By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The LGBT thread (Revisited)

Runa216 said:
Immersiveunreality said:

if i may ask,anxieties for what? 

All my clients are friends, there's nothing more stressful than worrying about disappointing them or making them wait. and since it's a creative endeavour, it's very hard to push through projects that don't inspire me, so sometimes people have to wait longer than they should while other, more enjoyable projects get done. 

There is no one right way to do it, which sucks when you're the type that likes complete control over everything in your life. Sometimes you gotta go in order, sometimes you gotta go where the inspiration is, sometimes you gotta do stuff for yourself, and no matter what you do, SOMEONE is going to be disappointed in you. and that sucks. 

I respect that and yeah it,s a bless AND a curse to always want to deliver the best you can do.

I hope you can make enough free time to relax once in a while.

Ontopic: Since some years i have been thinking i have been never really fully straight and that i could have an interest in lets say very girly males,and to some extend female characteristics in attitude can attract me more than gender/sex in itself if that makes sense .



Around the Network
Runa216 said:

You probably shouldn't be using them (You don't wanna be compared to Eric Cartman, do you?), but I totally get it. It's a bit of a gray zone since you're not doing any harm, but you're also sort of abusing the system for a service/accommodation you really don't need. 

But on the flipside, I'm of the belief all bathrooms should be gender-non-specific, as you're really not supposed to be checking out each other's junk regardless of your gender or identity. It's a similar argument I have against the 'you should get your kids circumcised becuase other kids might tease them if you don't' thing. Like, kids will find SOMETHING To tease each other over, and if they're playing with each other's penises, you have more significant problems to worry about than foreskin. Only tangentially related, but meh. 

Probably use the men's bathroom if that's what you identify as and were born as. 

JWeinCom said:

Yeah, I sort of felt like that may be the case.  Although, I don't know if trans people actually want to use those anyway.  I should also add that as far as I can tell there are no openly trans people in my school.

But I think gendered bathrooms are a good idea in general.  First of all, I'm biased because women tend to take longer and there are huge lines at the women's bathroom and typically none at the men's room.  So the system works for me.

But also... men unfortunately can be really sketchy.  I can see where women may feel unsafe with men in the bathroom, and I don't think that's an insignificant interest.  Where trans people fit into this equation is something I'm not really sure about.  I would kind of be curious to see if male to female trans women commit sexual assault/harassment at a rate similar to cis-males, or cis-women.

Speaking for myself as the resident femyl, I'm not at all worried about being sexually attacked by trans people. There aren't any trans-identified people in my whole community, in fact. That's not my issue with the proposition that all public restrooms should be made unisex. I feel perfectly safe in that regard and furthermore would so long as whoever else may be in the same public restroom as me can pass for a women. If you look female to me, I'll assume you're a woman and think nothing of it. I think that's true for just about all women, in fact, not just me.

HOWEVER, I also think I speak for many if not most women when I say that if you waltz into the women's restroom sporting oh say a Duck Dynasty-length beard and start talking on your phone in a deep, testosterone-heavy voice, I'm going to instantly become way less comfortable. I mean I don't think anyone is really comfy with using the restroom in a public setting in the first place, but the ordinary, inescapable level of discomfort just gets magnified a great deal if there's somebody who is clearly male there with me while my pants are down. I mean I'm probably safe, but that's something that drastically increases my level of concern and stress and, as someone who's typical heart rate lying down doing nothing is what yours probably is on a treadmill already, I don't think I should have to go through that. That shouldn't be allowed. And I should have some kind of official recourse available to me if that does happen; like I should be able to protest your presence in the women's room to the store management without being charged with discrimination for doing so, jeez! I'm not trying to oppress anybody, it's just...have some common sense, you know?

Also, there are many places in the world that do exactly what you, Runa, have proposed and make all the public accommodations unisex. The result tends to be simply that the line to what normally would be the women's room (the one without the urinals) gets longer because men now have an additional option. Women, conversely, don't typically want to use the men's room for some odd reason that might just possibly have to do with the obvious, intimidating physical advantages that men tend to have, especially when grouped together in large numbers. Women don't want to use the men's room. Demand for unisex bathrooms overwhelmingly comes from one direction. I point this out to highlight the intellectual dishonesty of those who claim that making all public facilities unisex is a common demand of women that tends to reduce wait times. The exact opposite is the case.

Many places include single-stall, unisex restrooms as a third option these days specifically to accommodate trans-identified people in a way that's not disruptive or concerning to the rest of the population, and I'm supportive of that. I feel that that should be respected; that one should treat trans people and their spaces the same way you might prefer that others treat you and yours, just as a matter of simple courtesy. You, JWeinCom, probably don't mean any harm, and likely aren't doing any, but I'm just saying.

Those are my thoughts on these matters.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 01 March 2020

Jaicee said:
Runa216 said:

You probably shouldn't be using them (You don't wanna be compared to Eric Cartman, do you?), but I totally get it. It's a bit of a gray zone since you're not doing any harm, but you're also sort of abusing the system for a service/accommodation you really don't need. 

But on the flipside, I'm of the belief all bathrooms should be gender-non-specific, as you're really not supposed to be checking out each other's junk regardless of your gender or identity. It's a similar argument I have against the 'you should get your kids circumcised becuase other kids might tease them if you don't' thing. Like, kids will find SOMETHING To tease each other over, and if they're playing with each other's penises, you have more significant problems to worry about than foreskin. Only tangentially related, but meh. 

Probably use the men's bathroom if that's what you identify as and were born as. 

JWeinCom said:

Yeah, I sort of felt like that may be the case.  Although, I don't know if trans people actually want to use those anyway.  I should also add that as far as I can tell there are no openly trans people in my school.

But I think gendered bathrooms are a good idea in general.  First of all, I'm biased because women tend to take longer and there are huge lines at the women's bathroom and typically none at the men's room.  So the system works for me.

But also... men unfortunately can be really sketchy.  I can see where women may feel unsafe with men in the bathroom, and I don't think that's an insignificant interest.  Where trans people fit into this equation is something I'm not really sure about.  I would kind of be curious to see if male to female trans women commit sexual assault/harassment at a rate similar to cis-males, or cis-women.

Speaking for myself as the resident femyl, I'm not at all worried about being sexually attacked by trans people. There aren't any trans-identified people in my whole community, in fact. That's not my issue with the proposition that all public restrooms should be made unisex. I feel perfectly safe in that regard and furthermore would so long as whoever else may be in the same public restroom as me can pass for a women. If you look female to me, I'll assume you're a woman and think nothing of it. I think that's true for just about all women, in fact, not just me.

HOWEVER, I also think I speak for many if not most women when I say that if you waltz into the women's restroom sporting oh say a Duck Dynasty-length beard and start talking on your phone in a deep, testosterone-heavy voice, I'm going to instantly become way less comfortable. I mean I don't think anyone is really comfy with using the restroom in a public setting in the first place, but the ordinary, inescapable level of discomfort just gets magnified a great deal if there's somebody who is clearly male there with me while my pants are down. I mean I'm probably safe, but that's something that drastically increases my level of concern and stress and, as someone who's typical heart rate lying down doing nothing is what yours probably is on a treadmill already, I don't think I should have to go through that. That shouldn't be allowed. And I should have some kind of official recourse available to me if that does happen; like I should be able to protest your presence in the women's room to the store management without being charged with discrimination for doing so, jeez! I'm not trying to oppress anybody, it's just...have some common sense, you know?

Also, there are many places in the world that do exactly what you, Runa, have proposed and make all the public accommodations unisex. The result tends to be simply that the line to what normally would be the women's room (the one without the urinals) gets longer because men now have an additional option. Women, conversely, don't typically want to use the men's room for some odd reason that might just possibly have to do with the obvious, intimidating physical advantages that men tend to have, especially when grouped together in large numbers. Women don't want to use the men's room. Demand for unisex bathrooms overwhelmingly comes from one direction. I point this out to highlight the intellectual dishonesty of those who claim that making all public facilities unisex is a common demand of women that tends to reduce wait times. The exact opposite is the case.

Many places include single-stall, unisex restrooms as a third option these days specifically to accommodate trans-identified people in a way that's not disruptive or concerning to the rest of the population, and I'm supportive of that. I feel that that should be respected; that one should treat trans people and their spaces the same way you might prefer that others treat you and yours, just as a matter of simple courtesy. You, JWeinCom, probably don't mean any harm, and likely aren't doing any, but I'm just saying.

Those are my thoughts on these matters.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then you'd limit female bathrooms to those who can pass as a woman?  That begs the question, by whose determination?  



JWeinCom said:
Jaicee said:

Speaking for myself as the resident femyl, I'm not at all worried about being sexually attacked by trans people. There aren't any trans-identified people in my whole community, in fact. That's not my issue with the proposition that all public restrooms should be made unisex. I feel perfectly safe in that regard and furthermore would so long as whoever else may be in the same public restroom as me can pass for a women. If you look female to me, I'll assume you're a woman and think nothing of it. I think that's true for just about all women, in fact, not just me.

HOWEVER, I also think I speak for many if not most women when I say that if you waltz into the women's restroom sporting oh say a Duck Dynasty-length beard and start talking on your phone in a deep, testosterone-heavy voice, I'm going to instantly become way less comfortable. I mean I don't think anyone is really comfy with using the restroom in a public setting in the first place, but the ordinary, inescapable level of discomfort just gets magnified a great deal if there's somebody who is clearly male there with me while my pants are down. I mean I'm probably safe, but that's something that drastically increases my level of concern and stress and, as someone who's typical heart rate lying down doing nothing is what yours probably is on a treadmill already, I don't think I should have to go through that. That shouldn't be allowed. And I should have some kind of official recourse available to me if that does happen; like I should be able to protest your presence in the women's room to the store management without being charged with discrimination for doing so, jeez! I'm not trying to oppress anybody, it's just...have some common sense, you know?

Also, there are many places in the world that do exactly what you, Runa, have proposed and make all the public accommodations unisex. The result tends to be simply that the line to what normally would be the women's room (the one without the urinals) gets longer because men now have an additional option. Women, conversely, don't typically want to use the men's room for some odd reason that might just possibly have to do with the obvious, intimidating physical advantages that men tend to have, especially when grouped together in large numbers. Women don't want to use the men's room. Demand for unisex bathrooms overwhelmingly comes from one direction. I point this out to highlight the intellectual dishonesty of those who claim that making all public facilities unisex is a common demand of women that tends to reduce wait times. The exact opposite is the case.

Many places include single-stall, unisex restrooms as a third option these days specifically to accommodate trans-identified people in a way that's not disruptive or concerning to the rest of the population, and I'm supportive of that. I feel that that should be respected; that one should treat trans people and their spaces the same way you might prefer that others treat you and yours, just as a matter of simple courtesy. You, JWeinCom, probably don't mean any harm, and likely aren't doing any, but I'm just saying.

Those are my thoughts on these matters.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then you'd limit female bathrooms to those who can pass as a woman?  That begs the question, by whose determination?  

Thing is ,if it is a public bathroom it should be by public determination.



JWeinCom said:

If I'm understanding you correctly, then you'd limit female bathrooms to those who can pass as a woman?  That begs the question, by whose determination?  

Look, I'm not exactly asking for pre-entry strip-searching of  anyone for a genital check (ew!), jeez! I'm just saying that if somebody who is very obviously male is in the women's room with me, I should be able to protest that without penalty because it would make me extremely uncomfortable. That is all. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 01 March 2020

Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
JWeinCom said:

If I'm understanding you correctly, then you'd limit female bathrooms to those who can pass as a woman?  That begs the question, by whose determination?  

Thing is ,if it is a public bathroom it should be by public determination.

First off, public means for the use of the public and generally funded by the public.  Not that the public controls it directly.  I don't get to make any decisions regarding how public transportation is operated, beyond the ability to elect officials who may share my views.

Secondly, how does that standard work in practicality?  Obviously we're not going to have like a vote for every woman who wants to use a ladies room.  And, suppose you have a cis-woman who people perceive as masculine?  Should she not be able to use the ladies room?  And what if she's also deemed too feminine for the men's bathroom?

Third, we generally don't want to and don't allow "the masses" to be dictating rights. It would obviously be illegal (in the US at least) to not allow black people to use a public restroom even if the public wanted that.  Discriminating arbitrarily on the basis of sex is similarly illegal.  The issue of whether sex should include gender identity is one that is I believe before the supreme court at the moment.

Personally I think male to female trans should be allowed to use women's restrooms while cis gendered men should not.  That opinion is subject to change based on data that either shows that men do not tend to harass or assault women in women's bathrooms or that male to female trans do.  The problem I have is in thinking of a clear, objective, and easily enforceable policy that would allow male to female trans while also disallowing cis-men.  

Jaicee said:
JWeinCom said:

If I'm understanding you correctly, then you'd limit female bathrooms to those who can pass as a woman?  That begs the question, by whose determination?  

Look, I'm not exactly asking for pre-entry strip-searching of  anyone for a genital check (ew!), jeez! I'm just saying that if somebody who is very obviously male is in the women's room with me, I should be able to protest that without penalty because it would make me extremely uncomfortable. That is all. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take.

The problem is that "very obviously" is loose standard.  It's pretty conceivable that there are some people who are cis-females that some people may consider "very obviously" male.  And of course, there are many trans women who people would argue are "very obviously male".  I think that standard would lead to discriminatory practices.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 01 March 2020

Jaicee said:
JWeinCom said:

If I'm understanding you correctly, then you'd limit female bathrooms to those who can pass as a woman?  That begs the question, by whose determination?  

Look, I'm not exactly asking for pre-entry strip-searching of  anyone for a genital check (ew!), jeez! I'm just saying that if somebody who is very obviously male is in the women's room with me, I should be able to protest that without penalty because it would make me extremely uncomfortable. That is all. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take.

The thing I always find ironic about the bathroom debate is that the bathroom laws actually don't change anything. They are supposedly brought in to stop pervvy men going into women's toilets and watching them. Thing is, what said man is doing was illegal before the law as well. And if they are intent on peeping, the new law isn't going to persuade them not to, they'll do it anyway.

Then there are FTM transpeople. They are legally forced to use to female toilets, although many of them look so stereotypically masculine you'd never guess. I imagine it must be so awkward for them, legally you have to use the ladies toilets but your physical appearance means everyone sees you as a man and your likely to get repeatedly challenged and told to use the mens. That's actually where youd rather go but it's illegal. I bet when they say their trans its then assumed they are MTF rather than FTM which then exacerbates the problem.



SecondWar said:
Jaicee said:

Look, I'm not exactly asking for pre-entry strip-searching of  anyone for a genital check (ew!), jeez! I'm just saying that if somebody who is very obviously male is in the women's room with me, I should be able to protest that without penalty because it would make me extremely uncomfortable. That is all. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take.

The thing I always find ironic about the bathroom debate is that the bathroom laws actually don't change anything. They are supposedly brought in to stop pervvy men going into women's toilets and watching them. Thing is, what said man is doing was illegal before the law as well. And if they are intent on peeping, the new law isn't going to persuade them not to, they'll do it anyway.

Then there are FTM transpeople. They are legally forced to use to female toilets, although many of them look so stereotypically masculine you'd never guess. I imagine it must be so awkward for them, legally you have to use the ladies toilets but your physical appearance means everyone sees you as a man and your likely to get repeatedly challenged and told to use the mens. That's actually where youd rather go but it's illegal. I bet when they say their trans its then assumed they are MTF rather than FTM which then exacerbates the problem.

If a man is going into a bathroom and was being a pervert, it would be very difficult to prove that.  It would be impossible to prove that a man looking where he wasn't supposed to was doing so intentionally.  Even if he said or did something, it would become a he said she said situation.  In contrast, demonstrating that a man went into a woman's bathroom would generally be much easier.

By making it illegal (I don't know if it actually is, but lets assume) we accomplish two things.  First, we make deter men from entering the bathroom in the first place, lessening the likelihood that a woman is harassed to begin with.  Second, we make it so that in cases where there is a harassment, women have some sort of recourse.  Even if they can't prove the actual harassment, they can prove the... I guess we'll call it trespassing.

Whether that actually works or not, that's the theory behind it.  



HylianSwordsman said:
This thread isn't very active, but my goodness it's a wholesome, intimate read. Thanks for sharing, everybody. Some of my favorite users are in here and it was nice to get to know you all a little bit. The forums need more nice threads like this.

Couldn't have said it any better!



JWeinCom said:

If a man is going into a bathroom and was being a pervert, it would be very difficult to prove that.  It would be impossible to prove that a man looking where he wasn't supposed to was doing so intentionally.  Even if he said or did something, it would become a he said she said situation.  In contrast, demonstrating that a man went into a woman's bathroom would generally be much easier.

By making it illegal (I don't know if it actually is, but lets assume) we accomplish two things.  First, we make deter men from entering the bathroom in the first place, lessening the likelihood that a woman is harassed to begin with.  Second, we make it so that in cases where there is a harassment, women have some sort of recourse.  Even if they can't prove the actual harassment, they can prove the... I guess we'll call it trespassing.

Whether that actually works or not, that's the theory behind it.  

I largely agree with the above logic, but will point out that I have said nothing here about the infamous "bathroom bills" that have been advanced by conservative forces in red states and actually enacted, and only partially, I believe only in North Carolina. Though they are best known for their bathroom privacy-related provisions, they also contain(ed) many other elements, like in one case a provision barring individual communities from passing any new laws advancing the rights of same-sex couples and gay individuals.

To be honest though, I was stunned by the ferocity of the corporate response to North Carolina's "bathroom bill", with whole industries and even the NBA pulling out of the state, essentially imposing voluntary economic sanctions, specifically over the restroom privacy provisions and not anything else. Now you take the response to say this whole raft of states last year passing laws banning abortions altogether, period, with no exceptions even for rape survivors, after just a few weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they're pregnant. There went out broad calls for similar boycotts of those states, and of Georgia in particular. The response this time? It turned out that it was racist to boycott Georgia because there are lots of black people there whose employment you'd be hurting! And thus it did not materialize. It hadn't been racist to sanction North Carolina, but it apparently was in the case of Georgia. I found it impossible not to notice the contradictory logic...and also the similarities. Similarities, you ask? The key commonality that made both of those contrasting responses possible can be found in that the interests of women were on the losing end in both cases.

Well anyway, like I said before, there are problematic elements in the so-called "bathroom bills" that have been advanced so far that make them challenging for me to support. Moreover, honestly the bathroom privacy issue really is the least of my concerns when it comes to this drive to make everything unisex anyway. It's a very minor issue from my standpoint that boils down mostly to one of convenience and comfort. The much more significant issues that I have with this whole let's-make-everything-unisex movement lie in the quest to "gender-neutralize" things like rape crisis centers, prisons, and transition houses for homeless and battered women and their children, those sorts of things. The women who occupy these sorts of spaces are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds and often among the most vulnerable members of society. We're talking about poor women, newly single moms, indigenous women and women of color, immigrant women, survivors of domestic abuse. These women really do need women-only environments and services for their basic safety and well-being. Most women won't use a rape crisis center or a transition house, for example, if it means that they have to say spend the night with a man, or just someone they perceive as a man (the psychological effect is all the same), they don't know just after experiencing rape! And prisoners have no way out, to state the obvious; to house them with biological males who are there in the first place for sex crimes just...I don't even know how to put my level of contempt for such proposals and policies into words.

Yes, trans people definitely need the same accommodations everyone else does, obviously. But I simply can't help but feel that when it comes to these sorts of settings especially, the creation and federal subsidizing of specialized accommodations designed to the particular needs of trans survivors, trans inmates, etc., would be far better for everyone concerned than making everything unisex.