Your first link was complete tripe. I don't trust anything coming from biased sites regardless of left or right leanings. Your second link offers a rather compelling argument; however, it still does not address the issue of people feeling uncomfortable with sharing a bathroom of the opposite sex. Clearly though you have taken one of my arguments from me.

I hate linking to sites that are obviously biased one way or another for that exact reason. The first time I linked to those quotes it was part of a larger article from a more neutral site. I linked to that first one because of the layout and ease of reading. Regardless of a right or left slant, the quotes remain identical from all parties.


As for fear or uncomfortable feelings, I accept that to the person who is afraid the fears are real and valid. That's why I feel it is important to throw a spotlight on it to expose what is real and what isn't. Forgive the analogy, but it's kind of like a child scared of a silhouette in a dark room and a parent turns on the light to show them there is nothing to be afraid of.


Not to diminish the very real possibility of an attack. But to show how improbable it is. Do we live in a world where we need to teach our kids things we never learned as a child for their own safety? Sadly yes. But 3 instances in 17 years makes it very hard for me personally to rationalize as a legitimate fear.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Its not a confession. What I said and have said is that a biological explanation doesn't make it right or healthy. It also doesn't absolve a conscious person of choice.


Mental disorders may a.) be rooted in biological factors b.) riddle us with addictions, compulsions, desires or aversion that complicate our daily lives. We still retain the ability for rational thought, cost risk analysis, and control over the actions we take as it relates to the parts of our psyche that we indulge or repress.


When someone looses the ability for rational thought and or becomes a danger to themselves or others then that's insanity.


In the case of TRANS I view it as someone by natural predisposition, mental disorder etc. Has a fundamental problem reconciling "SELF" and consciously chooses to express it by shedding their natural gender by a combination of dress (vesitism) or physical manipulation of the genitals (sexualism).


In the case of gender ambiguity through chromosomal abnormality or homaphraditism then I don't see that identifying with a gender, there's a fundamental question as to the true biological SEX of the child.


In summation, as human beings we are the final arbiters and bear responsibility for the actions we take. The biological and environmental factors contributing to our predispositions urges addictions and the like are myriad. That still does not change the fact that we are ultimately responsible of the choices we make.


In the case of genetic anamoly that obscures the biological SEX of the child then that's not a choice about societal constructs that's a biological disorder.


So if an xx or xy child misidentifies, then I would send them to a psychologist.


If a child has XXY xy yay xxxxyyyytrf then I would wait until puberty to make a definitive diagnosis.


At no point would I run off to e.

---

Its not a confession. What I said and have said is that a biological explanation doesn't make it right or healthy. It also doesn't absolve a conscious person of choice.


Mental disorders may a.) be rooted in biological factors b.) riddle us with addictions, compulsions, desires or aversion that complicate our daily lives. We still retain the ability for rational thought, cost risk analysis, and control over the actions we take as it relates to the parts of our psyche that we indulge or repress.


When someone looses the ability for rational thought and or becomes a danger to themselves or others then that's insanity.


In the case of TRANS I view it as someone by natural predisposition, mental disorder etc. Has a fundamental problem reconciling "SELF" and consciously chooses to express it by shedding their natural gender by a combination of dress (vesitism) or physical manipulation of the genitals (sexualism).


In the case of gender ambiguity through chromosomal abnormality or homaphraditism then I don't see that identifying with a gender, there's a fundamental question as to the true biological SEX of the child.


In summation, as human beings we are the final arbiters and bear responsibility for the actions we take. The biological and environmental factors contributing to our predispositions urges addictions and the like are myriad. That still does not change the fact that we are ultimately responsible of the choices we make.


In the case of genetic anamoly that obscures the biological SEX of the child then that's not a choice about societal constructs that's a biological disorder.


So if an xx or xy child misidentifies, then I would send them to a psychologist.


If a child has XXY xy yay xxxxyyyytrf then I would wait until puberty to make a definitive diagnosis.


At no point would I run off to e.

You are still blending biology with psychology and sprinkling in morality. So you can accept that a biological anomaly (like the mutation that causes red hair) may be possible for a consistent number of the world population to have a disposition towards self identifying as transgender. But then you say it doesn't make it right or healthy or absolve that person from choosing not to be.


How can a person choose what they biologically ARE? Are they not reconciling their sense of self by acknowledging their biological makeup IS transgender (or gay)?


You can introduce whether or not it is right or healthy, but that is straying from the concept of the biological explanation. Whether or not it is "right" is subjective. A person's moral upbringing may call homosexuality or transgender a sin due to religious indoctrination. That has nothing to do with biology. An atheist may simply find it weird or off and classify it as "not right" because it is a deviation from the biological norm. (Once upon a time redheads were persecuted in a similar way in some cultures -- thanks Judas!)


You also touch upon it being unhealthy, blurring your argument between a biological explanation and the explanation of a mental disorder. Drano lady has a disorder and wants to blind herself. Transgender people identify as a sex they may have been misdiagnosed as at birth (XXY or XYY can appear XX or XY at birth, but how often are chromosomes tested at birth? Pretty much never.) I would challenge the definition of unhealthy there. Is it more unhealthy to live in a state of constant depression because you are not comfortable in your own skin because you repress what your biological makeup SAYS you are? OR to live as you feel most comfortable knowing it makes you a target of possible violence from "less enlightened" individuals? It's not a choice you've ever had to make. And being a pretty convincing XY, I would question what makes you the authority on how an XXY or XYY should reconcile their sense of self.


I cannot accept the concept a person has a choice in what is in their DNA. I have a friend who endured the cruel practice of "ex-gay" conversion therapy which you probably accept as a plausible practice. I will add the most profitable "ex-gay" program leader rejected this practice after decades of trying to prove the concept of choice and cited it does significant and in some cases irreparable harm to those who endure it.


I also reject the notion that a child needs to hit puberty before they are capable of determining a sense of self identity. I used to steal my father's Playboy magazines at the age of 3. I knew what I was then before I had any clue of what to do with it. The same can be said about the two young people I referenced earlier.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I would challenge the definition of unhealthy there. Is it more unhealthy to live in a state of constant depression because you are not comfortable in your own skin because you repress what your biological makeup SAYS you are? OR to live as you feel most comfortable knowing it makes you a target of possible violence from "less enlightened" individuals? It's not a choice you've ever had to make. And being a pretty convincing XY, I would question what makes you the authority on how an XXY or XYY should reconcile their sense of self.

 

You know the answer to this question: Whatever option keeps you out of "my" way or out of "my" sphere of influence...otherwise I don't care. I call that aggressive apathy.

 

The basis of this legislation rests on the appearance of protecting people from harm. People want to keep unscrupulous wastrels from slapping on a pink sundress and patent leather slingbacks from going into the ladies' room to commit egregious sins against your women folk. That makes sense. The fatal flaw with all of this is that this legislation is not going to stop a determined, unscrupulous wastrel for still doing so. A criminal with ill intent is not going to stop short because it's against the law by virtue of being a criminal.

 

Therefore, what's being argued here is that (once again) bad people regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation are going to do bad things regardless of this legislation so nothing else changes. This is what makes it inherently discriminatory. In fact, I theorize that you'll likely see an increase in actual crimes committed by forcing all of the law-abiding transgender individuals to use the "correct" facilities. Can anyone sit here and honestly say that a transwoman in Gastonia, North Carolina will be able to safely go to the [men's] bathroom without being harassed (or assaulted or killed) on some level? Good luck taking a [BAD WORD REMOVED] and making it back alive, girl...you're going to need it!

 

Meanwhile, your wives and daughters aren't any safer because shady dudes are still gonna shade. They'll be more comfortable though, because they'll know that no law-abiding transwoman is using an adjacent stall and that's all that matters, right?

---

<i>Behold man's final mad disgrace.</i>

<i>He chops his nose to spite his face.</i>

 

-Etrigan the Demon

 

Bad people are going to do bad things regardless of the laws. I did link to these comments earlier, but here is a more detailed breakdown of what was said.  A lot of consistent statements.

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03...hro/198533

 

If that doesn't fully satisfy you, consider the below link written in contrast to the draconian laws NC Governor McCrory pushed that will likely cost him his job. They cite 3 confirmed incidents in 17 years of a man dressing as a woman in a bathroom or locker room to try to attack women.  Like I said..  laws will not stop bad men.  

 

http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina...ks-cities/

 

I can understand why you and many others have that 'gut feeling' there will be an uptick..  but it has not been happening.  What evidence could you introduce that it will?  I'm not trying to be slick.  I am asking sincerely.  Because as that first link indicates, plenty of bogus fear pieces have been written on this matter.  When you sift through the manure and get to the facts, the threat is not nearly as real as some will frame it.

You couldn't be more correct about bad people doing bad things regardless of the law. That's why I don't buy the argument of wanting to use a particular bathroom because of fear of getting beat up that was used in this thread. Bullies will bully and do what they do regardless of location.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

You couldn't be more correct about bad people doing bad things regardless of the law. That's why I don't buy the argument of wanting to use a particular bathroom because of fear of getting beat up that was used in this thread. Bullies will bully and do what they do regardless of location.

So.. what you're saying is you reject the findings detailed in pages 71 -79 of this study. And also don't think a trans person assigned male at birth/identifying as female is less likely to be bullied in a ladies room than a men's room?

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Herman-Gendered-Restrooms-and-Minority-Stress-June-2013.pdf'>http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Herman-Gendered-Restrooms-and-Minority-Stress-June-2013.pdf</a>

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

So.. what you're saying is you reject the findings detailed in pages 71 -79 of this report. And also don't think a trans person assigned male at birth/identifying as female is less likely to be bullied in a ladies room than a men's room?

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Herman-Gendered-Restrooms-and-Minority-Stress-June-2013.pdf'>http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Herman-Gendered-Restrooms-and-Minority-Stress-June-2013.pdf</a>

What I am saying is, based on your own personal take as well, that the people who are willing to bully/beat up someone like that in a public restroom are going to do what they do regardless. Whether it be in a restroom or not. They're still going to harass and find places where they can do their "bad things"

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

What I am saying is, based on your own personal take as well, that the people who are willing to bully/beat up someone like that in a public restroom are going to do what they do regardless. Whether it be in a restroom or not. They're still going to harass and find places where they can do their "bad things"

Does that mean you agree it would be LESS LIKELY for a trans person assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman to be bullied or attacked in a ladies room than they would a men's room?

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Does that mean you agree it would be LESS LIKELY for a trans person assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman to be bullied or attacked in a ladies room than they would a men's room?

It's probably a pre-conceived thinking of mine, but in general men are more aggressive then females, so probably so. But there are plenty of women out there who bully, try to intimidate, and ridicule so it is far from out of the question.

 

Also, the use of the word "Assigned" here doesn't work. You are born either male or female. It's not assigned to someone as a teacher would assign a class some homework.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Does that mean you agree it would be LESS LIKELY for a trans person assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman to be bullied or attacked in a ladies room than they would a men's room?

 

Honestly? I think the attention created by that situation (man in the ladies' room) would lead to increased levels of confrontation.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Honestly? I think the attention created by that situation (man in the ladies' room) would lead to increased levels of confrontation.

I was thinking the same thing a few posts back as I was typing. All this will probably do more harm to the situation more then anything.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

It's probably a pre-conceived thinking of mine, but in general men are more aggressive then females, so probably so. But there are plenty of women out there who bully, try to intimidate, and ridicule so it is far from out of the question.


Also, the use of the word "Assigned" here doesn't work. You are born either male or female. It's not assigned to someone as a teacher would assign a class some homework.

If you scroll back you will see questions I asked regarding babies born with XXY or XYY chromosomes. If that baby comes out and has an "inny" would you call it female (XX) or an "outy" would you call it a male (XY)? How would you know you were right? Is it possible the "naked eye" test could be fallible? Newborns almost never get immediate tests on the makeup of their genetic structure. They are assigned blue or pink and that's it. What about these outliers where an extra chromosome exists?


And you are correct. Men are significantly more prone to aggression.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

You are still blending biology with psychology and sprinkling in morality. So you can accept that a biological anomaly (like the mutation that causes red hair) may be possible for a consistent number of the world population to have a disposition towards self identifying as transgender. But then you say it doesn't make it right or healthy or absolve that person from choosing not to be.


How can a person choose what they biologically ARE? Are they not reconciling their sense of self by acknowledging their biological makeup IS transgender (or gay)?


You can introduce whether or not it is right or healthy, but that is straying from the concept of the biological explanation. Whether or not it is "right" is subjective. A person's moral upbringing may call homosexuality or transgender a sin due to religious indoctrination. That has nothing to do with biology. An atheist may simply find it weird or off and classify it as "not right" because it is a deviation from the biological norm. (Once upon a time redheads were persecuted in a similar way in some cultures -- thanks Judas!)


You also touch upon it being unhealthy, blurring your argument between a biological explanation and the explanation of a mental disorder. Drano lady has a disorder and wants to blind herself. Transgender people identify as a sex they may have been misdiagnosed as at birth (XXY or XYY can appear XX or XY at birth, but how often are chromosomes tested at birth? Pretty much never.) I would challenge the definition of unhealthy there. Is it more unhealthy to live in a state of constant depression because you are not comfortable in your own skin because you repress what your biological makeup SAYS you are? OR to live as you feel most comfortable knowing it makes you a target of possible violence from "less enlightened" individuals? It's not a choice you've ever had to make. And being a pretty convincing XY, I would question what makes you the authority on how an XXY or XYY should reconcile their sense of self.


I cannot accept the concept a person has a choice in what is in their DNA. I have a friend who endured the cruel practice of "ex-gay" conversion therapy which you probably accept as a plausible practice. I will add the most profitable "ex-gay" program leader rejected this practice after decades of trying to prove the concept of choice and cited it does significant and in some cases irreparable harm to those who endure it.


I also reject the notion that a child needs to hit puberty before they are capable of determining a sense of self identity. I used to steal my father's Playboy magazines at the age of 3. I knew what I was then before I had any clue of what to do with it. The same can be said about the two young people I referenced earlier.

1.) I Don't ascribe to ex-gay aversion therapy.


2.) I make a contextual distinction between. What may be a biological predisposition (hormonal neural) to misidentify an aspect of self (gender) and a biological ambiguation of sex (homaphraditism, genital malformation, XXY yyx etc.)


3.) I think that in the case of opposite gender identity that there should be a physical exam including chromosomal analysis to determine if there is an underlying biological malady and or cause to better understand the root of the presentation.


4.) puberty is the second most important hormonal event in brain development (the first being hormone levels in uteri that should vary wildly between male and female fetuses). This can give clues as to what a persons body is actually trying to tell them. If someone is on a normal biological track but still persists in identifying with another gender then we know its mental or environmental. Otherwise I know that as a kid there are a lot of women who were masculine pre puberty and boys that were more feminine, including me.

---

Honestly? I think the attention created by that situation (man in the ladies' room) would lead to increased levels of confrontation.

More so than what you would interpret as a "man in a dress" in a men's room? The statistical evidence in the study I linked to and the fact men are more prone to aggression forces me to disagree.


Though I acknowledge some women would also have the potential for confrontation, the likelihood of actual physical violence (upon what is perceived as a male) in a ladies room is significantly diminished.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

More so than what you would interpret as a "man in a dress" in a men's room? The statistical evidence in the study I linked to and the fact men are more prone to aggression forces me to disagree.


Though I acknowledge some women would also have the potential for confrontation, the likelihood of actual physical violence (upon what is perceived as a male) in a ladies room is significantly diminished.

 

We're talking about two different things. "Man in a dress in the ladies' room" would result in a bunch of white knighting from Romeo outside, I think that would be an instant fight. 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

1.) I Don't ascribe to ex-gay aversion therapy.


2.) I make a contextual distinction between. What may be a biological predisposition (hormonal neural) to misidentify an aspect of self (gender) and a biological ambiguation of sex (homaphraditism, genital malformation, XXY yyx etc.)


3.) I think that in the case of opposite gender identity that there should be a physical exam including chromosomal analysis to determine if there is an underlying biological malady and or cause to better understand the root of the presentation.


4.) puberty is the second most important hormonal event in brain development (the first being hormone levels in uteri that should vary wildly between male and female fetuses). This can give clues as to what a persons body is actually trying to tell them. If someone is on a normal biological track but still persists in identifying with another gender then we know its mental or environmental. Otherwise I know that as a kid there are a lot of women who were masculine pre puberty and boys that were more feminine, including me.

It's good to know you reject the concept of "ex-gay" conversion therapy.


I'm a little fuzzy on your second point. If you accept the possibility of a biological explanation, how are you so sure that they are misidentifying their aspect of self? You are wading back into the waters of "choice" by saying a person can be misidentifying themselves as gay or trans because of their biological makeup. People don't choose to be black or have red hair. But they choose to be gay or trans?


As for studying chromosomes and physicality, there have been multiple studies like that. There still remains contested opinions on the root cause despite a lot of supportive evidence (including those who only ascribe to the idea of it being solely a choice -- which I patently reject).


Your final point touches on some interesting areas. Some theorize brain structure does play a part in the self identification as gay or trans. Others focus purely on the psychological aspect. My only problem with this is.. I knew I was straight at the age of 3 when I would spend hours looking through my dad's Playboy magazines. My brain was developed enough to be as sure of that then as I am today. In my early teens a friend of mine approached me in a way which let me know he was at the very least curious about what it would be like to be physically intimate with another male. My brain was more fully developed, but even then, I politely declined as being put "on the spot" only reaffirmed my sense of self as a straight person. What age were you when you chose to be straight? If you didn't choose, how old were you when you just knew? You know now, right? Because based on what you're saying you could be mistaken depending on your environment or mental condition. Why can't gay or trans people "just know" one day? I have spoken with many who tell me they knew early in life (to some degree -- even if they didn't fully comprehend it).


I will attest again that of all the gay and trans people I know (as you could guess.. it is quite a few) not a single one of them has remotely claimed it to be a matter of choice. Knowing what many went through in the course of this self discovery I assure you they would have had easier lives if they could simply choose to be straight.


While you are finally bringing some good points to the discussion, I am still not convinced that the root cause of gay/trans self identification is NOT tied primarily to biological makeup.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

We're talking about two different things. "Man in a dress in the ladies' room" would result in a bunch of white knighting from Romeo outside, I think that would be an instant fight.

Well.. You are making a great point. Trans people are at risk of violence from a lack of understanding regardless. Despite the fact they are in 99.99% of the cases harmless. I propose the trans person I describe would be less likely to be intimidated or attacked if they use the ladies room. Perhaps this little exercise gives you some perspective of what they go through on a daily basis and helps you to accept the reality it is not something they would choose for themselves if they could.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

You've come a long way, baby...Next..posing nude for all our viewing pleasure





Unless you are the creator of the human body, you dont know squat. Weird? To me yes. Bathroom issues? Really? Thats one of our serious problems? Use a stall, dont stink it up, continue shopping at Target...who cares?
On the other hand, if some bearded dude with a dress on walks into a restroom where my daughter is in..there might be a problem.
Just line up 5-6 port a potties outside..then take your pick

---

Blakes Life Matters

You've come a long way, baby...Next..posing nude for all our viewing pleasure






 

 

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

It's good to know you reject the concept of "ex-gay" conversion therapy.


I'm a little fuzzy on your second point. If you accept the possibility of a biological explanation, how are you so sure that they are misidentifying their aspect of self? You are wading back into the waters of "choice" by saying a person can be misidentifying themselves as gay or trans because of their biological makeup. People don't choose to be black or have red hair. But they choose to be gay or trans?

 


As for studying chromosomes and physicality, there have been multiple studies like that. There still remains contested opinions on the root cause despite a lot of supportive evidence (including those who only ascribe to the idea of it being solely a choice -- which I patently reject).


Your final point touches on some interesting areas. Some theorize brain structure does play a part in the self identification as gay or trans. Others focus purely on the psychological aspect. My only problem with this is.. I knew I was straight at the age of 3 when I would spend hours looking through my dad's Playboy magazines. My brain was developed enough to be as sure of that then as I am today. In my early teens a friend of mine approached me in a way which let me know he was at the very least curious about what it would be like to be physically intimate with another male. My brain was more fully developed, but even then, I politely declined as being put "on the spot" only reaffirmed my sense of self as a straight person. What age were you when you chose to be straight? If you didn't choose, how old were you when you just knew? You know now, right? Because based on what you're saying you could be mistaken depending on your environment or mental condition. Why can't gay or trans people "just know" one day? I have spoken with many who tell me they knew early in life (to some degree -- even if they didn't fully comprehend it).


I will attest again that of all the gay and trans people I know (as you could guess.. it is quite a few) not a single one of them has remotely claimed it to be a matter of choice. Knowing what many went through in the course of this self discovery I assure you they would have had easier lives if they could simply choose to be straight.


While you are finally bringing some good points to the discussion, I am still not convinced that the root cause of gay/trans self identification is NOT tied primarily to biological makeup.

 

If there was a genetic mutation or a hormonal imbalance that causes body integrity disorder (The blind lady) does that make it any less of a disorder?

---