Genderism

[Searle]

I think that the OP is a very confused individual, who needs to do a bit of research before making assertions about gender assignment rather than firing from the hip using 'facts' derived from stereotypes.

I think OP is incredibly old fashioned and didn't really expect to receive this level of disagreement: he only replied to one post and didn't even reply to the part disagreeing with him

 

[TheKnightWho]

Isn't this exactly the reason why transgenders want their own toilets though ?

Maybe the OP doesn't understand that it is medically possible to be different, he is possibly referring to those who don't have a genetic disorder.

Being transgender is not the same as being intersex.

I'm not aware of any transgender people wanting loos specifically for transgender people, though. The main movement is in fact the opposte: unisex loos.

 

[telstarbox]

I don't care who uses the bogs of either label as long as they manage to not p!ss on the seat.

 

[fowler9]

I don't care who uses the bogs of either label as long as they manage to not p!ss on the seat.

Ha ha. Spot on. If I need I number 2 I tend to squat anyway due to the issue of getting someone elses **** on your arse. God knows how people who really need to sit down cope. I'm just a boring straight male who can't get laid. Got a few gay mates. Not got any who are transgender as far as I know but it really wouldn't bother me. I probably shouldn't but I worry more for their safety than my own when sharing bogs with them. I mean how conceited would you have to be as a straight male to assume that anyone with a different gender or sexuality to you would a) fancy you and/or b) be a rapist.

 

[swj99]

There is no equality, only the illusion of it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

There is no equality, only the illusion of it.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[NightStar]

Actually I think the biggest barrow of crap started right here in the state I happen to reside in currently. NC and that dang bathroom law only came about because of a town that had gone above the state when it passed it's own ordnances. So the state responded irrationally. I still think the whole dang mess is political and that they really don't give a hoot about a minority group. They are just using them for political gain. Shame on them all.

I don't fit the ordinary binaries so I know how it is being different. What I can't fathom is why so many are fearful of us other than they just plain don't understand? Something that is not understood is thus feared. :roll:

Now religion is something I really don't want to get into along with evolution. I am a firm believer that ancient aliens played a big hand in our creation. I will leave it at that.

Robert

 

[meridian2]

There is no equality, only the illusion of it.

I think, more accurately, it's a case of in certain areas of life there is more equality than in others. Where it becomes divisive is when what should be a meritocracy relents for the sake of equality.

 

[TheNewNo2]

I may upset some people for this thread and, if I do, I apologise before hand. I am beginning to wonder what things are coming as promoting equality has now gone beyond the bounds of reasoning with people seemingly dreaming up all types of things.
Trans gender people seem to be in the spotlight for discussion even to the idea of having different loos for them. There are only two types of gender, male and female and which one that relates to a person is decided by the body organs one was born with. It has always been like that and separate loos are provided suitable for each sex, male and female. One cannot be anything else. I know people have had doubts about their sexuality and many sex changes have taken place. From discussion that takes place now more people seem to have it in their heads they are trans-gender, but the main point I was going to mention is that the equality brigade seem to be peddling the issue and putting ideas into people's heads, especially younger people, that makes them doubt their sexuality. Why ? Peoples body anatomy hasn't changed since the days before humans had developed from monkeys, if true, another issue.

You have already been thoroughly debunked by others, but I would like to say my own thing. Almost every sentence within your post is wrong and offensive.

People, barring those with the previously mentioned genetic conditions, are born into bodies which are one of two sexes - male and female. But gender is an entirely made-up thing. What we see as "male things" - sports, railways, cars, fighting, construction, etc - or "female things" - cooking, horses, fashion, childcare, etc - are societal constructs, based on millennia of men trying to control women. Our society compels people to be one thing or the other - boys play with dump trucks, girls play with Barbies - but people aren't like that. People are a rainbow, we force them into pink and blue.

Further, people may be confused about their sexuality, but that has nothing to do with being trans. Being trans is about your body not matching your view of yourself. We all get that to a degree - maybe you want to be more muscly, or maybe you want to be fatter. Things like that we can change (relatively) easily and without medical intervention. But some things you can't change like that.

That's OK up to a point, which is reached at which others would be reasonably concerned for their own safety by one's presence in the toilets. It is hardly a phobia if there are reasonable grounds to be concerned for one's safety.

Trans people are much more likely to be abused in toilets than cisgender people, and others have pointed that out already. But when you think about it, isn't this a pretty shoddy way to run a society? You don't want to have transwomen use the ladies' because you're worried they will be sexual predators. That's a pretty ****ty way to run a society. First off, it's insulting to sexual predators - it's not like they can't walk into the "wrong" bathroom without having to undergo medical intervention. Secondly, it's insulting to everyone else because you're assuming that all men are sexual predators. This whole fuss over the "wrong" bathroom would be solved if we ditched gender-segregated bathrooms. There's no good reason for them - I'm sure we have all used gender-neutral bathrooms. In our homes they're just called "bathrooms". It's only in public that we have this split between male and female bathrooms, and there's really no need for it. I don't know about you, but when I use the bathroom I go there to excrete, and it doesn't matter if the person in the next stall is male, female, other, or an alien from Betelgeuse VI. Removing gendered bathrooms would also solve the big problems that women have with regards to not having enough bathrooms, given that they generally need to use them more frequently and for longer, yet "equality" is built in with equal numbers of stalls for men and women.


TLDR: OP is offensive, down with the patriarchy, down with gender entirely.

 

[PHILIPE]

I think OP is incredibly old fashioned and didn't really expect to receive this level of disagreement: he only replied to one post and didn't even reply to the part disagreeing with him

I'll reply now. Perhaps I've misunderstood the actual definition of genderism so was wide of the mark in my post. The point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to get at is that recently there has been a lot of talk about people not sure of their gender and this increased discussion has only served to make some people, who may not have thought anything about it otherwise, start doubting their gender.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'll reply now. Perhaps I've misunderstood the actual definition of genderism so was wide of the mark in my post. The point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to get at is that recently there has been a lot of talk about people not sure of their gender and this increased discussion has only served to make some people, who may not have thought anything about it otherwise, start doubting their gender.

What's wrong with that?

 

[TheNewNo2]

I'll reply now. Perhaps I've misunderstood the actual definition of genderism so was wide of the mark in my post. The point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to get at is that recently there has been a lot of talk about people not sure of their gender and this increased discussion has only served to make some people, who may not have thought anything about it otherwise, start doubting their gender.

That's really not a problem. There are two possible situations here:

1) They doubt their gender and come to the conclusion that perhaps they might be trans or genderqueer of some variety, and that's fine.
2) They doubt their gender but come to the conclusion they're cisgender, and that's fine.

Either way, it's fine. If the discussion helps people become happier in their own skin, that is a good thing. You can't be "tricked" into being trans or genderqueer any more than you can be "tricked" into being gay. Exposure to trans, genderqueer and otherwise non-heteronormative people will of course result in an increase in the number of reported non-heteronormative people, simply because if you don't know there's an alternative you never consider the alternative.

 

[Harbornite]

I'll reply now. Perhaps I've misunderstood the actual definition of genderism so was wide of the mark in my post. The point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to get at is that recently there has been a lot of talk about people not sure of their gender and this increased discussion has only served to make some people, who may not have thought anything about it otherwise, start doubting their gender.

OK, and why is it a problem if people are now more comfortable with doubting their gender? How does it affect you?

 

[AlterEgo]

I'll reply now. Perhaps I've misunderstood the actual definition of genderism so was wide of the mark in my post. The point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to get at is that recently there has been a lot of talk about people not sure of their gender and this increased discussion has only served to make some people, who may not have thought anything about it otherwise, start doubting their gender.

So what?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Sex and gender aren't the same thing:
. . .

Gender identity has nothing to do with sexuality.
. . .

The trouble is, that the conflation of gender and sexuality is embedded, if not entrenched, in our culture. There are numerous references in the Roman Classics and here, in Shakespeare (it was a recurring theme for Shakespeare - see "As You Like It" etc.), references which are rejuvenated and updated in popular culture on a regular basis, including this month's Edinburgh Festival Fringe and 'comedy' radio, TV and social media.

It's a subject which for many is one which isn't discussed, and therefore their views remain unexplored - effectively rendering it a taboo subject.
For all the difficulties that people find with the popular discourse, surely its' helpful that there is a discourse, and that the subject IS being discussed?

. . . . and this increased discussion has only served to make some people, who may not have thought anything about it otherwise, start doubting their gender.

I welcome any development which allows us to question views, opinions, concepts, categories, connectons and differences which we had, hitherto, accepted without any giving them any thought.

To turn your question around : What is the social, cultural, economic or personal benefit of choosing NOT to ask questions of matters which we had, hitherto, accepted without giving them any thought?
[This is an imporant question for our society as it is at present, and I'm not disputing that there are circumstances in which a culture would benefit from suppressing debate, but I am seeking an understanding of what those benfits are in terms of suppressing discourse of "transgenderism"].

 

[Gutfright]

Here's a question: Should prisoners be allowed to choose the prison that corresponds to their gender identity?

 

[Tim R-T-C]

It is certainly a good thing in my view that increased openness over gender issues means that people are comfortable expressing themselves as they feel most comfortable, but over the next few years I can see this becoming a very major issue for public debate and there are likely to be some sticking points that will make it hard to find a compromise that works for everyone.

While choice of toilets is probably not a major deal for many - all of the "action" takes place behind closed doors anyway - issues of changing rooms, at gyms etc. where people are often changing in open areas, could well be an issue and at what point someone is permitted free choice to use that which makes them most comfortable.

I think the concern many people have is not necessarily a fear of those who identify as a particular gender using the relevant changing rooms or toilets, but that some might choose to abuse this openness.

If a man walks into a swimming pool and tells staff that he identifies as a woman and feels uncomfortable changing around men, should he be permitted to use the woman's changing room, or should they provide a separate room for those born men, who identify as women - would this be considered discriminatory and segregatory?

 

[AlterEgo]

If a man walks into a swimming pool and tells staff that he identifies as a woman and feels uncomfortable changing around men, should he be permitted to use the woman's changing room, or should they provide a separate room for those born men, who identify as women - would this be considered discriminatory and segregatory?

Most new swimming pools have mixed changing areas (with cubicles) so the point is moot.

 

[TheNewNo2]

If a man walks into a swimming pool and tells staff that he identifies as a woman and feels uncomfortable changing around men, should he be permitted to use the woman's changing room, or should they provide a separate room for those born men, who identify as women - would this be considered discriminatory and segregatory?

Your question is oxymoronic - if the person walking into the swimming pool is a man, then by definition they do not identify as a woman.

And I don't know about you, but I have never been to a swimming pool where the staff assess my manliness and direct me to the appropriate changing room.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The trouble is, that the conflation of gender and sexuality is embedded, if not entrenched, in our culture. There are numerous references in the Roman Classics and here, in Shakespeare (it was a recurring theme for Shakespeare - see "As You Like It" etc.)

Certainly with Shakespeare- both in As You Like It and in Twelfth Night- it was more around the confusion caused by falling in love with someone of the same gender disguised as the other. And in Twelfth Night at least, this was played more for laughs than anything else. You never see the person in disguise falling for someone of the same gender; Rosalind (in disguise as a male) turned away the female and fell for the male, and it was pretty much the same with Viola and Orsino in Twelfth Night.

Crossdressing has always been a staple of the theatre, but it's never really been about sexuality.

It's a subject which for many is one which isn't discussed, and therefore their views remain unexplored - effectively rendering it a taboo subject.

I completely agree, and I hope I didn't come across as belittling the OP. If it is never spoken about then one cannot hope to understand. I have more understanding through friends and through the sector I work in, where gender politics are a big deal at the moment, but without that I wouldn't really get it.

Speaking about it and explaining it is the best way forward. If someone doesn't understand, rather than is being deliberately offensive, it doesn't matter. The only issue with the OP was going on about "the equality brigade", something that really only bigots ever complain about.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

While choice of toilets is probably not a major deal for many - all of the "action" takes place behind closed doors anyway - issues of changing rooms, at gyms etc. where people are often changing in open areas, could well be an issue and at what point someone is permitted free choice to use that which makes them most comfortable.

I think that very much depends on culture, to be honest. People in Scandinavia and Germany would generally have no issue with sharing a sauna with people of the opposite sex, for instance.

Swimming pools have mostly, and quite sensibly, moved towards mixed-sex changing areas, with individually lockable cubicles, so the matter doesn't tend to arise there.

I don't think there is a simple answer for gym changing rooms, etc, other than providing gender neutral spaces for people who prefer that. I can understand why women may feel uncomfortable changing or showering next to someone with "male" genitalia, and vice versa, although in most cases of transgenderism you probably wouldn't even know.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Your question is oxymoronic - if the person walking into the swimming pool is a man, then by definition they do not identify as a woman.

My point was that the person in question may or may not identify as a woman, but if they declare to the staff that they do so, should they be permitted to use changing rooms designated for 'women'?

 

[TheKnightWho]

My point was that the person in question may or may not identify as a woman, but if they declare to the staff that they do so, should they be permitted to use changing rooms designated for 'women'?

I'm struggling to see your point here.

Do you think that the chance of this is so high that it's better for staff to order patrons into the toilet that they deem they fit best?

 

[PHILIPE]

The latest story that I read in the Sun today are thinking that Oxford Council are considering dispensing with the title Mr, Mrs and Ms from forms and replacing them with what they consider their gender. This is going too far.

 

[DaleCooper]

The latest story that I read in the Sun today are thinking that Oxford Council are considering dispensing with the title Mr, Mrs and Ms from forms and replacing them with what they consider their gender. This is going too far.

It is almost certainly not true. The Sun has never been known to let facts ruin a good story.

 

[Harbornite]

The latest story that I read in the Sun today are thinking that Oxford Council are considering dispensing with the title Mr, Mrs and Ms from forms and replacing them with what they consider their gender. This is going too far.

Why is this too far? More importantly, who the hell cares?

Here's a question: Should prisoners be allowed to choose the prison that corresponds to their gender identity?

Possibly.

 

[AlterEgo]

The latest story that I read in the Sun today are thinking that Oxford Council are considering dispensing with the title Mr, Mrs and Ms from forms and replacing them with what they consider their gender. This is going too far.

Firstly, it's The Sun. And secondly, awwwwwww. Poor you!

 

[DaleCooper]

The only time I use "Mr" is when I'm forced to by the design of forms which make it a mandatory field. Then I find it weird; what have these archaic titles got to do with anything? They are totally unnecessary and convey no useful information. The sooner we ditch them the better.

 

[Gutfright]

Here's a question: Should prisoners be allowed to choose the prison that corresponds to their gender identity?

Possibly.

Glad we got that one sorted.

 

[TheNewNo2]

The latest story that I read in the Sun today are thinking that Oxford Council are considering dispensing with the title Mr, Mrs and Ms from forms and replacing them with what they consider their gender. This is going too far.

Why is that going too far? First off, the whole Mrs/Miss thing is pretty sexist as there is really no reason, in most cases, for anyone to need to know your marital status. By contrast "Mr" tells you nothing about it. It says a lot that women are always sorted by whether they're married.

Secondly, what in the slightest does it matter? So your letters will be addressed to "J Bloggs" rather than "Mr J Bloggs". That's really not a problem at all.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The latest story that I read in the Sun today are thinking that Oxford Council are considering dispensing with the title Mr, Mrs and Ms from forms and replacing them with what they consider their gender. This is going too far.

Why is it going too far?

First off, the whole Mrs/Miss thing is pretty sexist as there is really no reason, in most cases, for anyone to need to know your marital status. By contrast "Mr" tells you nothing about it. It says a lot that women are always sorted by whether they're married.

Indeed.

If all men are Mr, regardless of age, then what's wrong with saying A Troll on a letter rather than Mr A Troll?

If you need to know if someone is married, ask them if they are married.

Normally my wife doesn't care about this sort of thing, but she does take great pleasure in replying "doctor" whenever someone asks her "is it Miss or Mrs?"