Trans Clothing Exchanges and NC Gender Bigotry

[moonshadow]

In my daily watching of Star Trek TNG, I stumbled upon yet another issue we grapple with in the modern day, and it made me think of this thread, and the issue with transgendered people today..

The plot centers around an alien race of people that are all androgynous, having neither male, nor female gender, and they regard those who claim to have "gender" as a sickness that needs to be cured. However, on their planet, just as our own, there are those "misfits". They have to live in an underground world, as many transgendered and homosexual people do today (more so back when this aired on TV). It's interesting because the show is actually a reversal of what we have here on Earth. The irony of the story is striking. Somebody you tubed a very moving speech towards the end of the episode. Here is the link:

https://youtu.be/mMqGlSjAbwA

Unfortunately, they did take the female alien, Soran, into custody and "treated her sickness", so the episode didn't exactly have a happy ending... but such as it is in real life.

Here is the wikipedia for the episode in question that goes into more detail about the plot....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outca ... eration%29

[PatJ]

I recall watching that episode of Star Trek.

The person playing the part was a female - I wonder how the
show would have gone if the person playing the part would have
been a male capable of playing middle linebacker in the NFL.

Sometimes, the illusion of what we recognize or perceive
as male and female gets in the way of how we react to those
who are dealing with transgendered identities.

But I do agree, it was a sad ending and it was easy to show
empathy toward the unfortunate situation.

[moonshadow]

The person playing the part was a female - I wonder how the
show would have gone if the person playing the part would have
been a male capable of playing middle linebacker in the NFL.

A similar comment was posed in the comment section of you tube. During the episode, Soran (the alien) told of a story of one of her school peers who identified as "male" who was teased, and eventually physically abused, finally being "treated" from authorities. I feel as though the inclusion of the school story in the episode was meant to bring some type of balance to the "message", that being this can effect both (or all) genders, and it's not only "females" who are victims. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic though...

Still, I think many reasonable people would agree that being a tg woman (M2F) is socially more challenging than being a tg man (F2M) for a number of reasons, mainly societies general consensus that "to want to emulate a woman is a step down, degrading". Which I feel is a reason for much of the prejudice against regular men who wish to wear skirts. And I'm still kind of irked at the idea of "male privilege". If "his" drivers license still identifies him as a female... "he" can still get an affirmative action job, and it's as simple as that. Now tell me about male privilege. Actually, that does raise an interesting question... in a society where gender is considered fluid, how would such legislation like affirmative action, and conscription be handled? Could I theoretically get one of those small business grants for "women owned businesses" simply be being a transgender woman? Today? Of course not... but in the future, as we become more accepting of the transgender culture? It's interesting that the republicans are harping on bathrooms and not the BIG issues like government giveaways for women, and the possibility of draft dodging.

The whole issue really forces us as a society to address and discuss true gender "equality" (or lack thereof), even as it exist between genetic males and genetic females. The notion of any kind of "equality" for some reason seems to put republicans and conservatives on a war path. Make no mistake, the same people who are trying to legislate legal discrimination against transgender, and homosexual people, are the same people who believe a woman's place is in the kitchen, and pregnant and a man's place is on the front line or a war, and then on the factory floor. And they are bred from the same people who believed that African American people should be property. (some still do, they just won't admit it on record)

It's no coincidence that this is more a problem in the south.

But I'm not going to sit here and just pick on conservatives.... liberals are just as guilty. On the other side of the issue if you just want to be a regular guy... you'll find no sympathy from the liberal side of the table. And it is liberals, above all who are promoting the over advancement of the female gender, to the point of discrimination of the male gender (case in point... affirmative action, and the general "man is evil" mentality). It seems in western society, we don't believe in true fairness and equality. Each group is only rooting for their own circle. Very few people support true equality. Most who do typically don't align as democrat or republican. Many are libertarians, or maybe independent. Too bad they can't get a foot hold in the lawmaking process. But we all know the establishment will never allow for that.

Anyway... I'm digressing here..

But I do agree, it was a sad ending and it was easy to show
empathy toward the unfortunate situation.

One comforting thought, it may be illegal for transgendered people, (and maybe just men in skirts) to piss in Mississippi (yes I'm being dramatic), but for the most part, in the rest of the civilized world (not including Mississippi) LBGT people are generally no longer viewed as "sick" people who need treatment. And even in cases where they might be, treatment isn't mandatory. (except maybe in Mississippi)

Maybe we should just build a "wall" around Mississippi.

[crfriend]

I'm still kind of irked at the idea of "male privilege". [...]

And it is liberals, above all who are promoting the over advancement of the female gender, to the point of discrimination of the male gender (case in point... affirmative action, and the general "man is evil" mentality).

"Male privilege" used to be a problem when contemplating the notion of equality, and make no bones about it. However, in the USA at least, it's a remnant of a not-all-that-good past and a dim memory. The modern male is typically viewed by what passes as society today as little more than trouble to be incarcerated at the earliest possible opportunity.

That said, what we're seeing is the swinging of the pendulum -- and unlike in classical physics, in this realm the pendulum swings farther with each passing of the centre-point. it's these wild gyrations that are at best confusing to people and at worst result in the termination of civil liberties.

It seems in western society, we don't believe in true fairness and equality. Each group is only rooting for their own circle. Very few people support true equality.

I suspect this view, while appealing, is overly pessimistic, and that if sincerely and honestly queried on the topic, most would at least concede that the notion of equality is a decent one -- even when it's pointed out that some of their own prejudices (and, be honest, we all have them) deserve equal treatment simply on ethical grounds. I'd also not co-mingle politics (or what passes for in the USA) with the above matter as the politicians now do not even come close to actually representing the electorate (the People), they represent a very, very tiny minority; posturing about matters like "equality" is just that, it's posturing and theatre -- other things (like economics) are vastly more important, and those always go the way the masters want.

Maybe we should just build a "wall" around Mississippi.

I hold the rather unpopular opinion that the Union should have let the Confederacy go in the 1860s. It would have saved a heck of a lot of bloodshed at the time, and would also have saved what was left of the Union some real trouble a hundred years later and beyond. It's kind of fun debating the point, and I've won a few and been held to a draw on several, but, it's ultimately rather pointless. As we know, we cannot change history, we just have to deal with the fallout of decisions taken by prior generations and do the best we can. Part of "doing our best" should include not over-reacting to things.

My main worry is that the violent swings in society will eventually unhinge it completely and the whole house of cards will collapse. But, perhaps it's time. Even Rome collapsed eventually.

[moonshadow]

I suspect this view, while appealing, is overly pessimistic, and that if sincerely and honestly queried on the topic, most would at least concede that the notion of equality is a decent one -- even when it's pointed out that some of their own prejudices (and, be honest, we all have them) deserve equal treatment simply on ethical grounds.

Perhaps. I fancy that I do seem to be somewhat tolerant that most people I met, on both sides (conservative and liberal). Often times my biggest issue is that tolerance puts me at odds with my own ethics. One example is freedom of speech. It's my belief that freedom should be protected (we do have the right to complain even if it is for a dumb ideal). It's our fundamental right to discuss things. It is THAT principle that I hold some very unpopular opinions. For example, despite the fact I think they're being unfair, I stand with misogynists right to at least be heard. Because after all, some points they bring up, are valid. Further, although I absolutely DETEST the thought of racial supremacy, I will never try to silence those on either side, and I'm not going to carry that thought any further because it would slingshot this thread into very unsavory grounds.

Because at the end of the day... everyone's got a right to hate. You can't force love. But you can try to teach, and civilly discuss matters, and hopefully, once all is said and done, we as a society will be better for it.... hopefully.

Our nation (the U.S.) has an excellent framework for forward thinking thought, that being the bill of rights. In addition to other amendments like the 14th which deny states the authority to strip the rights of U.S. citizens as granted in the federal constitution. My fear is that many politicians are attempting to strip those rights, by promoting one agenda or the other, or favoring one religious view over the other. When we strip the rights of just one person for no reason, just because he or she is different, or holds an unpopular, or opposing view, then we all are in danger. Without the right to choose, you can never be free. Granted, most people may have no desire to be transgender, or even homosexual. But without the right to CHOOSE, how can we call our selves a free society?

But you are right Carl, we ALL have prejudices. Myself included. But I believe what separates a good person from a bad one, is when confronted with a prejudice, is the good will take personal time to grapple with the conviction, and finally yield to reason and fairness. From my experience, often times, a candid look at my own views and convictions seems to put me at odds with everyone else in the discussion. As a child, I was on my way to being raised to being a poster child homophobic, racist, bigoted zealot. I was taught that gays are sick, blacks are lower class, and protestant Christianity was the only true way to God. And I can honestly say, that I don't really know how it happened, but somewhere along the way, for some reason, that type of mentality just didn't resonate with my own ethical view. I can point to no day when I said "I don't want to judge". It just sort of happened. Perhaps it's because I tend to be somewhat of a literalist. I.E. in my Christian upbringing... when Jesus said "don't judge"... I took it that we should not judge. Thus, it confused me when dad would say "gays are wrong and immoral", then tell me to live in accordance with Christian morality. Granted, the bibles view on homosexuality is clear... but then again... it says "don't judge". So what's the deal dad? Or when I would visit family with dixie on a flag pole, you'd hear them give God the praise and glory, and thank him for being blessed to live in a "free nation", but when they prayer is over, begin racist remarks. I found it very confusing at a young age. And later in life, gradually concluded that they are "wrong" mainly because their own world view is at conflict with itself. Essentially... they want it both ways. Even my present "religious" view sometimes put me in conflicts. As some may know, a common Wiccan (witches) tenet is to "do as you will, provided it harms none". Sounds easy enough. But doesn't eating a steak harm the steer? Isn't taking an anti-viral harmful to the virus? I reconcile these conflicts in my own way, the best I can, which could fill a book, and is not the point of this post, but the point is that it's the acknowledgement that there is a conflict in the conviction and the endevour to rectify that conflict that drives us to become better people.

I hold the rather unpopular opinion that the Union should have let the Confederacy go in the 1860s. It would have saved a heck of a lot of bloodshed at the time, and would also have saved what was left of the Union some real trouble a hundred years later and beyond. It's kind of fun debating the point, and I've won a few and been held to a draw on several, but, it's ultimately rather pointless. As we know, we cannot change history, we just have to deal with the fallout of decisions taken by prior generations and do the best we can. Part of "doing our best" should include not over-reacting to things.

It is interesting to think about what the world would be like had the south had won. I posed that question to dad once, and he said it would have just been continued warfare over the decades. Ironically, it's one of the rare times my father ever said something that seemed thoughtful to me in regards to a somewhat political discussion.

Strictly speaking, in as far as the butterfly effect goes. Had such an event occurred I wouldn't exist. It's highly unlikely my mother would have traveled to a foreign nation and happened to met my father, to eventually create me. So I selfishly state I'm glad the North won. Such a debate would be similar to a religious debate. Nothing could be proven because virtually all of the variables would be hypothetical. It's interesting to think, in the U.S.'s efforts to bring "western democracy and freedom" to states such as those in the middle east, how would a nation, directly to the south be regarded in their view on slavery. Some "heritage" people (redneck southerners who like to pretend they're not racist) are quick to claim the civil war wasn't about slavery, but about states rights. Some of my research has shown that yes it was about states rights... among them, the right to be a "slave state". Once again, we come back to that old conflict scenario, wanting it both ways. Arguments aside, I took a look one day at the proposed constitution of the C.S.A., and it's pretty clear slavery was a practice that the proposed nation wanted available, and legal... so with that in mind, I find it difficult to accept that slavery just wasn't an issue during the civil war, as many southerner's insist. Maybe it wasn't the ONLY issue, but it certainly was one of the major ones.

What's very interesting is the notion that the civil war was nothing more than "poor people fighting a rich mans war" on BOTH sides. A practice I find detestable regardless of who's right or wrong. The thought of simple minded, albeit innocent people fighting to the death, for nothing more than the profit of the elite makes my blood boil. It happened then, and it's happening now.

Ahh... good discussion. Love starting the day with fresh thoughts to think about. Man, it's like the feeling of getting clothes right out of the dryer.

Carl, if you ever pass this way, try to make time to spend a few hours here in my corner of the globe. I bet we could talk and banter all day. I know it would certainly be my pleasure.

[crfriend]

It is interesting to think about what the world would be like had the south had won.

Note that I did not posit that way. More correctly would be, "What would the world have been like if the forward thinkers realised from the outset that the problem was going to be intractable and opted to separate the countries and continue along a sane and sustainable policy of trade and cooperation where appropriate?" I.e., "Simply 'let it go' and not start an unwinnable -- in the long term -- war."

Was anyone thinking for the long term? Could they? Was the outcome precisely what was intended? Is it still so?

Altogether too many folks put the thing down the the simplistic matter of slavery -- because that's what's taught in the schools. Slavery already was on its way out in the developed world anyway at the time, and most European countries had either banned it outright by law or were getting set to do so. Sure, it would have -- and has -- persisted in various social backwaters, but once it no longer made economic sense as a system it would have been gradually done away with. (Personally, I happen to regard the practise as abhorrent but I don't necessarily allow that to get in the way of thought experiments.)

Try looking at it from multiple angles and through multiple lenses; examine motives -- good, neutral, and evil -- on both sides. Recall that good intentions can unleash incredible evil. Only by unshackling one's self from prior indoctrination can one make intelligent and unbiased (as much as any of us can) evaluations. The crowd here has already done some of that by virtue of wearing skirts in public -- as men in the western world.

Sure, once in a while you'll develop an idea that's truly repellent; I know I have. The answer to those is not to discard them, but to seek what led you to develop them -- and at the worst case, if the ideas and theories yield clues about how other things worked that can be verified, how such a situation might be rectified in the real world. You never know; that theory you came up with that is so abhorrent that it infuriates and disgusts you, but what explains goings-on perfectly may actually be what's going on.

What's very interesting is the notion that the civil war was nothing more than "poor people fighting a rich mans war" on BOTH sides. A practice I find detestable regardless of who's right or wrong. The thought of simple minded, albeit innocent people fighting to the death, for nothing more than the profit of the elite makes my blood boil. It happened then, and it's happening now.

What then, if that's what happened then, and is still happening, but at an increasing pace with ever and ever greater stakes?

Free the mind to think, but do not succumb to chaos.

[Fred in Skirts]

Free the mind to think, but do not succumb to chaos.

What a marvelous thought. We should all try it.

Fred

[Fred in Skirts]

Just saw this on another forum:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2535150

Thought it was pertinent to the conversation here.

Fred

[pelmut]

Just saw this on another forum:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2535150

Thought it was pertinent to the conversation here.

If he was transgender (MtF we assume), why was he calling himself "He"? If he wasn't trangender, the law didn't give him a right to be there.

[Caultron]

If he was transgender (MtF we assume), why was he calling himself "He"? If he wasn't trangender, the law didn't give him a right to be there.

I didn't get the sense that he was transgender. He was just exercising the law (or lack thereof) that allows a person to use either restroom regardless of birth sex.

His motive is unclear. Maybe he's a voyeur, maybe he's protesting, maybe he's asserting his rights, maybe he's actually transgender, maybe something else.

I'd lean toward allowing people to use the opposite washroom only when presenting completely as that sex or after undergoing a legal sex change. But as we all know, presenting as the opposite sex isn't exactly a black-and-white issue.

60 Minutes had a feature last Sunday about an Asian woman who was a championship swimmer and decided her body was the wrong sex. So she had the surgery and switched to the men's swim team. They showed her walking around the pool in a men's speedo and stated she's using the men's locker room. She's getting last or next-to-last now swimming with the men, whereas she usually got first with the woman, but she says she's happier and much more at peace with herself. Before the surgery she was lesbian and now still prefers women, Given all that, it wouldn't make sense to make her use the women's locker rooms.

This is an issue I've thought about when standing at a men's room urinal wearing skirt, tights, and heels. But despite that, I have absolutely no desire to crash the women's room.

[skirted_in_SF]

Altogether too many folks put the thing down the the simplistic matter of slavery -- because that's what's taught in the schools. Slavery already was on its way out in the developed world anyway at the time, and most European countries had either banned it outright by law or were getting set to do so. Sure, it would have -- and has -- persisted in various social backwaters, but once it no longer made economic sense as a system it would have been gradually done away with. (Personally, I happen to regard the practise as abhorrent but I don't necessarily allow that to get in the way of thought experiments.)

Carl, I would recommend you find and read the book The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism by Edward E Baptist. It may give you a different outlook on slavery and the civil war. It was a difficult read - I took me eight weeks, but it filled it a lot of background on the pre-civil war era. Before you think this is a recommendation from a left winger from SF, the book was recommended in a book review I read in the Wall Street Journal.

[dillon]

If he was transgender (MtF we assume), why was he calling himself "He"? If he wasn't trangender, the law didn't give him a right to be there.

I didn't get the sense that he was transgender. He was just exercising the law (or lack thereof) that allows a person to use either restroom regardless of birth sex.

His motive is unclear. Maybe he's a voyeur, maybe he's protesting, maybe he's asserting his rights, maybe he's actually transgender, maybe something else.

I'd lean toward allowing people to use the opposite washroom only when presenting completely as that sex or after undergoing a legal sex change. But as we all know, presenting as the opposite sex isn't exactly a black-and-white issue.

60 Minutes had a feature last Sunday about an Asian woman who was a championship swimmer and decided her body was the wrong sex. So she had the surgery and switched to the men's swim team. They showed her walking around the pool in a men's speedo and stated she's using the men's locker room. She's getting last or next-to-last now swimming with the men, whereas she usually got first with the woman, but she says she's happier and much more at peace with herself. Before the surgery she was lesbian and now still prefers women, Given all that, it wouldn't make sense to make her use the women's locker rooms.

This is an issue I've thought about when standing at a men's room urinal wearing skirt, tights, and heels. But despite that, I have absolutely no desire to crash the women's room.

And I expect a reasonable qualification could have been reached in NC, had the Republican legislature (aka Art Pope's harem) not turned it into a power-grab. Now the governor is trying to whittle around the edges of the law. Unfortunately for him, it will be too little and too late. He had the chance to stand for sensible equality, but chose to join the theocrats.

[crfriend]

I would recommend you find and read the book The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism by Edward E Baptist.

The history is actually quite dirty, and both "sides" profited mightily from slavery. There's more than enough tar to go 'round, and precious little honour.

I'll look around for a copy.

[moonshadow]

Just saw this on another forum:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2535150

Thought it was pertinent to the conversation here.

If he was transgender (MtF we assume), why was he calling himself "He"? If he wasn't trangender, the law didn't give him a right to be there.

That's the issue I've been talking about. The fact that one could just say the he or she is this or that for any reason, either to test the flexibility of a law, or simply to peep. On the one had I can understand the concerns of "conservatives" in regards to this. Just as the article said "someone's got to ruin it for everyone else". But on the other hand I hold the view that the entire concept of separating the sexes for this sort of thing all comes down to gradual social conditioning. There are people around the world who don't mind to see one another naked. None of the animals clothe their selves.

I believe it all comes down to the old Abrahamic belief that we should be ashamed of our bodies. Going back to the book of Genesis when Eve and Adam ate the fruit of the forbidden tree, and became "aware" of their nakedness.

Honestly, as I read that passage in the bible, a certain sadness came over me. But the fact is it doesn't have to be this way. This is only a problem because WE MAKE it a problem! People are just to up tight, and it's just that simple.

while opponents cited sexual assault as a reason the ruling was dangerous for women in particular.

Once again.... it seems all men are rapist. On December 27 1980, I was born into this world, and I swear I was born a criminal. Why? Because I had a penis. Too bad I couldn't have a vagina. Then I'd only have to answer for crimes I actually commit, and not even all of those.

“We’re not here saying that the transgendered community are predators,” a woman who was a victim of sexual assault told KING-5 TV, “We will never say that because we don’t believe that."

No, you wouldn't say that because that would be politically incorrect and would make you sound like an ass. Reading between the lines, you're basically saying all men should be suspected of potential rape and voyeurism, and should not be trusted for the sole reason that we have a penis. And men who want to be women (ghee I wonder why) scare the hell out of you! DEFINITELY not to be trusted. No, you're not saying that... yeah... uh-huh. Lets not consider the little boys in the boys room that may be molested by all those adult rapist men. I guess since even little boys are male, they're not important.

I grow SO TIRED and ANNOYED of "opponents" citing reasons of painting ALL MEN with the same brush.

Make communal bathrooms, washrooms, and shower rooms single occupancy. Nuff said... problem solved.

[renesm1]

I have to say I agree. Changing villages (for some unknown reason that term is used in the UK) where everyone uses a single-occupancy changing room is fairer on everyone else.

I have to say that I hate changing rooms as I always end up catching a sight of something I'd rather not!