Naturalism News

A Note on “Society, Rights, and Self-Identification”

Spread the love

That post, by WJM, asks: Does a man have the right to identify himself as a woman and enter their locker rooms and bathrooms, demanding equal rights for their self-identification?

Comment of the week has just got to be an excerpt from Ziggy Lorenc at 25, who writes, quoting News at 20:

News — “Very few women want to use washrooms also used by men, whether they claim to be transgender or not, or whatever is the story.”

It must be great to be rich enough for you and your husband to have seperate bathrooms. My husband and I must share the same one.

News replies at 31

Ziggy Lorenc at 25: You must be very proud of yourself thinking up such a clever riposte.

It did not perhaps occur to you that he IS your husband.

No, of course not. What difference would that make?

One does not have that relationship with every male who wishes to be in women’s restrooms or change rooms.

None of this is workable and would not be considered if women’s welfare mattered.

But you just go on advocating what you are advocating as stridently and self-righteously as you can. The world is listening now, more than it used to.

O’Leary for News

18 Replies to “A Note on “Society, Rights, and Self-Identification”

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    sadly revealing

  2. 2
    ziggy lorenc says:

    News — “None of this is workable and would not be considered if women’s welfare mattered.”

    I responded to your comment in the other thread but since you have graced me with a thread about my comment, I will reply here as well.

    You claim that none of this is workable, yet it has been working for decades without incident. I dare say that you have shared a bathroom with a transsexual on numerous occasions without even knowing about it. Is this knowledge going to prevent you from using a public bathroom in the future. All they are asking for is to remove the legal restriction on something that they have been doing all along.

    KF — “sadly revealing”

    Sadly as arrogant and condescending as ever.

  3. 3

    Ziggy said:

    You claim that none of this is workable, yet it has been working for decades without incident. I dare say that you have shared a bathroom with a transsexual on numerous occasions without even knowing about it. Is this knowledge going to prevent you from using a public bathroom in the future. All they are asking for is to remove the legal restriction on something that they have been doing all along.

    Even if that is all that transgenders are “asking for”, that is not all that is going on. Whether or not they have been sharing restrooms with discreet transgenders probably is not an issue for most women; what is the issue are laws with the unintended consequences that legally allows any man to occupy women’s restrooms and locker facilities, or has the ultimate effect, as it did in Target, of rendering all such facilities “gender neutral”.

    It is not reasonable debate to keep implying that this is about “discrimination against transgenders” when it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with transgenders but the unintended effect of perhaps well-meaning laws and policies.

  4. 4
    mike1962 says:

    ziggy lorenc,

    So do you want any man who self-identifies as “woman” to be able to use any public women’s restroom, without further qualification? Yes or no?

  5. 5

    Notice that Ziggy is mixing “gender inclusive” with “gender neutral” and calling them the same thing.

    “Gender inclusive” bathrooms, which are the real issue, have not been without incident for decades, because they are a new experiment that the left is advancing, and in recent times, they have shown to be a license for predators.

    Thus the recent boycott of Target stores, which, rather than building separate “gender neutral” washrooms, has simply declared that men are permitted in the women’s washrooms. That is essentially what a “gender inclusive” washroom is.

    But Ziggy is saying that Canada has created “gender neutral” washrooms and they have existed for decades without incident.

    That is essentially Ziggy’s red herring. We aren’t talking about separate washrooms where a person can enter, lock the door, and not be bothered by another person while doing their business.

    We are talking about washrooms (restrooms, bathrooms, shower rooms) where no modifications other than a door sign, are done to existing mens’ and womens’ washrooms (restrooms, bathrooms, shower rooms), and where simple declarations: “men can now use the womens’ washrooms” – are deemed sufficient to protect women and young girls from male predators. They aren’t.

    Gender neutral washrooms (bathrooms, restrooms, shower rooms) are not relevant to the discussion, so long as they are modified to prevent predators; which most are. Plus, they aren’t simply for people who identify as “a different gender than that assigned at birth,” but are often intended for other purposes; changing rooms for mothers, wheel chair accessibility, etc., such that they are of maximum benefit.

    The relevant issue is non-modified mens’ and women’s restrooms, and that should be emphasized here.

  6. 6

    Thanks for that enlightening clarification, CY.

  7. 7
    ziggy lorenc says:

    CY — “Notice that Ziggy is mixing “gender inclusive” with “gender neutral” and calling them the same thing.”

    No I wasn’t. I was using gender neutral bathrooms as a way that many establishments are using as a solution to the issue. In my mind, this, or modifying men’s and women’s bathrooms to have floor to ceiling stalls, is the ideal solution.

    CY — ““Gender inclusive” bathrooms, which are the real issue, have not been without incident for decades, because they are a new experiment…”

    They most certainly have. It is a fact that transsexuals and transvestites have been using the bathrooms opposite to their biological sex for decades. Just because we ignored it for decades doesn’t mean that it never happened.

  8. 8

    Ziggy

    [ No I wasn’t. I was using gender neutral bathrooms as a way that many establishments are using as a solution to the issue. In my mind, this, or modifying men’s and women’s bathrooms to have floor to ceiling stalls, is the ideal solution. ]

    And as I pointed out, it is irrelevant. We’re not talking about gender neutral bathrooms, but gender inclusive. We’re talking about making no modifications to existing bathrooms for women and men, and making laws that either gender can use either bathroom, creating a license for predators to endanger woman and young girls. It’s already happening.

    [ They most certainly have. It is a fact that transsexuals and transvestites have been using the bathrooms opposite to their biological sex for decades. Just because we ignored it for decades doesn’t mean that it never happened. ]

    Again. This is irrelevant. Now it’s more than just transsexuals and transgendered people going into womens’ bathrooms. And these people you mention appear as women, even though they are not.

    Now laws state that no matter what one looks like, as a man, you are permitted in a womens’ bathroom.

    Clearly you can see the difference here.

  9. 9
    ziggy lorenc says:

    CY — “Again. This is irrelevant. Now it’s more than just transsexuals and transgendered people going into womens’ bathrooms. And these people you mention appear as women, even though they are not.”

    I am not familiar with the US laws on this. I am only familiar with the Canadian ones. Ontario has had a bathroom bill for five years and the only incident anyone has risen here is one of immature boys in a poorly designed gender neutral bathroom in a dorm. I have never read the bill, but maybe the US jurisdictions should look at it as something that appears to work.

    People here seem to think that transgendered should be forced to use the bathroom of their biological sex. Should this also apply to females who have transitioned to male? Do you think that women would feel comfortable with a muscular bearded person, with all outwards appearance of being male, using the women’s bathroom?

  10. 10

    Ziggy asks:

    People here seem to think that transgendered should be forced to use the bathroom of their biological sex. Should this also apply to females who have transitioned to male? Do you think that women would feel comfortable with a muscular bearded person, with all outwards appearance of being male, using the women’s bathroom?

    Of course not. I don’t think anyone here has championed the NC law which, IMO, was a poorly thought-out reaction to the bad law and policy of so-called transgender anti-discrimination laws and policies. Statistically speaking, nothing bad was going on as-is – transgenders discreetly used the restroom that most closely matched their appearance. A better law to solve restroom issues not just for them, but for many others as well, would be a law that requires the presence of single-user, inside-lock restroom either instead of, or in addition to, open public traditional-based restrooms.

    It’s not that I’m insensitive to the problems faced by those who conceptualize themselves outside of the norms, but the point is that these laws are not supposed to “solve” the actual problem; they’re designed to gin up social unrest and provide political/social ammunition to further undermine traditional values and structure for the benefit of a leftist agenda.

    Do you think it is fair that physical males can now insist on being on the girls’ teams in California? Do you think it is okay that any male that says he “identifies” as a girl (whether he dresses and acts like it or not) must be allowed free access to the girls’ locker room, shower and other facilities?

  11. 11
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray, my arguments are only about bathrooms. I am not familiar with the California law but if it is as you describe it, it is absurd.

    We have been turning a blind eye to transgendered using the bathroom not of their biological gender for decades. Every time they use a bathroom they risk arrest. That is an unreasonable expectation. I have shared the bathroom with transsexuals on numerous occasions. Other than a strange curiousity, I never felt at risk. Tempest in a teapot.

  12. 12

    Ziggy said:

    Mr. Murray, my arguments are only about bathrooms. I am not familiar with the California law but if it is as you describe it, it is absurd.

    Then you are offering opinions about something you know nothing about from a context that has nothing to do with what is going on in the USA.

    We have been turning a blind eye to transgendered using the bathroom not of their biological gender for decades. Every time they use a bathroom they risk arrest. That is an unreasonable expectation

    Apparently not, if “we have been turning a blind eye” to it, and unless you can tell me when and where transgenders were being arrested for no more than going into and using the restroom of choice. There are unspoken and non-formalized cultural agreements that go beyond the law and make allowances even in spite of the law in order to maintain a civil society. Not everything has to be formalized into law.

    I have shared the bathroom with transsexuals on numerous occasions. Other than a strange curiousity, I never felt at risk. Tempest in a teapot.

    You just can’t seem to get this through your mind: in the USA, the objection to such laws has nothing to do with “feeling at risk” from transgenders that up until now have been doing exactly that discreetly.

    Nothing. At all. I’ve told you this several times, but here you are once again implying that it is “FEAR OF LGBTs!!!!!” that is driving the controversy and opposition.

    You are either an apparatchik operative parroting talking points or too laboriously stupid to understand the argument being made.

  13. 13
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray — “You are either an apparatchik operative parroting talking points or too laboriously stupid to understand the argument being made.”

    Good job at using inflammatory labels in an attempt to end discussion. Didn’t you recently write an OP saying that this was an unethical tactic.

    Where have I talked about anything other than bathrooms? The only time I went slightly off this topic was when it was claimed that the Ontario bathroom bill was the cause of two university students filming girls showering in a gender neutral bathroom. Pointing out that the incident had absolutely nothing to do with the bathroom bill.

  14. 14

    Ziggy said:

    Good job at using inflammatory labels in an attempt to end discussion. Didn’t you recently write an OP saying that this was an unethical tactic.

    No, I did not. Another mischaracterization on your part. I wrote an article saying that it is the end of rational debate. And it is. The rational debate ends when you refuse to address the argument as presented and instead insist via implication that it is about fear or hatred of transexuals being in the opposite sex restroom.

    Where have I talked about anything other than bathrooms? The only time I went slightly off this topic was when it was claimed that the Ontario bathroom bill was the cause of two university students filming girls showering in a gender neutral bathroom. Pointing out that the incident had absolutely nothing to do with the bathroom bill.

    Refusing to address the actual points of the argument with regard to the “unintended” consequences (though actually intended by the progressive elite) by focusing on an irrelevant (to those points) Canadian restroom system that doesn’t even compare to what is going on in the USA, and by constantly implying or stating outright that opposition to the laws and policies in the USA are due to irrational fears and hatred over something that has been already going on is exactly a case of ending rational debate via obfuscation, inflammatory language, misdirection and emotional narrative-enforcing.

    I agree that, properly supervised and constructed, what you described as the Canadian system could be as good as providing single-user, inside-lock restrooms and solves the transgender self-identity restroom problem without coercing a fundamental change in cultural sexual/gender identification and interaction, which is what is being attempted by the progressives here in the USA, and has led to the consequences that you yourself said were ridiculous.

  15. 15
    mike1962 says:

    I wonder if the social warriors out there would get behind nudists’ demand to be able to shop naked at Target. I mean, if you want everyone to feel included why would you discriminate against nude shoppers? If you don’t like what you see, you can always look away.

    https://www.change.org/p/congress-supreme-court-the-president-legalize-public-nudity

  16. 16
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mike — “I wonder if the social warriors out there would get behind nudists’ demand to be able to shop naked at Target.”

    I would be behind it completely. I don’t like shopping at the best of times. The prospect of seeing naked fat Americans might reduce my shopping even further.

    What are the laws on nudity, or toplessness, in the US? In Canada, public toplessness is legal, but almost never seen (it might be the weather). But stores have always been able to dictate proper dress for their customers. “No shirt, no shoes, no service”. Golf courses do the same. There are always individuals who try to test this but the courts never listen to them.

  17. 17
    jdk says:

    FYI/FTR

    Abstract of recent article.

    Prog Brain Res. 2010;186:41-62. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53630-3.00004-X.

    Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation.

    Savic I1, Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF.
    \
    Abstract
    It is believed that during the intrauterine period the fetal brain develops in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. According to this concept, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation should be programmed into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

    Data on genetic and hormone independent influence on gender identity are presently divergent and do not provide convincing information about the underlying etiology. To what extent fetal programming may determine sexual orientation is also a matter of discussion. A number of studies show patterns of sex atypical cerebral dimorphism in homosexual subjects. Although the crucial question, namely how such complex functions as sexual orientation and identity are processed in the brain remains unanswered, emerging data point at a key role of specific neuronal circuits involving the hypothalamus.

    Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

    PMID: 21094885 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    My bold

  18. 18
    Gordon Cunningham says:

    Jdk, very interesting abstract. I will have to find the complete article. I have always thought that the idea of same sex attraction being a choice was absurd. Why would anyone voluntarily chose to be marginalized and persecuted? More so in the past than now, but society still has a long way to go.

Leave a Reply