Transgender Debate (Moved)

vinchick

MOD NOTE
Discussion moved from the "Irish Catholic" thread as it has developed a life of it's own.
Dades

....

When it comes to the lovely Salvation Army this story always comes to mind when I hear of them.

http://www.dallasvoice.com/watch-homeless-transgender-woman-jennifer-gale-sings-silent-night-eve-death-1056574.html

Links234

vinchick wrote: »

When it comes to the lovely Salvation Army this story always comes to mind when I hear of them.

http://www.dallasvoice.com/watch-homeless-transgender-woman-jennifer-gale-sings-silent-night-eve-death-1056574.html

incredibly sad what happened to her.

here's a good video regarding the salvation army

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXcSQ6OW6oA

Zombrex

vinchick wrote: »

More fertile? What is she on about? I know this is probably a silly question but does she have any evidence that religious people are more fertile? I doubt it.

When it comes to the lovely Salvation Army this story always comes to mind when I hear of them.

http://www.dallasvoice.com/watch-homeless-transgender-woman-jennifer-gale-sings-silent-night-eve-death-1056574.html

Don't quite get that story. "She" was a man who wished to be housed in the woman's wing of the Salvation Army shelter, and the SA said no she had to be housed in the men's wing because "she" was a man?

If so then TBH that is not all that unreasonable.

While I respect a man can if he wishes choose to live as a woman (or to be more accurate an approximation of what he thinks a woman is like) I don't think that should over rule gender separation principles. I wouldn't expect for example a man to be allowed into a woman's shower because he identifies himself as a woman.

vinchick

Wicknight wrote: »

Don't quite get that story. "She" was a man who wished to be housed in the woman's wing of the Salvation Army shelter, and the SA said no she had to be housed in the men's wing because "she" was a man?

If so then TBH that is not all that unreasonable.

While I respect a man can if he wishes choose to live as a woman (or to be more accurate an approximation of what he thinks a woman is like) I don't think that should over rule gender separation principles. I wouldn't expect for example a man to be allowed into a woman's shower because he identifies himself as a woman.

I don't think in this day and age I need to give a detailed explanation about transgender issues. She was a woman who needed help and they turned her away as they did not understand her medical condition and she died on the streets as a result.

In the course of my studies we looked at what happens to women like her, who are housed with men in prisons and homeless shelters. It is dangerous especially around sexual assaults and rape. It is quite disturbing that the organisation running these shelters seemed to have no clue about this and instead refused to help her.

Also it said nowhere about there being communal showers in the shelters. Even if there is a communal dressing area there tends to be separate cubicles for showers. These types of shower facilities are used for things like music festivals and universities and it doesn't seem to matter that they are unisex.

Now don't ask me why the state wasn't running the shelters as I hope they would have at least had some grasp of what her situation entails. Leaving services up to an organisation who either don't have a clue or who don't want to have one.

Zombrex

vinchick wrote: »

I don't think in this day and age I need to give a detailed explanation about transgender issues. She was a woman who needed help and they turned her away as they did not understand her medical condition and she died on the streets as a result.

I don't know the details of the case so I don't know what he actually asked for, but from the article it doesn't seem they turned him away. He left because they would not let him stay in the woman's wing of the hostel.

While I appreciate that a transgender man wishes to be identified and treated as a woman the simple fact of the matter is that they are still a man, and that effects gender separation policies.

Again this has little to do with the Salvation Army. Few groups would allow a man access to women only areas even if he identified himself as a woman. If the person is unhappy with this and leaves it is not the fault of the group.

If the argument is that groups like the Salvation Army should have extra facilities to deal with transgender people then that is a valid argument, but simply lumping them in with the gender they identify with is not a solution, as it could easily cause distress to the other people at the hostel who the group also have a responsibility for care for.

If there is a gender separation policy in place it is probably in place for a reason, and simply stating that you wish to have access because you identify with that gender is not a good enough reason to ignore that reason.

vinchick

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't know the details of the case so I don't know what he actually asked for, but from the article it doesn't seem they turned him away. He left because they would not let him stay in the woman's wing of the hostel.

While I appreciate that a transgender man wishes to be identified and treated as a woman the simple fact of the matter is that they are still a man, and that effects gender separation policies.

Again this has little to do with the Salvation Army. Few groups would allow a man access to women only areas even if he identified himself as a woman. If the person is unhappy with this and leaves it is not the fault of the group.

If the argument is that groups like the Salvation Army should have extra facilities to deal with transgender people then that is a valid argument, but simply lumping them in with the gender they identify with is not a solution, as it could easily cause distress to the other people at the hostel who the group also have a responsibility for care for.

If there is a gender separation policy in place it is probably in place for a reason, and simply stating that you wish to have access because you identify with that gender is not a good enough reason to ignore that reason.

She wished to be identified and treated as a women because she was a woman. The science is pretty well detailed in submissions to the Foy case. They outlined the new findings of differences in brain structure and so on which re-enforces arguments that sometimes gender does not match sex.

New York City shelters operated (and as far as I know still do) a system of housing people according to gender not sex and it has been really successful. A reduction in violence was recorded and the other residents were found to be supportive.

They are not alone in this practice and more and more places which are segregated are housing people according to gender regardless of their physical characteristics. This includes hospitals.

The Salvation Army policy of categorising by psychical characteristics was outdated and not medically supported.

Dades

Regardless of the "current thinking" I think it's wrong to vilify the Salvation Army in this case. Sure, not everyone is as forward thinking as those who keep up to speed with transgender issues, but ultimately they offered him/her a bed which was refused.

sponsoredwalk

Wick this wasn't a one night type of thing, she was permanently turned
away from this place & regularly sleeping outside the church she was found
dead beside because she'd rather sleep in the cold than go to the male
shelters where, as vin said, there is a serious chance some horrible things
would happen to her, evidence.

On the topic of causing distress & turning people away, I mean this is just
a classic example of bigotry in action. I really don't think we need to go
into this because the answers are so obvious, "causing distress", I mean
that answers itself really. It seems the city of Dallas also thinks so
because they went ahead and enacted policy changes, it's unfortunate
that people have to die before institutional bigotry is overturned.

As for the rest of your argument there is a specific forum on boards with
old posts discussing this issue & I think it's safe to say on which side the
argument always ends up...

Links234

Wicknight wrote: »

While I respect a man can if he wishes choose to live as a woman (or to be more accurate an approximation of what he thinks a woman is like) I don't think that should over rule gender separation principles.

oh my god that is just horribly offensive! I don't even know where to begin, the disgusting misgendering, the deeply insulting and belittling use of the words 'approximation of what she thinks a woman is like', or the utterly damning word 'choose', which reminds me of what right-wing christians like to say about homosexuality, that they 'choose' it. ugh....

no, she absolutely did not choose to be who she was, none of us choose this.

there's so much evidence today that shows that transgender women are female in a neurological sense, I don't think it even needs posting here, because out of anyone on boards, I've found atheists here some of the most knowledgeable about transsexuality, and probably some of the most trans friendly people on boards. I've seen religious arguments against transgender people being ripped to shreds by some of the posters here, so it's shocking I'd actually see this kinda thing on this forum. but a transgender woman is a woman, she's not a "man" who is making some lifestyle choice, that is who and what she is.

a transgender woman who has been on hormone replacement therapy is a woman in the physical sense too, she will have no testosterone, her musculature will be that of a woman, she will be no stronger than any other woman, her bone density will be that of a woman. I'm not going to argue if you really don't consider her a woman, but the facts are that she is in a physical sense no different to other women, no stronger, and just as fragile. transgender women are at a very high risk of rape and murder, not to mention physical and verbal assault! the woman in the article simply could not be housed in a male facility for her safety, and the fact she was sleeping rough means she felt more at risk in such a facility than on the streets, that speaks volumes.

as people have pointed out, putting transgender women in men's facilities carries severe dangers for those women, especially when they are physically no stronger than any other women, and are so incredibly vulnerable. the rape and violence that happens to trans women in men's prisons for example, is utterly horrific! one of many, many examples of the sexual abuse suffered by trans women in prison. it is absolutely unconscionable that any woman should ever be housed in a men's facility, especially if she is at risk.

sorry if I come across as aggressive, but I would expect to find this attitude on after hours or something, not here.

and it needs saying again, we are NOT making some sort of "lifestyle choice"

Zillah

Wicknight wrote: »

Don't quite get that story. "She" was a man who wished to be housed in the woman's wing of the Salvation Army shelter, and the SA said no she had to be housed in the men's wing because "she" was a man?

If so then TBH that is not all that unreasonable.

While I respect a man can if he wishes choose to live as a woman (or to be more accurate an approximation of what he thinks a woman is like) I don't think that should over rule gender separation principles. I wouldn't expect for example a man to be allowed into a woman's shower because he identifies himself as a woman.

I'm genuinely surprised to hear something so dated from you. It is also considered incredibly bad form to refer to a transgender woman as a he. Saying "she" is no less offensive and more than a little condescending. If she had been able to afford reassignment surgery, or had been lucky enough to undergo hormone replacement therapy from a young age, would it be ok then? Nothing in her brain changed, she was a still a woman being told to sleep in a room full of homeless men.

You have some reading to do.

EDIT: Also the Salvation Army changed their policy because of this. A Christian group is literally more progressive and understanding of transgender issues than Wicknight.

Links234

oh, and this bit?

Wicknight wrote: »

but simply lumping them in with the gender they identify with is not a solution, as it could easily cause distress to the other people at the hostel who the group also have a responsibility for care for.

this is the exact same argument that was used ago to keep gays and lesbians out of facilities, that straight men would be distressed for having to share facilities with homosexual men, or that children using these facilities would be at risk. it was all part of anti-gay propoganda back in the day, scaremongering that if gays had civil rights, little timmy would have to share a shower with a *shock horror* evil deviant homosexual man, and there's nothing that could be done about it!

liah

I'm actually quite shocked at both Dades (" it's wrong to vilify the Salvation Army in this case") and Wicknight at the moment. Do you not have any clue how offensive you're being and how ignorant you've just made yourselves out to be?

Genuinely completely stunned by this thread.

Zillah

Everyone, even large portions of the cisgendered gay community, gets confused and short sighted about transgender issues. No bloody excuse though.

Trans is the new gay.

sponsoredwalk

Links234 wrote: »

little timmy would have to share a shower with a *shock horror* evil deviant homosexual man, and there's nothing that could be done about it!

Cursed be the day :pac: Reminds me of the plotline of some 1950's movie like
Reefers or something.

Who knows, maybe Jennifer Gale was turned away from the mens shelters
as well for being a deviant homosexual? Nowhere to go, but it's
not the institutions fault that these people picked a lifestyle choice
that runs counter to company policy :pac:

Galvasean

The 'gays are gonna get you in the shower!' falacy even made it into an Incredible Hulk comic in the 80s (scroll down to #4):
http://www.cracked.com/article_16251_5-superhero-movie-scenes-theyll-never-let-you-see.html

mikhail

Zillah wrote: »

Everyone, even large portions of the cisgendered gay community, gets confused and short sighted about transgender issues. No bloody excuse though.

Trans is the new gay.

Gay people make up an estimated 10% of the population. I have a couple of gay friends and acquaintances. On the other hand, I met a trangendered person once. A quick google turns up a figure of 0.5% of the population - 1/20th the instance of homosexuality. Ignorance on a subject is understandable when the subject is obscure. Some of those who have strong opinions about this are getting very shrill on this thread. That's not helpful.

Dades

liah wrote: »

I'm actually quite shocked at both Dades (" it's wrong to vilify the Salvation Army in this case") and Wicknight at the moment. Do you not have any clue how offensive you're being and how ignorant you've just made yourselves out to be?

Genuinely completely stunned by this thread.

Can I just point out that there's seems to be a little hysterical over-reaction here?

You are completely right one on count - I am pretty much ignorant on transgender issues. Like everyone else I can only offer an opinion (or not) based on what I'm aware of.

There seems to be an assumption that everyone is by default up to speed with the relevant cases, medical studies, historical discrimination etc. - and so every opinion offered that didn't completely echo the current neutral line of thinking is a direct insult.

I don't know much anything about transgender issues. Terms like "horribly offensive", "disgusting misgendering", "deeply insulting" and "belittling" should be saved for commentators who deliberately ignore facts at their disposal, or who actually have an issue with transgender people rather than who might be somewhat misguided on what's what.

In short, there are undoubtedly people worthy of your wrath, but you're not addressing them in here.

eoin5

Wicknight wrote: »

Don't quite get that story. "She" was a man who wished to be housed in the woman's wing of the Salvation Army shelter, and the SA said no she had to be housed in the men's wing because "she" was a man?

If so then TBH that is not all that unreasonable.

While I respect a man can if he wishes choose to live as a woman (or to be more accurate an approximation of what he thinks a woman is like) I don't think that should over rule gender separation principles. I wouldn't expect for example a man to be allowed into a woman's shower because he identifies himself as a woman.

Read: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055910549

Zombrex

vinchick wrote: »

She wished to be identified and treated as a women because she was a woman. The science is pretty well detailed in submissions to the Foy case. They outlined the new findings of differences in brain structure and so on which re-enforces arguments that sometimes gender does not match sex.

He is not a woman. He is a transgender man. He has the physical make up of a man. I appreciate that in biology nothing is exact and it is possible for a man to develop mental and emotional characteristics of a woman. But at the end of the day the receptionist has a man standing in front of him or her and has to assess the person based on that fact.

vinchick wrote: »

New York City shelters operated (and as far as I know still do) a system of housing people according to gender not sex and it has been really successful. A reduction in violence was recorded and the other residents were found to be supportive.

And I think that is great, but that is a policy that New York shelters took and they are still in the process as far as I know of assessing how it will work.

Expecting that other groups who have not assessed or undertaken such policy changes would just let a man into a woman's restricted area because he says he is a woman is totally unreasonable. I'm no fan of the Salvation Army, and given their religious origin I would not be surprised if they never adopt such a policy.

But I wouldn't bash the Salvation Army for doing something most other groups would probably do.

Zombrex

eoin5 wrote: »

Read: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055910549

Ok, now what?

liah

Dades wrote: »

Can I just point out that there's seems to be a little hysterical over-reaction here?

You are completely right one on count - I am pretty much ignorant on transgender issues. Like everyone else I can only offer an opinion (or not) based on what I'm aware of.

There seems to be an assumption that everyone is by default up to speed with the relevant cases, medical studies, historical discrimination etc. - and so every opinion offered that didn't completely echo the current neutral line of thinking is a direct insult.

I don't know much anything about transgender issues. Terms like "horribly offensive", "disgusting misgendering", "deeply insulting" and "belittling" should be saved for commentators who deliberately ignore facts at their disposal, or who actually have an issue with transgender people rather than who might be somewhat misguided on what's what.

In short, there are undoubtedly people worthy of your wrath, but you're not addressing them in here.

If you are ignorant of it, why comment on it? That's what I'm surprised at; generally yourself and Wicknight are knowledgable on the topics you discuss and make very good points, it very much surprised me to see the reaction. I'm not being hysterical or anything, just genuinely.. stunned.

I'm hardly up to date on all things transgender but if it's something I'm going to discuss, I'm going to be informed-- much like how I came to be an atheist, researching before I made any final decision. It surprises me from people like you and Wicknight more than others, because I generally think of you two as people who don't speak with authority about things they don't understand or haven't looked into and tend to be reasonable, rational and well-mannered.

And try putting yourself in the transgender's shoes before you say it's a hysterical reaction or an overreaction; calling a transgender woman "him" or "it" would be just as offensive as someone calling you, as an atheist, morally depraved or any other amount of things. How would you feel if everyone started calling you "she" even though you're fully aware you're male, and refused to stop calling you "she," even when you tell them you're a man, repeatedly?

A bit of cop on is required with stuff like this, I can't envision you guys saying the same things about homosexuality.

Zombrex

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Wick this wasn't a one night type of thing, she was permanently turned
away from this place & regularly sleeping outside the church she was found
dead beside because she'd rather sleep in the cold than go to the male
shelters where, as vin said, there is a serious chance some horrible things
would happen to her, evidence.

On the topic of causing distress & turning people away, I mean this is just
a classic example of bigotry in action. I really don't think we need to go
into this because the answers are so obvious, "causing distress", I mean
that answers itself really. It seems the city of Dallas also thinks so
because they went ahead and enacted policy changes, it's unfortunate
that people have to die before institutional bigotry is overturned.

It is not bigotry to say a man cannot go into a woman only area. That is a standard policy enacted across the world and has been for ages.

If people want to argue that the current definitions of men and women are out dated and don't take into account the mental and emotional make up of transgender people then go ahead.

But that is about updating the current standards and definitions. It is not about bigotry of the current system.

This should be clear to people on this forum more than most, given that we regularly see religious people trying to get exceptions to standard rules because of their religious beliefs.

If there is a policy that a man cannot go into a woman restricted area saying that I really really believe I'm a woman shouldn't change that, any more than a theist saying but I really really believe I shouldn't work on Sunday, or I really really believe I have to wear this cross to work, or I really really believe I have to wear a turbin while riding a motor bike.

I've no doubt that this person considered himself to be a woman in mental and emotional make up. But I also have no doubt that the Sikhs applying to teh Guards really really believed they had to wear their head gear, or that some Christians really really believe they shouldn't work on Sunday. It is unreasonable to expect people to simply wave rules in place that regular certain actions of behavior simply because a person claims they the rules shouldn't apply to them.

That is not the way you go about organizing structures like this, the idea that there is a rule in place that should be followed unless you really really don't want to and then it is ok to simply ignore it.

By all means update the policy to be more inclusive or to reflect differ changes in society. By all means argue that transgender men should be classified as women and then lobby to have that policy put in place.

But it is not unreasonable to not simply make an exception then and there to a pretty standard rule simply because the person asks you to.

Dades

liah wrote: »

If you are ignorant of it, why comment on it? ...

I'm not being hysterical or anything, just genuinely.. stunned.

Honestly, if I thought people were going to get stunned at the discovery that not everyone thinks exactly the same (whether by ignorance or not) I wouldn't have bothered.

liah wrote: »

And try putting yourself in the transgender's shoes before you say it's a hysterical reaction or an overreaction; calling a transgender woman "him" or "it" would be just as offensive as someone calling you, as an atheist, morally depraved or any other amount of things. How would you feel if everyone started calling you "she" even though you're fully aware you're male, and refused to stop calling you "she," even when you tell them you're a man, repeatedly?

This man is a little straw, no? Where did I refer to a transgender as "it", or even just "he"? Not helpful, liah.

People come on here all the time call us all sorts of things and show a demonstrable ignorance of anything to do with atheism, and I have never once been offended. You either educate them and bring them around, or accept that they don't want to be educated and ignore them. I don't see this approach in evidence here.

liah wrote: »

A bit of cop on is required with stuff like this, I can't envision you guys saying the same things about homosexuality.

And maybe a bit of patience regarding misguided comments made in good faith from people who might actually fight your corner is required.

liamw

Was Jennifer rejected by the SA becuase she was LGBT or simply not allowed into the woman's section becuase she had a male appearance?

vinchick

Wicknight wrote: »

He is not a woman. He is a transgender man. He has the physical make up of a man. I appreciate that in biology nothing is exact and it is possible for a man to develop mental and emotional characteristics of a woman. But at the end of the day the receptionist has a man standing in front of him or her and has to assess the person based on that fact.



And I think that is great, but that is a policy that New York shelters took and they are still in the process as far as I know of assessing how it will work.

Expecting that other groups who have not assessed or undertaken such policy changes would just let a man into a woman's restricted area because he says he is a woman is totally unreasonable. I'm no fan of the Salvation Army, and given their religious origin I would not be surprised if they never adopt such a policy.

But I wouldn't bash the Salvation Army for doing something most other groups would probably do.

She was a woman with male body characteristics. I actually used to work with homeless people and the provision of homeless accommodation and it was part of the job to know about these issues. Ignorance is no excuse if you are in the business of providing a service to vulnerable people. Gender issues make people even more vulnerable to situations like homelessness and it is incredible to think that a group working in this area did not either know about the condition or care about the condition. This woman had the choice to either be accommodation with men which as I have said before is extremely dangerous or take her chances on the street. This level of ignorance or carelessness (I don't want to assign malice too readily) cannot be permitted in providing such an important service.

Mark Hamill

liah wrote: »

If you are ignorant of it, why comment on it? That's what I'm surprised at; generally yourself and Wicknight are knowledgable on the topics you discuss and make very good points, it very much surprised me to see the reaction. I'm not being hysterical or anything, just genuinely.. stunned.

I'm hardly up to date on all things transgender but if it's something I'm going to discuss, I'm going to be informed-- much like how I came to be an atheist, researching before I made any final decision. It surprises me from people like you and Wicknight more than others, because I generally think of you two as people who don't speak with authority about things they don't understand or haven't looked into and tend to be reasonable, rational and well-mannered.

He can correct me if Im wrong, but I dont think Wicknight was making statements about transgenderism in general, just on what he (and I) saw as the reasonable response from the people running the salvation army. Given that the people running the shelter had no access to the equipment required to tell that mentally and emotionally this person was in fact honestly a woman, I dont think they acted unreasably.
My interpretation: Given, as others have said, that there is dangers of assault from straight men to homsexuals or transgenders who stay in the men only sections, might there not also be a danger to the women in the womens section if a straight man had managed to lie his way? Might that not be what the shelter thought?

liah wrote: »

calling a transgender woman "him" or "it" would be just as offensive as someone calling you, as an atheist, morally depraved or any other amount of things. How would you feel if everyone started calling you "she" even though you're fully aware you're male, and refused to stop calling you "she," even when you tell them you're a man, repeatedly?

As a man, I have to say I find that a bit offensive. While,if someone kept calling me "she", I would feel insulted by their ignorance, I would not feel insulted by any negative connotations of the word "she" (because there are none).

Zombrex

vinchick wrote: »

She was a woman with male body characteristics.

If you want to define "woman" like that go ahead. Personally I think that is a pretty unworkable/silly definition of "woman", and it certainly is not the standard one, nor one I would be accepting any time soon.

A far more accurate description would be a man with woman like mental and emotional characteristics. I appreciate that some transgender men may not like that definition as it still characterizes them as a man when they wish to be identified as a woman, but I don't think it is useful to make definitions like that simply to appease an emotional argument.

But none of that is actually relevant to my point.

vinchick wrote: »

I actually used to work with homeless people and the provision of homeless accommodation and it was part of the job to know about these issues. Ignorance is no excuse if you are in the business of providing a service to vulnerable people.

And like I said if people think policy needs to be updated then go ahead. Lobby the Salvation Army to change their policy on transgender people.

But again this isn't relevant to my point, which is expected that a current policy that restricts women only sections to only women is ignored simply because a person asks that it is.

Mark Hamill

vinchick wrote: »

She was a woman with male body characteristics.

What is the difference between a woman in a male body and man in a male body pretending to be a woman in a mans body?

liah

Wicknight wrote: »

This should be clear to people on this forum more than most, given that we regularly see religious people trying to get exceptions to standard rules because of their religious beliefs.

If there is a policy that a man cannot go into a woman restricted area saying that I really really believe I'm a woman shouldn't change that, any more than a theist saying but I really really believe I shouldn't work on Sunday, or I really really believe I have to wear this cross to work, or I really really believe I have to wear a turbin while riding a motor bike.

I've no doubt that this person considered himself to be a woman in mental and emotional make up. But I also have no doubt that the Sikhs applying to teh Guards really really believed they had to wear their head gear, or that some Christians really really believe they shouldn't work on Sunday. It is unreasonable to expect people to simply wave rules in place that regular certain actions of behavior simply because a person claims they the rules shouldn't apply to them.

You're missing something quite major. Being transgender isn't a "belief." It should not be treated like one. These are real conditions with a real basis in science, quite unlike religion altogether. They don't "choose" this, in the same way people don't "choose" to be gay, or "choose" to be depressed, or "choose" to have naturally red hair.

That is not the way you go about organizing structures like this, the idea that there is a rule in place that should be followed unless you really really don't want to and then it is ok to simply ignore it.

By all means update the policy to be more inclusive or to reflect differ changes in society. By all means argue that transgender men should be classified as women and then lobby to have that policy put in place.

But it is not unreasonable to not simply make an exception then and there to a pretty standard rule simply because the person asks you to.

The rules need to be changed and that first starts with changing the mentalities of people like you who refuse to acknowledge that transgenders do NOT "choose," and that they deserve the right to operate under their real gender (the one their brain lets them know they are) the same way as any other one of us.

Dades wrote: »

Honestly, if I thought people were going to get stunned at the discovery that not everyone thinks exactly the same (whether by ignorance or not) I wouldn't have bothered.


This man is a little straw, no? Where did I refer to a transgender as "it", or even just "he"? Not helpful, liah.

Wasn't referring to just you in that post, albeit I realized it was only you I quoted; with that I was referring solely to Wicknight who insists on referring to the woman as "he."

People come on here all the time call us all sorts of things and show a demonstrable ignorance of anything to do with atheism, and I have never once been offended. You either educate them and bring them around, or accept that they don't want to be educated and ignore them. I don't see this approach in evidence here.

And that is what people in this thread are attempting to do, and yet they're being considered hysterical for it, even though an atheist would react the same way if they were the topic. When met with things that are clearly untrue, you do your best to make people realize what's wrong with what they're saying.

Saying it's overreacting or hysterical is derailing and is offensive in and of itself as it automatically puts whoever's being told that on the defense and acts as a fan to the flame, as well as acts to invalidate what it is they're saying.

And maybe a bit of patience regarding misguided comments made in good faith from people who might actually fight your corner is required.

Again, I do apologize that I only quoted you, but it was meant to be equally a statement towards Wicknight. I don't see how expressing that I'm surprised at some people's opinions is really all that over the top; like I said, it's standard from a lot of people, it's just the particular parties themselves that surprised me in this case.

I'm sure there's certain posters whom you'd be surprised at if they came out with something that you perceive to be ignorant.

Galvasean

I also think it's a tad harsh to overtly call Dades and Wicknit such aforementioned things. They have both proven to be reasonable people. Calmly explaining the error of their ways would be much more beneficial to all concerned than giving out to them.
I myself until very recently was very ignorant of transgender issues (the idea of a woman trapped in a man's body seemed ludicrous to me). Only through direct meetings/dealings with transgender people have I learned more about them (it was not something which occured often in my life at all until recently). I'm still wouldn't consider myself completely up to speed on the latest research/terminology, but hey you gotta start somewhere.

I recall an episode of Nip/Tuc (quality programming that it once was) had an episode where Julia befriended a transgender person (pre-op woman in man's body). They went to an all female gym as the transgender friend (the character's name escapes me) felt uncomfortable in male gyms. turns out that several of the female gym regulars were not happy with having what they percieved as a man among them while they worked out. What I'm getting at is that this is the tricky challenge faced by places such as the aforementioned homeless shelter.

vinchick

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not bigotry to say a man cannot go into a woman only area. That is a standard policy enacted across the world and has been for ages.

If people want to argue that the current definitions of men and women are out dated and don't take into account the mental and emotional make up of transgender people then go ahead.

But that is about updating the current standards and definitions. It is not about bigotry of the current system.

This should be clear to people on this forum more than most, given that we regularly see religious people trying to get exceptions to standard rules because of their religious beliefs.

If there is a policy that a man cannot go into a woman restricted area saying that I really really believe I'm a woman shouldn't change that, any more than a theist saying but I really really believe I shouldn't work on Sunday, or I really really believe I have to wear this cross to work, or I really really believe I have to wear a turbin while riding a motor bike.

I've no doubt that this person considered himself to be a woman in mental and emotional make up. But I also have no doubt that the Sikhs applying to teh Guards really really believed they had to wear their head gear, or that some Christians really really believe they shouldn't work on Sunday. It is unreasonable to expect people to simply wave rules in place that regular certain actions of behavior simply because a person claims they the rules shouldn't apply to them.

That is not the way you go about organizing structures like this, the idea that there is a rule in place that should be followed unless you really really don't want to and then it is ok to simply ignore it.

By all means update the policy to be more inclusive or to reflect differ changes in society. By all means argue that transgender men should be classified as women and then lobby to have that policy put in place.

But it is not unreasonable to not simply make an exception then and there to a pretty standard rule simply because the person asks you to.

It takes a lot more than just waking up and declaring yourself transgender. There is a lengthy process of counselling, psychological assessments, role playing, hormone therapy and finally surgery. The entire process takes years.

Its not the same as a religion as it is a recognised medical condition where people are born with genders that do not match their sex. As I have previously said their is more and more evidence coming to light that supports this, the last information I read was about brain anatomy and it showed that the brain formation was consistent with their gender but not psychical sex. So they were in reality in a mismatching body. There is loads of information out there on this matter which supports what these people are feeling and how they are diagnosed. In fact what the Salvation Army were doing was offering to house a woman in a male facility which as I have said is dangerous.

liah

Galvasean wrote:

I also think it's a tad harsh to overtly call Dades and Wicknit such aforementioned things.

Are you referring to me with this? I used the words "offensive" and "ignorant" and I don't think those are harsh to use, Wicknight was being quite offensive to the transwoman in question by continuously using male pronouns despite posters correcting him and continuously trying to drive it home that it's a choice despite evidence to the contrary, and they both made it clear they're not particularly informed on transgender issues?

Jeez, I'm starting to wonder what tone is being read into my stuff

sponsoredwalk

Wicknight wrote: »

He is not a woman. He is a transgender man. He has the physical make up of a man. I appreciate that in biology nothing is exact and it is possible for a man to develop mental and emotional characteristics of a woman.

Oh wow, you have it totally backwards... The whole idea here is that
because a person has emotional & mental characteristics of a woman
they feel misaligned. The idea that you "develop" these characteristics
is the same backward thinking of "the lifestyle choice".

The "He" stuff is really just a way to be purposely insulting as well, what
you're doing is saying that even though they consider themselves as a
woman they never really will be because the outside world doesn't cater
to their intrernal view and that's just tough. Luckily the world is in the
process of changing this backward notion, though grudgingly.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not bigotry to say a man cannot go into a woman only area. That is a standard policy enacted across the world and has been for ages.

Yes but she isn't a man.

Wicknight wrote: »

If people want to argue that the current definitions of men and women are out dated and don't take into account the mental and emotional make up of transgender people then go ahead.

This isn't a case we have to argue, it's simply the concensus as regards
people who actually know about these things and do research.

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is about updating the current standards and definitions. It is not about bigotry of the current system.

Racism wasn't really racism, it was just a question of definitions :pac:

Wicknight wrote: »

This should be clear to people on this forum more than most, given that we regularly see religious people trying to get exceptions to standard rules because of their religious beliefs.

This is a valid point, but sometimes the rules are just backward &
oppressive & require changing. This is what happened with Gale,
the institutional structure was changed because the current
system led to people dying. What are you trying to argue, that
the rules are correct & that transgender deserve to be turned
away so that they can share places with men where they are extremely
likely to be abused? It seems so because you're arguing that she is
transgressing the rule that men and women share different bathrooms.

Wicknight wrote: »

If there is a policy that a man cannot go into a woman restricted area saying that I really really believe I'm a woman shouldn't change that, any more than a theist saying but I really really believe I shouldn't work on Sunday, or I really really believe I have to wear this cross to work, or I really really believe I have to wear a turbin while riding a motor bike.

Yes but she isn't a man.

Wicknight wrote: »

By all means update the policy to be more inclusive or to reflect differ changes in society. By all means argue that transgender men should be classified as women.

They are but you're the one who still doesn't seem to think so as each
line continually reminds us of. Are you waiting for a government seal of
approval before you change your thinking on this topic?

Wicknight wrote: »

But it is not unreasonable to not simply make an exception then and there to a pretty standard rule simply because the person asks you to.

Yes but she isn't a man.

What has this illustrated, that you can't accept the gender of a transgendered
person as being different from what lies between their legs. A bit of browsing
on google scholar etc... before you post would let you know how people classify
on these things, then you can come back & argue ex definitio :pac:

liamw

liah, I think you're gone way off topic.. I don't think anyone, including Dades and Wicknight, is trying to undermine a transgender person in any way.

My question is the same as Mark Hamill's. What if a straight man dresses up as a woman and asks to get into the woman's only section?

liah

Ah yes, I'm the one going offtopic because I dare to challenge people on their misconceptions :rolleyes: God forbid..

Well, that's me out then. Enjoy the remainder of the thread.

Zombrex

liah wrote: »

It surprises me from people like you and Wicknight more than others, because I generally think of you two as people who don't speak with authority about things they don't understand or haven't looked into and tend to be reasonable, rational and well-mannered.

I would consider myself reasonable up to date with transgender people, and so far no one has presented anything here about them that I didn't already know.

I can't help but feel that a lot of the arguments here are based purely on emotional responses rather than reason. Transgender people = Good, Salvation Army = Bad therefore what they did must be bad.

In reality things tend to be a bit more complicated than that.

liah wrote: »

And try putting yourself in the transgender's shoes before you say it's a hysterical reaction or an overreaction; calling a transgender woman "him" or "it" would be just as offensive as someone calling you, as an atheist, morally depraved or any other amount of things.

This is a good example of the hysterical over reaction that I think Dades is talking about.

Whether or not calling a transgender man "him" is offensive to the person it is, to a large degree, perfectly accurate. The person is a male. They may wish they weren't, but they are.

"Him" is not an offensive term. It is not a derogatory term. It may upset a transgender person, but that is due to their own issues with their gender identity, not the term itself.

While it is perfectly possible to be sensitive to such issues if you are with a person who may be emotionally upset by choice of words (eg I have no issue calling a transgender person "her" if I'm around him and this makes him happier, any more than I can smile politely at a widow who says her husband is at peace in heaven), I've never engaged in double-speak because someone played the "thats offensive" card, and I ain't going to start now.

liah wrote: »

I can't envision you guys saying the same things about homosexuality.

If we were discussing a man who regularly had homosexual sex and who was attracted to members of the same sex, i would classify him a homosexual, even if the person said they weren't a homosexual and how dare I say they were, they are just a straight man who is physically attracted to members of the same sex and who regularly has sex with them (which is a surprisingly common thing people proclaim about themselves)

To my mind that means you are homosexual or bisexual, it is a classification based on a standard definition of sexual desire and activity. How offensive the person finds that term is rather irrelevant to this.

I think it is a very slippery slope if we start changing standard definition of things based on known properties simply because people find them offensive.

liamw

liah wrote: »

Ah yes, I'm the one going offtopic because I dare to challenge people on their misconceptions :rolleyes: God forbid..

Well, that's me out then. Enjoy the remainder of the thread.

So.... you won't try answer my question?

vinchick

liamw wrote: »

liah, I think you're gone way off topic.. I don't think anyone, including Dades and Wicknight, is trying to undermine a transgender person in any way.

My question is the same as Mark Hamill's. What if a straight man dresses up as a woman and asks to get into the woman's only section?

Homeless shelters have security which operates through the night. There are nightly patrols to check to see if people are doing ok and not up to stuff which they shouldn't be. It would also be quite high risk with the CCTV and the need for photo id etc. that is required for registration.

The situation in Ireland anyway is that homeless people need to register with their local authorities and the homeless persons unit who have files which include medical records verifying diagnoses. Any shelter which needs to confirm details can call either to confirm. Also there would be social workers and key workers who have to meet with people to organise housing who would be aware of the situation. Most even though homeless would still be linked in with hospitals or a GP who could confirm this. They would also have types of medication that they would need to keep taking and would need a facility for this. Others are linked in with NGO's and support groups who could also confirm this. I don't know the admin side in the US but I can't imagine it would be much different.

Dades

liah, I had a big multiquote reply but I've ditched it ion favour of this:

I'm surprised at you storming off when there are people ignorant of the topic in need of guidance. I thought that was the problem in the first place.

liamw

vinchick wrote: »

Homeless shelters have security which operates through the night. There are nightly patrols to check to see if people are doing ok and not up to stuff which they shouldn't be. It would also be quite high risk with the CCTV and the need for photo id etc. that is required for registration.
.

Thanks for the information. So, in Jennifer's case with the SA what do you think they should have done in the situation?

In the article it specifies that Jennifer did not want to be in the male section due to risk of violence etc. Surely, then, there is a risk of violence in the women's section if a guy with malicious intentions manages to get in?
How can you reconcile this? By allowing Jennifer into the woman's section you are opening up that new risk. But perhaps the risk to an LGBT outweighs the other risk?

Perhaps I'm not understanding this situation properly.

liah

liamw wrote:

My question is the same as Mark Hamill's. What if a straight man dresses up as a woman and asks to get into the woman's only section?

I'm sure it's happened, and will continue to happen no matter how the legislation goes. I'm not sure what relevance this question has. What would happen if a lesbian went into the ladies'? I mean like, what exactly is the issue? The fact that they might encounter someone who may be attracted to them? It happens, life goes on.

Wicknight wrote: »

I can't help but feel that a lot of the arguments here are based purely on emotional responses rather than reason. Transgender people = Good, Salvation Army = Bad therefore what they did must be bad.

I haven't even mentioned the Salvation Army in any of my posts. My responses are based on the reasonable, logical, and researched (yes, that's right, science) assumption that being transgender is NOT a matter of "wishing" or "choosing" and runs far, far deeper than that.

This is a good example of the hysterical over reaction that I think Dades is talking about.

Whether or not calling a transgender man "him" is offensive to the person it is, to a large degree, perfectly accurate. The person is a male. They may wish they weren't, but they are.

"Him" is not an offensive term. It is not a derogatory term. It may upset a transgender person, but that is due to their own issues with their gender identity, not the term itself.

While it is perfectly possible to be sensitive to such issues if you are with a person who may be emotionally upset by choice of words (eg I have no issue calling a transgender person "her" if I'm around him and this makes him happier, any more than I can smile politely at a widow who says her husband is at peace in heaven), I've never engaged in double-speak because someone played the "thats offensive" card, and I ain't going to start now.

Would you take offense to everyone in your life calling you 'she', even though you know you're male? Every day, everyone refers to all other males as "him" but they all refer to you as "her." How would that make you feel, knowing full well you are male?

It's not hysteria. It's called empathy and tact, and you are severely lacking it in this case. I'm all for logic and reason, but I'm also capable of understanding how hurtful it is to be told you are not what you know you are and have been from birth, and I know that nobody wants to be defined by their outside image, especially when they know it's not what's representative of who they actually are.

Would you call someone with a disability a retard to their face and/or in front of other people with disabilities? I mean, technically the word's just a word, right? And technically they're retarded, so it's alright, isn't it? By your logic?

You'd think being caring and empathetic is an unholy sin (:pac:) the way you're carrying on.

If we were discussing a man who regularly had homosexual sex and who was attracted to members of the same sex, i would call him a homosexual, even if the person said they weren't a homosexual and how dare I say they were, they are just a straight man who is physically attracted to members of the same sex and who regularly has sex with them.

To my mind that means you are homosexual or bisexual, how offensive the person finds that term is rather irrelevant, it is a classification based on a standard definition of sexual desire and activity.

I think it is a very slippery slope if we start changing standard definition of things based on know properties simply because people find them offensive.

The sooner we do away with confining labels for human beings who are all as individual as each other the better, I don't see how it could possibly be a slippery slope. We're all people. Why do we need so many tags that do nothing but divide us and make us hateful?

Zombrex

vinchick wrote: »

It takes a lot more than just waking up and declaring yourself transgender. There is a lengthy process of counselling, psychological assessments, role playing, hormone therapy and finally surgery. The entire process takes years.

I'm sure it does, but that doesn't change my point.

Receptionist: Sorry that section is for women only.
Trangender Male: But I'm transgender, I consider myself a woman.
Receptionist: That may be but again the section is only for women.
TM: But I really really consider myself a woman.
Receptionist: Really really? Oh ok, in you go.

I really really believe something as opposed to just believing it is not a reason to ignore standard rules.

If a Sikh spends decades discovering their religion does that mean that then they don't have to confirm to the standard Garda uniform protocol, where as a new convert to the religion does?

vinchick wrote: »

Its not the same as a religion as it is a recognised medical condition where people are born with genders that do not match their sex.

I'm pretty sure people are actually religious. They aren't pretending. In fact there is plenty of evidence that religious people are religious because of brain make up (or more specifically non-religious people are not religious because of brain make up, given that religious behavior seems to be the norm)

Most people do most things because of brain make up. We are in essessance our brains, they form our personality and sentience.

vinchick wrote: »

As I have previously said their is more and more evidence coming to light that supports this, the last information I read was about brain anatomy and it showed that the brain formation was consistent with their gender but not psychical sex.

Of which I've no doubt, I imagine they aren't faking it either, but again that doesn't change my point.

liah

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure it does, but that doesn't change my point.

Receptionist: Sorry that section is for women only.
Trangender Male: But I'm transgender, I consider myself a woman.
Receptionist: That may be but again the section is only for women.
TM: But I really really consider myself a woman.
Receptionist: Really really? Oh ok, in you go.

I really really believe something as opposed to just believing it is not a reason to ignore standard rules.

It's not a matter of belief.

I'm pretty sure people are actually religious. They aren't pretending. In fact there is plenty of evidence that religious people are religious because of brain make up (or more specifically non-religious people are not religious because of brain make up, given that religious behavior seems to be the norm)

Most people do most things because of brain make up. We are in essessance our brains, they form our personality and sentience.

And yet you're quite happy, presumably, to call them religious, or Christian, or whatever, you use their terms without qualms is my point, yet you hands-down refuse to do the same for transgender.

Also, people can't be religious from birth, and it is only taught behaviour. Transgender can be present from birth (or at the very least, detected very early in childhood) and is most likely not taught behaviour in the majority of cases (not saying all, as there's exceptions to every rule.)

If a person tells you they're gay, do you not believe them until you see them kissing someone of the same sex, or do you take their word for it?

Mark Hamill

vinchick wrote: »

Homeless shelters have security which operates through the night. There are nightly patrols to check to see if people are doing ok and not up to stuff which they shouldn't be. It would also be quite high risk with the CCTV and the need for photo id etc. that is required for registration.

So wait, homeless shelters are safe enough that we dont have to worry about the possibility (or the subsequent actions) of straight men lying their way into the womens only section, but they aren't safe enough to have superficially male transgender women stay in the men only section?

vinchick wrote: »

The situation in Ireland anyway is that homeless people need to register with their local authorities and the homeless persons unit who have files which include medical records verifying diagnoses. Any shelter which needs to confirm details can call either to confirm. Also there would be social workers and key workers who have to meet with people to organise housing who would be aware of the situation. Most even though homeless would still be linked in with hospitals or a GP who could confirm this. They would also have types of medication that they would need to keep taking and would need a facility for this. Others are linked in with NGO's and support groups who could also confirm this. I don't know the admin side in the US but I can't imagine it would be much different.

Was all this the case for the American transgender woman who wasn't allowed in?

vinchick

liamw wrote: »

Thanks for the information. So, in Jennifer's case with the SA what do you think they should have done in the situation?

In the article it specifies that Jennifer did not want to be in the male section due to risk of violence etc. Surely, then, there is a risk of violence in the women's section if a guy with malicious intentions manages to get in?
How can you reconcile this? By allowing Jennifer into the woman's section you are opening up that new risk. But perhaps the risk to an LGBT outweighs the other risk?

Perhaps I'm not understanding this situation properly.

Without proper safeguards housing a large number is people anywhere is problematic. Now to me it didn't seem like it was her first presentation so there was time to get verification from a medical professional to confirm her identity and keep that on file. Once her situation was confirmed she absolutely should have been housed with the women. Now before the confirmation they should have (or at least what any good agency should have done) was try to link her with other support groups such as a transgender network to help her. If they did not want to house her for safety reasons on the first presentation they should not just turn her (or anyone for that matter) out. Sometimes police stations or hospitals will allow people to stay until they are in a position to take up a bed.

Homeless shelters are dangerous places hence the security and registration requirements. But a man dressing up as a woman to attack women is not likely for those reasons. To be honest I haven't come across it happening in either work or study (that's not to say it hasn't happened but it would be very rare). Sadly there are easier ways for people to prey on vulnerable people.

liamw

liah wrote: »

I'm sure it's happened, and will continue to happen no matter how the legislation goes. I'm not sure what relevance this question has. What would happen if a lesbian went into the ladies'? I mean like, what exactly is the issue? The fact that they might encounter someone who may be attracted to them? It happens, life goes on.

Who said anything about people being attracted to one another? Stop misrepresenting people's views.

I was clearly talking about the inherent dangers of a straight male with malicious intentions getting into the women's section. Read my response to vinchick.

I'm not insinutating anything, merely asking a question!

Mark Hamill

liah wrote: »

I'm sure it's happened, and will continue to happen no matter how the legislation goes. I'm not sure what relevance this question has. What would happen if a lesbian went into the ladies'? I mean like, what exactly is the issue? The fact that they might encounter someone who may be attracted to them? It happens, life goes on.

Haven't you been paying attention? We cant put transgender or homosexuals in the mens only section because there is a chance of assault. What do you think would happen if one of these straight men, who would assault a homosexual or trangender, lied his way into the womens only section? What would you say to any women he hurt? It happens, life goes on.

liah wrote: »

I haven't even mentioned the Salvation Army in any of my posts. My responses are based on the reasonable, logical, and researched (yes, that's right, science) assumption that being transgender is NOT a matter of "wishing" or "choosing" and runs far, far deeper than that.

Did someone say otherwise?

liamw

vinchick wrote: »

Homeless shelters are dangerous places hence the security and registration requirements. But a man dressing up as a woman to attack women is not likely for those reasons. To be honest I haven't come across it happening in either work or study (that's not to say it hasn't happened but it would be very rare). Sadly there are easier ways for people to prey on vulnerable people.

Fair enough, you believe the cost of allowing malicious males into the female section underweighs the benefits of allowing transgender women in. That answers my question.

Mark Hamill

liah wrote: »

It's not a matter of belief.

Its not being presented that way. Superficially, to the receptionist, a person who really is transgender and person lying, will look and say the same things, so how does the receptionist know if the person is telling the truth?

sponsoredwalk

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure it does, but that doesn't change my point.

Receptionist: Sorry that section is for women only.
Trangender Male: But I'm transgender, I consider myself a woman.
Receptionist: That may be but again the section is only for women.
TM: But I really really consider myself a woman.
Receptionist: Really really? Oh ok, in you go.

I really really believe something as opposed to just believing it is not a reason to ignore standard rules.

If only this was the only point you were making...

Here is a 60 page guide for homeless shelters coping with the transition,
the fact that Gale & many others had to die to get society to recognise
what they'd already been calling for is just sad but a homeless shelter
not training it's staff in these matters is not the whole argument here,
despite you trying to hide behind this facade.

Wicknight wrote: »

While I respect a man can if he wishes choose to live as a woman (or to be more accurate an approximation of what he thinks a woman is like) I don't think that should over rule gender separation principles. I wouldn't expect for example a man to be allowed into a woman's shower because he identifies himself as a woman.

How does a comment like this have any bearing on the Salvation army?
Or was this a seperate point...

How about:

Wicknight wrote: »

While I appreciate that a transgender man wishes to be identified and treated as a woman the simple fact of the matter is that they are still a man, and that effects gender separation policies.

Was this a seperate point? I think so because:

Wicknight wrote: »

Again this has little to do with the Salvation Army.

was the follow-up sentence

How about:

Wicknight wrote: »

He is not a woman. He is a transgender man. He has the physical make up of a man. I appreciate that in biology nothing is exact and it is possible for a man to develop mental and emotional characteristics of a woman. But at the end of the day the receptionist has a man standing in front of him or her and has to assess the person based on that fact.

This has nothing to do with the Salvation army, this is just ridiculous
bias coming out.

What's more is this comment:

Wicknight wrote: »

I've no doubt that this person considered himself to be a woman in mental and emotional make up. But I also have no doubt that the Sikhs applying to teh Guards really really believed they had to wear their head gear, or that some Christians really really believe they shouldn't work on Sunday. It is unreasonable to expect people to simply wave rules in place that regular certain actions of behavior simply because a person claims they the rules shouldn't apply to them.

What you're saying is clear & has no bearing on the salvation army.
Here you're stating that although they may call themselves gender X
it doesn't change the fact that what is between their legs is really all
that matters in my book, also everytime you refer to her as "him" you
do the same horrible thing.

Wicknight wrote: »

I can't help but feel that a lot of the arguments here are based purely on emotional responses rather than reason. Transgender people = Good, Salvation Army = Bad therefore what they did must be bad.

Find a point in my argument like this. I think it's hilarious that you refer
to reason when reason would force you to enquire into the definitions
that you think need changing.

Sex: a biological label ascribed at birth on the
basis of genitalia - male, female, intersexed.

Gender: appearance and behaviors based on
socially constructed concepts of masculine and
feminine that vary from culture to culture and
among individuals within a given culture.

Transgender: gender variance or blurring of
cultural gender norms; individuals who feel a
“disconnect” between the sex they were assigned
at birth and their psychological gender identity.

FTM (female-to-male): born with female genitalia
but see themselves as partly to fully masculine.

MTF (male-to-female): born with male genitalia
but see themselves as partly to fully feminine.

Gender dysphoria: a clinical term for unhappi-
ness or discomfort experienced by individuals
whose external sex characteristics do not match
their internal gender identity.

Transsexual: individuals who feel a need to
change their external sex characteristics
through hormones and/or surgery to match
their internal gender identity.

Sexual orientation: the sex to which one is
erotically attracted – opposite (hetero), same
(homo), both (bi), none (a).
link

I agree with you that it's a weak argument to target the Salvation Army
out from the crowd of people whose biases led to Gale's and many others
deaths but it's all the above comments & others that have ticked me off.
I didn't expect you to come out with a continual argument of this point,
I expected it to be something you' check up on once you were challenged
but seriously this continual barrage of comments & comparison is shocking.

vinchick

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So wait, homeless shelters are safe enough that we dont have to worry about the possibility (or the subsequent actions) of straight men lying their way into the womens only section, but they aren't safe enough to have superficially male transgender women stay in the men only section?


Was all this the case for the American transgender woman who wasn't allowed in?

The night time security is only a small part in homeless security. There is information including medical records kept which can show a fraud.

I can't say for certain (as I didn't work in Dallas) but there seems to be quite a few homeless agencies who are keeping records on people in sheltered and transitional housing as well as sleeping rough.

As I said below it did not seem to be her first presentation so there would have been time to get the necessary documentation.