[RD] LGBTQ news

[Farm Boy]

So... unisex or gender identity?

I agree that the McDonalds lobby is not going to let any law pass that would force them to add 2 more bathrooms to all of their locations.

I would guess that either unisex or gender identity(and putting trans people on the sign makes it explicit that it is identity, not subject to... inspection/ratification) are probably both better? Given the rate of people who are trans, I think gender identity is closer to what people have been asking for and would be easier to do?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Raising the awareness of said law is "something to gain", but I would argue that isn't a bad thing to try and drum up.

Even through dishonest methods? Okay, well we all have our opinions.

As for whether or not my questions are relevant, again, I think they are.

They aren't relevant to my providing correct information to a discussion which I perceived to be under a misapprehension regarding said information. Can you give me a good reason why I should not correct a misapprehension if I am able and inclined to do so? Can you give me a good reason why I would need to then answer a series of questions in order to justify doing so? Isn't providing the correct information enough justification on its own merits? If you think there was no misapprehension in the first place, can you give me a good reason why a reply along the lines of "yes, we already know this" would not have sufficed?

I don't actually need an answer to any of these by the way, it's all rhetorical and I don't think there's much doubt over what the reasonable answers are. We don't appear to be in disagreement about the facts of this sign so there's no more to say here. Have a lovely day.

 

[Gorbles]

Even through dishonest methods? Okay, well we all have our opinions.

I mean, the advertising industry is an industry, and is likely to exist until the absolute death of our species, so yeah. It's an emotional and personal subject, understandably, for people who are affected by transphobic attacks and the like. This is why I felt you were focusing on the wrong thing (the sign being not a real sign that exists yet).

They aren't relevant to my providing correct information to a discussion which I perceived to be under a misapprehension regarding said information. Can you give me a good reason why I should not correct a misapprehension if I am able and inclined to do so? Can you give me a good reason why I would need to then answer a series of questions in order to justify doing so? Isn't providing the correct information enough justification on its own merits? If you think there was no misapprehension in the first place, can you give me a good reason why a reply along the lines of "yes, we already know this" would not have sufficed?

I don't actually need an answer to any of these by the way, it's all rhetorical and I don't think there's much doubt over what the reasonable answers are. We don't appear to be in disagreement about the facts of this sign so there's no more to say here. Have a lovely day.

I never said you had to answer the questions to justify your previous statement(s).

The questions were separate; a way of continuing the tangent. Reframing it, even, on something that I saw as more pertinent to the actual thread than "this sign is made-up for a political point". That's all.

 

[Kyriakos]

I mean, the advertising industry is an industry, and is likely to exist until the absolute death of our species, so yeah. It's an emotional and personal subject, understandably, for people who are affected by transphobic attacks and the like. This is why I felt you were focusing on the wrong thing (the sign being not a real sign that exists yet).

I think it can easily be as emotional and personal for people who think that their own identity (assuming they view this as binary) is threatened/eroded. By which I am restating that this is a wrong point of attacking the issue, since you end up with an equilibrium and battles to hopelessly prove precedence there.
Sometimes a method just can't lead to a solution. Unfortunately this only seems to matter when dealing with relatively minor issues.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think bathrooms are less of a problem than locker rooms. Most folks are in and out of bathrooms pretty quickly and pay little attention to who might be in there with them. Locker rooms present a different set of problems because people not only get naked, they take showers and hang out there for an extended period of time.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think bathrooms are less of a problem than locker rooms. Most folks are in and out of bathrooms pretty quickly and pay little attention to who might be in there with them. Locker rooms present a different set of problems because people not only get naked, they take showers and hang out there for an extended period of time.

I tend to get naked when I have a bath too. That's what one does in bathrooms right?

 

[RobAnybody]

When you think about it in terms of public property, particularly government buildings, having a room where women (or men) are not allowed entry seems blatantly unconstitutional. Particularly if there are legal, rather than only societal, repercussions.

 

[Farm Boy]

I tend to get naked when I have a bath too. That's what one does in bathrooms right?

You could I suppose.

But nah, it's not like that. I mean yes, that is what people do in their bathrooms. But usually not the public ones. We just don't bother to use a different word so it's contextual.

 

[Berzerker]

Long before kings and emperors, armies were not needed.

10,000 years and counting

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...re-remains-may-be-our-oldest-evidence-of-war/

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150811-do-animals-fight-wars

even chimps and bonobos wage war

Mate, considering the vile things you have been implying in this thread I’ve been positively civil.

So the devil made you do it... What have I implied?

No, my implication was that you would cease talking about all LGBTQ issues because your opinions on transpeople are terrible and you refuse to listen to people who know more about this subject than you do. I am certain your opinions on other members of LGBTQ are equally as awful. Why do you keep haunting this thread if you do not wish to learn or reach understanding?

If the "t" in lgbtq is a valid designation, why is it bigotry to acknowledge "t" exists?

Can you just stop? There is no way you actually believe this. To call it nonsensical would be an insult to nonsense. I can’t even present a counterargument to this because its so monumentally stupid.

Do transpeople face harassment and assault for using the 'wrong' bathrooms? Does the sign clarify there is no wrong bathroom?

Cishets did when you lot started calling us slurs and killing us. We just called a spade a spade.

I dont remember gay or bi as slurs growing up. But wouldn't that mean lgbtq should be treated like the n word?

Moderator Action: OK. You know you're trolling this thread, and we know your trolling this thread. You are headed for a thread ban if you don't stop, and believe me, in a thread where the subject matter is sensitive like this one, I will have no problem doing it. So you have two choices here, either stop the trolling, or you can look at the thread and not post. In other words, post something constructive or stop posting in the thread. I will not warn you a second time. --LM

 

[Birdjaguar]

I dont remember gay or bi as slurs growing up. But wouldn't that mean lgbtq should be treated like the n word?

My reasonably sheltered life overlaps yours and I can assure you that if you did not hear any, you were living in a bubble of unreality.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, as a non-sequitur, I tried the whole "every house has a unisex bathroom" line. And one old coot was like "no, there are no urinals. I've been forced to use women's bathrooms my whole life."

I mean, he instantly stuck to his guns without hesitation, so I put back on my heels in a very amusing way, but to think "the standard we're all living with is not unisex" was just so funny.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Of course he is right!

 

[RobAnybody]

I get that people have pre-conceived notions of other posters, & have admitted that I do, too, but I've also put forth that *questions* should (just IMO) be answered in a straight-forward manner, so I'm gonna put myself out there as someone who, asking from ignorance, would be interested in an answer to these questions from, like, anyone:

If the "t" in lgbtq is a valid designation, why is it bigotry to acknowledge "t" exists?

I'm confused on this as well. This whole thread has confused me as to whether acknowledging the "t" exists is... bad? good?

Do transpeople face harassment and assault for using the 'wrong' bathrooms? Does the sign clarify there is no wrong bathroom?

As has been pointed out (thanks, both @Farm Boy & @Manfred Belheim) - I thought that was a legally mandated sign & was appalled by it - thanks to both of you for pointing out that's not a real sign.

But is a "This establishment has Unisex Bathrooms" (or whatever - I'm not proposing a sign) a bad thing? It seems a good thing? As @Berzerker points out, doesn't a [better] sign convey "there is no wrong bathroom in this establishment"? Isn't it an intermediate step to a Good Thing (signs unneeded)? I know the Tennessee Legislature didn't mean it in a good way, but is it not a good *step* (hoping just asking isn't a landmine) for establishments to start displaying [better] inclusive signs?

I'm in support of trans-rights (even there, I'm not sure I used the right term). So I like to think I have good intentions but am not "hip" "on point" "en flique"... I think I'm "cheugy" at this point. I also think by me using that term, I just made cheugy passe.

 

[Gorbles]

But is a "This establishment has Unisex Bathrooms" (or whatever - I'm not proposing a sign) a bad thing?

But this isn't what is being made law in Tennessee. It's not about "meaning it in a good way", like how people can accidentally make mistakes in discussions when they're trying to say something to the best of their ability.

The law is about singling out businesses that serve an already disadvantaged minority.

Would more unisex public toilets be a good thing? Sure. But it's a different discussion to what folks were objecting to in the first instance.

And just to emphasise this, come July 1st, such signs will be legally-mandated. The design won't be what was posted, but they will be eye-catching in terms of their appearance (yellow text on a red background occupying at least one third of the sign, allegedly). It will still be something to be appalled about. Arguably, given that the law has been passed, it already is.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The whole goal of these signs, these anti-trans laws, is to make it as hard as possible to be openly trans, to force trans people back into the closet.

Anyone who supports those signs, those laws are doing so because the view the above as an acceptable outcome; when it was applied to gay people and african-americans that was bigoted, as is the case now, so it's disappointing to see some people suggesting the issue isn't that bad.

https://twitter.com/WFLA/status/1399736722494210051

This country is ****ing awful to trans people, but the likes @Berzerker will genuinely argue that this "helps" us, go ahead tell me how this helps, how this doesn't cause more than enough harm to mitigate any potential gain, in a state ran by conservatives who you have no issue with supporting.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You could I suppose.

But nah, it's not like that. I mean yes, that is what people do in their bathrooms. But usually not the public ones. We just don't bother to use a different word so it's contextual.

The lack of any bathing facilities would be my first reason to choose another word

 

[Cloud_Strife]

This country is ****ing awful to trans people, but the likes @Berzerker will genuinely argue that this "helps" us, go ahead tell me how this helps, how this doesn't cause more than enough harm to mitigate any potential gain, in a state ran by conservatives who you have no issue with supporting.

This is actually genuinely insulting; imagine making this exact argument during Jim Crow and at the height of anti-LGBTQ hysteria; that both need to suffer so that straight, white, cis people can understand that they're human to. What an evil view

 

[EnglishEdward]

Cloud_Strife appears to be arguing with herself.

 

[Samson]

So... unisex or gender identity?

I do not get what is wrong with the current arrangement, where people use the one they feel is most appropriate at the moment without any legal involvement? I find it a little odd when a woman uses a no barrier urinal next to me, but not in a bad way. What is the harm that is nessatating any legal intervention?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I do not get what is wrong with the current arrangement, where people use the one they feel is most appropriate at the moment without any legal involvement?

That isn't the current arrangement AFAICT, at least not in the US. I mean sure you can sneak into any bathroom you want, assuming you're properly disguised, but that's not the same thing.