HB2 Strikes Again

[myDeaconmyhand]

Sincerely held religious beliefs aren't held to any such standard.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

 

[wakephan09]

I keep seeing this repeated on the boards and it's just not true. I realize that you all have good intentions, but there is no transgendered looks test. Do you think gender is decided by how masculine or feminine you decide to dress every day? Both trans men and women wear jeans and t-shirts and flip flops and whatever normal asexual shit we cisgenders do. Expecting transgendered people to be in full makeup and runway drag attire every single day is unrealistic and unfair.

The problem is we're trying to explain gender fluidity to a bunch of conservative old men and sheltered innocents that can only understand the world in binaries. Of course there is no test for transgender looks. But in order to help them understand, making more straightforward for the purpose of explanation the association between gender identity and how one presents makes things simpler for demonstrating a relatively simple concept that even after dozens and dozens of pages rjkarl and bkf both confused only a couple of posts ago. I think we've finally moved past needing to differentiate sex and gender. Just trying to reach some kind of stasis here.

I think it's become clear that this isn't the thread for the kind of nuance you're insisting on here. Most posters are just trying to get the holdouts to see trans people as humans. And distinguish people with gender identity issues from hypothetical child molesters and perverts that would in this conservative fantasy put on a dress and a wig and pretend to be trans.

 

[wakephan09]

Do you think gender is decided by how masculine or feminine you decide to dress every day

No, but how masculine or feminine you decide to dress every day is often decided by gender.

 

[macktheknife]

This completely misses the point. To my knowledge, nobody has suggested that the problem is that transgenders are going to molest girls in the girls' bathrooms. At least I know that I haven't. And I've clearly stated that in at least 5 or 6 posts on the subject.

Right. The only people that not only suggested it, but claim it will definitely happen are the wingnuts who wrote the bill, passed it, and the Governor of North Carolina. In addition that was followed by a slew of uneducated rubes who echoed this garbage. You know. Trump voters.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

The problem is we're trying to explain gender fluidity to a bunch of conservative old men and sheltered innocents that can only understand the world in binaries. Of course there is no test for transgender looks. But in order to help them understand, making more straightforward for the purpose of explanation the association between gender identity and how one presents makes things simpler for demonstrating a relatively simple concept that even after dozens and dozens of pages rjkarl and bkf both confused only a couple of posts ago. I think we've finally moved past needing to differentiate sex and gender. Just trying to reach some kind of stasis here.

I think it's become clear that this isn't the thread for the kind of nuance you're insisting on here. Most posters are just trying to get the holdouts to see trans people as humans. And distinguish people with gender identity issues from hypothetical child molesters and perverts that would in this conservative fantasy put on a dress and a wig and pretend to be trans.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. I realize that it's a weird reason to get on a soapbox.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

And the fact that you propose implementing a system of selective discrimination.

Just like when the federal government implemented that system of discrimination by forcing white people to share the lunch counter with black people.

The horrors!

 

[macktheknife]

Can there be anything more obnoxious than old white men and their offspring opining about their expertise in the ins and outs of discrimination in the land of the free. As an aged boomer it never ceases to amaze me how my generation left the sixties behind, idealism be damned, and let our brains become so calcified we can cook up something like HB2 and defend it. It's fucking amazing.

 

[RJKarl]

And the fact that you propose implementing a system of selective discrimination.

It doesn't keep you from doing anything. It doesn't discriminate against you in any way. I doubt you'll even know that a transgender was even the bathroom with you.

 

[bobknightfan]

Right. The only people that not only suggested it, but claim it will definitely happen are the wingnuts who wrote the bill, passed it, and the Governor of North Carolina. In addition that was followed by a slew of uneducated rubes who echoed this garbage. You know. Trump voters.

LOL. You missed my point, too.

 

[tintinisahottie]

I've yet to see anyone suggest transgenders aren't human. Maybe I missed it. Seems quite dramatic from phan

 

[jhmd2000]

For the "the test is that there is no test" crowd, does this apply to showers as well? You are okay with biological males showering in an open bay with women?

 

[wakephan09]

I've yet to see anyone suggest transgenders aren't human. Maybe I missed it. Seems quite dramatic from phan

This is a rhetorical strategy called hyperbole. But seriously, as several people have pointed out on here, the language we use to talk about transgender people is not dissimilar from the way we talked about black people during the civil rights movement or gay people just a decade ago. I don't think these people are bad human beings necessarily, but people fear what they don't know and what they don't understand. We dehumanize trans people when we compare them to monsters and abusers. Re-read some of the posts on this thread, especially from posters like 2&2, and tell me that they are treating trans people as human beings with legitimate feelings and anxieties and desires. Everything is not a political game.

For the "the test is that there is no test" crowd, does this apply to showers as well? You are okay with biological males showering in an open bay with women?

Women don't usually shower in open bays. And come on, even if that were the case, you really think a pre-op trans female is going to shower in an open bay? These people are outcasts; they aren't trying to draw attention to themselves.

 

[tintinisahottie]

That wasn't the question

 

[wakephan09]

That wasn't the question

Nice edit.

Yes, in this hypothetical women's open-bay shower room (which you conveniently imagine to look just like men's showers which in this country they generally do not) I am ok with biological males *who have transitioned either surgically or culturally* changing clothes and showering.

If that's not ok, don't use open-bay showers. Lots and lots of people don't.

 

[bobknightfan]

This is a rhetorical strategy called hyperbole. But seriously, as several people have pointed out on here, the language we use to talk about transgender people is not dissimilar from the way we talked about black people during the civil rights movement or gay people just a decade ago. I don't think these people are bad human beings necessarily, but people fear what they don't know and what they don't understand. We dehumanize trans people when we compare them to monsters and abusers. Re-read some of the posts on this thread, especially from posters like 2&2, and tell me that they are treating trans people as human beings with legitimate feelings and anxieties and desires. Everything is not a political game.



Women don't usually shower in open bays. And come on, even if that were the case, you really think a pre-op trans female is going to shower in an open bay? These people are outcasts; they aren't trying to draw attention to themselves.

Could you give me an example where someone on this thread has done this?

 

[RJKarl]

People should be dramatically more concerned about their sons and daughters going on outings with the clergy than bathrooms with transgenders. Tens of thousands of children have been abused by clergy. How many can you verify in bathrooms by transgender people?

 

[bobknightfan]

People should be dramatically more concerned about their sons and daughters going on outings with the clergy than bathrooms with transgenders. Tens of thousands of children have been abused by clergy. How many can you verify in bathrooms by transgender people?

You're missing the entire point again...like several others who continue to bring up the same point, which nobody who takes the other side has even mentioned.. What is the problem with you people who continue to talk about transgenders abusing people. As I've posted about 10 times or more....and others have posted even more than that....the problem here isn't the fear of transgenders abusing people. Why is that so hard for people supporting this change to allow transgenders their choice of bathrooms to understand?

 

[WFcatamount22]

Nice edit.

Yes, in this hypothetical women's open-bay shower room (which you conveniently imagine to look just like men's showers which in this country they generally do not) I am ok with biological males *who have transitioned either surgically or culturally* changing clothes and showering.

If that's not ok, don't use open-bay showers. Lots and lots of people don't.

What does it mean to transition culturally? Sounds a lot like you are stereotyping women with that statement.

 

[bobknightfan]

What does it mean to transition culturally? Sounds a lot like you are stereotyping women with that statement.

It's just a bunch of meaningless liberal bullshit that they can spin to mean anything they want it to mean. The entire foundation of liberal philosophy is that they begin with the assumption that they are morally & intellectually superior to anyone who disagrees with them or questions one of their goofball statements like this one.

(And that liberal philosophy attitude dove tails nicely with the already haughty attitudes of many WF grads.)

 

[wakephan09]

Could you give me an example where someone on this thread has done this?

Knight, ELC, and 2&2 have frequently characterized them as such in as many words. And it's not just this thread or these boards -- it is a rather widespread cultural belief. And what I imagine you're getting at, knowing your M.O., is an opportunity to emphasize your own position, which you've made very clear (that this movement figuratively opens the bathroom door to abusers posing as transgenders).

What is the problem with you people who continue to talk about transgenders abusing people. As I've posted about 10 times or more....and others have posted even more than that....the problem here isn't the fear of transgenders abusing people. Why is that so hard for people supporting this change to allow transgenders their choice of bathrooms to understand?

There are many people out there that do argue that transgender people are abusers. Just like a vocal part of the country argued the very same things about gay people a decade or two ago. It's not so much that the "people supporting this change" don't understand it, in my opinion, it's that framing the bigoted view of a small but vocal number of people (and characterizing them as such publicly) gives the movement a kind of moral imperative that it might not have otherwise.

What does it mean to transition culturally? Sounds a lot like you are stereotyping women with that statement.

Stereotyping women? Huh?

By "transitioning culturally" I mean when a transwoman, for instance, presents as a woman in her everyday life. Shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

It's just a bunch of meaningless liberal bullshit that they can spin to mean anything they want it to mean. The entire foundation of liberal philosophy is that they begin with the assumption that they are morally & intellectually superior to anyone who disagrees with them or questions one of their goofball statements like this one.

(And that liberal philosophy attitude dove tails nicely with the already haughty attitudes of many WF grads.)

Bob, it's really disingenuous and hypocritical when you say things like this, because you are enacting the very moral and intellectual superiority which you ascribe to millennials or Wake Forest alumni or liberals or whatever the target of your quotidian ire.