Am I right to infer that you're not terribly bright? If said person wasn't a sexual predator - they would have no desire to cross-dress in public and use public restrooms of the opposite sex.
I disagree that sexual predators are overwhelmingly male. I think it's rapidly becoming the opposite, actually.Traditionalism is self defeating. Clearly it's more damaging to tradition for a woman to sex change to a man but traditionalists have the view that a woman is NEVER responsible for her actions so therefore the men changing into women must be focused on.Are you people talking about people transsexuals or crossdressers?
And I'm not asking with regard to nefarious types who might dress "however" as an affectation adopted specifically to act upon criminal intent. I'm asking with regard to people who are just going about their lives like most everyone else -- working, shopping, hanging out, walking down the street, etc.Why is there so much focus on men who dress as women rather than women who dress as men?
Women wearing pants doesn't bother people, but men wearing dresses does.
If you're of a mind to take offense at crossdressers, then rationally, you'd take equal offense at women who style themselves to appear as men as with men who style themselves to appear as women. That just doesn't make sense.
Society doesn't seem to find this offensive (woman dressed as a man)
Society finds this offensive (man dressed as a woman)
And don't tell me it has something to do with looking like a man in a dress. I have no idea which of the following female appearing individuals is a woman. I also don't care.
And yet what I see in this thread's posts is haranguing about men in women's bathrooms. Looking at the athletes above, I am hard pressed to know which of them (save the one with the beard) is male/female.
Again, what's rational about that? It's clear that wearing dresses/skirts and other items that in the west are considered female are not innately gender specific.
And it's obvious that neither small children nor their parents go "ape shit" over seeing body parts attached to live humans. Similarly, nudity itself isn't a problem for young or old people. You cannot possibly think that people raised in the societies pictured here don't at all stages of their lives see male and female genitals being used and not being used.
In looking for studies that examined sexual predation among societies like Yanomamö, Herero and Himba that have not "Westernized" (for want of a better term), I can't find a thing that indicates these people even experience sexual predation of children. Yet it's quite likely that children of all ages in those societies see "body parts" all the time.
It's rather hard to conceive that genital squeamishness is a more advanced state of being than not being so. Accordingly, it stands to reason that no child is innately going to "flip out" because they see an adult urinating. That happens when children are taught to think penises and vaginas are "something secret" or untoward.
Now you may wonder why I'd write the comments above. The reason is because this is a political forum. I would expect that people here would at least be very astute about the existential humanity. The human bran works the same whether it develops in New York or Namibia. In this thread's context, that means that the line of argument that intimates or asserts overtly that one's child seeing a man's penis or woman's vagina is somehow distressing is most surprising. How can one engage in social and political discourse, debate, yet also attempt to advance such irrational ideas, ideas that just don't bear out when considered rationally? (I wanted to say "provincial," but I can't because the people who don't have "bathroom issues" literally are provincial in the objective application of that term.) It just doesn't make sense to me that one would talk about issues of humanity and not be really well informed about humanity, not culture, humanity.
Lastly, I'll point out that insouciance toward "doing one's business" existed in the early days of Western culture. The Romans, for example, had no issue with it. The bathrooms are open to all genders and all ages, so imagine men, women, and children all standing or sitting, doing their business next to one another in an open space. People are discussing business or gossiping to one another while going to the bathroom.
On a more practical note, sexual predators are overwhelmingly male, which means the likelihood of a male predator feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims is much higher than the reverse.
I suppose with the type of people he knows, that would be the reason. I've met lowlifes who think people change gender from male to female because they've been in jail and they got raped. It's a reflection of the judgers life.Traditionalism is self defeating. Clearly it's more damaging to tradition for a woman to sex change to a man but traditionalists have the view that a woman is NEVER responsible for her actions so therefore the men changing into women must be focused on.Are you people talking about people transsexuals or crossdressers?
And I'm not asking with regard to nefarious types who might dress "however" as an affectation adopted specifically to act upon criminal intent. I'm asking with regard to people who are just going about their lives like most everyone else -- working, shopping, hanging out, walking down the street, etc.Why is there so much focus on men who dress as women rather than women who dress as men?
Women wearing pants doesn't bother people, but men wearing dresses does.
If you're of a mind to take offense at crossdressers, then rationally, you'd take equal offense at women who style themselves to appear as men as with men who style themselves to appear as women. That just doesn't make sense.
Society doesn't seem to find this offensive (woman dressed as a man)
Society finds this offensive (man dressed as a woman)
And don't tell me it has something to do with looking like a man in a dress. I have no idea which of the following female appearing individuals is a woman. I also don't care.
And yet what I see in this thread's posts is haranguing about men in women's bathrooms. Looking at the athletes above, I am hard pressed to know which of them (save the one with the beard) is male/female.
Again, what's rational about that? It's clear that wearing dresses/skirts and other items that in the west are considered female are not innately gender specific.
And it's obvious that neither small children nor their parents go "ape shit" over seeing body parts attached to live humans. Similarly, nudity itself isn't a problem for young or old people. You cannot possibly think that people raised in the societies pictured here don't at all stages of their lives see male and female genitals being used and not being used.
In looking for studies that examined sexual predation among societies like Yanomamö, Herero and Himba that have not "Westernized" (for want of a better term), I can't find a thing that indicates these people even experience sexual predation of children. Yet it's quite likely that children of all ages in those societies see "body parts" all the time.
It's rather hard to conceive that genital squeamishness is a more advanced state of being than not being so. Accordingly, it stands to reason that no child is innately going to "flip out" because they see an adult urinating. That happens when children are taught to think penises and vaginas are "something secret" or untoward.
Now you may wonder why I'd write the comments above. The reason is because this is a political forum. I would expect that people here would at least be very astute about the existential humanity. The human bran works the same whether it develops in New York or Namibia. In this thread's context, that means that the line of argument that intimates or asserts overtly that one's child seeing a man's penis or woman's vagina is somehow distressing is most surprising. How can one engage in social and political discourse, debate, yet also attempt to advance such irrational ideas, ideas that just don't bear out when considered rationally? (I wanted to say "provincial," but I can't because the people who don't have "bathroom issues" literally are provincial in the objective application of that term.) It just doesn't make sense to me that one would talk about issues of humanity and not be really well informed about humanity, not culture, humanity.
Lastly, I'll point out that insouciance toward "doing one's business" existed in the early days of Western culture. The Romans, for example, had no issue with it. The bathrooms are open to all genders and all ages, so imagine men, women, and children all standing or sitting, doing their business next to one another in an open space. People are discussing business or gossiping to one another while going to the bathroom.
On a more practical note, sexual predators are overwhelmingly male, which means the likelihood of a male predator feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims is much higher than the reverse.
So am I right to infer that your objections accrue from disquietude over the risk that the M-->F trans in the ladies room may be a sexual predator instead of merely a law abiding person who is trans?
It IS allowed for trans women to be in Women's restrooms and you will have to submit to that reality.
Sadly...the problem is not solved. Barack Obama's highly illegal, unconstitutional mandate that anyone can use any bathroom they choose means that even though an "either" is still available - any twisted, sexually deviant pig can and will still walk into the ladies restroom to view women and little girls.
Traditionalism is self defeating. Clearly it's more damaging to tradition for a woman to sex change to a man but traditionalists have the view that a woman is NEVER responsible for her actions so therefore the men changing into women must be focused on.Are you people talking about people transsexuals or crossdressers?
And I'm not asking with regard to nefarious types who might dress "however" as an affectation adopted specifically to act upon criminal intent. I'm asking with regard to people who are just going about their lives like most everyone else -- working, shopping, hanging out, walking down the street, etc.Why is there so much focus on men who dress as women rather than women who dress as men?
Women wearing pants doesn't bother people, but men wearing dresses does.
If you're of a mind to take offense at crossdressers, then rationally, you'd take equal offense at women who style themselves to appear as men as with men who style themselves to appear as women. That just doesn't make sense.
Society doesn't seem to find this offensive (woman dressed as a man)
Society finds this offensive (man dressed as a woman)
And don't tell me it has something to do with looking like a man in a dress. I have no idea which of the following female appearing individuals is a woman. I also don't care.
And yet what I see in this thread's posts is haranguing about men in women's bathrooms. Looking at the athletes above, I am hard pressed to know which of them (save the one with the beard) is male/female.
Again, what's rational about that? It's clear that wearing dresses/skirts and other items that in the west are considered female are not innately gender specific.
And it's obvious that neither small children nor their parents go "ape shit" over seeing body parts attached to live humans. Similarly, nudity itself isn't a problem for young or old people. You cannot possibly think that people raised in the societies pictured here don't at all stages of their lives see male and female genitals being used and not being used.
In looking for studies that examined sexual predation among societies like Yanomamö, Herero and Himba that have not "Westernized" (for want of a better term), I can't find a thing that indicates these people even experience sexual predation of children. Yet it's quite likely that children of all ages in those societies see "body parts" all the time.
It's rather hard to conceive that genital squeamishness is a more advanced state of being than not being so. Accordingly, it stands to reason that no child is innately going to "flip out" because they see an adult urinating. That happens when children are taught to think penises and vaginas are "something secret" or untoward.
Now you may wonder why I'd write the comments above. The reason is because this is a political forum. I would expect that people here would at least be very astute about the existential humanity. The human bran works the same whether it develops in New York or Namibia. In this thread's context, that means that the line of argument that intimates or asserts overtly that one's child seeing a man's penis or woman's vagina is somehow distressing is most surprising. How can one engage in social and political discourse, debate, yet also attempt to advance such irrational ideas, ideas that just don't bear out when considered rationally? (I wanted to say "provincial," but I can't because the people who don't have "bathroom issues" literally are provincial in the objective application of that term.) It just doesn't make sense to me that one would talk about issues of humanity and not be really well informed about humanity, not culture, humanity.
Lastly, I'll point out that insouciance toward "doing one's business" existed in the early days of Western culture. The Romans, for example, had no issue with it. The bathrooms are open to all genders and all ages, so imagine men, women, and children all standing or sitting, doing their business next to one another in an open space. People are discussing business or gossiping to one another while going to the bathroom.
On a more practical note, sexual predators are overwhelmingly male, which means the likelihood of a male predator feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims is much higher than the reverse.
So am I right to infer that your objections accrue from disquietude over the risk that the M-->F transin the ladies room may be a sexual predator instead of merely a law abiding person who is trans?
I disagree that sexual predators are overwhelmingly male. I think it's rapidly becoming the opposite, actually.Traditionalism is self defeating. Clearly it's more damaging to tradition for a woman to sex change to a man but traditionalists have the view that a woman is NEVER responsible for her actions so therefore the men changing into women must be focused on.Are you people talking about people transsexuals or crossdressers?
And I'm not asking with regard to nefarious types who might dress "however" as an affectation adopted specifically to act upon criminal intent. I'm asking with regard to people who are just going about their lives like most everyone else -- working, shopping, hanging out, walking down the street, etc.Why is there so much focus on men who dress as women rather than women who dress as men?
Women wearing pants doesn't bother people, but men wearing dresses does.
If you're of a mind to take offense at crossdressers, then rationally, you'd take equal offense at women who style themselves to appear as men as with men who style themselves to appear as women. That just doesn't make sense.
Society doesn't seem to find this offensive (woman dressed as a man)
Society finds this offensive (man dressed as a woman)
And don't tell me it has something to do with looking like a man in a dress. I have no idea which of the following female appearing individuals is a woman. I also don't care.
And yet what I see in this thread's posts is haranguing about men in women's bathrooms. Looking at the athletes above, I am hard pressed to know which of them (save the one with the beard) is male/female.
Again, what's rational about that? It's clear that wearing dresses/skirts and other items that in the west are considered female are not innately gender specific.
And it's obvious that neither small children nor their parents go "ape shit" over seeing body parts attached to live humans. Similarly, nudity itself isn't a problem for young or old people. You cannot possibly think that people raised in the societies pictured here don't at all stages of their lives see male and female genitals being used and not being used.
In looking for studies that examined sexual predation among societies like Yanomamö, Herero and Himba that have not "Westernized" (for want of a better term), I can't find a thing that indicates these people even experience sexual predation of children. Yet it's quite likely that children of all ages in those societies see "body parts" all the time.
It's rather hard to conceive that genital squeamishness is a more advanced state of being than not being so. Accordingly, it stands to reason that no child is innately going to "flip out" because they see an adult urinating. That happens when children are taught to think penises and vaginas are "something secret" or untoward.
Now you may wonder why I'd write the comments above. The reason is because this is a political forum. I would expect that people here would at least be very astute about the existential humanity. The human bran works the same whether it develops in New York or Namibia. In this thread's context, that means that the line of argument that intimates or asserts overtly that one's child seeing a man's penis or woman's vagina is somehow distressing is most surprising. How can one engage in social and political discourse, debate, yet also attempt to advance such irrational ideas, ideas that just don't bear out when considered rationally? (I wanted to say "provincial," but I can't because the people who don't have "bathroom issues" literally are provincial in the objective application of that term.) It just doesn't make sense to me that one would talk about issues of humanity and not be really well informed about humanity, not culture, humanity.
Lastly, I'll point out that insouciance toward "doing one's business" existed in the early days of Western culture. The Romans, for example, had no issue with it. The bathrooms are open to all genders and all ages, so imagine men, women, and children all standing or sitting, doing their business next to one another in an open space. People are discussing business or gossiping to one another while going to the bathroom.
On a more practical note, sexual predators are overwhelmingly male, which means the likelihood of a male predator feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims is much higher than the reverse.
I also disagree that males are feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims at all where as with the female to males, it's definitely a way for them to gain access to victims. There's a lot of loathsome transgendered men out there, believe me.
language shows you not to be a complete dingbat.
Traditionalism is self defeating. Clearly it's more damaging to tradition for a woman to sex change to a man but traditionalists have the view that a woman is NEVER responsible for her actions so therefore the men changing into women must be focused on.Are you people talking about people transsexuals or crossdressers?
And I'm not asking with regard to nefarious types who might dress "however" as an affectation adopted specifically to act upon criminal intent. I'm asking with regard to people who are just going about their lives like most everyone else -- working, shopping, hanging out, walking down the street, etc.Why is there so much focus on men who dress as women rather than women who dress as men?
Women wearing pants doesn't bother people, but men wearing dresses does.
If you're of a mind to take offense at crossdressers, then rationally, you'd take equal offense at women who style themselves to appear as men as with men who style themselves to appear as women. That just doesn't make sense.
Society doesn't seem to find this offensive (woman dressed as a man)
Society finds this offensive (man dressed as a woman)
And don't tell me it has something to do with looking like a man in a dress. I have no idea which of the following female appearing individuals is a woman. I also don't care.
And yet what I see in this thread's posts is haranguing about men in women's bathrooms. Looking at the athletes above, I am hard pressed to know which of them (save the one with the beard) is male/female.
Again, what's rational about that? It's clear that wearing dresses/skirts and other items that in the west are considered female are not innately gender specific.
And it's obvious that neither small children nor their parents go "ape shit" over seeing body parts attached to live humans. Similarly, nudity itself isn't a problem for young or old people. You cannot possibly think that people raised in the societies pictured here don't at all stages of their lives see male and female genitals being used and not being used.
In looking for studies that examined sexual predation among societies like Yanomamö, Herero and Himba that have not "Westernized" (for want of a better term), I can't find a thing that indicates these people even experience sexual predation of children. Yet it's quite likely that children of all ages in those societies see "body parts" all the time.
It's rather hard to conceive that genital squeamishness is a more advanced state of being than not being so. Accordingly, it stands to reason that no child is innately going to "flip out" because they see an adult urinating. That happens when children are taught to think penises and vaginas are "something secret" or untoward.
Now you may wonder why I'd write the comments above. The reason is because this is a political forum. I would expect that people here would at least be very astute about the existential humanity. The human bran works the same whether it develops in New York or Namibia. In this thread's context, that means that the line of argument that intimates or asserts overtly that one's child seeing a man's penis or woman's vagina is somehow distressing is most surprising. How can one engage in social and political discourse, debate, yet also attempt to advance such irrational ideas, ideas that just don't bear out when considered rationally? (I wanted to say "provincial," but I can't because the people who don't have "bathroom issues" literally are provincial in the objective application of that term.) It just doesn't make sense to me that one would talk about issues of humanity and not be really well informed about humanity, not culture, humanity.
Lastly, I'll point out that insouciance toward "doing one's business" existed in the early days of Western culture. The Romans, for example, had no issue with it. The bathrooms are open to all genders and all ages, so imagine men, women, and children all standing or sitting, doing their business next to one another in an open space. People are discussing business or gossiping to one another while going to the bathroom.
On a more practical note, sexual predators are overwhelmingly male, which means the likelihood of a male predator feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims is much higher than the reverse.
Wow...what an intelligent comment. Way to provide supporting evidence for your accusation.
Looking at the people above, there is nothing that convincingly, rationally makes it clear which direction their sex change went. Moreover, were I to see any of them in public, I would not have the first idea that they were born as the sex opposite that which they appear in either of their photos.
For folks who have expressed the "comfort issue" re: what restroom trans people use:
Look at the above photos again and ask yourself these questions:
Realizing that the people pictured above, when they were mid-process in their sexual transformation -- i.e., they had not had their SRS, but had begun taking the hormones that transform their superficial traits to those of their intended sex -- looked as they do in the photos on the right.....
- Are you truly saying you think they should have used the ladies room/women's locker room during that period? Making them do that is exactly what several states' bathroom laws require.
- Do you honestly not see how that causes more problems than if they simply went to the men's room to relieve themselves? Yet using the ladies' room is exactly what you've been advocating they do.
- Those of you here who think that even after the SRS they are still women and therefore they should use the ladies' room/locker rooms, what makes you think that their going to the ladies room makes any sense at all? Someone earlier talked about being made uncomfortable by a trans person using the facilities designated for the "to be" sex. Using the facilities of their "legacy" sex isn't going to produce any less discomfiture.
About this business of sexual predators:
Principled or Unprincipled? Logical or illogical?
What does it mean to be unprincipled? It means either (1) having no principles or (2) irrationally or inconsistently applying one or several principles one may claim to have. It is to be, in a word, absurd.
- For one to ascribe to the notion that the bathroom laws that have been passed will somehow reduce the incidence of or risk of being a victim of a sex-related crime, one must necessarily ascribe to line of logic that argues laws are an effective tactic for stopping or reducing the quantity of illegal and/or undesirable behavior/acts.
- Given that rationally you must accept the noted line of argument, reconcile the rationality of your acceptance of that principle with the following assertion: gun control laws do not inhibit gun-related crimes.
Now people may attempt to deflect away from facing their unprincipled thinking and positions by crying "liberal this" or whatever the other insipid and off-point notion that enters their feeble minds. People may try to claim logical soundness is a matter of opinion. The fact is that sound reasoning, soundness, is neither liberal nor conservative -- like truth, it just is -- and it is not a matter of opinion because it can be shown objectively.
Another question for anyone who's concerned about trans people committing sex (or indecent exposure) crimes in restrooms:
The answer to that question is zero and it's zero in every state, regardless of what laws they have or had.
- How many times has a trans person been convicted of committing a sex crime in a restroom/locker room?
