Republicans decide to eat one of their own !

18 posts in this topic

Posted

Richmond Virginia 1-19-2017 . In the Virginia general assembly , religious Zealot Northern Virginia Senator Bob Marshall has his Butt handed to him on a platter by his own party !

Panel votes down bathroom bill

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The irony 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The counter argument to this is the concern about perverts, etc. It's too bad that transgender answer especially the gender fluid folk is a casualty here. The question is, how do you protect against the perverts, etc. 

Edited by Archangel
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The counter argument to this is the concern about perverts, etc. It's too bad that transgender answer especially the gender fluid folk is a casualty here. The question is, how do you protect against the perverts, etc. 

​Because we're not mindless cattle who cannot distinguish the difference between bad and good intent.  The intent to attack someone vs the intent to pee.  Furthermore, the arguement that the bathroom bills will 'protect the public' rely on a problematic premise the conservatives have been telling me for years, criminals don't follow the laws!  Gun criminals will buy illegal weapons regardless of the law (Despite the fallacies with this argument), the people arguing for these laws cannot now tell me that the criminals will magically obey THESE laws, and ignore THOSE laws.  Also, these laws do nothing to protect people from violent members of their own gender, and in a great many cases leave vulnerable eldlerly, disabled, and young people alone and at risk because their current caregiver does not share the same gender and cannot enter the room with them.  Sex crime is a pathologically compulsive behavior, not a choice like picking up a gun, so a law is likely to do less to deal with those people.  There is ZERO credible public protection from these laws.  Not to mention that public bathrooms aren't a row of open toilets, each of us inside those rooms has a further layer of privacy (in both, although men do share urinals, they still have stalls for the other stuff they can opt to use for either) and no one is required to pee out in open view of others if they aren't willing to (or in the case of women's room, at all).

As a mother I'm very familiar with this, to a certain age, you can bring your son into the bathroom with you.  But then the point hits where you can't, and that 8, 9, 10 year old child cannot defend himself against an adult attacker, and I as his mother outside a closed room would be unlikely to know in time that he is being attacked to know to summon help.  And fathers out alone with their daughters are in an even worse position, as men's rooms do have open pee stations so that father doesn't have that option to take his daughter in with him without being at risk of legal censure for minor corruption. I know there is a great social fallacy that women are 'safe', but it is a fallacy.  Women are rapists.  Women are molesters.  Women are violent.  Women are murderers.  Women's brains are NOT immune to the pyschologial malfunctions either. 

We protect our society from perverts by being honest about what we are talking about, and what we can do about it, and using our intelligence to understand we can punish those of any gender who go into a bathroom to harm someone without causing pain or harm to those who just want to use the restroom for it's intended purpose.  We can re-enable the caregivers, parents, and security guards to protect people from being assaulted in them.  And we can understand the unfortunately reality, there is no true 100% safety and teach personal alertness and what to do in case of an attack by a crazed or violent person.  The reality of the gun control argument at this point is that NONE of us are safe, the guns are all over in the hands of people with every intent, and we live with that risk every day.  We have the highest gun death rate in the world, and we continue on with that and don't care that it's not just a matter of if you like guns or not, but public safety.  But then there is this curious turnaround where trans people want to be safe in the bathroom and just pee in the place that is socially appropriate for them that somehow we will unleash a torrent of perverts in bathrooms, which is bad, but a torrent of dead corpses including children is okay.  It's a weird societal concept, that.  The details are different, the underlying mechanisms are the same.  Violent people will be violent regardless of laws, and dealing with that reality and banding together and helping those in trouble instead of looking the other way is how we defend against perverts. 

Transgender people aren't the only casualties with these laws, so are parents and professional caregivers.  But the media spotlight doesn't want to shine on that reality, because they want parents to buy into the 'we are keeping you safe, vote for our bigotry' laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The counter argument to this is the concern about perverts, etc. It's too bad that transgender answer especially the gender fluid folk is a casualty here. The question is, how do you protect against the perverts, etc. 

​We all have fears of being hurt, but the pervert argument about the bathroom bills doesn't hold water. First, no one has been able to specifically identify any instances of violence perpetrated by either a transwoman or transman in any restrooms, public or private. Second, what is being done now about perverts in restrooms that would have to be curtailed or reduced due to welcoming trans people into the restroom that corresponds with their gender? Third, what's to stop a cisgender man from donning a dress and entering a women's room to attack a girl or woman? Answer: nothing, either with or without transwomen being present.

This bathroom issue has similarities to the Rosa Parks situation where she refused to give up her seat on the bus just because she is black. It's all about trying to keep transpeople down, out of sight, and out of awareness. To deny our existence and validity. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks Briannah and Emma for educating me here and giving something to chew on. Again thank you for pointing out other people that are a causalities. I didn't buy their argument but I could not defend our side here. 

My knee jerk reaction were the perverts and me hearing that women were being extremely uncomfortable about a cisgender men using the women's bathroom, which brings me to Emma's third point, what about legit crossdressers? Which bathroom should they use? That was why I was thinking the issue of the importance passing for them. 

I don't know about denying the existence and validity of transgender. Transgender does have a right to exist and to be validated. Please help me build a bridge here. The first thing I need to do is gain understanding. 

Edited by Archangel
I saw missing words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As a P.S. "legit crossdressers" crossdressers that are out in public that are trying to pass minding their own business, etc. And Cisgender men "donning women's clothing to gain access" or just walking in a women's only wearing mens clothes saying that "I identify as female". I am not saying that you are mindless, etc. I  just don't know how to communicate the distinction and want to change that. 

Edited by Archangel
The post needed to be rewritten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As a P.S. "legit crossdressers" crossdressers that are out in public that are trying to pass minding their own business, etc. And Cisgender men "donning women's clothing to gain access" or just walking in a women's only wearing mens clothes saying that "I identify as female". I am not saying that you are mindless, etc. I  just don't know how to communicate the distinction and want to change that. 

1.  As far as I know, there's never been a case of a "legit crossdresser" going into a women's space to harrass, molest, attack, rape, etc

2.  If a man dressed in men's clothing has it in him to do harm to a woman or a male or female child, he's gonna do it... and chances are, he's gonna do it in some place secluded, and usually on his own turf - not in a public place where the chances of getting caught are very good

3.  If a trans woman is going to go into a women's space, chances are, she is NOT going to be wearing men's clothing.

Now... all the big fuss and hullabaloo is ALWAYS about a "man in a dress" going into a women's restroom.   What would you think if you saw this guy go into a women's restroom?  >>>

IJustNeedToPee-x400.jpg

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That was what I was thinking. I was just trying to distinguish the two when I am talking, posting, etc. wthout having to go into a long winded explaination. I try to practice the bevity is the soul of wit. My thoughts are to keep to standards of common decency and/or respect and you will be fine. That is the basis of the "Christian right" or oposition is. The source of the resistance from this group is misunderstanding of the misalignment of the mind and body with respect to transgender. Erica Ravenwood has the answer to that problem. Outreach to and educate the willing from the group. Over time you develop allies, acceptance, etc. The pain in the butt a that is the results are not immediate.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But what about the guy pictured above?  What would you think...what would you do... if you saw him enter a women's restroom?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I would challenge him if that is what you are getting at, especially if he had his phone out like in the picture.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As I mentioned in my post above, "all the big fuss and hullabaloo is ALWAYS about a "man in a dress" going into a women's restroom."

The man in the picture is Michael C. Hughes.  He is a transgender MAN.  The very type of person that these politicians don't think about.

Now...I'm playing devil's advocate here.  I don't know the details of Hughes' transition - for all I know he could be transitioned up to and including "bottom surgery," or gender confirming surgery.   He may also possess an amended birth certificate, or perhaps was issued a new BC with the proper sex marker.  But there are many trans men who look like any other man, who have not had bottom surgery (GCS), and it is those men I wanted to bring to your attention, and the kind of man that needs to be brought to the attention of lawmakers, too.

The reason the men need to be considered - there are a few states that will not make ANY changes to a person's BC.  In such states, I'm sure it's difficult to get the sex marker on other legal documents and ID changed.  In some states that do/will change a person's BC, a requirement is that the person has to have had GCS, and provide proof that they have.  

So if a guy is unlucky enough to have been born in a state that either will not change the marker on his BC, or will not change the marker unless he's had bottom surgery, laws like those in NC, and like the one that was just flushed down the crapper in VA, would REQUIRE that HE use the WOMEN'S restroom.

Here are a few possibilities if a trans guy, looking like Hughes was to go into a women's room:
    1.  All hell would break loose in that bathroom
    2.  There will surely be one woman seek out authorities, or
    3.  Some woman, who's husband is waiting for her just around the corner, will run to him to tell him some guy is in the women's room - he might blow a fuse and decide to play the Knight in Shining Armour and run to the rescue of the women
    4.  He could potentially be dragged out of that bathroom by men in the area who believe they need to protect the women-folk and children, and hold him until authorities arrive, or
    5. believe they have the right to beat him into the cracks in the floor
...and other possible scenarios - I think perhaps (I hope) you get the picture.

And as is obvious, by your own reply above, "I would challenge him," you never considered the mayhem that could ensue, because all anyone is EVER concerned with is a trans woman... or as the fear-mongers call her, "a man in a dress," or a "pervert" out to take advantage of women and children.

Now that I've pointed out what could happen to a trans man who looks like any other man, think of what a trans woman would endure, if she were forced into the men's bathroom (something else the lawmakers are not able to wrap their tiny little heads around), looking like ANY OTHER WOMAN.

Just wanted to offer you food for thought  ;)  And a little more understanding of the situation, too.
-Mike

Note:  The reason you see Hughes with a camera, it was a campaign of sorts, to bring this very thing to the attention of the public - the fanatical fear-mongers are so busy labelling trans women as perverts looking to do harm, and not thinking about what would happen if trans men were forced into women's spaces.  The camera was to record the event, and everyone present at the time was advised as to what was going on.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thanks Michael, you nailed it. 

The problem is... there is no real problem with trans men and women in men's and women's restrooms. It's all a tempest in a teapot, creating hysteria and spawning fear in an attempt to disenfranchise transgender people and out of awareness. 

Unlike racist bigotry and misogyny, transphobia benefits from the fact that most transgender people are not even detectable. So even though we are a minority of the LGBT minority, the trans people who can even be identified as trans are fewer and father between. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thanks Mike, transgender men truly seem to be invisible men. This makes me feel like I am in a hall mirrors with this issue. Especially when transgender men angle comes to play. With that said, what are some guidelines that I need to follow when I am with trans people out in public? I want to be able to have their back.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As a P.S. "legit crossdressers" crossdressers that are out in public that are trying to pass minding their own business, etc. And Cisgender men "donning women's clothing to gain access" or just walking in a women's only wearing mens clothes saying that "I identify as female". I am not saying that you are mindless, etc. I  just don't know how to communicate the distinction and want to change that. 

​I guess here is where we both sorta step on "The THIRD" rail . First , I have little to do with the Gender Fluid and the Cross dressers . To me , they aren't TRULY Transgender . If you're going to LEGITIMATELY transition , you have to accept the hormones . You simply can't play at being transgender and expect some of we "OLD TIMERS " to accept you .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Granted that crossdressers aren't transgender. But there can there be a little leeway here for the crossdressers if they pass and act respectfully toward women. After all they gotta relieve themselves too. Or is there no such thing, due to the award factor. I can see it both ways.

Edited by Archangel
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sorry, Ellen and I disagree. Crossedressers as well as others who do not transition via hormones, living publicly as their inner gender, or otherwise, may very well be included within the transgender umbrella. Sure, there are crossdressers who do it on a lark or for exhibition or thrills, and they would likely be the first to say that they aren't transgender. There are many, however, who do not transition, who are regardless of that, most definitely transgender. 

For example, at this time I don't see myself transitioning. What am I, unless or until I do? My history, from preschool, speaks for itself, and if I choose not to transition for any reason whatsoever, that is my personal decision and concern, not anyone else's.

There is nothing to gain and lots to lose by arbitrarily deciding who is and who is not "truly" transgender. We need to be a community, not engender marginalization among ourselves.

Ellen is a very brave and outspoken woman of our community and I respect her greatly for that, I really do. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Archangel -

I don't want to take this thread too far off topic... but there are a few things that need to be explained to you before we can get back on track with bathroom bills since you are here to learn and broaden your understanding of humans --

1.  TRANSGENDER is an umbrella term used to bring together crossdressers, gender fluid, transsexuals, gender outlaws, androgynous, a-gender, non-binary and in some circles, the intersex, all together as one big happy little family, and is intended to mean anyone who does not strictly identity along the male/female binary system, or does not identify as the gender they were assigned at birth, or does not identify as either gender.  As far as crossdressers, it's just my opinion that ALL crossdressers are transsexual, just some don't want to admit it [yet], and could be why they are included under the transgender umbrella.  But let's not digress ...

2.  A person who identifies as the gender opposite of what they were labelled at birth based solely on genitalia, is uncomfortable with that genitalia, and needs to be seen as the opposite sex... is transsexual whether they medically transition or not
    a.  Not everyone can go on HRT, or hormone replacement therapy
    b.  Some do not wish to go on HRT, NOT because they are not transsexual or medically unable to, but some believe that it is not good for the body, dangerous, or a poison they can do without
    c.  Some never transition, or delay transition because they feel there are obligations in their life and/or social pressures that prevent them from doing so - that does NOT make them any less transsexual, or real

3.  That said, a transsexual does NOT have to be on HRT in order to legitimately transition.  There are transsexuals who physically and socially transition, meaning they dress and act as the sex/gender they identify with, living full-time as that gender

4.  People who cannot medically transition, and those who simply physically and socially transition are not just "playing" at being transsexual

5.  Transsexual does NOT equate to "real" or "genuine."  That one has physically, socially, medically and/or surgically transitioned does not make that person any more transsexual, "real" or "genuine" than one who has not, or can not.

6.  Transgender does NOT equate to "fake," "disgenuine" or "playing games," but instead as I mentioned above, is simply an "umbrella term."   Look at it this way:  There are Russians, Brits, Americans, Africans, Japanese, etc., but they are ALL people.  Different, each of them.  None of them are "playing at" being people, being human.  All different, with different cultures, but under the same big human "umbrella."

7.  On this board, ALL members are to be accepted for however they identify, respected for the people they are, and addressed with the appropriate pronouns OR by the pronouns they prefer.

-Michael

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now