Trans Clothing Exchanges and NC Gender Bigotry

[Fred in Skirts]

It seems that the conversation has become a small flame war. Can we not agree to disagree without flaming anyone, even with small flames

Fred

[bobmoore]

That's what happens whenever the so-called 'tolerant' ones are challenged, no matter how civially. Commonly, any argument counter to the currently fashionable conventional wisdom draws cute little ad hominems.

Thinking is hard work. That's why so few people do it.

My argument is valid. Anyone is free to disagree on whatever basis they like. But those who are personally invested in a matter usually will refuse to receive anything that contradicts them. Thinking, for them, is subjective and emotional rather than rational and concrete.

I consider those who flame and make personal attacks to be beneath contempt. Argue all you like, but please do it with reason and logic, not subjective emotionalism or wishful thinking.

[pelmut]

That's what happens whenever the so-called 'tolerant' ones are challenged, no matter how civially. Commonly, any argument counter to the currently fashionable conventional wisdom draws cute little ad hominems.

I did not notice an argument, I noticed a statement that there were only two genders, which is completely untrue. Even if we assume it was based on ignorance of the difference between gender and sex (scarcely credible in one who claims to be educated in the field) and was really intended to state that there were only two sexes, it is still untrue.

To then use that untrue statement in an attempt to justify the bigoted persecution of people performing perfectly normal functions in an inoffensive way, merely because of their physiological development, is abominable.

[crfriend]

Gentlemen,

I'd like to ask for a climb-down on some of the rhetoric in use here. Up to this point, I've let this conversation stand because it's mainly stayed to arguing the concept in question and has not strayed into the realm of tarring-and-feathering individuals. Sadly, we seem to be getting close to the latter which is why I make the plea to stay focussed on the idea not the individual.

Thanks.

[moonshadow]

Gender is a complicated issue, both sides have valid points. I have said it before, and I'm going to pound this nail again... even if it doesn't generate responses... the simplest solution in my opinion is to begin the process of combining male and female restrooms. There really is no logical reason, other than gradual western conditioning for keeping them separated. We can just as easily begin the conditioning of western society to unisex restrooms.

With more and more people identifying as LGB (hold the "T" for this point), you stand almost as good of a chance of being attractive to a fellow restroom go'er in either event. What's the difference?

It can start with new businesses being built perhaps with a single corridor consisting of fully enclosed "rooms" for toilets for either sex. More fancy businesses can even have a little sink in each room, other more run of the mill places can simply have a communal "wash station" located near the toilet rooms.

"But Moon Shadow... I like to be able to wash my hands BEFORE I leave the restroom, I don't want to handle a door knob that someone else used without washing!"
Answer: Not everyone washes their hands anyway, so if you're handling a door handle, chances are it's been touched by unclean hands. Plus toilet flush handles, and stall latches are all handled before the handwashing commences anyway... so again I ask... what's the difference?

I believe the evolution of the human species will include, among other things, the breaking down of various barriers, the aristocratic nature that one sex is better than the other. May it go the same way of racial discrimination.

Ultimately, a utopia would mean even shower rooms could be communal to both sexes... but alas... I know that's pushing it. Still what do you think people are going to wear in heaven? Huh? Think about it. Assuming we retain our human form, we'd probably be naked. If not, we'd all at least be wearing skirts... (as per ancient biblical drawings would indicate). No offense, but all this comes down to that old Judea-Christian concept that we all should be ashamed of ourselves.

The world is NOT FLAT!

[moonshadow]

Consider another point....

Sex in public restrooms DOES HAPPEN! More often than not, because restrooms are separated by biological sex, it tends to be homosexual sex!

So what exactly are conservatives trying to protect here? If restrooms are combined.... yes, I'll grant that heterosexual SEX will happen from time to time... but this is nothing new under the sun! It's just as taboo as any other sex in a public restroom!

[wsherman]

Hello all: in-line please allow me to make an observation from a biblical viewpoint.
Jesus said "there is neither male or female in heaven. Neither is their marriage or giving in marriage."
Luke chapter 22 I believe. Airline just as in many areas this comes down to an individual decision.
Has someone has said gender is a social construct The matter of one's "plumbing" is a physical attribute.
With one's male or female mess in the light of I quoted above it is a temporary situation.
With that in mind I placed this is strictly A personal decision and not one that can be dictated by society.

In the matter of restroom facilities I have never found it to be uncomfortable to enter into an area where there is a "one hole are "" available that is a room that is used by both sexes or may I say gingers how long is Propriete is observed I see no problem.
I think as Shakespeare once said we make much a do over nothing.

With best regards to all:
Bill answer Brinkley the exuberant.

Insert pro Prius key in the text above where I commented "as long as probe party at T is observed".
Propriety sigh even dictation doesn't always work. LOL!
Bill answer Brinkley.

[dillon]

My main contention is simply to ask what's wrong with letting local government decide for themselves what is true and false, and fair and reckless, regarding gender without some Pope-funded theocrats intervening, as if any of them actually know anything about the matter? That is, after all, the main complaint of the GOP regarding the Federal Government: that states and local governments are more in tune with their populations than any of the branches of the Federal Government. I contend the same is true for local governments within a state. How is it not flagrant hypocrisy for a Republican legislature to then act to usurp the authority of the locally elected officials? If that action is acceptable, why would it be unacceptable for a "Big" Federal Government to come along and suppress the will of the states? There are HUGE differences between the social attitudes in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and the rural counties of NC.

And, yes, I am personally invested in gender issues. And I feel sure that if you knew the hearts and minds of all your own family, I'm pretty sure you would be too. Perhaps you think you are exempt from the issues, but perhaps the way you think also hurts someone you love. As I said, I have done a great deal of self-study about the matter, and your attitude is simply contrary to modern understanding of gender as practiced and furthered by those actually in the field of psychology. I would encourage you read up on it. Reproductive Physiology is NOT the same as gender psychology; down here in the East, hog breeders are considered reproductive physiologists, and I would not consult one about my family's gender matters.

Maybe it's best if the mods go ahead and close this thread, since I just cannot indulge misinformed/disinformed judgements.

[pelmut]

Gender is a complicated issue, both sides have valid points. I have said it before, and I'm going to pound this nail again... even if it doesn't generate responses...

It does...

the simplest solution in my opinion is to begin the process of combining male and female restrooms. There really is no logical reason, other than gradual western conditioning for keeping them separated. We can just as easily begin the conditioning of western society to unisex restrooms.

That is the common-sense answer and I fully agree with you.

To get back on track: I have only once encountered an attempt to prevent me from using a public toilet because I was wearing a kilt http://www.skirtcafe.org/forums/viewtop ... 15#p136975; it was quite worrying at the time, although amusing in retrospect. The person who tried to stop me appeared to be some sort of half-wit and I am glad the law of this country does not enshrine such half-witted beliefs.

[Jim]

Hello all: in-line please allow me to make an observation from a biblical viewpoint.
Jesus said "there is neither male or female in heaven. Neither is their marriage or giving in marriage."
Luke chapter 22 I believe.

I don't disagree with your main point, but the Biblical quotation is in error. Matthew & Mark's reports agree that Jesus said:

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Mark 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

It is Paul that writes

Galatians 3.27-28 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Paul's letter to the Galatians is not talking about heaven, but now.

[moonshadow]

My main contention is simply to ask what's wrong with letting local government decide for themselves what is true and false, and fair and reckless, regarding gender without some Pope-funded theocrats intervening, as if any of them actually know anything about the matter? That is, after all, the main complaint of the GOP regarding the Federal Government: that states and local governments are more in tune with their populations than any of the branches of the Federal Government. I contend the same is true for local governments within a state. How is it not flagrant hypocrisy for a Republican legislature to then act to usurp the authority of the locally elected officials? If that action is acceptable, why would it be unacceptable for a "Big" Federal Government to come along and suppress the will of the states? There are HUGE differences between the social attitudes in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and the rural counties of NC.

Federal level Republican politicians I feel have supported less government at the Federal level, in addition to more support for states rights because that is how the constitution is written (as per the 10th amendment). However to my knowledge, as far as the U.S. constitution goes, it does not break down any further than that. Beyond that, how a state runs it's business it a matter of the state and it's people, provided it does not enact any law contrary to the U.S. constitution, and would thus fall under the jurisdiction of the state's constitution. I don't see how it's really a Democratic, or Republican agenda either way. States rights is a Republican issue because of how our national constitution is written, which guarantees the U.S. a Republican form of government, as prescribed in our constitution.

Now the REAL puzzle here is why Republicans are so against matters of civil rights, equal protection under the laws, etc when our U.S. constitution demands it... but I digress.

Onto the reason for my post, which is the Dillon rule. I will confess I'm not to savvy on North Carolina's law, but from my brief bit of research on it, I see that NC is not a TRUE Dillon's rule state like Virginia is, but has enacted Dillon's rule on various issues such as the one featured in this thread.

I can tell you from living in a 100% Dillon's rule state that it is indeed a double edge sword. In many cases, in Virginia Dillon's rule has saved small hick communities from doing something really stupid, backwards, or discriminatory. At the same time Dillon's rule has also (in my opinion) thwarted the growth of cities, and towns into cities, as no expansion can take place without the approval of the General Assembly. Generally, in Virginia, all activity at the local level has to be outlined and approved by the code of Virginia. If it's not in the code... localities can't do it without going to Richmond and gaining approval. Case in point... when asked what is keeping the town of Pulaski Virginia from obtaining a city charter, and thus emancipating itself from the county... Mayor Wade replied "Richmond".

My own thoughts on Dillon's rule, in addition to my thoughts on North Carolina's position on TG bathroom issues are, that regardless of how the issue is settled, I personally think it should be uniform across the state. It would be somewhat confusing as a transgender to keep up with which city or town you're allowed to use this restroom or that restroom. While I think that the matter itself is asinine, as outlined in my previous post, complete with an alternative solution, from a simplicity standpoint alone, I must agree with NC representatives in as far as this issue, whatever the outcome, should be uniform across the state. Further, I would like to see the matter taken up at the Federal level, however I don't know if such a measure would hold up constitutionally. As this matter, in my current state of opinion, would squarely fall within states rights, and since a restroom is provided one way or the other, does not violate anyone's equal protection.

[wsherman]

Hello all: in-line please allow me to make an observation from a biblical viewpoint.
Jesus said "there is neither male or female in heaven. Neither is their marriage or giving in marriage."
Luke chapter 22 I believe.

I don't disagree with your main point, but the Biblical quotation is in error. Matthew & Mark's reports agree that Jesus said:

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Mark 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

It is Paul that writes

Galatians 3.27-28 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Paul's letter to the Galatians is not talking about heaven, but now.

Thank you Jim for your correction.
I knew better. That's what I get for trying to post in the wee hours of the morning when I'm half asleep.
Bill

[dillon]

That's what happens whenever the so-called 'tolerant' ones are challenged, no matter how civially. Commonly, any argument counter to the currently fashionable conventional wisdom draws cute little ad hominems.

Thinking is hard work. That's why so few people do it.

My argument is valid. Anyone is free to disagree on whatever basis they like. But those who are personally invested in a matter usually will refuse to receive anything that contradicts them. Thinking, for them, is subjective and emotional rather than rational and concrete.

I consider those who flame and make personal attacks to be beneath contempt. Argue all you like, but please do it with reason and logic, not subjective emotionalism or wishful thinking.

Bob,
Please clarify exactly what argument you presented, and where you employed reason, if you would, because, in reviewing your posts, all I found was an opinion presumably somehow supported by distantly-related diplomas.

Too, you called gender identity that deviated from chromosomal sex as "variant behavior". Men wearing skirts could also be labeled as variant, couldn't we? I tend to believe we would be labeled as such by unchecked theocratic-leaning government such as this state's. And it's likely we too will come under the same bigotry if we don't stand together for basic humanity. Those whose differ from us in this way are but a small step removed from our own differences with those who would also look down their noses at us. No man exists in a vacuum.

It's true that I am emotionally invested in this issue, but that fact does not support your contention that I therefore speak without reason or logic. To unconditionally love someone whose sexual or gender orientation challenges what you once thought is a wake-up clarion call, and, in fact, a broadening and enlightening experience. It is, in fact, the true key to insight. I now understand the matter with a genuine depth of perspective that casual critics cannot. It is my expectation that EVERYONE has a loved one who is, openly or secretly, in the gender/sexuality minority. Everyone's perspective would benefit from considering that liklihood, even though some people are rendered dysfunctional by encountering a reality that challenges their preconceived views of "normal".

I waited to respond in this thread in order to let my outrage settle, but I do not expect that will happen. I won't get past these politicians, Berger and Moore, aka Art Pope's sock-puppets, and McCrory, the ineffectual panderer who lacks the courage to confront the lunatic fringe of his own party. Government should, by design, err on the side of enhancing personal liberty rather than limiting it, at least until a credible reason is found to support limits.

I am, however, willing to assess your own "argument with reason and logic" whenever you decide to present one. But, as I said, thus far I can't find it in your posts.

[Caultron]

Tolerance, eh?

And once again:
“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.”—Frank Zappa.

[rick401r]

My solution; 1 restroom with 1 urinal and 1 stool and 1 sink. To be used by anyone 1 at a time. Like the port-a-pottys. The door should latch with an occupied sign when someone enters.