# The Slope is Slippery



## Etype (Apr 15, 2016)

For the purpose of the argument, we'll take it as a given that a man is now allowed to act like a woman (aka be transgender) in society, the military, and otherwise. Now, commenting specifically on the point made at 3:16- if this is now interpreted as a constitutionally protected right, where does it end? This is basically giving legal protection to dress-up. With the new arguments of bathroom/locker room privileges, these legal protections are extending to the point where you may have the right to behave as though you actually ARE what you are dressed up to be.

So where does it end? Could the people who like to dress up as dogs or cats urinate in public?

The slope is slippery, indeed. The possibilities are endless...






This is half opinion based, half predictive analysis, 1/4 conjecture- but I'm sure you guys get my point.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 15, 2016)

As far as violating any Constitutional right with the military "claims" and accoutrement I can't see where's this person is wrong, unfortunately.  Could be mistaken on that.

Her Linkedin page does state that she's Pres/CEO of a human and civil rights political party, which would put her into the category of faking the funk in order to obtain tangible benefit for her organization.

Except the "Trans Purple Panther Party" is a non-profit.  This person has done some work on finding legal grey areas.

She also uses the title of "Dr." and lists a couple of schools but no degree field or professional experience, which gets right under my skin.


The FEMA ID deal is actual legal trouble, though, under 18 U.S. Code § 912.


----------



## Etype (Apr 15, 2016)

I was speaking more towards this point-

When an adult decides to play pretend or make-believe, that's one thing.

When that same person demands that you recognize the game as real, it's another.

When that same adult seeks a constitutional/legal means to force you to play along, this is where the real problems could begin.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 15, 2016)

Understood.  In this regard I think a key statement comes in at 3:30: "Do you believe I'm Robin?"

Is she forcing belief in a legal manner, or doing things to influence belief and hoping it works out in her favor?

I would suggest that the First Amendment doesn't protect _and make legally valid_ her behavior and appearance to the point that others have no choice but to take her seriously.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 15, 2016)

I can somewhat understand transgender/transsexual thing with regards to individuals born with both sets of equipment. And think its reasonable/rational for those types to be able to choose which gender/sexuality they most identify as. And within those regards, I think having some protection under the laws is warranted.

These other homo's that just want to be freaks and fuck with people and the system need to be herded up shipped off to a special "freak island" as to stop the stupidity and allow them to live out their lives with their own kind.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 15, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I can somewhat understand transgender/transsexual thing with regards to individuals born with both sets of equipment. And think its reasonable/rational for those types to be able to choose which gender/sexuality they most identify as. And within those regards, I think having some protection under the laws is warranted.
> 
> These other homo's that just want to be freaks and fuck with people and the system need to be herded up shipped off to a special "freak island" as to stop the stupidity and allow them to live out their lives with their own kind.



This may be the greatest example of a bait and switch post I have even read!

Sunshine, roses, and enlightenment in the first paragraph. Then the second paragraph begins with "These other homos..."

LOL - got beer up my nose!


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 15, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I can somewhat understand transgender/transsexual thing with regards to individuals born with both sets of equipment. And think its reasonable/rational for those types to be able to choose which gender/sexuality they most identify as. And within those regards, I think having some protection under the laws is warranted.
> 
> These other homo's that just want to be freaks and fuck with people and the system need to be herded up shipped off to a special "freak island" as to stop the stupidity and allow them to live out their lives with their own kind.



To your first point you are confusing transsexualism/gender with hermaphroditism, they are different things.

As to the second point, these people are human beings, they are not freak shows. Have you ever interacted with a trans person?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> As to the second point, these people are human beings, they are not freak shows. Have you ever interacted with a trans person?



I will tell you that I have.  Growing up in redneck Minnesota I had an immediate bias towards gay, trans, etc.  My wife is much more enlightened than I am and has helped me see these folks as humans, not freaks.  My last boss was gay, and we've actually became very good friends - something many years ago I could not envision.  

My problem is this.  If you want to be gay, trans, whatever, then okay.  I've no problem with that - where I begin to get resentful is when your beliefs interfere with mine.  I'll use N. Carolina as an example....
What the hell am I missing?  If I have my facts right, NC passed a law that states if you have a penis you have to use the the men's room, if you don't, then you must use the women's room.  I've seen some argue that it is fixing a problem that did not exist, but what about the 17 year high-school boy who 'feels' like a girl, and wants to use their locker room.  There is a problem there.  At least for me.

Why do my beliefs automatically have to be homophobic because I do not agree with everything that a homosexual believes should be their right.  As a parent, don't I have a right to expect that my daughter can use the bathroom without a man who believes he's a woman sitting in the stall next to her?   Where does it stop?


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 15, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I will tell you that I have.  Growing up in redneck Minnesota I had an immediate bias towards gay, trans, etc.  My wife is much more enlightened than I am and has helped me see these folks as humans, not freaks.  My last boss was gay, and we've actually became very good friends - something many years ago I could not envision.
> 
> My problem is this.  If you want to be gay, trans, whatever, then okay.  I've no problem with that - where I begin to get resentful is when your beliefs interfere with mine.  I'll use N. Carolina as an example....
> What the hell am I missing?  If I have my facts right, NC passed a law that states if you have a penis you have to use the the men's room, if you don't, then you must use the women's room.  I've seen some argue that it is fixing a problem that did not exist, but what about the 17 year high-school boy who 'feels' like a girl, and wants to use their locker room.  There is a problem there.  At least for me.
> ...



Gay and trans are different. But I get what you are saying. 

The trans person I know is a woman. You couldn't pick her out of a line up of 10 real women. She has a penis. She now will have to go into a male bathroom. Who is that traumatic for? Everyone. It is stranger for the little boy and girl to see that then for the ZOMG possibilityit will be used nefariously.


----------



## metalmom (Apr 15, 2016)

I used to be homophobic as well.My son-a hell of a lot smarter than me did change my views. Used to think being gay-changing your sex etc was a mental illness.Do not think that way any longer..I no longer pass judgements.Sometimes this starts at 4 yrs old for Gods sake when for example the 4 yr old boy dressed in girls clothes when starting school with his parents going along with this.He is now transgender and had every operation.To me he is a woman.

Ooh-Rah-I feel the same in regards to your daughter using the restroom.If they go through the surgeries a male wont have a penis anymore and will be a woman though imo.
Watched too much Oprah back in the day.
Understand where some of you are coming from.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Gay and trans are different. But I get what you are saying.
> 
> The trans person I know is a woman. You couldn't pick her out of a line up of 10 real women. She has a penis. She now will have to go into a male bathroom. Who is that traumatic for? Everyone. It is stranger for the little boy and girl to see that then for the ZOMG possibilityit will be used nefariously.



I don't understand this.  If the trans person you know has a penis, then biologically isn't that person by definition a man not a woman?


----------



## metalmom (Apr 15, 2016)

I would agree they are still male without the surgeries.  most trans do the surgeries-hormones etc.I imagine it comes at a hefty price tag.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 15, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't understand this.  If the trans person you know has a penis, then biologically isn't that person by definition a man not a woman?



Sure biologically. You must believe there are more than biological determinants for all elements of humanity. There are a million studies on nature vs nurture and biological vs environmental determinants.  You can look them up you have an Ivy League education.;) totally joking here.


She cannot yet afford the surgeries which cost thousands and thousands of dollars. But she should be in a men's room? Again she is by all accounts visibilly a woman. Think about how she would be treated walking into a men's room.


As an offshoot, anyone here seen Transparent? It is on Amazon Prime. It is a drama about a man who has been trans his whole life yet was ashamed to admit it, and didn't come out till he is in his 60's. It is well done. Entertaining, but will shed light on some of the issues faced by trans people.


Edited for clarity on my sarc.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> To your first point you are confusing transsexualism/gender with hermaphroditism, they are different things.
> 
> As to the second point, these people are human beings, they are not freak shows. Have you ever interacted with a trans person?



I was attempting to make the point of support for laws that would protect and allow hermaphrodite's who later choose their personal sex that may have been different from the way they grew up.

I was also making the point that transsexual/gender is complete bullshit and I absolutely disagree with a dude dressing like a girl, going into the same bathroom as my wife or daughter's, and if caught, "He" (because if you have a penis you are a "he") better hope a cop gets to him first. No I do not hang out with dudes that dress like girls, are you kidding me? I'm a barrel chested, beer drinking, shit talking Texan. People like that don't do well in my circle's 

And you can call me homophobic or racist, call me inhumane, whatever you care to. Bottom line, I'm none of those thing's and just because I personally feel a man who dresses like a girl is a freak and that what these "transgender" people are doing with our legal system is a complete freak show, doesn't mean we cannot find some common ground, hints my first paragraph of my first post and this one...

$.02


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 16, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I was attempting to make the point of support for laws that would protect and allow hermaphrodite's who later choose their personal sex that may have been different from the way they grew up.
> 
> I was also making the point that transsexual/gender is complete bullshit and I absolutely disagree with a dude dressing like a girl, going into the same bathroom as my wife or daughter's, and if caught, "He" (because if you have a penis you are a "he") better hope a cop gets to him first. No I do not hang out with dudes that dress like girls, are you kidding me? I'm a barrel chested, beer drinking, shit talking Texan. People like that don't do well in my circle's
> 
> ...



Unless the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-V is bullshit, Gender Dysphoria is real.

How likely is it that someone will find common ground with anyone when the dialogue starts off with one calling the other a freak, or suggesting that their segment of the population be sent to an island _en masse_?

Perhaps a petition could be spearheaded to assign separate bathrooms for transgender folks.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 16, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Unless the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-V is bullshit, Gender Dysphoria is real.
> 
> How likely is it that someone will find common ground with anyone when the dialogue starts off with one calling the other a freak, or suggesting that their segment of the population be sent to an island _en masse_?
> 
> Perhaps a petition could be spearheaded to assign separate bathrooms for transgender folks.



So as a medical doctor, when you have a patient that has a penis, do you list that patient as a male?

As for my comments on "freak island" it was meant jokingly as we all know that will never happen. As for my choice of the word "freak" it is grounded in the definition of the word and although antagonistic by use, is completely and legitimately in use specific to the issue of transgender.

As much as I do agree that in the ideas of debating to find common ground, its poor character to use antagonistic wording, or what can more commonly/modernly be referred to as a "trigger word". I would also admit I feel its equally reasonable for people to take into count the full meaning of the words being used. 


 As for the Psychiatrics of transgender, I have no doubt crazy people exist, but do have doubts regarding a dude dressing like a girl and pissing in the woman's room, and that in some way that will fix his mental health issues.

But than again, I'm not a doctor and have absolutely no place questioning one or an association of them. So I wont.

Respectfully,


----------



## policemedic (Apr 17, 2016)

So yesterday I end up handling a portion of an accident investigation.  A bicyclist struck a car; the car won.  Pt now presents with classic signs of a closed head injury.  Tanya--not her real name--is dressed in feminine fashion, is wearing makeup and has a valid out-of-state driver's license listing her as female.  

Of course, a proper physical exam reveals Tanya has a penis.

For those unfamiliar with the process, a proper physical exam in this context involves cutting the patient's clothes off--baring their secret for all the world to see.  This wasn't done on the roadside but Tanya knew many people involved in her care saw her this way.

In addition to her closed head injury she also sustained multiple abrasions and lacerations to her face and some dental injuries.

Now, this type of injury affects brain function.  She can't think straight, can't remember things, has to keep asking questions over and over, and is constantly shifted from trauma bay to scanner and back.  She knows something is wrong with her head and brain but doesn't know what or if it can be fixed.  She hears us saying what we're about to do before we do it but she's still bloody scared.

She's scared out of her wits.  I balance my police and medical responsibilities, touch her hand and wipe her tears away while telling her she will get better as a doctor and I take turns asking her questions.

Everyone, to a man, asked Tanya which pronouns she preferred.

Were we all wrong for treating this biological male with breasts with compassion, as a human being enduring the worst day of their life...despite what we may have individually thought of their life choices?

The answer is no.

There is however a slippery slope here, as @Etype says.  Does compassion and respect for another human's personal choice extend to having to incorporate that viewpoint into your personal life?  Should a biological male who identifies as female be allowed to use the female locker room, shower and sauna at the gym with your wife and daughter?  If you say yes, what if they haven't begun to undergo the transformative process?  That is to say, if they walk in looking like a normal dude but say that they identify as female and are therefore entitled to use the locker room would that change your mind?  There are certainly many grey areas here and a high potential for problems and abuse.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 17, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> So as a medical doctor, when you have a patient that has a penis, do you list that patient as a male?
> 
> As for my comments on "freak island" it was meant jokingly as we all know that will never happen. As for my choice of the word "freak" it is grounded in the definition of the word and although antagonistic by use, is completely and legitimately in use specific to the issue of transgender.
> 
> ...



I think you don't know what you don't know.

As a provider who has treated transgendered persons, we refer to the patient as how they identify, and then perform an assessment on how they present based on how they present in their transition. 

So for example a trans person has had their testicles removed you would still do a genitalia exam, but not a testicular exam. The provider would use the gender pronouns of she, her, and so on. This is medically sound, and the way the professional medical examiner would approach the situation.

The way we as professionals approach gender dysphoria is based on evidence, not on conjecture or personal belief... Basically the opposite of everything that has been voiced on this board.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think you don't know what you don't know.
> 
> As a provider who has treated transgendered persons, we refer to the patient as how they identify, and then perform an assessment on how they present based on how they present in their transition.
> 
> ...



I'll respect that, but ask you this. If I am uncomfortable with a man with penis/balls/still a dude, dressing as a girl, going into the same restroom as my wife or daughter's, am I wrong? Should I be ignored? Should your vast professional understanding, trump my beliefs and caution? <---that's not a vote for trump BS, actually think he is an asshole.

I'll tell you one thing about me, at the end of the day, I don't give a fuck what I am exposed too, I've been there and done that, seen a few thing's in my time. But for my wife and young children, its my job to protect them from such things. And when some smart guy starts telling me how much I don't know about being a father or husband, and attempt's to "legally" tell me eat it bitch, I have issues.

That all said, I ain't as dumb as I come off on the BS on here. I will always yield to your medical knowledge as well as the countless medical professionals on here. And as much as I do respect your open mind (maybe with a lack of understanding on some issues), I think it's equally important to understand a father's and husband's legitimate concern's that are equally important.

So let me be clear, if a male (person with a dick and balls) rolls into the ER, he is documented as a male, regardless what outfit he may or may not have on ( they absolutely should be respectful to their individuality). If a male decides to to take a piss in the women's restroom while my wife or daughter's are in there, I have a problem with it, regardless of what outfit they may or may not have on. If you honestly believe my wife or daughter's should be subjected to a man in the restroom, regardless of the outfit he may or may not have on, without caution or concerns, you ain't as bright as you think you are.......and so you fully understand, I do not mean that as an insult or as to fuck with you (I actually respect and like you on here), but as an "as much as you are opened minded, be open minded to others who may not share your opinions" kinda of thing.

And finally, this gayness is making my fucking head spin!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 17, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I'll respect that, but ask you this. If I am uncomfortable with a man with penis/balls/still a dude, dressing as a girl, going into the same restroom as my wife or daughter's, am I wrong? Should I be ignored? Should your vast professional understanding, trump my beliefs and caution? <---that's not a vote for trump BS, actually think he is an asshole.



Agree with nearly everything you posted above...especially the quoted part.  No point in my trying to elaborate, you nailed it.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 17, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I'll respect that, but ask you this. If I am uncomfortable with a man with penis/balls/still a dude, dressing as a girl, going into the same restroom as my wife or daughter's, am I wrong? Should I be ignored? Should your vast professional understanding, trump my beliefs and caution? <---that's not a vote for trump BS, actually think he is an asshole.
> 
> I'll tell you one thing about me, at the end of the day, I don't give a fuck what I am exposed too, I've been there and done that, seen a few thing's in my time. But for my wife and young children, its my job to protect them from such things. And when some smart guy starts telling me how much I don't know about being a father or husband, and attempt's to "legally" tell me eat it bitch, I have issues.
> 
> ...



How is one going to know who has a genital other than a vagina in a restroom - a personally conducted junk inspection?

18 states currently have laws protecting people from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.  The American press would surely be all over bathroom genital exposure trauma incidents like flies on a rib roast should they be happening.  I admit its possible that I'm missing all of those stories.

It will take a while but legislation on such issues will eventally fall toward tolerance and acceptance, I think.  Heck, Texas now pays for hormone therapy for prison inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria.  I'd have called somebody a flat out liar on that if the TDCJ policy hadn't actually been published.


----------



## metalmom (Apr 17, 2016)

If anyone is worried about a transgender-going from male to female and hasnt had the full surgeries no worries on the bathroom stalls with your kids.Havent once heard of a transgender assaulting a child.Sure theres always a 1st time for everything and I would say you have the right to be protective-but these men and women want nothing more than to go through the process and get it done.

I keep regular stats on sexual assault and molestation.Again never heard of a bathroom stall problem with full transgenders or just people working to have the sex change. JMO


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 17, 2016)

metalmom said:


> If anyone is worried about a transgender-going from male to female and hasnt had the full surgeries no worries on the bathroom stalls with your kids.Havent once heard of a transgender assaulting a child.Sure theres always a 1st time for everything and I would say you have the right to be protective-but these men and women want nothing more than to go through the process and get it done.
> 
> I keep regular stats on sexual assault and molestation.Again never heard of a bathroom stall problem with full transgenders or just people working to have the sex change. JMO



I don't think that is what anyone is saying.


----------



## metalmom (Apr 17, 2016)

Apologies.Saw 2 posts regarding this.Probably misunderstood in regards to their children being attacked and maybe the worries are if they whip it out in front of the kids in the stalls.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 17, 2016)

The issue for me is the law, if someone is legitimate in their beliefs, I doubt they're going to jeopardize that by shaking their wang at kids and wives. Doesn't mean it hasn't and won't happen (it's actually common in a few parks here in San Antonio). The issue, is the dumb asses that will take advantage of that law. If someone such as @TLDR20 friend that  he mentioned is being legitimate discreet, nobody is any the wiser and the laws don't need to be changed. If they are not and misbehaving, the laws in place, allow that person to face a consequence for that misbehavior. Which give people like me an option of calling an LEO to deal with it vs placing myself in jeopardy for setting someone like that straight. 

I also have a morality issue with it, and that's not worth debating as there will always be two sides to that coin that will never understand the other.

If the law allows a man to invade the privacy of the women's bathroom, I foresee major problems ahead, and also believe it further erodes the protection and respect people like me believe a woman is due.


----------



## Etype (Apr 17, 2016)

Coming back around to my original point-

The Constitution, as a base document, was left intentionally vague. It's up to judges to make rulings based on their interpretation of its original intent, or up to legislators to make new laws based on the people's wants/needs within that legislator's constitutional powers.

Now two points-
1. Referencing the video, where someone makes a statement alluding to the fact that they are allowed to dress up or act like whoever/whatever they want to be, and that they are constitutionally protected in doing this.

2. The recent arguments presented in state/city governments pertaining to the same arguments.

This issue is being tested from both a judicial and legislative standpoint. As with any other new frontier, the law of unintended consequences always applies.


----------



## AKkeith (Apr 17, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> How is one going to know who has a genital other than a vagina in a restroom - a personally conducted junk inspection?
> 
> 18 states currently have laws protecting people from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.  The American press would surely be all over bathroom genital exposure trauma incidents like flies on a rib roast should they be happening.  I admit its possible that I'm missing all of those stories.



Bathroom also refers to gym changing/bathroom/shower rooms if I understand this law right. 
So we are talking about exposed genitals of the other sex in front of children. Which again is "traumatic" to this society. 
And I think the worry about assault isn't directed at the true transgenders, or whatever term they are using now. It's the perverts who will say they are the opposite sex just to go shower in the other gym restroom.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 17, 2016)

AKkeith said:


> Bathroom also refers to gym changing/bathroom/shower rooms if I understand this law right.
> So we are talking about exposed genitals of the other sex in front of children. Which again is "traumatic" to this society.
> And I think the worry about assault isn't directed at the true transgenders, or whatever term they are using now. It's the perverts who will say they are the opposite sex just to go shower in the other gym restroom.



Right. My point is/has been there are 16 states where this^ is ok now. Where are the stas on how often these transgressions are occurring? I have seen one case, in Washington, where someone did it to obviously make a point. 

It isn't like people are just going to let bullshit happen. IF some dude walks into the womens locker room, I am sure there would be a reaction.


----------



## AWP (Apr 17, 2016)

Children's bathrooms, adults enter only with a child and adult's bathrooms, no children allowed.

This is legislative bread and circuses. Our country has better things to worry about.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 17, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Children's bathrooms, adults enter only with a child and adult's bathrooms, no children allowed.
> 
> This is legislative bread and circuses. Our country has better things to worry about.



Until you have to change your kids diaper...or maybe send your 4 year old daughter into a public women's bathroom alone because mom ain't around. Again concerns of a father and all that...


----------



## policemedic (Apr 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Right. My point is/has been there are 16 states where this^ is ok now. Where are the stas on how often these transgressions are occurring? I have seen one case, in Washington, where someone did it to obviously make a point.
> 
> It isn't like people are just going to let bullshit happen. IF some dude walks into the womens locker room, I am sure there would be a reaction.



This is because people who are honestly trans are usually the last people to want to draw attention to their status.  They just want to fit in and be left alone.

However, to your point...If a dude walks into a women's locker room and says he identifies as female in a state where this isn't illegal, what kind of reaction do you think would be accepted?  Call the police, only to be told the conduct is legal? Assault the dude and throw him out, breaking several laws in the process?  These laws empower one group to the detriment of another group.  Surely you see the potential for this.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 17, 2016)

policemedic said:


> This is because people who are honestly trans are usually the last people to want to draw attention to their status.  They just want to fit in and be left alone.
> 
> However, to your point...If a dude walks into a women's locker room and says he identifies as female in a state where this isn't illegal, what kind of reaction do you think would be accepted?  Call the police, only to be told the conduct is legal? Assault the dude and throw him out, breaking several laws in the process?  These laws empower one group to the detriment of another group.  Surely you see the potential for this.



Why hasn't this happened outside of the one case then? Why aren't perverts everywhere flooding locker rooms?


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Why hasn't this happened outside of the one case then? Why aren't perverts everywhere flooding locker rooms?



A solution looking for a problem - something which frequently happens when a civil rights issue is being worked out.

Or when the wicked little wand of religion is the basis behind a 'viewpoint,' but another thread has gotten around to that.


----------



## CDG (Apr 18, 2016)

Transgender people are still just that, people.  This red herring argument that opening a restroom to them means opening it to perverts and pedophiles is ridiculous and only serves to needlessly vilify them.  I could care less how people identify as long as they don't feel the need to try and flaunt it on a constant basis.  I think it's way over the top to continue arguing as though this law is going to flood restrooms nationwide with pedophiles and rapists.


----------



## Frank S. (Apr 18, 2016)

The selfie stick. A pervert's favorite tool inside or outside restrooms...


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Apr 18, 2016)

Wouldn't it be easier to just build a third bathroom that is unisex? Doesn't have to be that big, heck willing to bet that there are storage closets big enough for a toilet and a sink. Sometime I think people make mountains out of molehills for no reason.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 18, 2016)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Wouldn't it be easier to just build a third bathroom that is unisex? Doesn't have to be that big, heck willing to bet that there are storage closets big enough for a toilet and a sink. Sometime I think people make mountains out of molehills for no reason.



Although I agree with the short fix, I doubt mom and pop business want's to pay to turn their broom closet into a unisex bathroom.

I would say the short fix, will be to leave well enough alone and stop trying legislate social normality.


----------



## Frank S. (Apr 18, 2016)

Speaking to the title...






Yes. Yes he is...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 18, 2016)

Well @Frank S. , I've been waiting for the appropriate time to unveil this, I can think of no better time:


----------



## AKkeith (Apr 20, 2016)

Just how I expected people would react. Now if the transgender in that situation calls the police, the women could possibly be charged with harassment. If they touched them, assault and battery, and then whatever other laws there are out there.


----------



## Etype (Apr 20, 2016)

AKkeith said:


> Just how I expected people would react. Now if the transgender in that situation calls the police, the women could possibly be charged with harassment. If they touched them, assault and battery, and then whatever other laws there are out there.


Is it so absurd that women would be creeped out by a guy playing dress up, and in their bathroom???

That's exactly what he was doing.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 20, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> It will take a while but legislation on such issues will eventally fall toward tolerance and acceptance, I think.



Part of my problem.  You cannot force tolerance and acceptance.  You can legislate it, I suppose, but does anyone honestly think laws are going to change anyone's opinions on this?

Part of my problem.  This is all part of sexual deviance.  Statistically, biologically.  A very, very small percentage of the overall population.  Big Government is telling everyone "hey, it's OK, it's who these people are, and now you have to make room at the Table of Equality."


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 20, 2016)

All the politics of this aside, here is what I see the eventual outcome of this being - most people won't even notice.  Creepy molester dude is not really going to change his habits, and most of the men who identify as women have likely been using the ladies room anyway.  I just hope I have my camera phone going when I'm standing in line at a restaurant or sporting event when one gender's restroom is FULL and folks of the other sex "decide" they feel like the other sex to avoid long lines.  I know some dudes who would absolutely do this, singing "I feel like a woman" all the way into the stall.  Especially once alcohol comes into play, that will absolutely happen.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 20, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Part of my problem.  This is all part of sexual deviance.  Statistically, biologically.  A very, very small percentage of the overall population.  Big Government is telling everyone "hey, it's OK, it's who these people are, and now you have to make room at the Table of Equality."



The American Psychiatric Association states that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder."

I will be interested in the _ad hominem _attacks on the APA that may now ensue.

GD Fact Sheet


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 20, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> The American Psychiatric Association states that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder."
> 
> I will be interested in the _ad hominem _attacks on the APA that may now ensue.



I know all about the DSM.  I also know that before each edition is published the APA far from unified; it's even far from being a consensus.  But that's not going to change.  And now, April, 2016, we are all OK with it.  But what is the next acceptable deviant behavior?  Bestiality, because I feel like my dog is my equal and I have a sexual attraction?  Where is the line, any line, that says a behavior is OK or not OK?

Edited to add: generally I think the APA does a pretty good job.  But it's an institution made of men like any other, and as such I think susceptible to socio-political pressure.

Big Government is, in fact, pushing it.  Ramming it.  Forcing it (via legislation).  Still, my argument stands:  it is biologically and statistically deviant behavior.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 20, 2016)

_


Devildoc said:



			I know all about the DSM.  I also know that before each edition is published the APA far from unified; it's even far from being a consensus.  But that's not going to change.  And now, April, 2016, we are all OK with it.  But what is the next acceptable deviant behavior?  Bestiality, because I feel like my dog is my equal and I have a sexual attraction?  Where is the line, any line, that says a behavior is OK or not OK?

Edited to add: generally I think the APA does a pretty good job.  But it's an institution made of men like any other, and as such I think susceptible to socio-political pressure.

Big Government is, in fact, pushing it.  Ramming it.  Forcing it (via legislation).  Still, my argument stands:  it is biologically and statistically deviant behavior.
		
Click to expand...



Ad hominem_ attack on the DSM-V itself, which would include the hundreds evaluating of researchers, editors and administrators, 15-20 APA appointed criteria review committees covering each category, those commissioned for field trials for any research gaps keeping the evidence from sufficient strength, and the final review by the DSM Task Force; didn't see that one coming.  Bravo.

Although, even if all of that weren't in place, its still the reference for guiding clinical decisions in the mental health field.  Contact the D.C. office of the APA with suggested changes, to include presentation of greater supporting evidence than what underlies a particular entry determination.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 20, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> _
> 
> Ad hominem_ attack on the DSM-V itself, which would include the hundreds evaluating of researchers, editors and administrators, 15-20 APA appointed criteria review committees covering each category, those commissioned for field trials for any research gaps keeping the evidence from sufficient strength, and the final review by the DSM Task Force; didn't see that one coming.  Bravo.
> 
> Although, even if all of that weren't in place, its still the reference for guiding clinical decisions in the mental health field.  Contact the D.C. office of the APA with suggested changes, to include presentation of greater supporting evidence than what underlies a particular entry determination.



Well, golly.  You got me.  Because I don't agree in lock-step therefore I must be a knuckle-dragging troglodyte.  The shrinks always get it right.  Always.  Since you dig using Latin, may I suggest we declare a _Modus Vivendi_?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 20, 2016)




----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 20, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Well, golly.  You got me.  Because I don't agree in lock-step therefore I must be a knuckle-dragging troglodyte.  The shrinks always get it right.  Always.  Since you dig using Latin, may I suggest we declare a _Modus Vivendi_?



I always think it is funny when people in positions in science, particularly in my field of Nursing, are very quick to take the scientific evidence on lets say Hospital Acquired Infections, or utilizing EBP. But when the science doesn't agree with their personal beliefs on another issue, they are simply being questioning scientists... I had a conversation with a girl(fellow bachelor of science student) about how she believes only some of what science says about stuff. So she believes in the citric acid cycle, but not biological evolution. She believes in schizophrenia, but not gender dysmorphia. Key words there are BELIEVE. Not evidence. You seem to be towing that line awfully closely.


----------



## AKkeith (Apr 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I always think it is funny when people in positions in science, particularly in my field of Nursing, are very quick to take the scientific evidence on lets say Hospital Acquired Infections, or utilizing EBP. But when the science doesn't agree with their personal beliefs on another issue, they are simply being questioning scientists... I had a conversation with a girl(fellow bachelor of science student) about how she believes only some of what science says about stuff. So she believes in the citric acid cycle, but not biological evolution. She believes in schizophrenia, but not gender dysmorphia. Key words there are BELIEVE. Not evidence. You seem to be towing that line awfully closely.



Well. People and scientist of their time said the world was flat. If no one ever questioned that we'd have been in for a big surprise when we sent someone to space.

Same thing with the Earth being the center of the universe and the Sun orbiting us.


How can you say it's wrong for people, Especially people in science, to question what we Think we know as fact?


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 20, 2016)

AKkeith said:


> Well. People and scientist of their time said the world was flat. If no one ever questioned that we'd have been in for a big surprise when we sent someone to space.
> 
> Same thing with the Earth being the center of the universe and the Sun orbiting us.
> 
> ...



Your argument is terrible, but I will go along with it.

People still believe the earth is flat, should I give them credence because they choose to question the vastly believed reality?

People believe vaccines are unsafe. Should I give that belief credence even though there are thousands of studies refuting it?

Some things are researched to the point where you/me/anyone as a non-expert no longer get to chime in. I don't get to say the citric acid cycle is bullshit because I don't believe it. I don't get to question if stars are made of what I'm told they are, becuase I don't have a background in physics and chemistry

As was pointed out, if it were bullshit, people are welcome to do their own research, have that research peer reviewed, and publish that research. The whole point of science is to do disprove what someone else said is true. But you don''t just get to say something. Not without evidence, particularly if you should know better.

Also I don't think people have thought the earth is flat as much as you thought. Surely some people did, but it was observed a pretty long time ago that the earth was round. The ancient greeks were the first to describe the earth as spherical. The flat earth thing you are talking about being proposed by scientists is not even accurate.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I always think it is funny when people in positions in science, particularly in my field of Nursing, are very quick to take the scientific evidence on lets say Hospital Acquired Infections, or utilizing EBP. But when the science doesn't agree with their personal beliefs on another issue, they are simply being questioning scientists... I had a conversation with a girl(fellow bachelor of science student) about how she believes only some of what science says about stuff. So she believes in the citric acid cycle, but not biological evolution. She believes in schizophrenia, but not gender dysmorphia. Key words there are BELIEVE. Not evidence. You seem to be towing that line awfully closely.



Believe me, I am fully aware, or try to be, of my own perspectives in this area.  And like you, I have my ear to the ground with regard to what other people in healthcare think, and I have heard enough people with enough questions regarding this issue to think it's not 100% settled science.  So while I am aware of my own perspectives, I try to balance them with the barometer of what's going on around me.  I note the irony that we (people in the medical field) are asked to use critical thinking, challenge the status quo, keep asking questions, and when we do the answer is often "because science."  So as to not advertise where I work (and you know), this place is as bad as any and worse than some. 

As for GD, specifically, I guess where I am challenged is whereas the DSM states "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder" but the critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition, is the extraordinary latitude in defining "clinically significant distress" and a wide variance in how it is treated.  So having it is OK; not a psychiatric disorder, but being sad over it is?

To be fair, I am engaged in this area in a couple of other areas:  my cousin's son, a teen, is somewhere on the GD spectrum; a former coworker, formerly Ned, is now Leann.  We all have frank and civil dialogue on this, so while I fully note I may not be "in agreement" I like to think my position isn't so lock-stepped as to be totally obstinate.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Also I don't think people have thought the earth is flat as much as you thought. Surely some people did, but it was observed a pretty long time ago that the earth was round. The ancient greeks were the first to describe the earth as spherical. The flat earth thing you are talking about being proposed by scientists is not even accurate.



It is also Biblical and predates the Greeks.


----------



## Etype (Apr 20, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> It is also Biblical and predates the Greeks.


There are strong arguments in the Bible to the earth being round.

eta- just noticed that's what you meant, I'll shut up.


----------



## AWP (Apr 20, 2016)

Etype said:


> eta- just noticed that's what you meant, I'll shut up.



That's not how the internet* works.

* -  I no longer have to capitalize it, Grammar Nazis


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 20, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> It is also Biblical and predates the Greeks.



Yeah, I don't think so. Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah, I don't think so. Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth



Honestly the Bible teaches neither a flat nor round Earth; however, most of the scriptures taken in context with observation of the Earth's relationship to the sky indicates a belief the Earth was round.  As I am off for the evening I can attach relevant info tomorrow.  It is easy to interpret in belief one way or the other, though.  To me the arguments for a round Earth are compelling enough.


----------



## AWP (Apr 20, 2016)

I can't wrap my head around using the Bible as scientific evidence of anything anymore than other religious texts or even "histories" of the Greek and Roman eras.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 20, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I can't wrap my head around using the Bible as scientific evidence of anything anymore than other religious texts or even "histories" of the Greek and Roman eras.



That isn't what anyone was doing. We were simply pointing out that almost no one has thought the earth was flat for the past 2000 years at least.


----------



## AWP (Apr 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> That isn't what anyone was doing. We were simply pointing out that almost no one has thought the earth was flat for the past 2000 years at least.



You just had a brief back and forth about the Bible and spherical vs. flat.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 20, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> You just had a brief back and forth about the Bible and spherical vs. flat.



Yeah. Back on topic.


----------



## metalmom (Apr 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> That isn't what anyone was doing. We were simply pointing out that almost no one has thought the earth was flat for the past 2000 years at least.


With one exception-The Flat Earth Society.lol But-yes-back on track.They friggin actually exist.


----------



## Etype (Apr 21, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> That's not how the internet* works.
> 
> * -  I no longer have to capitalize it, Grammar Nazis


Fundamental change.


----------

