Transgender rightsFollow

About 12,000 at this location, we're over 14,000 if you include our satellite campuses now. It's a huge hospital by itself, not counting the other 2 hospitals up here on the hill with us.

And not necessarily from a strictly economic point of view, but like I said above if the 0.2% has a significant sympathetic backing it can make political sense for a company to find a solution. Maybe that solution is more unisex bathrooms or something in this case. More of a marketing and appealing to your customers kind of thing.

Welcome to my point! A few years late, but better late than never I guess. The point being that you can't state that you (along with selected others, i.e. women) are the former and others (i.e. heterosexual men) are the latter.



Another convenient assumption. Why should a man have to do anything? Why can't I change my gender to "woman" and just start using women showers without changing anything other than my gender?



Not only are the two aren't comparable, but society (world wide) largely discriminates via sex in the concept of "Separate but Equal".



Ok, let's check off the things that an artist can draw/learn with a scantly dressed model.

1. it teaches you how humans of any shape or size work - check
2. how they move -check
3. how to draw them in a realistic way. -check
4. nobody who is at all serious about his or her art will mind the nudity. - errrr..... So, this comes down to nudity. You haven't provided any artistic gain or loss from drawing or not drawing a fully nude model.

I have no objection to live nude models, I'm just pointing out that there is no artistic value from drawing a *****.

Good to know we have an arbiter of what aspects are worth discussing. I was worried.

Given a discussion on the point that rules either need to be upheld or removed, pointing out the fact that there is no way to uphold the rule without a specific standard is pretty relevant. In other words, there is no point in discriminating based on gender if anyone can change their gender at any time with no quantitative way of measurement. Therefore, discriminating via sex, with a quantitative biological definition, is a better solution. Either that or remove the discrimination all together. I apologize if you two fail to understand common sense.

First of all, when you're trying to sound smart you sound more like a squirrel ran across your keyboard.

Second of all, I was (in a fashion) agreeing with you. More to the point, I was pointing out your little friend handwaving away inconvenient aspects of the argument when those aspects where pretty much the catalyst of 90% of the 'debate' in this thread.

But there is a standard. I'm sorry if it's not quite as black and white as you'd like, but that's how many things are, and somehow we still manage. Just because you can't look at somethign and instantly know all the relevant information doesn't make it pointless.

Edited, Mar 29th 2013 2:25pm by Rachel9

It's kinda cute, cuter than I imagine Alma being at least.

Of course there is a standard, based off of sex. It's you who is trying to pretend that the standard is based off of gender, which is not quantifiable.

We went over this already. Bathrooms are not based on gender, because it isn't quantifiable. Unless you know a way, hence the argument against such silliness. Everyone agrees that sex is more than a *****/******, so I don't know why you insist on saying that. I've also stated an eleventy-billion times that the terms are completely different and their differences are the exact reasons why basing rules on gender is contradicting.

What you have done is constantly interchanged the terms to your fancy. So, to prevent you from continuing to play both sides, give me a definition of sex.

How do you define sex?

It's not quantifiable? Or it's not not quantifiable? I'm so confuzzled?



No. pretty much everyone uses bathrooms based on their sex. The issue is that for 99.8% (or whatever) of the population, sex and gender happen to be the same.



Again though, for the 99.8% of the population for whom sex and gender are identical, they understand that the sign with the woman on it refers to people with vaginas, and the one with the man on it refers to people with penises.



No. For the overwhelming majority of the population they are the same. It's not that we can't comprehend that for a small percentage they aren't, but that in cases where they are not the same, the sex should be used to determine who uses a restroom, and not the gender. I just can't make this more clear for you. This is not an argument from ignorance. I'm completely aware of the issues which arise when sex and gender are not the same. But what you seem unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge is that this condition does not just cause problems for the transgendered person but for everyone else as well. You seem to want to solve the issue by only looking at what would make things easier for you, while ignoring that your solution makes things harder for everyone else.


It makes a hell of a lot more sense to divide bathrooms up by sex, because as Alma correctly stated (yes, he did) sex is something we can actually quantify, while gender, when it differs from sex, cannot be quantified. Rules only exist to the point that they can be enforced. If you have no means to test that the rule has been broken, then you can't enforce it. Since there's no means for the owner of a restaurant to verify that the biological male using the restroom he set aside for his female customers to use is or isn't female gender, he can't enforce the rule that men use the mens restroom and women use the womens restroom. Assuming there is any value to dividing them up in the first place (which we kinda have to assume there is), your solution puts him in an impossible situation and effectively requires that he allow something his customers will not like (men using the women's restroom).


I'm fully aware that this sucks for the transgendered people in this scenario, but there are lots of things in this world that suck, and sometimes you just have to accept that and move on. At the end of the day, it's your case that is the outlier in terms of society, and you have to learn how to adjust to societal norms, not the other way around.

And you can't get that experience unless the model is totally nude? What is so special about nipples, penises and vaginas that you are unable to obtain specific artistic experience without them?

Uh, what? Why does it need to be quantifiable?
Saying what? I gave an example of a label that would appropriately exclude some trans people from using the bathroom that matches their gender, but not necessarily their sex. If you thought i meant that that is the only thing that defined sex, then you've completely failed to understand anything i've said.

Well, like you, i'm bad at defining words, so looking over some dictionaries, merriam-webster defines it as
Which sounds about right to me, so let's go with that. Are you happy with that definition?

It's not based on sex.

I don't know, it sure seems to me like more people use the bathroom that matches their gender than use the one that matches their sex.

By the way, what about intersex people? Which bathroom should they use?

It's funny to me that you keep repeating this, despite more and more people coming and saying they have no problem sharing a bathroom, or even locker room with trans people. In fact, i don't think anyone here has actually said otherwise.

Like blacks? Like gays?

Since when? How do you quantify hate crimes? How do you prove self defense? There's all kinds of rules/laws that can't really be quantified.

Edited, Mar 29th 2013 6:41pm by Rachel9