Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
College & Pro Sports
BREAKING: NCAA says state of North Carolina will again be considered for championship hosting....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="takethepoints" data-source="post: 303021" data-attributes="member: 265"><p>You're right; I didn't see the earlier post.</p><p></p><p>Here's the problem with the anatomy angle. Suppose you have a person who identifies as transgendered and has had an orchiectomy. The person involved still has a ***** but no testicles and (usually) is in full hormone replacement. She may or may not decide to go on to full reassignment. Or suppose we are looking at someone who is in a full hormone replacement regime to the point that male sex organs are not functional. Both are living full time as females. What does an ordinance that forbids these people to use the "body exposing" facilities accomplish? And how, in heaven's name, would such a stricture be enforced without a full-scale assault on the privacy of all parties - including natural born women? </p><p></p><p>Well, you could say that it would spare some of the women involved embarrassment and that's probably true. I can't answer that objection clearly since I don't really know how women's locker rooms work and I haven't tried very hard to find out. Given the privacy concerns that most women I know have, however, I doubt if the transgender folks would be too eager to expose themselves to the curiosity of others. I never asked the two transgender people I know about that, however. </p><p></p><p>I think the anxiety that comes from the situation that isn't driven by ideological or religious concerns stems from three sources. First, there is concern that some of the transgender people will be lesbian in orientation. I don't see this as a problem myself since women seem to be able to handle this (or not) when it involves non-trans people and the problem is ubiquitous. Second, I think people are concerned that cross-dressers could invade women's facilities and press their attentions on women. Again, I don't think this is a valid concern. These people fall into two categories: they are either homosexual or they are closeted. The first group aren't interested in or sexually aroused by women and the second are extremely unlikely to publicly expose themselves. The final category is men who will dress as women and try to pass their way into women's facilities. This kind of behavior is pretty rare and most women can identify someone like this in a New York minute. But this already exists and there are laws to take care of it if anything develops. </p><p></p><p>That leaves the ideological and religious concerns that I think are the obvious drivers of the angst involved here. On the religious concerns the answer is obvious: this is a secular country and it's laws should address real problems, not enshrine religious principles. On the second, it is regrettable that we have allowed discomfort with modernity to be so thoroughly politicized. But there it is. Perhaps this whole unseemly episode will bring people who are, in general, unlikely to darken the door of a public exercise facility any more to think twice and leave the whole thing alone. Fat chance, I suppose.</p><p></p><p>Now that really does finish me on this.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="takethepoints, post: 303021, member: 265"] You're right; I didn't see the earlier post. Here's the problem with the anatomy angle. Suppose you have a person who identifies as transgendered and has had an orchiectomy. The person involved still has a ***** but no testicles and (usually) is in full hormone replacement. She may or may not decide to go on to full reassignment. Or suppose we are looking at someone who is in a full hormone replacement regime to the point that male sex organs are not functional. Both are living full time as females. What does an ordinance that forbids these people to use the "body exposing" facilities accomplish? And how, in heaven's name, would such a stricture be enforced without a full-scale assault on the privacy of all parties - including natural born women? Well, you could say that it would spare some of the women involved embarrassment and that's probably true. I can't answer that objection clearly since I don't really know how women's locker rooms work and I haven't tried very hard to find out. Given the privacy concerns that most women I know have, however, I doubt if the transgender folks would be too eager to expose themselves to the curiosity of others. I never asked the two transgender people I know about that, however. I think the anxiety that comes from the situation that isn't driven by ideological or religious concerns stems from three sources. First, there is concern that some of the transgender people will be lesbian in orientation. I don't see this as a problem myself since women seem to be able to handle this (or not) when it involves non-trans people and the problem is ubiquitous. Second, I think people are concerned that cross-dressers could invade women's facilities and press their attentions on women. Again, I don't think this is a valid concern. These people fall into two categories: they are either homosexual or they are closeted. The first group aren't interested in or sexually aroused by women and the second are extremely unlikely to publicly expose themselves. The final category is men who will dress as women and try to pass their way into women's facilities. This kind of behavior is pretty rare and most women can identify someone like this in a New York minute. But this already exists and there are laws to take care of it if anything develops. That leaves the ideological and religious concerns that I think are the obvious drivers of the angst involved here. On the religious concerns the answer is obvious: this is a secular country and it's laws should address real problems, not enshrine religious principles. On the second, it is regrettable that we have allowed discomfort with modernity to be so thoroughly politicized. But there it is. Perhaps this whole unseemly episode will bring people who are, in general, unlikely to darken the door of a public exercise facility any more to think twice and leave the whole thing alone. Fat chance, I suppose. Now that really does finish me on this. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who was Georgia Tech's starting QB in 2023?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
College & Pro Sports
BREAKING: NCAA says state of North Carolina will again be considered for championship hosting....
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top