Print

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

[TamerVirus]

Um. Is this the right thread for all this?

[Trekkin]

Um. Is this the right thread for all this?

Well, half of the arguments presented have made me go "WTF" today, so...

[hector13]

Well that's what you get for being opinionated. /s

[heydude6]

Um. Is this the right thread for all this?

The right thread for this was locked unfortunately. The argument hasn’t gotten heated yet though so I don’t see too much of a problem. Wouldn’t be the first time this kind of debate happened here.

[Harry Baldman]

So why not just unisex bathrooms then? If people should just get over their anxieties and let the “other” use their bathrooms, why don’t we just allow  all the “others” use the bathroom then. Why do we make an exception only for one specific group when we can change the rules and allow all the groups?

I’m serious btw. I do think unisex bathrooms would be a great idea.

They'd certainly obviate the problem, but obviating the problem isn't the same as solving it. An easier sell than the wholesale abolition of gender through glorious revolution, I'll grant you (if not nearly as fun to think about), and quite possibly a very good step to take in that direction regardless of what your long game might be.

[wierd]

Re: Unisex toilets

Again, I use one at work all the time. Works just fine as long as people are not gross savages that leave filth all over in there, and as long as people are polite and knock before entering. I am a guy, who works with a bunch of women. They dont have any problem with me using the toilet, because I dont leave filth all over in there like a savage, and I always knock.  I dont have a problem with them using the toilet, because they dont leave filth all over like some kind of savage, and they always knock.  If the room is occupied, we do have more than one bathroom in the building, and we can make due.

This is no different than having a multi-stall bathroom with closable/lockable doors, functionally.  I would be just fine with that.  Getting people to stop responding to their amygdalae cranking out "Danger!!" signals when they see a certain body shape? That's going to take a lot of social pressure, and people are *NOT* going to go that direction unless forced to. Acceptance of transpeople is a great start toward that direction, IMHO.

This is a great quote about race.  Incidentally, it also applies here, concerning gender discrimination.


That big guy in the dress linked earlier?  Yeah. The meaning people assign to that appearance is what is really at play. That person is big and imposing, and thus sets off the danger signal. They do not conform to the narrow societal norm people expect, and that further increases the signal. The signal is still irrational, and that person is in all likelyhood, completely harmless.  The only way to combat these irrational fears, is to face them.

[Frumple]

So why not just unisex bathrooms then? If people should just get over their anxieties and let the “other” use their bathrooms, why don’t we just allow  all the “others” use the bathroom then. Why do we make an exception only for one specific group when we can change the rules and allow all the groups?

I’m serious btw. I do think unisex bathrooms would be a great idea.

Money, mostly. The only unisex bathrooms you're going to get by public sentiment (stateside, anyway) in big enough numbers to matter are single occupancy, and that entails more space and whatnot if you're going to meet demand in larger/higher traffic buildings. It's conceptually doable and might even be a helluva' lot more comfortable but someone would have to pay for it (well, and keeping it clean post installation) and no one wants to pay for it. They'd rather piss (hopefully not literally, I guess, unless that's all parties involved's thing) on people outside culturally standard gender norms.

[scourge728]

IMHO we should just stop looking at or interacting with each other in the bathrooms and then get rid of urinals... that would solve SOMETHING, besides making me feel better overall.... And this is the one forum (and one of the only if not the only places on the internet) I know where this topic wouldn't immediately devolve into a flame war..

[hector13]

Oh it has previously, we're just more sensible these days.

Probably.

[wierd]

I think "Immediately" is the key word in that sentence.

Some forums, you mention "transperson" and the klaxons blare, red lights swirl around, and people run for the fallout shelters.

[McTraveller]

I would say that people should't just "pick labels" for themselves.  Labels don't really mean much if you can pick them arbitrarily - I mean I could label myself a 'tree', but that isn't going to change the fact that I'm not a tree.

Now I don't mean that labels aren't important.  What I mean is that what really matters is if the behaviors and attributes match the label - otherwise the label is meaningless.  If I call myself a tree, but espouse no aspects of a tree, then I've done two harms - one in that I've weakened the meaning of 'tree', and I've also done myself no help in communicating how I see myself, because nobody who has some other idea of what 'tree' is will understand why I've used that label for myself.  Now, yes, language does change, but if you change so fast that people can't catch up, you end up with the tower of Babel and its associated isolation and conflict.

It's also a bit of a WTF to talk about how social norms are arbitrary but the current social norms are "better" than the ones we had decades ago, but not the ones 500 years ago; the norms are either arbitrary or they aren't.  Again - semantics matters.  Note: My gripe here is that there is a logical inconsistency about either just accepting the arbitrary nature of cultural norms or accepting that there is a core norm that is not arbitrary - because you have to answer that question first before you can say if one norm is "better" or "worse" than another.

[Dunamisdeos]

*makes it to fallout shelter*
*slowly turns around*
*trans person is in my cis shelter*
*music suddenly flares*

ohh noooo

[scourge728]

What if one day, we discover a gene that renders one group inferior to another (such as a gene in say, non European/European descendants, that increases intelligence in some way) then instantly that set of groups are instantly objectively unequal and all the social change seems harmful

EDIT: Also, why does LQBTQ not include an A for asexual, are we not people, do we deserve to be called "broken" for not wanting sex, to we deserve to be told we are just lying to ourselves?

[redwallzyl]

Health related studies of race are actually interesting. It shows a correlation between perceved race but not actual skin color. Just perceved category. So yes, it's all about perception.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

"Objective inferiority" doesn't and cannot exist, because judgement of social value is inherently a subjective human condition. You cannot just "increase or decrease intelligence" no more than you can "increase or decrease paintings". It doesn't work like that.

The computer you are reading this on is much, much more intelligent than you when it comes to doing math problems. It can't even be compared. It remembers things in far greater detail and with far greater retention than you do, though this comes at an expense of prioritizing that data and preserving it over long time periods.

So are you the inferior mongrel, or is your computer? The answer is that the question is stupid.