Gender titles, getting crazy

[Venandi]

As a nation, I don't think we've fully considered the implications of entrenching such things in law, it hasn't survived first contact in the crucible of legal reality yet. By way of example, suppose DNA evidence is left at the scene of a murder and it positively identifies a specific individual and definitively labels him as male even though that individual identifies as transgender. You see where i'm going here right?

Clearly (I think) using  misgendering as a defence (the notion that it couldn't possibly be me because I'm a girl) would be, and certainly should be, a futile (bordering on foolish) defence strategy.

I'm guessing that everyone here would agree that in this case science should triumph over the politics of identity / gender choice. In addition, we would likely all agree that the guilty individual should go to prison.

But take our example a step further.... should that individual be incarcerated in a female prison because he identifies as female? After all, we just legally identified him (by DNA) as being male and convicted him despite his assertion that he's a woman.  

As an aside, and just for fun, I approached a few retired RCAF Pilot acquaintances at the gym and suggested we all self identify as being 30 years old and go to the nearest CFRC Det to re-engage as experienced retread pilots.

Even though we're all in pretty good shape and could get through the aircrew medical, I doubt it would fly with the recruiters... but the question remains, should we be able to do that? Using the same logic applied to transgender rights, If I really am as physically fit as most 30 something pilots currently serving why shouldn't I be able rejoin?

Unfortunately there was a general lack of interest in my plan and as a result you won't be seeing us on CBC.

I think it might have been fun... 

 

 

 

 

   

Edited March 17 by Venandi

[Perspektiv]

19 hours ago, Venandi said:

But take our example a step further.... should that individual be incarcerated in a female prison because he identifies as female?

Or take your son to the vet, because he is adamant he is a cat.

Worse even, such a story being news, not because of how convincing that the story is, but due to how far down the hole our society has gone. This was clearly satire. But in today's clown world, someone comes out as a cat, you likely assume they are serious with all that is going on.

To me, its easier to accept this reality, than to fight it.

If my son told me he was a woman, I would immediately hand him the wife's makeup kit and schedule him to get hormones.

If you can't beat them, join them.

🤡

[Michael Hardner]

Ok... but @Perspektiv even if you don't believe them, you're in favour of letting them live that way right ?

[Perspektiv]

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok... but @Perspektiv even if you don't believe them, you're in favour of letting them live that way right ?

100%. 

Trans people have rights like anyone else. Their believed existence is their right.

My issue, is when this right infringes on the rights of others. Or pushing for legislative moves that would make me misgendering someone a hate crime. 

You could call me the N word, but God forbid you call Sally by her dead name, because its on her ID. 

I have little sympathy at my age. I have dealt with racism my entire life. Nobody gives two f***s about my lived experience. I had to develop a thick skin, and truly had to dig deep and see myself as equal, when society tells me am inferior.

I'm supposed to feel sympathy, because you wanted to throw pigtails on and have people identify you as she/her, while looking like John Goodman. 

Well, sucks to be you. Cry me a river.

[Venandi]

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

if you can't beat them, join them.

 

An unfortunate position IMO but I think it’s fairly common.

Collectively, we seem to dance around the periphery of these issues without truly considering legalities based on hard science or unintended consequences. In other words, we seem content to allow the courts to figure it on our behalf and the result seems to be absurdities that inventively beg the question “how did we get here?

I offered (above) an example of the possible disconnect between identity politics and hard science when both (simultaneously) are allowed to hold legal status. If a trans women has legal status as a women (and it appears they do) and DNA at the murder scene identifies her as male, is it a legitimate defence to suggest that it couldn’t be her? I suspect we both agree that it isn’t and it shouldn’t.

This is why “person with a vagina” and “person with a penis” is being incorporated into the legal lexicon. It’s why supreme court judges can’t define a women. At it’s core, It’s a self inflicted absurdity that has the potential to effect everyone, but women in particular.

Its grown legs, largely (IMO) as the result of the apathy of most voters.

Interestingly enough though, my concern is not for myself, it’s for your daughter, your wife, your granddaughter etc. Because of that I can’t quite bring myself to assert that “it’s easier to accept reality than fight it. We are actually engaged in radically distorting reality here.

As an aside, when I say my concern is that it negatively effects women (in particular), it’s because I am not the least offended by fit young ladies who self identify as gay men in the shower room.

See how absurd it all is.

Edited March 18 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, Venandi said:

 

1. As an aside, when I say my concern is that it negatively effects women (in particular), it’s because I am not the least offended by fit young ladies who self identify as gay men in the shower room.

2. See how absurd it all is.

1. Forcing washroom use on your born sex will result in this dude in the ladies room:

2. Nobody should say it isn't.  The system is set up to mitigate political differences and produce a solution that's acceptable to enough people to move on.

[Nefarious Banana]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Forcing washroom use on your born sex will result in this dude in the ladies room:

2. Nobody should say it isn't.  The system is set up to mitigate political differences and produce a solution that's acceptable to enough people to move on.

That dude, dudette, creature, is black . . . .  separete washroom too?

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

That dude, dudette, creature, is black . . . .  separete washroom too?

No no - same washroom, separate fountain.

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

That dude, dudette, creature, is black . . . .  separete washroom too?

Oh... that's a factor ?  Why don't you list how many bathrooms you want for an establishment:

White man, white woman, white trans, black man, black woman, black trans ?

I'm not sure what you're saying please enwhiten... I mean enlighten me.

[Perspektiv]

55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Forcing washroom use on your born sex will result in this dude in the ladies room

How?

We do a genital check?

(Security guard) "Lift your sack and jump twice, please. New mall policy". 

He is clearly passable.

He's peeing next to me, and am not remotely paying attention. Last thing I am about to do, is verify their genitals. 

However, if someone clearly looked female walked in, I would be very uncomfortable with them there.

If at a pool, and my wife was with young children, and that male walked in, there would be anger. Justified in my opinion.

What your argument is doing, is trying to make those concerns of the majority illegitimate.

The true argument, is if a woman who looked like him, with makeup on wanted to use common showers with biological women, male genitals and all, how are you to tell the women who are highly uncomfortable with this that there is something wrong with them?

Identify as you see fit. But one can't demand the world to bend over backwards for them. 

I still experience police checks at some airports. "Random", of course. I still get followed, like am about to steal. Am not a thief. Am highly educated. The world sucks. Sometimes you have to suck it up. Know who you are. Stand for it. Don't expect anyone to care. 

Nobody cares for my plight, don't expect the world to care for how one feels inside. 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Perspektiv said:

1. How? We do a genital check? (Security guard) "Lift your sack and jump twice, please. New mall policy".  He is clearly passable.

2. What your argument is doing...

 

1.  Assuming he's a law abiding citizen and a bathroom law is passed, that's what you get.
2. My argument is that any law is fraught with problems.  That's my argument.  I'm not trying to do anything else on the thread.  

[Nefarious Banana]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Oh... that's a factor ?  Why don't you list how many bathrooms you want for an establishment:

White man, white woman, white trans, black man, black woman, black trans ?

I'm not sure what you're saying please enwhiten... I mean enlighten me.

Calm down Hardner . . . . don't be so sensitive.  I'm a half-breed and don't know where to p!ss.  Perhaps on your flowers?

[Venandi]

24 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

What your argument is doing, is trying to make those concerns of the majority illegitimate.

Indeed.

And while it started innocuously (some might argue) with washrooms, it's now invaded women's sports with a vengeance. Putting aside the risk of physical injury and bogus performance records that will stand in perpetuity, women are (or soon will be) taking a hit on athletic scholarships, and provincial, national, and olympic participation.

I submit that the original idea that "it's only a toilet who cares" has come with some unintended consequences, and anyone who admits to being ambivalent about that should at least acknowledge its unfairness and propose an equitable workaround.

Supporting an idea that's manifestly unfair to women and then shrugging your shoulders and walking away is just as bad as the scenario their original support ultimately created. 

IMO of course...

 

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Supporting an idea that's manifestly unfair to women and then shrugging your shoulders and walking away is just as bad as the scenario their original support ultimately created. 

I suppose so.  But I do tend to shrug my shoulders when the arguments are overly emotional, hyperbolic or ridiculous so I shrug my shoulders a lot lately.  The people who support these new ideas need to acknowledge that they ARE new, and strange.  If the people talking about solutions are empathetic, at least, then we should be good to go.  If not, then I can't do much about it.  I'll pay attention to a good discussion, not to a discussion that's just meant as angertainment.

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Assuming he's a law abiding citizen and a bathroom law is passed, that's what you get.

I am just confused as to how it would be enforced, seeing that he is passable. My point remains. Unless you ask him to drop his pants, nobody would know.

You're not going to ID people at washrooms, as this would be a blatant violation of their human rights. No reasonable voter would vote in something that intrusive.

Someone flies under the radar, would never have to worry about this. This also puts the onus to stop dividing with this issue, and similar to states like California, investing in gender neutral washrooms in newer buildings.

I see this scenario as nothing but fear mongering. Trying to silence freedom of thought, by pointing to segregrationist beliefs vs the crux of the actual issue.

This shouldn't be a fight. 

Someone who has male appendages, and looks male, has no business showering with women in women's washrooms.

Otherwise, nobody goes peeing with a political agenda behind. I want to urinate, period.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

My argument is that any law is fraught with problems. 

There should be no law. Politicians should grow a set.

Use the washroom you want to use. If you aren't the correct gender and get checked by others, this isn't a social issue. This is a you issue.

 

[Michael Hardner]

53 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Unless you ask him to drop his pants, nobody would know.

2. You're not going to ID people at washrooms, as this would be a blatant violation of their human rights. No reasonable voter would vote in something that intrusive.

3. There should be no law.  

 .

 

1.  I don't know.  Someone could call in law enforcement if they knew his story I guess.  Being arrested isn't a joke, so this person could be in jeopardy either way.
2. I'm not sure how they enforce this.  People are voting in all kinds of unreasonable things, though.
3. I agree with that.  You believe that people are reasonable, I do too.

[Perspektiv]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Someone could call in law enforcement if they knew his story I guess. 

You're reaching. 

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not sure how they enforce this. 

You shouldn't have to. They have accessible stalls for disabled people, the elderly? 

Trans people are part of our society. Accommodate them, and make it law. Politicians need to stop being opportunistic on this issue with division, and find pragmatic solutions to the problem.

Sorry, letting a biological male that is intact shower in the same space as women, is not it.

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You believe that people are reasonable, I do too.

I don't buy for a second that most of us give two s***s about who is liberal and who is right winged in real life. I deal with heavy handed clientele. I couldn't care less of your political stance.

I care about your business.

Most people just want to live their lives. Let them.

But that life lived, shouldn't come at the expense of others.

If you want to build a neighborhood for whites only, this is unacceptable.  More if I can easily afford to live there.

Making it blacks only is even worse. You know better!.

I see it no different with regards to policy on those who are trans. 

Stop making them targets by putting them against the world. They aren't 2Pac and certainly shouldn't have to live like he did because someone wants votes.

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. You're reaching.  You shouldn't have to. They have accessible stalls for disabled people, the elderly? 

 

1. Yeah the shower thing doesn't make sense, but some states use 'sex offender' laws to enforce these things.  It's fine to say they won't check your genitals but if something goes wrong that's a life that's screwed up.
   
I think I agree with the rest of your post. 

[eyeball]

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not sure how they enforce this.  People are voting in all kinds of unreasonable things, though

Multiple types of public washrooms don't seem unreasonable.

Remember pay toilets? Maybe they should bring those back.