Students Protest Transgender Teen’s Use of Girls’ Locker Room- What Are Her Rights?

[DeezNuts515]

James uses an avatar of a TS with a large cock, photoshopped to appear abnormally huge, yet drones on and on about the abnormality of a human being attracted to the same organs they currently possess. This troglodyte serves no further purpose on this forum.

The first time I drank beer, it was a lifestyle choice. The first time I smoked weed, it was a lifestyle choice. When I converted to Islam in college, it was a lifestyle choice (same thing when I decided that all religion is stupid, and became an Atheist). In all of those scenarios, I weighed the decisions, comparing and contrasting the pros and the cons.

The first time I kissed a girl, I was in Kindergarten. I didn't consciously sit there and think about whether I wanted to kiss a boy or a girl. I wasn't attracted to the boys, at all. At a very young age, I liked girls. I wasn't even aware of TS women until I got to college. The first time I saw Thais Anderson jerking off in House of Shemales, I got an erection, and at that point, I realized I was attracted to beautiful women with penises. Jailhouse beast TS women do nothing for me. I don't get an erection looking at a naked man.

Watching TS porn is a lifestyle choice. Being attracted to TS women, or being attracted to a member of the same sex, is not a lifestyle choice. It's unbelievably stupid to hold this viewpoint in 2015. But considering the source, I'm not surprised.

[DeezNuts515]

That's just a typo, learn to spot the difference.

As for trolling, James, you're the biggest troll on this site. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the individual cases presented, your last couple of threads are deliberately looking to present transgenders in a bad light. What is your agenda?

Yes, it was a (very embarrassing in retrospect) auto-correct, as I was typing on my phone. I will ensure better proofreading in the future.

[Lester316]

It's a shame that a debate about rights and what is appropriate in a school setting seems to have come secondary to people's opinions of each other. Sometimes we get lost deconstructing how someone makes a point and the importance of the question/point itself gets lost in the shuffle.

Whether or not people believe (as Laphroaig has suggested) if James is trolling and trying to present transgender people in a bad light there is a genuine and important question buried in his comments. Like many others I come to this board as a genuine lover and supporter of transgender people but I also believe that as a society it is logically insane and not practical to accommodate one person's wishes when that may impact on a great many other people. Lila's wish to use the girl's locker room is 100% understandable but enforcing it is by no means fair or practical when you take other people's wishes into account.

The school took all reasonable steps to provide Lila with a locker room area/changing facility that she can use but because she doesn't like it she gets what she wants. Giving one person special treatment whilst refusing to respect the wishes of a vast number of others simply isn't a fair thing to do. How can any society claim to be reasonable if it infringes the rights of a very large number of people by going beyond what it is necessary just to keep one person happy?

[mildcigar_2001]

I think the increasing emphasis on transgender/gay "rights" is going to spark a backlash in this country if LGBT Community attempts to push these "rights" beyond the bounds of common sense.

The common sense approach is to treat the transgender high school student humanely, which it appears the school district was doing by providing a gender neutral bathroom.

An example of "rights" being pushed too far is attempting to place this transgender student (still with complete male parts) in the midst of the girls' locker-room. If the LGBT Community tries to push things beyond the bounds of common sense then there will be repercussions and actual legitimate hard-earned rights are going to be taken away.

This situation is analogous to the debate now taking place on illegal immigration (one side wants near open borders, and the majority of the country thinks this is a bad idea and people are made that the situation has gotten so far out of control).

[dreamon]

Your point here is also flawed. You are quite correct to suggest it is crazy to think someone would dress up like a girl and wear a wig just to see naked girls but you also point out that schools are rife with bullying and ridicule. It is those aspects of being a teenager at school which perfectly demonstrate the need for a locker room for Transgender students; a place where they can use the facilities with others who understand what they are going through and not a place where they are mixed in with some students who neither understand or sympathize with them.

So we're going to normalize transgender students by separating them from the student body?

[Lester316]

That's not and never was my point.

Normalization is a strange word anyhow, are you suggesting everyone should be the same, think the same way, or act the same way? The sensible and practical option is to provide facilities that suit the needs of those who use them to the best of our abilities.

Forcing 'normalization' or acceptance on any individual or group is prone to failure regardless. Teaching and understanding are required not making people do something they do not want to do.

[broncofan]

Lester,
People haven't focused just on his mode of expression but also the things he has said when he put the question to everyone. You seem to have an issue with this transgender using the female's locker room, but not with an initial post about transsexuals and gay men and women trying to impose their lifestyles on other people. Nor an issue with all sorts of homophobia being promoted within this thread as part of the initial post that we were asked to respond to. I find your claim that you are not here to argue disingenuous when we were responding to the posts in the thread, with special emphasis on the first post which started it.

So what is the topic of this thread? Why don't you read the first post and find out. It is not about whether one transgender girl should use a restroom, but about the pending harm being brought about by transsexuals and gay men and women generally. It would all be nice if we could just state our views in the abstract but we are always at least responding to the first post.

I also don't buy most of your arguments about why a transsexual should not be able to use a restroom matching her gender identity but I was pleased that Fred had posted that our most liberal states have already passed favorable laws and imagine much like gay marriage it will be sorted out in due time. Slippery slope arguments and arguments about administrative efficiency and the majority being able to claim their discomfort trumps the rights of someone with much more at stake don't convince me. But yes, it's kind of bizarre to me that someone can start a thread with pretty obvious hatred and you can pretend that it is not annexed to the main topic or just as relevant to address.

[fred41]

I believe until there is , at the minimum, a state law or dept. of education mandate on these situations, they can often be handled on a case by case basis. In Lila's case I don't think I'd mind if she changed in the same locker room as my daughter (assuming I had one of course)...and I don't think my daughter would mind if she was in any way like me.

The school took all reasonable steps to provide Lila with a locker room area/changing facility that she can use but because she doesn't like it she gets what she wants. Giving one person special treatment whilst refusing to respect the wishes of a vast number of others simply isn't a fair thing to do. How can any society claim to be reasonable if it infringes the rights of a very large number of people by going beyond what it is necessary just to keep one person happy?

What if an all white locker room didn't want a black student changing with them ...or a handicapped student? When do the considerations of the individual outweigh the considerations of the majority in your opinion?
If a psychologist labeled Lila a transsexual , I think I'd be good with that. But I understand that not everyone's going to agree with me on this...ten years ago I probably would have argued otherwise.

[broncofan]

If a psychologist labeled Lila a transsexual , I think I'd be good with that. But I understand that not everyone's going to agree with me on this...ten years ago I probably would have argued otherwise.

You avoid a slippery slope by having a reasonable process. I think that would be one. It actually does a lot to address the fears of the opponents of the measure.

The other argument I see is that we've chosen biological categories, and they are the simplest and most straight-forward single categories, so that's what we should stick with. But of course nothing prevents the adoption of slight changes or exceptions to the general categories. It doesn't really make it much less feasible if you understand why you chose the initial categories and why it is you're making an exception.

One of the reasons we chose these categories is probably privacy based, not just matching like with like...and if that's the case then an analogy between gender identity AND sexual orientation is warranted. One reason people are not uncomfortable in the presence of those biologically similar is not just that they have the same parts and functions but also maybe their suspicion (or misapprehension) that it's unlikely someone has an incentive to look at their body. Frequently people suspected of being gay are accused of peeping, and a mtf transsexual will be subjected to homophobia in a boy's bathroom regardless of her sexual orientation. So I thought it was perfectly relevant that you pointed out that if the girls are afraid she has some prurient interest in seeing her body, they would be just as likely to have gay women checking them out.

The reason the main subject took a backseat to my concern with James's posts is that his posts highlight a much bigger problem. As I said, if someone thinks a mtf ts should not use the girls room I can understand their reasoning without necessarily agreeing, but I can't understand them thinking that it highlights a problem of an over-aggressive lgbt community trying to harm children. The worst possible outcome for the children is that they end up like James, thinking that homosexuality is the result of imbalance genes and that a gay co-worker who mentions that he has a partner is bombarding him with gay shit.

[dreamon]

Normalization is a strange word anyhow, are you suggesting everyone should be the same, think the same way, or act the same way?

I'm suggesting that everyone should be treated the same way.