Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

I actually find this to be more depressing than the OP's article.

I actually find it more depressing that you compare the struggle for equal rights by a group that faces intolerance and even violence to a woman getting stiffed a few dollars.

That shame isn't the lawsuit.  The shame is we live in a world where lawsuits are the only means of recourse.

[Mephisto]

No, I'm comparing a lawsuit by a male wanting into a women only gym. If he's pre-op, wait until he's post-op and try again. Currently, it looks to me like this: I go to a women's gym and say I'm a pre-op so I can enter the locker room. Hey, guess what? I lied! Plus, think about what the current clientele think. Do they really care if the male in their locker room is pre-op? No. They see that there is a male in the female locker room.

It's common sense. He's currently male. In the future, that may change.

[mainiac]

Except the person in question WAS pre-op, NOT a perv.

"Common sense" what we use when understanding someone else's struggles is too much hassle...

[Aqizzar]

While I agree that "common sense" is as specious reasoning as it gets, Mephisto is still entirely right.  It doesn't matter what the guy thinks or wants, by any rational definition, he's still a guy, and therefore not allowed into a women's only gym.  Period.

Really, in a world where some people shoot themselves to see what it feels like, a Presidential administration tried to argue that it had the power to airstrike targets within it's country, a woman insists on her right to pump out as many children as possible at the expense of the state, and (not to think it's all America) a family in Britain goes court to defend it's right to make their kid get fat, these sorts of things are what make you question human acuity?  Please.

[Bromor Neckbeard]

Not that I'm necessarily defending the woman in the article, but, as Troy F. posted on The Consumerist about this article...

in some municipalities there IS NO 311/non-emergency service and the *ONLY* way to contact police if you need to file a police report/complaint is to contact 911. That's just the way it is. I've been through it in my own city when I called the "Police Non-emergency number" to report some overnight thefts. I ignored the message that stated "If you need to file a police report, please hang up and dial 911...your call will not be returned." and left a message which was, in fact, not returned. I called the 911 operator and apologized for wasting her time with this non-emergency request and she assured me that this was the correct course of action.

So...yeah...if someone stole my money in this way where I live, I'd have to call 911 to report it. That's what the police want me to do. I don't write the rules.

[mainiac]

While I agree that "common sense" is as specious reasoning as it gets, Mephisto is still entirely right.  It doesn't matter what the guy thinks or wants, by any rational definition, he's still a guy, and therefore not allowed into a women's only gym.  Period.

Being a transsexual isn't saying you "think" you are the wrong gender.  Being a transsexual means you have been diagnosed with gender diaspora.  It means you are undergoing a three year long regimen of drugs.  It means you have decided to completely change your appearance and lifestyle.  And if you take the final plunge of an operation, it means giving up your fertility.

It's not an idle decision.  It's a statement that you are willing to endure enormous difficulties to correct the fact that your brain and your gonads are in fundamental disagreement.

[Aqizzar]

That doesn't change the fact that he's still functionally a man, and especially appears such to the other patrons.

Seriously, there is a line between accommodating differences and just telling people to suck it up and move on.  If he's that adamant that he's really female, fine, go get the calling cards to prove it, then you can go in the female gym.

[Mephisto]

in some municipalities there IS NO 311/non-emergency service and the *ONLY* way to contact police if you need to file a police report/complaint is to contact 911. That's just the way it is. I've been through it in my own city when I called the "Police Non-emergency number" to report some overnight thefts. I ignored the message that stated "If you need to file a police report, please hang up and dial 911...your call will not be returned." and left a message which was, in fact, not returned. I called the 911 operator and apologized for wasting her time with this non-emergency request and she assured me that this was the correct course of action.

So...yeah...if someone stole my money in this way where I live, I'd have to call 911 to report it. That's what the police want me to do. I don't write the rules.

Let's not forget that certain areas don't have succinct little numbers for the police department.

911 is much easier to remember than 712-683-9174. Granted, if you live in the area, you're likely to only be required to memorize the last four digits. If you're in a strange place, however, you most likely have no idea what number to call.

I believe that you're supposed to call the police department in my area for something like this. Out somewhere with no access to a phone book and never having an occasion to call the police department before, 911 is so much easier to remember.

[Fishersalwaysdie]

While I agree that "common sense" is as specious reasoning as it gets, Mephisto is still entirely right.  It doesn't matter what the guy thinks or wants, by any rational definition, he's still a guy, and therefore not allowed into a women's only gym.  Period.

Being a transsexual isn't saying you "think" you are the wrong gender.  Being a transsexual means you have been diagnosed with gender diaspora.  It means you are undergoing a three year long regimen of drugs.  It means you have decided to completely change your appearance and lifestyle.  And if you take the final plunge of an operation, it means giving up your fertility.

It's not an idle decision.  It's a statement that you are willing to endure enormous difficulties to correct the fact that your brain and your gonads are in fundamental disagreement.

And what was the point of your post other than to demonstrate their martyrdom, which is not an excuse in any way.
This is a demand for rights that I don't believe should be considered basic or compulsotory.

What will be the medical(as you treat this as an uncurable ailment) reprecussion of this person not being allowed in the woman's locker room?
The owner of the room is in no fault as physical reality is what wronged this person(as opposed to social reality).

[Jonathan S. Fox]

The point of the opinion piece presented was not to bash the woman in question, but to criticize the inability of people to defend themselves against human rights cases they consider frivolous without great cost to themselves. As in this paragraph:

"I'm probably screwed here," he said last week after a mediation session proved unsuccessful. He's right. Here's why. The offended party gets a free lawyer. Win or lose, he pays nothing. But the defendant always pays. If he decides to put up a fight, he might have to spend $100,000, maybe more, even if he wins. The case could drag on for years.

Assuming no critical piece of information is left out, such a situation where a person cannot defend themselves against a legal charge that costs nothing to bring without paying a large burden to defend themselves is wrong. And if that is the case in Canada, I would agree they should change things.

If the defendant wins at trial, they should not be forced to pay legal charges. Make them pay if they were at fault, sure, but if they weren't, to charge them legal fees when the offended party is paying nothing is unjust. The offended party should be forced to pay a nominal fee, not burdensome, but sufficient to create a financial disincentive against bringing a case that is unlikely to win. It could be a sliding scale based on income, even. Perhaps the fee is returned in the event the case is won. It's not important, but to discourage abuse of government resources.

The solutions I suggest are not presented to be ideal, just an example of something that could be done. My point is not to advocate one specific system, but to point out that the situation described in the opinion article -- the financial and legal dynamics of the situation -- are indeed wrong. The merits of the examples given are not nearly so important as the fact that a defendant will still suffer severely even if they did nothing wrong.

[Org]

While, yes, she was getting cheated, she shouldn't have called 911.

But what bothers me is the other one. Really people? My god, smoking is not a disability. Well, sort of.But not really. They chose to do it, so its there fault, unlike people who are not born with legs.

[Armok]

This sort of thing is why the imminent extinction of homosapiens (by any singe one of a huge amount of threats) is not only unavoidable, but also a very good thing.

[mainiac]

That doesn't change the fact that he's still functionally a man, and especially appears such to the other patrons.

Actually, she didn't look like a man to other patrons.  It takes about 3 minutes of research to find that she looked like a woman back in 2006.  Since then, she has gotten reassignment surgery.  But rather then finding that out, you assume she looks like a man because an editorialist, who has a negative view of this woman, harped on the fact she still had a penis.  See what I said about jumping to conclusions?

Upon reflecting on a less biased account, I don't think you are the only one who jumped to conclusions.  The woman sought out legal council too quickly IMHO, when non legal arbitration would have been wiser.

But still.  If it weren't for the knee jerk instinct to condemn without understanding the case, the atmosphere that lead to these courts wouldn't exist in the first place.

[Strife26]

I suppose that there isn't a clear cut law in Canada that says "You can refuse service to anyone."
It makes things like that easier. Of course the Canadians have socialized healthcare too. Still gotta love them though, eh?

[Aqizzar]

That doesn't change the fact that he's still functionally a man, and especially appears such to the other patrons.

Actually, she didn't look like a man to other patrons.  It takes about 3 minutes of research to find that she looked like a woman back in 2006.  Since then, she has gotten reassignment surgery.  But rather then finding that out, you assume she looks like a man because an editorialist, who has a negative view of this woman, harped on the fact she still had a penis.  See what I said about jumping to conclusions?

Upon reflecting on a less biased account, I don't think you are the only one who jumped to conclusions.  The woman sought out legal council too quickly IMHO, when non legal arbitration would have been wiser.

But still.  If it weren't for the knee jerk instinct to condemn without understanding the case, the atmosphere that lead to these courts wouldn't exist in the first place.

For jumping to the conclusion about what the person in question looked like, I admit I was completely wrong.  Fair enough.  I jumped to that conclusion partly because the commentary in their defense, which suggested that all a person has to do is call themselves a gender, and they therefore have to be legally treated as such.

I'm still condemning this person, for making a public stink about being allowed into a particular venue as an affirmation.  There are gender neutral gyms.  If the women's gym won't allow the transsexual in, insult the manager, storm out, and go to another gym.  And don't try to bring some "separate-but-equal isn't fair" rebuttal, because there's no indication that going to a different venue would have forced them into accepted marked lesser quality service or anything.

Really, I sympathize with the person for being born in the wrong body and all that.  Nature is a harsh mistress, everyone deserves to be themselves, whatever and so forth.  But once you get there, as this person apparently has, quit whining about it.  You do not have a right to a good day, and the law does not exist to enforce it for you.

I also agree that there are tremendous financial burdens to resolving a real aggrievence, and one of the reasons I want to be a judge is to try to help people overcome just that.  The law also does not exist to protect the wealthy.  But this is a frivolous grievance about an insult at best.


By the way, in response to the OP, the restaurant has offered some free chicken nuggets to the crazy woman.