I'll take a stab at it. You bring up one of the most salient issues in this whole debate. The right to use public restrooms is a pretty hot button issue, and there is no easy answer. There has been much written on the topic. One of the biggest issues (for the trans community, at least) is that transgendered people are likely to experience harassment or assault for using public restrooms. There was the well known case of the transwoman being beaten into a seizure in a Maryland McDonalds while the employees filmed it and laughed. To the TS community, this is very much a civil rights issue.
When I google "definition of biological sex" and I see most medical answers that are predicated around sexual reproductive organs, it's very clear to me that I'm more than "close to getting it".
Denny, you've been trying to tell me all along that I'm off. But I've been very clear and consistent in arguing my point from the "biological sex" perspective. I think that's pretty clearly defined by the medical field. I understand there's the "psychological sex" or "gender". My posts have been very clear that I'm okay with this and understand it. I live more on the perspective of "biological sex" - my general viewpoint in life stems from that side. It appears yours is more on the psychological side. That's cool. I respect your perspective, you should learn to accept mine and that neither is more correct than the other; they're generally different. One is more based on obvious, physical characteristics; the other is based in a different dimension than I typically am on, but understanding it is a more compassionate, humanity-level being.
My viewpoint is that I trust the other person to determine their own gender. I don't need to look up their skirt to make some sort of judgment that I either keep to myself or make public (to the person). Like I said twice now, you're really close to getting it. There's a reason why LGBT includes "T".
As I've tried to state several times (but I don't know that you're getting close to understanding it), I'm talking biological sex, you're talking gender/psychological sex. Two different subject matters that are closely related. I generally, but not always, live from the perspective of biological sex. You live from the perspective of gender/psychological sex. It baffling to me why you don't understand my POV. Both POV's are correct.
I don't buy that as an absolute. Especially for young children. Are you making a case that once a TG child self-identifies, they never decide that they were wrong as they get farther into life? Last summer, I was listening to a radio program, (can't recall which), but iirc the City of Portland was either considering a law for TG people, or they had passed a law for TG people. Part of the discussion that made me chuckle, (because I could see some of my buddies taking advantage when we were kids), was that TG people could use the facilities that they identified with....at that moment in time. In other words, they could use the girls' room/shower one week, and the next week they could use the boys' room/shower. Maybe I have that wrong, but if I don't, then the city of Portland doesn't agree that TG peoples' gender isn't always fixed for life. So, if a kindergartner decides they are a girl at 5 years of age, should school officials expect/require that they stick to that gender for the rest of their time in school? Go Blazers
It is pretty clear. The purpose of the LGBT community is to change the definitions of the words people use. Gay in the old day meant; . Bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer "a gay sunny room" . Full of or showing high-spirited merriment Now it means homosexual Married once meant. A man and woman joined together in the eyes of God. Now it means? Not sure this has shaken out yet Gender once meant, "The properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles". Now apparently the LGBT want it to mean nothing but an open reference to a persons sex depending on how they feel today. There is a common thread in this, it is about Feeling and not much else.
Nah, MarAzul. It's about overcoming a long time of repressing and oppressing people who are different.
Nah, you don't need to change the meaning of words to do that. But I expect it give them some level of satifaction. I guess I don't mind that they changed the definition of the word gay or gender for that matter. What ever?!?! But I did ask the Big LGBT not to change the meaning of "Married" that has spiritual meaning to way more people than the LGBT people can count. Besides they do not share the spiritual meaning to married so they don't need that word to cover there legal need in the sense of what is Caesar's. However, I see this logic is rejected and I sense that it not for logical reason but more because it "feels good". Hell, just making the request, jolted one loud mouth in to immediate action, she came with homophobic rhetoric immediately. It is the same as trying to have a logical discussion with a progressive (which they all are), you can't, you must know before hand that it can't happen, they don't think that way. The thumb in the eye is the goal, not a meeting of minds.
The meaning of words do change over time. Tough for you if you don't like it. The world will just pass you by. The word awful used to mean "inspire awe." Over time, it's come to mean "terrible." It is what it is. The dictionary wouldn't be much use if it didn't tell us today "terrible" is what it means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change
You're the one talking about people changing their mind. They're not going to change their mind any more than you are going to magically turn gay.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ab...-transgender-woman-decides-he-is-a-man-again/ So, I'd like to run my hypothetical questions by you and crandc again: If Dawn Ennis came to my house and I referred to Ms. Ennis as 'her', I would have been polite and 'appropriate', and I think we all agree on that. What we disagree about is whether it is appropriate for me to refer to Ennis as 'he' after he left. Let's say that, once gone, I did refer to Dawn as a he. Three months later, Don Ennis comes to my house. I'm assuming that I should now be calling Don 'he', right? I'm still not wanting to hurt feelings or show disrespect. Since I had called Ennis 'he' ever since leaving the first time, does that mean I was right to have called Dawn/Don a 'he' all along? If I was right all along about him being a man, wouldn't that mean that saying he was a man the whole time is not bigoted, nor mean-spirited? Might it also mean that how to refer to TG people is not absolute, because there probably are no absolutes when it comes to human behavior? Go Blazers
Bullshit. http://thoughtcatalog.com/2013/an-open-letter-to-don-ennis/ It's clearly a lot of time, work, and expense to make the switch. At this point in life, he didn't want to stick with it. Contrary to his spin are his actions. Think about those. And he's blaming it on a trauma to his brain, like a stroke or epilepsy or a blow to the head. The lesson in this story is about how supportive the people around him were when he made his decision to change. They didn't call him a he when she was undergoing the transformation.
So, what you are saying is (while not answering my question), if that YES, TG people DO sometimes change their minds, right? Go Blazers
