A district judge in Wisconsin has sided with an 11-year-old trans girl over her use of the girls’ toilets and temporarily blocked school officials from preventing her access.
A district judge in Wisconsin has sided with an 11-year-old trans girl over her use of the girls’ toilets and temporarily blocked school officials from preventing her access.
Two things to ponder if you dont understand why people might answer “yes.”: Boys pissing in public on trees and in bushes is a normal thing, especially among circles expressing concern about a society that acknowledges trans people exist. Boys using toilets is a plus, at all ages. Second: every Porta potty in existence seems to operate with its gender neutrality without the same kind of panic. If you can square these two notions: Boys using a toilet isn’t odd, strange, or worth a moral panic. You might then see your question isn’t about toilets, and about gendered space and how important it is to have spaces that are exclusive and exclusionary based on something like gender, (or even… other things!)
Of course my point is about having separate spaces that are exclusive to the two sexes. Males commit the overwhelmingly large percentage of sex crimes. Giving males free access to women’s safe spaces is not going to end well.
You’re making the unnecessary leap of toilets>sex. And then further to sex>sex crimes. This is why I mentioned portapotties. These are gender neutral public toilets found all over the nation. Are portapotties offensive? Sexual dens?
Toilets and bathrooms are perfectly functional as gender neutral spaces. The insistence that a transperson using the bathroom that aligns with their gender is somehow an invitation for sex crime just doesn’t have much basis.
Portapotties are single person. You’re not walking around in a portapotty with other people. There’s no possibility of someone peeping under/over the stall wall in a portapotty.
Most public toilets are not gender neutral, they’re male and female.
Again - it’s not that the trans person will assault someone, it’s the fact that it eliminates it as a “safe space” where women can go knowing there won’t be men in there. If you let trans women in you’re letting biological men in, meaning any man can now use that space simply by saying they identify as a woman.
Ah, got it. You don’t seem to be parsing between sex and gender here, which is probably why this is going to be a troublesome topic every time it comes up.
I mean you extrapolate from “biological men” into “any man” way too casually to have a serious opinion on this topic.
I mean, jist wait to you hear about this thing called homosexuality. No bathroom will be safe anywhere from anyone if people know about that!
Public toilets are sex based, not gender. They are male and female. They have existed since long before gender “wasn’t a binary”.
A biological female that identifies as a man can’t use the urinals, can they? No, because they don’t have a penis. Toilets have always been made to accommodate the different sexes, not genders.
It is the presence or lack of a urinal that makes a bathroom a safe space or not? Regardless of that tangent, toilets are not sex specific. (And before indoor plumbing becoming commonplace, outhouses and pit privies weren’t exactly sex based either.)
But at least you’ve honed in and have gotten down to it: you find toilets to be inherently sexual. I find that to be pretty weird. While I won’t kink shame you, I don’t think it’s a good foundation for how handle human waste in public.
(Stalls cam be made more private way more easily than public bathrooms be policed for genitalia conformance.)
You’re just being disingenuous now. You know that was not said in relation to anything being a “safe space”. You know it was said to show that toilets are sex based and not gender based, because gender apparently now has nothing whatsoever to do with your genitals.
“If I ignore your very real and very good point, I can disagree” lol. Male toilets have always had toilets designed for biological male bodies, ie a “penis owner”. That proves that they aren’t “gender based”, otherwise why would only 1 of the 2 of them have a urinal?
I see there is no limit to your disingenuity. You’re the one arguing to try and let biological males go to the toilet with biological girls.
You’re forgetting the trough system in stadiums on top of ignoring the recurring point I’ve been making: bathrooms aren’t inherently sexual. The injection of sexual acts and sexual crimes by accepting the jdea of trans people using the appropriate bathroom is the original disingenuous stance, so I’m sorry if you’re taken aback. I don’t meant to upset you if my fatigue at the “trans equals and enables peeping pervs” perspective. And come on now: A transwoman in a women’s bathroom isn’t using a urinal. A transman in a man’s bathroom is also not using a urinal. There shouldn’t be a problem there, but somehow having to know the genitalia of people shitting is less weird than letting
Urgh, the notion that allowing trans people into the bathroom means sex crime is the original disingenuous point. That’s kind of what I was trying to show you. Besides, a transwoman in a woman’s bathroom isn’t using a urinal. A transman in a man’s bathroom isn’t using a urinal. There shouldn’t be a problem with that, and yet there are people just need to know the genitalia of everyone in the stalls. Like genitals need to policed instead of just abiding by a general social rule of public spaces regardless of sex and gender: don’t be sexual in public spaces. Indecency and shit are still very real things that don’t change with trans people existing and taking dumps, believe it or not. Now I don’t mean to upset you, so I am sorry if you are taken so aback at my fatigue of the “trans = perverts” perspective.