LGBTAI+ LGBTitp - Part Eight [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Jacklu

2010-09-06, 12:31 AM

Welcome, one and all.

This is a thread where we Playgrounders, and LGBTitp in particular, gather to discuss, share our experiences, give general advice and support one another in such matters as arise relating to, well, the world beyond heteronormaitivity.

Everyone is welcome. Let's try to keep from seeming otherwise.
Keep this topic free of politics and religion. (so, don't violate the board rules, plz)
It's beyond the scope of this thread to discuss whether LGBT is "Right." (And really, most discussions probably should avoid moralizing too much anyway)
Please refrain from posting sexually explicit content. (Keep it friendly as well as board safe :smallsmile:)

If you would rather be anonymous when asking for advice or sharing your story or views, you can use the address below to send a message to be posted in this thread via proxy.

http://anonmail.smeenet.org/

Keep in mind that content which contain strong language may be filtered (Plus, y'know, the forum-filters), and content that violates the forum rules won't be posted at all.

Here are the links for the last few threads, where much of use or interest may be found:
LGBT people in the playground (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62225)

LGBT people in the playground - part II (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86066)

LGBTitp - part III (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5663140#post5663140)

LGBTitp 4: We are a family? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129235)

LGBTitp - Part Five (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143424)

LGBTitp - Part Six (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147832)

LGBTitp - Part Seven (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157312)

*modified from the original.

Jacklu

2010-09-06, 12:35 AM

New thread! So, the discussion on the last thread seemed to be on dating sites and stuff. Personally, Giantitp is the closest thing to a dating site I use. <.< Met my Girlfriend here even.

Lord_Gareth

2010-09-06, 12:40 AM

Danne

2010-09-06, 12:45 AM

Hi! :smallbiggrin:

And honestly, that's pretty much how most people go through the process, or at least it's how I did. You may or may not decide that you're curious, and if you are you may or may not decide that you're really bi. A lot of people go through phases where they're curious (even straight people). Curiosity is good!

Anywho, no need to make that decision until you're ready. Put some thought into it. Don't panic. If you're curious, then explore! (A good philosophy for all sorts of things in life, that. Though not everything.) If not, then move on with your life. No harm done. :smallsmile:

Edit: Also, yay, new thread!

tgva8889

2010-09-06, 12:45 AM

Hi >.>

This is mildly embarrassing (and not for the reasons you might think), but I think I might be bi-curious. That, in and of itself, is not the embarrassing bit. No, the embarrassing bit is that I'm not sure if I'm curious about it or not. I mean, honestly. It's like not knowing whether or not you'd consider trying a new kind of cheese. I'm not even at the decision-making stage, for Cthulu's sake!

Also, longtime supporter, first time poster.

Here's the biggest sign, at least from my end, on being bi-curious.

Have you ever thought about being in a relationship with someone of the gender you are not attracted to? If the answer is yes, and you thought about it in a seriously desiring way, then chances are bi-curiosity is something you should consider.

Maybe that's just me...sorry for speaking for those who are, as someone who isn't really.

Lord_Gareth

2010-09-06, 12:49 AM

For all future reference, the situation is complicated by the presence of a bi-sexual wife who doesn't like to share me (but does like to hand out occasional treats of the kind most straight men can only achieve via overactive imagination and a robust adult movie collection). I'm sure I'll figure it out somehow, but here lately, I've needed to vent little frustrations like this one. It's hard, at times, when a intriguing daydream is interrupted by an unexpected addition and your brain's reaction isn't "GAH!" or "Hey sexy!" but rather, "Huh. I dunno."

Danne

2010-09-06, 12:54 AM

Ah. Yes, best not to do anything that would get you in trouble. :smallwink:

If your wife is bi, have you tried talking to her about it? She might understand and/or have pointers.

Lord_Gareth

2010-09-06, 01:00 AM

You know, I have. However, my poor wife grew up in rural Michigan, where people still got beaten for coming out of any kind of closet, and if her parents knew anything, she'd get disowned so fast that I bet I could smell the ink on the will from a mile off. Consequentially, her experiences are somewhat limited and specialized (meaning there's been two of them, and I was participating in one) and of little use to my personal dilemma.

...Wow I just sounded so dry up there >.>

golentan

2010-09-06, 01:00 AM

Goletan... I kinda think you might have a slightly distorted (or at least overly-generalising) view of what goes on on dating sites. Take my friend: he met a girl on OKCupid. They got on fine online, and became friends. Then they decided to meet in person a couple of times, to decide if there was anything more to it. It turned out there was, and so then they decided to get together properly. They didn't go "I'm looking for a girlfriend, you're looking for a boyfriend... We're a couple now! :D". They said, "I'm looking for a girlfriend, you're looking for a boyfriend... And we're both looking for friends! Lets talk and see if we get along, and if we do we should meet up and then maybe we could try dating if we want to and if not we could try being friends! :D"
I think that, most of the time, the meeting on dating sites is more like, say, here on the forums, than Chatroulette. You seem to be assuming that the Chatroulette style is the be-all and end-all.

Not everyone has "strata from childhood" from whom to select their lifelong mate. Not everyone has an assortment of clubs and social gatherings at which to meet new people in the flesh - in this regard, I expect dating sites are a huge boon to people way out bush. Not everyone assumes that meeting someone on the internet means you fall for them at first email, and bang 'em at first meeting.

edit: Put it this way. Do you find it skeevy that some people might join up to this forum hoping to make some friends, as well as have interesting discussions on a wide variety of topics?

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASSUMING!

The purpose of dating sites is to date. People go there to pursue other people for the express purpose of dating, hence the name. The idea being that you look for romance, and meet people if and only if they have prospect of romance or (tangentially) if they become friends through the networking portion of the setup as a side effect. If it were any other way, the other non-dating social networking sites would be a superior option in almost every respect due to the pool size, if nothing else.

Your friend's story is a perfect illustration of this. Went looking for romance, found a potential mate, corresponded, THEN met to confirm or deny the possibility, and finally began a relationship. The idea that you can be friends with someone who you don't know in person is ludicrous, because it's too easy to become friends with their fictional persona or self image rather than the person who lives behind that mask. And I'm not talking about consciously lying about who you are, I'm talking about the warp that all people have in their understanding of who they are.

So yes, I find it skeevy that someone would view other playgrounders as friends, at least before meeting outside of the playground. I like ya', vipermorph. And I have a feeling we'd either be friends or at each others throats if we ever met, which is my favorite kind of friendship to form. But you aren't my friend, because you have no understanding of who I am, only who I think I am, and vice versa. I couldn't be your friend until I understood how much of you is wit and how much preparation, how you deal with life's little indignities, how you react to people, how you work and how you play in a way you could never adequately put in writing. THAT'S why I view it as pursuit of strangers, and why it comes off as unnerving.

But as I also said, I find the idea of money unnerving. Automobiles are unnerving (give me a train any day). Jealousy is too foreign to really wrap my head around, and actively frightens me. Skin gives me an unpleasant case of the shivers every time I feel my muscles shift under it, or it pinches or stretches. The fact that something is alien or disturbing doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it disturbing and alien.

Also, nowadays you have place of work/school to draw on, which is probably better in most ways than social strata for compatibility of spirit. If you don't know someone from those pools you almost have to be actively trying or have a truly twisted view of romance.

Innis Cabal

2010-09-06, 01:15 AM

Speaking outside of the LGBT issue...I find the idea that you can't form friendships over online rather insulting. I've known a person for four years online, only met once in person and now I live with her. Just because you can't fathom how it's done dosn't mean others can't and accomplish it on a daily basis.

golentan

2010-09-06, 01:26 AM

Which completely ignores my side point that it is alien and disturbing but that does not necessarily make it wrong. I refuse to apologize for calling such things creepy because they *are* creepy. I refuse to apologize for saying that I couldn't be someone else's friend without actually knowing them because it's true. But at no point did I say other people couldn't view those they met online as friends, just that it's creepy as all hell and I view it as akin to saying you're friends with a character in a book for the reasons I gave. I don't have an omniscient morality license, but that's why I find such things creepy, and you ain't gonna change that by getting indignant or offended by the fact any more than I'm going to try to make people stop doing things that creep me out. Both of which would be hideous perversions of ideals I hold dear, and completely wasted efforts.

Innis Cabal

2010-09-06, 01:36 AM

:smallconfused:

-YOU- find it creepy and wrong. And your entitled to that opinion. But it's just that. An opinion. Human social networking evolves as the technology and culture of the human race evovles. Sure, it goes against your "Ideals" but clearly people are benifiting from it. And ya sure, you say just because it's alien it's not "Wrong" but your still condeming people for doing something in your own words as hideous perversions. So as much as you want to sit there and try to absolve your stance by seemingly open and understanding...your still sitting there behind your screen sneering at it like it's some sick and ugly dog that's clinging to life.

Your waffeling between it being your opinion and it being mere fact. And that's what I picked up on, I didn't ignore your point.

But at no point did I say other people couldn't view those they met online as friends, just that it's creepy as all hell and I view it as akin to saying you're friends with a character in a book for the reasons I gave.

Such as that. You say "It's creepy" but it's just your opinion. It's not creepy. It's something that's pretty well founded in the current social networking circle. It's just -different-. And sure, that might be "spooooooooookey" to you, but that's again...your opinion. That your trying to seemingly pass off as fact while retreating to "But it's not wrong!".

It's impossible for people to show their true selves over a medium that dosn't require full physical apperances and contacts? Because that's some flawless vaunted method of learning people's true soul or something? The human element somehow makes it impossible to hide what you are while putting a screen in front of yourself somehow...makes it impossible to see how someone really is? I call honest bull crap.

Serpentine

2010-09-06, 01:50 AM

Which completely ignores my side point that homosexuality is alien and disturbing but that does not necessarily make it wrong. I refuse to apologize for calling such things creepy because they *are* creepy. I refuse to apologize for saying that I couldn't fall in love with another man because it's true. But at no point did I say other people couldn't date other people of the same sex, just that it's creepy as all hell and I view it as akin to saying you're in love with yourself for the reasons I gave. I don't have an omniscient morality license, but that's why I find such things creepy, and you ain't gonna change that by getting indignant or offended by the fact any more than I'm going to try to make people stop doing things that creep me out. Both of which would be hideous perversions of ideals I hold dear, and completely wasted efforts.

You see where we're coming from?

Asta Kask

2010-09-06, 01:55 AM

*probably not Serp*

You see where we're coming from?

You may want to check out the quote tags. Either that or you just said you'd never fall in love with another man... (which wouldn't be odd for the thread, just for Serp)

Serpentine

2010-09-06, 01:58 AM

Read two posts above mine :smallwink:

Innis Cabal

2010-09-06, 01:59 AM

It wasn't a quote, it was using Gol's argument with another bit of commentary (Though I think Serp would be just fine being attracted to men if that -was- an argument from her)

Coidzor

2010-09-06, 02:07 AM

Hmm. Why is this such a touchy subject with you anyway, Golentan?

You already stated you wouldn't use them, and we don't care if you don't use them or if you do use them.

golentan

2010-09-06, 02:18 AM

Innis: The "hideous perversions" I referred to were trying to enforce change on my thoughts for your comfort, or trying to enforce change on your thoughts for my comfort, not making friends online. The mind is, to me, sacrosanct. Even more so than life.

As for the rest, creepy is always a matter of opinion. So when I say it is creepy that is a fact: in my opinion it is creepy, ergo it is creepy. If you can't differentiate that, tough. Yeah, I view it as bizarre and disturbing. Add that to the list of about 500 other things I find disturbing about literally everybody I know and love, and a couple thousand off putting things that seem to be optional. Yeah, I view it as inferior to my way, or it would only be counterintuitive and so a fun puzzle. Everyone does the same at some point, or the world would be a monochrome of behavior. I'm just honest about it. Acceptance isn't embracement. If you can't accept that something can be uncomfortable but acceptable, double tough.

And it's not meeting someone in person that shows you who they are, it's interacting with them when they can't compose, but simply have to *be.* It keeps them from dissembling who they are into who they think they are.

Serp... While I see the point you're trying to make, I have no problem with that attitude. Save that I would dispute the "in love with yourself," mostly on the grounds that sex =/= love. People get squicked by sex they don't appreciate. Unless they try to enforce their squicks on others, and don't say that it is fundamentally/universally wrong rather than specifically disturbing, that is fine.

Heck, that's fundamentally the speech my dad gave me a while back. He also helped set me up with a good looking fella shortly thereafter.

Coidzor: It's touchy because when it was touched lightly upon, I kept getting angrily jumped and drawn into further explanation until I am now being called a bigot by half the thread because an idea I have nothing against save a vague unease and difficulty grasping inspires vaguely uneasy feelings and I'm honest about it.

Serpentine

2010-09-06, 02:27 AM

Fine. I'll just address one more thing.
The purpose of dating sites is to date. People go there to pursue other people for the express purpose of dating, hence the name.This is not necessarily true. Like I said, I have an OKCupid page. My ex and I both got one while we were together. OKCupid is a "dating site". We did not use it to date. At some point, I might. "Dating sites" can have other applications - OKCupid might be an exception in this regard, but I think pretty much all of them have a "looking for: friends" option. Tell me, do you find pubs and bars creepy because people go there solely or primarily for the purpose of meeting strangers to date? What about singles' nights? Speed dating? Debutant balls? Okay, the last one doesn't count - they are creepy :smalltongue:

Everyone is strangers at some point. If you refuse to ever meet anyone you don't already know, you're not gonna meet many people. "Dating sites" are just another way to make a stranger into not-a-stranger.

edit: Oo oo! I know how to put it! Dating sites are just pubs and bars on the internet. Some people go there to pick up, some people go there to make friends, some people go there to meet new people in general, some people just go to enjoy other services, and some people go to get drunk and fall down. Wait...

Lioness

2010-09-06, 02:42 AM

Regardless of whether dating sites are or are not creepy, I think we've gone beyond "Which dating sites are queer friendly" and into "Pros and cons of dating sites"
Which, you know, is not entirely LGBT relevant. :smallsmile:

golentan

2010-09-06, 02:46 AM

Actually, I find bars creepy more because people go there to damage their minds and organs, but I also find the idea of going there for romance creepy. Sex not so much. Speed dating, yes.

Guess what? I also find both hetero and homosexuality creepy, because it seems like letting your gonads rule your love life in a way I don't really grasp. I find transexualism creepy because bodies to me are no more or less than tools. I find the idea of monogamy creepy, because love seems to be best shared. I find money creepy because it's resources allocated unevenly, sometimes for things everyone should chip in for to maintain society and sometimes for bizarre whims (from my point of view). I find sports creepy because they're sublimated violence. I find smiles creepy because it seems like a threat to bite me. I find salad bars creepy because everyone touches the tongs. I find the internet creepy because I'm never sure who might be monitoring me. I find hands creepy because fingers only bend one way without breaking. I find college creepy because you're kicking youths out to accumulate debt and find their own way without guidance and with limited preparation to clean up the mess after the fact. I find cars creepy because they seem wasteful and dangerous compared to mass transit. I find aboveground buildings creepy because they can theoretically fall over/down. I find shoes creepy because they cut off sensation from the ground, or the ability to grip with toes, limiting the functionality of half of your limbs.

People are creepy in more ways than I can count. I am an oddball. These are facts of life, which I don't let impinge on living.

Lioness

2010-09-06, 02:54 AM

*snip*

I really hope you don't read horror stories...

Serpentine

2010-09-06, 03:49 AM

Last thought: You say "tough". I say, "fine, but don't whinge when people "jump down your throat" for expressing an (insulting) opinion as fact".

Queer stuff... queer stuff... I like the word "queer", does that count? I like all the different images "queering up the place" invokes...

Coidzor

2010-09-06, 04:26 AM

I like all the different images "queering up the place" invokes...

Sadly, I don't really have any mental images invoked by that phrase. What are some of the ones you have?

Lix Lorn

2010-09-06, 04:41 AM

Posting to get a thread subscription.

\/ ...I didn't know that. Thank you.

Rawhide

2010-09-06, 05:01 AM

Posting to get a thread subscription.

You don't need to do that. Please use the "Thread Tools" link at the top of the thread instead.

Coidzor

2010-09-06, 05:11 AM

You don't need to do that. Please use the "Thread Tools" link at the top of the thread instead.

Thank you as well.

*Ahem*

So as to be on topic, a question. Is there any way to patch things up with a friend after awkwardly sexually experimenting with them or is that pretty much an irrevocable death to any kind of even friend-level relationship?

Lix Lorn

2010-09-06, 05:19 AM

Well... you could try just calling them and asking to go out for a drink/play football/whatever you used to do, as if nothing had changed?

Ooor, you could show up at their door and say 'we need to talk?'
I... don't exactly have experience, but I'd probably lean towards the second... :smallfrown:

Serpentine

2010-09-06, 05:19 AM

Sadly, I don't really have any mental images invoked by that phrase. What are some of the ones you have?Well, for starters, I imagine what a room would look like if, say, Kneenibble's budgie got into it. Rainbows and unicorns and feather boas and posters of virile young men stuck on the garish wallpaper, that sort of thing. You know, real "queered-up".
Then there's a room that's all weird. Ochre tie-dye wallpaper, curtains with eyeball print, a coffee table made out of an elephant skull. A real queer room.
Then there's a room that's just... off. The angles aren't right. The colours don't quite go together, and you can't tell whether there's a pattern on the curtains or if it's just the weave and shadow, and you think you saw that knick-knack in a shot of a murder scene on the news. Just a bit... queer.

edit: I think that might be a "pretend it never happened" sort of situation. Not so much "never ever acknowledge it under any circumstances", as "plow on determinedly through the awkwardness by maintaining normal behaviour until all the awkwardness has been beaten under the overbearing mass of banality".

Lix Lorn

2010-09-06, 05:20 AM

Well, for starters, I imagine what a room would look like if, say, Kneenibble's budgie got into it. Rainbows and unicorns and feather boas and posters of virile young men stuck on the garish wallpaper, that sort of thing. You know, real "queered-up".
Then there's a room that's all weird. Ochre tie-dye wallpaper, curtains with eyeball print, a coffee table made out of an elephant skull. A real queer room.
Then there's a room that's just... off. The angles aren't right. The colours don't quite go together, and you can't tell whether there's a pattern on the curtains or if it's just the weave and shadow, and you think you saw that knick-knack in a shot of a murder scene on the news. Just a bit... queer.
Serpentine, I adore you. XD That's so awesome.

Coidzor

2010-09-06, 05:23 AM

Great, now you've got me pondering whether coffee tables can be made of elephant skulls or if nothing could actually be set on them.

Serpentine

2010-09-06, 05:26 AM

Sure. Take an elephant skull, stick a piece of glass on the top, instant elephant-skull table. Alternatively, you could cut off the top of it to make it flat, and fill it up with something. Or, you could set it leaned back on an angle - the front of it's quite flat already.

rakkoon

2010-09-06, 05:31 AM

@Coid. Good luck

Lioness

2010-09-06, 06:46 AM

Guys! I found an awesome comic

http://asofterworld.com/index.php?id=300

WarKitty

2010-09-06, 07:30 AM

Coidzor

2010-09-06, 08:14 AM

Guys! I found an awesome comic

http://asofterworld.com/index.php?id=300

Oh man. I should not have started reading through that comic's archives while listening to the soundtrack of Inception. x.x

Serpentine

2010-09-06, 08:29 AM

The list was not comprehensive. So sure.

edit: Fo' funsies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH2ubu45F4s), courtesy of Yes We Canberra.

DeadManSleeping

2010-09-06, 09:45 AM

Honestly, I've always been a little unsure of the label 'queer' for gender/sex identities outside what is generally considered 'heteronormative' or whatever the kids are calling it these days. Then again, I'm rather against labels on this sort of thing, mostly because I don't think anyone fits perfectly under a label. Gender and sexual identity are too complicated to sum up in single/two-word phrases in nearly every case I've seen, and this applies to everyone who considers themselves 'straight'. So, if everyone's got a not-quite-normal orientation, why should we have a word for it?

Or maybe I'm just prejudiced because I don't fit under any label, but I would hate to be called 'queer' because of my slightly-abnormal sexuality (I'm rather queer in other ways, I suppose :smalltongue: ). It would be misleading and awkward.

I might also be prejudiced because I talk to a lot of weird people. Maybe there are uncomplicated sexual identities out there. It could happen!

Coidzor

2010-09-06, 09:52 AM

^: I think "queer" is basically supposed to be a catch-all for non-heteronormative. I could, however, be completely wrong.
The list was not comprehensive. So sure.

edit: Fo' funsies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH2ubu45F4s), courtesy of Yes We Canberra.

Does the guy himself look... fuzzy to anyone else? Or is that just my eyes messing up?

Serpentine

2010-09-06, 09:53 AM

But... queer is a broader label :smallconfused: It is, I think pretty much by definition, "anyone outside of the hetronormative sphere". Much more accurate and, to an extent, useful than homo-/hetero-/bi-/pan-/trans-/a-/etcsexual and so on, and much more concise than LGBTATQWERTYWTFBQETC.

Coidzor

2010-09-06, 10:02 AM

So, if everyone's got a not-quite-normal orientation, why should we have a word for it?

I don't think that's the case at all, because the idea of a normal orientation or not-quite-normal orientation is ridiculous. Or maybe just indicative of a still heteronormative element to one's mindset. I don't know for sure.

Well, aside from paedophilia and zoophilia, but I'm not really sure one could simply call those sexual orientations so much as paraphilias (I believe that's the term anyway), and, I believe, more related to sexual expression than sexual orientation.

There's a nebulous area in regards to what is a normal sexual identity, but, well, it doesn't matter whether someone's sexual identity is "normal" or not to fall under the umbrella of "queer," due to the whole heteronormative thing.

ArlEammon

2010-09-06, 10:05 AM

I guess that as old as I am, I still have no idea what I am. :smallbiggrin:

Danne

2010-09-06, 10:25 AM

You don't need to do that. Please use the "Thread Tools" link at the top of the thread instead.

I didn't know this either! I've been looking for a way to do that for ages now... thanks!

I guess that as old as I am, I still have no idea what I am. :smallbiggrin:

Eh, nothing wrong with that. :smallsmile:

Edit: So I was in Health Services earlier today and I happened to notice that there were numerous posters stating how trans/homophobia doesn't belong in health care (true) and how hard they work to maintain a safe and accepting environment. I don't know if the last part is true or if it's just what they're advertising; the people I spoke with were friendly enough, but then I didn't tell them I'm trans/bi. Though I'm in a very tolerant state in a very tolerant part of the country, so I don't imagine it's a real problem.

It made me wonder, though -- have any of you experienced discrimination from a health care professional because of being LGBT? Heard any stories of people who have?

Lyesmith

2010-09-06, 04:44 PM

...Man, I don't get this myth of gay men being stylish. My room is a tip, the only remotely gay thing in here is a copy of this weeks Independent Review, featuring Russell Tovey on the front, and that's obscured by a pair of undies and a copy of The Boat That Rocked.

WarKitty

2010-09-06, 05:02 PM

So I was in Health Services earlier today and I happened to notice that there were numerous posters stating how trans/homophobia doesn't belong in health care (true) and how hard they work to maintain a safe and accepting environment. I don't know if the last part is true or if it's just what they're advertising; the people I spoke with were friendly enough, but then I didn't tell them I'm trans/bi. Though I'm in a very tolerant state in a very tolerant part of the country, so I don't imagine it's a real problem.

It made me wonder, though -- have any of you experienced discrimination from a health care professional because of being LGBT? Heard any stories of people who have?

Without even getting as far as trans/homophobic discrimination, I've had trouble just from being a female-bodied person presenting with typically masculine behaviors. The biggest problems are just straight assumptions, like when the nurse just sort of stared at me when I told her I don't think about how I look much, like she couldn't comprehend a young female that wasn't worried about her appearance. Also had issues with one therapist that kept counseling me to "act more normal" when I was complaining about stereotyping and some reports that were apparently being made about me...again not specific to LGBT stuff but the same general idea. I hated that therapist.

Danne

2010-09-06, 05:11 PM

Also had issues with one therapist that kept counseling me to "act more normal" when I was complaining about stereotyping

:smalleek:

Are they allowed to do that?

WarKitty

2010-09-06, 05:17 PM

:smalleek:

Are they allowed to do that?

Once they get through school they're allowed to do pretty much anything that's not illegal, and occasionally stuff that is if you can't afford a lawyer. Kind of sucks if you end up in a situation where you get stuck with someone. I was in mandatory counseling because I had to take a year med leave off of school (due to some **** harassing me), and I had 3 months to convince a therapist to write a letter that I was ok to go back. I ended up lying through my teeth to her and getting the darn letter.

Coidzor

2010-09-06, 05:38 PM

It made me wonder, though -- have any of you experienced discrimination from a health care professional because of being LGBT? Heard any stories of people who have?

No, I've never heard of anything like that yet, funnily enough. Well, maybe once about a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for someone because they were gay, but I might have accidentally fabricated that from one of several stories of pharmacists attempting to prevent women from getting access to birth control.

For some reason that kind of discrimination seems especially heinous...

Once they get through school they're allowed to do pretty much anything that's not illegal, and occasionally stuff that is if you can't afford a lawyer. Kind of sucks if you end up in a situation where you get stuck with someone. I was in mandatory counseling because I had to take a year med leave off of school (due to some **** harassing me), and I had 3 months to convince a therapist to write a letter that I was ok to go back. I ended up lying through my teeth to her and getting the darn letter.

Wait, why weren't you in it during the year med leave you took?

:/ That doesn't sound very good though, I must say...

:smalleek:

Are they allowed to do that?

Yes, but they show themselves to be unprofessional if they do. Also, run the risk of alienating their clients and having them seek treatment elsewhere or worse cease seeking treatment. So, is frowned upon.

It is, however, a valid position on numerous issues to desire an outcome that is closer to normalcy. Often that's largely the point of most counseling as far as I know.

Danne

2010-09-06, 06:12 PM

Once they get through school they're allowed to do pretty much anything that's not illegal, and occasionally stuff that is if you can't afford a lawyer. Kind of sucks if you end up in a situation where you get stuck with someone. I was in mandatory counseling because I had to take a year med leave off of school (due to some **** harassing me), and I had 3 months to convince a therapist to write a letter that I was ok to go back. I ended up lying through my teeth to her and getting the darn letter.

:smallfrown: I'm so sorry you had to go through that. People suck sometimes.

It is, however, a valid position on numerous issues to desire an outcome that is closer to normalcy. Often that's largely the point of most counseling as far as I know.

I've always viewed counseling as a waste of time unless you're incapable of functioning for some reason. E.g. the point where my social phobia got so bad that I couldn't make telephone calls even to close friends and family it was time to get help (am better now). If an issue isn't interfering with you're daily life it's probably best to handle it on your own (IMO).

Anyway, normal people are boring. Why would I want to be closer to that? (Never trust anyone who claims to be sane! :smallbiggrin:)

WarKitty

2010-09-06, 06:35 PM

Wait, why weren't you in it during the year med leave you took?

That was the last part of the "year" med leave I took. Lost 4 months because they had to give me a retroactive med leave so I didn't flunk some stuff. Spent one more getting to where I had enough energy to even look at counselors, then like 2 more getting onto someone's schedule and getting insurance to pay for it. And they wanted the letter a month in advance of my return. Most all of which I didn't need counseling as much as I needed someone to tell a certain jerk to stay away from me or get his butt kicked out of school. Oh yeah did I mention if I didn't get back in that semester I would lose my status as a student and thus my scholarship and aid money, as well as having to retake classes?

tl;dr: bureaucracy

Coidzor

2010-09-06, 06:42 PM

That was the last part of the "year" med leave I took. Lost 4 months because they had to give me a retroactive med leave so I didn't flunk some stuff. Spent one more getting to where I had enough energy to even look at counselors, then like 2 more getting onto someone's schedule and getting insurance to pay for it. And they wanted the letter a month in advance of my return. Most all of which I didn't need counseling as much as I needed someone to tell a certain jerk to stay away from me or get his butt kicked out of school. Oh yeah did I mention if I didn't get back in that semester I would lose my status as a student and thus my scholarship and aid money, as well as having to retake classes?

tl;dr: bureaucracy

That doesn't make any sense. They have medical withdrawals for that reason. And they can do them retroactively. Unless they're some kind of bat **** insane backwater. :smallconfused:

WarKitty

2010-09-06, 06:49 PM

That doesn't make any sense. They have medical withdrawals for that reason. And they can do them retroactively. Unless they're some kind of bat **** insane backwater. :smallconfused:

I'm giving it a 50-50 between "just that f***ing stupid" and "is hoping the problem students will go away." Apparently there's a limit on the number of medical withdrawals per semester. And yeah their health department does live in an extremely stagnant mental backwater, particularly when it comes to mental health services.

SMEE

2010-09-06, 09:55 PM

This is mildly embarrassing (and not for the reasons you might think), but I think I might be bi-curious. That, in and of itself, is not the embarrassing bit. No, the embarrassing bit is that I'm not sure if I'm curious about it or not. I mean, honestly. It's like not knowing whether or not you'd consider trying a new kind of cheese. I'm not even at the decision-making stage, for Cthulu's sake!

Also, longtime supporter, first time poster.

I was in the same boat for a few years, LG. Well, I just decided "why not?" and gave it a shot. Literally I just finished with my first experience (less than 5 minutes ago). I can now say with 100% certainty that I'm not bi. Of course, you might find otherwise.

Ah well. Good luck to you and I hope you figure it out!

Also - I am also a long-time supporter and first time poster in this thread. :)

Another one hit the anon mailbox.

Lord_Gareth

2010-09-06, 10:48 PM

Thanks for the support, O Great and Anonymous Poster (my new and Official [patent pending] name for anyone posting anonymously). I've got a fairly permissive wife, as long as we talk these things out. I suppose the hard bit is finding a bi guy in Kansas. After all, she shared her girl with me, I should share any guys I'm experimenting with her direction too.

...This task will be difficult, but doable. Hrmm....

Danne

2010-09-06, 10:56 PM

Good luck with that. :smallwink:

Serpentine

2010-09-06, 11:46 PM

Ooo, interesting relationship, Gareth. I hope you drop by next time the topic of open relationships and the like comes up in the Relationship thread.
No, I've never heard of anything like that yet, funnily enough. Well, maybe once about a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for someone because they were gay, but I might have accidentally fabricated that from one of several stories of pharmacists attempting to prevent women from getting access to birth control.

For some reason that kind of discrimination seems especially heinous...I know a local pharmacist does that. Tells them that they don't need it because of their place in their cycle or somesuch nonsense, and tells them to "go home and think about your life". Also, my sister worked as a medical receptionist for a while. If she thought a girl was going in for a morning after pill, she would try not to put her with a particular doctor. It sounded like this woman wasn't that bad, I mean, she'd still give them the pill, but she would accompany it with a nice long lecture, and my sister didn't think that was what a girl in that situation needed at that point.

Lord_Gareth

2010-09-06, 11:47 PM

.....Link meh?

Coidzor

2010-09-06, 11:56 PM

Ooo, interesting relationship, Gareth. I hope you drop by next time the topic of open relationships and the like comes up in the Relationship thread.I know a local pharmacist does that. Tells them that they don't need it because of their place in their cycle or somesuch nonsense, and tells them to "go home and think about your life". Also, my sister worked as a medical receptionist for a while. If she thought a girl was going in for a morning after pill, she would try not to put her with a particular doctor. It sounded like this woman wasn't that bad, I mean, she'd still give them the pill, but she would accompany it with a nice long lecture, and my sister didn't think that was what a girl in that situation needed at that point.

Indeed... is a gross violation of ethics to bully and verbally abuse others by withholding legitimate treatment.

WarKitty

2010-09-06, 11:59 PM

I know a local pharmacist does that. Tells them that they don't need it because of their place in their cycle or somesuch nonsense, and tells them to "go home and think about your life". Also, my sister worked as a medical receptionist for a while. If she thought a girl was going in for a morning after pill, she would try not to put her with a particular doctor. It sounded like this woman wasn't that bad, I mean, she'd still give them the pill, but she would accompany it with a nice long lecture, and my sister didn't think that was what a girl in that situation needed at that point.

Heaven help them if they get a mature, biologically educated young adult. This is part of why I think we need far better sex education, and it needs to be mandatory - by the time everyone is capable of becoming pregnant/causing pregnancy, they ought to know how everything works.

Coidzor

2010-09-07, 12:02 AM

Lord_Gareth

2010-09-07, 12:05 AM

Heaven help them if they get a mature, biologically educated young adult. This is part of why I think we need far better sex education, and it needs to be mandatory - by the time everyone is capable of becoming pregnant/causing pregnancy, they ought to know how everything works.

The problem in the United States isn't the system - Europe uses the same sex ed we do with nearly a quarter of the problems. It's the culture. Namely, the fact that the people who invented Victorian morals (the English) have moved past them, and we have not. Any parent with an axe to grind or a simple inability to move past the 1800's can exclude their child from sex ed and spoon-feed them whatever lies they want to.

Coidzor

2010-09-07, 12:25 AM

Well, that and we have entrenched economic parasites who are dependent upon lying or otherwise traumatizing young people away from sex for their livelihood, but, we should probably avoid going into detail here.

Lord_Gareth

2010-09-07, 12:26 AM

Keeping in mind as well that the general culture still views sex as EVIL and full of WRONGNESS, which is possibly why sexual deviation, sex before marriage or, in some cases, sex in the first place is punished and ostracized. There's a reason Stephen King set Carrie in this country, folks. Her mother's behavior happens here, surprisingly often - including and especially in rural settings, where the shroud of Privacy-Is-A-Virtue conceals all manner of festering abuses.

Lord Raziere

2010-09-07, 12:33 AM

I am confused as to how a culture would form such a notion in the first place, it seems counter-productive towards the continuation of life. Then again, the Victorians were hypocrites.

Lord_Gareth

2010-09-07, 12:35 AM

I am confused as to how a culture would form such a notion in the first place, it seems counter-productive towards the continuation of life. Then again, the Victorians were hypocrites.

The answer to your question is entrenched deep in FORBIDDEN TOPICS for these boards, and have their roots in medieval Europe, which is so entrenched in FORBIDDEN TOPICS that I'm not even going to crack a joke about it.

ArlEammon

2010-09-07, 12:46 AM

I'm incredibly heartbroken and depressed tonight. If someone would like to PM me about a forbidden topic (sex) I need someone to talk to. I've learned people on here are for the most part, mature.

Quincunx

2010-09-07, 02:09 AM

Well, I think at least in the U.S. it's fairly mandatory. Except in strange backwater places, maybe. As far as quality, haha. That seems to go from err, mediocre to, wow, you actually made the students less intelligent and knowledgeable by what you've said and done somehow, actually sucking knowledge and reasoning from their minds.

During those classes, my brain shut down in self-defense--that's my story and I'm sticking to it. To bring this marginally back on topic, the classes didn't cover the existence of LGBT as far as I remember, but according to my memory, the (mixed genders) class flow was so often interrupted by immaturity that it's a wonder we even finished the core lesson of man parts + woman parts = baby before the year was done. Education happened faster when, a few years earlier, they separated us by body parts and gave the puberty lecture--fewer potential dates to show off for, you see.

tgva8889

2010-09-07, 03:42 AM

I'll be honest, learning that stuff was not made easier by the fact that, well, 1) I learned it when I was in elementary school. Yeah, that went over well. 2) My middle school had huge parental issues with showing much of anything to do with sexual organs, so they sort of had to pretend to describe it to us.

Lix Lorn

2010-09-07, 03:48 AM

I went to a crappy all boys school.
You'd EXPECT ours was crap, but... actually, we had an awesome PSHE teacher. It generally went pretty well.

Phaedra

2010-09-07, 04:44 AM

During those classes, my brain shut down in self-defense--that's my story and I'm sticking to it. To bring this marginally back on topic, the classes didn't cover the existence of LGBT as far as I remember, but according to my memory, the (mixed genders) class flow was so often interrupted by immaturity that it's a wonder we even finished the core lesson of man parts + woman parts = baby before the year was done. Education happened faster when, a few years earlier, they separated us by body parts and gave the puberty lecture--fewer potential dates to show off for, you see.

My sex ed certainly didn't cover LGBT - Section 28 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28) was still in force when I got it. Apart from that though, it was very good. We had the whole separate male and female "this is what happens to your body in puberty" at 11 and again at 12 and then about four weeks worth of study in science on general sex ed, pregnancy and STIs at about 14/15. When you consider I went to a Catholic school, it was amazing (didn't stop a fair number of girls leaving pregnant at 14 though).

Serpentine

2010-09-07, 04:52 AM

The main things I remember from sex ed are 1. syphilis, 2. contraceptives and 3. hermaphrodism, particularly this place where a bizarre number of girls turn out to be boys at puberty.
I don't think ours was particularly bad, and I think homosexuality at least was mentioned at some point, but mostly it wasn't especially interesting.

edit: Oh man. I have an Australian show Packed to the Rafters on, and it had one of the most horribly stereotypically gay characters I've ever seen. Pink shirt, careful coiffe, lisp, poncing, flouncing, his boyfriend sent him flowers... Ended with an "Everyone's a little bit gay. Some are just more obvious about it than others" with a meaningful look at the flower-deliverer. To be fair, the latter spent the next scene being a stereotypically sexually insecure Mediterranean-Australian insisting loudly how oh-so-very straight he was, so I suppose it evens out.

Skeppio

2010-09-07, 06:14 AM

See, this is why I don't watch Australian TV anymore.

Dogmantra

2010-09-07, 06:15 AM

I went to a crappy all boys school.
You'd EXPECT ours was crap, but... actually, we had an awesome PSHE teacher. It generally went pretty well.

Envy.

Ours managed to somehow be offensive while talking about not offending LGBTers. I have no idea how that happened. Also: I sorta knew more about the subject matter than our teacher.

I do recall that we were at least asked for as many nicknames that "we might call a gay person", just to show how deeply ingrained it was. I don't really think it worked.

Serpentine

2010-09-07, 06:27 AM

Oh lordi. The aforementioned Mediterranean-Australian was just bashed by a bunch of yobs because the gay guy put his arm around him, and this twit of a woman started yelling "rape! Rape! Call the police!" before picking him up, dabbing at his wounds, and giving him her number.
Moral of the story: Hate crimes will help you pick up.

edit: Cuz he was gay-bashed, the wonderful girl thinks he's gay and is going to try to set him up. What a tweest!
Although something in his earlier "I ARE STRATE!" rant makes me wonder if he might not hit it off with this guy or otherwise result in him discovering his bi- or homosexuality or something... I will grant this show about as many Kudos as it has earned Groans if it does go that way.

WarKitty

2010-09-07, 07:57 AM

*jealous* My sex education pretty much consisted of "sex is bad don't do it." I wasn't even allowed to really look at how the reproductive system works, which on reflection is extremely unethical and dangerous - I didn't even know how to tell if there was an infection down there. Hence why I said it should be mandatory...I meant not just public school mandatory. And it needs to start a lot earlier than it does.

Serpentine

2010-09-07, 08:01 AM

No arguments here. Although I had this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_yuJISSrdcT8/S9DSEELzYEI/AAAAAAAAADo/ubGvlc7mX3M/s320/where%2Bdid%2Bi%2Bcome%2Bfrom.jpg

before I could even read, so that's something :smalltongue:

Lioness

2010-09-07, 08:03 AM

I had a lot of sex ed.

Every year from about 5, the school had people come in and talk about stuff. Sessions were after school at night, and entirely optional.
From ages 5-9 they talked about where babies come from, and the different 'bits' of girls and boys.
From ages 10-12 we got a more sex-based talk, but more focussing on the puberty side of things rather than how sex actually works.
In years 6 and 7 (11, 12, 13) we got more on puberty. Girls and boys were split up and talked to separately.

Then, at high school, things started becoming more focused on safe sex and STIs. Also pregnancy and why it's cool to say "no". We really had no sex ed that covered homosexuality or how sex actually works.

Skeppio

2010-09-07, 08:05 AM

Seems somewhat counterproductive. :smallconfused:

Serpentine

2010-09-07, 08:13 AM

Yeah, I think that's pretty much what we had.

Skeppio

2010-09-07, 08:24 AM

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I had the same thing. Except I only had Sex Ed once in Year 5 and again in Year 10, which was also coupled with a Driver's Ed course for some reason (we had a different teacher for each).

Lioness

2010-09-07, 08:30 AM

Skeppio

2010-09-07, 08:32 AM

That earns you one shiny new internet, Lioness! :smallbiggrin:

Serpentine

2010-09-07, 08:33 AM

Hur hur, "coupled".

Caustic Soda

2010-09-07, 08:34 AM

IIRC, we didn't actually have any specific person to come give us sex ed. Instead our main teacher had to do it for us. It was terribly embarrassing both for her and for us (we were 13-4 at the time, I think). She did get the point across about using condoms and the pill.

edit: Then again, Denmark is a pretty open society when it comes to discussing sex, so we knew most of it already. Might've been interesting to have had something about LGBT, though.

DeadManSleeping

2010-09-07, 08:48 AM

How to have sex safely in cars?

I'm pretty sure there was a "Redneck Sex Ed" joke exactly like this somewhere...

I don't remember my sex ed classes. They were integrated into "Health" somewhere, and nobody cared about that class. It was taught by our gym teacher anyway. I think we had that STD education involving the cups of water, though.

Serpentine

2010-09-07, 08:48 AM

Cups of water? :smallconfused:

Anethiel

2010-09-07, 09:02 AM

In (southern) Italy, we have no Sex Ed at all, neither from school nor from parents (usually). Italians expect teenagers to "just know" all about sex, apparently. In their defence, this is usually true.

Coidzor

2010-09-07, 09:50 AM

I will grant this show about as many Kudos as it has earned Groans if it does go that way.

<_< Cease watching, cease the watching of your associates. If possible, hunt down the producers and mail them to Antartica.

Serpentine

2010-09-07, 09:56 AM

Hey, come on now, not even penguins deserve that.

dpcris: Hey, I've heard about your European television :smallwink:

Coidzor

2010-09-07, 10:00 AM

Hey, come on now, not even penguins deserve that.

dpcris: Hey, I've heard about your European television :smallwink:

On the contrary, I believe every animal deserves a warm meal...

Serpentine

2010-09-07, 10:03 AM

Trudat....

Asta Kask

2010-09-07, 10:28 AM

Our sex-ed heavily focused on contraception and responsibility. Although the contraception part was somewhat undermined since our biology teacher was pregnant with her fourth child at the time, and gladly admitted that it wasn't planned.

Homosexuality was covered briefly - basically "some people feel like this and it's not weird or wrong." Transsexuality was probably covered in Psychology, although I am not sure - I took Philosophy instead. It wasn't mentioned in Biology sex-ed.

Pyrian

2010-09-07, 10:43 AM

The problem in the United States isn't the system - Europe uses the same sex ed we do with nearly a quarter of the problems....What? The U.S. can't accurately be said to use the same system as itself, given that lower education is a state and/or local function. California and Alabama don't exactly share a sex-ed curriculum. I don't know a thing about European sex-ed but I'll hazard a guess right now that, say, Sweden and Greece don't use the same system as each other, either.

Coidzor

2010-09-07, 10:51 AM

About the only thing that can be said is that Texas largely decides what the textbooks are going to be. :smallannoyed:

Danne

2010-09-07, 11:39 AM

Asta Kask

2010-09-07, 12:18 PM

Isn't this dangerously close to being political? I understand that Sex Ed is a contentious issue in the U.S.

WarKitty

2010-09-07, 12:20 PM

Isn't this dangerously close to being political? I understand that Sex Ed is a contentious issue in the U.S.

Quite possibly. On the other hand, being gay is a contentious political issue in the U.S. I figure our wonderful mods are probably already reading along and will come scold if we get too far in. :smallwink:

Worira

2010-09-07, 12:20 PM

Yeah, so is "are queermosexuals infecting our children with The Gay?". Being contentious does not, in itself, make an issue political.

Quincunx

2010-09-07, 12:20 PM

. . .textbook?

We had one but darned if we ever used it. (Cause of my one and only detention in high school: reading said health textbook in said class while trying to drown out class immaturity. Watching the face of the administrator who came around to serve the detention, as I explained that bit by bit, was something to cherish.)

No, now that I reflect upon it, LGBT issues burst upon the scene when some guy trailed into Latin class sobbing because his girlfriend dumped him for a girl, and some other folks in class had to comfort him. Said guy went gay the following year.

Asta Kask

2010-09-07, 12:21 PM

Got my second infraction at another forum, so I'm a little gun-shy at the moment.

Danne

2010-09-07, 12:59 PM

Ignition

2010-09-07, 01:14 PM

Wait, wuh...? How could you get in trouble for reading a textbook? How could you get in trouble for reading?

Clearly you have not been in a public school lately :smallwink:

Considering, though, my anti-public-school rant is laced with profanity and at least five encouragements of destruction of public property, I will refrain from posting it. Needless to say, though, don't expect logic out of public school administration, and you will go much farther with less headaches, haha.

To be honest, though, regarding being 'exposed' to LGBT stuff, despite not having the lingo or definitions straight (so to speak) in my head of the whole range of human sexuality until much later than high school, homosexuality etc. never really bothered/confused me in the way that it does most of the people I've met. I was never taught it, per se, and I've very rarely been around it in person, either because of the absurdly narrow area in which I've lived, or because I don't really go looking into people's sex lives, however standard or alternative they may be, if I can avoid it. There were a few weird fetishes and crazinesses that kind of caught me off guard in varying degrees of :smallconfused: , :smallmad: , :smallyuk: , and :smallsigh: , but that was more Rule 34 than it was anything against/in favor of anything on the LGBT scale. This probably means I'm under-educated in this area, haha.

Un/relatedly, I lol'd at Asta Kask's sex ed teacher :smallbiggrin:

Coidzor

2010-09-07, 08:08 PM

Wait, wuh...? How could you get in trouble for reading a textbook? How could you get in trouble for reading?

Is the ignoring lecture to read thing. Which, well, if the class is being immature little ****** anyway, the lecture has failed.

I'm attempting to recall what if anything LGBT was brushed upon in my sex ed. Not really sure what LGBT needs to be discussed exactly during sex ed, at least vis-a-viz safe sex anyway, since, well, it doesn't really matter if you're straight or a lesbian or genderqueer, if you're pregnant, you're pregnant, and the human gestation period is kinda... yeah. There's only one area that's nebulous but I think that's mostly from misremembering something that was more along the lines of a higher chance of breaking unless a certain material (poly....something) was used rather than the normal material.

My "this is puberty, don't have sex," sex ed in middle school was at a religious school so it was already pretty bare bones, such that the regular old health textbook was more informative than the thing we got for sex ed, and, as stated, was pretty much just "this is what puberty is, this is how your life will be ruined forever if you act upon it," and tried to avoid the concept of arousal altogether, which is about the only area in that sort of context that I can see it coming up.

I can't even imagine how to address gender other than broaching the subject of transgender and the start of steps along there. So basically, mentioning it at all, even.

tl; dr, what other than atmosphere is different with LGBT addition?

WarKitty

2010-09-07, 08:36 PM

tl; dr, what other than atmosphere is different with LGBT addition?

It depends on what you include in "sex ed." If you're just talking biology, well, all I'd say is to make sure to say that sex includes more than your standard boy-and-girl tab A into slot B stuff. If you're using a more expansive definition, it can cover most topics related to human sexuality, such as what constitutes a healthy relationship, different orientations, etc.

Lyesmith

2010-09-07, 11:11 PM

My sex ed was pretty even, covered some LGBT stuff but was embarrassing for everyone concerened, as most of the kids were experts anyway.

Also, bloody Stumbleupon. Around 4AM mine just goes straight to Gay Culture, which tends to piss me right off, all the reports of homophobia and such. It sucks, and there ought to be proper retribution for it all.

Asta Kask

2010-09-08, 02:21 AM

Coidzor

2010-09-08, 06:21 AM

It depends on what you include in "sex ed." If you're just talking biology, well, all I'd say is to make sure to say that sex includes more than your standard boy-and-girl tab A into slot B stuff. If you're using a more expansive definition, it can cover most topics related to human sexuality, such as what constitutes a healthy relationship, different orientations, etc.

hmm, come to think of it, yeah, this state could definitely use some expounding upon how to recognize and avoid abusive relationships... :smallyuk:

Danne

2010-09-08, 09:15 AM

Quincunx

2010-09-08, 09:34 AM

WarKitty

2010-09-08, 09:57 AM

That's one thing I don't remember being covered--and it should have been. Yes, the basic message is "how babies are made, and don't make babies" (and thus no real reason to touch upon LGBT), but a subsection on "what to do when your friend puts himself in an abusive situation" would have been welcome. Once again, at least now folks have the escape of the Internet if the local community doesn't know what to do, and thank goodness for it. . .

Yeah...I'd have appreciated a bit on "what to do if your boyfriend pushes you into something that isn't *technically* sex." Which I suppose would also fall into the category of "sexual activity comes in other varieties than the babymaking kind."

Pyrian

2010-09-08, 10:05 AM

..."what to do if your boyfriend pushes you into something that isn't *technically* sex."My chaste girlfriends were always basically like, "if you want it, it's off limits". :smalltongue:

Ignition

2010-09-08, 10:06 AM

WarKitty

2010-09-08, 10:16 AM

Is that sexual education, though, or is that more relationship education? Because I absolutely agree that effective relationship education would go really, really bloody far towards making this society not so backwards and upside-down snooker loopy. Teaching people to be decent to one another, or at least to know how to turn a negative relationship into a positive one, or at the VERY least how to walk away from a relationship that's bad while mitigating the pain that goes along with it, would be unbelievably beneficial from the perspective of teaching life skills to people. That'd probably be as good a place as any to discuss LGBT type concerns.

It fits loosely under "sexuality education." Which is also why I'm in favor of extending "sex education" down much farther than it is. Currently a lot of stuff isn't taught till late high school or early college (I didn't know about date rapt until I was 19). Basic human relationships should start as early as children can understand. And proper sexual relationships should probably start being taught in middle school.

My chaste girlfriends were always basically like, "if you want it, it's off limits". :smalltongue:

Haha. My new rule is "not shutting up about it lowers your chances of ever getting it for every time you push."

Danne

2010-09-08, 11:28 AM

Is that sexual education, though, or is that more relationship education? Because I absolutely agree that effective relationship education would go really, really bloody far towards making this society not so backwards and upside-down snooker loopy. Teaching people to be decent to one another, or at least to know how to turn a negative relationship into a positive one, or at the VERY least how to walk away from a relationship that's bad while mitigating the pain that goes along with it, would be unbelievably beneficial from the perspective of teaching life skills to people. That'd probably be as good a place as any to discuss LGBT type concerns.

Well, health and sex ed. (and drug ed.) were all mixed together for me. I think domestic violence fell under "health" (as in, it is not healthy to be in an abusive relationship, here's how to recognize it and what to do about it).

Once again, at least now folks have the escape of the Internet if the local community doesn't know what to do, and thank goodness for it. . .

Trouble is, a lot of the time people don't even know they're in an abusive relationship, even if it's obvious to other people. It happens very slowly, and most people don't realize it's happening until they're in over their heads. And even then a lot of people make excuses for the abuser ("it's all my fault, if I were better at [X] then s/he wouldn't have to do [Y]") or think they can "change" the person, so they're not willing to leave even if they understand what's happening.

Point being, it's hard to look up advice online if you don't realize you need advice in the first place.

Quincunx

2010-09-08, 12:20 PM

Enjamb the quotation marks before the quote also; that's where I put into quotes that it would be directed at the friends of those in abusive relationships. Abusive relationship members come online to whine and vent. Friends thereof come on to plead for help.

Murdim

2010-09-08, 12:42 PM

Interesting. (http://www.salon.com/books/nonfiction/index.html?story=/books/feature/2010/09/07/sexism_neuroscience_interview)

Looks like I might have to change my tune about sex and gender. Challenging your own conceptions is always a good thing. I should get to this in *looks at reading list* ohhh... twenty years or so. :smallfrown:
It's probably old news since I have ranted on the subject multiple times already, but... I have a fair bit of distrust for social sciences. Hence I'm quite relieved to see that I'm not the only one to worry about things like confirmation bias, the incredible self-fulfilling power of "common knowledge", or the fact that an explanation for an observable human phenomenon just has to sound "scientific" to be accepted as such and be considered strictly superior to social explanations - despite being little more than a biology-flavored wild mass guessing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology).

Do not get me wrong. I don't think gender studies are worthless. Yes, they are a product of their time, and those "scientists" who claim otherwhise are just repeating the mistakes of yesterday's racist, sexist quacks with their own modern biases. And it's as a product of their time - of our time, of our social circumstances - that we can find them a use. Gender studies may not contain an underlying truth about the deeper nature of maleness and femaleness, but they still teach us something about the people we live with, and how they will tend to act according to their gender.

As for my sex ed... meh, it was fine, I guess. As far as I remember, every important subject has been addressed, and most of the stuff that seems to be considered "sexual education" in the USA were in fact part of the normal, compulsory biology course in France, including puberty, sexual organs, reproduction and STDs. The actual sex ed sessions were more about the details of safer sex (how and when to use the different contraceptives), as well as abusive relationships, non-heterosexual people/intercourse and more generally... let's call it, "why people want to have sex outside of reproduction and how to do it without getting something bad".

Ostien

2010-09-08, 04:10 PM

Interesting. (http://www.salon.com/books/nonfiction/index.html?story=/books/feature/2010/09/07/sexism_neuroscience_interview)

Looks like I might have to change my tune about sex and gender. Challenging your own conceptions is always a good thing. I should get to this in *looks at reading list* ohhh... twenty years or so. :smallfrown:

This book has gotten some hype, much more then I thought it might when I first saw it. P.Z. Myers posted (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/the_sexist_brain.php) on it positively. I've seen it other places recently as well. I decided to make a cautiously optimistic post (http://genderqueerchicago.blogspot.com/2010/09/word-of-day-neurosexism.html) about it on a gender focused blog.

There have been other good books written on the subject (Between XX and XY, Nature's Rainbow etc.), of challenging biological notions of sex and gender (usually from biologists themselves). This one is just more directed at neuroscience and with good reason. Neuroscience and Neurobiology are often the most misused/misunderstood (even by the scientists themselves but also by the media) because we actually understand so little about the brain (often because we look at it like a machine). We don't really know a lot on how the brain works and how it rewires itself, we know it does and that it may not be localized or consistent. Then we make big leaps of logic and terrible generalizations that leave out so much and so many. The brain is much more plastic then many give it credit for (though some biologists like P.Z. Myers rant about this a fair amount) and cannot be boiled down to sex or even made general across socio-economic lines (http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2010/09/the_weirdness_of_our_beliefs_a.php?utm_source=sbho mepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink). The brain is enormously plastic and provides so many possibilities of understanding if we let go of trying to understand it like a machine. What is interesting is how the brain creates the mind and how the mind and society shape back, which is what books like this one attempt to do. I'll have to actually read it when I can get it.

Castaras

2010-09-08, 04:19 PM

RE: Sex ed

Probably says something about my local area that we didn't even touch on LGBT. Wasn't even a "Don't do it!" or a "Don't be homophobic." It was just a... thing that we already would have known and taken for granted (I know 2 gay people in my school, and 2 who left last year. No bullying happens, we just take it for granted [and occasionally complain to one and another when one particular guy goes on his "HI WORLD, I AM GAY!!!!!" streaks.])

'tis a verreh good thing, imo. People round my school are exceedingly tolerant of everything, and it is epic. :smallsmile:

Coidzor

2010-09-08, 11:51 PM

Ostien: Huh? What was their basis for attacking biological notions of sex?

Murdim

2010-09-09, 04:11 AM

made general across socio-economic lines (http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2010/09/the_weirdness_of_our_beliefs_a.php?utm_source=sbho mepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink)
Huh... while I agree with you on the fact that behavioral sciences are ridiculously biased towards a tiny portion of humanity, and that their pretensions to objectivity and universality are thoroughly insane... what this article actually says is... let's just say very different and leave it at that, for the sake of everyone in this thread. And it only gets worse when you scroll to the comments.

Myers' blog article and the greater part of its comments are fine, as usual.

Asta Kask

2010-09-09, 10:20 AM

This book has gotten some hype, much more then I thought it might when I first saw it. P.Z. Myers posted (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/the_sexist_brain.php) on it positively. I've seen it other places recently as well. I decided to make a cautiously optimistic post (http://genderqueerchicago.blogspot.com/2010/09/word-of-day-neurosexism.html) about it on a gender focused blog.

I got the tips from PZ.

Note that just because the book is interesting doesn't mean it's true... I think we're still at the stage where the honest answer to most 'nature-or-nurture' questions is "we don't know."

Pyrian

2010-09-09, 10:43 AM

Yeah. Although I'd put a lot of money on "some combination" in most instances!

Serpentine

2010-09-09, 10:50 AM

Yeah. And also "different types of nature/various definitions of nurture".

Danne

2010-09-09, 10:50 AM

Yeah. Although I'd put a lot of money on "some combination" in most instances!

Took the words right out of my mouth. It seems to me that the most accurate answer to that question is "both," not either or.

@^: Yes, that too. :smallsmile:

Serpentine

2010-09-09, 10:51 AM

I've done two university degrees'-worth of assignments based on that premise.

Murdim

2010-09-09, 11:59 AM

I don't think that the nature-or-nurture dilemna is the right question to ask, because it is obvious that Pyrian and Serpentine are right. I don't think anyone would seriously doubt the influence of nurture, and denying the "nature" part means denying, among other things, the fact that sexual hormones have an influence on behavior (though this influence isn't nearly as simple and straightforward as it is commonly thought, e.g low testosterone makes men more aggressive).

The real question is whether the study of the natural differences in intellect and behavior between sexes, or between "races", or between any other groups of human beings, can realistically be expected to follow rigorous scientific standards. I don't think so, to put it lightly.

Ostien

2010-09-09, 01:00 PM

All I was saying was that the brain was plastic and has the ability to change a lot from external stimuli. I was not saying there was no biological basis but that that is not the end of things by any means.

That article I linked (also I didn't read the comment section on the article, just skimmed, yeah they were bad) simply says that if you are Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic (WEIRD) which are a vast majority of psychological test subjects, that you tend to react and perceive the world differently then non WEIRD people. This does give a strong argument that nurture is important to consider along with biology/nature. The article was about psychological testing but behaviorists are notoriously not ones to distinguish between the mind and the brain. I linked the article because it shows why making generalizations of behavior and ability and linking them to biology or being universal and not considering socialization is problematic. I don't that is off of what the article was saying. That is basically what it seems Fine is getting at in the book that we don't look at the socialization of men and women, self-selection bias, internalized norms etc. when neuroscience looks at sex and gender. Whether it is any good is to be seen.

What I said was interesting is how the brain creates the mind and how the mind and society shape back. I was saying it was nature and nurture but also that the two are not mutually exclusive. The brain can and does physically change, so when we find a biological basis for something we don't know when that occurred. Also we don't know all the times the effect of that change. What is more important electrical charges or the pathways and structure of the brain? The answer does not appear clear, there is a lot of mixing and interaction on this front. So again I never said it was all nurture, I just think that the nature argument gets too much hype by itself. So yeah, I would take the line that Pyrian, Danne and Serpentine made, it is both.

But really I don't want this to get into another derail about who love science the most and who is a Luddite.

@Coidzor:
The book Between XX and XY starts looking at intersexed conditions and how and by what criteria we define them and thus define sex. So is it hormones is it genitals is it chromosomes etc. Since many of these conditions can be a variation in just one of these criteria. He also looks in nature to show examples in hyenas, fish, and other animals etc. Basically it comes down to classification and since sex has been shown to be difficult to classify because there are always biological counter examples we must have an alternative way of looking at sex, looking at it on a non binary.

The conclusion from the book.:
In truth, all of us fall somewhere between our masculine and feminine ideals. Graphically the human race might look something like this:

Woman .....................................Man

Each dot represents an individual. Of course it would take a lot more dots to do this properly, since no two of us is identical, even with regard to sex. And of course the endpoints are hypothetical, ideas mental constructs, not real people. For some reason we choose to call only the people who fall in the dead center of this chart intersex. But the center is just as essential a any other part of the continuum - without the middle, neither end is possible and the middle really has no obvious boundaries.

In truth, we are all intersexed, living somewhere in the infinate, but punctuated streach between MAN and WOMAN. But the idea of two opposite sexes is so ingraned in us that even seemingly educated people like U.S. presidents, senators and members of Congress have argued that we should allow legally recognized marriages to be only between a "man and a woman." Never mind it is impossibal to define exactly what a man and a woman is.

What chromosomes should we have? We've already seen that men, by many definitions, may have an X and a Y chromosome, two X chromosomes, two X and one Y chromosome, three X and one Y chromosome, and so on. By some criteria there are very real women with Y chromosomes in each of their cells, and others with Y chromosomes in only half of their cells. There is no specific combination of chromosomes or genes that that unequivocally defines a "real" man or woman.

What genitalia should we have? Many 46,XX persons have external genitalia that closely resembles those of men and internal genitalia that most closely resembles those of women. Even the combination of X and Y chromosomes with testes does not define a man, since women with AIS have all of that and by other criteria are clearly female. Nor can we easily rely on the Phall-O-Meter. It seems obvious that no group, political or otherwise, could ever agree on exactly what constitutes a ****oris or a penis, especially if it has to be one or the other.

What sort of hormones should the fully male man have? Testosterone? During development and at birth, women with AIS have as much testosterone as any manly man, but by some other standards are not men.

Intersex people are not a few freakish, unfortunate outliers. They are instead the most complete demonstration of our humanity. Not one of the few I have been fortunate enough to come to know has suggested that he or she would rather be otherwise, although I am sure they haven't always felt that way. We, as a society, are very hard on people who don't fit with our preconceptions, especially our preconceptions about sex.

What intersex people have shown us is the truth about all of us. There are infinite chemical and cellular pathways to becoming human. Because of that, no two of us are now, or ever were identical.

Sex isn't a switch we can easily flip between two poles. Between those two imaginary poles lies an infinite number of possibilities. Somewhere within that infinity is where you will find each of us. Intersex people have shown us that. We should be grateful. Because they are not bound by our traditions, they have shown us that we can untie the knots that bind us to our preconceptions and begin to live freer lives.

Coidzor

2010-09-09, 01:03 PM

Aren't individuals in the middle, the ones we actively recognize as intersexed sterile though?

Ostien

2010-09-09, 02:00 PM

Aren't individuals in the middle, the ones we actively recognize as intersexed sterile though?

I don't think all the time, though more likely then not I'm sure. In any case I don't think sterility would not be a good way to define male and female as there are people we don't consider intersex that are sterile. Perhaps one could make an argument that they should, but again that just pushes the boundaries even further, not narrowing them.

Binary sex, that is male and female, and the ability to procreate don't have to be connected, we can just view sexuation as diversity not based on the ability to procreate. Some may be able to, some may not for myriad reasons.

EDIT: Congenital adrenal hyperplasia often results in ambiguous genitalia

Without these hormones, the body produces more androgen, a type of male sex hormone. This causes male characteristics to appear early (or inappropriately).

Males have normal fertility. Females may have a smaller opening of the vagina and lower fertility.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000411.htm
It's only considered an intersex condition for non XY chromosome pairings

Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) is the most prevalent cause of intersex among people with XX chromosomes. About 1 in 10,000 to 18,000 children are born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, but it does not cause intersex in those with XY chromosomes, so the prevalence of CAH-related intersex is about 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 36,000.
I don't think there is a hard and fast rule for all intersex conditions with regard to fertility. It would take more research then a Google search, but it does not seem to be a defining characteristic.
EDIT EDIT:
http://www.isna.org/faq/conditions/pais

The extent of androgen insensitivity in 46 XY individuals is quite variable, even in a single family. Partial androgen insensitivity typically results in “ambiguous genitalia.” The ****oris is large or, alternatively, the penis is small and hypospadic (these are two ways of labeling the same anatomical structure). Partial androgen insensitivity may be quite common, and has been suggested as the cause of infertility in many men whose genitals are of typically male appearance. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome#Undervirilized_fer tile_male_syndrome_.28Mild_Androgen_Insensitivity_ Syndrome.29

http://www.isna.org/faq/conditions/mosaicism and http://www.isna.org/faq/conditions/turner it seems to me fertility with this would depend on the cells affected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypospadias (WARNING NSFW shows the penis of someone with Hypospadias) this can affect fertility (mostly because of the delivery of semen, but that does not preclude something like in-vitro fertilization).

I guess the point is there is a lot of variation we're talking about here and the point I want to make is it might be wise to rethink how we classify and talk about binary sex.

Asta Kask

2010-09-09, 04:38 PM

golentan

2010-09-10, 12:01 AM

There is a girl (?) at my new place of work who is incredibly androgynous. And wears her hair short. And has dimples.

I suspect they may be transitioning, but I'm not sure.

I have rarely met someone who is that close to my physical preferences. It is uncomfortable on many levels, because I'm not used to being very attracted to people. Certainly not to the point I become aroused on sight. :smallsigh:

I despise my body.

Anyway, I have no idea how to broach the topic of attractiveness to someone who is probably not used to being considered attractive (my tastes are different from most). Or how to bring up questions about gender identity without risk of offense. Especially given that when I try to be tactful... Well, see my first post in the recent argument as an example.

Serpentine

2010-09-10, 12:16 AM

"Blah blah blah blah. Well, seeya, have a good weekend. Oh, hey, by the way, I really like your style. Great look. Bye!"

For general gender-related subjects... I dunno, maybe you could keep an eye out for a transexuality/gender-related topic in the news, make some comment about it within earshot of them, and then ask their opinion, as a lead-in to a conversation on the subject?

golentan

2010-09-10, 12:22 AM

See, though, that sounds to me more like a clothing compliment. And we have uniforms. So... ?

I'm just going to ignore myself for now. If the world has taught me anything, there's always time for those who wait properly, and lack of patience is a great way to ruin something before it begins.

Plus, just started this past week. Hence why I find it awkward to already feel attracted to a coworker. Okay, one of about 3 dozen reasons.

Serpentine

2010-09-10, 12:27 AM

Then scrap "style" and stick to "look". If you're all wearing the same clothes, then that makes it more clear that you're talking about the other stuff.

Murdim

2010-09-10, 06:16 AM

But really I don't want this to get into another derail about who love science the most and who is a Luddite.
Sorry if it wasn't clear enough, but I completely agree with you about the bullheadedness of many scientists and the complexity of the interaction between nature and nurture :smalltongue:

Off-topic :
It was the hypocritical ethnocentrism in the main article that ticked me off. Saying that the Western cultures are exceptional in their weirdness, unnaturalness and overall wrongness isn't much better than placing them as representants of all humanity, in the same way that self-loathing is a form of egocentrism and misanthropy a form of anthropocentrism. Environment shapes our mind and makes us "weird" ; claiming that non-occidental cultures aren't "weird" for each other, that they all represent a same "natural" environment where the "true" nature of Man can appear unadultered by the vices of modern life, is ignorant and offensive against pretty much everyone.

Aren't individuals in the middle, the ones we actively recognize as intersexed sterile though?
AFAIK, there is only one person in the entire world that is actively and legally recognized as anything else than strictly male or strictly female. As long as legal gender will have so much undeserved importance in our public life (e.g marriage, parental leave, conscription, sometimes even education), we can't expect gender and sex to be accepted as fluid and... uh... not-self-evident (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BuffySpeak). Our world sucks :smallfrown:

Petrocorus

2010-09-10, 08:51 PM

I suppose the hard bit is finding a bi guy in Kansas.
May i suggest to use the Internet. Much safer and more discrete i believe.
Have you tried craiglist? Or dating site?

After all, she shared her girl with me, I should share any guys I'm experimenting with her direction too.
Seems logic to me.

Well, that and we have entrenched economic parasites who are dependent upon lying or otherwise traumatizing young people away from sex for their livelihood, but, we should probably avoid going into detail here.

Huh...What are you speaking about?

Danne

2010-09-11, 04:33 PM

So I was looking at the submission guidelines for on online magazine today, considering sending in one of my shorts. I was rather startled when I read that the magazine did not publish "queer" stories (especially if the story would be "trite" if the characters were straight). This wouldn't have affected me in this case (the story in question did not have any romance in it at all) but I would have felt very odd submitting a story to people who are clearly anti-LGBT. It turned out that I couldn't submit the story anyway (it was too short) so I was spared the decision of whether or not to submit based on that policy.

I'm curious, do any of you avoid using services that discriminate in that way? Would you submit a story to such a magazine? Would you read it? What about other services, e.g. a restaurant that wouldn't hire a gay chef or a store that wouldn't let a transperson use the right bathroom?

Am I overreacting, or does this bother you, too?

WarKitty

2010-09-11, 04:43 PM

Dogmantra

2010-09-11, 04:49 PM

I'm curious, do any of you avoid using services that discriminate in that way? Would you submit a story to such a magazine? Would you read it? What about other services, e.g. a restaurant that wouldn't hire a gay chef or a store that wouldn't let a transperson use the right bathroom?

I would certainly not use the services of a company that discriminated against anyone, especially if it was LGBT related. I would not use their services even harder.

Lix Lorn

2010-09-11, 05:01 PM

I'd badmouth them to everyone I spoke to.

Danne

2010-09-11, 05:03 PM

Oh good, it's not just me. :smallredface:

Coidzor

2010-09-11, 05:15 PM

(especially if the story would be "trite" if the characters were straight).
Well, this last bit at least makes sense, a general desire not to publish trite things. Though, redundant in that iteration. And hopefully not hypocritical by having trite things of a heterosexual nature published...

I don't know, but we might still be at the point where any zine that has queer material in it will be ghettoized as a queer rag. Are we? Either way, the perception of that kind of "risk" seems the most likely culprit to me, unless there's some kind of religious affiliation that's not immediately obvious.

a store that wouldn't let a transperson use the right bathroom?

Frankly, I don't really understand how that sort of thing comes up. :smallconfused:

Anyhoo, no, you're pretty justifiably upset, and they've given you an active disincentive against supporting them.

Dogmantra

2010-09-11, 05:19 PM

Frankly, I don't really understand how that sort of thing comes up. :smallconfused:

I've heard stories of people who were told that the person didn't feel "comfortable" with "one of you" using their toilets... The fact that the victims of said discrimination were cis more often than trans just makes the whole thing even more bizarre.

Coidzor

2010-09-11, 05:28 PM

I've heard stories of people who were told that the person didn't feel "comfortable" with "one of you" using their toilets... The fact that the victims of said discrimination were cis more often than trans just makes the whole thing even more bizarre.

So, in the paranoid witch hunt of worrying about trans individuals using the same restroom they go up to perfectly cis individuals and accuse them of being trans and try to get them barred from the restrooms?

...How...Epileptic Trees... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EpilepticTrees)

Danne

2010-09-11, 05:35 PM

Well, this last bit at least makes sense, a general desire not to publish trite things. Though, redundant in that iteration. And hopefully not hypocritical by having trite things of a heterosexual nature published...

Granted. I wouldn't want to publish trite things if I ran a magazine either. But I was paraphrasing, so it was a bit more obvious than that. I dunno, it just left a bad taste in my mouth.

I don't know, but we might still be at the point where any zine that has queer material in it will be ghettoized as a queer rag. Are we? Either way, the perception of that kind of "risk" seems the most likely culprit to me, unless there's some kind of religious affiliation that's not immediately obvious.

They're not, actually, especially not in the sci-fi/fantasy community. Crossed Genres (http://crossedgenres.com/) had an entire issue (http://crossedgenres.com/archives/012/) devoted to gay and lesbian stories; you don't hear anyone calling them a queer rag (though to be fair, they're rather small). Expanded Horizons (http://expandedhorizons.net/magazine/) focuses on diversity in general; they have any number of LGBT themed stories and are a respected magazine in the community.

Frankly, I don't really understand how that sort of thing comes up. :smallconfused:

Easy. MtF person who is clearly physically male (due to facial structure or body build or whatever) goes into women's bathroom. Girl in bathroom freaks out. Store throws a fit. (I imagine men would probably make less of a deal of a FtM using the men's room, but I could be wrong.)

Anyhoo, no, you're pretty justifiably upset, and they've given you an active disincentive against supporting them.

Indeed. I think I shall avoid anything to do with them in the future.

Edit: Yep, Fantasy and Science Fiction Magazine has also published stories with LGBT content. (Thought so, and I just checked to confirm.) And they're about as big a name as you get in the industry. I highly doubt anyone has ever called them a queer rag. I also seem to recall reading a quote from the editor (I have no idea where -- I think one of my anthologies at home) about how LGBT literature has overlapped with fantasy/sci-fi literature so much that the latter couldn't have developed without the former, and thus the former should continue to be supported and celebrated in the latter (major paraphrasing there, but that was the gist XD).

Coidzor

2010-09-11, 06:11 PM

They're not, actually, especially not in the sci-fi/fantasy community. Crossed Genres (http://crossedgenres.com/) had an entire issue (http://crossedgenres.com/archives/012/) devoted to gay and lesbian stories; you don't hear anyone calling them a queer rag (though to be fair, they're rather small). Expanded Horizons (http://expandedhorizons.net/magazine/) focuses on diversity in general; they have any number of LGBT themed stories and are a respected magazine in the community.

Edit: Yep, Fantasy and Science Fiction Magazine has also published stories with LGBT content. (Thought so, and I just checked to confirm.) And they're about as big a name as you get in the industry. I highly doubt anyone has ever called them a queer rag. I also seem to recall reading a quote from the editor (I have no idea where -- I think one of my anthologies at home) about how LGBT literature has overlapped with fantasy/sci-fi literature so much that the latter couldn't have developed without the former, and thus the former should continue to be supported and celebrated in the latter (major paraphrasing there, but that was the gist XD).

Well, that's good. Reassuring, even. :smallsmile:

Easy. MtF person who is clearly physically male (due to facial structure or body build or whatever) goes into women's bathroom. Girl in bathroom freaks out. Store throws a fit. (I imagine men would probably make less of a deal of a FtM using the men's room, but I could be wrong.)

As far as I know, unless a FtM was making a point of making a scene, the point of men in restrooms is to ignore one another, it's borderline bad taste to have a conversation going into one as a group after a movie when it's family. At least, that's how it has always seemed and I've been told that such was the case.

That, and considering we have people like Nameless running around who are completely physiologically normal and male, it'd take something fairly extreme for me to assume someone was genotypically female, especially with the context of men's restroom coloring my perception of the world around me and discouraging catching the eye or looking at the face of other occupants.

I guess that's part of why this is so alien to me, I've been trained to have an aversion to looking directly at those that share the restroom with me, provided that I am aware of them enough to not perceive them as acting in a threatening manner.

WarKitty

2010-09-11, 06:14 PM

Petrocorus

2010-09-11, 06:44 PM

Excuse me, but what is a cis?

Dogmantra

2010-09-11, 06:48 PM

Excuse me, but what is a cis?

Cisgender is the opposite of transgender.

Elentari

2010-09-11, 06:51 PM

As Wikipedia says, cisgender means:

Cisgender is a neologism that means "someone who is comfortable in the gender they were assigned at birth", according to Calpernia Addams. "Cisgender" is used to contrast "transgender" on the gender spectrum.

So, the opposite of trans.

Edit: gah, ninja'd

Petrocorus

2010-09-11, 07:08 PM

Thanks both.

Danne

2010-09-11, 07:22 PM

There's also a high social interaction with the "men are scary and dangerous" idea. A woman in the men's room would be considered...kind of odd but probably not threatening. A man in the woman's room would be considered a sexual predator.

This. Unfortunately. :smallfrown:

As far as I know, unless a FtM was making a point of making a scene, the point of men in restrooms is to ignore one another, it's borderline bad taste to have a conversation going into one as a group after a movie when it's family. At least, that's how it has always seemed and I've been told that such was the case.

Yes, that's what I thought, but I didn't want to be accused of gender stereotyping. XD

Petrocorus

2010-09-11, 07:30 PM

There's also a high social interaction with the "men are scary and dangerous" idea. A woman in the men's room would be considered...kind of odd but probably not threatening. A man in the woman's room would be considered a sexual predator.

I actually don't fully get why public bathroom are separated.
One doesn't have a bathroom at home for each gender. Many small office don't have separated bathroom.

Danne

2010-09-11, 07:43 PM

Well, in those cases we're talking single bathrooms. Don't know about you, but my bathroom at home doesn't have multiple stalls and a row of sinks. Same with many of the small offices I've been in -- it's just one unit, and if someone's using it you wait your turn. So it doesn't matter who's using it, because it's not like you're sharing it with someone.

A lot of women find the idea sharing going to the bathroom (when they're pretty defenseless) with strange men to be frightening (with good reason in some cases).

WarKitty

2010-09-11, 07:49 PM

I actually don't fully get why public bathroom are separated.
One doesn't have a bathroom at home for each gender. Many small office don't have separated bathroom.

Modesty I think. So people can't try to peek into the stalls or whatever. Although yeah I do understand the threat, there've been places where I would *not* want to be alone in or near a lockable stall with a strange man.

That said, I hope eventually standard bathrooms turn into a row of stalls with floor-to-ceiling walls and doors (so you can't peek in at all). Sinks can be out in the open.

Coidzor

2010-09-11, 08:03 PM

Yes, that's what I thought, but I didn't want to be accused of gender stereotyping. XD

less... gender stereotyping, more social mores for a class of rooms, I think. :smallconfused:

Danne

2010-09-11, 09:00 PM

less... gender stereotyping, more social mores for a class of rooms, I think. :smallconfused:

The way I wrote it originally made it look like I was saying all women would freak out and all men would be completely chill with it. Which wouldn't be cool and wasn't what I meant in the first place.

Anuan

2010-09-11, 11:15 PM

Dunno if anyone's seen this yet, but...here. (http://childrenshospitalblog.org/father-of-a-transgender-tween-speaks-out/)

Serpentine

2010-09-12, 12:21 AM

I actually don't fully get why public bathroom are separated.
One doesn't have a bathroom at home for each gender. Many small office don't have separated bathroom.My residential college had unisex bathrooms - toilets, showers an' all. Never had any problems with it at all, although my mother was a bit leery about it.

That article is nice :smallsmile:

Lioness

2010-09-12, 12:29 AM

Another article I found that was running around on FB...unsure of who wrote it.

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Tricksy Hobbits

2010-09-12, 12:38 AM

bluewind95

2010-09-12, 12:39 AM

Lioness... that... that article... it is a joke, yes?

Lioness

2010-09-12, 12:40 AM

That was-wow; O_o.

Though from the second part of #5 (well all the others, but 5 the most), I smell a troll.

Also, are we even able to discuss this? It seems like it could easily go into religion and politics, not to mention the OP's sentences about it being a support thread.

Not discussing...just posting.

I'm pretty sure it's not a troll. It's a statement that clearly shoots down arguments against LGBT people. It's well written, sensible, and should probably be shared lots.

Though, just in case, no discussing number 8, 'kay guys?

Lioness... that... that article... it is a joke, yes?

I don't think so...are you not getting the irony?

Serpentine

2010-09-12, 12:43 AM

That's brilliant! :smallbiggrin:

And, uh, guys... are you not getting the joke or something? I'm not quite sure where your objections are coming from.

Innis Cabal

2010-09-12, 12:55 AM

It's tongue and cheek, and ya...it's totally a joke (Quite a funny one but one I've seen before)

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 12:56 AM

Lioness

2010-09-12, 12:58 AM

Back to the bathroom issue-
I would be very uncomfortable if someone who was definitely male (and identified as such) came into the women's bathroom while I was there. I don't care if you're not there to assault me. You are a strange man in a place where I am dropping my pants.

(Goodness, I should be in bed...)

Yeah...I'm not a fan of same-sex bathrooms.

However, transfolk using the appropriate bathroom (Female for MtF, Male for FtM) I'm fine with. I don't care what they were. If they're using the same bathroom as me, they're female. I'm totally cool with that.

My dance teacher once expressed that she found a MtF using the female bathroom "disgusting"
I so wanted to confront her about it, but she's incredibly religious, and we get on well otherwise. So I let it slide. I hope people eventually become more tolerant.

Danne

2010-09-12, 01:00 AM

Another article I found that was running around on FB...unsure of who wrote it.

Ha. Seen that one before. I use some of those arguments in real life.

Edit: Oh, and that article was very nice. :smallsmile: Thanks for sharing!

Petrocorus

2010-09-12, 01:36 AM

Another article I found that was running around on FB...unsure of who wrote it.

Lioness, an internet you deserve!:smalltongue:

I actually saw it once, long lost. This is just awesome.

bluewind95

2010-09-12, 01:41 AM

I don't think so...are you not getting the irony?

I'm an extremely literal person, though I've taught myself to detect irony/sarcasm better. Still, posted like that, I have no clues, so I'm left with a "This can't be... this is... ridiculous" but since there are no cluse to indicate sarcasm/irony, it COULD be real. And that would be scary.

golentan

2010-09-12, 01:47 AM

So, since I haven't seen any comment here... Judge said thursday us folks can join the U.S. military.

:smallwink:

Alcopop

2010-09-12, 02:38 AM

I've been thinking a lot recently about the positive and negative effects humor can have on the LGBT community.

At once i'm seeing a lot of really positive humor directed at homosexuality, things like "gay-chicken" and the "bromance" that seem to allow people to stretch there ideas about gender and sexuality and push these things in a safe and entertaining way.

However there is always a fine line in which these jokes can turn from harmless to nasty, though its often hard to see where that lines lies.

As well i'm finding little to no positive humor on being trans-gendered. I have heard some of my friends make "she-male" or "tranny" jokes and I found myself quite upset by these.

Perhaps it's an level of underlying disgust found in these jokes that make me upset by them where as the former "gay" jokes seem to be based on playfulness and acceptance.

Though I detest the kind of vile jokes I hear about trans-gendered people honestly I often wish that people would take my condition (MtF semi-closet trangendered) less seriously sometimes as well.

Edit: Oh, also, Hello! ^_^

Quincunx

2010-09-12, 04:27 AM

I would evict a sizable percentage of you MtFs from my bathroom (note that preposition "my", mine, I am female and this is mine, therefore it is female). The conflict between wanting to be treated as female and broadcasting maleness, which many of you still do, is amplified to a danger signal when it moves into the supposed safe zone of a place where I'm expected to drop my pants. No duplicity is welcome there. (Guys apparently have their code of bathroom silence; we women enact peace treaties when faced with the bathroom queue. An oversubscribed bathroom is genuinely open and polite, genial as the Old West with 20 cases of ammo apiece.) That's not a place where camouflage is a good idea, not at all. It might help dampen that danger signal if you dropped the pretense of femininity by announcing that you felt the need to use this bathroom not the other, as people in hostage situations hold their hands away from their bodies to broadcast that they're unarmed and not hostile; it might not. I haven't had that field-tested yet.

Modesty I think. So people can't try to peek into the stalls or whatever. Although yeah I do understand the threat, there've been places where I would *not* want to be alone in or near a lockable stall with a strange man.

That said, I hope eventually standard bathrooms turn into a row of stalls with floor-to-ceiling walls and doors (so you can't peek in at all). Sinks can be out in the open.

Eventually? Look up "water closets". (While you're at it, look up "indicator locks". We Americans have a way to go in building discretion into our toilets.)

Asta Kask

2010-09-12, 04:52 AM

So, since I haven't seen any comment here... Judge said thursday us folks can join the U.S. military.

:smallwink:

And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other's side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger?

Plato, Symposium

Serpentine

2010-09-12, 05:39 AM

As well i'm finding little to no positive humor on being trans-gendered. I have heard some of my friends make "she-male" or "tranny" jokes and I found myself quite upset by these.I am always be/amused by and joke about the plethora of "granny tranny" "adult" ads in city newspapers, but only because that seems so incredibly niche, and yet, if numbers are to be believed, popular.
Today I said something about how my baby nephew could be transexual or something like that to my aunt and 11-year-old cousin, and she proceeded to discuss "shims" and "she-males". Disappointing, but not really surprising :smallsigh:

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 07:58 AM

I would evict a sizable percentage of you MtFs from my bathroom (note that preposition "my", mine, I am female and this is mine, therefore it is female). The conflict between wanting to be treated as female and broadcasting maleness, which many of you still do, is amplified to a danger signal when it moves into the supposed safe zone of a place where I'm expected to drop my pants. No duplicity is welcome there. (Guys apparently have their code of bathroom silence; we women enact peace treaties when faced with the bathroom queue. An oversubscribed bathroom is genuinely open and polite, genial as the Old West with 20 cases of ammo apiece.) That's not a place where camouflage is a good idea, not at all. It might help dampen that danger signal if you dropped the pretense of femininity by announcing that you felt the need to use this bathroom not the other, as people in hostage situations hold their hands away from their bodies to broadcast that they're unarmed and not hostile; it might not. I haven't had that field-tested yet.

Eventually? Look up "water closets". (While you're at it, look up "indicator locks". We Americans have a way to go in building discretion into our toilets.)

Meh, I'd still just prefer a single-sex bathroom, it shouldn't be too hard to set up. I'm curious how the people who wouldn't be comfortable with a MtF in the women's room would react to me - I frequently get taken for a man.

Quincunx

2010-09-12, 09:11 AM

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 09:17 AM

. . .How can you be taken for a man when you don't broadcast masculinity and do broadcast femininity?

On the other hand, unisex bathrooms (single-sex bathrooms are what we have now :smalltongue:) would solve the issue. Remove the expectation of scanning for gender and there's no reason to get upset when the projection and the broadcast signals don't match.

You'd be surprised. I apparently *do* broadcast masculinity plenty of times, despite not having any of the male parts. Apparently it's in the way I move and hold myself (and the fact that I have no hips and small breasts that disappear under loose clothing).

Asta Kask

2010-09-12, 10:32 AM

I wonder if there are Transracials in the Giant's world? Like HtE (Human-to-Elf) or OtD (Orc-to-Dwarf)?

Danne

2010-09-12, 11:07 AM

So, since I haven't seen any comment here... Judge said thursday us folks can join the U.S. military.

:smallwink:

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 11:41 AM

So, since I haven't seen any comment here... Judge said thursday us folks can join the U.S. military.

:smallwink:

Good I guess. Still sucks for anyone with gender issues though.

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 11:46 AM

Note: I am fine with MtF's in my women's bathroom so long as, like Quin said, you project femininity. If there's a way to tell you identify as a woman, you are more than welcome into my pants-dropping-zone.
If you're not dressed out or in that stage when you're comfortable with presenting yourself as your "true gender", I don't believe you should be comfortable using the appropriate bathroom yet.

I don't approve of unisex bathrooms, not unless its one of those single-room bathrooms that lock. If its a multi-stalled restroom in a bigger place, I do not want to be sharing that place with men.

Dogmantra

2010-09-12, 11:52 AM

I don't approve of unisex bathrooms, not unless its one of those single-room bathrooms that lock. If its a multi-stalled restroom in a bigger place, I do not want to be sharing that place with men.

Honest question coming from someone who honestly can't comprehend things like being only attracted to people of one gender: why only men?

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 12:01 PM

Honest question coming from someone who honestly can't comprehend things like being only attracted to people of one gender: why only men?

To be fair, I'm not sure how much is about attraction and how much is about not feeling safe with men in a bathroom.

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 12:24 PM

Honest question coming from someone who honestly can't comprehend things like being only attracted to people of one gender: why only men?

I'm not only attracted to one gender.
Well, actually, if anything, recently...aside from the ONE man I'm dating, I've been more interested in the physical appearance of women.

And..yeah, its kind of the safety issue. You're likely NOT there to assault me, but, all the same, I am very vulnerable with my pants dropped down, and I'm just...uncomfortable with the idea of a man in the women's bathrooms.

Granted, I'm also very self conscious when going to the bathroom for some reason. Its hard enough when there's another woman a few stalls down, and they have the same bits as me. I don't think I'd be able to pee at all if there was a man a few stalls down.

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 12:33 PM

I'm not only attracted to one gender.
Well, actually, if anything, recently...aside from the ONE man I'm dating, I've been more interested in the physical appearance of women.

And..yeah, its kind of the safety issue. You're likely NOT there to assault me, but, all the same, I am very vulnerable with my pants dropped down, and I'm just...uncomfortable with the idea of a man in the women's bathrooms.

Granted, I'm also very self conscious when going to the bathroom for some reason. Its hard enough when there's another woman a few stalls down, and they have the same bits as me. I don't think I'd be able to pee at all if there was a man a few stalls down.

I'm curious if you've ever been in a store with mixed-gender dressing rooms. A lot of the teen/young adult stores have them. They have floor to ceiling walls and paneling around the edge of the door so you can't peek in. I was thinking a similar set-up for a mixed restroom - each stall would be completely private, no way to peak in at all.

It's interesting thinking about this from my perspective as someone who frequently "projects" masculinity. Even when I know I appear male, I'm not comfortable going into the men's room for about the same reasons you wouldn't be comfortable with a man in the women's room - it's just a very vulnerable environment for me.

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 12:38 PM

I'm curious if you've ever been in a store with mixed-gender dressing rooms. A lot of the teen/young adult stores have them. They have floor to ceiling walls and paneling around the edge of the door so you can't peek in. I was thinking a similar set-up for a mixed restroom - each stall would be completely private, no way to peak in at all.

It's interesting thinking about this from my perspective as someone who frequently "projects" masculinity. Even when I know I appear male, I'm not comfortable going into the men's room for about the same reasons you wouldn't be comfortable with a man in the women's room - it's just a very vulnerable environment for me.

I've never been to any store with a bathroom or fitting room with walls like you describe. And maybe that would help, but I'm not so sure.
In general, I know bathrooms are typically seen as a haven from the other gender.
Especially for women, who often have to change out sanitary napkins and reapply makeup and "adjust" themselves in mirrors, and I don't see all of this happening as comfortably in a shared bathroom.

@V I didn't really want to say "bloody tampons and pads"
But there you've gone and made me

Coidzor

2010-09-12, 12:41 PM

^: Wow. First time I've seen a person use sanitary napkin in a sentence. :smalleek:

^redux: Well, every g/f and friend that's mentioned them has just called them "pads" and the context sort of took care of itself. And I just repress whenever my mother brings them up, hence why I only remember going to the store to get them, not being asked to get them.
Honest question coming from someone who honestly can't comprehend things like being only attracted to people of one gender: why only men?

That has nothing to do with being only attracted to one gender. It's social conditioning and the unspoken sanctity of single-sex restrooms.

I'm confused as to how you haven't encountered that social taboo growing up.

Dogmantra

2010-09-12, 01:04 PM

To be fair, I'm not sure how much is about attraction and how much is about not feeling safe with men in a bathroom.

I'm not only attracted to one gender

That has nothing to do with being only attracted to one gender. It's social conditioning and the unspoken sanctity of single-sex restrooms.

Ah, no, you misunderstand. I merely used that as an example because I personally can't see any reason someone of a gender other than your own ought to be any less welcome in your public toilets than someone of the same gender in the same way I can't fathom how anyone could be attracted solely to one gender.

It was an apparently poorly chosen way of clarifying that I don't "get" most gender-restrictions, having such an opinion of gender as I do.

To put it another way: if you're uncomfortable with men being in a women's public toilet, why only men? Perhaps there's something I'm missing, after all, I can't understand how people could ever consider gender as a barrier to a relationship, for example.

Maybe that makes my original question clearer?

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 01:08 PM

Ah, no, you misunderstand. I merely used that as an example because I personally can't see any reason someone of a gender other than your own ought to be any less welcome in your public toilets than someone of the same gender in the same way I can't fathom how anyone could be attracted solely to one gender.

It has to do with the risk factor. Women are far more at risk from assault by men than men are from women or than women are from other women. And frankly our society plays up the "creepy strange man" idea more than it actually happens. It's socially coded in that men are sexual predators.

Dogmantra

2010-09-12, 01:17 PM

It has to do with the risk factor. Women are far more at risk from assault by men than men are from women or than women are from other women. And frankly our society plays up the "creepy strange man" idea more than it actually happens. It's socially coded in that men are sexual predators.

I think this graph explains everything:
http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll78/De_ressurect/understandingovertime.png

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 01:35 PM

In my opinion, no matter how equal and the same you try to make genders, there is always going to be a difference.
Always.
Men are men. Women are women. Now, that isn't a "YOU ARE STUCK BEING A MAN IF YOU WERE BORN A MAN" statement. I'm just stating, in general, if you're a man (whether you started that way physically or not, its all in the present tense), you are a man and therefore do not belong in the women's bathrooms. Women's bathrooms involve women getting partially naked, or adjusting undergarments, or doing other intimate things involving their womanhood.
THEREFORE, Men do not belong in a women's restroom in the same way that men do not belong in a women's dressing room. Its because I'm partially naked in the same room as someone who does not share my gender and genitalia, nor mentality about my genitalia, and that is uncomfortable.

Dogmantra

2010-09-12, 01:45 PM

While I can't say I share the same views, that does clear it up. The reasons I could come up with (the majority to do with perverts trying to get a good glimpse of things you'd rather they'd not) could be invalidated purely by the existence of homosexuals.

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 01:48 PM

Dogmantra

2010-09-12, 01:49 PM

Would YOU be entirely comfortable getting naked around a lesbian?

Ah, no, I meant homosexuals of the same gender. i.e. those who are allowed in there in the first place.

As in: if you're concerned about a perverted member of the opposite gender seeing your bits, as it were, then surely you should also be concerned about a peverted member of the same gender seeing your bits? Meaning that barring the opposite gender doesn't really do incredible amounts.

Ostien

2010-09-12, 01:56 PM

What about those of us who don't identify as one gender or the other? If binary gendered bathrooms exist genderqueer and gender variant people will be potential targets for harassment, whether female bodied or male bodied. I've known female bodied queer identified people being harassed in women's bathrooms and in one case a cop was called. They were hauled out and questioned on their gender, they had to justify themselves and their appearance.

For the most part people here don't seem to have a problem with people who identify fully with one gender using the bathroom they identify with. However, there are many queer folks where it is not so simple and we can often be read differently by two people at the same time, making choosing one bathroom over another to avoid harassment an impossible decision.

In Chicago I'm working with a genderqueer group who is working with Equality Illinois to start a trans friendly bathroom initiative. We're going to ask local businesses to sign a contract saying they will not police peoples bathroom choices and display a decal in their window signifying such. We're only likely to get local businesses but it will be something to allow queer people to pee in peace. Also there are some sites that track like via Google maps single occupancy and/or gender-neutral bathrooms.

EDIT: here is that site http://safe2pee.org it lists gender neutral, accessible and single occupancy bathrooms. It's community based so people add new bathrooms.

CrimsonAngel

2010-09-12, 02:00 PM

What about those of us who don't identify as one gender or the other?

Open up your pants and check!

Lix Lorn

2010-09-12, 02:01 PM

Open up your pants and check!
Choose your answer:

Serious: It's not that simple; gender =/= sex.
Joke: DudeNotFunny.

CrimsonAngel

2010-09-12, 02:03 PM

Choose your answer:

Serious: It's not that simple; gender =/= sex.
Joke: DudeNotFunny.

Serious ._.

Sorry. :smallfrown:

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 02:05 PM

Serious ._.

Sorry. :smallfrown:

That logic would put a MTF woman who was fully presenting as female but for whatever reason hasn't had bottom surgery as a man.

Edit: rough pic of me-as-boy up in picture thread!

Coidzor

2010-09-12, 02:13 PM

Meaning that barring the opposite gender doesn't really do incredible amounts.

Aside from the fact that gays are a minority and as already stated don't have the implicit threat that a man has by virtue of being a man and an unknown...

Barring the opposite sex is the origin of a fair bit of the discomfort in the first place.

Dogmantra

2010-09-12, 02:17 PM

Aside from the fact that gays are a minority
Strangers who wish to harm children are also a minority.

Coidzor

2010-09-12, 02:18 PM

Strangers who wish to harm children are also a minority.

Way to go ignoring the point of the post.

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 02:19 PM

Strangers who wish to harm children are also a minority.

But are higher in number than pervy gays trying to catch a glimpse in a public bathroom.
In general, its not a perfect system. But I am MUCH more comfortable knowing that its less likely to happen because a majority of the likely offenders are not allowed in.
Like I said, though, its mostly the discomfort of "I have different parts than you and I'm half naked with only a stall door between us" for me

Dogmantra

2010-09-12, 02:22 PM

Way to go ignoring the point of the post.
I'm really not... I'm really not seeing it. :smallconfused:

Lix Lorn

2010-09-12, 02:27 PM

Serious ._.

Sorry. :smallfrown:

Sex is as simple as what you have in your pants. (Although, some people-very few people-have both/neither/some other thing that isn;t simple.)

Gender is what you think like. What your mind is, what your soul is. If your gender is female, it doesn't matter what's in your pants, you're a girl and it's the world that needs to adapt to it, not to you.[/rant]

Coidzor

2010-09-12, 02:28 PM

I'm really not... I'm really not seeing it. :smallconfused:

You don't understand how barring the opposite sex from a place and making it a taboo for them to enter can contribute to the feeling of violation and discomfort that the sex of that place would have if someone of the opposite sex entered?

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 02:29 PM

But are higher in number than pervy gays trying to catch a glimpse in a public bathroom.
In general, its not a perfect system. But I am MUCH more comfortable knowing that its less likely to happen because a majority of the likely offenders are not allowed in.
Like I said, though, its mostly the discomfort of "I have different parts than you and I'm half naked with only a stall door between us" for me

That's going to cause all kind of problems in reality though. So anyone who is transgender but hasn't had bottom surgery would end up in the restroom of their assigned gender rather than their true gender. But then since we don't generally conduct inspections of genitalia, we rely on other cues, a transperson could appear one gender while having the genitalia associated with the other. Plus in reality a MtF going into the men's room is at a much, much higher risk of assault than a cis woman is.

Edit: Good point Coidzor. We have this innate issue of "well it's always been this way so that must be the right way!" It's just a sort of human instinct, and it forgets a lot of the history behind single-sex toilets. When they were introduced it was still somewhat scandalous that women would be out where they'd need public toilets - having them in with the men would have been the height of indelicacy.

Dogmantra

2010-09-12, 02:31 PM

You don't understand how barring the opposite sex from a place and making it a taboo for them to enter can contribute to the feeling of violation and discomfort that the sex of that place would have if someone of the opposite sex entered?

No, mostly I just couldn't understand what you were saying and it didn't seem particularly relevant. One all for confusing posts, I guess. Me to serve.

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 02:34 PM

That's going to cause all kind of problems in reality though. So anyone who is transgender but hasn't had bottom surgery would end up in the restroom of their assigned gender rather than their true gender. But then since we don't generally conduct inspections of genitalia, we rely on other cues, a transperson could appear one gender while having the genitalia associated with the other. Plus in reality a MtF going into the men's room is at a much, much higher risk of assault than a cis woman is.
I knew when I didn't include the exact wording I had before, someone was going to mention this. :smallsigh:

Note: I am fine with MtF's in my women's bathroom so long as, like Quin said, you project femininity. If there's a way to tell you identify as a woman, you are more than welcome into my pants-dropping-zone.
If you're not dressed out or in that stage when you're comfortable with presenting yourself as your "true gender", I don't believe you should be comfortable using the appropriate bathroom yet.

If you identify as a woman, that's fine, as long as you show it. If you identify as a woman, no matter what's "in your pants", you are infact a woman to me, and are more than welcome in the same restroom as me.

Edit: Furthermore, its what's already implemented "in reality", so...er, I don't know what problems you're speaking of.

Coidzor

2010-09-12, 02:35 PM

No, mostly I just couldn't understand what you were saying and it didn't seem particularly relevant. One all for confusing posts, I guess. Me to serve.

Well, in review my language hasn't been very clear and I apologize for that.

Me talk pretty someday, I swear. x.x

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 02:38 PM

I knew when I didn't include the exact wording I had before, someone was going to mention this. :smallsigh:

If you identify as a woman, that's fine, as long as you show it. If you identify as a woman, no matter what's "in your pants", you are infact a woman to me, and are more than welcome in the same restroom as me.

Edit: Furthermore, its what's already implemented "in reality", so...er, I don't know what problems you're speaking of.

Oh was that you? Now I remember. I still think it might be an interesting challenge to ask what you'd do with me. I identify as thirdgender/genderqueer, I frequently go out dressed as a man, but I just don't feel comfortable using men's toilets yet.

And yeah it does already cause problems in reality, particularly for those transpeople who have figures that don't pass easily.

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 02:47 PM

Oh was that you? Now I remember. I still think it might be an interesting challenge to ask what you'd do with me. I identify as thirdgender/genderqueer, I frequently go out dressed as a man, but I just don't feel comfortable using men's toilets yet.

And yeah it does already cause problems in reality, particularly for those transpeople who have figures that don't pass easily.
Note that I, myself, don't have a gender symbol available.
'scause I'm Genderqueer myself. Or, atleast, I identified as Genderqueer for about five years before recently finding solace in my femininity, and having just been too lazy to change it.
So, yes, I understand. However, as often as I try to be open minded, my mind sometimes doesn't work that way. After viewing your "boy" picture in the Youthread, I'll state that you still look feminine. Or, like a woman attempting to appear as a man, and, on just looks alone, I would not feel alarmed if you entered the women's restrooms after myself.
If a masculine looking person entered the bathroom wearing a skirt or a woman's blouse, I'd not be alarmed. Feminine cues are what determine what makes me more comfortable with someone being in such a vulnerable space with me.
And, like I said, if you're a MtF in pre-op stage, and you're not "out" enough yet to dress out in public, I honestly don't think you should be comfortable enough using the women's bathroom.

Coidzor

2010-09-12, 02:54 PM

Oh was that you? Now I remember. I still think it might be an interesting challenge to ask what you'd do with me. I identify as thirdgender/genderqueer, I frequently go out dressed as a man, but I just don't feel comfortable using men's toilets yet.

Well, there's dressed as a man, in which case, uh, yeah.

And then there's, made up in order to crossdress.

Two quite different things for today's female-bodied and such crowd.

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 03:01 PM

Well, there's dressed as a man, in which case, uh, *rude laughter.*

And then there's, made up in order to crossdress.

Two quite different things for today's female-bodied and such crowd.

*looks lost*

Well, my standard outfit is black loose cargo pants, a graphic tee, and a button-down shirt over top. Usually with a couple of chains and studs floating around various places. Makeup used to enhance facial structure. Hair tucked back and gelled into place, it's in one of those short androgynous styles now.

I definitely wear a chest binder as well. I have at times worn a prosthetic but it really seems to be unnecessary under baggy pants.

Coidzor

2010-09-12, 03:10 PM

^:As if you need anything other than your socks. :smallamused: /Pratchett Reference.

*looks lost*

So, you know kilts, those things that Scottish men wear that are basically half-pleated skirts made out of about 7 and a half yards of wool or so, give or take. Yeah, purists get their knickers in a twist if girls wear those, but the majority of people aren't going to be able to differentiate it from a skirt.

The only other item of gendered clothing, really in western society anyway, is the suit and that's become subverted so often it's practically lost all meaning for a woman to wear a man's suit in addition to the fact that women have suits for them as well. And they even make femme-tuxedos now, so there's no reason to aside from not wanting clothing that fits to the bodytype.

Whereas, is quite a different thing for a male bodied person to be visibly male and wear a dress or skirt.

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 03:16 PM

^:As if you need anything other than your socks. :smallamused: /Pratchett Reference.

So, you know kilts, those things that Scottish men wear that are basically half-pleated skirts made out of about 7 and a half yards of wool or so, give or take. Yeah, purists get their knickers in a twist if girls wear those, but the majority of people aren't going to be able to differentiate it from a skirt.

The only other item of gendered clothing, really in western society anyway, is the suit and that's become subverted so often it's practically lost all meaning for a woman to wear a man's suit in addition to the fact that women have suits for them as well. And they even make femme-tuxedos now, so there's no reason to aside from not wanting clothing that fits to the bodytype.

Whereas, is quite a different thing for a male bodied person to be visibly male and wear a dress or skirt.

Yeah. That's actually what I was thinking about during Rabbit's posts. Attempting to pass for male is in some ways a *lot* harder than attempting to pass for female. People look until they see a gender marker. So if they see someone who could go either way wearing a skirt, they figure female and don't look too closely. But there aren't really any clothing choices that loudly signify "male" in the same way, so people keep looking.

Then again, it's easier because I don't have to deal with the whole men are predators thing. If I get caught in the men's room it's fairly easy for me to look sort of confused and say I wasn't paying attention, because people presume women aren't predatory. Whereas a biomale doing the same would likely be intensely scrutinized. I'm more likely to get told "watch out honey, you might get hurt."

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 03:26 PM

The fact of the matter is women enter men's bathrooms all the time. All the time. And, for the most part, I don't think a man would react the same to a woman in the men's bathroom as much as a woman would react to a man in the women's bathroom, likely because women are rarely physically "predatory".
You could, very likely, get away with doing whatever you choose to do, Warkitty. You could claim to be a very young male, as they often appear to be feminine. In general, though, I don't see people pitching fits as easily as the reverse situation.
Its different for MtF's, I know, because not everyone has such a fluid idea of gender as I do. For a lot of people, I know, even if you identify as a woman, you have man bits in your pants, and they're not going to let you in. I can't speak for them- this is, of course, a very awkward social situation, and I can see the problems that may arise because of this. You can't make the system perfect, and there's always going to be someone that slips through the cracks, or someone excluded unfairly.
As it is, we can't change everything to make everyone happy. There's no way to make everyone happy in this situation, and so it has to be catered to the majority.

Quincunx

2010-09-12, 03:29 PM

Thought about it a bit more, and my stance is this: I trust my instincts on most matters and I trust my perception of gender. Whereas RabbitHoleLost would be OK as soon as the MtF was dressing and projecting visual femininity, I would not be, because I would be picking up non-visual cues as well, getting a conflicting answer, and in the conflict falling back on the idea that my instincts are good and probably correct.

A regular guy in my bathroom? If he came alone* and looked unsure, I'd just whine at him about using the already overcrowded option. :smalltongue: A guy in my bathroom that makes me conflicted enough to fall back on instinct for a solution? Danger. Ignore my earlier suggestion about identifying yourselves. It wouldn't mitigate my conflict, and would make a pariah out of you for no reason then. The best solution is to just leave me disquieted and ignored, and not to draw enough attention that another woman notices my disquiet.

Old Dilbert cartoons are wrong. There's nothing special about a woman's pee-space except scarcity, and it's scarcity of a service not goods. No cachét in using it if you don't have to.

*I thought guys' bathrooms were preferred for err. . .not entering the bathroom alone, if you catch my meaning.

I think this graph explains everything:
http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll78/De_ressurect/understandingovertime.png

This is the new best graph ever from this thread. Sorry, Serpentine.

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 03:32 PM

See I think sometimes the right thing to do makes a bunch of people unhappy. Sometimes the majority supports things that are plain wrong. Not too long ago a number of people were extremely uncomfortable and frightened at allowing their children to share a classroom with scary black kids. Or at having scary black men in the same area as whites. It took legal nondiscrimination laws to get over that - but once the laws were in place everyone got used to it and most people don't get uncomfortable anymore.

I think that's what Coidzor was trying to say. The gender-separated system itself reinforces the idea that men are dangerous and women need to be protected. It also reinforces a lot of the traditional ideas about gender. If it were to go away, in 20 years no one would really complain. In 50 years it wouldn't be an issue at all.

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 03:37 PM

I disagree. I see nothing wrong with keeping bathrooms separated by gender. And, like I said, no matter how much you try to say there aren't differences between genders, there are. A woman is a woman. There are certain things that almost always come with being a woman. Women do different things in the bathroom then men.
Therefore, they need separate accommodations in public places, or it has to be a single toilet bathroom with a single locking door.

Relating having different bathrooms for the different genders to racial segregation is like relating gay rights to rights of pedophiles. Its a desperate jump from one to the other.

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 03:40 PM

Quincunx

2010-09-12, 03:43 PM

Coidzor acknowledges that the system is in place. What he thinks about it I don't assume.

And no amount of anti-discrimination legislation will make me less uncomfortable with the poorly presented MtF. You can legislate that I mustn't compare masculinity or femininity with goodness, but that will not stop me from comparing feminine and masculine projection in the same person and seeing a conflict. At best, you can legislate that "once you were not allowed here, and now you are--you who were there already, cope", which will open (in this case) the former women's bathroom to unwomanly men and unwomanly former-men equally. (If you can write a law that would better serve the purpose than what I have in quotation marks, please do. I'll be offline in two hours though, for the night, and any posts after that I'll have to reply to tomorrow morning.)

Coidzor

2010-09-12, 03:44 PM

Coidzor acknowledges that the system is in place. What he thinks about it I don't assume.

Probably for the best that. Considering I have yet to actually hit upon my personal feelings in the matter and I've been thinking about it off and on since it came up. Either I'm broken or I don't really have the capacity to have an opinion on women's restrooms. :smallconfused:

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 03:45 PM

Well if you firmly believe there are differences between genders we're pretty much not going to get anywhere. Although you'll note my proposal was essentially a single toilet bathroom. You could put a mirror inside easily enough. I just said sinks could be outside for convenience, since we already wash our hands in front of people (and put on makeup, fix hair, etc.).

Obviously there are differences between genders, or else we wouldn't have Transgendered people, would we? If there weren't differences in gender, why would people change their bodies to make it "right" to their personal gender?

And, yes, that proposal is essentially a bunch of mini bathrooms set within a larger one, and would likely work just as well. My argument was started by the statement that bathrooms, as they are now, should be co-ed.

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 03:48 PM

If there are why do you get people who don't identify with either gender?

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 03:53 PM

If there are why do you get people who don't identify with either gender?

Because not everyone fits within those different genders?
If there were no differences between genders, you wouldn't have the issue of not identifying, would you? Because there would be no space between the two, and, therefore, no reason to not "fit in" to either camp, because it would be all one.

Trog

2010-09-12, 03:54 PM

Obviously there are differences between genders, or else we wouldn't have Transgendered people, would we? If there weren't differences in gender, why would people change their bodies to make it "right" to their personal gender?
This.

Also, I like separate bathrooms because I don't want the fairer sex to hear me do my business. :smallwink:

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 03:59 PM

Because not everyone fits within those different genders?
If there were no differences between genders, you wouldn't have the issue of not identifying, would you? Because there would be no space between the two, and, therefore, no reason to not "fit in" to either camp, because it would be all one.

Possibly. I don't strictly think that there are no differences between genders, I think there are so many variations as to make any attempt at a systematic binary differentiation meaningless unless you artificially force everyone into a category.

Raistlin1040

2010-09-12, 04:02 PM

Trog

2010-09-12, 04:05 PM

Maybe there should be a third restroom reading: Uncomfortable

And it can be a single stall.

That way anyone can use it.

"I'm gassy. I'mma use the Uncomfortable."

Trog'd totally be for that... being a troglodyte and all. >>;

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 04:06 PM

Such is life when you live in a world where 90% of people (and that's being very generous to the other 10%, mind) fit into a binary option. Personally, I see nothing wrong with co-ed bathrooms, but I'm certainly not going to champion the idea on principle if confronted with the very real reality of people being uncomfortable with it. It's just not an issue that's worth getting upset about, in my opinion.

IMO the primary issue is simply safety. While I understand the concerns about predators in the women's room...the fact is that transpeople of all genders are at a much higher risk of assault than others. However it works out there needs to be a safe option for a trans person to be able to use a public restroom. A MtF using the mens room is in many areas putting herself at risk.

Edit: I love places that have "family" stalls.

Quincunx

2010-09-12, 04:10 PM

/\@: Also, the hybrid family/wheelchair bathroom is an excellent idea yes. Two groupings that could generally use the extra space and low-mounted private sink get it, and the business doesn't have as much 'waste' in devoting the extra space to just one group.

Maybe there should be a third restroom reading: Uncomfortable

And it can be a single stall.

That way anyone can use it.

"I'm gassy. I'mma use the Uncomfortable."

Trog'd totally be for that... being a troglodyte and all. >>;

I thought that was the wheelchair-accessible bathroom. :smalltongue: (At least they should be, at least water-closet style. The grab bars can be anchored so much better with walls on all four sides, and water closet doors open OUTWARDS instead of taking up wheelchair real estate inside.)

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 04:14 PM

Possibly. I don't strictly think that there are no differences between genders, I think there are so many variations as to make any attempt at a systematic binary differentiation meaningless unless you artificially force everyone into a category.

I don't agree with this either.
I think there are three gender options, and three gender options only:
Male, Female, both/neither.
That isn't to say that you fit perfectly into any three categories. Gender is a sliding scale.
And, because I'm more of a showing person than a telling person, I made an awful graph.
Disclaimer; Rabbit is not an artist. And, infact, the middle section probably isn't even the proper middle.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/Hito-chan/diagram.png

Anyways, gender is a sliding scale. You can be anywhere inbetween, but you're still one side or the other, unless you're in that middle section, where you aren't either more than the other, or neither, whichever you prefer.
This is why some girls are more "feminine" than others, or more "tomboy" (or, conversely, why some men are more masculine, or "metrosexual").

Trog

2010-09-12, 04:19 PM

I thought that was the wheelchair-accessible bathroom. :smalltongue: (At least they should be, at least water-closet style. The grab bars can be anchored so much better with walls on all four sides, and water closet doors open OUTWARDS instead of taking up wheelchair real estate inside.)
On second thought Trog wants his own restroom everywhere. It should read "Trog" on the door and it should be usable only by Trog. That makes sure no one is kept waiting while Trog's in there.

*Writes a letter requesting just that to the Ministry of Flushy Affairs, Trogland*

WarKitty

2010-09-12, 04:21 PM

I don't agree with this either.
I think there are three gender options, and three gender options only:
Male, Female, both/neither.
That isn't to say that you fit perfectly into any three categories. Gender is a sliding scale.
And, because I'm more of a showing person than a telling person, I made an awful graph.
Disclaimer; Rabbit is not an artist. And, infact, the middle section probably isn't even the proper middle.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/Hito-chan/diagram.png

Anyways, gender is a sliding scale. You can be anywhere inbetween, but you're still one side or the other, unless you're in that middle section, where you aren't either more than the other, or neither, whichever you prefer.
This is why some girls are more "feminine" than others, or more "tomboy" (or, conversely, why some men are more masculine, or "metrosexual").

My initial reaction was I've seen two *very* different ways of being in the middle. One is people I know who display almost no gendered behaviors of either side. The other is me, which is strong identification with markers associated with both. Those aren't to me the same gender at all, but they both end up in the middle on a scale.

Dogmantra

2010-09-12, 04:24 PM

My initial reaction was I've seen two *very* different ways of being in the middle. One is people I know who display almost no gendered behaviors of either side. The other is me, which is strong identification with markers associated with both. Those aren't to me the same gender at all, but they both end up in the middle on a scale.

A plane would work much better than a line (and just because it's denying a rather awful pun, put femininity up the Y axis), methinks. That way completely agendered people could be separated from people like you describe yourself.

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 04:26 PM

My initial reaction was I've seen two *very* different ways of being in the middle. One is people I know who display almost no gendered behaviors of either side. The other is me, which is strong identification with markers associated with both. Those aren't to me the same gender at all, but they both end up in the middle on a scale.

I've never seen anyone portray behaviors of neither gender. Ever. I've seen people do both to the point that it seems like something completely different, but I've never seen neither, especially since opposite attributes are given to both sides.
That's like saying they're gray without having either black or white.

Quincunx

2010-09-12, 04:40 PM

On second thought Trog wants his own restroom everywhere. It should read "Trog" on the door and it should be usable only by Trog. That makes sure no one is kept waiting while Trog's in there.

*Writes a letter requesting just that to the Ministry of Flushy Affairs, Trogland*

(later, outside a door with fancy brass "Trog" nameplate and nearby concierge desk)

"He's not here, is he? I need a room and I need it now-ish! He hasn't even left a deposit, has he??!!"

Trog

2010-09-12, 04:49 PM

(later, outside a door with fancy brass "Trog" nameplate and nearby concierge desk)

"He's not here, is he? I need a room and I need it now-ish! He hasn't even left a deposit, has he??!!"
*The concierge adjusts his tie uncomfortably*

Er, well we're pretty sure he did leave a uh... *glances warily at the door with the brass plaque* but no one will go in there to flush, I'm afraid.

Can I instead interest you in one of our many reasonably priced wooden outhouses? I'll just have the bell boy fetch you a corncob.

*dingding* One rustic special, stat!

Petrocorus

2010-09-12, 05:55 PM

It has to do with the risk factor. Women are far more at risk from assault by men than men are from women or than women are from other women.
The kickers is that it can happened right outside the women's room.

And frankly our society plays up the "creepy strange man" idea more than it actually happens. It's socially coded in that men are sexual predators.
Yes, and that's annoying.

In my opinion, no matter how equal and the same you try to make genders, there is always going to be a difference.
Always.
Men are men. Women are women. Now, that isn't a "YOU ARE STUCK BEING A MAN IF YOU WERE BORN A MAN" statement. I'm just stating, in general, if you're a man (whether you started that way physically or not, its all in the present tense), you are a man and therefore do not belong in the women's bathrooms. Women's bathrooms involve women getting partially naked, or adjusting undergarments, or doing other intimate things involving their womanhood.
THEREFORE, Men do not belong in a women's restroom in the same way that men do not belong in a women's dressing room. Its because I'm partially naked in the same room as someone who does not share my gender and genitalia, nor mentality about my genitalia, and that is uncomfortable.
Put this way i understand you point way better. But in the same time, i must say i concur with this:

You don't understand how barring the opposite sex from a place and making it a taboo for them to enter can contribute to the feeling of violation and discomfort that the sex of that place would have if someone of the opposite sex entered?

Plus in reality a MtF going into the men's room is at a much, much higher risk of assault than a cis woman is.

Why so?

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 05:59 PM

Yeah, well, I still don't get how you aren't iffy about the idea of having someone of the opposite gender in the same bathroom as you while you have your pants down around your ankles.

RS14

2010-09-12, 06:07 PM

Why so?

Because they're drawing attention to their gender identity among a group that commits violence against them at a higher rate even than against women.

The number is from a very simple observation that Gwen Smith made back around ten or so years ago when she was constructing the "Remembering Our Dead" website. It became very painfully obvious that one trannie was being murdered in the US per month. (I don't know if that statistic has held... I simply stopped following the data, too depressing!)

This is one *profoundly* trans-person... not simply private cross-dressers... per month. So, my calculation was based on that fact. I don't believe that private cross-dressers are at increased risk of being murdered.

First, how many *profoundly* trans-folk are there in the US ? I used the data from the Netherlands studies, since it is impossible to get such data for the States. One out of 11,300 "male" persons is *profoundly* trans (seeks SRS or lives full time as female). There are roughly 300M people in the US, roughly half "male". so... that makes 13,275 as *profoundly* trans. (150,000,000/11,300)

One murder per month is 12 per year. Over one's life time of 80 years (rough average life expectancy), one has:

13,725/960 = 1/13.8 chance of being murdered in one's lifetime

OK, not quite one in twelve... and those numbers are rather loosey-goosey... but still fairly bad odds.

Add to that figure the observation that it isn't the late transitioning, lesbian-identified, types... but the young transitioning, into guys, still pre-op, type that seems to be most often murdered by their potential lovers, (about one in five trans-woman fits this description) the chance of getting killed if you fit this profile could be closer to one in 2.75 !

Kay Brown

I don't know that all the figures are completely accurate, but at least to a crude approximation, the murder rate for trans-women is roughly an order of magnitude higher than the general population.

Yeah, well, I still don't get how you aren't iffy about the idea of having someone of the opposite gender in the same bathroom as you while you have your pants down around your ankles.

My hall has two gender neutral and one female only bathrooms. I honestly don't see the need for the later, and plenty of women do seem to use the gender neutral bathroom. Some did express a preference for the later, though.

I suppose I just don't see the threat of assault in bathrooms as that grave. They're public places. Are people really going to commit assault in a place they're so likely to be discovered? And if they were so reckless as to do so, would they really be deterred by the sign on the door?

Danne

2010-09-12, 06:48 PM

As it is, we can't change everything to make everyone happy. There's no way to make everyone happy in this situation, and so it has to be catered to the majority.

:smallconfused: Haven't you heard of the Tyranny of the Majority? If anything, it's the minority's opinion we should be catering to, not the majority's, especially when the majority's opinion is oppressing the rights of the minority. The majority doesn't need to have their opinions catered to -- when they want something they just do it, because they're the majority.

More accurate to say, "There's no way to make everyone happy in this situation, and so we must base our decisions off of what protects everyone's rights, even if that pisses some people off."

Thufir

2010-09-12, 06:55 PM

Also, I like separate bathrooms because I don't want the fairer sex to hear me do my business. :smallwink:

I don't particularly want anyone to hear that.
Mine, that is, not Trog's. I have no information on Trog's on which to form an opinion, and I have no desire or intention to gather any.

Thinking about it... I don't know if I'd necessarily have a problem with bathrooms for both genders, except for the fact it might mean they'd be more crowded, which would make me feel more uncomfortable.

That said, it's my impression that the male and female approaches to bathrooms can be kind of different - for women it can be much more social, they go in groups, chat, touch up their make-up etc; whereas guys typically go in, do what they must while avoiding any eye contact whatsoever, wash their hands and leave, having spent as little time as possible in there. So for that reason I'd say separate gender bathrooms are still a good idea.

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 06:56 PM

More accurate to say, "There's no way to make everyone happy in this situation, and so we must base our decisions off of what protects everyone's rights, even if that pisses some people off."
Touche.
Good point.

That is, infact, more accurate.

golentan

2010-09-12, 07:07 PM

Yeah, well, I still don't get how you aren't iffy about the idea of having someone of the opposite gender in the same bathroom as you while you have your pants down around your ankles.

The same way I feel comfortable walking down the street: the average person is far more likely to defend you than assault you, otherwise society would collapse.

Hell, I'm incredibly paranoid. I feel uncomfortable with my back to open space, I almost compulsively guard my work and personal information, I will not let anyone use my computer for any reason without me there physically watching and ready to stop them, I carry nonlethal weapons (mace, mostly) everywhere I go, I formulate elaborate contingency plans for a variety of potential hazards, and I check to see if any cars are following me on a regular basis. *I* don't have problems with public restrooms.

It's like someone complaining about the idea of pets because "having a vicious predator (dog) in the house while you're sleeping might give it a chance to attack you." It's probably worse than that, because at least a public restroom someone is likely to be there/come in and be able to give you aid.

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 07:15 PM

My point isn't that someone's going to attack me- its that being in a half naked state with just a small stall door between me and someone of the opposite gender is very uncomfortable.

Edit: And, my goodness, this is the last time I'm going to state that in this thread.

Ostien

2010-09-12, 07:22 PM

I don't agree with this either.
I think there are three gender options, and three gender options only:
Male, Female, both/neither.
Anyways, gender is a sliding scale. You can be anywhere inbetween, but you're still one side or the other, unless you're in that middle section, where you aren't either more than the other, or neither, whichever you prefer.
This is why some girls are more "feminine" than others, or more "tomboy" (or, conversely, why some men are more masculine, or "metrosexual").

I simply don't agree. I agree with Warkitty that:

Possibly. I don't strictly think that there are no differences between genders, I think there are so many variations as to make any attempt at a systematic binary differentiation meaningless unless you artificially force everyone into a category.

Gender is a social construct which places presentations, actions and interests are placed into artificially discreet categories. Gender has no inherent meaning, it is a lumping together of of social categories based on stereotypical ideas of masculinity and femininity. Since these categories are not interconnected and since you can have a reaction to them not on a binary of male and female, it is hard to say it is on any sort of sliding scale. The multitude of possible variations of these categories that make up the social construct of gender makes two or even three overarching gender categories meaningless. Saying someone is more or less feminine, for example, relies on the idea that gender is somehow a summing up of these categories, it is a quantifying of subjective actions. Also all this could change in a person from time to time.

Gender categories may be comfortable for most but not all find it accurate for them. Gender is subjective, masculinity and femininity are just ideas that we attempt to generalize complex subjects into arbitrary categories. Some get annoyed by that.