Transgender man gives birth

[DragonLady]

Sorry if this seems like a dumb question, but is there currently (or in the past) a law that says you can be charged/fined with something for using the wrong restroom?

Not that I've ever heard of. There are often legitimate reasons for someone to be in the opposite bathroom, so it's been socially discouraged, but not outright banned.

I would guess that if a law is passed, it will be written to include exceptions for those purposes. But if not, then there may be a few persons forced to stay home if they can't find accommodations for their particular situations.

I suspect those most affected would be people in caregiving roles. A male nurse who would normally help a female patient into the ladies room will either have to be granted exception or enlist someone else to help.

Plus what happens to a post-op in a jurisdiction where they take the "what your birth certificate says" stance? Now you've got a dude in the women's room...because the law says so. Wait the law supposedly is to stop men from...uh.

Birth certificates are not chiseled in stone. They can be altered or updated when need arises.

 

[Roboramma]

In essence, the concerns are over hypothetical things that generally don't happen.

I think the concern is that those things (bathroom assaults) generally don't happen because of the status quo, but that they would begin to happen if that were changed.

 

[sylvan8798]

Not that I've ever heard of. There are often legitimate reasons for someone to be in the opposite bathroom, so it's been socially discouraged, but not outright banned.

I would guess that if a law is passed, it will be written to include exceptions for those purposes. But if not, then there may be a few persons forced to stay home if they can't find accommodations for their particular situations.

I suspect those most affected would be people in caregiving roles. A male nurse who would normally help a female patient into the ladies room will either have to be granted exception or enlist someone else to help.



Birth certificates are not chiseled in stone. They can be altered or updated when need arises.

Every law I've seen proposed has exceptions for people cleaning the bathrooms as well as emergency medical personnel, aides and the like. If they were to pass restrictive laws how would they be enforced? Would businesses station bathroom police to check id's? Or would people have to file a complaint somehow? Just wondering how this might work at some place like the mall, where everyone is so temporarily in the facilities.

 

[Noztradamus]

ciswoman?

"cis" is the way we say "real" the century.

 

[DragonLady]

No. I believe individuals think differently and that lumping people together by sex, gender, race, religion, nation, etc is just someting people do to make the world seem neat and ordered in their minds. Our brains seem to do it automatically and it probably served a purpose once, when we were more primitive. But it is counterproductive now and entirely irrational.

I don't think it's irrational at all. Categorizations and generalizations, while not perfect, allow us to communicate effectively.

However, removing that ability by making nouns and pronouns meaningless would certainly be a great way to chill discussion, and break social bonds. Do you think that would be more beneficial?

I believe a transgender woman is a woman and a transgender man is a man.

Okay; I'm not certain I agree, but I know the psychiatric community does, so I won't try to argue the point.

I don't believe men and women think differently outside of cultural conditioning.

I see.... So, by that logic, if we remove cultural conditioning, men and women will start to think the same? If so, what do you think prompted the cultural conditioning? Do you think it's possible that conditioning came about in response to observable differences?

For example, how can you think of a tomato in a male or female way?

I don't interact with tomatoes, so it doesn't matter if they're male or female.

When it comes to gender I'll admit that I don't quite grasp the concept.

But, but, but....

I believe a transgender woman is a woman and a transgender man is a man.

How can anyone feel female or male?

But, but, but....

I believe a transgender woman is a woman and a transgender man is a man.

If gender doesn't exist, we're back to sex. If gender doesn't exist, transgender doesn't exist, so there's no reason for anyone to be upset if we separate the sexes.

I'm me and my friends are my friends. Gender is there but on the periphery like what colour our eyes are or our hair.

Which is it? There is no gender; or gender is just a periphery with no real meaning?

But some people in this world seem so determined that a born male is a drastically different creature than a born female despite only really having genital and slight hormone differences so there must be more than just the physical. I think.

Sometimes, slight differences are everything. When it comes to biology, extremely slight differences lead to very different outcomes.

I mean, how does having a penis or a vagina really affect who you are?

It changes how I'm able to act, and how I'm expected to act.

Objectively, without a penis I'm pretty much unable to pee standing up, unable to impregnate someone, unable to use it to injure any one else.

Socially, a penis puts one on an entirely different life-track from the moment of birth, and as far as I know that's universal. I don't think there's ever been a time or place where men and women have not been assigned different roles or been perceived as exactly the same. I'm sure someone will be 'round soon to correct me if I'm wrong.

So I'll let each individual figure out who they are. Telling them they are wrong is too much like telling a gay person that they are just confused.

That goes both ways. If every individual has the final word about who they are, then everyone who sees it differently must just be confused. How much confusion -and the resulting strife- should we all tolerate before we have the right to start insisting on lumping some folks together for the sake of order and effective decision making?

If we can no longer use "objective reality" as a means of ordering and categorizing the world, how in hell can we even have a society?

Objective reality: Bill murdered Jane.
New Social Order: Bill doesn't feel like a murderer, has decided he should not be inconvenienced by any behavior modifying measures. If you disagree with Bill, you're just confused.

 

[Meadmaker]

Cis- is the opposite prefix of trans-

[Linguistic footnote]
Only sort of.

Cis means "on the same side as". Trans means "on the other side of". The most famous use of "cis" was "cisalpine Gaul", meaning, "the part of Gaul on this side of the Alps", as opposed to "transalpine Gaul", meaning "the part of Gaul on the other side of the Alps".

"trans" can also mean "crossing" as in "transnational" agreements, so people who had "sex change" operations (that's what they were called then) became "transsexuals" (that's what they were called then). A few language revisions later, and we had "transgender" people, but what should we call people who were not transgender? Well, we could call them "ordinary" or "normal" or "actual", all of which would be perfectly accurate descriptions, but are somehow frowned upon, so people knew that "cis" and "trans" were opposites in one context, so why not make them opposite in other contexts?

"Cisgender" is one of those words that really makes no sense literally, but it filled a void for a concept that needed a word to describe it.
[/linguistic footnote]

 

[DragonLady]

In essence, the concerns are over hypothetical things that generally don't happen.

But increasing traffic in traditionally reserved spaces won't make those spaces any safer for anyone. It only increases the opportunities for those with harmful intentions.

The greatest thing it really accomplishes is allowing a minority to impose their will on a majority; and treats those who feel offended and scared as "irrational" and "confused".

I suppose at the end of the day, psychiatrists benefit greatly, as they will have to be enlisted in greater numbers to treat everyone for the new, as yet unnamed disorder of "primitive ways".

 

[sylvan8798]

That goes both ways. If every individual has the final word about who they are, then everyone who sees it differently must just be confused. How much confusion -and the resulting strife- should we all tolerate before we have the right to start insisting on lumping some folks together for the sake of order and effective decision making?

If we can no longer use "objective reality" as a means of ordering and categorizing the world, how in hell can we even have a society?

Objective reality: Bill murdered Jane.
New Social Order: Bill doesn't feel like a murderer, has decided he should not be inconvenienced by any behavior modifying measures. If you disagree with Bill, you're just confused.

Who decides what gets defined as worthy of placing under the categorization of "Must conform to 'objective reality'"? Words like "insist" are very scary to me.

 

[sylvan8798]

But increasing traffic in traditionally reserved spaces won't make those spaces any safer for anyone. It only increases the opportunities for those with harmful intentions.

If those persons have been using those facilities for years, how does that increase traffic? You would need an influx of new people to increase traffic, right?

 

[DragonLady]

Words like "insist" are very scary to me.

Okay.

What are you so afraid of? If men and women have to use separate restrooms, what are you afraid will happen?

Are you sure you're not simply confused?

 

[sylvan8798]

Okay.

What are you so afraid of? If men and women have to use separate restrooms, what are you afraid will happen?

Are you sure you're not simply confused?

You're the one who is so afraid of what might happen. Personally I don't see how you plan to enforce your segregation. The measures necessary could be pretty frightening don't you think? What would I be confused about?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

But increasing traffic in traditionally reserved spaces won't make those spaces any safer for anyone. It only increases the opportunities for those with harmful intentions.

The greatest thing it really accomplishes is allowing a minority to impose their will on a majority; and treats those who feel offended and scared as "irrational" and "confused".

I suppose at the end of the day, psychiatrists benefit greatly, as they will have to be enlisted in greater numbers to treat everyone for the new, as yet unnamed disorder of "primitive ways".

.. It still doesn't happen. The studies are post laws allowing transgender people to use the bathroom they present as, generally.

 

[zooterkin]

Well, according to some people they would automatically switch into predator mode and rape everyone, or something.

I've never heard of that

This post suggested it was all but inevitable eventually:

OTOH...if you're a physical female, but enter a locker room full of standard issue men, how much time do you think you can realistically spend there before one of them reveals himself to be a rapist?

 

[DragonLady]

This post suggested it was all but inevitable eventually:

My post was not meant to convey that anything is inevitable.

I was conveying that:

A man in a woman's restroom is highly unlikely to be transgendered, because genuinely transgendered people are still pretty rare. One is far more likely to encounter a sexual predator than to encounter a transgendered person.

My position is that:

Many people are perfectly happy with having spaces that are intentionally segregated by sex, and find unisex bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc. to be both offensive and scary.

Because most people are happy overall with the status quo, allowing a very small minority to change the cultural norms is a form of "tyranny of the minority" which is really no better -and possibly worse, than a "tyranny of the majority".

People have been, and will continue to be assaulted in washrooms, locker rooms and such, and making it more socially acceptable for anyone to walk in and out of them at any time, for any reason will not make them safer places for anyone. It may not make them any more dangerous, statistically, but it won't make them any safer, either.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Currently if a dude walks into a female changing facility wearing a skirt, he gets thrown out

You seem to be wanting it to be, if a dude walks into a female changing facility wearing a skirt and just says "Hi! I'm TG", he sits down. Gets his jollies and does his pervy camera stuff

Sorry mate

Didn't think it was that difficult

No, that is not what is being advocated.

"Getting jollies and doing pervy camera stuff" is already illegal. Has anyone stated they want that changed?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Birth certificates are not chiseled in stone. They can be altered or updated when need arises.

Imagine this hypothetical jurisdiction (which already is taking a hard stance) does not allow or recognize such retroactive amendments.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Currently if a dude walks into a female changing facility wearing a skirt, he gets thrown out

You seem to be wanting it to be, if a dude walks into a female changing facility wearing a skirt and just says "Hi! I'm TG", he sits down. Gets his jollies and does his pervy camera stuff

Sorry mate

Didn't think it was that difficult

Is it ok if a woman pulls a camera out to get her jollies? Or are all men now deranged sex pests and I missed the memo?

But seriously, why should the behaviour of a few pervs change the way we treat TG people? They use the room that corresponds to their outward appearance. You and your young relatives could have use the same facilities as them without even noticing. OoooOooo *spooky noises*

 

[Roboramma]

Here's how I see it.

I don't have a problem at all with unisex bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else, where people want to implement them.

There will be some people who don't feel comfortable in a unisex locker room, and if your gym implements that, those people will probably go to a different gym. I don't see that as an issue.

On the other hand, seeing that some people are more comfortable in gender segregated locker rooms, some gyms will appeal more to those people by segregating their locker rooms, and again that's cool by me.

If a man goes into a non-unisex locker room, one that is labeled "women", he will make the women in that room feel uncomfortable, or at least may make some of them feel uncomfortable. That's the reason that it's been labeled "women".

If a transgender woman goes into a locker room labeled "men" she will feel uncomfortable. So, she would rather not be in that environment and would rather go to the locker room labeled "women". This discomfort on her part appears to be the only reason that she wishes to use the women's locker room rather than the men's locker room.

But if she goes into the room labeled "women", it seems that the women in the room may feel exactly the same sort of discomfort that she would feel if she used to the men's locker room.

As far as I can tell, there's no meaningful difference between the two rooms except for the people who populate them. So all we are left with is the question of whether the discomfort of the trans woman in using the men's room is more meaningful than the discomfort of the women in the women's room if she uses the women's locker room.

As to the answer to that question, I don't really have one. Perhaps if we could say that those women shouldn't feel uncomfortable with a trans women in the locker room with them, then the answer would be clear, but I don't see that they any more should feel differently than the trans woman should feel differently about using the men's room. There's no should here that I can see.

As I said, I don't really have an answer, I'm just trying to make clear how I see the issue.

 

[DragonLady]

Imagine this hypothetical jurisdiction (which already is taking a hard stance) does not allow or recognize such retroactive amendments.

??? It's already done all over the country. When someone is adopted, or if a parent wasn't present to sign when the birth took place, their birth certificates are amended.

There's no reason for anyone to disagree with updating it for other relevant changes.

 

[DragonLady]

As far as I can tell, there's no meaningful difference between the two rooms except for the people who populate them. So all we are left with is the question of whether the discomfort of the trans woman in using the men's room is more meaningful than the discomfort of the women in the women's room if she uses the women's locker room.

That is the crux of the debate. But there are those who will vehemently argue the bolded part because a pre-op transwoman is biologically an intact, functional man. A lot of women are not comfortable with that; but feel they are being told their feelings on the matter are irrational or they're confused, or their wishes just don't count.

Which, to me...ironically enough, is a very strong argument against the whole idea of transgenderism, because throughout history males have been telling females they're irrational, confused or their wishes don't count.