*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm sorry but trans people aren't the only victims here. You're ignoring the fact that women too are victims, and in the process you're essentially blaming them for being unreasonable.

If those women are actually victims, and not pretending to be victims by the fact that their eyes saw something they didn't expect/want to see, then that's a problem to solve.

The difference is between telling someone they do not have the right to pee in a facility and telling someone that their choice not to pee in the facility is someone else's problem. Your choice to be offended has consequences. If your chosen consequences mean that you do not choose to use the restroom, then so be it.

Funny that your argument would be that *someone* shouldn't be allowed to pee. That someone can be you.
Oh, now you're oppressed... but you're oppressed by yourself. The alternative is to allow you to oppress someone else.
My choice is easy in that case.

I think we're getting confused about what a "private space" is. I don't mean private property when I use that term in this context. I mean a public space where privacy is expected.

If it's a public space where people have the reasonable expectation to have equal accommodations as everyone else present, like having a restroom provided if any restrooms are provided, then its wrong to not accommodate anyone.

If the appropriate accommodations do not exist, then hopefully people can figure out how to share what accommodations there are.
If anyone feels entitled to exclude anyone else entirely from accommodations, then that's their problem, not the person expected to be treated with the same "normal" accommodations as everyone else.

I find this attitude to be more problematic than accommodating trans people. It is not bigoted for a woman to want gender segregation in certain contexts. It is not bigoted for a woman to say that someone with different genitals to them is a different gender.

If they've been shown someone's genitals in a public space, then that's probably a crime.
Exposing your genitals to others is often a sex crime, even if you whipped out your dick to piss in a back alley, and someone walked past and saw your dick.
If they're guessing, and being offended, then fuck them.

What genitals you have is NOT what gender you have. Those are different things.
This is antiquated thinking based on misinformation and cultural manipulation against minorities.
The notion that gender is based on genitals isn't a scientific fact. In fact, plenty of studies have shown that gender is a psychological identity, not a physical property. Even if we want to talk about biological organs, there are more than 2 configurations of human genitals.

By any measure, gender is not a binary thing. Asserting it is or that people have the right to oppress anyone who is non-binary is BS.

We don't have the right to tell anyone else what their gender is.
We don't have the ability to look at someone and assume their gender with 100% precision.

So who cares? If someone is being harassing or engaging with people in the restroom in a way that is making people feel uncomfortable, then let's talk and take action to fix that. If someone is minding their own business, no matter how ugly they are, then leave them to it.

I don't understand how you can apply this thought process to trans people using women's facilities, but not men who identify as men using women's facilities.

If you have a problem with women who are afraid of someone for no reason other than them being a different gender in their space, then you must be ok with regular men using these same facilities. And with that you utterly destroy gender segregation.

You seriously don't understand that? Seriously?
You can't see the difference between someone being honest and someone being dishonest to perv on women?

'Cause it seems pretty easy to understand for me.

It's not destroying gender segregation at all. It's making it appropriate for humans.
I'm not arguing to eliminate gendered restrooms. I'm arguing that if our society has decided to only provide a fraction of gendered restrooms as there are human genders, then for those humans who are not being accommodated, let them just pick whatever makes them feel least oppressed.

And don't then blame them for the fact that they already had to make a choice with more of an edge on it than most when choosing to use a restroom.

I don't think either of us can know this with any certainty. But even if it's a significant minority, we should still listen, right? We can't just assume it's motivated by bigotry. In my case, my position on this matter is most certainly not motivated by bigotry. I'll extend the benefit of the doubt to gender critical women.

Most women care where it's obvious that someone is trans. Most women don't care where it's not obvious. That would be my assumption. But I haven't polled women on this matter.

I never said I wouldn't listen.

I said if as I listen, your argument comes down to a personal choice to have someone get oppressed, and that my choice is be comfortable with that oppressed person being you... at least for the few minutes it takes that person using the restroom to finish. That's another thing that makes my choice easy. 1 person cannot use the restroom ever, or another person cannot use the restroom temporarily. The latter choice causes less harm.

I don't think it's fair to call anyone who you disagree with on this subject a bigot. For me a bigot is someone who is motivated by hate, not fear. I don't think all that many people are truly motivated by hate.

:shrugs:
I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot.

I'm saying if your getting offended because someone looks different than you expected and you're arguing that your offense means I should deny someone else a basic human kindness... then fuck off.

It's absolutely not irrelevant. We're talking here about being able to self identify as whatever gender you choose. And if this has legal standing, then to tell a trans person they are not welcome at a women's support group would be a hate crime. This is relevant.

So your argument is that we're so deeply wrong on this as a society
that stopping the oppression of our citizens will not be a 1-shot fix
so that means we should just keep oppressing people?

I'm not into it.

Sure, but every person and business is subject to discrimination laws. A barman can't refuse to serve someone for being black, even if the bar is a private place.

If it's a private bar, then they do not have to allow black people into the bar. Just like I can choose who to allow in my home, based on whatever criteria I choose.

If it's not a private bar, then they cannot make that choice.
This is not hard.