't pass deserve to be hurt more than the one's who do I don't see why one's better than the other.

Edit: So based on your edited post we should NOT go by gender identity, we should go by presentation. Isn't the entire enforcibility kerfuffle based around ambiguities in presentation? Would this require masculine cisgender women to use the men's room?

Des-Bal wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
As compared to one who does pass, I believe so. Unfortunately not passing in general means you are in a heightened risk of assault, but I believe that not passing and using the woman's restroom is indeed at a much higher risk (no I do not have statistics on this). And yes passing is rather arbitrary, which is the problem with basing it on gender presentation.

So why the actual fuck should we base it on gender identity? The safety issues we are trying to avoid are not being avoided, they're just being shifted. The issue is that if we do the NC thing then trans people who pass are at heightened risk but as you just pointed out if we go by gender identity then the people who don't pass are at risk. Unless you have a good reason why the one's who don't pass deserve to be hurt more than the one's who do I don't see why one's better than the other.

My idea of ending segregation is still on the table.

Galloism wrote:My idea of ending segregation is still on the table.

My idea also. My point is that the only logical way to look at this is that we should have unisex bathrooms. Dividing based on biological sex is stupid, arbitrary, and any policy concerns in it's favor are laughable but dividing based in gender identity has the exact same failings.

Des-Bal wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
As compared to one who does pass, I believe so. Unfortunately not passing in general means you are in a heightened risk of assault, but I believe that not passing and using the woman's restroom is indeed at a much higher risk (no I do not have statistics on this). And yes passing is rather arbitrary, which is the problem with basing it on gender presentation.

So why the actual fuck should we base it on gender identity? The safety issues we are trying to avoid are not being avoided, they're just being shifted. The issue is that if we do the NC thing then trans people who pass are at heightened risk but as you just pointed out if we go by gender identity then the people who don't pass are at risk. Unless you have a good reason why the one's who don't pass deserve to be hurt more than the one's who do I don't see why one's better than the other.

I do not think it should be based on gender identity at all. Mental health reasons I believe is the reason used. My personal opinion is that if it is based on gender presentation, assault is at least less likely to occur. Of course this is something that then reinforces gender stereotypes and the such,something I am most definitely not for. Here's the thing, if it is done based on presentation then the ones who do pass have a smaller risk, and the ones who do not pass also have a slightly smaller risk (because people tend not to pay attention to people who at least somewhat look the part, even if they are highly masculine, after all there are some highly masculine looking females). If we do it on identity alone then the ones who do pass have a smaller risk but the ones who do not pass or do not even attempt to pass (ie those who have yet to change how they look ) are at a higher risk should the end up using the restroom of their identity. If we base it on sex then those who pass are at increased risk.

In my opinion there is no good choice except unisex restrooms. The only other option that is not bad is based on presentation. As to how this would be enforced, it would be enforced the same way it was before the law was passed, that is if a person in the restroom felt the "wrong" person was there they would call the police (which is almost never going to happen).

Des-Bal wrote:

Galloism wrote:My idea of ending segregation is still on the table.

My idea also. My point is that the only logical way to look at this is that we should have unisex bathrooms. Dividing based on biological sex is stupid, arbitrary, and any policy concerns in it's favor are laughable but dividing based in gender identity has the exact same failings.

Oh I agree. From what I saw Void agrees as well. We were basically trying to discuss the least bad option should unisex restrooms not be an option.

Neutraligon wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
My idea also. My point is that the only logical way to look at this is that we should have unisex bathrooms. Dividing based on biological sex is stupid, arbitrary, and any policy concerns in it's favor are laughable but dividing based in gender identity has the exact same failings.

Oh I agree. From what I saw Void agrees as well. We were basically trying to discuss the least bad option should unisex restrooms not be an option.

I consider there to be a better option to that.

Keep the old restrooms, but install a single-toilet gender-neutral/family restroom, using space from one of the gendered restrooms if necessary.

Neutraligon wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
My idea also. My point is that the only logical way to look at this is that we should have unisex bathrooms. Dividing based on biological sex is stupid, arbitrary, and any policy concerns in it's favor are laughable but dividing based in gender identity has the exact same failings.

Oh I agree. From what I saw Void agrees as well. We were basically trying to discuss the least bad option should unisex restrooms not be an option.

As a liberal, I must say... I find we fight over basically nothing often...

Wallenburg wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
Oh I agree. From what I saw Void agrees as well. We were basically trying to discuss the least bad option should unisex restrooms not be an option.

I consider there to be a better option to that.

Keep the old restrooms, but install a single-toilet gender-neutral/family restroom, using space from one of the gendered restrooms if necessary.

How is that better? It's more expensive and less load-effective.

Galloism wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I consider there to be a better option to that.

Keep the old restrooms, but install a single-toilet gender-neutral/family restroom, using space from one of the gendered restrooms if necessary.

How is that better? It's more expensive and less load-effective.

You just described compromise.