Welcome to Kentucky

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby eSOANEM » Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:45 pm UTC

@poochyena

No. Male != penis and female != vagina.

This notion that there are exactly two sexes, that they line up exactly with genitals and that a person's sex or gender are fixed is bullshit and an idea which was not shared with much of the world in the pre-colonial era and, at that point, was actually fairly new to European culture.

Furthermore the sex/gender distinction doesn't really exist. It was something which was invented in the early days of trans community to try and explain what it means to be trans. It may have been some help with that in the past, but now does far more harm than good and the trans community seems to be coming around to the idea that it's damaging.

Your notion of sex also erases and harms intersex people by reinforcing a sex binary that leads to dangerous, unnecessary, irreversible surgery on newborn babies to "normalise" their genitals if the doctor decides it's not clear enough whether their junk is a penis or vulva.

I also doubt that this is how you actually think of sex; it's just how you've rationalised it. Say you're in whatever toilet it is you use and someone comes in, goes into a cubicle to pee sitting down, you know nothing about that person's genitals but, from what you've said, I'm happy to be you're still happy to form a judgement about whether that person is in the "right" toilet. You're not basing it on people's genitals, you're basing it on your cisnormative notions of what men and women look like.

If you do still maintain that your notion of sex is based on genitals then I'd like to know why you think it's acceptable to ask someone what shape their genitals are. Hopefully you'd agree that it's not acceptable to ask a cis woman if the carpets match the drapes or what her labia are like; why is it suddenly ok to ask what her genitals look like if you think she might be trans?

And that's not how pronouns are determined. Pronouns are, and have been determined by people's self perceptions for centuries at least (in Hrólfs saga Gautrekssonar, written in the 13th century, Þórbergr accedes to the throne of Sweden and is known as "king Þórbergr"; he also threatens to execute anyone who refers to him with female pronouns) and, regardless, if you have a friend whose birth certificate gives their name as "Tarquin Nathaniel Pinkerton" but who hates being called anything other than "Nate" and you call them "Tarquin", you are being an arsehole. Why do you think it's different with pronouns than with names?

A trans woman entering a female toilet is not a male entering a female toilet unless you are using an outdated and oppressive idea of what gender or sex is.

Lastly, if you don't let a trans person use the toilet of their choice, you are contributing to a system which oppresses trans people and leads to the disproportionate number of trans people murdered (URL lists all the trans people, mostly trans women of colour, who are confirmed as having been murdered for being trans in 2014 with lists for other years as well) and vastly disproportionate suicides.

This bill would make it illegal not to do something which leads to people's deaths. You know what that would be called if the person being murdered or killing themselves wasn't trans? Manslaughter.

Note: it was unclear whether you meant that someone born with a penis who had surgery to construct a vulva and vagina would still be male in your eyes or would be female. I chose to interpret it as the latter.

morriswalters wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:When people talk about biological sex of a person though, this is not what they're talking about; what they're doing is taking their cisnormative notions of gender and calling it sex. It's a lazy excuse to misgender people and is transphobic


Wikipedia. Sorry I'm lazy.
Many animals and some plants have differences between the male and female sexes in size and appearance, a phenomenon called sexual dimorphism. Sex differences in humans include, generally, a larger size and more body hair in men; women have breasts, wider hips, and a higher body fat percentage. In other species, the differences may be more extreme, such as differences in coloration or bodyweight. In humans, biological sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia.[27]
Are you stating that this is incorrect?


Seeing as that citation is to a book entitled "choices in relationships - an introduction to marriage and the family", is not written by biologists, and that all the actual biologists I've spoken have told me that biological sex is based on gametes (as does the top of the article), yes. I am saying that that's wrong.

speising wrote:
Besides, as I mentioned earlier, and you seem to have glossed over, neither genitals nor chromosomes are relevant to the ability to piss standing up, they have standing urination devices for that now (and many soft packers can also be used or modified to be used as standing urination devices).

So yeah, whether someone wants and is able to pee standing up is intricately tied to their gender.

those two paragraphs are contradictory. you just said that women can pee with a device (or a little practice, btw.). whether someone needs that or has a built in device is entirely a physical thing, and i hear there are cis females who like to do that, so where does gender even com in here?

the truth is that women can feel uncomfortable if someone who looks like a man is in their restroom. it's unreasonable to expect everyone to conduct a thorough survey of everyones sexual and gender preferences everytime they enter a restroom, it's impossible to know these intricacies from looks alone, and perverts could even use gender based rules to sneak into their preys rooms.


I know people with vulvas can pee standing up without a urination device, but afaik, it's not possible to do so without removing some clothing.

They're not contradictory because I didn't say that people wanting to pee standing up was solely due to gender. Lots of trans men experience a lot of dysphoria around their ability to pee standing up because society makes it a big part of what it means to be a man. As such, if toilets were split into urinals and cubicles, you'd get a lot higher a proportion of trans men using the urinals than cis women. You'd also get a much lower proportion of trans women using the urinals (because many trans women find peeing standing up induces dysphoria). This is what I mean when I say it's intricately tied to gender.

The key point is that if someone tells you they're in the toilet for them, they know a hell of a lot better than you whether that's correct.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:22 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:Seeing as that citation is to a book entitled "choices in relationships - an introduction to marriage and the family", is not written by biologists, and that all the actual biologists I've spoken have told me that biological sex is based on gametes (as does the top of the article), yes. I am saying that that's wrong.
HUMAN SEXUAL DIFFERENTIATION
Fetal sexual differentiation is a very complicated series of events actively programmed, at appropriate critical periods of fetal life, which involves both genetic and hormonal factors leading to the sexual dimorphism observed at birth (Table 1). Sexual differentiation is achieved at midgestation. Genetic factors and hormonal factors will alternate in this chain of programmed transformations of the primary gonads, the internal sex structures and the external genitalia. Sex chromosomes promote the development and the differentiation of the primary gonad but the decisive influences are the presence or absence of testosterone and of antimüllerian hormone production by the testis. Femaleness results from the absence of any masculinizing genetic factor or hormone acting during the critical period of differentiation. Brain and hypothalamic sexual identities are mainly acquired during postnatal life. Gender and behaviour identities are markedly influenced by psychosocial imprinting.

Sexual differentiation is conformed in the human during four successive steps: the constitution of the genetic sex, the differentiation of the gonads, the differentiation of the internal and the external genital tractus and the differentiation of the brain and the hypothalamus.

That would be a Doctor of some sort. I tire of people who say there is no difference. I don't like that fool in my home state, he's a moron. I don't like the other extreme either. I'm all for unisex bathrooms, and I am certain that that culture will adapt. But we aren't there yet, for what I consider some very valid reasons.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Derek » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:44 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Wait, wait, what? Are shared space toilets a thing in the US? As in, 1 room with several toilets? I've never heard of that before. That'd make me extremely uncomfortable, regardless of the gender of the person sharing the toilet with me.

We have toilets in stalls and urinals not in stalls. Most people do not consider stalls to be separate rooms (especially since the walls don't even to all the way to the floor or ceiling in the US). And urinals and other amenities are definitely not in individual rooms. I've been to Europe several times and I know it's not that different there, other than stalls being a bit more closed off.

Anyway over here in NL I don't have a big problem with going to the woman's bathroom myself, if all the men's toilets are occupied. It's never been remarked upon, and I've seen plenty of men do the same (the opposite is rarer, but that's because it's much rarer for there to be queues in front of the women's bathroom).

That's odd, in the US it's almost always the women's bathroom that has a line.

stickler
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:40 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby stickler » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:19 pm UTC

Forgetting everything else, and no matter what the motivation - if you are willing to go to the effort (and risk) of cross dressing then I'm not going to stop you from peeing where you feel comfortable.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby DSenette » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:58 pm UTC

speising wrote:
Besides, as I mentioned earlier, and you seem to have glossed over, neither genitals nor chromosomes are relevant to the ability to piss standing up, they have standing urination devices for that now (and many soft packers can also be used or modified to be used as standing urination devices).

So yeah, whether someone wants and is able to pee standing up is intricately tied to their gender.

those two paragraphs are contradictory. you just said that women can pee with a device (or a little practice, btw.). whether someone needs that or has a built in device is entirely a physical thing, and i hear there are cis females who like to do that, so where does gender even com in here?

the truth is that women can feel uncomfortable if someone who looks like a man is in their restroom. it's unreasonable to expect everyone to conduct a thorough survey of everyones sexual and gender preferences everytime they enter a restroom, it's impossible to know these intricacies from looks alone, and perverts could even use gender based rules to sneak into their preys rooms.

forcing trans people to use the restroom that coordinates to their genitalia would actually result a lot more in someone who looks like a man being in the women's restroom than it would to reduce it. the likelihood of a trans woman, who is not currently attempting to present as a woman (like, early stages of transition, or whatever, where they're not in women's clothes etc.. etc.. etc..) wanting to find their way in to a woman's restroom is pretty slim. where as a trans man who would be forced by law to go to the women's room would likely be in men's garb, with a beard, no visible breasts, etc.. etc... etc...
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:08 pm UTC

No one should give a shit about in which bathrooms you give a shit.

Ok that needs more wordsmithing. Suggestions?

Don't give a shit where you give a shit
Everybody poops
Don't be a shithead about using the head
Shut your trap, we need to crap
I don't want to hear you moan, while I'm using the throne

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby eSOANEM » Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:20 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Seeing as that citation is to a book entitled "choices in relationships - an introduction to marriage and the family", is not written by biologists, and that all the actual biologists I've spoken have told me that biological sex is based on gametes (as does the top of the article), yes. I am saying that that's wrong.
HUMAN SEXUAL DIFFERENTIATION
Fetal sexual differentiation is a very complicated series of events actively programmed, at appropriate critical periods of fetal life, which involves both genetic and hormonal factors leading to the sexual dimorphism observed at birth (Table 1). Sexual differentiation is achieved at midgestation. Genetic factors and hormonal factors will alternate in this chain of programmed transformations of the primary gonads, the internal sex structures and the external genitalia. Sex chromosomes promote the development and the differentiation of the primary gonad but the decisive influences are the presence or absence of testosterone and of antimüllerian hormone production by the testis. Femaleness results from the absence of any masculinizing genetic factor or hormone acting during the critical period of differentiation. Brain and hypothalamic sexual identities are mainly acquired during postnatal life. Gender and behaviour identities are markedly influenced by psychosocial imprinting.

Sexual differentiation is conformed in the human during four successive steps: the constitution of the genetic sex, the differentiation of the gonads, the differentiation of the internal and the external genital tractus and the differentiation of the brain and the hypothalamus.

That would be a Doctor of some sort. I tire of people who say there is no difference. I don't like that fool in my home state, he's a moron. I don't like the other extreme either. I'm all for unisex bathrooms, and I am certain that that culture will adapt. But we aren't there yet, for what I consider some very valid reasons.


That paper is specifically talking about genetic sex and highlighting dimorphic characteristics associated with them. It is not defining something as broad or all encompassing as "sex" or "biological sex".

There are many different factors which could all reasonably be called biological sex because they are well correlated with gender along with why they're imperfect:

gametes - hard to determine and potentially complicated in intersex people who've been subjected to non-consensual infant surgery

chromosomes - chromosomal intersex conditions and androgen insensitivity syndrome

dominant sex hormone - again, various intersex conditions, occasional doping scandals in athletics and trans people on hormones; also various endocrine conditions due to damaged or poorly developed glands.

genitals - many babies are born with genitals that the doctor present doesn't think are clearly a penis or vagina. These babies are often operated on, sometimes without the parents' knowledge, usually to produce a vulva because it's easier to construct than a penis. Some micropenises have the urethra appearing below the penis as if the penis was a clitoris and some macroclitorises have urethras running through them. In addition, trans people may have had surgery.

various secondary sex characteristics such as breasts, facial hair, other body hair - inconsistent even amongst cis people, lots of endocrine conditions can lead to women growing facial hair and more body hair than usual.

and the list goes on.


None of these things are binary and for each of them it's easy to find examples of where they don't match the "sex" of the person as most people would judge it.

Usually, what people actually mean when they say what "biological sex" are you is what sex that person was assigned at birth. In practice, this lies closest to genitals (because most people are assigned male if the doctor present thinks their junk looks most like a penis and female if they think it looks more like a vulva) but this is not always the case (cf. people with micropenises and macroclitorises).

Referring to these things as "male" or "female" causes significant harm to trans people, intersex people and other people who do not clearly fall into one of those categories for a given definition of sex because it's gaslighting and tells them that they are wrong about who they are and this sort of denial of identity is responsible for the disproportionate suicides of trans people.

If you must call them sex, be specific about what you mean, say "genital sex", "chromosomal sex", "gametic sex" etc. Even better, just be clear about what you mean (e.g. "people with only one X chromosome are at higher risk of colour blindness" or "people cervices should get screening for cervical cancer").
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:45 pm UTC

speising wrote:the truth is that women can feel uncomfortable if someone who looks like a man is in their restroom.
Then women who identify as women and were assigned female at birth and have vaginas and XX chromosomes, but who for whatever reason "look like men", shouldn't be allowed in women's restrooms either.

and perverts could even use gender based rules to sneak into their preys rooms.
It's not like there's a blood-test lock to get into a restroom that only lets you in if you have the right chromosomes or hormones. Whoever wants to can pretty much already walk into whichever room they want without much trouble.

If perverts are your concern, enforce rules about doing perverted things. Privately relieving yourself in one bathroom or another and bothering no one else is not perverted and is not cause for any legitimate concern.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby cphite » Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:47 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:@poochyena

No. Male != penis and female != vagina.

This notion that there are exactly two sexes, that they line up exactly with genitals and that a person's sex or gender are fixed is bullshit and an idea which was not shared with much of the world in the pre-colonial era and, at that point, was actually fairly new to European culture.


And yet, for the vast majority of the population, that is exactly how people define male and female.

There is certainly room for debate on whether or not that is a good definition; but any attempt to argue that it's not the definition is, frankly, wishful thinking at best.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby cphite » Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:53 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:No one should give a shit about in which bathrooms you give a shit.

Ok that needs more wordsmithing. Suggestions?

Don't give a shit where you give a shit
Everybody poops
Don't be a shithead about using the head
Shut your trap, we need to crap
I don't want to hear you moan, while I'm using the throne


"All dumps are created equal."

Frankly, as long as you keep to yourself and remember to courtesy flush when necessary, I don't care who you are.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:53 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:@poochyena

No. Male != penis and female != vagina.

This notion that there are exactly two sexes, that they line up exactly with genitals and that a person's sex or gender are fixed is bullshit and an idea which was not shared with much of the world in the pre-colonial era and, at that point, was actually fairly new to European culture.


And yet, for the vast majority of the population, that is exactly how people define male and female.

There is certainly room for debate on whether or not that is a good definition; but any attempt to argue that it's not the definition is, frankly, wishful thinking at best.
That is how they think they define it, but it's not like the "vast" majority actually knows what everyone's genitals look like, and yet they're still perfectly comfortable assigning everyone else to exactly one of "male" or "female".
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Ormurinn » Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:57 pm UTC

We have gender neutral loos at my uni.

Men dont use them in case theres a woman in there, women don't use them in case there's a man in there. Theyre effectively trans-only toilets, and plumbing a toilet is a significant cost.

Now you could imply that that's just cause most men and women are prejudiced, but if were accounting for psychic harm done to transsexuals based on society viewing them as their apparent sex, it seems we should also account for the psychic harm done to ordinary people by eliminating sex segregated toilets.

Since transsexualism is so rare its probably better handled on an ad-hoc basis - this particular case is for schools right? As I recall schools tend to have staff toilets on the "single cubicle with a crapper" model. Seems the rare student who felt uncomfortable using their own sex's toilet could just ask dispensation to use staff Loo's.

The legislature should really have better things to do than make laws like this.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:33 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:If you must call them sex, be specific about what you mean, say "genital sex", "chromosomal sex", "gametic sex" etc. Even better, just be clear about what you mean (e.g. "people with only one X chromosome are at higher risk of colour blindness" or "people cervices should get screening for cervical cancer").
I address people according to what they look like. And if transsexuals are living as the gender they identify with, there isn't a toilet cam checking things out. But biology is what it is.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:47 pm UTC

I think around age 50, men start looking like old gay women. Assuming they don't have a beard and aren't going bald of course. So what gender a person looks like isn't always clear even if they aren't inter nor trans.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Derek » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:49 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Frankly, as long as you keep to yourself and remember to courtesy flush when necessary, I don't care who you are.

Is a courtesy flush any different from a normal flush?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:53 pm UTC

Courtesy flush is before you are done but the stuff in the pot stinks to high heaven so you get rid of some of it.

Bassoon
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:58 pm UTC
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Bassoon » Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:16 am UTC

Ormurinn wrote:Now you could imply that that's just cause most men and women are prejudiced, but if were accounting for psychic harm done to transsexuals based on society viewing them as their apparent sex, it seems we should also account for the psychic harm done to ordinary people by eliminating sex segregated toilets.


Let's place your quote in another context:

"Now you could imply that that's just cause most whites are prejudiced, but if were accounting for psychic harm done to blacks based on society viewing them as black, it seems we should also account for the psychic harm done to whites by eliminating race-segregated toilets."

That clearly doesn't sound right, and I think it works precisely the same way for cisgender people. Just because they're made uncomfortable by their inexperience with transgender people doesn't mean they should continue to be coddled. In the US, there was a ton of doomsaying about desegregating based on race, and it amounted to nothing. Zero. There is legitimate, well-documented evidence of the "psychic harm" that society causes transgender people to feel. Not so for the inverse. I've never heard of a cisgender person offing themselves because they saw someone who didn't look like their "supposed" gender. In fact, when cisgender people see someone who doesn't look like their "supposed" gender, often these people become the butt of jokes or are murdered.

Ormurinn wrote:Since transsexualism is so rare its probably better handled on an ad-hoc basis - this particular case is for schools right? As I recall schools tend to have staff toilets on the "single cubicle with a crapper" model. Seems the rare student who felt uncomfortable using their own sex's toilet could just ask dispensation to use staff Loo's.


It's not "so rare." It's difficult to tell how many transgender people there are precisely because of the way our society approaches sex and gender. I think it'd be best to promote a society where openness is key and we don't encourage members to off themselves because the rest of society insists they're gross and deserve to be segregated from the rest of the world.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:44 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I think around age 50, men start looking like old gay women. Assuming they don't have a beard and aren't going bald of course. So what gender a person looks like isn't always clear even if they aren't inter nor trans.
You just offended some gender or another.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby cphite » Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:12 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
cphite wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:@poochyena

No. Male != penis and female != vagina.

This notion that there are exactly two sexes, that they line up exactly with genitals and that a person's sex or gender are fixed is bullshit and an idea which was not shared with much of the world in the pre-colonial era and, at that point, was actually fairly new to European culture.


And yet, for the vast majority of the population, that is exactly how people define male and female.

There is certainly room for debate on whether or not that is a good definition; but any attempt to argue that it's not the definition is, frankly, wishful thinking at best.
That is how they think they define it, but it's not like the "vast" majority actually knows what everyone's genitals look like, and yet they're still perfectly comfortable assigning everyone else to exactly one of "male" or "female".


You don't have to have an exact knowledge of a person's genitals to assign them as male or female.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:17 am UTC

cphite wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
cphite wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:@poochyena

No. Male != penis and female != vagina.

This notion that there are exactly two sexes, that they line up exactly with genitals and that a person's sex or gender are fixed is bullshit and an idea which was not shared with much of the world in the pre-colonial era and, at that point, was actually fairly new to European culture.


And yet, for the vast majority of the population, that is exactly how people define male and female.

There is certainly room for debate on whether or not that is a good definition; but any attempt to argue that it's not the definition is, frankly, wishful thinking at best.
That is how they think they define it, but it's not like the "vast" majority actually knows what everyone's genitals look like, and yet they're still perfectly comfortable assigning everyone else to exactly one of "male" or "female".
You don't have to have an exact knowledge of a person's genitals to assign them as male or female.
You do if you want to claim that's "exactly" how people define male or female.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Diadem » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:56 am UTC

Derek wrote:
Diadem wrote:Wait, wait, what? Are shared space toilets a thing in the US? As in, 1 room with several toilets? I've never heard of that before. That'd make me extremely uncomfortable, regardless of the gender of the person sharing the toilet with me.

We have toilets in stalls and urinals not in stalls. Most people do not consider stalls to be separate rooms (especially since the walls don't even to all the way to the floor or ceiling in the US). And urinals and other amenities are definitely not in individual rooms. I've been to Europe several times and I know it's not that different there, other than stalls being a bit more closed off.

Well urinals sure, they are commonly in the same room here in Europe too. Sometimes with little screens between them, sometimes not even that. But toilets are always in their own stall, even at the lowest end of the budget. I guess if you don't define that as a separate room then that's where part of the confusion comes from. The stall might indeed not be more than a few screens, but it's always sufficiently screened off that no one can see you. Even Zamfir's example of his "trucker's toilet" has at least that. Is that not the case in the US?

Derek wrote:
Anyway over here in NL I don't have a big problem with going to the woman's bathroom myself, if all the men's toilets are occupied. It's never been remarked upon, and I've seen plenty of men do the same (the opposite is rarer, but that's because it's much rarer for there to be queues in front of the women's bathroom).

That's odd, in the US it's almost always the women's bathroom that has a line.

Well it may be personal bias. For example the floor where I work has 1 men's bathroom with 2 stalls, and 1 women's bathroom with 2 stalls. But of the around 40 people working here only 10-20% is female.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Derek » Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:34 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Well urinals sure, they are commonly in the same room here in Europe too. Sometimes with little screens between them, sometimes not even that. But toilets are always in their own stall, even at the lowest end of the budget. I guess if you don't define that as a separate room then that's where part of the confusion comes from. The stall might indeed not be more than a few screens, but it's always sufficiently screened off that no one can see you. Even Zamfir's example of his "trucker's toilet" has at least that. Is that not the case in the US?

Yeah, toilets are always in stalls with three walls and a door. But most people wouldn't call this a separate room. Everything outside of those stalls is not private, and most people don't like sharing that space with people of that opposite gender.

Derek wrote:Well it may be personal bias. For example the floor where I work has 1 men's bathroom with 2 stalls, and 1 women's bathroom with 2 stalls. But of the around 40 people working here only 10-20% is female.

Sure, if you're in a place that has a significant gender bias. My workplace is similar. But in most public restrooms, if one of the rooms has a line it's going to be the women's restroom.

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3071
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby PAstrychef » Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:10 pm UTC

Vaguely off topic, but there are often lines at women's restrooms because it takes longer to use a stall than a urinal and women tend to do more grooming after using the toilet. In the 1980s there was a study published showing that women are in a public restroom about 30% longer than men are. Readjusting ones clothing, fixing makeup and hair-it all takes time.
If stalls had better enclosure, (why stalls in America have such short walls is beyond me) then no one should care about the genetalia of the person inside. I am often called sir, because of my dress and demeanor. But I am female, in preference and in plumbing.
For anyone who says "I calss them as I sees them" and claims to know people's gender or sex by looking at their clothes-you have no idea how often you're just plain wrong. You use a few social cues about things like hair length and style of dress and use of cosmetics to assess, at a distance, a strangers presentation of gender. For a good show of how wrong that assessment can be, go visit Thailand and see if you can spot the ladyboys. ( That's the term used in Thailand)
If I was to put on a crucifix and a Jesus loves me tee shirt, people could think I am a Christian. Alas, I am not. That's about how accurate using clothing to asses gender is.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Sizik » Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:44 pm UTC

PAstrychef wrote:(why stalls in America have such short walls is beyond me)


Presumably to discourage people from having sex or doing drugs in them.
she/they
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:10 pm UTC

They build stalls that way because builders and the people paying the bills are cheap. Panels install quickly and are easy to replace once they have been vandalized so much they can't be repaired. In addition it makes the floors easier to maintain for people who have to do it. Fewer corners to have to scrub. High end public facilities have been moving to totally enclosed stalls for some time.

@PAstrychef

Outer appearance has never been more than a heuristic. It's quick and in most cases the inner matches the expectations of the outer. And it doesn't need to be any better than that. I haven't seen or heard of any way to know without asking, assuming sex is the purpose.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:43 pm UTC

You can tell a lot about the book by its cover, like, what the author wants you to think about the book given the materials the author has to work with. You don't know if the author is being truthful of course; that thick book with the new textbook smell that says 'complex analysis' could be a romance novel for all you know.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby cphite » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:24 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
cphite wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
cphite wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:@poochyena

No. Male != penis and female != vagina.

This notion that there are exactly two sexes, that they line up exactly with genitals and that a person's sex or gender are fixed is bullshit and an idea which was not shared with much of the world in the pre-colonial era and, at that point, was actually fairly new to European culture.


And yet, for the vast majority of the population, that is exactly how people define male and female.

There is certainly room for debate on whether or not that is a good definition; but any attempt to argue that it's not the definition is, frankly, wishful thinking at best.
That is how they think they define it, but it's not like the "vast" majority actually knows what everyone's genitals look like, and yet they're still perfectly comfortable assigning everyone else to exactly one of "male" or "female".
You don't have to have an exact knowledge of a person's genitals to assign them as male or female.
You do if you want to claim that's "exactly" how people define male or female.


I propose that most people - who aren't being deliberately pedantic on an internet forum - would not require an exact description.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:42 pm UTC

Yeah, but then people should acknowledge that they don't have an exact definition and that all they're actually doing is making a guess based on how someone dresses, their hair, any facial hair, height, build, breasts etc.

It is literally a guess and it isn't a guess about their genitals because I'm pretty sure you happily choose what pronouns to use for a stranger you meet without ever imagining what their genitals look like.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:42 pm UTC

You should find it illuminating that the discussion turned to bathrooms.
eSOANEM wrote:It is literally a guess and it isn't a guess about their genitals because I'm pretty sure you happily choose what pronouns to use for a stranger you meet without ever imagining what their genitals look like.
And why wouldn't that be true? Of course you don't go around asking what's under that tight pair of pants. In most cases it's purely an intellectual exercise. But at some point in time, if sexual relations are involved, the answer will be revealed. And at some point in most peoples life it will come to that.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby HungryHobo » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:04 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:..[cruft about tiny fractions who aren't perfectly classified by any single classifier]...


People are guessing but in the real world, in practical terms they're insanely good at guessing based on little more than a number of proxies. (getting it right about 99.5+ percent of the time.)
They use a lot of characteristics as a proxy for genitals in the same way that "having a heartbeat" is merely a proxy for the catagories of "alive" and "dead".

If someone was able to pick the winning sports team more than 99% of the time based on some system, any system, we'd call it more than a "guess".

The mere fact that there's a tiny fraction who aren't correctly classified based on a particular classifier doesn't mean the categories don't exist.

People don't have an exact definition of a lot of things. Put 100 biology professors in a room and they can argue all night about what constitutes life/not-life and there's few categories more basic than that.

Taxable income vs non taxable income, murder vs justified self defence, red vs blue, part of america vs part of mexico.

Normally people pick some tiebreaker. perhaps the courts, perhaps a doctors opinion, perhaps the state of a particular map in a particular year. Not all tiebreakers are perfect and there'll be a tiny fraction of cases that don't fall perfectly into one category or the other. always. always always no matter that and that in no way shape or form negates the existence of the categories.

A lot of quite reasonable people would, quite reasonably, prefer the tiebreaker for male/female/other be the persons own opinion. I quite agree with this as it's the most pleasant option that's nicest to the most people.

The politeness principle only requires that if someone personally disagrees with their classification based on the classifier you happen to be using, that you use their personal belief about themselves as the tiebreaker. If they say they're female/male/other and aren't obviously taking the piss for shits and giggles you politely treat them as the pronoun they ask to be treated as.

The politeness principle does not apply to some cases where there's a good reason for a given classifier, the olympics use hormone levels because they're most relevant to sports ability. your feelings don't matter when it comes to testosterone levels and their effect on muscles.

personally I don't care who uses the male/female changing room at my local pool but quite a lot of people consider a weighted classifier based mostly on genitals and partly on secondary sexual characteristics to be important in the matter.
Last edited by HungryHobo on Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:19 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby JudeMorrigan » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:07 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
cphite wrote:
So for example, a woman who's been a victim of sexual assault and who might be nervous (or perhaps terrified) about using the restroom with a man present; she's just a transphobic arsehole.

They're a transphobic arsehole if they think a trans woman being there is having a man there.


Fear is rarely rational, especially if it's based on traumatic experience.

I am reminded of a video shown to us during a class I took at university entitled Theories and Dynamics and Racism and Oppression. It was a clip of some 70s talk show. Donahue, maybe. There was a lady on the show who had been assaulted by a group of black men and was, as a result, deathly afraid of individuals of that race. She was very upset about a black family that had recently moved into her neighborhood. She honestly couldn't understand why her desire to live in a white-only neighborhood was unreasonable or shouldn't be catered to.

In short, it's true that fear is rarely rational. That does not, however, necessarily make it right.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:12 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Wait, why do we even still have separate bathrooms by gender?


This.

Thesh wrote:So putting up a sign that says "Women" prevents a man from walking in there, and thus makes the woman safer?


I can't imagine how it would. A sign is merely informative, it's kind of rubbish for actually stopping anything. Surely anyone who wants to invade privacy of others will still be able to do so. If they only wish to invade the privacy of one gender, then split bathrooms would seem to actually make it easier for them, as otherwise it'd be something like a 50/50 miss rate.

Ever been somewhere where one gender's bathrooms are overloaded to the point where the other's get used by both? It's no big deal. Same as when unisex bathrooms exist. In the end, not a huge deal. Maybe folks would want the privacy barriers to be slightly larger. *shrug* Not really a big deal space-wise.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:25 pm UTC

There's already a "labeling gender" thread, so to bring this back to the original "wrong" bathroom issue: Even if it's only 1 in 200 people, they presumably go to the bathroom multiple times a day, and so it only takes one or two transphobic individuals in a school or workplace for the probability of eventually running into this potential lawsuit approaches 100%. (And I suspect the rate of transphobes is much higher than that.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby HungryHobo » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:40 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:There's already a "labeling gender" thread, so to bring this back to the original "wrong" bathroom issue: Even if it's only 1 in 200 people, they presumably go to the bathroom multiple times a day, and so it only takes one or two transphobic individuals in a school or workplace for the probability of eventually running into this potential lawsuit approaches 100%. (And I suspect the rate of transphobes is much higher than that.)


My guess is that the discussion will rapidly stray back into vaguely related areas since it's too easy for the majority here to agree that, classifiers aside, the law in question is horrible in pretty much every way and the real life solutions too simple such as having a few singleton unisex toilets in the school along with any male/female ones, (which most schools already have since disabled toilets are often gender neutral), teachers and administrators discretely taking into account vulnerable students with gender identity issues along with a reasonable level of sanity on the part of teachers.

So it's going to rapidly turn into a platform for the far far left to argue with the far left and the merely left.
(Category arguments are what the very liberal communities degrade into because they're good for the "more left than thou" thing.)

On conservative boards any discussion related to this story is probably focusing on hypothetical of crowds of loutish teenage boys charging into girls restrooms and/or changing rooms and distressing the girls combined with some kind of strawman of the liberal position that would require that such behaviour be ignored if the boys shout "we're girls!" first. Any news stories won't mention victims or underdogs, they'll just be something hyperbolic that makes it seem like a 1 sided issue like "liberals oppose law to ban men from girls school changing rooms"

Topics that people can mostly agree on too easily don't tend to go very viral, if a politically divisive news story goes very very viral on facebook/tumbler/reddit it's probably a really really bad case for your side. (and theirs)
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:48 pm UTC

I can guarantee that any boy that goes into the ladies room will get a bunch of rumors about how he secretly wishes his name was "Carol" and will be bullied because teenagers are awesome like that. So boys pretending to be trans to use the ladies room just to peep isn't that serious an issue.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:14 pm UTC

It never was. The principal was okay with it, the parent council was ok with it, and the school board was on board.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:28 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:There's already a "labeling gender" thread, so to bring this back to the original "wrong" bathroom issue: Even if it's only 1 in 200 people, they presumably go to the bathroom multiple times a day, and so it only takes one or two transphobic individuals in a school or workplace for the probability of eventually running into this potential lawsuit approaches 100%. (And I suspect the rate of transphobes is much higher than that.)


My guess is that the discussion will rapidly stray back into vaguely related areas since it's too easy for the majority here to agree that, classifiers aside, the law in question is horrible in pretty much every way and the real life solutions too simple such as having a few singleton unisex toilets in the school along with any male/female ones, (which most schools already have since disabled toilets are often gender neutral), teachers and administrators discretely taking into account vulnerable students with gender identity issues along with a reasonable level of sanity on the part of teachers.

So it's going to rapidly turn into a platform for the far far left to argue with the far left and the merely left.
(Category arguments are what the very liberal communities degrade into because they're good for the "more left than thou" thing.)


Meh. I'm not very leftist at all. Centrist, at most, though Libertarian is more accurate. Opinions aren't JUST about two tribes.

Topics that people can mostly agree on too easily don't tend to go very viral, if a politically divisive news story goes very very viral on facebook/tumbler/reddit it's probably a really really bad case for your side. (and theirs)


Well, that or outrage. If something seems overtly injust to a great many people, then it may go viral without being inherently divisive. I woke up to roughly a billion facebook messages criticizing Michael Moore this morning, and precisely none supporting him(thanks to what was evidently a comment calling snipers cowards). I normally get a pretty good spread of both sides ranting when something actually divisive shows up, so I suspect that there isn't a strong pro-insulting faction here. And hell, maybe even leftists are a little tired of Michael Moore's antics, and wish he would kinda go away, and maybe take Ann Coulter with him. Presumably they'll live happily ever after.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby Derek » Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:28 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:They build stalls that way because builders and the people paying the bills are cheap. Panels install quickly and are easy to replace once they have been vandalized so much they can't be repaired. In addition it makes the floors easier to maintain for people who have to do it. Fewer corners to have to scrub. High end public facilities have been moving to totally enclosed stalls for some time.

It also seems to improve lighting. My experience with floor-to-ceiling stalls is that they're usually dimmer than I would expect.

I suspect that fairly few people would care about sharing stalls with doors/walls covering from one to seven feet from the floor. Closing those gaps on the sides is much more important, I think.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:54 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Well, that or outrage. If something seems overtly injust to a great many people, then it may go viral without being inherently divisive.


Outrage grows strongest when both sides have something to sink their teeth into, back and forth, back and forth, growing along the way and as such I fully expect that particular event to spread briefly then die as the other groups feel little need to fight about it.

We saw a similar pattern with the news story about the 7 year old girl being shot by police. brief burn but since the other side doesn't bite and just sort of mumble about bad apples the fight dies along with the story.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Welcome to Kentucky

Postby leady » Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:53 pm UTC

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/un ... ators.html

relevent to the discussion. Also I do like sitting back as the left eats itself :)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests