Gender is not sex, or the bathroom debate

[IA_farmboy]

Anyone that has studied a foreign language has likely had to understand the concept of gender. There are things that have been assigned a gender even though an object is incapable of reproduction. This gender exists beyond the name of the object. We do this in the English language, for example someone might say, "The USS Ronald Reagan, she is a fine ship."

Also, we see people that will claim we can do anything or be anything if we put our mind to it. We'll see people say the same thing about gender, they will claim to be any one of 50 genders. This gender may have nothing to do with their biological sex. These people will claim that gender is a social construct that has nothing to do with biology, we've been living in a world that asks sexes to conform to these constructed genders and they will not conform to such constructs because they don't feel they should limit themselves to a binary norm.

I will agree with them to some extent, our language and other societal constructs have placed a gender on a lot of things arbitrarily. In English speaking nations sailors will refer to a sailing vessel as a "she" but other societies will refer to their ships as a "he". We don't have to impose a gender on such things, and if society wished we could certainly construct any of a number of genders to use in language. But because of biology and the differences they impose on our bodies and minds we tend to think in binary him/her, he/she, etc.

Here is where I disagree with these people. If you want to separate the masculine and feminine genders from the male and female sexes then on many levels I have no problem with that. I can say this because we've already done so in many cases by imposing a gender on objects like ships at sea. What we cannot do is impose a sex upon a person. Sex is a biological state. We may have constructed the words to define sex of a person or animal but the difference between the two is undeniable.

Side note: I understand that there are rare cases in which biological sex can be ambiguous, indeterminate, or what not. These cases are rare and also not the topic of this discussion. We are discussing people with normal biological development of one sex or the other but choose to identify with a gender that is contrary to their biological sex.

A person that chooses to live outside the social norms of their biological sex still has a biological sex within social norms. These people need to use the restrooms that coincide with their biological sex.

These transgendered people claim to be uncomfortable using a restroom that is contrary to the gender they chose. These people do not seem concerned that they may be making everyone else that uses that restroom uncomfortable. This is exceedingly selfish and they should know this.

Just because they choose to live a life like someone from the opposite sex does not change what they are. This makes a much sense as a male claiming to be a feminine gender demanding to see an OB/GYN for a medical issue. The wishing that things were different does not make them so.

What boggles me the most is how much time has been spent on this even though this affects one percent of one percent of the population. Why is this even a thing?

[Grmlin]

It has become a thing because common sense has become an extremely uncommon virtue. I don't care who identifies with what, that is their choice, but these people wanting to let the opposite sex into bathrooms just aren't thinking about all the ramifications. I don't worry about the guy who identifies as a women, I worry about the pedophile who will use it to rape a child. Could it happen now, yes it could, but it will be even more probable when it becomes normal for a man to go into a woman's restroom (or vice-versa). When the female who feels she is a man goes into a men's locker room and is raped. The PC people, leftist media, and stars keep pushing like their opinions matter. I listened to Bruce Springsteen when I was a teenager and he is entitled to his opinion but he can suck it, I'll never buy anything from him again (not that my measly amount will matter).

The man who spearheaded the attempt to let transgenders into the opposite sex's bathroom in Charlotte N.C was a convicted pedophile. Go figure and that didn't make the news.

I have changed what I do when my wife goes into the bathroom now I wait outside the door and lord help them if my wife catches one in the bathroom with her not that you can always tell in a glance.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I don't get all the hullabaloo. No one is prohibited from using the bathroom. Where there is a boys room there is a girls room right near by.

I guess no one will be happy until there is a Kotex dispenser in the boy's room and a urinal in the girl's room.

Woody

[sdprof]

Simple solution - have three rest rooms:

♂ ♀ ???

[JTHunter]

There was a cute editorial cartoon in the local paper recently. It showed two door, one with a spoon on it and another with a fork on it.
Standing out in front is a "spork" with a "??" over its head.

[Combat Diver]

[IA_farmboy]

There was a cute editorial cartoon in the local paper recently. It showed two door, one with a spoon on it and another with a fork on it.
Standing out in front is a "spork" with a "??" over its head.

What makes situations like this even more maddening is that most of these restrooms are meant to be occupied by a single person at a time. Once that door is closed and locked does it really matter what the label on the door reads? In most small restaurants there is typically two single occupancy restrooms anyway, just change the label on the doors to read "unisex" and be done with this nonsense. The fact that one might have a urinal and the other not should not be an issue. If that does bother someone to the point that it might lead to legal action then there are a few options, remove the urinal, put a urinal in the other restroom too, or label one restroom as employees only. A couple new door signs and perhaps one day of work for a competent plumber is cheaper than going to court.

In places with enough traffic that there is a need for multiple occupancy restrooms there is almost always a third single occupancy restroom that is labeled as "family", handicapped accessible, and/or some other similar designation. The one in a million people in this nation that fit outside the binary norms of gender and sex should be asked to use restrooms like this. This is usually how transgendered students in schools are treated. This is also usually where the lawsuits start.

This gets back to the original post I made, these transgendered people will complain that being forced to use a single occupancy restroom is discriminatory. Well, that is the price they pay by living outside the binary norms that society and nature has created. Nature has created two sexes, society has decided that due to these natural differences between the sexes that we should have separate facilities. If a person has modified their natural form with the use of artificial drugs and surgery then they have decided that they no longer belong in either of these binary norms.

[IA_farmboy]

I heard on the radio today of a teen in high school that went to the boys locker room to change clothes and found a girl in there that was also there to change clothes. The sight of a girl in her underwear in the boys locker room was unexpected to say the least. What was even more unexpected was the response from the vice principle from his complaint. This boy was informed that the person he saw was not a girl because she identified as a boy. He was to return to the locker room to change clothes, but if he felt uncomfortable to do so then he could change clothes in the nurses' office.

The parents of this teen are now suing the school district.

How did we get to this place?

Has anyone heard of the term "gas lighting" before? It comes from an old story of a man that would dim and brighten the gas lights in his house but act as if nothing had changed, this was to induce his wife into madness. We're all being gas lighted here. We're being told something is normal when we know it is not so. If enough people keep telling someone a lie, in obvious contradiction of what can be seen, then this can make one doubt their own sanity.

What we are seeing here is truly maddening.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I heard on the radio today of a teen in high school that went to the boys locker room to change clothes and found a girl in there that was also there to change clothes. The sight of a girl in her underwear in the boys locker room was unexpected to say the least. What was even more unexpected was the response from the vice principle from his complaint. This boy was informed that the person he saw was not a girl because she identified as a boy. He was to return to the locker room to change clothes, but if he felt uncomfortable to do so then he could change clothes in the nurses' office.

The parents of this teen are now suing the school district.

How did we get to this place?

Has anyone heard of the term "gas lighting" before? It comes from an old story of a man that would dim and brighten the gas lights in his house but act as if nothing had changed, this was to induce his wife into madness. We're all being gas lighted here. We're being told something is normal when we know it is not so. If enough people keep telling someone a lie, in obvious contradiction of what can be seen, then this can make one doubt their own sanity.

What we are seeing here is truly maddening.

I'm trying to do my part. A ship is now an "it" or "that" or "The (insert ship's name)". My Suburban is no longer a "she", it is now "Big Red". Biologically altered people are now an "it" or a "that". Transgender claimants are an "it" as well.

No one has any right to barge into an opposite sex restroom. Merely claiming you are, or 'identify' as, the opposite sex does not make it right any more than a 'straight' person has a right to barge into an opposite sex restroom.

There is no discrimination in a law or societal norm prohibiting a person to barge into an opposite sex restroom. ALL males are prohibited to go into a female restroom and ALL females are prohibited to go into a male restroom. That is equal application of the law. No one is discriminated against.

It's the same with marriage. Only individuals have rights and no person has a right to get married - it takes two people to get married, one consenting person from each sex to engage in a contract of marriage. Any law or societal norm that prohibits same sex marriage prohibits ALL persons from engaging in a same sex marriage regardless of what they claim their sexual preference is. That is equal application of the law. No one is discriminated against.

If a same sex couple wants to unite their lives in a contract, call it something other than marriage. Call it what it is. It's a perversion.

Woody

[Grmlin]

What do they think will happen with a naked girl in a locker room with naked boys. She may identify as a boy but she is still female and about the time something happens to one or more of these girls, those idiots are going to be up in arms and yelling to protect their young women.

[therewolf]

I don't know, Grmlin, I'd be more worried that
freak-girl might do something perverted to one
of the boys.

I have to agree with the gas lighting comment.
Who decided there are 23 genders? WTF is a
"demi-boy"?

There was a time when you were:
A:-Male
B:-Female
C:-Not classified as human

IMO, it's a bunch of narcissistic attention
seekers, who got no love, as children, at home.

[IA_farmboy]

WTF is a "demi-boy"?

A glass jar or bottle that holds about 5 gallons of liquid. I don't know what that has to do with gender confused teens.

I listen to a number of political commentary podcasts and I've heard two or three of them comment on a survey asking people if they'd date a transgendered person. I don't recall the responses, only that the people that did the survey claimed that those people that would not date a transgendered person were "bigoted" or something.

I guess if someone is not happy with the sex they were born with it's now my fault if I'm "creepified" if one of them asks me on a date. People are biologically wired for procreation. If a person is unable to procreate due to behavioral, hormonal, and/or surgical modifications they've done then it should not surprise them if their choices for life partners is limited. Transgenderism is an evolutionary dead end, one way or another this will not end well.

After one of those podcasts I watched on YouTube there was a "recommended for you" video of a teen boy that thinks he's a girl that complained that boys won't talk to him. My first thought was that I remember high school and it was rare for someone to not get along with others. Someone had to be a serious behavior problem to not have people talk to them. Then it hit me. "She" wasn't complaining that boys won't talk to "her". "She" was complaining that boys weren't talking to "her" like they talk to girls.

He then thought out loud that perhaps this would change after he got the surgery to rearrange things... "down there". I'm at a loss for words.

This brings me to a bit of a side note. I hear of the outrage over what people call female genital mutilation, and even over Jewish circumcision. The outrage is primarily over that this is done to minors, people that lack the mental capacity to consider the implications this has on their future. If this is an outrage then what of allowing children to get hormone blockers? There are claims this treatment will reversibly delay puberty so that the child can mature enough to choose to go forward with other treatments once they are (legally at least) an adult.

If these hormone blockers do in fact create a reversible effect then that is one thing. What is different is when parents allow children to choose hormone treatments to override natural hormonal development in puberty. That is not reversible, they will be sterile at a minimum. That should be considered child abuse by the parents and medical malpractice by the physicians that prescribe the hormones. Performing surgery that renders a child unable to have children of their own in the future should be worthy of a life sentence without parole.

This will not end well, one way or another.

[JTHunter]

Transgenderism is an evolutionary dead end, one way or another this will not end well.

Unfortunately, with the advances in technology that has occurred since the late 90's, "they" don't have to be fertile themselves. Between sperm banks, egg donors, IVF, surrogates, etc., almost anything is possible.

And who knows what tech advances will occur in the next 5-10 years?

[IA_farmboy]

I'm sure that by now everyone here has heard that Trump reversed an Obama policy allowing transgendered people in the military. It seems they are still working out the details on what to do with transgendered people currently serving but it is clear that no transgendered person will be allowed to join. One way or the other the transgendered currently serving will be gone from the military in time.

One thing that occurred to me is what being "transgendered" means. This can mean a lot of things apparently. It can mean everything from having expensive and invasive surgeries and a lifetime of hormone treatment to merely feeling that one was not born in the "correct" body but not really doing much about it.

Why Trump felt the need to say or do anything about this issue now is a bit of a question. I guess he can't do everything on the first day and it took him nearly eight months to get to the point of reading the written military standards on disqualifying medical conditions and the standards on military dress and grooming.

Let's start with the simple matter of grooming. Women may wear simple earrings, a conservative colored lip gloss, grow their nails a bit longer, and paint their nails a conservative color. If a woman wishes to not wear makeup, cut their hair and nails short, and not get pierced ears then some might call this "butch", others might call it "practical". I will say that a woman wearing a uniform and a smile always looks great.

Men that want to grow their hair long, wear earrings and lip gloss, and grow their nails long are out of uniform. People that cannot conform to the grooming standards of the military is a problem of discipline. We should not tolerate people that cannot follow simple orders like how to cut their hair and wear their uniform.

If you look at the disqualifying medical conditions the military specifies then you will notice a few things, and we'll simply ignore any mention of "change of sex" as a disqualification that you may see since Obama effectively negated this clause. One thing I noticed is that while the list does give potential disqualifications there is a possibility of a waiver. So a person may have one of these conditions and might still get in but this is up to the chain of command to issue that waiver. So, again, if we ignore the "change of sex" part that has been negated by policy the other standards still apply. As commander in chief Trump can give a blanket statement on how those standards are enforced.

For men, if there is an absence of both testicles, congenital or acquired, then this can be a disqualifying medical condition. If someone checks that box that says "male" on the form and they don't find testicles in the medical exam then they can disqualify the applicant. So a biological female that checks the "male" box can be disqualified. Any biological male that had his testicles removed for any reason can also be disqualified.

For women, a congenital absence of the uterus can be a disqualifying factor. What I found interesting is that I found no mention of an absence of ovaries as a disqualifying factor. Silicone breast implants did not disqualify either. Absence of mammary tissue, or menstruation, didn't seem to matter either.

So, if a biological male gets all the "man bits" removed and checks the "female" box on the form, can somehow convince the medical staff that the absence of a uterus was not "congenital", or has it waived, then "she" might still get in. I guess. Just as if a biological female had ovaries, uterus, and mammary tissue removed for medical reasons (cancer treatment for example), and silicone implants for cosmetic reconstruction, could get in.

A woman or "woman" (that wasn't born a female) that comes to the entry physical where a lack of uterus and ovaries, and breast implants, are discovered then this is going to need some explanation. It's also going to take an otherwise exceptional applicant. If medical records were also "surgically removed" then this could be a problem. As I read the standards someone like this might still get in but that's got to be long odds.

So, by just reading and enforcing the military standards on medical disqualifications and grooming Trump can discharge a lot of transgendered people from the military.

Do I think that this will mean no more transgendered people will be in the military? Of course not. Just like we've always had homosexuals in the military. What both groups will have to do though is adhere to the standards of behavior, physical fitness, and grooming like any other warrior.

This is just "don't ask, don't tell" widened to include a few more people.

[Johnny Dollar]

So far the Defense Secretary has not commented on Trump's tweet. It's just hanging in the air after several days. There is a good chance that nothing will change. For now.

[IA_farmboy]

So far the Defense Secretary has not commented on Trump's tweet. It's just hanging in the air after several days. There is a good chance that nothing will change. For now.

Wasn't there a ban on allowing new transgendered people to join? Seems to me that people that show up with neither a uterus or testicles are not getting in. Those with both aren't getting in either, and if such people exist then they really need to get that checked out.

What is really maddening is all the talk I hear about people going back and forth about how this makes them feel. Who cares how anyone feels? Is this good or bad for the military's ability to kill people and break things? That's what people should be asking.

The silence so far is a bit concerning. The chief has spoken, people need to act.

Another thing that's caught my attention was this article about "non-binary" gender people getting "X" on their driving license instead of "M" or "F".

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i..._state_to.html

Many of these people are mentally ill, playing into their delusions is not healthy for them or society.

[Johnny Dollar]

subscribed, this seems like a very interesting thread

Welcome to GRM!

[IA_farmboy]

I saw this article linked from Drudge:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ert-woman.html

In there Specialist Brown says this:

Go ahead, tell me I'm not a person, that I'm not a human being capable of defending my country because my awards and certificates prove otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that no one is denying that Brown is human.

To Specialist Brown:
You are a human and you are a soldier. If you have a problem with adhering to the commands of your commander in chief on matters of uniform and conduct then perhaps it is in fact time for you to leave. I am certain you have served with honor and I hope you choose to continue to do so. No one is forcing you to out, it's all on what you believe is important to you. I wish you well no matter which of the two paths before you that you choose to take.

From one US Army Specialist to another.