Randomness thread, part two.

[boost]

Hold your nose shut with your fingers and try blowing out of it, your ears will pop.

Oh, that thing, cool. I'll try it next time I get ear aids

[MadMojoMonkey]

Repeated swallowing works, too, and is safer.
You can only increase pressure one way with the trick poopy described.
If you overdo it, you're kinda in the same spot.


Chewing a stick of gum helps keep your salivary glands active.

[Poopadoop]

You can only increase pressure one way with the trick poopy described.
If you overdo it, you're kinda in the same spot.

I think you mean cocco.

What happens if you blow too hard? Can you burst an eardrum? Cool.

[CoccoBill]

I really doubt it. The nose blowing thing is one of the first you're taught when you start scuba diving.

[Poopadoop]

I'll go along with this, I can't tell which gender they are either.

https://twitter.com/i/events/1394955529408057348

[MadMojoMonkey]

:/

If someone tells you what gender they are (in this case non-binary), and you say you can't tell what gender they are, then you're probably being an asshat.

Just FYI.

[Poopadoop]

You definitely would be an asshat if you said that to someone's face, or anywhere they might read it. But since they almost certainly aren't reading poker forum community pages, I feel free to express my view that this is a bit silly.

The whole concept of gender-fluidity just strikes me as odd. Let's say I engage in some typically feminine behaviour once in a while. Should I go announce to the world that I'm not really 100% masculine and therefore I want to be called "he" 90% of the time and "she" 5% of the time, and "they" the other 5% on the days when I'm not sure? And for this person, clearly they're walking a fine line between male and female, and there's no problem with that. My problem is that they make a big announcement out of it like it's some brave coming out for them. Like no shit, you're androgynous, why announce the obvious?

It's like me going on twitter and saying "you know what everyone? I'm actually ok with being called "him" since as you all could have guessed, I'm pretty much a guy almost all the time by any measure you want to use. So hey, look at me everyone, I'm a hero. Gimme attention. Gimme gimme gimme!!"

[Poopadoop]

Just to be clear, I have no problem with this person wanting to be called "they". I'll call them whatever they want. "Captain Crunch? Sure, whatever makes you happy." They can do anything else they like.

What annoys me is that instead of just quietly changing their signature from he/she to they, this person makes a big public announcement and acts so proud of it. Like anybody cares.

[OngBonga]

I mean we've got to the point where you can basically make your own gender up and be it.

[Poopadoop]

And I don't think even there's anything necessarily wrong with that. If it gives someone comfort, then go ahead. I think in this person's case, it seems they're id'ing themselves correctly now as androgynous. And that's absolutely fine, it's not like they chose to be that way just to confuse people who prefer to live in a binary world.

It just seems like a personal matter to me and I don't get why they feel the need to announce it to the world like we're supposed to care one way or the other.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You definitely would be an asshat if you said that to someone's face, or anywhere they might read it.

Yes, and also, you're an asshat for saying it at all.

But since they almost certainly aren't reading poker forum community pages, I feel free to express my view that this is a bit silly.

Your feelings, in this case, are ignorant and hurtful.

Fix your asshat views and don't blame other's people's private lives as a reason to be a jerk.
You lazy poop.

The whole concept of gender-fluidity just strikes me as odd.

Great place to start.
What next? Accept your ignorance and continue to say hurtful things? Or educate yourself (broadly in your field of expertise, I dare say) and learn to be a more wholesome person?

Some binary label assigned to a person at birth has no bearing on how they see themselves, or who they love or what kind of clothes they want to wear. It was never going to be binary. It was always going to marginalize good people with no more or less to offer the world than anyone else.

Don't buy into the hate.

Let's say I engage in some typically feminine behaviour once in a while. Should I go announce to the world that I'm not really 100% masculine and therefore I want to be called "he" 90% of the time and "she" 5% of the time, and "they" the other 5% on the days when I'm not sure?

Of course this is perfectly natural and fine. So long as you're not being a jerk about it, and you help us to accommodate you when we inevitably make mistakes, I'm happy to oblige you.

The implication that anyone should be justified in responding to you with hate, or to assume you're trolling is beyond me, and clearly morally wrong. If you're trolling, then stop being a jerk. If you're honest, then celebrate who you are, and celebrate who other people are. There's nothing to be gained by tearing each other down.
(You lazy poop.)

And for this person, clearly they're walking a fine line between male and female, and there's no problem with that. My problem is that they make a big announcement out of it like it's some brave coming out for them. Like no shit, you're androgynous, why announce the obvious?

It's like me going on twitter and saying "you know what everyone? I'm actually ok with being called "him" since as you all could have guessed, I'm pretty much a guy almost all the time by any measure you want to use. So hey, look at me everyone, I'm a hero. Gimme attention. Gimme gimme gimme!!"

These are valid criticisms of the person's motivation to speak out on this. Questioning their sexuality or gender or other personal attributes is a dick move.

And you didn't bring anything akin to this up originally. So take a moment to reflect why your initial post was hinting at bigotry and not applying your intellectual flare... and whether or not the application of said intellect isn't ad hock BS.

And maybe even give them a nod that you became engaged in a conversation that maybe decreased your knee-jerk reaction to dehumanize someone just for being different than you expected.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean we've got to the point where you can basically make your own gender up and be it.

No, it's always been this way.

We're getting to a point where doing so isn't a death sentence - either literal or figurative.

We're getting to a point where people simply being and celebrating who they are is becoming more awesome.

[Poopadoop]

Mojo, I'm not sure what gives you the right to claim the moral high ground here, where you can call me names and in the same breath claim that I'm the one using hurtful language, but perhaps a little humility would serve you as well as everyone else.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So you're saying that words have consequences?
Interesting.

You're saying that my words calling you out for saying some shite are inappropriate, but your spewing of shite wasn't?
Interesting.

Please forgive my assessment of this as hypocrisy, as I assume you don't see it as such.
Can you explain to me?



Don't ignore or pretend that ad hominem attacks on me changes what you said.
If you want to talk about my humility later, I'm all ears.
Right now, the conversation is about the ignorant and hurtful thing you said, and then got called out on.


What you wrote dehumanized not just the person making the video, but anyone who identifies as gender non-binary.
If that was your intent (which you seem to be telling me it wasn't), then take a moment to learn why, and consider changing your assumptions.

Or at least apologize for having accidentally said something that doesn't reflect your deeper thoughts.



***
Calling that hurtful comment an asshat thought is spot on.
Saying that someone who says hurtful, asshat comments out loud is therefore being an asshat is just science.

You can't actually be offended by the word asshat, right? I intentionally chose a childish-sounding non-insult to make it clear that I'm not trying to be hurtful.

Seriously, if you can't see the humor in this, then let me make it clear... I was being playful
"There's nothing to be gained by tearing each other down.
(You lazy poop.)"

[Poopadoop]

So you're saying that words have consequences?
Interesting.

You're saying that my words calling you out for saying some shite are inappropriate, but your spewing of shite wasn't?
Interesting.

Please forgive my assessment of this as hypocrisy, as I assume you don't see it as such.
Can you explain to me?

You don't have to agree with how someone expresses themselves, but you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of (ad hominens, hurtful language) by using words like "asshat" and "bigot". Now you're adding hypocrisy to the list where it only applies to you. That clear enough?

Don't ignore or pretend that ad hominem attacks on me changes what you said.
If you want to talk about my humility later, I'm all ears.
Right now, the conversation is about the ignorant and hurtful thing you said, and then got called out on.

How about let's talk about humility now. You judged what I said as "ignorant and hurtful" and then used ad hominems to attack me rather than attack the words. You could have just said "hey I find those words offensive," and gone from there, instead of making it personal.

So before we discuss any more, try to recognize that you alone aren't the final arbiter of human morality. I.e., you dont' get to decide what is ignorant and what is hurtful and what is or isn't out of line. If a bunch of others jumped in and agreed with you, you might have an argument. Right now, all you have is an opinion and one you've expressed in a way that undermines your own argument.

What you wrote dehumanized not just the person making the video, but anyone who identifies as gender non-binary.

I disagree. All I said was I agree with their choice of words, I never said they weren't human or any less of a person than anyone else. I even clarified later on that I didn't mean that. You're the one who read all the negativity into it, and stuck to that interpretation despite further evidence to the contrary.

If that was your intent (which you seem to be telling me it wasn't), then take a moment to learn why, and consider changing your assumptions.

FFS, get off your high horse already.

Or at least apologize for having accidentally said something that doesn't reflect your deeper thoughts.

I will do that as soon as you apologise for making a big deal out of what I said in the first post as if I never qualified it in the others that followed.

Calling that hurtful comment an asshat thought is spot on.
Saying that someone who says hurtful, asshat comments out loud is therefore being an asshat is just science.

You can't actually be offended by the word asshat, right? I intentionally chose a childish-sounding non-insult to make it clear that I'm not trying to be hurtful.

Seriously, if you can't see the humor in this, then let me make it clear... I was being playful
"There's nothing to be gained by tearing each other down.
(You lazy poop.)"

Now you say you were being playful but there's nothing in your other posts that indicate any sense of fun.

So ok, if you were joking then fine, so was I. Happy to draw a line under it all.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You can't say that when I point out the things I said earlier were designed to defuse tension means either that I wasn't being serious or that I changed the meaning of what I've said.
That's more asshattery.

As for the word hypocrisy - I directly acknowledged that you probably don't agree, and I asked you to explain your side of it.
Pretending that was an insult or ad hominem attack on you is more asshattery.

I said this, "So take a moment to reflect why your initial post was hinting at bigotry and not applying your intellectual flare"
and you turn that into me calling you a bigot?

You're like 5% away from banana, here. The only way that sentence is calling you a bigot is if you actually stand behind what you said as you said it.
Well, if the shoe fits.


***
Oh you were joking?

Is that the truth of it all?

You think it's funny to dehumanize gender non-binary people? Haha... you're persecuted by society and I'm only playing along out of hipster-levels of irony.

Do I get it, now?
That was the joke?


How does that change my point in calling you out?
Your joke was insensitive and dehumanizing to people who have done nothing wrong, nothing to you, and are just trying to make sense of their own life experiences as a human.

People who get persecuted to the point of inflicting emotional trauma don't need your jokes.
And I'm surprised a psychologist needs this explained to them.

[Poopadoop]

I don't really want to get into a big back and forth of walls of text about who's a bigger asshat and why, and find out what other slights you want to toss my way.

I think this is a common theme with you though. You're quick to take the moral high ground with someone and when they point out why that's not on, you dig in your heels.

So, I'm not going to continue the transgender "debate" with you, partly because I don't feel that strongly about it one way or the other, but mostly because I don't want to fall out with you over it.

[OngBonga]

I have decided I am 98 years old.

[OngBonga]

No, it's always been this way.

We're getting to a point where doing so isn't a death sentence - either literal or figurative.

We're getting to a point where people simply being and celebrating who they are is becoming more awesome.

There are potentially over 7 billion human genders. A wonderful species.

I mean, this really does depend if you consider gender to be a matter of biology or psychology. I'm in the former group. You don't choose your gender just like you don't choose your age, or race. If a man wishes to identify as female, I don't have a problem with that at all, but I'm not going to change my views on biology just because someone's feelings might get hurt. I still consider this person to be male identifying as female, rather than simply female.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You seem to be conflating 3 different things.
Biological sex, gender identity, and the way gender identity fits into the culture.

Even biological sex is non-binary. Not all humans are born as either male or female. Not all humans have 2 chromosomes. Not all humans are either XX or XY. Biological sex is non-binary, QED.

Many supermodels - the ones with the extra tall, muscle-toned physique especially so - are XXY chromosome. The Y chromosome add androgynous traits that are valued as beauty in many cultures around the world.
Biological nonbinary gender is a (silently celebrated) part of our lives.


Gender identity exists across a vast spectrum, and pertains to how a person views their own sexual being. Whether or not this is the same as their biological sex varies widely, as well. Poop was joking (I think) about feeling female 5% of the time, but it's not impossible for someone to feel that way. People's gender identity is non-binary.

The way a person's gender identity interacts with their culture is another factor. The perception of gender, if you like. Take the "lady-boy" gender in Thai culture for example. This is a culturally accepted gender, fitting within the norms of society. Cultural gender identities are non-binary.


Look at it this way:
If you meet someone and they tell you their name is Jeff, you call them Jeff.
You don't say, "Well, you look like a Steve to me, so I'm calling you Steve."
'Cause that's confusing and not helpful, and if it happened to all Jeffs, then it'd be understandable for Jeff to feel like this is rude AF.

Gender can't always be easily distinguished, so just going with whatever someone tells you is polite.
Why does your impression of whether or not they're a manley enough man or a womanly enough woman matter any more than if you were to tell someone, "You look like a Steve. I'll just call you Steve."

[Poopadoop]

There are potentially over 7 billion human genders. A wonderful species.

I mean, this really does depend if you consider gender to be a matter of biology or psychology. I'm in the former group. You don't choose your gender just like you don't choose your age, or race. If a man wishes to identify as female, I don't have a problem with that at all, but I'm not going to change my views on biology just because someone's feelings might get hurt. I still consider this person to be male identifying as female, rather than simply female.

It's a bit more ambiguous than this even biologically though. There's a small but non-zero chance someone is born a hermaphrodite.

Further, even assuming one's sex organs are unambiguous, there are a lot of other factors, including biological, that influence sexuality. Hormones for one. We've all seen manly females and feminime males. They're not just people who are confused because they're parents dressed them funny. A significant number of them are actually fairly ambiguous biologically.

[OngBonga]

I mean, I don't even care what gender someone identifies as. I'm not going to ask, and I don't care to be told.

If gender is a self identity, it's nothing more than a figment of the human imagination. Not all human thoughts are worthy of respect.

"Lady boys" aren't the best example of what I'm discussing. Lady boys have tits and cock. These are physical traits, not a self identity in the sense of just making up your own gender. I don't have a problem with lady boys, so long as I don't get trapped by one.

I have a problem with ridiculous notions like a big burly man in a dress with lippy and a beard to match, calling HIMself a woman, this isn't what gender is. And if it is, then it's meaningless.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Just because it's meaningless to you, doesn't mean it's meaningless to others.
Indeed, to some people it's about the only thing that matters.

Just call people what they want to be called. Who cares what they look like or how that matches up to your preconceived notions of what it means to be a person?

Why do you even care? Why do you even have an opinion on what someone wants to be called?

What's so hard if the big woman in a dress with a beard and hairy arms wants to be called she?
What does it cost you to be nice to them?
(assuming they're acting kind)

[OngBonga]

What's so hard if the big woman in a dress with a beard and hairy arms wants to be called she?
What does it cost you to be nice to them?

Fine. So if I want to be a woman, I'm a woman. If I want to be 89 years old, I'm 89 years old. If I want to be black, I'm black. If I want to be a tree, I'm a tree.

Where does it end?

I don't want you to use the word "and" because I don't like the sound of it. Use that word you're an asshat.

[OngBonga]

Just call people what they want to be called. Who cares what they look like or how that matches up to your preconceived notions of what it means to be a person?

Honestly, I think you're missing the point. I don't care. I tried to make that clear in my last post. I'm not impolite, I'll address people as they wish, but I reserve the right to find it ridiculous.

...to some people it's about the only thing that matters.

This would make it an obsession. If literally the first thing an individual wishes to discuss with me when I meet them is their gender identity, frankly I don't want to be friends with this individual. It shouldn't be that important. If it is, something is wrong. If all that matters to you is your own sense of gender identity, you are self obsessed. Why should I cater to such egocentric traits?

What does it cost you to be nice to them?

Nothing, but I'm not going to sit here and say I think they should be allowed to use women's public toilets. Their sense of gender identity is their business, but when it compromises the right of women to safe spaces, I'm not on board.

If Big Dave wants to be referred to as "she", fine, but I'm going to find it funny.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fine. So if I want to be a woman, I'm a woman. If I want to be 89 years old, I'm 89 years old. If I want to be black, I'm black. If I want to be a tree, I'm a tree.

Where does it end?

I don't want you to use the word "and" because I don't like the sound of it. Use that word you're an asshat.

Again, I think you're confusing biological sex with gender identity.

You can't change your chromosomes (yet, I wouldn't put it past medical science to figure this out, frankly). You can't change your age. You can probably change your skin color (Michael Jackson allegedly did). You certainly can't become a tree.

If you want to identify as those things, then fine, I may think you're weird to want to be a tree. I may not want to spend time with a weirdo tree-identifying person, because I don't relate to them. (I mean... if you can pull of a bit of photosynthesis, then I'll reconsider spending time with you.) That's one thing. Openly ridiculing their identity is another thing entirely.


There's no real "man behaviors" and "woman behaviors" outside of cultural roles. Gender roles are a social construct. How that construct interacts with each individual personality is going to be unique. That doesn't mean it's unimportant. It's a personality trait we all hold. We all have a gender identity because our cultures define maleness / femaleness with arbitrary lines based on historical BS. The odds that any one of our gender identity is exactly in line with cultural gender roles is about as likely as any member of a political party is 100% in agreement with every party line. It might happen, but that is the exception, not the norm.

Every human has slightly different political views. Does that make it a figment of imagination? Does it being a figment of imagination mean it's not relevant to people's lives?
What's your beef with imagination? What's the difference between identifying as a hipster or a goth? A Republican or Democrat? Not saying all those choices are equally likeable, but
why is your ire less when it comes to someone imagining themselves outside of other social roles, but the gender roles really push your buttons?


Where it ends is with a choice to be kind or a jerk. Someone is different than you expected them to be. Are you going to accept them for who they are, or are you going to argue with them that you know better who they are than they do themselves?

My whole point is that people are more than any one of us can imagine. If someone's being genuine with you about who they are, then what moral reason is there to behave like a jerk about it.
Sure, if someone is trolling you, or being disingenuous, that's a different issue entirely.

***
We all already know I'm an asshat, so that's a moot point.
I did your challenge, though. Suck it, asshat!

[Poopadoop]

Mojo, you should consider "stream of consciousness" as your new identity.

Ong can be "bowl of strawberry ice cream" as a homage to his gammon buddies.

I'll be "asshat extraordinare."

[MadMojoMonkey]

Honestly, I think you're missing the point. I don't care. I tried to make that clear in my last post. I'm not impolite, I'll address people as they wish, but I reserve the right to find it ridiculous.



This would make it an obsession. If literally the first thing an individual wishes to discuss with me when I meet them is their gender identity, frankly I don't want to be friends with this individual. It shouldn't be that important. If it is, something is wrong. If all that matters to you is your own sense of gender identity, you are self obsessed. Why should I cater to such egocentric traits?

I mean... I'm only saying that if your choice is to be disrespectful to them, then that's being a jerk.
And I'm trying to be clear that if someone is being a jerk to you, or disingenuous in what they're asking you to do to accommodate their identity, then gloves are off.

I tend to get my hackles up when your (ong) knee-jerk reaction is to assume the latter, rather than that to first assume this person has expressed a vulnerability and made a polite request.

What other people are obsessed with is a vast range of things. Whether or not a person's gender identity reaches a level of obsession, I'm sure, varies. I agree that if someone's primary topic of conversation is their gender, then I'm disinterested.

Nothing, but I'm not going to sit here and say I think they should be allowed to use women's public toilets. Their sense of gender identity is their business, but when it compromises the right of women to safe spaces, I'm not on board.

If Big Dave wants to be referred to as "she", fine, but I'm going to find it funny.

This is offensive.
If a sexual predator is exploiting cross-dressing to attack women, then that's a criminal who needs to be stopped.
The assertion that the presence of someone who identifies as a woman being in a woman's restroom is inherently making that space unsafe is akin to accusing everyone who doesn't fit the gender norms of society as a violent criminal.
That's fucked up, man.

IDK of any criminal syndicate of sexual predators attacking women in toilets under the clever guise of wearing a dress.
C'mon.
You know that's absurd.

And if a bigotted woman needs to wait outside for a few minutes until the person she has an irrational fear of is finished wiping their bum or whatever, then fuck her. If you have rational fears, I'm on your team. If you're just being a jerk for no reason, then STFU.

[OngBonga]

Again, I think you're confusing biological sex with gender identity.

So is most of the planet.

Woman is a biological sex, not a gender. At least, that's what it used to mean. Woman, to me, is the term for an adult female human, what a girl grows up to be. So no matter how much I might wish to identify as a woman, I will never be a woman. I could undergo gender reassignment surgery, but that doesn't make me a woman. It makes me transgender. Trans rights activists seem to be on a mission to redefine what "woman" means. I have a problem with that, and the problem is that is erodes women's rights, safe spaces, and the integrity of women's sports.

There's no real "man behaviors" and "woman behaviors" outside of cultural roles.

I don't think this is true, but it's a different discussion. The vast majority of species on the planet possess different roles and traits for sexes. Humans are no exception. Men are naturally stronger. Why do you suppose that is? Evolution made it that way, and for a reason. The different traits between (most) males and females are entirely natural, and served to give humans an evolutionary advantage. Why do you suppose girls like assholes? They like alpha males because instinctively it's an appealing trait for women.

Of course humans are socially complex, incredibly so, and no longer do these traits play a role in our evolution. Or at least, not to anywhere near the degree they did. Men no longer need to be stronger than women, yet we still are. That shows that natural evolutionary traits take a long time to be weaned out of the gene pool.

You can argue that "manly" traits are cultural if you like, and probably culture plays a role in maintaining these traits, but you can't ignore nature. It plays an important role.

Where it ends is with a choice to be kind or a jerk.

Sure, but if someone is insisting I call them a tree, who's being the jerk?

[OngBonga]

I mean... I'm only saying that if your choice is to be disrespectful to them, then that's being a jerk.
And I'm trying to be clear that if someone is being a jerk to you, or disingenuous in what they're asking you to do to accommodate their identity, then gloves are off.

Fair enough. But we're talking as buddies here, what "disrespectful" opinions I might share here would not be shared with someone who is making what I consider to be ridiculous gender identity demands. But at the same time, polite as I might be in terms of using their preferred pronoun, I'll also try my hardest to avoid engaging with someone who is obsessed with their gender.

This is offensive.

To you, maybe. A man in a dress calling himself a woman and scaring women in the toilets, that's offensive to me. So there's a problem. Why should your offended opinion trump mine?

[MadMojoMonkey]

So is most of the planet.

Most people are ignorant, angry, irrational, and fearful of any person who is "different" from them.
For most of history, most white people thought they were inherently better than all black people.
This wasn't true, even though popular, and it caused immense harm.

The mere fact that gender non-binary people aren't as populous as black people shouldn't change anything about the similarities in unjustified mistreatment. And of course, I'm not saying everything about that discrimination is the same. But to the extent that it is the same, what possible justification can there be for this? It's just non-violent people being themselves, as complicated and unexpected as it may be, it's not a threat to anyone or anything.

Woman is a biological sex, not a gender. At least, that's what it used to mean.

This is well-said, and you might have just left it there, rather than defend historical ignorance and culturally-based notions of male and female roles.

Woman, to me, is the term for an adult female human, what a girl grows up to be. So no matter how much I might wish to identify as a woman, I will never be a woman. I could undergo gender reassignment surgery, but that doesn't make me a woman. It makes me transgender. Trans rights activists seem to be on a mission to redefine what "woman" means.

Your understanding of biological sex seems to continue to fail to absorb that biological sex is non-binary.

Of course, however you view your own gender is your business and your choice. Anyone who tries to tell you you are something you don't see yourself as, they're the one being a jerk. Your right to define your own gender on your own terms is commensurate with everyone else's right to do so.

Your choice is to be nice to them or to be a jerk. Telling someone, "You look like a Steve, so I'm just going to call you Steve." is still an appropriate characterization of your disagreement.

I have a problem with that, and the problem is that is erodes women's rights, safe spaces, and the integrity of women's sports.

This is a lie. There is no evidence of this happening anywhere. It's BS hypothetical situations made up by haters and they only hold true if you buy in to the prejudice that transgender people are liars, and trying to undermine something about society in their mere presence.
It's totally messed up.

Of all the stories I've seen of a transgender female engaging in sports - you know who wasn't upset, bothered, complaining?
The other girls on that and their competitor's sports teams.
This is a lie fabricated by haters to trigger an irrational fear and the parenting instinct to protect children.
It's total BS.

I don't think this is true, but it's a different discussion.

Everything that follows is a distraction, and not relevant in the slightest. Statistically, men are more varied than women. Statistically, men are stronger, but it's not remotely the case that all men are stronger than all women. Any doofus knows that.

But we're not talking about physical traits. We're talking about identity and how that interacts with culture.
Biological sex is science. Gender is not. Gender is a cultural construct. Neither has ever been binary, despite the lies spread by our culture.

Sure, but if someone is insisting I call them a tree, who's being the jerk?

It depends.
Are they sincere? If yes, they're not a jerk. If no, they're a jerk.

If they are sincere and you don't accommodate, then you are a jerk.
If they are sincere and you do accommodate, then neither of you is a jerk.

If they are insincere and you accommodate, then you are playing along, maybe joking, and probably not a jerk.
If they are insincere and you don't accommodate, then you're still not a jerk.

It's really not that hard. I don't see why you're confused about this.
If someone sincerely wants to be called Jeff, you call then Jeff, and you don't call them Steve.
EZ game.

To you, maybe. A man in a dress calling himself a woman and scaring women in the toilets, that's offensive to me. So there's a problem. Why should your offended opinion trump mine?

If there is a sexual predator in any restroom, that's a problem.

My position trumps yours because yours is defending irrational fears that demand someone just doing what is natural to them and harming no one being victimized.

The assumption that any transgender person is automatically a threat to a gender binary person is clearly BS.
If someone is just going about their business, harming no one, and someone else starts causing a scene... the one causing something out of nothing is the one in the wrong.

If there is a rational fear of a sexual predator, then of course, I'm on your side. If the clothing someone chooses to wear scares you, or a benign word they describe themself with does, then calm down and get a grip, and FFS don't be a jerk to someone who is not causing any harm.
There are real human rights problems in this world, and seeing someone with a beard and a dress in a lady's room is not on the list.


***
Anecdotally, have you ever been in a crowded men's room when a lady walks in?
It's the opposite of an "unsafe space" for her.

[OngBonga]

Most people are ignorant, angry, irrational, and fearful of any person who is "different" from them.

Then I'd argue it's instinctive. It's like hating the lion for killing the zebra.

This is well-said, and you might have just left it there, rather than defend historical ignorance and culturally-based notions of male and female roles.

The word "woman" is not a defence of historical ignorance. It has nothing to do with "roles". The word woman means female, not feminine.

Your understanding of biological sex seems to continue to fail to absorb that biological sex is non-binary.

I'm not talking about the one-in-a-thousand people who are biologically different. We're talking about self identity here, of people who were born either male or female.

You seem to think that my refusal to redefine the word "woman" to include bearded Dave in a dress equates to historical racism. It doesn't. I don't think I'm better than Dave. I don't think I have more rights than Dave. I just don't think Dave is legally a woman. I think to allow Dave to legally become a woman is a dangerous precedent to set, putting at risk women's safe space and sports. This isn't about any sense of superiority. So it is absolutely not in any way relatable to historical racism. Someone being oppressed because of the colour of their skin is not remotely close to telling Dave he's not a woman, though he is free to dress and behave as one.

This is a lie. There is no evidence of this happening anywhere.

Are you sure about this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/46453958
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p...women-going-to

It's BS hypothetical situations made up by haters

It doesn't sound like you are being rational about this.

and they only hold true if you buy in to the prejudice that transgender people are liars

I mean, this is quite a leap. I don't understand how you get to this conclusion.

Every individual transgender person is unique. Some are liars, some are not. Just like any other group of people. And just liek any other group, some are dangerous, while the vast majority are not.

Of all the stories I've seen of a transgender female engaging in sports - you know who wasn't upset, bothered, complaining?The other girls on that and their competitor's sports teams.

Wait, you just told me there's no evidence of this happening, and now you acknowledge it is happening.

Some of the girls competing do complain. Many don't, for whatever reason. Maybe they don't even have a problem with it. Good for them. But the problem will be that young girls will slowly lose the incentive to take sport seriously, as they will be outcompeted at elite level by transgender athletes. I feel like it's on the same moral level as me identifying as disabled and competing against people in wheelchairs.

Biological sex is science. Gender is not. Gender is a cultural construct. Neither has ever been binary, despite the lies spread by our culture.

Not once have I actually suggested that either sex or gender is binary. That's a word you keep using. Sex is a physical trait. It's biology. Gender is whatever you want it to be, which makes it a figment of the human imagination. Woman is biology, not psychology. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying Dave can't dress as a woman. All I'm saying is he isn't a woman. Or she. Whatever. I don't care about pronouns, but I do care about women having places reserved for women, such as public toilets, shower rooms at pools and beaches, etc.

Are they sincere? If yes, they're not a jerk. If no, they're a jerk.

I mean I'm not going to laugh in someone's face if they tell me they sincerely identify as a tree, but I'm going to assume some kind of mental illness. Not that mental illness is something to be ashamed of, but people get offended if you dare to suggest gender identity issues are a mental illness.

If someone sincerely wants to be called Jeff, you call then Jeff, and you don't call them Steve.

Fine. I haven't argued once about this. But if Jeff is six foot tall, broad, and has a beard, we can't be allowing him, sorry her, to waltz into the women's toilets. Just like if someone tells me they're a tree, that doesn't mean he has the right to stand in my garden with a bird on his head.

My position trumps yours because yours is defending irrational fears that demand someone just doing what is natural to them and harming no one being victimized.

Your opinion trumps mine because of your opinion that it's based on an irrational fear.

Right.

No, I think both of our opinions are equally as valid.

The assumption that any transgender person is automatically a threat to a gender binary person is clearly BS

I haven't said this. You're making so many assumptions, which I assume is based on how the media portray transphobes. You assume this is based on hate, or fear. You're wrong.

A man is not automatically a threat to women. Men cannot enter women's toilets.

This isn't about fear or hate. It's about women being safe, and comfortable. I haven't had a problem with that my entire life, despite not being allowed to piss in women's toilets. I never once tried to argue I'm not a rapist so should be allowed in. Should I have that right as a man? If not, why not? Why should Dave in a dress have that right, but not me?

[OngBonga]

Anecdotally, have you ever been in a crowded men's room when a lady walks in?It's the opposite of an "unsafe space" for her.

Many times has a woman decided she doesn't want to queue up with the bitches and comes into the men's. Fair play to her, I don't care. Men in there tend to take a second look and then get on with having a piss without giving a fuck.

Try being a dude and walking into the women's. See how that goes.

[Poopadoop]

Many times has a woman decided she doesn't want to queue up with the bitches and comes into the men's.

I've never seen this happen. Is this something that happens in the boonies?

Try being a dude and walking into the women's. See how that goes.

I did this by mistake once. Pissed up and the sign on the door looked like a dude to me lol. Got a couple funny looks, realised where I was, and did a U-turn. No-one ran away screaming or anything though.

[OngBonga]

I've never seen this happen. Is this something that happens in the boonies?

idk what the boonies is but I guess it depends where you drink. Seen it happen plenty of times.

I did this by mistake once. Pissed up and the sign on the door looked like a dude to me lol. Got a couple funny looks, realised where I was, and did a U-turn. No-one ran away screaming or anything though.

I mean, it's funny. These women probably laughed when they saw the look on your face and promptly turn around. I doubt you'd get giggles if you went into a cubicle, put the seat up, and pissed like a man. You'd probably make someone feel rather uncomfortable. Why would that be any different if you're wearing a dress?

The argument that transgender people aren't dangerous is completely missing the point. Men aren't dangerous either. This isn't why women have safe spaces. It's a matter of privacy. Women want a space where they can feel comfortable around others of the same sex. Not gender. Sex. Woman isn't a gender.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I seriously can't believe I'm the only one in this forum defending the position to not be a jerk to people who aren't causing harm.

Just call people what they want to be called, and don't go inventing problems where none exist.

Your personal views on what a human should be are not the end-all be-all of what a human can be or is. Kick your own self for being under-informed about the complexity of human identity, and look at what's actually happening. Learn. No single person can understand the totality of what it can mean to be human.

So why get bent out of shape when someone sees themselves outside the box your imagination has put humanity in?


Why do you care?
You seem to really care whether or not someone had a penis or vaj when they were born. I mean, if you're trying to decide whether or not to have sex with them, then I can understand why you care, but otherwise, I don't. Why do you even care?

Some people are different than you expected once. Now you know that there are some people like that.
Why do you insist on acting ignorant about it? You're not ignorant, anymore.

Why get so bent out of shape on accommodating people in what amounts to you as nothing more than a symmantic argument?

Why invent boogeymen of bathroom safety and some hypothetical problem with women's sports?
Even if there are some abuses by some people - you seem to be holding those few abuses against all transgender people.
Why the stereotype?
Why can't you simply take each person on a case by case basis?

I seriously don't understand why you'd rather behave in a way that makes other people feel bad about themselves when all they're asking you is to not be a jerk.
Why not just not be a jerk?

[OngBonga]

I seriously can't believe I'm the only one in this forum defending the position to not be a jerk to people who aren't causing harm.

What you're failing to realise is that this is just an opinion, and one I don't share. Nobody is being a jerk. I'm only interested in protecting women. That isn't me being a jerk.

Your personal views on what a human should be are not the end-all be-all of what a human can be or is.

You are making SO MANY ASSUMPTIONS. Stop for a minute and think this through. Again, this isn't what I'm saying. This isn't about how I believe people should behave or act, this isn't about society imposes roles on people. This is about women having their own spaces and sports, that's all I give a fuck about.

So why get bent out of shape when someone sees themselves outside the box your imagination has put humanity in?

You're the one bent out of shape.

Why do you care?

About how someone identifies? I don't.
About why women should have their own spaces? Why don't you care about this?

You seem to really care whether or not someone had a penis or vaj when they were born.

You're simplifying it massively here. This isn't about penis or vagina. When it comes to safe spaces, it's about privacy. When it comes to sports, it's about testosterone. It's got nothing to do with me, and everything to do with what it means to be a woman.

Why invent boogeymen of bathroom safety

PRIVACY

Do you think I should be allowed to use the women's toilets if I choose? If not, why not?

I seriously don't understand why you'd rather behave in a way that makes other people feel bad about themselves when all they're asking you is to not be a jerk.

I don't understand why this topic brings out the irrational side of you. This isn't science. You're not listening to what I say, you're not thinking about this from a rational point of view, you are making assumptions and getting irate about it, calling me a jerk when you're not even listening. This ins't what I expect from you.

[CoccoBill]

Why is it so important to you that some people (those that you categorize as women) have privacy?

[Poopadoop]

idk what the boonies is

Definition of boonies

US, informal
: a thinly settled rural area

but I guess it depends where you drink. Seen it happen plenty of times.

Really? A woman is ok with walking into a room where a bunch of cocks are waving around?

Seriously, this must only happen in the boonies.

[OngBonga]

I seriously can't believe I'm the only one in this forum defending the position to not be a jerk to people who aren't causing harm.

I mean, your idea of "harm" here is lacking. Do you think I am causing "harm" if I compete against wheelchair athletes? I do. I think that's harmful. I might not be punching anyone in the face, but I'm using a physical advantage to outcompete sporting rivals. If I'm allowed to do that, what incentive is there for wheelchair people to take up elite sports? Just fitness, something to do. There certainly isn't the same incentive as able bodied folk have... competition and success.

That's what happens if we allow transgender folk to compete with women. Those with a physical advantage will win more often. This is why Serena Williams is the greatest female tennis player of all time. She's built like a man. She's strong and fit. This is fair, because she was born a woman. She's a prime female athlete. I'm certainly not ripping into Serena here, just using her as an example of how easy it is for a strong and fit individual to dominate women's sport. In Serene'a case, it's fair. But Dave in a dress, that isn't fair.

Sport is important. It is not merely a hobby, it is peoples' lives. Fair competition should be encouraged.

[Poopadoop]

Why is it so important to you that some people (those that you categorize as women) have privacy?

I think if you can close the door to the cubicle, that's enough privacy for anyone. No-one has to see your goodies if you don't want them to.

Aren't there unisex toilets in some places?

[OngBonga]

Why is it so important to you that some people (those that you categorize as women) have privacy?

Does this really need to be answered?

Why can't I be allowed to use female public shower rooms?

[OngBonga]

I think if you can close the door to the cubicle, that's enough privacy for anyone. No-one has to see your goodies if you don't want them to.

Aren't there unisex toilets in some places?

Unisex toilets are the obvious solution nobody wants to talk about. I honestly get the impression that trans rights activists don't want solutions, they want to destroy what it means to be a woman. Even cocco is using language like "those that you categorize as women" like it's ambiguous.

Woman is a sex, not a gender.

[Poopadoop]

Fair competition should be encouraged.

Didn't that one person go from male to female and then kick the crap out of all the women in MMA? Yeah, I don't see that as fair. I guess you need another division for trans people, because just letting them have 20+ years of male hormones then decide that because they're female now they can compete with other women who haven't had 20+ years of male hormones, that doesn't really work does it?

[Poopadoop]

I honestly get the impression that trans rights activists don't want solutions, they want to destroy what it means to be a woman. Even cocco is using language like "those that you categorize as women" like it's ambiguous.

I don't get the impression this is true. It's more like they've been marginalised for a very long time and finally now getting their voices heard. But I've never heard any of them insist that they wouldn't use a unisex toilet.

Woman is a sex, not a gender.

My sense is most people consider the term "woman" can refer to either a sex or a gender.

[OngBonga]

I guess you need another division for trans people,

Again, another solution that nobody wants to talk about. I'm totally down with this, and would probably watch such sports.

[OngBonga]

I don't get the impression this is true. It's more like they've been marginalised for a very long time and finally now getting their voices heard. But I've never heard any of them insist that they wouldn't use a unisex toilet.

It first has to be established there's a difference between a trans person and a trans rights activist. They are different groups, with some crossover but not much. Those who get bent out of shape over these issues tend not to be trans.

I don't think trans people have a problem with unisex toilets, on the whole. I think it's trans rights activists who have a problem.

My sense is most people consider the term "woman" can refer to either a sex or a gender.

If woman can be a gender, so too can disabled.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think trans people have a problem with unisex toilets, on the whole. I think it's trans rights activists who have a problem.

Could be. I mean, I don't really follow it, it's more like background noise in my life right now.

If woman can be a gender, so too can disabled.

Huh? Gender is along a continuum of male-female. Disabled doesn't fit anywhere in there. You can be a pedant about using the word "woman" to indicate "female," but I doubt anyone thinks it's a worthy discussion.

[Poopadoop]

NB. Handicapped public bathrooms are all unisex afaik. No-one seems to be losing their shit over that.

[OngBonga]

Could be. I mean, I don't really follow it, it's more like background noise in my life right now.

It has to be said, I base this off Twitter, which as well all know is a poor sample.

Huh? Gender is along a continuum of male-female.

It doesn't have to be along binary male-female ideas. Mojo is making this point, and on that I agree.

I mean, it wasn't the best example, I was being somewhat flippant there, but woman is a sex, and if people are using that word to describe a gender, they are doing so inaccurately. Gender is an identity, if we're saying woman is a gender because you can identify as a woman, then anything I can identify as is a gender.

[Poopadoop]

It doesn't have to be along binary male-female ideas. Mojo is making this point, and on that I agree.

I didn't say binary, I said continuum.

What are you saying? That it can include things that aren't somewhere between total butch male and total fluffy female, including gender-neutral in the middle?

[CoccoBill]

Does this really need to be answered?

Yes please.

Why can't I be allowed to use female public shower rooms?

I think because gender used to be seen as binary and people thought segregation is required.

Unisex toilets are the obvious solution nobody wants to talk about.

How exactly would unisex toilets be the solution? I thought the problem was that women need privacy.

Even cocco is using language like "those that you categorize as women" like it's ambiguous.

Is a Thai ladyboy a woman?
Is a trans man a woman?
Is a trans woman a woman?

Also as said before, not all people have either XX or XY chromosomes, or the "regular" number/variety of genitalia. I think who qualifies as a "woman" is anything but unambiguous.

[OngBonga]

How exactly would unisex toilets be the solution? I thought the problem was that women need privacy.

OK I wasn't clear, but I support such a solution as complimentary to men's and women's toilets. Basically a gender neutral option.

Yes please.

Why should women have privacy? It's kinda ridiculous that you expect me to answer this, implying it's not something you immediately think is morally right. Because they want privacy. Because it's a basic human right, and women are a protected identity group. I want that privacy too. I don't want to shower in the presence of someone who has tits and cock. I don't personally care about going for a piss, but women do.

I can say this with certainty. If I were using a public shower room, and there were naked women showering withing my range of vision, my eyes would be everywhere. I wouldn't be able to stop myself. This is why I don't want to use a public shower room with women. I can't trust myself to be respectful. Now of course, this isn't dangerous behaviour, but it's not something women want. And I completely understand that. Women want a place to do private things in the comfort of a space for only women. Why is that a problem for you? Why is that a problem for anyone?

I think because gender used to be seen as binary and people thought segregation is required.

Segregation is required. Maybe in some future utopian world where every sexual desire has been eroded from human instinct, maybe then we won't need segregation, but today, in 2021, yes we need segregation.

Is a Thai ladyboy a woman?

No.

Is a trans man a woman?

No, assuming gender reassignment surgery.

Is a trans woman a woman?

Maybe, assuming surgery. At least, I can accept a moral argument for allowing someone who has fully transitioned from male to female using female spaces for their business. But not when it comes to sport. It's better for the integrity of sport to just have a transgender category for competition.

Also as said before, not all people have either XX or XY chromosomes, or the "regular" number/variety of genitalia. I think who qualifies as a "woman" is anything but unambiguous.

Fine, I mean in answering your last point I recognise myself there's nuances to what even I consider a woman, depending on the context. But it's got to be a rational argument, not an emotional one. Do you think a man simply putting a dress on and calling himself a her is sufficient to qualify as a woman? If not, where's the line? And is that line different depending on the context?

[CoccoBill]

Why should women have privacy? It's kinda ridiculous that you expect me to answer this, implying it's not something you immediately think is morally right. Because they want privacy. Because it's a basic human right, and women are a protected identity group. I want that privacy too. I don't want to shower in the presence of someone who has tits and cock. I don't personally care about going for a piss, but women do.

I can say this with certainty. If I were using a public shower room, and there were naked women showering withing my range of vision, my eyes would be everywhere. I wouldn't be able to stop myself. This is why I don't want to use a public shower room with women. I can't trust myself to be respectful. Now of course, this isn't dangerous behaviour, but it's not something women want. And I completely understand that. Women want a place to do private things in the comfort of a space for only women. Why is that a problem for you? Why is that a problem for anyone?

Why should someone who identifies as a woman be forced to use the men's room, or vice versa? I definitely think women should have privacy, but so should everyone else who wants it. If people are willing to use unisex toilets, like they do in many places, to me that would make the most sense.

Fine, I mean in answering your last point I recognise myself there's nuances to what even I consider a woman, depending on the context. But it's got to be a rational argument, not an emotional one. Do you think a man simply putting a dress on and calling himself a her is sufficient to qualify as a woman? If not, where's the line? And is that line different depending on the context?

I don't know where to draw the line either, but I have ideas about where not to draw it.

[OngBonga]

Why should someone who identifies as a woman be forced to use the men's room, or vice versa?

Why should I not be able to identify as disabled and use the disabled toilet? It's the same argument. I'm not disabled, no matter how I identify.

I definitely think women should have privacy, but so should everyone else who wants it.

As far as is practical. There's only so much privacy you can expect when using public restrooms or showers. A third option for transgender folk, non-binary, genderfluid, whatever. A place not for men or women, so unisex is probably not the right word.

I don't know where to draw the line either, but I have ideas about where not to draw it.

Do elaborate.

[OngBonga]

It has to be said, I'm quite impressed that we got to 2021 before we actually debated this topic.

[OngBonga]

I think the problem from mojo's pov is that he thinks a position that contrasts with his comes from a position of hate and fear. That's because his position is one of love and optimism. But for me, neither are rational positions, both are loaded with emotion.

I do my best to think about this rationally, without hate or love, without irrational fear or an irrational sense of safety. I think sport is the biggest problem of all here, as it plays such an important role in so many cultures. Women have long fought for sporting equality, and are still way behind the men in terms of cultural relevance. But they've made progress, and lots of it. Women's sport is now extremely competitive, and an appealing career aspiration for athletic young girls. Sport is an extremely good thing for a young person to take seriously. It keeps them fit and out of trouble. It's good for their health, and good for society. I can't overemphasise how important I think sport is to all cultures. This has to be protected. The integrity of sport has to be protected. This isn't an emotional position, this is a rational sociological position. You take away the incentive for young people to take sport seriously, and society will suffer.

There is no reason we can't have a transgender category. There is no reason we can't have transgender at the Olympics. This isn't discrimination.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Why should women have privacy? It's kinda ridiculous that you expect me to answer this, implying it's not something you immediately think is morally right. Because they want privacy. Because it's a basic human right

I'm hearing you say the way people want to be treated matters?
That treating people the way they want to be treated is morally right.

Do I have that correct?

Because it's a basic human right, and women are a protected identity group.

I don't know where to begin, but this feels like a detour.

Who gets to decide which identity groups are protected?
What is the basis for this protection, and why doesn't it apply to everyone?

I want that privacy too. I don't want to shower in the presence of someone who has tits and cock. I don't personally care about going for a piss, but women do.

If you don't want to shower with someone, then don't shower with them. WTF.

What about Bob?


Showering with Bob and his "bitch tits" is fine as long as Bob considers himself a 'he,' but not OK if Bob considers himself a 'she?'
Something that is no more than a semantic point to you.

You're really saying that the only difference being a pronoun in someone else's head affects your life?
C'mon.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think the problem from mojo's pov is that he thinks a position that contrasts with his comes from a position of hate and fear. That's because his position is one of love and optimism. But for me, neither are rational positions, both are loaded with emotion.

It's not even one of love and optimism. It's one of equal treatment being a moral imperative. It's one of encouraging individual freedom and celebrating the diversity of the human experience.

But really... I'm just saying don't be a jerk to people who aren't being jerks.

[blah blah boogeyman] [sport oh noes] [slippery slope nonsense]

This isn't happening. If it happens, then let's talk about it, then.

There is no reason we can't have a transgender category. There is no reason we can't have transgender at the Olympics. This isn't discrimination.

Awesome! Yes! Do it!

and in the meantime, let's not exclude or marginalize people who are simply different.
It's discrimination, and it's a jerk move.

[Poopadoop]

Re: Sports blah blah.

This is Fallon Fox, who was born a man, trans-ed into a woman later, and then went on to kick the shit out of a bunch of natural women.

Dr. Ramona Krtuzick, an endocrinologist well versed in the finer points of hormone therapies, says that because Fox started her treatment so late in life, it's unlikely her skeleton and musculature would change significantly. As Krutzick told Bloody Elbow:

Typically, you're looking at about 15 years after androgen suppression and sexual reassignment surgery to really start to see significant changes in bone density. It's been too early for her to see much of a decrease in bone mass or to make her equal to that of a female. She started off with a much higher bone density than other women her same age, and therefore will maintain a lot of that for a while. Additionally, because she is taking estrogen, that will actually help to maintain that bone mass. Women also have lighter, child bearing hips because of the difference in hormones during the body's developmental years. Her skeleton and body mass and shape developed a long time ago. Those changes cannot be undone. They are permanent.

[OngBonga]

I'm hearing you say the way people want to be treated matters?That treating people the way they want to be treated is morally right.


Do I have that correct?

Within reason. But in some cases, many cases, there are conflicting interests. What if I want to shower with the women, but the women don't want me to shower with them?

Who gets to decide which identity groups are protected?

Lawmakers. Guess what? Transgender is also a protected group, at least here in the UK. But of course, we're not arguing about whether transgender people should have their own spaces, we're discussing them encroaching on another.

What is the basis for this protection, and why doesn't it apply to everyone?

The basis is discrimination laws in the UK. Protected groups are based on race, religion, age, sex, gender, gender identity, disability... I'm probably missing something but this isn't me just deciding some groups are protected and others are not, this is law making the determination.

But like I pointed out, gender and gender identity are protected too. You can't discriminate against someone on this basis. But saying "you have to use your own toilet, not women's" is not discrimination, otherwise I am already being discriminated against based on my sex.

If you don't want to shower with someone, then don't shower with them. WTF.

We're talking about public showers here. They are a thing. They exists at pools and beaches, also festivals. You don't get to choose who can and can't use the same facility as you. The law decides, and that decision is based on sex, not gender identity.

Showering with Bob and his "bitch tits" is fine as long as Bob considers himself a 'he,' but not OK if Bob considers himself a 'she?'

This is another one of those assumptions. It doesn't matter if Bob considers him or herself as he or she. That's gender identity. Public spaces are segregated by sex. Bob is, presumably, a man having medical side effects. He should use the men's. If I have a problem with that, now I'm being a jerk, at least if I freak out. If I quietly think "ok now that's a bit weird" but get on with my own business, I don't think I'm being a jerk.

If Bob considers herself to be a she, well this is where we need a transgender facility.

It's one of equal treatment being a moral imperative.

So you are arguing that I should be allowed to shower with women? Ok then.

It's one of encouraging individual freedom and celebrating the diversity of the human experience.

This is wonderful, but the problem is that there are conflicts. You can't just make these conflicts disappear by telling people they are jerks.

This isn't happening. If it happens, then let's talk about it, then.

It's inevitable.

Awesome! Yes! Do it!

and in the meantime, let's not exclude or marginalize people who are simply different.
It's discrimination, and it's a jerk move.

I'm not trying to marginalise anyone. I'm simply trying to find a balance between transgender rights and women's rights.

[Poopadoop]

The basis is discrimination laws in the UK. Protected groups are based on race, religion, age, sex, gender, gender identity, disability... I'm probably missing something but this isn't me just deciding some groups are protected and others are not, this is law making the determination.

And gingers aren't protected. So while saying to someone "you're a black trans hindu with poor eyesight, so I won't hire you," is illegal, saying "you're a ginger, fuck off," is allowed.

Not to change the topic, but what is it about certain gingers, the real pale ones, that instantly gets on my nerves? I don't think it's just me either, I've heard other people say it too.

[OngBonga]

Only ginger men get on my nerves. I'm sexist with my gingerism.

[OngBonga]

My Mom is ginger. I dodged the ginger bullet and so did both my brothers.

Well, she was ginger. She's grey now.

[Poopadoop]

[MadMojoMonkey]

Re: Sports blah blah.

This is Fallon Fox, who was born a man, trans-ed into a woman later, and then went on to kick the shit out of a bunch of natural women.

https://www.outsports.com/2021/2/22/...ion-misleading

[MadMojoMonkey]

Within reason. But in some cases, many cases, there are conflicting interests. What if I want to shower with the women, but the women don't want me to shower with them?

If you honestly and sincerely identify as a woman (and I take it for granted you're not a sexual predator), then you should have the right to shower in the women's shower. If not, then no.

If you're just trying to pull some prank so you can ogle women, then obv. that counts as a predator in this context.

Lawmakers. Guess what? Transgender is also a protected group, at least here in the UK. But of course, we're not arguing about whether transgender people should have their own spaces, we're discussing them encroaching on another.

We're discussing treating people who are doing no harm as exactly that. We're talking about social norms that exclude people from fitting into public spaces.

I'm all in favor of having non-gendered bathrooms, or having trans-gender bathrooms. I don't think that's a problem. I'm not trans, and I don't speak for the community or what they want. But it seems to me like that fits into our pre-existing social norms about separate bathrooms for genders.

Since we don't have those, let's let people do their peepees and poopoos wherever feels most appropriate for them.
If they're not causing problems, don't start one. Pretty simple.

The basis is discrimination laws in the UK. Protected groups are based on race, religion, age, sex, gender, gender identity, disability... I'm probably missing something but this isn't me just deciding some groups are protected and others are not, this is law making the determination.

But like I pointed out, gender and gender identity are protected too. You can't discriminate against someone on this basis. But saying "you have to use your own toilet, not women's" is not discrimination, otherwise I am already being discriminated against based on my sex.

Which is kinda the problem, you see. There is no trans toilet. There is no trans shower. No trans dressing room.

And biological sex is a red herring. You're not remotely bothered by someone with 3 chromosomes (XXX or XXY) using a women's restroom. So you already acknowledge that the bathrooms are not strictly binary. They are suggestions on whatever is closest to you.

So if there are no trans facilities, and the facilities there are already totes cool with a spectrum of users in a binary system...
What's the problem with someone who wants to go in the room that they feel best identifies who they are?

The actual, current harm caused to the trans community seems lost on you over the hypothetical harm to the safety of female spaces.

We're talking about public showers here. They are a thing. They exists at pools and beaches, also festivals. You don't get to choose who can and can't use the same facility as you. The law decides, and that decision is based on sex, not gender identity.

Then I oppose those laws. They are hurtful to a group of people who mean no harm. They are a travesty of justice.
If the laws exclude trans people from public spaces, without providing the same spaces, that's discrimination.
It causes harm and gains nothing real - only supporting an archaic and demonstrably false notion that trans people are in some way bad for society.

If Bob considers herself to be a she, well this is where we need a transgender facility.

Yep, and since we don't have one. What about Bob?
In lieu of trans facilities - we can be jerks or we can be chill.

Let's be jerks at jerks and chill with chill people.
Let's focus our ire on real social problems like increasing wealth inequality, a broken criminal justice system, the ongoing chain of genocides that have marred the news cycles of my lifetime, the environmental catastrophes that have been perpetuated by a lack of oversight in various industries, the ongoing environmental impact of trans-pacific shipping burning vast quantities of the dirtiest possible grade of petroleum...

There are real jerks in this world worth persecuting. An trans person who needs a wee isn't on the list.

So you are arguing that I should be allowed to shower with women? Ok then.

If and only if you identify as a woman, AND you are only there to shower, then yes.
Otherwise no.

This is wonderful, but the problem is that there are conflicts. You can't just make these conflicts disappear by telling people they are jerks.

This is a fair point, but I'm not telling "people" they're jerks.

I'm patiently explaining to my friend ong that insisting on using a pronoun against a person's wishes is a jerk move, regardless of how they look and what you expected them to look like.

All the rest of this nonsense about bathrooms and showers and sports is non-sequitur distractions.
I don't speak for the trans community. I can't say what they want in the way of public facilities. I can say that if someone tells you their gender and you respond with any nonsense, then you're being a jerk.

Like if someone referred to me as 'she' it'd be weird. I wouldn't really be bothered at first, but after a while, I think, I'd be like... "what's your problem?" And if everyone around me insisted on calling me 'she' when I prefer to be called 'he,' that would be infuriating. If they then tried to tell me I can't even use a men's room because I have a pony-tail and that's a women's haircut... I'd just be ... are you fucking serious?

It's inevitable.

Tell me more of what your crystal ball shows, great oracle!

I'm not trying to marginalise anyone. I'm simply trying to find a balance between transgender rights and women's rights.

Well, right now there are no facilities for one and designated facilities for the other, so your choice is to tell people who they are or to let people figure that out on their own.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.outsports.com/2021/2/22/...ion-misleading

I quoted a doctor of edocrinology talking about hormones and bone structure and you quote some lies a bunch of muppets told on the internet.

[Poopadoop]

I think overall you're just being a bit too much like "let them do what they want, problem solved," whereas Ong and I are pointing out that while we're sympathetic to the overall situation trans people are currently in, there's some obvious issues with letting them do whatever they want. Trans people aren't the only ones whose rights matter.

In a perfect world, no woman would mind having someone with a dick, who identifies as female and means no harm, whip it out and take a piss in a public bathroom. But, I very much doubt that's how every woman feels, and as soon as there is one woman who finds that threatening or otherwise bothersome, then you have to consider their feelings too.

Similarly, in a perfect world, athletes born female would be happy to give a competitive advantage to someone with a male bone structure who nonetheless identifies as female. But anyone can see that that isn't fair either.

One solution is to have trans toilets (or unisex toilets with private cubicles), and trans categories in sports. But saying that because that solution hasn't been enacted yet, then for now everyone who isn't trans has to just suck it up and let them go where they want and do what they want, doesn't fly either because it gives trans people more rights than everyone else.

[CoccoBill]

ITT a lot of concern for cisgender rights being trampled on by trans folks, not a lot of the opposite. Which group has had it worse in the past millenia? What do you guys think would need to happen for the trans toilets and the trans categories in sports to appear? I bet it would require the cisgenders to demand for them. As long as they are happy about the status quo, as you seem to be, it ain't happening.

[Poopadoop]

ITT a lot of concern for cisgender rights being trampled on by trans folks, not a lot of the opposite.

Seems like it's been pretty balanced to me.

Which group has had it worse in the past millenia?

Not a fan of arguments about sins of the father, but if we're going to go down that road, we'll need to make compensation for a lot of ethnic minorities first.

What do you guys think would need to happen for the trans toilets and the trans categories in sports to appear? I bet it would require the cisgenders to demand for them. As long as they are happy about the status quo, as you seem to be, it ain't happening.

You don't need a revolution to set these things up. You could start your own trans sports league if you want, and if you run a business, you could install trans toilets in your building. No-one's stopping anyone from doing it.

But let's say you want to make it law that a business must have trans public toilets. That costs money. I would just make the toilets unisex with private stalls. As I said already, handicapped toilets are already unisex and no-one seems to mind. So you don't even need a law to do that.

[OngBonga]

If you honestly and sincerely identify as a woman (and I take it for granted you're not a sexual predator), then you should have the right to shower in the women's shower. If not, then no.

I think this is crazy. I can't see us ever coming close to agreement on this particular issue.

I mean, let's start with the obvious question... how do you legally determine if someone is sincere, and therefore has the right to use women's showers? How does a court who is charging someone with voyeurism prove that person does not identify as a woman?

How can you allow individuals to decide for themselves whether it's appropriate to share a shower room with women? This is the opposite of fear. Hope in the sincerity of other people. And it's as irrational as any fear.

We're discussing treating people who are doing no harm as exactly that.

We appear to disagree on what "harm" means. Harm is not something you can only cause through deliberate, insincere actions. A woman who is looked at in a public shower by someone of another sex has every right to feel "harmed". We live in a world where calling someone names is considered "harm", and here you're arguing that a man in a dress calling himself a woman, using women's showers, is not causing harm. What's crazy about this is you're a normally rational person, you're not batshit left like oskar, you're a kind, caring person. Yet you seem to be more motivated to be kind and caring to people based on identity than privacy. I really don't understand this. It's like you're more worried about being called a jerk than you are about women wanting to be "safe", and that word is used in a loose context... safe also means protected from voyeurism.

We're talking about social norms that exclude people from fitting into public spaces.

People like me. I'm excluded from women's spaces, and I have never had a problem with that, and presumably you don't have a problem being excluded from these spaces either. Why do you have a problem with Dave in a dress being excluded? Because he wants to use the women's showers?

If they're not causing problems, don't start one. Pretty simple.

It is a problem though. You saying it's not a problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. You're not a woman having to share your safe space with trans people. You're a man who cares less about privacy. How is it right for you to tell women they must share their space with trans people? What gives you that right?

You're perfectly capable of showing empathy to a trans person whose feelings are hurt, but you're showing absolutely none to a group of people who have been the subject of sexual predation and discrimination for as long as time itself.

So you already acknowledge that the bathrooms are not strictly binary. They are suggestions on whatever is closest to you.

Ok, let's take this. Whatever is "closest" to you. Let's explore. I have a penis, yet for the sake of discussion I am going to identify, sincerely, as a woman. I'm wearing a dress, lipstick, tights, the full works. But I have a penis. So what is "closest" to me? The males or females?

The true answer is neither. I'm going to feel uncomfortable in both. I'd feel more comfortable in the women's, because as a man I understand how this might make a man feel. I would be concerned about aggression. That concern might be completely unjustified, but it's real concern. Same as if I'm in the women's. Now it's the women concerned about me, unjustified, but real concern.

This is harm. It's exactly as harmful to the women for me to be allowed with them, as it is for me to be forced to share with the men.

The actual, current harm caused to the trans community seems lost on you over the hypothetical harm to the safety of female spaces.

The "actual" harm you speak of is precisely as hypothetical as the harm caused to women. You're basically saying "trans people have no facilities, which is harm, so let's take away women's facilities and make them for trans people too, which isn't harm".

I don't agree with this position at all.

I do agree we have a problem that needs resolving, and the solution is trans facilities. But that solution is met with negativity if suggested in the company of those with vested interests.

They are hurtful to a group of people who mean no harm.

I really do think you need to consider what "harm" means. You keep saying things like "mean no harm" like harm is only cause through deliberate actions.

I mean no harm. So can I come and sit in you bedroom while you sleep with your girlfriend? I'm just going to read a book. Would you consider that an invasion of your privacy? Would you consider it harmful for a stranger to sit in your bedroom reading a book while you try to sleep?

Ok your bedroom is not a public space. But that isn't the point. The point is I mean no harm, so why would you have a problem with it? Of course, you do have a problem with it.

If the laws exclude trans people from public spaces, without providing the same spaces, that's discrimination.

Yes. But taking away such spaces from another sex discriminates against that sex.

It causes harm and gains nothing real - only supporting an archaic and demonstrably false notion that trans people are in some way bad for society.

I haven't once argued trans people are bad for society, and I don't think many people think this. Most people just want rational solutions that protect women as well as trans people.

In lieu of trans facilities - we can be jerks or we can be chill.

This is really easy for you to say. You're a man. You don't value privacy when naked quite like a woman does. You don't feel sexually vulnerable. Your sex hasn't been subjected to rape by a dominant sex for millennia.

If and only if you identify as a woman, AND you are only there to shower, then yes.

This is quite literally impossible to prove and enforce. I can identify as a woman today and a tree tomorrow. Identity is fluid. All you have to do is say you identify as a woman. You say "if and only if" but you're putting your trust in individuals to be honest. Remember when I said hope was as irrational as any fear?

I'm patiently explaining to my friend ong that insisting on using a pronoun against a person's wishes is a jerk move, regardless of how they look and what you expected them to look like.

Well I've already said I don't care about pronouns and am not going to lose my shit over that. I might find it ridiculous in some cases, but pronouns aren't harmful, they don't impact on other people.

All the rest of this nonsense about bathrooms and showers and sports is non-sequitur distractions.

It isn't nonsense though. These are the major challenges when we consider the social consequences of our actions. Pronouns is nonsense. Nobody cares about that.

Tell me more of what your crystal ball shows, great oracle!

It's already happening, and if socially accepted, will happen more.

Well, right now there are no facilities for one and designated facilities for the other, so your choice is to tell people who they are or to let people figure that out on their own.

Not perfect. But your choice is to tell women they have to share facilities with people who have a dick. Even worse in my opinion.

[CoccoBill]

Seems like it's been pretty balanced to me.

Was my way of saying you and Ong seemed to have a distinct lack of the latter.

Not a fan of arguments about sins of the father, but if we're going to go down that road, we'll need to make compensation for a lot of ethnic minorities first.

The "millenia" was just hyperbole, just like "a lot of ethnic minorities". I don't think you're proposing we should have a global priority list of groups of people in need of compensation, and work down the list one by one, not moving on until the #1 priority has fully and completely been dealt with, so you must see how little merit that argument has. Every time someone says "there are bigger issues", it just means "this is not a problem for me, idgaf".

You don't need a revolution to set these things up. You could start your own trans sports league if you want, and if you run a business, you could install trans toilets in your building. No-one's stopping anyone from doing it.

But let's say you want to make it law that a business must have trans public toilets. That costs money. I would just make the toilets unisex with private stalls. As I said already, handicapped toilets are already unisex and no-one seems to mind. So you don't even need a law to do that.

Indeed. What makes businesses change their policies? Demands from their customers. What makes laws change? Demands from voters. What ensures neither of these things will happen? Enough people dragging their heels, claiming these aren't valid concerns or that there are bigger fish to fry. Both of those things cost money, and are not gonna happen unless people collectively decide they want and need them. The minorities alone don't have the power to change things, that's what it means being a minority.

[Poopadoop]

Was my way of saying you and Ong seemed to have a distinct lack of the latter.

Baloney. We've both come out in favour of the rights of trans people. We're not denying they have rights, we're raising issues where their rights conflict with the rights of people who aren't trans. That's more balanced than your argument which seems to be "if you don't defend these poor people to the max, you're an asshole."

Every time someone says "there are bigger issues", it just means "this is not a problem for me, idgaf".

Well first, yes I do think there are bigger issues. Doesn't mean this one doesn't need addressing but as far as it being our no. 1 priority, I say it isn't.

Indeed. What makes businesses change their policies? Demands from their customers. What makes laws change? Demands from voters. What ensures neither of these things will happen? Enough people dragging their heels, claiming these aren't valid concerns or that there are bigger fish to fry. Both of those things cost money, and are not gonna happen unless people collectively decide they want and need them. The minorities alone don't have the power to change things, that's what it means being a minority.

Well if there is a march that demands trans toilets be installed in every building, I suspect there'll be a hard time getting support for it. I won't.

But if there's a march that demands unisex toilets I'll go with that.

I mean it almost sounds as if you're saying that if I don't personally lead a campaign for trans rights I'm a horrible person who has no empathy for others. The fact is, as I've already made clear multiple times, I do support trans rights as a long as they don't supercede everyone else's. The trans athletes beating up biological females is a case in point. I say "have a trans league" and you say "but why aren't you marching on parliament to demand it?" Dude, I don't have time to take up every single cause in the world I happen to agree with. If I did I'd never get any work done.

[CoccoBill]

I mean it almost sounds as if you're saying that if I don't personally lead a campaign for trans rights I'm a horrible person who has no empathy for others. The fact is, as I've already made clear multiple times, I do support trans rights as a long as they don't supercede everyone else's. The trans athletes beating up biological females is a case in point. I say "have a trans league" and you say "but why aren't you marching on parliament to demand it?" Dude, I don't have time to take up every single cause in the world I happen to agree with. If I did I'd never get any work done.

I'm not saying anyone needs to take it to the barricades, I'm saying they should probably try to argue for their rights, not against them. Attitudes matter, in fact they're almost the only thing that does. No one can actively be for every single oppressed group's rights, but what they can do is try to not actively be against them. Everyone can do their part by re-evaluating their own stances and the justifications behind them, standing up for them when they see someone acting or arguing against them, supporting the causes either with their work or donations, voting etc.