Welcome to Kentucky

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

morriswalters
Posts: 6950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Welcome to Kentucky

Postby morriswalters » Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:24 pm UTC

From the Washington Post. I could be convinced that it is time to cross the river and leave. Sigh.

User avatar
poochyena
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 2:02 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby poochyena » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:10 pm UTC

I don't see the problem?
People normally can't enter a restroom of the opposite, so i'm not sure what the problem is?

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3604
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby eSOANEM » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:20 pm UTC

Because when a trans woman goes into the ladies' toilet, she's not going into the opposite's toilet, she's going into the toilets for people of her gender. If you think she is going into the opposite toilet then you're a transphobic arsehole.

Furthermore, forcing trans people to go into the toilet for a gender they are not, contributes to a society which tells them they aren't who they know they are and that they should be ashamed of who they really are which all contributes to the ridiculously disproportionate rate of suicides in trans people.

Policies like this are problematic because they kill people.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Thesh » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:28 pm UTC

poochyena wrote:I don't see the problem?
People normally can't enter a restroom of the opposite, so i'm not sure what the problem is?


Because they are addressing the issue by reinforcing the discrimination instead of finding alternatives that work for everyone (e.g. single unisex bathrooms/showers/dressing rooms that provide privacy everyone).
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8881
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:33 pm UTC

Wait, why do we even still have separate bathrooms by gender?

Prefanity
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:28 am UTC
Location: Reno, NV

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Prefanity » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:55 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Wait, why do we even still have separate bathrooms by gender?


I think there is probably a community of woman who do not want men in their bathrooms, as a safety thing.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Thesh » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:58 pm UTC

So putting up a sign that says "Women" prevents a man from walking in there, and thus makes the woman safer?
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3041
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Qaanol » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:16 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Wait, why do we even still have separate bathrooms by gender?

I’m pretty sure it’s because we as a society have collectively decided that separate but equal facilities segregated on the basis of a protected class are totally fine and acceptable and not at all a flagrant violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Same old story really. Black people (and by “people” I mean “men”, because duh am I right?) got the right to vote in 1870, and 50 years later women still didn’t have it. Black people stopped having to use segregated public facilities in 1964, and 50 years later restrooms are still segregated by gender. You know, equality.
wee free kings

speising
Posts: 2080
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby speising » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:29 pm UTC

one could also argue that restrooms are separated by people's different plumbings, as men's rooms typically have urinals. i, for one, feel uncomfortable to be watched by strange women while peeing.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Djehutynakht » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:34 pm UTC

But would you be uncomfortable being watched by strange men as well? That's already a possibility. (to the above)

(to two posts above) I believe most women and men are happy with the idea of separate bathroom areas in public, and regard those facilities as generally being equal (although I've heard an argument over capacity). That wasn't the case with racial segregation.


The thought process has been that communal bathrooms are easiest to do (10 "stalls" as opposed to 10 separate bathrooms), but that each of the two traditional/predominant genders would want privacy from the other.. due to biological differences and such.

In that line of thinking, (biological) women might be uncomfortable with a trans woman who's still, biologically, a male. Because ultimately bathrooms aren't a place created for the expression and acceptance of identity, but, ultimately, biological process. A woman being uncomfortable with someone with male biology in the women's bathroom is understandable, especially in a situation where they've grown up in a culture where two solidly divided gender-divided bathrooms has been their norm.

On the other hand, though, it's also entirely understandable why someone who identifies as a woman, even with male biology, would be extremely uncomfortable visiting a "men's" bathroom... bathrooms may be about biology, but there is at least some social aspect to using one when there's other people in there. And, at the same time, just as a woman might be uncomfortable with someone of male biology visiting their restroom, a man might be uncomfortable with someone of female identity visiting the men's room.

Unisex-designated bathrooms do seem like they'd be the optimal way to go. When a bathroom is designated "male" or "female", there's always going to be some expectation that users comply with either a social or biological definition of the word in some way, and there's always going to be some discomfort if the two categories don't match up. At the very least, with unisex bathrooms, there's an absolute understanding as to the fact that this bathroom is intended for anyone with a bladder.


This bill is stupid, unnecessary, and unfairly targets transgender students.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3041
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Qaanol » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:43 pm UTC

The “uncomfortableness” does not stem from biological differences, it is purely a result of societal gender norms. If we outlawed segregated restrooms tomorrow, the stodgy old guard would protest until they died, but everyone else would be fine with it within a few years, and people who grow up without segregation will find the idea laughably archaic and misguided, just like what happened with racial desegregation.

Also, currently I know for a fact that at least one, and probably nearly all US state building codes explicitly require having two separate restrooms, one labeled “Men” and the other labeled “Women”, for most businesses—it would actually be illegal to make just one unisex bathroom, even if it were filled with lots of individual stalls.
wee free kings

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Vahir » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:57 pm UTC

Gender norms aren't going anywhere. The fact* is that the strong majority of people- not just the "stodgy old guard", but young people as well- would be uncomfortable with unisex only bathrooms. I've never had a conversation about gender norms with someone who's against them outside of the internet.





*Anecdotal, not a fact

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Thesh » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:21 am UTC

A lot of places have unisex bathrooms, though. Airplanes, for one (also boats), national parks in the US also have unisex bathrooms, some businesses; I've never really heard anyone complain. Most homes in the US have unisex bathrooms too, although I'm not sure if that counts.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3041
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Qaanol » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:50 am UTC

Actually, having unisex bathrooms could be a really really good thing, for one very simple reason: if there were women in the restroom, a lot of guys would be much less likely to walk out without washing their hands after using a urinal. It’s a thing, it happens, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been washing my hands and seen someone go straight from the pisser to the exit. Sometimes I call them out on it, but I’ve never seen anyone else do so.

I don’t have statistics, and I’m really not inclined to try to find any, but anecdotally I’d estimate about 1 in 5 guys will just not wash their hands after urinating. And that is with other guys in the room!

Hmm, it might be a good idea to design restrooms so that the sinks are all visible from outside the room, and it is impossible to get from the stalls to the door without going by the sinks, so anyone who’s looking toward the restroom can see who doesn’t wash their hands.
wee free kings

User avatar
scarecrovv
It's pronounced 'double u'
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby scarecrovv » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:57 am UTC

In my dorm in college all the bathrooms were unisex. It was weird, exciting, and interesting for about 20 seconds, and after that it seemed perfectly normal.

The building was arranged this way because back in Ye Olden Days it was an all male dorm. When they desegregated the dorm, they didn't bother building more bathrooms or labeling them.
Last edited by scarecrovv on Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:00 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

speising
Posts: 2080
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby speising » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:57 am UTC

just place the door handle under a running faucet.

Derek
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Derek » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:05 am UTC

Thesh wrote:A lot of places have unisex bathrooms, though. Airplanes, for one (also boats), national parks in the US also have unisex bathrooms, some businesses; I've never really heard anyone complain. Most homes in the US have unisex bathrooms too, although I'm not sure if that counts.

These are usually one-room, one-toilet bathrooms though. Not a shared space. It's when you have men and women in a bathroom at the same time that people get antsy.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Thesh » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:10 am UTC

So instead of making two large rooms with stalls and sinks grouped together, turn it into a hall connecting to a bunch of small bathrooms with their own sink and toilet (and maybe a couple larger ones for handicap people).
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8881
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:15 am UTC

As a guy, I don't think I'd care if the bathrooms were merged. Gay guys use the bathroom all the time, and if gay guys can control themselves around men, straight men can do so likewise with women.

Prefanity
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:28 am UTC
Location: Reno, NV

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Prefanity » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:16 am UTC

Thesh wrote:So putting up a sign that says "Women" prevents a man from walking in there, and thus makes the woman safer?


Perhaps my use of "safe" was ill advised. I didn't mean to suggest that our little sematogram prevented violent crime, but that in our current cultural climate, inviting the sexes into the same bathroom produces an undue level of stress for (at least) one of them. If some men in this thread feel uncomfortable about seeing women in this space, without the looming possibility that these women may ogle, comment on, or assault their bodies, think how women might feel seeing men in the bathroom.

WilliamLehnsherr
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:58 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby WilliamLehnsherr » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:19 am UTC

Thesh wrote:So instead of making two large rooms with stalls and sinks grouped together, turn it into a hall connecting to a bunch of small bathrooms with their own sink and toilet (and maybe a couple larger ones for handicap people).


Annoyingly, it's not uncommon for them to still be segregated. There'll be a whole bunch of one room toilets, all exactly the same, but some will be labelled "women" and the others labelled "men".

As for desegregation, I'm all for it. I can't imagine anything could make me more uncomfortable in public toilets.I mean, I can barely pee in a locked stall when there's no one else in the whole block because I'm worried someone will come in and wait right outside the door for me to finish (if they don't "knock" first. Seriously? You can see it's locked and you can even see my feet under the door. Knocking does nothing).

Derek
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Derek » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:23 am UTC

Thesh wrote:So instead of making two large rooms with stalls and sinks grouped together, turn it into a hall connecting to a bunch of small bathrooms with their own sink and toilet (and maybe a couple larger ones for handicap people).

While nice in theory, this requires a lot more space than a standard bathroom. A single, unisex, shared bathroom with an appropriate ratio of stalls, urinals, and sinks would be the most space efficient design you could get, if people were ok with sharing the space. Separating men's and women's bathrooms is slightly less efficient, but makes most people happier.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Thesh » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:35 am UTC

Derek wrote:
Thesh wrote:So instead of making two large rooms with stalls and sinks grouped together, turn it into a hall connecting to a bunch of small bathrooms with their own sink and toilet (and maybe a couple larger ones for handicap people).

While nice in theory, this requires a lot more space than a standard bathroom. A single, unisex, shared bathroom with an appropriate ratio of stalls, urinals, and sinks would be the most space efficient design you could get, if people were ok with sharing the space. Separating men's and women's bathrooms is slightly less efficient, but makes most people happier.


There's a lot of unused space in current bathroom designs because there to be two aisles where people need to walk down: one aisle for the men, one for the women, and then you usually have entryways in both bathrooms which take up extra space because they are designed to block the view. Getting rid of that and having a single hallway with small bathrooms on either side and you could end up with the same number of toilets in the same space.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
poochyena
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 2:02 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby poochyena » Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:01 am UTC

eSOANEM wrote:If you think she is going into the opposite toilet then you're a transphobic arsehole.


You understand the difference between sex and gender, yes?
Toilets are separated by sex, not gender.


I think seperating the toilets are silly. I mean, Oh me yarm, you might see someone of the opposite sex washing their hands! oh no!

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Vahir » Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:03 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:Actually, having unisex bathrooms could be a really really good thing, for one very simple reason: if there were women in the restroom, a lot of guys would be much less likely to walk out without washing their hands after using a urinal. It’s a thing, it happens, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been washing my hands and seen someone go straight from the pisser to the exit. Sometimes I call them out on it, but I’ve never seen anyone else do so.

I don’t have statistics, and I’m really not inclined to try to find any, but anecdotally I’d estimate about 1 in 5 guys will just not wash their hands after urinating. And that is with other guys in the room!

Hmm, it might be a good idea to design restrooms so that the sinks are all visible from outside the room, and it is impossible to get from the stalls to the door without going by the sinks, so anyone who’s looking toward the restroom can see who doesn’t wash their hands.


Obligatory

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3604
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby eSOANEM » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:36 am UTC

speising wrote:one could also argue that restrooms are separated by people's different plumbings, as men's rooms typically have urinals. i, for one, feel uncomfortable to be watched by strange women while peeing.


The sets {has penis} and {is a man} are not the same.

Having urinals separated (or at least with a separate queue) though is probably a good idea to maximise throughput of people. Of course, whoever wants to and can reasonably use them should be able to use them whether they have a penis or a vulva and a standing urination device.

poochyena wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:If you think she is going into the opposite toilet then you're a transphobic arsehole.


You understand the difference between sex and gender, yes?
Toilets are separated by sex, not gender.


I also know that people's notion of biological sex as they apply it to people is socially constructed and exists only in the context of transphobic definitions of gender.

Do you know what biological sex actually is? It's whether an individual produces/will produce/would produce their species' large or small gametes. When was the last time you took a look at someone's gametes before deciding if they were using the "opposite" toilet? I'm willing to bet it never happened; you know why? Because toilets aren't separated by sex. They're separated by gender (or society's perception of gender).
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

morriswalters
Posts: 6950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:05 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Wait, why do we even still have separate bathrooms by gender?
You should know the answer to the question, at least for the US. Because the biological presentation of sex does matter at this point in time. Otherwise we wouldn't post pics of naked female celebrities online.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5652
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Diadem » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:05 pm UTC

Derek wrote:
Thesh wrote:A lot of places have unisex bathrooms, though. Airplanes, for one (also boats), national parks in the US also have unisex bathrooms, some businesses; I've never really heard anyone complain. Most homes in the US have unisex bathrooms too, although I'm not sure if that counts.

These are usually one-room, one-toilet bathrooms though. Not a shared space. It's when you have men and women in a bathroom at the same time that people get antsy.

Wait, wait, what? Are shared space toilets a thing in the US? As in, 1 room with several toilets? I've never heard of that before. That'd make me extremely uncomfortable, regardless of the gender of the person sharing the toilet with me.


Anyway over here in NL I don't have a big problem with going to the woman's bathroom myself, if all the men's toilets are occupied. It's never been remarked upon, and I've seen plenty of men do the same (the opposite is rarer, but that's because it's much rarer for there to be queues in front of the women's bathroom). I think hardly anyone would mind if segregated bathrooms were abolished. On the other hand it doesn't cost much, and in general it's a good idea to give a small minority what they want if they care about it a lot, you care about it very little, and it's cheap.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

elasto
Posts: 3132
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby elasto » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:22 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Wait, why do we even still have separate bathrooms by gender?
You should know the answer to the question, at least for the US. Because the biological presentation of sex does matter at this point in time. Otherwise we wouldn't post pics of naked female celebrities online.

There are men and women who enjoy looking at naked celebrity women; There are men and women who enjoy looking at naked celebrity men. Not sure what point you're attempting to prove.

Bathrooms being separated by sex doesn't guarantee someone isn't receiving titillation at your expense. Separate but equal never works. Unisex bathrooms work in other contexts and there's no real reason they couldn't be the norm.

morriswalters
Posts: 6950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:41 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Wait, why do we even still have separate bathrooms by gender?
You should know the answer to the question, at least for the US. Because the biological presentation of sex does matter at this point in time. Otherwise we wouldn't post pics of naked female celebrities online.

There are men and women who enjoy looking at naked celebrity women; There are men and women who enjoy looking at naked celebrity men. Not sure what point you're attempting to prove.

Bathrooms being separated by sex doesn't guarantee someone isn't receiving titillation at your expense. Separate but equal never works. Unisex bathrooms work in other contexts and there's no real reason they couldn't be the norm.
Certainly they could. I gave up being worried about personal modesty when I got married. But whatever you think of the idea, you can be sure that a substantial majority doesn't yet agree with you. And men hacking phones of female celebrities has the effect of proving to women that sex matters and some men can't be trusted. As does whistling at them, and otherwise objectifying them. Don't attack the messenger. I don't care for it, I just acknowledge it.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Grop » Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:17 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Wait, wait, what? Are shared space toilets a thing in the US? As in, 1 room with several toilets? I've never heard of that before.


I have seen that here (which is not the US) in a bar. There was obviously no urinals. Dividing walls between toilets were built and went up to the ceiling.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7313
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Zamfir » Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:48 pm UTC

I have been to truckers' toilets that consisted of no more than a long ditch with a water trickle and people squatting in a row, with little screens so you're not directly looking at the active asshole in front of you.

Those toilets had a men's ditch and a women's ditch.

Also, a public toilet consisting of a little building where the floor halfway started to droop at 45 degrees. The idea seemed to be that you would squat just over the edge, and the poop would eventually migrate down the slope. I presume the bottom reservoir got cleaned once in a while. I limited myself to peeing while standing, from a safe distance away from the edge.

There were 2 buildings, for men and for women.

morriswalters
Posts: 6950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:06 pm UTC

The mind boggles.

User avatar
poochyena
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 2:02 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby poochyena » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:15 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
poochyena wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:If you think she is going into the opposite toilet then you're a transphobic arsehole.


You understand the difference between sex and gender, yes?
Toilets are separated by sex, not gender.


I also know that people's notion of biological sex as they apply it to people is socially constructed and exists only in the context of transphobic definitions of gender.

Do you know what biological sex actually is? It's whether an individual produces/will produce/would produce their species' large or small gametes. When was the last time you took a look at someone's gametes before deciding if they were using the "opposite" toilet? I'm willing to bet it never happened; you know why? Because toilets aren't separated by sex. They're separated by gender (or society's perception of gender).


I thought sex was based on whether you have a Y chromosome or not and/or the genitalia you have.

I'm curious to why you think the toilets are based on gender.
We have urinals in male restrooms. You really think its gender, not sex, that determines which type of toilet people can use?
I was honestly unaware that being able to stand up while peeing was simply a gender thing.

cphite
Posts: 1166
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby cphite » Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:08 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:Because when a trans woman goes into the ladies' toilet, she's not going into the opposite's toilet, she's going into the toilets for people of her gender. If you think she is going into the opposite toilet then you're a transphobic arsehole.


Right, because it's such a starkly black and white discussion that, really, the only way anyone could possibly have a position that differs even slightly from yours is that they're a somethingphobic arsehole.

So for example, a woman who's been a victim of sexual assault and who might be nervous (or perhaps terrified) about using the restroom with a man present; she's just a transphobic arsehole.

Furthermore, forcing trans people to go into the toilet for a gender they are not, contributes to a society which tells them they aren't who they know they are and that they should be ashamed of who they really are which all contributes to the ridiculously disproportionate rate of suicides in trans people.


We live in a society that has, for better or worse, long ago decided that what room you go into is based on your plumbing. Right or wrong, that's how it's been done for longer than most people have been around. And even setting aside the folks who have real, very personal reasons to be nervous about breaking that tradition; the fact is that it's basically what most people know, at least here in the USA.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with unisex restrooms (aside from the long lines :roll:) and don't care one way or the other if trans people use the same restroom as me. But I have at least one close female friend who has a serious problem with it (to the point where talking about it gives her panic attacks) due to her personal history - and it's definitely not because she's some kind of bigot.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3604
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby eSOANEM » Mon Jan 19, 2015 6:07 pm UTC

poochyena wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:
poochyena wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:If you think she is going into the opposite toilet then you're a transphobic arsehole.


You understand the difference between sex and gender, yes?
Toilets are separated by sex, not gender.


I also know that people's notion of biological sex as they apply it to people is socially constructed and exists only in the context of transphobic definitions of gender.

Do you know what biological sex actually is? It's whether an individual produces/will produce/would produce their species' large or small gametes. When was the last time you took a look at someone's gametes before deciding if they were using the "opposite" toilet? I'm willing to bet it never happened; you know why? Because toilets aren't separated by sex. They're separated by gender (or society's perception of gender).


I thought sex was based on whether you have a Y chromosome or not and/or the genitalia you have.

I'm curious to why you think the toilets are based on gender.
We have urinals in male restrooms. You really think its gender, not sex, that determines which type of toilet people can use?
I was honestly unaware that being able to stand up while peeing was simply a gender thing.


Nope. Sex (biologically) is based on what gametes you produce.

When people talk about biological sex of a person though, this is not what they're talking about; what they're doing is taking their cisnormative notions of gender and calling it sex. It's a lazy excuse to misgender people and is transphobic.

Besides, as I mentioned earlier, and you seem to have glossed over, neither genitals nor chromosomes are relevant to the ability to piss standing up, they have standing urination devices for that now (and many soft packers can also be used or modified to be used as standing urination devices).

So yeah, whether someone wants and is able to pee standing up is intricately tied to their gender.

Of course, someone peeing standing up isn't what determines which toilet someone goes into; there are plenty of people who pee sitting down in the "men"'s toilets and that doesn't mean they should be using the "women"'s toilets.

cphite wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Because when a trans woman goes into the ladies' toilet, she's not going into the opposite's toilet, she's going into the toilets for people of her gender. If you think she is going into the opposite toilet then you're a transphobic arsehole.


Right, because it's such a starkly black and white discussion that, really, the only way anyone could possibly have a position that differs even slightly from yours is that they're a somethingphobic arsehole.

So for example, a woman who's been a victim of sexual assault and who might be nervous (or perhaps terrified) about using the restroom with a man present; she's just a transphobic arsehole.


They're a transphobic arsehole if they think a trans woman being there is having a man there.


----------------------


Ultimately, I think the world would probably be a better place if toilets were split into cubicles-only and urinals-only which would maximise throughput when operating near capacity, avoid trans people being told they're using the wrong toilet and being violently misgendered and make it possible for non-binary people like me to taking a fucking piss without being reminded that society doesn't recognise we exist and being told that we aren't real; but I am aware that, given how powerful rape culture is and how many women are victims of sexual abuse at the hands of men, many would be uncomfortable if such a system were implemented universally (in particular in case where it isn't possible to have each cubicle entirely self-contained with a sink and dryer).

I'm not saying that we absolutely should make all toilets unisex or else you're transphobic arsehole. What I am saying is that if you tell a trans person (in particular a trans woman) that they're in the wrong toilet when they go to the one marked as for their gender then you're a transphobic arsehole.

This bill would make it illegal to not tell a trans person they're in the wrong toilet when they go to pee in the toilet for their gender. It makes it illegal not to tell trans students that they're wrong and lying. It makes it a legal requirement to contribute to the system which murders trans people. If you cannot see how that is wrong then there is no hope for you.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
poochyena
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 2:02 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby poochyena » Mon Jan 19, 2015 6:44 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
poochyena wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:
poochyena wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:If you think she is going into the opposite toilet then you're a transphobic arsehole.


You understand the difference between sex and gender, yes?
Toilets are separated by sex, not gender.


I also know that people's notion of biological sex as they apply it to people is socially constructed and exists only in the context of transphobic definitions of gender.

Do you know what biological sex actually is? It's whether an individual produces/will produce/would produce their species' large or small gametes. When was the last time you took a look at someone's gametes before deciding if they were using the "opposite" toilet? I'm willing to bet it never happened; you know why? Because toilets aren't separated by sex. They're separated by gender (or society's perception of gender).


I thought sex was based on whether you have a Y chromosome or not and/or the genitalia you have.

I'm curious to why you think the toilets are based on gender.
We have urinals in male restrooms. You really think its gender, not sex, that determines which type of toilet people can use?
I was honestly unaware that being able to stand up while peeing was simply a gender thing.

When people talk about biological sex of a person though, this is not what they're talking about; what they're doing is taking their cisnormative notions of gender and calling it sex. It's a lazy excuse to misgender people and is transphobic.


no one cares about a person's gender though, Its just like when you ask someone how old they are, their mental age is important, yes, but they are asking about physical age.
Just like with sex, people ask referring to their what they physically are, not mentally. In the very basic form, which, unless you have done surgery or taking hormones, is true that, male = penis, female = vagina. When people ask if you are male or female, thats what they are referring to, and that how pronouns are determined.


A male cannot enter a female restroom just like someone over 18 can't enter a marathon for people under 18, even if the male is mentally female, or the adult is mentally a child.
What they are mentally means nothing, the restricts are based on physical reality, not mental perceptions.


Also, i'm tired of this.
/finished

morriswalters
Posts: 6950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jan 19, 2015 6:54 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:When people talk about biological sex of a person though, this is not what they're talking about; what they're doing is taking their cisnormative notions of gender and calling it sex. It's a lazy excuse to misgender people and is transphobic


Wikipedia. Sorry I'm lazy.
Many animals and some plants have differences between the male and female sexes in size and appearance, a phenomenon called sexual dimorphism. Sex differences in humans include, generally, a larger size and more body hair in men; women have breasts, wider hips, and a higher body fat percentage. In other species, the differences may be more extreme, such as differences in coloration or bodyweight. In humans, biological sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia.[27]
Are you stating that this is incorrect?

speising
Posts: 2080
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby speising » Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:00 pm UTC

Besides, as I mentioned earlier, and you seem to have glossed over, neither genitals nor chromosomes are relevant to the ability to piss standing up, they have standing urination devices for that now (and many soft packers can also be used or modified to be used as standing urination devices).

So yeah, whether someone wants and is able to pee standing up is intricately tied to their gender.

those two paragraphs are contradictory. you just said that women can pee with a device (or a little practice, btw.). whether someone needs that or has a built in device is entirely a physical thing, and i hear there are cis females who like to do that, so where does gender even com in here?

the truth is that women can feel uncomfortable if someone who looks like a man is in their restroom. it's unreasonable to expect everyone to conduct a thorough survey of everyones sexual and gender preferences everytime they enter a restroom, it's impossible to know these intricacies from looks alone, and perverts could even use gender based rules to sneak into their preys rooms.

cphite
Posts: 1166
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby cphite » Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:01 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
So for example, a woman who's been a victim of sexual assault and who might be nervous (or perhaps terrified) about using the restroom with a man present; she's just a transphobic arsehole.


They're a transphobic arsehole if they think a trans woman being there is having a man there.


Fear is rarely rational, especially if it's based on traumatic experience.

Ultimately, I think the world would probably be a better place if toilets were split into cubicles-only and urinals-only which would maximise throughput when operating near capacity, avoid trans people being told they're using the wrong toilet and being violently misgendered and make it possible for non-binary people like me to taking a fucking piss without being reminded that society doesn't recognise we exist and being told that we aren't real; but I am aware that, given how powerful rape culture is and how many women are victims of sexual abuse at the hands of men, many would be uncomfortable if such a system were implemented universally (in particular in case where it isn't possible to have each cubicle entirely self-contained with a sink and dryer).


Sure - ideally every restroom would be a single, self-contained room with everything anyone would need. That simply isn't feasible. So for now we stick to the way that accommodates the greatest number of people. And that, for better or for worse, is based on male or female; and the male or female determination is based on anatomy.

I'm not saying that we absolutely should make all toilets unisex or else you're transphobic arsehole. What I am saying is that if you tell a trans person (in particular a trans woman) that they're in the wrong toilet when they go to the one marked as for their gender then you're a transphobic arsehole.


And what I am saying is that for some people, it's not that easy. Again, I could personally care less what restroom you use; it really doesn't matter from my perspective. But there are people for whom it's a really difficult thing to get around. Some of those people are transphobic assholes to be sure; but some have reasons that are a bit more substantive, even if they're not Basically Decent or even rational.

This bill would make it illegal to not tell a trans person they're in the wrong toilet when they go to pee in the toilet for their gender. It makes it illegal not to tell trans students that they're wrong and lying. It makes it a legal requirement to contribute to the system which murders trans people. If you cannot see how that is wrong then there is no hope for you.


The bill is stupid for a multitude of reasons; I'm not defending the bill.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests