What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

So We Pull Federal Funding If High School Guys Can't Use The Girls' Locker Room? (1 Viewer)

Henry Ford said:
Oh, "the right to not see a penis" fight is way over.  Nobody has the right to not see a penis.  

I thought you were talking about transgender bathroom access.
Click to expand...
While nobody may have the right to not see a penis it is also true that they do have the right to not see my penis.  The judge made this very clear.

 
So from what I now understand, thanks to Henry Ford, is that the whole "see a penis" debate is around what is decent.  If indecent exposure is the only exposure that is illegal, what then is decent exposure?

Is it decent for an adult male penis to be exposed in a public women's restroom?  What about a woman's locker room?  Up until this point, I have believed the answer was no.  So then, what is the argument that it is no longer being considered indecent or was it always considered decent?

 
Jayrod said:
So from what I now understand, thanks to Henry Ford, is that the whole "see a penis" debate is around what is decent.  If indecent exposure is the only exposure that is illegal, what then is decent exposure?

Is it decent for an adult male penis to be exposed in a public women's restroom?  What about a woman's locker room?  Up until this point, I have believed the answer was no.  So then, what is the argument that it is no longer being considered indecent or was it always considered decent?
Click to expand...
The key here is that you always believed the answer was "no", not that the answer was actually "no". And what happens when you "see" a penis.

As I said in the other thread on this topic, if a transgender person is running around waving a penis in someone's face and jumping up and down, that person should be prosecuted just as waving a ###### in someone's face should lead to prosecution.  

But the fact is, even with these laws there are penises in women's rooms.  Incidental, unavoidable viewing related to simply changing clothes or showering isn't illegal now - someone who has had gender reassignment surgery but is forced to still use the women's room has a penis and can be viewed.  That's always been the case, and is still the case under the NC laws - though it was much less likely without those laws because the person who had surgery would more likely use the men's room.  It's always been the case that small children often go into the women's locker room with mom to change, male or female.  

We tend to immediately, knee-jerk view "unusual" as "improper" or "illegal" or try to carve out exceptional circumstances as exceptions to the rule - but it's the exceptional circumstances that often show us what the rule actually is.  

The argument that it isn't indecent relies one on crucial premise: that a trangender woman is a woman.  When you believe that, you will believe that it isn't indecent because whatever is attached to the body is part of a woman.  If you don't believe that, the arguments won't make sense.

One primary issue here in my opinion is "what makes me who I am?" Is it my mind? My personality? Or my body? If my mind and my body conflict on an issue of a social construct like gender, which is more important? How much of your mind can you lose before you are no longer you? How much of your body, if the mind is still intact?

The issue that has turned, that has made this fight "over" is that the country by and large believes that a trangender woman is a woman.  A trangender man is a man.  That's not going to go backwards.  Now that that is set, everything else will follow, whether it's this year or five years from now or ten years from now.  

 
Henry Ford said:
The key here is that you always believed the answer was "no", not that the answer was actually "no". And what happens when you "see" a penis.

As I said in the other thread on this topic, if a transgender person is running around waving a penis in someone's face and jumping up and down, that person should be prosecuted just as waving a ###### in someone's face should lead to prosecution.  

But the fact is, even with these laws there are penises in women's rooms.  Incidental, unavoidable viewing related to simply changing clothes or showering isn't illegal now - someone who has had gender reassignment surgery but is forced to still use the women's room has a penis and can be viewed.  That's always been the case, and is still the case under the NC laws - though it was much less likely without those laws because the person who had surgery would more likely use the men's room.  It's always been the case that small children often go into the women's locker room with mom to change, male or female.  

We tend to immediately, knee-jerk view "unusual" as "improper" or "illegal" or try to carve out exceptional circumstances as exceptions to the rule - but it's the exceptional circumstances that often show us what the rule actually is.  

The argument that it isn't indecent relies one on crucial premise: that a trangender woman is a woman.  When you believe that, you will believe that it isn't indecent because whatever is attached to the body is part of a woman.  If you don't believe that, the arguments won't make sense.

One primary issue here in my opinion is "what makes me who I am?" Is it my mind? My personality? Or my body? If my mind and my body conflict on an issue of a social construct like gender, which is more important? How much of your mind can you lose before you are no longer you? How much of your body, if the mind is still intact?

The issue that has turned, that has made this fight "over" is that the country by and large believes that a trangender woman is a woman.  A trangender man is a man.  That's not going to go backwards.  Now that that is set, everything else will follow, whether it's this year or five years from now or ten years from now.  
Click to expand...
I believe the highlighted has not yet come to pass.  Respectfully, I would suggest that a majority, perhaps even a narrow one, accepts for definitional purposes and for legal arguments that a transgendered person will be identified as the gender with whom they identify.  The step further which you set out above, belief, and belief involving intimate core mental constructs, I would not go so far. 

Tolerance precedes appreciation celebration and true belief and acceptance, at least in my experience.  Legally this distinction is of little import as rights are secured when the matter is intellectually understood.  Emotional acceptance is not needed.  I suspect it will come along yet, but will never be universal, but then again what is?

 
Henry Ford said:
The argument that it isn't indecent relies one on crucial premise: that a trangender woman is a woman.  When you believe that, you will believe that it isn't indecent because whatever is attached to the body is part of a woman.  If you don't believe that, the arguments won't make sense.

One primary issue here in my opinion is "what makes me who I am?" Is it my mind? My personality? Or my body? If my mind and my body conflict on an issue of a social construct like gender, which is more important? How much of your mind can you lose before you are no longer you? How much of your body, if the mind is still intact?

The issue that has turned, that has made this fight "over" is that the country by and large believes that a trangender woman is a woman.  A trangender man is a man.  That's not going to go backwards.  Now that that is set, everything else will follow, whether it's this year or five years from now or ten years from now.  
Click to expand...
I think a problem a lot of people have with this is that physical traits are what other people actually have to deal with.  They don't care that you feel like a man or a woman if all I can see is a penis or breasts.  Also, it seems "gender" is being given a very wide definition.  If there is little to no actual parameter, there is no real rule and if there is no rule we have people extrapolating anything goes type scenarios which leads to all of the hand wringing about teenage boys in the HS girls locker room.  While I'm not wringing my hands about this, I'm really not sure how these issues will be resolved enough to make me feel like this is all perfectly fine and normalized enough to make the majority of people comfortable.

To be completely honest I don't really even understand what exactly makes someone transgender.  Is it a feeling, emotions, hormones some unspecified combination of things?  This website has lots of definitions, but they are extremely vague, can be changed whenever and leave me more confused than before.  Gender identity is the key here and is based upon "one's internal sense".  What the heck does that even mean?  Like most people are uncomfortable with, it means whatever the person wants it to mean.  Anything goes is not going to be OK with the vast majority of society.  Especially when it comes to personal privacy and exposure to nudity.

 
Jayrod said:
I think a problem a lot of people have with this is that physical traits are what other people actually have to deal with.  They don't care that you feel like a man or a woman if all I can see is a penis or breasts.  Also, it seems "gender" is being given a very wide definition.  If there is little to no actual parameter, there is no real rule and if there is no rule we have people extrapolating anything goes type scenarios which leads to all of the hand wringing about teenage boys in the HS girls locker room.  While I'm not wringing my hands about this, I'm really not sure how these issues will be resolved enough to make me feel like this is all perfectly fine and normalized enough to make the majority of people comfortable.

To be completely honest I don't really even understand what exactly makes someone transgender.  Is it a feeling, emotions, hormones some unspecified combination of things?  This website has lots of definitions, but they are extremely vague, can be changed whenever and leave me more confused than before.  Gender identity is the key here and is based upon "one's internal sense".  What the heck does that even mean?  Like most people are uncomfortable with, it means whatever the person wants it to mean.  Anything goes is not going to be OK with the vast majority of society.  Especially when it comes to personal privacy and exposure to nudity.
Click to expand...
All people are is a brain encased in a body surrounded by fleshy appendages.  The penis everyone is so concerned with is nothing more than a large cliitoris.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MarvinTScamper said:
God forbid we do what a huge majority of the people favor.
Click to expand...
That huge majority is going to shrink and shrink fast.  Which side you do want to be on?

In 1958 only 38% of the American public said they would ever vote for a black presidential candidate.  In 1937 only 33% said they would vote for a woman. 

Just after Brown v Board of Education  only 54% of Americans said they approved of the ruling.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/3400/longterm-gallup-poll-trends-portrait-american-public-opinion.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/11521/Race-Education-50th-Anniversary-Brown-Board-Education.aspx?g_source=segregation&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

 
cstu said:
All people are is a brain encased in a body surrounded by fleshy appendages.  The penis everyone is so concerned with is nothing more than a large cliitoris.
Click to expand...
Almost sounds like you believe in a soul here.

And not everyone is concerned with the penis.  It is mostly those that have either been warned about them, have actually been harmed by them or find them disgusting.  Me personally, I'll stare at a dong all day long and think nothing of it.

 
I'm to the point where I don't care anymore, some ex-chick now so called dude wants to come into the men's room and smell my #### have at it.....but lets not pretend these people are sane and or normal.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I believe the highlighted has not yet come to pass.  Respectfully, I would suggest that a majority, perhaps even a narrow one, accepts for definitional purposes and for legal arguments that a transgendered person will be identified as the gender with whom they identify.  The step further which you set out above, belief, and belief involving intimate core mental constructs, I would not go so far. 

Tolerance precedes appreciation celebration and true belief and acceptance, at least in my experience.  Legally this distinction is of little import as rights are secured when the matter is intellectually understood.  Emotional acceptance is not needed.  I suspect it will come along yet, but will never be universal, but then again what is?
Click to expand...
Respectfully, only 20% of people polled won't change pronouns for a person who has transitioned or is transitioning.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/rachelwitkin/most_americans_think_that_it_s_acceptable_for_people_to_be_transgender_poll

And that's a year ago.  26% didn't know when it's appropriate to do so, but for the first time a majority of Americans agreed it is appropriate to change pronouns from "he" to "she" or vice versa at some point in the transition process.  This snowball is rolling downhill and picking up speed.

If you're willing to refer to someone as "she" I'd argue that's the verbal acquiescence to the existence of a woman in that body.

 
Henry Ford said:
Respectfully, only 20% of people polled won't change pronouns for a person who has transitioned or is transitioning.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/rachelwitkin/most_americans_think_that_it_s_acceptable_for_people_to_be_transgender_poll

And that's a year ago.  26% didn't know when it's appropriate to do so, but for the first time a majority of Americans agreed it is appropriate to change pronouns from "he" to "she" or vice versa at some point in the transition process.  This snowball is rolling downhill and picking up speed.

If you're willing to refer to someone as "she" I'd argue that's the verbal acquiescence to the existence of a woman in that body.
Click to expand...
I might wonder if that reflects a desire to avoid social opprobrium rather than true acceptance.  That postulated I am going to bow to the fact that you are a smart, well considered fellow who has paid greater attention to this aspect of society and the law than have I, and I will defer to you in this matter.  I agree with you that society seems to be moving inexorably in the direction you have long predicted.  I was just wondering whether we were so far down that path as you believe.  Maybe we are and I have just not processed the latest updates on the movement that I do clearly see.

I guess I was exploring in my own mind the gulf between sincere belief and acceptance, and verbal acquiescence in a potentially social situation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
This is why I joke a bit and laugh about this on here.  99% of people on this board are good people and will come around.  

Probably 30% the people I talk to about this in real life won't. I prefer here.
Click to expand...
This is when I wish we didn't have a puritanical upbringing as a country. This fear of the human body and sexuality is our unique problem in the western world. We need to grow the F up and stop acting like such ninnies and grandmoms. Your child won't be ruined or scarred if they happen to see a man dressed as a woman whip out a penis, and I fail to see how that would even happen in a bathroom since women have stalls.

Also if you happen to have hangups about the human body and sexuality and are sensitive to intersections of these topics with kids, you are not a bad person or a homophobe. This whole debate is just so effing stupid on so many levels.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I might wonder if that reflects a desire to avoid social opprobrium rather than true acceptance.  That postulated I am going to bow to the fact that you are a smart, well considered fellow who has paid greater attention to this aspect of society and the law than have I, and I will defer to you in this matter.  I agree with you that society seems to be moving inexorably in the direction you have long predicted.  I was just wondering whether we were so far down that path as you believe.  Maybe we are and I have just not processed the latest updates on the movement that I do clearly see.

I guess I was exploring in my own mind the gulf between sincere belief and acceptance, and verbal acquiescence in a potentially social situation.
Click to expand...
And I think that's fair.  I tend to draw that hard line between "willing to go along with society" and "not willing to go along with society" mostly because it's a convenient way to deal with something like a social construct (gender.)  The concept of "woman" or "man" only has power insofar as it has social acceptance - when we provide social acceptance, we accept the transition, in my opinion.  Not to say people have fully decided that they understand or agree with it - obviously not, given the bathroom uproar.  But if we have decided "she is a she" the rest will follow, as it always does.

 
I am curious as to if the progression towards acceptance will eventually impact women's sports, especially professional individual sports with large prize pools like tennis and golf.

 
Officer Pete Malloy said:
That huge majority is going to shrink and shrink fast.  Which side you do want to be on?

In 1958 only 38% of the American public said they would ever vote for a black presidential candidate.  In 1937 only 33% said they would vote for a woman. 

Just after Brown v Board of Education  only 54% of Americans said they approved of the ruling.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/3400/longterm-gallup-poll-trends-portrait-american-public-opinion.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/11521/Race-Education-50th-Anniversary-Brown-Board-Education.aspx?g_source=segregation&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles
Click to expand...
and 50 years later 13% more did?    Ok, talk to me in 50 years about this lame ### topic.

 
TakiToki said:
I am curious as to if the progression towards acceptance will eventually impact women's sports, especially professional individual sports with large prize pools like tennis and golf.
Click to expand...
yep- me too..  what happens when a biological male who identifies as female plays a sport and dominates biological females?  do we still call this person a 'she'?  

if TG can use bathrooms of gender they identify, can they participate in team sports, say girls BB, even though they are biologically boys?

 
bueno said:
Why can't we just have unisex bathrooms with doors on the stalls?
Click to expand...
Because it's important to remind everyone how dangerous and awful penises are and that women can't be allowed in the same room, even with stall doors, if a penis is going to be removed from pants or a kilt in order to urinate.

 
Parrothead said:
yep- me too..  what happens when a biological male who identifies as female plays a sport and dominates biological females?  do we still call this person a 'she'?  

if TG can use bathrooms of gender they identify, can they participate in team sports, say girls BB, even though they are biologically boys?
Click to expand...
It already happens on a limited scale. Google Caster Semenya. Chloe Anderson. Jaiyah Saelua. Lana Lawless. Fallon Fox. 

There's been a movement that no one reports on to try to fix international sport's gender and sex rules, in part because of issues like transgender rights and intersex rights.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
It already happens on a limited scale. Google Caster Semenya. Chloe Anderson. Jaiyah Saelua. Lana Lawless. Fallon Fox. 

There's been a movement that no one reports on to try to fix international sport's gender and sex rules, in part because of issues like this.  
Click to expand...
interesting..  IYO, what would happen if a school allows a bio boy to use girls locker room, and said bio boy wanted to play on girls BB team- and is 6'5", but identifies as female?   can they say no?  seems to me by allowing the locker room use, you are opening the door for anything?   thanks!

 
Henry Ford said:
It already happens on a limited scale. Google Caster Semenya. Chloe Anderson. Jaiyah Saelua. Lana Lawless. Fallon Fox. 

There's been a movement that no one reports on to try to fix international sport's gender and sex rules, in part because of issues like transgender rights and intersex rights.
Click to expand...
You are not tricking me into googling those names from a work computer.  I mean its pretty apparent those are porn stars.

 
Parrothead said:
interesting..  IYO, what would happen if a school allows a bio boy to use girls locker room, and said bio boy wanted to play on girls BB team- and is 6'5", but identifies as female?   can they say no?  seems to me by allowing the locker room use, you are opening the door for anything?   thanks!
Click to expand...
I think a trangender student would have to be allowed to compete on the new gender team.  Just like they do now.  Google Chloe Anderson, among others.

 
Henry Ford said:
I think a trangender student would have to be allowed to compete on the new gender team.  Just like they do now.  Google Chloe Anderson, among others.
Click to expand...
my guess too- but what if this 6'5" was averaging 60 points a game, just making a mockery of the girls basketball team- to the point where other schools refused to play them?

 
Look, if the IOC and NCAA allow transgender people to play sports in the new gender, I don't think Dip#### High School should be too worried about whether it's "fair" enough.

 
Parrothead said:
but, being a biological male, is stronger, faster, and can jump higher- is it fair to the biological females?

truly a fascinating direction we are going
Click to expand...
If she's had a year of hormone therapy, even if she was Kobe Bryant before transitioning, this is by and large just not true.  More than that, and the primary difference is likely that the transgender athlete has significantly lower testosterone than her bio-female counterparts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
what if a male pro golfer said he was TG and wanted to join the women's tourneys- was allowed- and then proceeded to dominate?

It seems like it is inevitable that something like this happens as the TG issue becomes more mainstream/ accepted

thanks!

 
Henry Ford said:
If she's had a year of hormone therapy, even if she was Kobe Bryant before transitioning, this is by and large just not true.  More than that, and the primary difference is likely that the transgender athlete has significantly lower testosterone than her bio-female counterparts.
Click to expand...
what if she didnt have hormone therapy (for whatever reason)  

 
Parrothead said:
what if a male pro golfer said he was TG and wanted to join the women's tourneys- was allowed- and then proceeded to dominate?

It seems like it is inevitable that something like this happens as the TG issue becomes more mainstream/ accepted

thanks!
Click to expand...
Like Lana Lawless, Bobbi Lancaster, and Mianne Bagger?

 
Parrothead said:
what if she didnt have hormone therapy (for whatever reason)  
Click to expand...
Most sports bodies wouldn't allow her to compete.  Hormone therapy is a requirement for much transgender competitition, and I think that's a reasonable requirement.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Most sports bodies wouldn't allow her to compete.  Hormone therapy is a requirement for much transgender competitition, and I think that's a reasonable requirement.
Click to expand...
ok- now that makes sense to me

agree 100% that it should be a requirement

thanks for the knowledge

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
7K
El Floppo
El Floppo
GordonGekko
Newsweek: "Democrats Have Forgotten The Working Class. It Will Cost Them" (7/14/22 14:39 PST)
Replies
19
Views
963
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top