Brian? wrote: » Is it me, or do most of the objections around accepting trans people come down to sharing changing rooms or toilets? I genuinely find the taboos around nudity bizarre. Now, I go along with them as a matter what of politeness to other peoples comfort levels. But honestly, why are we so hung up on nudity? Why is it so import to hide?
LLMMLL wrote: » What’s your concern there?
Malayalam wrote: » The toilets thing is not such a big deal with me, toilets are omnisex in every home, and if I am at an event I will often enough use the men's loos because, damn, those queues for the ladies are unreal. Though if I consider more widely than me, perhaps elderly ladies with continence problems might find it awkward to have a bunch of young fellas larking about in the loos. Or younger women experiencing the 1 in 5 pregnancies that end in miscarriage, and very often in a public toilet, might feel a tad uneasy with elder gents in the queue. Don't know. It's possible, I would say. Why not have all three options? Male, female, and however you are feeling yourself?
LLMMLL wrote: » Talk about red herrings.
LLMMLL wrote: » I get that in our culture people have hangups about nudity and this isn’t Germany. What I find bizarre is this “rapists are everywhere” mentality. It comes from the same people who think feminists are demonising men, yet they seem to be the ones who are afraid of men.
LLMMLL wrote: » I just looked into the Target thing. Seems it was mostly men videoing themselves being allowed to use the bathrooms to prove a point. Of the voyeur incidents some were before the gender neutral policy was announced, and one of the men responsible for an incident after the gender neutral policy was announced had a conviction from before the policy. Nothing to do with trans issues at all.
Brian? wrote: » I see what you’re saying. And maybe that is the answer to it. I still feel the right will make an issue out of it and the left will over react. I’m hoping by the time my kids are grown, this will all seem silly. The way the anti gay laws and discrimination of my childhood seem silly now.
Malayalam wrote: » Sure lookit, we should all ride the bus to work in the nude. I think it would be beneficial for children so they would have no hang ups about personal space at all.
Brian? wrote: » I know you’re joking, but why wouldn’t that be better than having all these hang ups about nudity? Weather permitting of course.
Malayalam wrote: » Meet you back here in 10 years time and we will see what way it pans out and what seems silly then
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » I can walk around naked easily enough in a male dressing room. In a mixed dressing room that kind of thing is not acceptable.
Identity politics is pushing in two different directions on this - safe spaces for women, interaction with female doctors or police for intimate searches or medical reasons. Even Islamic ideologies have been accommodated in some segregated swimming pools. (And no they aren’t going to accept a trans woman biological male as a woman). Something has got to give.
Malayalam wrote: » Hahah (answer = sticky bums )
Brian? wrote: » I have an inkling I’ll be on the right side of this one. Still plenty of homophobes around, but they no longer get their way. I see the same happening with trans issues. I don’t know what age you are, but I remember the backlash against “the gays”, looking exactly like this. The church have less influence now though, praise allah.
Brian? wrote: » I know it’s not acceptable. I’m asking why though? I think I know why, but it’s a convoluted theory based on religious oppression of the masses. Mainly the Abrhamic religions. Shouldn’t it be questioned? Something should give. Religions should no longer be accomadated in public institutions for a start.
Brian? wrote: » I know it’s not acceptable. I’m asking why though? I think I know why, but it’s a convoluted theory based on religious oppression of the masses. Mainly the Abrhamic religions. Shouldn’t it be questioned?
Something should give. Religions should no longer be accomadated in public institutions for a start.
Merrick Jealous Monogamy wrote: » It's nothing got to do with "rapists are everywhere". If you acknowledge the fact that perverts / rapists / men with bad intentions exist, then you must also acknowledge that allowing anyone to identify as any gender and access the same facilities of their chosen gender, it will increase access of these people to their targets. Identity politics aren't healthy. It's clear you're wrapped up in your ideology when you're immediately assuming that anyone who raises a concern about arbitrary gender identification is a right winger who hates the metoo movement.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » These hang ups are probably inate. Every human society has clothing, and the genitalia are covered in even the most (whatever the modern word for) primitive society. You see, we stand up and thus expose the genitalia. That’s something that makes us vulnerable and, well, in the male case broadcasts fairly obvious semi signals that maybe we don’t want broadcast when the hot woman gets on the bus.
Brian? wrote: » Seriously though. Why the taboo? Have you actually given it any thought?
Merrick Jealous Monogamy wrote: » More of the oppressor vs victims mentality Brian. I don't believe religions are primarily responsible for people not going everywhere nude, although to be fair I've done very little research on the matter. I'd be inclined to say it's for protection from the elements to a large extent. How does religion come into a discussion about safe spaces for women (e.g the swimming classes for women only) potentially allowing transgender women (or men identifying as women) into their safe spaces? Its completely irrelevant to the discussion.
LLMMLL wrote: » Nah I think if someone was likely to rape a woman in a female changing room they wouldn’t need to pretend to be trans to do it. The example that someone gave of incidents in Target with gender neutral changing rooms in the US proved the point. Incidents were already happening before the rooms became gender neutral, and a guy caught after they became gender neutral had convictions from before hey became gender neutral. Pervs be perving.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » nothing to do with abramhabic religions because the nudity taboo is fairly ancient and universal. Adam and Eve was explaining a taboo already there.
It’s not accommodating a religious act, like a mass or a mosque sermon. It’s locally democratic councillors who listening to concerns from their voters who happen to be religious.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » I'm not religious at all, I'm often vocal in my opinions against the church, but even I'm getting tired of everything getting blamed on religion.
Brian? wrote: » So simply reinforcing an existing taboo? Have you any suggestions on where I can read more about that. It’s accommodating religious beliefs though.
