Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[Mordent99]

Now Pearl Jam has cancelled in North Carolina too.

I guess Eddie Vedder got upset when that guy compared his old pal Bruce to Beiber. (As in, wasn't a good idea, you know?)

 

[The Admiral]

Politicians have had more incidents with bathroom assaults than trans persons. Should that mean we need to ban them from bathrooms?

Doesn't matter, they'll still be full of **** anyway. BOOM!

I have only ever heard the term "political correctness" used by politicians and media outlets that are right leaning, and usually it's done to defend the status quo or to attack minorities and their needs. Regardless of who is using it though it's a vacuous, arbitrary and subjective strawman.

In which case, I'd recommend choosing a new term for it. "Not being a dick" sounds like a good one.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Referring to something as political correctness is a hyperbolic and meaningless statement that is being overused by conservatives to win arguments where they have not facts. Worse than that it is the label used to demonise persons, political parties, positions that benefit minorities and oppressed groups of people and to justify the mistreatment of those minorities. The term political correctness does not have any objective or clear meaning, it's applied only an arbitrary and subjective manner. The reason to remove Gender dysphoria from the diagnostic manual as mental illness is because a) Gender dysphoria isn't an inhabitation and b) it's an invalidation of trans people's gender identities. Gender is not a mental illness.



There is no suggestion that business need to build new bathrooms. The entire bathrooms issue is a non-issue. Conservatives are using bathroom panic to demonise transgender people because bathrooms make people feel disgusted and vulnerable, hence the imagery makes it easier for people to see transpeople as less than human. Transgender people simply want to be able to do what Cisgender people already have the privilege of doing, using the bathroom in which they feel safest.

No, political correctness is a habitation of the phrase "politically correct", which is defined as:

conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

It's quite simple. Some transgendered folk get offended or a group of people who want to decide what offends and doesn't offend a group decide that those transgendered folk are offended that their mental disorder is called a disorder due to what it does (causing distress if not treated), and people start trying to rephrase it so their sensibilities aren't hurt. And you are right; gender isn't a mental illness because it is considered to be psychologically normal compared to gender dysphoria. While someone may be female isn't a mental illness, a male who has gender dysphoria indeed has one because it alters, yet again, their mood, behavior and thinking. They have a mental illness under the category mental disorder. Whether it inhibits some functions or not doesn't make it any less of a mental disorder; it still causes distress to the MtF person in question if they do not get properly treated. Normalizing this illness invalidates their need for treatment. Invalidating their need for treatment only leads to problems for the person with GID, with as aforementioned, extreme cases including suicide and genital mutilation. In fact, 1/10 people with Gender Dysphoria in the UK have problems with mental illness, genital mutilation or suicide attempts as seen in this. Let's not increase it for our own transgender population because people decided to invalidate their need for treatment.

And no, Conservatives aren't doing this because they think they are subhumans. They are doing this because they see that people would have a sense of danger going in and would rather back someone's mental safety, as these people do have valid concerns on the "what ifs" of this, some of which include the following:
1. Ability for predators to claim to be transgendered for lewd reasons.
2. Perceived danger as it seems like there will be an increase of sexual assaults.

What you are doing is blanketing the all of conservatives with the it's extremists.

You also miss the point that I was arguing for a compromise that would require newer buildings to build a gender-neutral toilet room, which if it were to go into effect, would require businesses to build these toilets for their newer buildings.

There is potential for assaults to happen with red heads. The reason I say this is because there has been no conclusive evidence with the prior correlation.
Again, ad hominem would be attacking the person directly, rather than their position. The term is usually meant for erroneous insults.





The other topic that I wish to address is that this argument has been more about semantics than anything. It would be pointless to be engrossed in words if we don't conceptualize the ideas.


Whether or not you want to reply to this is your choice. Do what you will.


Stating that they are a minority is almost self-defeating. If people are not dignified as part of a population because they are different, then that only proves that we need to accommodate those people.

Honestly, there's no real point with continuing the argument that Gender Dysphoria is or isn't a mental disorder or illness. We're obviously not going to change each others' opinions or until it is officially removed from the DSM-5.

Also, let's not forget that if we would require this mandate, we are burdening the building of these to the businesses when they need to construct their buildings. We cannot accommodate them with huge bathrooms unless it is justified, or we will have businesses back-lashing at the law because the greedy corporations that have a choke-hold on our country don't want to lose more money. Even at 5% I would consider it, as both 10% and 5% are still a minority but they are rather size-able chunks. Hell, they're probably that close to 5% now but I can't find any good statistics about the amount of Transgendered folk in the US.

And, as said, a better alternative would be splitting the bathrooms further to have two separate rooms in the Mens' and Womens' rooms where half is for GID/Gender Dysphoria and the half are for those without it.

 

[Pikachu52]

And no, Conservatives aren't doing this because they think they are subhumans. They are doing this because they see that people would have a sense of danger going in and would rather back someone's mental safety, as these people do have valid concerns on the "what ifs" of this, some of which include the following:
1. Ability for predators to claim to be transgendered for lewd reasons.
2. Perceived danger as it seems like there will be an increase of sexual assaults.

Neither of these concerns are actually valid as it's been shown in experiences from US states that protect Trans people's rights to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity have not had any increase in incidents of bathroom assault or harassment. The "What ifs" are non-existent. The threat doesn't really exist it's been manufactured to attack the trans community. What's more consider that the government does not bar bathroom access to people generally based on risk of committing an offence - consider the most extreme group, registered sex offender, every one of whom have been convicted of a sexual offence, are not barred by any law from using public restrooms. The public simply accepts the very small risk that they may end up using a public restroom with such a person. In addition bathrooms are not policed - we don't have security guards or police outside the front of public restrooms to check the gentiles of the person entering the bathroom. The fact remains that Trans people have always existed and up until now have been using the bathroom they feel safest in. This has only become an issue because it's being raised by alarmist in US state legislatures as a way of attacking the LGBT community and undermining their civil rights after their loss in the US Supreme Court over the marriage issue. And Ironically, the group that is at the most risk of being harassed in a bathroom is Trans people.

You also miss the point that I was arguing for a compromise that would require newer buildings to build a gender-neutral toilet room, which if it were to go into effect, would require businesses to build these toilets for their newer buildings.

There's no need for a compromise. This is a non-issue. People should simply use the bathroom they feel safest in.

 

[U.N. Owen]

There's no need for a compromise. This is a non-issue. People should simply use the bathroom they feel safest in.

That's funny you say that because my neighbor's son and a girl abused the bathroom rights and had sex. It's a system made to be abused by people. All systems will be abused, but how to minimize that abuse is the question.

 

[Mordent99]

That's funny you say that because my neighbor's son and a girl abused the bathroom rights and had sex. It's a system made to be abused by people. All systems will be abused, but how to minimize that abuse is the question.

I knew teens in my old high school who did that, or at least went there to smooch. (It was barely more of a secret than the fact that they smoked there). This is about pedophiles, not horny teens.

The whole law is ridiculous. What kind of parent lets a five-year-old girl use a public restroom alone anyway? And what kind of pedophile would be stupid enough to attack a child in such a public place? You might as well call up the police and ask to be taken to jail.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

And you are right; gender isn't a mental illness because it is considered to be psychologically normal compared to gender dysphoria. While someone may be female isn't a mental illness, a male who has gender dysphoria indeed has one because it alters, yet again, their mood, behavior and thinking. They have a mental illness under the category mental disorder. Whether it inhibits some functions or not doesn't make it any less of a mental disorder; it still causes distress to the MtF person in question if they do not get properly treated. Normalizing this illness invalidates their need for treatment. Invalidating their need for treatment only leads to problems for the person with GID, with as aforementioned, extreme cases including suicide and genital mutilation. In fact, 1/10 people with Gender Dysphoria in the UK have problems with mental illness, genital mutilation or suicide attempts as seen in this. Let's not increase it for our own transgender population because people decided to invalidate their need for treatment.

Honestly, there's no real point with continuing the argument that Gender Dysphoria is or isn't a mental disorder or illness. We're obviously not going to change each others' opinions or until it is officially removed from the DSM-5.

Why should we assume the DSM-5 is any real authority on what's normal and what's abnormal? It says more about their subjective judgment and existing social norms than any empirical facts.

 

[lemoncatpower]

Why should we assume the DSM-5 is any real authority on what's normal and what's abnormal? It says more about their subjective judgment and existing social norms than any empirical facts.

I don't really care about the scientifics, but being trans obviously isn't a disorder, it's just part of who you are.
It's the people who treat trans people differently all their lives and tell them they're ****ed up that cause them to develop mental illness'.
Really not that hard to understand.

 

[Archsage]

Why should we assume the DSM-5 is any real authority on what's normal and what's abnormal? It says more about their subjective judgment and existing social norms than any empirical facts.

Good point. Remember, past DSMs listed homosexuality as a mental illness and, iirc, originally listed things like hysteria as female mental disorders. Gender dysphoria will probably be dropped from the list by the time the next edition comes out.

 

[bobjr]

http://www.towleroad.com/2016/04/donald-trump-transgender/

Donald Trump really is the best Republican candidate when it comes to LGBT issues, and that's hilarious to me.

 

[Auraninja]

http://www.towleroad.com/2016/04/donald-trump-transgender/

Donald Trump really is the best Republican candidate when it comes to LGBT issues, and that's hilarious to me.

Scary still is the fact that he didn't even word it wrong. Apocalypse confirmed.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Neither of these concerns are actually valid as it's been shown in experiences from US states that protect Trans people's rights to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity have not had any increase in incidents of bathroom assault or harassment. The "What ifs" are non-existent. The threat doesn't really exist it's been manufactured to attack the trans community. What's more consider that the government does not bar bathroom access to people generally based on risk of committing an offence - consider the most extreme group, registered sex offender, every one of whom have been convicted of a sexual offence, are not barred by any law from using public restrooms. The public simply accepts the very small risk that they may end up using a public restroom with such a person. In addition bathrooms are not policed - we don't have security guards or police outside the front of public restrooms to check the gentiles of the person entering the bathroom. The fact remains that Trans people have always existed and up until now have been using the bathroom they feel safest in. This has only become an issue because it's being raised by alarmist in US state legislatures as a way of attacking the LGBT community and undermining their civil rights after their loss in the US Supreme Court over the marriage issue. And Ironically, the group that is at the most risk of being harassed in a bathroom is Trans people.



There's no need for a compromise. This is a non-issue. People should simply use the bathroom they feel safest in.

Except they are. You're basically trying to remove one group's "privilege" of having a sense of safety in the bathroom for another. You're not going to fix is instantly as said, as as aforementioned by U.N. Owen, it is a system that will be abused. Calling it an attack on Transgendered folk is as much of a farce as me saying that Transgendered folk should not have proper medical treatment. Not to mention that they STILL won't feel "safe" in this bathroom because they'd be worried if others found out if they were Transgendered. Gender Neutral bathrooms are a compromise that would make both groups feel safe from a potentially abusable system.

It is an issue. You're trading another groups' fear (women and sexual assault) for another groups' desire (wanting to go to their preferred bathroom), and then calling it a "civil right" to not feel unsafe in a bathroom. If it is indeed a civil right, then saying it is a non-issue to let people such as sexual assault victims and women have fears due to this law, where are the people rushing to their aid? It is quite clear this is no "civil right" and many of y'all are just rushing in to defend a minority over something trivial that is easily fixed through compromise. Should we start allowing the radical Christians to segregate communities because they feel unsafe being near a homosexual? After all, they have the civil right to not be afraid in public accommodations! Clearly it should be the pinnacle of our interests to defend them. Because as it boils down, you're basically saying that North Carolina is going against the civil rights of feeling safe in public buildings (whether it be in a bathroom or other public accommodations). I'd rather not have a bunch of Westboro Baptist Church fools marching down the streets yelling "Where is our civil right of feeling safe?" with a bunch of signs begging for the execution of gays over the fact that one of their members felt unsafe being near a homosexual at a restaurant.

 

[lemoncatpower]

Except they are. You're basically trying to remove one group's "privilege" of having a sense of safety in the bathroom for another. You're not going to fix is instantly as said, as as aforementioned by U.N. Owen, it is a system that will be abused. Calling it an attack on Transgendered folk is as much of a farce as me saying that Transgendered folk should not have proper medical treatment. Not to mention that they STILL won't feel "safe" in this bathroom because they'd be worried if others found out if they were Transgendered. Gender Neutral bathrooms are a compromise that would make both groups feel safe from a potentially abusable system.

It is an issue. You're trading another groups' fear (women and sexual assault) for another groups' desire (wanting to go to their preferred bathroom), and then calling it a "civil right" to not feel unsafe in a bathroom. If it is indeed a civil right, then saying it is a non-issue to let people such as sexual assault victims and women have fears due to this law, where are the people rushing to their aid? It is quite clear this is no "civil right" and many of y'all are just rushing in to defend a minority over something trivial that is easily fixed through compromise. Should we start allowing the Christians to segregate communities because they feel unsafe being near a homosexual? After all, they have the civil right to not be afraid in public accommodations! Clearly it should be the pinnacle of our interests to defend them. Because as it boils down, you're basically saying that North Carolina is going against the civil rights of feeling safe in public buildings (whether it be in a bathroom or other public accommodations). I'd rather not have a bunch of Westboro Baptist Church fools marching down the streets yelling "Where is our civil right of feeling safe?" with a bunch of signs begging for the execution of gays over the fact that one of their members felt unsafe being near a homosexual at a restaurant.

Christians do try to segregate society to try and get away from homosexuals...

You have a phobia, which is very irrational, accept it. If everyone with a phobia was getting there way then our world would suck. Everyone would be AFRAID of everything. We wouldn't have tall buildings because people are afraid of heights. You have no scientific proof at all except linking sites with made up stats. That doesn't happen, and if it does, why should trans people be punished for straight predators? That's messed up.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Christians do try to segregate society to try and get away from homosexuals...

You have a phobia, which is very irrational, accept it. If everyone with a phobia was getting there way then our world would suck. Everyone would be AFRAID of everything. We wouldn't have tall buildings because people are afraid of heights. You have no scientific proof at all except linking sites with made up stats. That doesn't happen, and if it does, why should trans people be punished for straight predators? That's messed up.

I know. Why should we say group A should have this civil right but have a double standard for the other? It's quite simple; it's not really a civil right, because if it was, why haven't we had segregation brought back due to people feeling unsafe in a political accommodation? Because certainly, if there was a civil right to feel safe in public accommodations, we would have such protests.

For starters, the stats I linked for Colorado weren't made up. They are genuine; calling them not fact is disingenuous. Secondly, most of my other links have been to sources that define mental illness and states for the UK, which yet again, aren't made up. Calling them made up seems trivial; if anything, it shows you have an irrational fear of facts. Thirdly, I am not punishing them, I am saying we could prevent abuse of the system and giving two potential compromises that could work (gender-neutral bathrooms and splitting the Mens' Room and Womens' room in half, one part for those with GID/Gender Dysphoria and one for those without it). Finally, I am doing this because the whole argument for my opposition is to have the transgendered folk feel safe in a bathroom, yet they ultimately make another group susceptible to paranoia or fear (such as sexual harassment/assault victims). To put it simply, if anything, you're just trying to derail my argument by saying I am transphobic because I am arguing against your point of view. After all, if I was actually transphobic, why am I actually worried about their suicide/attempted suicide rates and other such problems? Why am I actually pointing out that if we normalize GID that it would lead to improper care? Meanwhile, people want to argue for double standards (of which, my example of the radical Christian is hyperbolic).

And yes, people claiming they as transgendered to sexually assault people has happened, as seen here. The risk may be near non-existent to non-existent, but should we really go through with a double standard and ignore a groups' sense of safety for another? Gender-Neutral bathrooms could easily fix this problem.

 

[Mordent99]

And naturally...

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/...mp-over-comments-on-north-carolinas/21348826/

These guys are like the two kings in The Phantom Tollbooth it seems.

 

[lemoncatpower]

I know. Why should we say group A should have this civil right but have a double standard for the other? It's quite simple; it's not really a civil right, because if it was, why haven't we had segregation brought back due to people feeling unsafe in a political accommodation? Because certainly, if there was a civil right to feel safe in public accommodations, we would have such protests.

For starters, the stats I linked for Colorado weren't made up. They are genuine; calling them not fact is disingenuous. Secondly, most of my other links have been to sources that define mental illness and states for the UK, which yet again, aren't made up. Calling them made up seems trivial; if anything, it shows you have an irrational fear of facts. Thirdly, I am not punishing them, I am saying we could prevent abuse of the system and giving two potential compromises that could work (gender-neutral bathrooms and splitting the Mens' Room and Womens' room in half, one part for those with GID/Gender Dysphoria and one for those without it). Finally, I am doing this because the whole argument for my opposition is to have the transgendered folk feel safe in a bathroom, yet they ultimately make another group susceptible to paranoia or fear (such as sexual harassment/assault victims). To put it simply, if anything, you're just trying to derail my argument by saying I am transphobic because I am arguing against your point of view. After all, if I was actually transphobic, why am I actually worried about their suicide/attempted suicide rates and other such problems? Why am I actually pointing out that if we normalize GID that it would lead to improper care? Meanwhile, people want to argue for double standards (of which, my example of the radical Christian is hyperbolic).

And yes, people claiming they as transgendered to sexually assault people has happened, as seen here. The risk may be near non-existent to non-existent, but should we really go through with a double standard and ignore a groups' sense of safety for another? Gender-Neutral bathrooms could easily fix this problem.

Your arguments are just so boring and so used up. No it doesn't seem like you care about trans people much at all and I wouldn't be surprised if you don't have a single trans friend. It is punishing them, making them feel not normal. When you treat someone differently from someone else in a negative way, that is punishment basically. You have to put trust into society, apparently you have none. There are car crashes all the time yet we're still allowed to drive around. If we do non-gender bathrooms, then there should ONLY be non-gender bathrooms, and no separate boy girl washrooms. The people with the "paranoia" are, imo, the ones who need to talk to something and get their head figured out. Maybe visit Dr. Phil, because that's incredibly irrational and it is not healthy to live a life built around crazy irrational beliefs. If we NORMALIZE GID, it won't be called GID. Gender is an abstract idea made up by humans. Yes there are sex's, but gender doesn't need to be a thing anymore, we don't live in some primordial society. Men don't have to be masculine and woman don't have to feminine for survival, we've evolved past that. Pretend trans people are just like anyone else in your life and you'll realize the problems go away on both sides. I mean pedophilia is a thing (which should just be a disorder, not something people called EFFED UP, but that's a different story) and always will be a thing that some people will do. The rates of pedophilia will not increase with trans people using a normal bathroom... They're gonna prey either way.

 

[Aromatic Mist]

I know. Why should we say group A should have this civil right but have a double standard for the other? It's quite simple; it's not really a civil right, because if it was, why haven't we had segregation brought back due to people feeling unsafe in a political accommodation? Because certainly, if there was a civil right to feel safe in public accommodations, we would have such protests.

Because the premise of feeling unsafe with a transperson is mostly bred out of xenophobia and hatred whilst trans people wanting to use the correct bathroom because they are the correct gender, and after transitioning, the correct sex is just someone wanting to live tenor life convieniently?

For starters, the stats I linked for Colorado weren't made up. They are genuine; calling them not fact is disingenuous. Secondly, most of my other links have been to sources that define mental illness and states for the UK, which yet again, aren't made up. Calling them made up seems trivial; if anything, it shows you have an irrational fear of facts.

Or it could be that the UK stats could be caused by the stigma towards GID and the treatment of individuals, thus they develop mental illnesses but you know, has to be dem damn transfolks just being trans, nothing do to with the discrimination and hatred. Not considering other factors, if anything, shows you're lack of insight into the problem.

Thirdly, I am not punishing them, I am saying we could prevent abuse of the system and giving two potential compromises that could work (gender-neutral bathrooms and splitting the Mens' Room and Womens' room in half, one part for those with GID/Gender Dysphoria and one for those without it).

You are punishing them. You're invalidating them by punishing them emotionally. 'Oh, you literally have the mental state of this sex? Transitioned so you could live as this sex? Too bad, some Cis people find you scary because cisnormativity! It's like taking an immense journey just go see a family member or friend and then you get told 'nope can't see them'

Finally, I am doing this because the whole argument for my opposition is to have the transgendered folk feel safe in a bathroom, yet they ultimately make another group susceptible to paranoia or fear (such as sexual harassment/assault victims).

As pointed out, politicians have a higher offense rate than trans or even trans 'impersonators' of sorts. And they don't need a 'politicians bathroom'.

To put it simply, if anything, you're just trying to derail my argument by saying I am transphobic because I am arguing against your point of view.

No, you're being unintentionally transphobic because you're invalidating all that they've worked for.

After all, if I was actually transphobic, why am I actually worried about their suicide/attempted suicide rates and other such problems? Why am I actually pointing out that if we normalize GID that it would lead to improper care? Meanwhile, people want to argue for double standards (of which, my example of the radical Christian is hyperbolic.)

As I've said, you can still actively try and support them, but you're being unintentionally transphobic due to your views. Also, most problems with GID comes from the fact that it's stigmatised, seen as wrong, etc. Normalising it would make 'sufferers' get what they need: moral support, and possibly even the monetary support needed in some countries for transitioning of the body.

And yes, people claiming they as transgendered to sexually assault people has happened, as seen here. The risk may be near non-existent to non-existent, but should we really go through with a double standard and ignore a groups' sense of safety for another? Gender-Neutral bathrooms could easily fix this problem.

There will always be risks, with everything. It's just how life works. and there is ways to counter it: like introducing laws for impersonating a trans person, increase sentences, etc.

Gender neutral bathrooms are unrealistic because most spaces won't have the space to have one, expansion would be expensive, etc. Stop treating an unrealistic compromise as the be all end all to this problem.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Your arguments are just so boring and so used up. No it doesn't seem like you care about trans people much at all and I wouldn't be surprised if you don't have a single trans friend. It is punishing them, making them feel not normal. When you treat someone differently from someone else in a negative way, that is punishment basically. You have to put trust into society, apparently you have none. There are car crashes all the time yet we're still allowed to drive around. If we do non-gender bathrooms, then there should ONLY be non-gender bathrooms, and no separate boy girl washrooms. The people with the "paranoia" are, imo, the ones who need to talk to something and get their head figured out. Maybe visit Dr. Phil, because that's incredibly irrational and it is not healthy to live a life built around crazy irrational beliefs. If we NORMALIZE GID, it won't be called GID. Gender is an abstract idea made up by humans. Yes there are sex's, but gender doesn't need to be a thing anymore, we don't live in some primordial society. Men don't have to be masculine and woman don't have to feminine for survival, we've evolved past that. Pretend trans people are just like anyone else in your life and you'll realize the problems go away on both sides. I mean pedophilia is a thing (which should just be a disorder, not something people called EFFED UP, but that's a different story) and always will be a thing that some people will do. The rates of pedophilia will not increase with trans people using a normal bathroom... They're gonna prey either way.

For one, normalizing GID would lead to improper care, and with no hormone treatments or gender reassignment surgery, it would lead to essentially punishing them anyways. You are missing this entire point. Just because it won't be there doesn't mean that it wouldn't effect their availability for healthcare options to combat their GID. They'll still have their problem but with not treatment, and thus they will have higher suicide rates and higher amounts of genital mutilation. Not to mention the car crash argument and the argument for this is not comparable. And no, gender neutral bathrooms are a no-go if they are the only option available. There would no doubt be a spike in sexual harassment (probably not on children since their parents can come in with me). Gender Neutral bathrooms would not only help the Transgender community, but parents worried about their children and other groups, but if they are the only option available, it would lead to problems.

You are right, they don't need to fit gender roles because in this current time they aren't needed. However, GID is still a thing. A male is generally born with a more male brain. If they are born with a more female brain, they would have GID and thus would be subject to whatever it entails. No treatment can lead to very bad effects such as depression and suicide. These difference between the male and female brain are from sexual dimorphism, and the differences are pointed out here.

The problem is many here are open for a double standard because they do not understand what the other side feels; it is a double standard where we value one sides' civil right to feel safe in a bathroom. Realistically, we shouldn't be having double standards in a free society.

Anyways, I've been waiting for someone to just point out that the most of the time, the way to find out if someone is Transgendered in a bathroom anyways is if either asked them or if you looked in their pants (unless they looked very obvious). Alas, I see no point in playing Devil's Advocate in this debate anymore. Well, except for this bit.

Because the premise of feeling unsafe with a transperson is mostly bred out of xenophobia and hatred whilst trans people wanting to use the correct bathroom because they are the correct gender, and after transitioning, the correct sex is just someone wanting to live tenor life convieniently?



Or it could be that the UK stats could be caused by the stigma towards GID and the treatment of individuals, thus they develop mental illnesses but you know, has to be dem damn transfolks just being trans, nothing do to with the discrimination and hatred. Not considering other factors, if anything, shows you're lack of insight into the problem.



You are punishing them. You're invalidating them by punishing them emotionally. 'Oh, you literally have the mental state of this sex? Transitioned so you could live as this sex? Too bad, some Cis people find you scary because cisnormativity! It's like taking an immense journey just go see a family member or friend and then you get told 'nope can't see them'



As pointed out, politicians have a higher offense rate than trans or even trans 'impersonators' of sorts. And they don't need a 'politicians bathroom'.



No, you're being unintentionally transphobic because you're invalidating all that they've worked for.



As I've said, you can still actively try and support them, but you're being unintentionally transphobic due to your views. Also, most problems with GID comes from the fact that it's stigmatised, seen as wrong, etc. Normalising it would make 'sufferers' get what they need: moral support, and possibly even the monetary support needed in some countries for transitioning of the body.



There will always be risks, with everything. It's just how life works. and there is ways to counter it: like introducing laws for impersonating a trans person, increase sentences, etc.

Gender neutral bathrooms are unrealistic because most spaces won't have the space to have one, expansion would be expensive, etc. Stop treating an unrealistic compromise as the be all end all to this problem.

For one, you are missing the point. It is a double standard to say that they should have a civil right and not another group, no matter how radical they are. Should we start censoring a person's freedom of speech because it had a mean word? No. But many people, such as your self, are arguing that because X group is bigoted, that they should not have this apparent civil right.

No, I was correlating that with the people not getting treatment. Not because they're just "trans". If anything, you're just pulling a strawman because on this by just saying I'm saying it because they're just trans. Part of "not getting treatment" would also include what you literally just said for part of it. But, you know, gotta ignore what I actually typed earlier that implied it was correlated with improper treatment.

Is it really invalidating them if we make another bathroom that any gender can go in? Honestly. Think about it. You're walking in a bathroom that any gender can go into. Meanwhile, many people in the left find it necessary to make double-standards because "cisnormative people" are clearly having an agenda agents trans rights. I thought we were fighting for equality, not "everyone is equal but some people are more equal than others."

As also pointed out, it is a double standard to allow one group to have their fears eased while hurting another group's need for something to appear safe. Why must be continue these abhorrent double standards in the name of equality? After all, it is not true equality.

Most of it comes from improper treatment, which some of those factors do indeed cause. However, normalizing GID will only lessen the opportunities for Gender Reassignment Surgery and hormone treatments. If anything, we need campaigns to bring awareness and to lessen it's stigma.

And another strawman. The compromise was for buildings that would be constructed after the law, not to require newer buildings to make an expansion for it.

 

[Aromatic Mist]

For one, normalizing GID would lead to improper care, and with no hormone treatments or gender reassignment surgery, it would lead to essentially punishing them anyways.

There is literally no evidence of this. If anything, the opposite would be true: normalising GID would offer more opportunities for trans people to get what they deserve due to a more accepting world. Not 'normalising' it just leads to stigma, and that does nothing but damage the movement.

Kind of an off-tangent, but am I the only one who thinks GID is a dumb name? For the majority of cases, yeah, it's fine. But there's people who still have dysphoria who are gender fluid, gender queer, etc. they don't neccesarily match up with it.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

For one, normalizing GID would lead to improper care, and with no hormone treatments or gender reassignment surgery, it would lead to essentially punishing them anyways. You are missing this entire point. Just because it won't be there doesn't mean that it wouldn't effect their availability for healthcare options to combat their GID. They'll still have their problem but with not treatment, and thus they will have higher suicide rates and higher amounts of genital mutilation. Not to mention the car crash argument and the argument for this is not comparable. And no, gender neutral bathrooms are a no-go if they are the only option available. There would no doubt be a spike in sexual harassment (probably not on children since their parents can come in with me). Gender Neutral bathrooms would not only help the Transgender community, but parents worried about their children and other groups, but if they are the only option available, it would lead to problems.

You are right, they don't need to fit gender roles because in this current time they aren't needed. However, GID is still a thing. A male is generally born with a more male brain. If they are born with a more female brain, they would have GID and thus would be subject to whatever it entails. No treatment can lead to very bad effects such as depression and suicide. These difference between the male and female brain are from sexual dimorphism, and the differences are pointed out here.

How can we tell if depression and suicide are intrinsic to the sexual identity and not just a consequence of the tension between the identity and existing social norms? Kind of like, some religious homosexuals feel depressed because they feel homosexuality is against their religion, but that's a result of their religion, not homosexuality intrinsically.

And even if some people get depressed over these things, why should you classify everyone with a different kind of brain as GID? If there are no negative symptoms, why call it a disease?