I'm no social justice warrior - and I know this isn't the main focus of your post - but I don't get the logic of not being for gay pride events in gay-friendly areas. Are you against 4th of july parades in patriotic communities? St pats parades in Irish neighborhoods?

As to the main point: men have ample opportunity to be alone with women in all sorts of places. Bathrooms are super public and anyone could walk in at any time. I don't think they're a prime rape spot tbh. (If you wanna bring up that dude who attacked that girl recently in a bathroom, go for it).

not being for gay pride events in gay-friendly areas. — csalisbury

I'm not against gay pride events, I just don't particularly like them nor find them to be necessary. They tend to be over-the-top and make the LGBT community filled with special snowflakes.

I don't think theyre a prime rape spot tbh. — csalisbury

Isn't the very reason we have separation of sexes is because of the possibility of rape or something similar?

Movies aren't necessary. Nor are proms. Nor are the Olympics. Nor are fishing trips. etc. I'm not sure what relevance 'necessity' has at all. So many movies are over the top. So are many proms. So are many Olympic opening ceremonies. So is people's valorization of fishing (have you seen how many t-shirts and books and w/e are devoted to the sanctity of the fishing-trip?) I get annoyed with people thinking they're inherently special and valuable too, but you see that shit everywhere.

Can you explain in concrete terms what you mean by 'separation of the sexes'? Or are you referring to bathrooms alone? I kind of doubt fear of rape was the primary reason for having a mens room and a women's room. Maybe I'm wrong. It certainly doesn't strike me as the obvious common sense explanation for the segregation though.

Do you think we should have men and women's elevators? Why or why not?

A man may pretend to be transgender, enter a women's restroom, and then rape one of them. — darthbarracuda

I'd think that if someone was willing to rape someone else then they'd also be willing to just walk into the opposite gender's bathroom.

If anything needs to be changed, it is the labeling of these restrooms. Instead of calling them men's and women's rooms, call them male's and female's rooms, since gender is not identical to sex. — darthbarracuda

Let's just have restrooms, as you guys call them, unmarked by gender, and let there be someone keeping an eye on them at all times, a restroom-concierge.

Let's not separate the 'we' who decide the important things from the 'lgbt', or any other group of people we want to name who are different from 'us'.

The "solution" is simple. Keep restrooms the way they have been because there isn't a problem to begin with. Only the idiotic progressive Obama administration identifies this as a problem and makes a big fuss out of it because it's aim is to slowly push and enforce the progressive agenda over America.

Are you against 4th of july parades in patriotic communities? St pats parades in irish neighborhoods? — csalisbury

I am against the spread of hypersexualisation, be this gay movements, anti-slut shaming movements, etc. Patriotism is spreading a value - love and respect of one's country and ancestors. That is important. Not shaming sluts? Give me a break - they shouldn't be sluts if they care so much what others think of them. On another note, one's sexual orientation is a private NOT public affair, unlike patriotism.

Let's just have restrooms, as you guys call them, unmarked by gender, and let there be someone keeping an eye on them at all times, a restroom-concierge. — mcdoodle

Right - that's where our money needs to go.

Let's not separate the 'we' who decide the important things from the 'lgbt', or any other group of people we want to name who are different from 'us'. — mcdoodle

I think LGBT have separated themselves from everyone else by calling themselves LGBT and organising themselves in groups. Raising the dust and then crying that they cannot see is an all too common progressive strategy :D

I believe that all people should have the privilege of watching me urinate, and to at least hear me defecate, if they wish to do so.

I believe that all people should have the privilege of watching me urinate, and to at least hear me defecate, if they wish to do so. — Ciceronianus the White

That is alright - but they shouldn't be forced to do this. If you want, invite them in your home, make them pay an entrance fee, and let the show begin! ;)

If your jam is shaming sluts, I guess that's how it is. Hope you get some good shaming in this week.

But why would I - or anyone - care at all whether you're for or against hypersexualization? (Plus, I think everyone on here is already well aware you got a thing about sex) All your post is is a loud declaration of your stance. The idea is to make arguments. Sorry Agustino, but you're not interesting enough for your opinions to be inherently interesting.

If your jam is shaming sluts, I guess that's how it is. Hope you get some good shaming in this week. — csalisbury

Why do you assume this? What part of my writing states that I think someone should spend their time shaming sluts, etc.?

But why would I - or anyone - care at all whether you're for or against hypersexualization? (Plus, I think everyone on here is already well aware you got a thing about sex) — csalisbury

Maybe because 1. it answers your question regarding gay parades, and 2. also shows how the analogy with patriotism is a false analogy?

The idea is to make arguments. Sorry Agustino, but you're not interesting enough for your opinions to be inherently interesting. — csalisbury

That is an argument, but it seems you wouldn't know one if you saw one. It's an argument showing that the analogy you made is false, and therefore misses the point. I can spell it out in premises and conclusion if you need that :)

Darth said he was against LGBT parades in places where people were LGBT-friendly, implicitly suggesting that the purpose of LGBT parades is to fight entrenched prejudices. My analogies were in response to that line of thought. Obviously these analogies don't hold up as well against someone who's against LGBT parades because they're against LGBT values. Your argument is that LGBT parades are bad because LGBT values are bad. It's an argument in form but all it boils down to is that you don't like hypersexualization, your opinion.

Things that affirm LGBT values are bad
LGBT parades affirm LGBT values.
Therefore LGBT parades are bad.

lol

Stating that one deals with private matters and one deals with public matters is simply to state, once more, that you don't like LGBT values. LGBT values, as I'm sure you aware, include being able to express one's sexual identity publically without fear of recrimination. That's like the core value.

So, again, I'm not sure what the substance of your post is other that you don't like gay parades and people who have the gall to not want to be shamed for wearing short dresses. You're certainly free to have that opinion, but if you want to persuade others to share it, you have to do more than simply express it.

Obviously these analogies don't hold up as well against someone who's against LGBT parades because they're against LGBT values — csalisbury

No I'm not against LGBT "values". I'm for maintaining social order and a healthy morality. That particular person X is lesbian, homosexual, transexual, etc. is not a problem to society, it's their freedom to be as they wish. It only becomes a problem when this seeks to become a social NORM or STANDARD. My issue is to ensure that this is contained as a minority position, and not allowed to spread through society, something that I claim is harmful.

Your argument is that LGBT parades are bad because LGBT values are bad. It's an argument in form but all it boils down to is that you don't like hypersexualization, your opinion.

Things that affirm LGBT values are bad
LGBT parades affirm LGBT values.
Therefore LGBT parades are bad.

lol — csalisbury

Ok you finally discovered that arguments cannot help us choose the right/correct premises (and by the way, this wouldn't be the way I'd state the argument, it's a strawman of my position but regardless), and some other practice is needed. This is good, but all I'll say for now is that it equally applies to your position!

Stating that one deals with private matters and one deals with public matters is simply to state, once more, that you don't like LGBT values. — csalisbury

No, it absolutely is not. That sex is a private matter (and hence doesn't belong in the public sphere) is a separate issue from LGBT values. It's a premise for an argument against gay parades (among other things - it's also an argument against many forms of advertising for example). You may disagree with the premise, which is fine, but then you need to put forward an argument or reasons for disagreement.

LGBT values, as I'm sure you aware, include being able to express one's sexual identity publically without fear of recrimination. That's like the core value. — csalisbury

That's a position that applies across the board to progressives regarding sexual matters, not just LGBT. It is one of the core progressive "values" to be able to express PUBLICLY your sexual identity - something that I think is nonsense. Sex ought to be a private, not a public affair, simply because over-sexualisation, and sexual obsession are socially and personally harmful.

So, again, I'm not sure what the substance of your post is other that you don't like gay parades and people who have the gall to not want to be shamed for wearing short dresses. — csalisbury

The substance of my post has nothing to do with whether I like or I don't like gay parades or anti slut-shaming parades. The substance of my post has to do with the fact that I think both of those are social evils that should not occur. This combines with my belief that every particular person should be free to do as they wish regarding their sexual behaviour BUT nevertheless, there are social norms that should be maintained.

You're certainly free to have that opinion, but if you want to persuade others to share it, you have to do more than simply express it. — csalisbury

Persuading others has little to do with argument and reason in this case, and a lot with moving their emotions and wills - why? Because as you have identified, we are disagreeing over how to choose our premises...

I'm against parades of all kinds. I used to march in them, alternately carrying and playing a trombone. They aren't worth seeing.

But they also aren't worth worrying about, nor is sexual orientation or gender preference in themselves. I think we're unduly concerned with sex here in our Great Republic. I don't care how adults choose to disport themselves sexually, or with whom they do so, provided their frolic is consensual. Neither do I wish to hear of it or see it, however.

Happily, one can always turn away from parades or take pains to avoid them. If people feel compelled to express their pride in their sexual orientation, I don't think they should be prohibited from doing so, except in certain non-parade circumstances, I suppose.

As to the great public bathroom controversy, I'm reached the age where the need to urinate is sometimes--too often--urgent. So I have no concern about being uncomfortable if there should be anyone of any kind around when I have to relieve myself. I must do so and most certainly will. Others, of course, may be uncomfortable and in more than this way.

The question, it seems to me, is to what extent our comfort should determine access to public bathrooms. it would seem that if comfort is the determining factor, the comfort of most should have priority. I don't think there is such a thing as a right to urinate or defecate in comfortable circumstances.

So, the legal basis for these laws escapes me at this time; I haven't looked into it.

Whether instances of rape or assault or molestation will increase if certain people are allowed to use certain bathrooms cannot be determined before the fact. Maybe one could be for use by children and those who are taking care of them and one for use by adults. Maybe we can in the future apportion public bathrooms into various areas, one for Xs, one for those who identify as Xs, one for those who are Ys, etc. That may be costly, but perhaps cheap partitions can be used. It all seems a bit silly, but we can do such things if need be.

I suppose I must check the law. Sigh. I can't think of any legal basis on which to prohibit access to public bathrooms, though.

This is all a piss-take, right?

Ok you finally discovered that arguments cannot help us choose the right/correct premises [lol - cs] (and by the way, this wouldn't be the way I'd state the argument, it's a strawman of my position but regardless), and some other practice is needed. This is good, but all I'll say for now is that it equally applies to your position!

What position? Darth put forth the argument that allowing transgendered individuals to use bathrooms historically designated for those who were born as the opposite sex would create physical danger for the latter. He also put forth an implicit argument that gay parades are only justified instrumentally, as ways to combat existing prejudice. That's what I was responding to.

Of course you can infer that I'm probably pro gay-parade (which I am, though I personally don't enjoy parades, because they manage to be loud and boring at the same time) but my position has nothing to do with the arguments, which I'm approaching on their own terms. As to the bad argument equally applying to a pro-gay parade position - well, obviously. Any position has the potential to be poorly defended with bad arguments of that type. That's why I don't make those kinds of arguments to defend my positions.

Now, your problem with gay pride parades appears to be two-part. First, in some yet-to-be-explained way, they contribute to a burgeoning social evil that threatens social order. Second, they're part of a concerted campaign to make cisgendered heterosexuality a minority position. Can you expand on these fears in more concrete terms?

Sex ought to be a private, not a public affair, simply because over-sexualisation, and sexual obsession are socially and personally harmful. — agustino

Yeah, 'obsession' over anything is harmful.& I've never met anyone as obsessed with sexual mores as you :P

The North Carolina law itself says next to nothing regarding its purpose, or the need for it. Generally, where it's anticipated that a law will be controversial, staff lawyers will try to make the legislative intent clear and defensible in recitals to the law. Perhaps there is a legislative history that would explain its purpose or reasons for it (committee minutes, etc.).

As to the bad argument equally applying to a pro-gay parade position - well, obviously. Any position has the potential to be poorly defended with bad arguments of that type. That's why I don't make those kinds of arguments to defend my positions. — csalisbury

No. You fail to realise that the so called poor argument I put forward is sound - there's nothing poor about it, even in the uninformative way you wrote it out.

Of course you can infer that I'm probably pro gay-parade (which I am, though I personally don't enjoy parades, because they manage to be loud and boring at the same time) — csalisbury

Obviously.

First, in some yet-to-be-explained way, they contribute to a burgeoning social evil that threatens social order. — csalisbury

Sexual promiscuity, including parades involving sex-related promotion, is a social evil because 1. it confuses individuals about the means and purposes of sexual activity, 2. it promotes conflict, jealousies, and so forth among people, 3. it threatens the stability of committed relationships and encourages people to treat each other as means to an end, instead of as ends in themselves, 4. it destroys intimacy by making it public. And I could go on.

Second, they're part of a concerted campaign to make cisgendered heterosexuality a minority position. — csalisbury

No, they're just encouraging a minority position to become more widespread, and thus threaten social stability and sexual morality.

Yeah, 'obsession' over anything is harmful.& I've never met anyone as obsessed with sexual mores as you :P — csalisbury

Obsession with justice, truth, virtue, etc. is called love. Obsession has a negative connotation, and it refers to the situation where someone loves or is attached to something that does not deserve that love and/or attachment. Morality deserves love and attachment. Desire for sex in and of itself, if by that we understand the physical act, is an obsession because sex in and of itself does not deserve that attachement and/or love.

I don't care how adults choose to disport themselves sexually, or with whom they do so, provided their frolic is consensual. — Ciceronianus the White

Then you don't care about the well-being of others, pure and simple. Consent is not sufficient to make something moral/virtuous/ethical - in fact it has no necessary tie to morality at all. For example, if I gain someone's consent to kill them, does it follow that I should? Clearly not.

The issue is more complicated than who uses which toilet.

First of all, I want to make an-always-unpopular distinction between "transgender" and "gay": G, L, B, and T share the same quadratic set of initials, but each letter represents fairly separate and different experiences. They both concern genitals and they both concern gender, but they often have radically different etiology.

a. Some transgender people are genitally ambiguous at birth. Their sex organs are not clearly male or female.
b. Some transgender people become genitally ambiguous (usually soon after birth) when something like a circumcision gone wrong leaving an otherwise unambiguous male without the essential penis.
c. Some transgender people are genetically ambiguous at the level of the chromosome, and this may have obvious and sometimes fairly odd physical manifestations.
d. Most transgender people are genitally unambiguous and may feel (at some point in their lives) that their gender or sex is the opposite of their very clear genital set up.

Gayness does not manifest ambiguous genitalia, ambiguous chromosomes, or feelings of being in the wrong body. Gay people are sexually attracted to members of their own sex (and some can function sexually with the opposite sex) and their sexual performance is unimpeded by missing or non-functioning parts.

The regulations concern more than toilets. They also concern showers, changing rooms, and the like. This is where the whole thing becomes especially contentious -- even more so than on the battleship USS Toilet. d

What do you think happens to the male or female who undresses in the 7th-12th grade locker room to shower, and reveals to all present that "he" has a vagina? Or "she" has a penis? Who in the shower room do you think will be most discomfited: the 999 out of 1000 more or less anatomically normal children, or the 1 out of 1000 anatomically abnormal child? The smart money is 100 to 1 on the abnormal child being made (not just sort of feeling) very uncomfortable.

Everyone does not have to shower together. Some children need a more private space, or they need at least a less public space to adjust to community showers. (Children are not politically correct and sensitive to others feelings: they tend to savage the weakest and/or most vulnerable members of the herd. Sometimes this continues into adulthood.)

Transsexual adults have been attacked in public toilets -- by women who were angry that a male was in the sacrosanct female space. Males would probably not be quite so appalled by finding a female-to[male transsexual in a men's toilet. A competent, practiced transsexual probably won't be detected at all.

The public toilet is mostly a non-issue, as far as I can tell. Get over it. The question of transsexual children in elementary and high schools is where there is room for debate.

For my part, I think any parents who allow a young child to decide and act on what gender he or she really is need their heads examined by a competent psychiatrist, and their child needs to be carefully assessed and counseled. Teen agers? different ball game, but no teenager should be allowed to act on what are clear feelings of "wrong body, right gender" WITHOUT competent counseling, advice, and support. Adults? If you're ready to take on this situation, then grit your teeth and work your way through it.

Cross dressing gays, or cross dressing straights, are not transgendered. They are engaging in fetish activities. You may like it or not, but it isn't an issue of transsexuality or gender identity. Children (and sometimes adults) get confused about whether they sexual feelings are normal, gay, or transgender. There are counseling and medical procedures that can clarify what the person is feeling.

I don't care how adults choose to disport themselves sexually, or with whom they do so, provided their frolic is consensual.
— Ciceronianus the White
Then you don't care about the well-being of others, pure and simple. Consent is not sufficient to make something moral - in fact it has no necessary tie to morality at all. For example, if I gain someone's consent to kill them, does it follow that I should? Clearly not. — Agustino

Of course Ciceronianus cares about the well being of others, in the same way that Mrs. Campbell did:

Reply to a young actress who asserted that an older actor in a production showed too much affection for the leading man (c. 1910); as reported by Alan Dent in Mrs. Patrick Campbell, p. 78 (1961).

"My dear, I don't care what they do, so long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."


At a time, Agustino, when there were many horses on the street, "frightening the horses" could have dire consequences. It was in the sense of not wanting to cause a stampede of angst-ridden horses that Ciceronianus was speaking.

Just imagine, two men kissing on Broadway in 1910, watched by a pair of stallions pulling a fancy coach, and the two large studs taking off to find some place to do horse-likewise, and igniting a stampede down the Great White Way. Why, hundreds of important people attending the theater might be hurt!

BC "Transsexual adults have been attacked in public toilets" I looked and I could not find any citations that corroborate your assertion...at least no prior to the current blow-up, do you have a reference. Thanks.

Then you don't care about the well-being of others, pure and simple. Consent is not sufficient to make something moral/virtuous/ethical - in fact it has no necessary tie to morality at all. For example, if I gain someone's consent to kill them, does it follow that I should? Clearly not.

Since I referenced sexual conduct specifically, your comment makes sense only if equate sexual activity to well being. It may contribute to a person's well being, but to I suggest that sexual conduct is well being is to have a peculiarly exaggerated regard for it. You should broaden your horizons, I think. Really, there's more to life than sex.

Lies lies lies... my comment makes sense so long as sexual conduct affects well-being; it does not have to be equivalent to well-being contrary to your misreading of my comments. You don't care about the well-being of people, because you don't care about at least one factor which affects it. In fact, if you had bothered to read my reply in context, you would have realised that your misrepresentation makes no sense. To wit:

Desire for sex in and of itself, if by that we understand the physical act, is an obsession because sex in and of itself does not deserve that attachement and/or love. — Agustino

Of course Ciceronianus cares about the well being of others, in the same way that Mrs. Campbell did:

Reply to a young actress who asserted that an older actor in a production showed too much affection for the leading man (c. 1910); as reported by Alan Dent in Mrs. Patrick Campbell, p. 78 (1961).
"My dear, I don't care what they do, so long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."


At a time, Agustino, when there were many horses on the street, "frightening the horses" could have dire consequences. It was in the sense of not wanting to cause a stampede of angst-ridden horses that Ciceronianus was speaking.

Just imagine, two men kissing on Broadway in 1910, watched by a pair of stallions pulling a fancy coach, and the two large studs taking off to find some place to do horse-likewise, and igniting a stampede down the Great White Way. Why, hundreds of important people attending the theater might be hurt! — Bitter Crank

LOL - not a bad explanation ;)

I read about it either in the New York Times or the Guardian, and it may have been in the comments section as a personal testimony there, not a news story. Does the report not therefore hold water? I think it does, because 2 transsexuals commented in conversation to me that they were verbally attacked in a washroom and in an office.

Look, if two people are in a washroom, and one takes offense at the other and says so, there would be no third party to confirm that such a thing had happened.

Ok, thanks, that's what I was looking for - the wherefore of your vehemence. I agree that intimacy and loyalty are important and ought be cultivated.I think we probably disagree on the effect lgbt parades have on those values, but I don't want to argue about it now.

In the past, LGBT people have been systemically oppressed, but I think we are beginning to see the end of this de jure oppression of LGBT people. — darthbarracuda

In western industrialized countries it is probably the case that gay people are no longer oppressed through legislation. Many gay people might be free of de facto oppression as well, but certainly not every gay person is. The kind of bad experiences that some young gay people experience, like getting kicked out of the house at 16, for instance, and as a consequence dropping out of school, are decidedly oppressive.

I believe that for some, their LGBT difference is an entitlement to special treatment. Being a liberal democracy means we must treat everyone equally, and this means that the LGBT community does not deserve special treatment (hence why I generally don't like gay pride events in areas that aren't really against the LGBT community). — darthbarracuda

Do you think there is such a thing as the "GLBT community"? From an "insider" viewpoint, it has never been clear what, exactly, the alleged GLBT community consists of. There are affinity groups of all kinds in every existing or nonexistent "community"; is that what you mean? As long as the affinity groups can exist without breaking laws, disturbing public order, and so on, they don't need and probably aren't receiving "special treatment" or entitlement.

There are all kinds of community sponsored events in many cities, one of which is a gay pride festival and/or march. All of these quasi-official summer events are pretty much alike: the public at large swamps the event (which vendors like), there are ethnic or cultural doodads all over the place, bad food is sold, there is loud music, overstimulated dogs and children, etc. The sponsors of the events are lucky to not spend a good share of the next year settling debts and contract disputes.

I don't have much patience with gay pride -- haven't for at least 25 years, mostly because the agenda of these events has been vigorously assimilationist -- "Hey, we're just like everybody else." Sure enough, the simulated gay community is pretty much like everybody else.

What I hope for from liberal democracy is that the people are able to associate with their preferred affinity groups, and engage in activities that satisfy their social and personal aspirations, as long as the activities are more or less legal, peaceful, compatible with other people's needs and wants, and so on.