CDZ Should "Gender IDENTITY" be treated like physical Race/Gender or like Faith Based Affiliation?

[Cecilie1200]

.​

It doesn't matter.

If someone comes into my establishment ... And has difficulties handling compliance issues with their biological gender ...
And cannot for the life of them figure out which gender specific bathroom they are required to use ...

All they have to do is ask ... And I'll escort them to the single stall, non gender specific, employee bathroom with a lock on the door.
They won't have to worry about anything other the crap they are going to catch if they make a mess in there because they couldn't figure out whether to stand or sit.

If they for one second think it is my obligation to sell my consumers their agenda...
Or make their problems my customer's problems ... It's not ...

.

.​

Also there's no issue with single stall restrooms or unisex.

In private homes, people have restrooms that are for anyone to use. Why not with schools or businesses for those who don't want any issues including security issues.

Well, for one thing, the restroom in my home serves four people, on a normal day. And even then, we have two restrooms so that there's no waiting. A school or business, on the other hand, is going to have a lot more than four people in it potentially needing to use the restroom, which is why they tend to go with multi-facility bathrooms.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't know about Sassy, but I would point out here that there's a difference between a physical disability and a mental disability. The ADA requires significantly more in the way of reasonable accommodations for those with physical disabilities than it does for mental.

That's mainly because the overall impact of a physical disability can be accurately measured ...
Outside of whatever mental impairments may also be common to that disability.

.​

Exactly. And a person with a mental impairment - presuming he/she is functional enough to not be institutionalized - can make adjustments to accommodate the way normal, unimpaired people conduct themselves. A person with a physical disability doesn't really have that option.

Dear Cecilie1200
Appreciate your thoughtful points and discussion here.
This is where I would compare the accommodations of how someone dresses or presents oneself to faith based costume or appearance. Sometimes ones religious wardrobe can be accommodated, sometimes not.

With the Burqas covering the head face or body, this can be accepted in some situations as faith based religious exercise without discrimination. But in workplaces where it becomes a safety issue, or in cases of driver license/ID it cannot be accommodated.

Yes, and noticeably, it is not the responsibility of the business to alter itself and its requirements to fit with one employee's preferences. It is incumbent on the employee to either conform, or go find another job.

Each situation should be the responsibility of the people involved to work out by their own beliefs, best judgment and discretion. We need to learn to be reasonable and respectful instead of exploiting any issue to make generalized political statements that incite judgment of one side or another.

That is, unfortunately, not the world we live in today. We live today in a world where people believe they not only have the right to be whatever they wish, but to do so free of all inconveniences and consequences of that, up to and including the possibility that other people will disagree and even disapprove.

If people do or do not believe in accommodating transgender expression that should not be the govt business to establish or prohibit or judge or punish one belief over another. I see some of this pattern of running to govt to settle conflicts similar to running to mommy or daddy when the kids can't solve problems themselves. When it's an issue of danger or safety, of abuse or violation of laws and rights, yes, the govt authority should be called upon. But not for every disagreement over beliefs that are private and the choice of individuals. That is NOT the govts job to step and settle matters of beliefs, or else it results in establishing one sides beliefs and prohibiting the other. The govt should remain neutral and defend equal freedom of all ppl beliefs to be practiced individually by free choice, separately if necessary, not establish any belief over any other.

Would that we lived in a world where people had the maturity and self-confidence to say, "This is who I choose to be, and if you disagree, I can go on with my life without caring."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Also there's no issue with single stall restrooms or unisex.

In private homes, people have restrooms that are for anyone to use. Why not with schools or businesses for those who don't want any issues including security issues.

Some businesses already have those here ... Only they are called family bathrooms and not transgender bathrooms.

They are usually a bathroom with accommodations for both genders, a changing table for babies, and usually a lock on the door.
If you are a dad and your little girl needs to use the potty, or vice versa, you don't have to send them in a large public bathroom by themselves

There isn't a sign on the door that says transgender people cannot use the bathroom.
But ... That is a service the business decides to offer ... Not a law requiring them to.

.​

.

.​

Capitalism is a handy thing, is it not?

 

[emilynghiem]

Also there's no issue with single stall restrooms or unisex.

In private homes, people have restrooms that are for anyone to use. Why not with schools or businesses for those who don't want any issues including security issues.

Some businesses already have those here ... Only they are called family bathrooms and not transgender bathrooms.

They are usually a bathroom with accommodations for both genders, a changing table for babies, and usually a lock on the door.
If you are a dad and your little girl needs to use the potty, or vice versa, you don't have to send them in a large public bathroom by themselves

There isn't a sign on the door that says transgender people cannot use the bathroom.
But ... That is a service the business decides to offer ... Not a law requiring them to.

.​

.

.​

Yep BlackSand that's the whole point
Nothing needs to be forced on anyone!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kroger-unisex-bathroom-sign/

Here are links to one of the best bathroom signs that went viral.

Kroger Draws Mixed Reactions to Unisex Bathroom

 

[BlackSand]

Yep BlackSand that's the whole point
Nothing needs to be forced on anyone!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kroger-unisex-bathroom-sign/

Here are links to one of the best bathroom signs that went viral.

Kroger Draws Mixed Reactions to Unisex Bathroom

View attachment 210509

The reaction the sign draws ...
Is the same reason Kroger felt the need to explain their decision with the note below the sign.
It concerns people who want to define what other people do and/or classify it as necessary or acceptable.

I am, fortunately, someone who doesn't give a damn about something someone wants to tell me I cannot do.
I am always more interested in figuring out how I can do what it is I want to do ...
As well as how few people I am going to have to get to agree with me in order to do it.

Anyone can look at the Unisex sign ... And come up with a practical use that doesn't involve something they disagree with.
If anyone looks at the unisex sign and it creates an obstacle for them ... They are a "cannot person" and not a "can do" person ...

... At which time I have no use for them, or whatever it is they cannot accept or do ...

.​

 

[BlackSand]

Yep BlackSand that's the whole point
Nothing needs to be forced on anyone!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kroger-unisex-bathroom-sign/

Here are links to one of the best bathroom signs that went viral.

Kroger Draws Mixed Reactions to Unisex Bathroom

View attachment 210509

I also don't want to stray too far from the topic with my personal dissertation ... But one fact will always remains the same.

Man's law is fallible ... And inevitably going to cause complications.

Adaptation and innovation Always beats limitation and governance.
Governance attempts to bind us where we are ... When change is only thing evitable.

How we manage change ... Is where it is decided who moves forward and who get's left behind.
If people on either side of the argument want to argue about it ... They're going to have to catch the next bus ...
We're moving on and don't have to hurt anyone to do it.

.​

.​

 

[emilynghiem]

Yep BlackSand that's the whole point
Nothing needs to be forced on anyone!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kroger-unisex-bathroom-sign/

Here are links to one of the best bathroom signs that went viral.

Kroger Draws Mixed Reactions to Unisex Bathroom

View attachment 210509

I also don't want to stray too far from the topic with my personal dissertation ... But one fact will always remains the same.

Man's law is fallible ... And inevitably going to cause complications.

Adaptation and innovation Always beats limitation and governance.
Governance attempts to bind us where we are ... When change is only thing evitable.

How we manage change ... Is where it is decided who moves forward and who get's left behind.
If people on either side of the argument want to argue about it ... They're going to have to catch the next bus ...
We're moving on and don't have to hurt anyone to do it.

.​

.​

So BlackSand let's write laws to be as neutral as possible.
So we avoid the fork in the road altogether.

That way whatever biases or preferences we are going to have,
that isn't written into the public law but bypassed so it IS left to individuals to work that out, flawed or not.

 

[BlackSand]

So BlackSand let's write laws to be as neutral as possible.
So we avoid the fork in the road altogether.

That way whatever biases or preferences we are going to have,
that isn't written into the public law but bypassed so it IS left to individuals to work that out, flawed or not.

Let's avoid putting forks in the road thinking laws are more important than solutions.
I understand what you are saying ... But it has been my experience the things that inhibit greater/better results are laws.

If your intent of a law is to settle an argument ...
And you do so by recognizing both sides as being on equal ground ...
You are failing to recognize it's a law (or the abuse of a law) you are trying to fix ...
And that should never have been written or left up to interpretation in the first damn place.

You don't have to accept what I am going to do (it's not going to violate silly laws).

I think where you and I separate the most ...
Is in the fact that I am not interested in the people who want to argue about it ...
And have no problem leaving their rear-ends behind.

To me ... Their desire to argue ...
And furthermore look towards government for a solution ...
Is the stupidest decision anyone could make.

I mean, bless your heart Emily ... Good luck saving the world ...
I will guarantee you it wont be the same place you are trying to save tomorrow ...
And I am going to get ahead of fixing the crap other people have already messed up and want to fight about.

Some people have vision ... Let's stop following the blind ...

.​

 

[emilynghiem]

.​

It doesn't matter.

If someone comes into my establishment ... And has difficulties handling compliance issues with their biological gender ...
And cannot for the life of them figure out which gender specific bathroom they are required to use ...

All they have to do is ask ... And I'll escort them to the single stall, non gender specific, employee bathroom with a lock on the door.
They won't have to worry about anything other the crap they are going to catch if they make a mess in there because they couldn't figure out whether to stand or sit.

If they for one second think it is my obligation to sell my consumers their agenda...
Or make their problems my customer's problems ... It's not ...

.

.​

Also there's no issue with single stall restrooms or unisex.

In private homes, people have restrooms that are for anyone to use. Why not with schools or businesses for those who don't want any issues including security issues.

Well, for one thing, the restroom in my home serves four people, on a normal day. And even then, we have two restrooms so that there's no waiting. A school or business, on the other hand, is going to have a lot more than four people in it potentially needing to use the restroom, which is why they tend to go with multi-facility bathrooms.

Then have both Cecilie1200 where people can agree to the rules on them.
Many schools solved this problem by keeping the regular restrooms as they were,
and just allowing special exceptions for students who opted to use the faculty or single stall units.


If not, if they can't agree, then have separate units.
So everyone still has a choice how they want to solve each issue in each case.

This would also reward communities that can work out their issues
and those that cannot reach agreements civilly would be limited
to whatever they can agree on, including removing public restrooms
and making them private if that solves the problem and treats everyone equally!

 

[emilynghiem]

You cannot have "protected classes" and "equal protection", you can have one or the other, but they cannot both exist at the same time.

Great post by Golfing Gator on another thread:
Remember The Baker Cleared By SCOTUS? Well, Guess What

I am copying it here because I think it states it best,
and explains why laws need to be neutral and all inclusive
because if they are biased toward one group more than another,
that's a form of discrimination by creed instead of equal protections of the laws
for all people of all beliefs. Thanks again to Golfing Gator for this point!

 

[Picaro]

WE should put in TV cameras in every stall, so everyone can watch people doing whatever it is they do in stalls. Why? Because voyeurs are people, too, their rights matter as much as any other mentally ill fetishists' rights do, and it hurts their feelings when people don't let them watch, makes them feel like outsiders and stuff.

"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained." -Stirling S. Newberry

 

[Picaro]

.​

It doesn't matter.

If someone comes into my establishment ... And has difficulties handling compliance issues with their biological gender ...
And cannot for the life of them figure out which gender specific bathroom they are required to use ...

All they have to do is ask ... And I'll escort them to the single stall, non gender specific, employee bathroom with a lock on the door.
They won't have to worry about anything other the crap they are going to catch if they make a mess in there because they couldn't figure out whether to stand or sit.

If they for one second think it is my obligation to sell my consumers their agenda...
Or make their problems my customer's problems ... It's not ...

.

.​

Also there's no issue with single stall restrooms or unisex.

In private homes, people have restrooms that are for anyone to use. Why not with schools or businesses for those who don't want any issues including security issues.

Well, for one thing, the restroom in my home serves four people, on a normal day. And even then, we have two restrooms so that there's no waiting. A school or business, on the other hand, is going to have a lot more than four people in it potentially needing to use the restroom, which is why they tend to go with multi-facility bathrooms.

Then have both Cecilie1200 where people can agree to the rules on them.
Many schools solved this problem by keeping the regular restrooms as they were,
and just allowing special exceptions for students who opted to use the faculty or single stall units.


If not, if they can't agree, then have separate units.
So everyone still has a choice how they want to solve each issue in each case.

This would also reward communities that can work out their issues
and those that cannot reach agreements civilly would be limited
to whatever they can agree on, including removing public restrooms
and making them private if that solves the problem and treats everyone equally!

Yes, because pandering to each and every ridiculous neurotic's sniveling and 'special needs' at any cost is just what is called for, especially when its school kids and their ridiculous narcissistic dope-addled 'parents' making demands.

Why not just force Congress to write up a separate Constitution and personalized set of laws for each and every individual who feels themselves to be 'special'? What could be wrong with that??? It's only some 330 million of them they would need to do, after all. Then they can adapt the budget to suit them individually, too.

And then they can do the same for each and every criminal illegal alien who shows up at the border and demands one, too.

 

[BlackSand]

Then have both Cecilie1200 where people can agree to the rules on them.
Many schools solved this problem by keeping the regular restrooms as they were,
and just allowing special exceptions for students who opted to use the faculty or single stall units.


If not, if they can't agree, then have separate units.
So everyone still has a choice how they want to solve each issue in each case.

This would also reward communities that can work out their issues
and those that cannot reach agreements civilly would be limited
to whatever they can agree on, including removing public restrooms
and making them private if that solves the problem and treats everyone equally!

As soon as you start referring to "regular restrooms" and any alternative ... You open the door for "separate but equal" nit-wits.
In most cases you will notice that when handicapped facilities were agreed upon ... The small accomidations where quickly met, then the regular restroom changed.

"Treats everyone equally" is a misidentification ... Because they are treated equally now (use the bathroom specific to your biological gender, which you do actually have).
If a person doesn't want to be equal to everyone else ... Then they need to start asking for special accommodations and quit pretending they are equal.

.​

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A decade ago there were two genders. Now there are, what, like 32 or something? At the rate we are going, we will all have our own unique gender someday.

As far as gender identity is concerned, I think we should treat it in terms of group psychosis. This is all as much a societal disorder as an individual and it is getting worse.

To answer the question, though, I would try to distinguish between gender dysphora and those who claim their gender is all about what used to be called kink.the degree of choice vs selection are different. I think it is a mixture of all three to tell you the truth, but the difference lies in how much of each.

 

[ScorpioRising007]

See below for a funny Image taken from a tweet/post going around:View attachment 210054
T Shirt" "There are more than Two Genders"
(available in two sizes: Men's and Women's)

============

On a Serious Note:
Legally and Constitutionally, how should the issue of Gender Identity (internal) be treated?
A. like PHYSICAL race/gender that is genetically determined by birth
B. like freely chosen Faith Based Affiliation that doesn't have to be proven scientifically
but remains the free choice and belief of the individual, similar to protection of one's religious exercise
C. like a disability, where someone may need ACCOMMODATIONS and shouldn't be discriminated against

Which do you feel is the most consistent approach, that causes the least legal imposition or abuses?

NOTE: so your post does not get removed from CDZ, please feel free to add LINKS to another thread/post if you want to project, vent or bully someone PERSONALLY, so any sidetracking comments don't derail or detract from the content of your post, backing up your position by citing legal comparisons or scientific stats.

Unfortunately the world is not black and white, conservatives often think in just black and white terms. The simple minded and uneducated folks think Gender is biological determined. And I admit I once thought this same way before I got my college degrees and my eyes were opened by some brilliant college professors. Gender identity is not as simple anymore as what someone's physical gender is, but Gender actually is a "social norm". Anyone who has ever taken a gender studies class will come to realize this.

Very enlightening video from University of Yale online about "Queer Theory and Gender Performativity"



another interesting video "Critically Examining the Doctorine of Gender Identity

 

[Bob Blaylock]

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Unfortunately the world is not black and white, conservatives often think in just black and white terms. The simple minded and uneducated folks think Gender is biological determined. And I admit I once thought this same way before I got my college degrees and my eyes were opened by some brilliant college professors. Gender identity is not as simple anymore as what someone's physical gender is, but Gender actually is a "social norm". Anyone who has ever taken a gender studies class will come to realize this.

Some things really are black-and white. The distinction between male and female in humans is among these.

A man is not, and cannot ever become, a woman.

A woman is not, and can never become, a man.

And to be confused about the difference between men and women is prima facie proof of serious, delusional mental illness, nothing more or less.

As is giving even the slightest vestige of credence to anything coming out of a “gender studies” class.

Sane people need to just stop humouring and coddling those of you who insanely deny the essential distinction between male and female, and who just spread confusion and nonsense pertaining thereto.