Notices

Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics.

Register to reply Log in to reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 25-02-2017, 03:31 PM #11
Vicky. Vicky. is offline
0_o
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 65,842


Vicky. Vicky. is offline
0_o
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 65,842


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_ View Post



I don't think it would open the can of worms you think it would. Put it this way, there is no reason why at this moment a 'biological' female (for arguments sake we'll say in the possession of breasts and a vagina) who identifies as a female but has a beard and short hair (i.e. is 'unfeminine' in their appearance) couldn't and wouldn't enter a woman's toilet. What happens then? If we separate toilets on sex, the only way it could be policed would be through mandatory and intrusive inspection upon entry.
Well it doesn't need to be policed though? It hasn't been policed ever and oddly enough trans people have been using their preferred sex areas with no/little fuss? The honour system works pretty well IMO. Granted I only know 2 trans women, but they are both fine with the way things are now...one 'passes' easily, the other not so much in proper lighting anyway, but she has still never ever been challenged in the ladies...I know a load of lesbians also who are extremely butch and have never had issues.

For anyone wodnering how I know so many LGBT people...when I go out we go to the 'pink triangle' which is the gay bars and such
I don't really get this 'we would have to check for vaginas' thing if I am honest. Its fairly easy to tell males from females. And if it isn't, then the person obviously 'passes'.


Quote:
Correct, but is it overwhelmingly committed in public toilets by strangers? I'm guessing not.
I don't think there is data on this. Also currently the data would say n o I expect. But...opening areas to everyone would change the data. There are many examples of places in America who have allowed the 'whatever sex you feel you are' and because of this, pervs HAVE taken advantage. There is actually a site that lists all of these instances and there are over a hundred in a short space of time. This tells me that yes, this would be a problem if it happened here.


Quote:
I don't particularly want to get into this now but I'm actually writing an entire chapter of my dissertation on this, one I only began after having discovered through reading that it's not actually as unproblematic as one might assume (I used to hold the same position that you did up until a couple of months ago). So come back to me in three months, and I should hopefully be able to go into this a bit deeper
I don't really understand this part. Are you going into how 'sex' is a social construct in your dissertation? if so, I know this is personal but when you have done it, could I read it? As I honestly cannot see this at all. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Yes you get 'mistakes' of nature which results in some people being intersex. But this does not mean there are more than 2 sexes. Anymore than the fact that some people are born without arms and legs does not mean that human beings do not as a species have 2 arms and 2 legs. Natures 'mistakes' do not change reality. All in my opinion of course. I am open to change too as always but as it stands, I do not believe sex is a social construct. And I don't believe anyone can ever change sex. However I do believe 'gender' is a social construct. And that gender should be abolished completely as this would end so many problems. I kind of feel that for example, a male who likes wearing dresses feels he HAS to say he is trans to be accepted...which is ****ing wrong. If we get rid of the silly 'boys must do X and girls must do X' 'rules' that society has then I think we would see a decline in the amount of people who are 'trans' and it would just go back to those who have sex dysphoria being trans...as trans really is all about the dysphoria and again, I do not understand those who say it is not.


Quote:
Again, would rather have this discussion in a couple of months but on the slightly related issue of sexuality, demarcating one's sexual desires into neat little categories is also problematic and not as inherent as you might think. The work of Michel Foucault points to how discourses around sex brought into being the identity categories we work with today.
I would disagree with this tbh. Most people know for sure if they are gay, straight or bi. Most gay men would be disgusted at the thought of shagging a female person, even if they 'presented' male and vice versa. Lesbians do not do penis anymore than gay men perform cunnilingus. Even bi people my not be impressed by someone who looks female but has a dick. Of course pansexuals are perfectly fine with anyone (within their tastes...not meaning they would shag ANYTHING ) but generally..I do think sexuality is pretty simple. Either you are attracted to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both. Unless I have misunderstood what you are saying here...

Last edited by Vicky.; 25-02-2017 at 03:38 PM.
Vicky. is offline  
Register to reply Log in to reply

Bookmark/share this topic

Tags
bathrooms, guidelines, obama, president, revokes, transgender, usa

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2026 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
 

About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

"Big Brother and UK Television Forum. Est. 2001"

 

© 2023
no new posts