They mean what they say!
In Midland, Michigan, a Planet Fitness gym revoked a woman’s membership because she complained that a man—actually a man who identifies as a woman— was in the woman’s locker room.
Company officials explained that she violated its “no judgment zone” policy. Planet Fitness policy also states members and guests may use all gym facilities based on their self-reported gender identity.
Fine.
It’s their business, and they can make whatever silly and irresponsible rules they want. If they want to make members dress like chickens, wear noodles on their heads and speak only pig latin, that’s their choice. The establishments Planet Fitness wants to run, apparently, are ones where a woman can go into the ladies locker room and run into some hairy, naked guy with his dong hanging out, and she gets dinged because she objects, not knowing that he is really all girl at his creamy nougat center.
Okaaaaay…. Eventually Planet Fitness will have a membership that is all trans, all blind, or all pathologically politically correct, or perhaps have no establishments at all. When the company says “no judgment,” it really means it, because this shows a ludicrous lack of judgment. But ethical! The policies were all communicated to all members, so the woman violated the “don’t react negatively to the showboating trans individual in the ladies locker room who shows no respect or consideration for others who might not be quite ready for a full frontal” policy, and has no defense, except offensive normalcy.
Clearly “Men” and “Ladies” labels on locker rooms and bathrooms are no longer unambiguous or effective.
What do you think about “Penis” and “No Penis” signs? I think that solves the problem, especially in places where there’s no judgment.
Ethics Alarms 
I have to say, this is a terrific thread. It is educational and revealing in too many ways to count, and I think it has the potential of changing minds and enlightening many who have the patience to read it, both about the practical and ethical issues involved, but also concerning the obstacles to rational attitudes and policies.
The powerful visceral nature of the opposition to trans individuals is especially revealing. It is like an atomic Ick response, obliterating everything else—facts, compassion, fairness, civility, respect. It has to be deeply programmed at a genetic level to be so immune to argument. That alone is worth the pain of the thread.
Yes, exactly, you Grok in fullness.
This instinctive, visceral response is also why protective legislation is an appropriate solution, rather than the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
At the same time it makes additional legislative protection very difficult to achieve, and increased legislative persecution, something the US largely recoiled from 50 years ago, a very real danger.
MLK
If so, it’s only because of enough people bending it as hard as they can.
Five years ago, 40% of the US Trans and Intersex population could not be fired for being who they are. They could not be denied service at lunch counters, or forced to use honey-buckets at the back of the building rather than the public facilities “decent folks” use.
This was mostly due to literally thousands of battles at city and county level, rather than state level. Most of which were lost, but some won, and once won. they tended to remain in place as all the Horribles predicted by opponents conspicuously failed to eventuate.
However, the “decentralised small government” Religious Right decided to shamelessly abandon its principles in Tennessee, repealing all protective ordnances at city at county level not also explicitly provided at state level – and repealed the few of those for Trans people at state level at the same time.
Ostensibly in order to “co-ordinate business” better, but the debate and rationale of the sponsors make it clear that this is just pretextual, chambers of commerce actually oppose it.
Arkansas has just followed suit. Texas looks like it will do the same, and Florida, and…. in 6 months time, it won’t be 40% but 28%.
MLK’s words are ringing a bit hollow now. Decades of work, some pre-dating the Civil Rights struggles of the 60s, has already been undone, with more to follow.
The huge warchests amassed to fight same sex marriage are now being diverted to a new, much softer, target. The bills in seven states now have been written by the ADF or affiliates.
https://www.au.org/church-state/november-2013-church-state/featured/the-terrible-10
If you truly think that Martin Luther King, an ordained minister of renown, would have countenanced the legitimization of perversity (and all the factors attendant with it)- not to mention the equating of it with racial bias- you’re living in a fantasy world, Zoe.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/23/the-hunting-of-trans-americans.html
There are now 14 states IIRC where same-sex marriage is permitted – but trans people can be denied boarding on buses, etc.(up from 6 until recently)
And of course there’s as much of the visceral “Ick” reaction amongst gays as there is in the general population towards trans and intersex people.
Challenging, isn’t it?
I never knew that lesislation existed that, in effect, legalizes discrimination to that degree. What I mean is that it’s at least understandable that people not having the bnefit of hearing from you and others about the bathroom issue might be worried about that, but riding the bus? You’d also think that gays and lesbians would back you up, but I guess that shouldn’t be surprizing after seeing all the black lynch mobs lately. What a particularly ugly and unfortunate side of human nature.
In 2009, the HRC (Human Rights Campaign) put out some survey results of their membership to back up their abandonment of the policy of going for rights for GLBT rather than just GLB.
While 40% were against that abandonment, often vehemently against it, 60% were OK with it – and of those, 30%, half, preferred that Trans people be denied the same rights Gays were after.
Intersex people were off the scope entirely back then, and still are in the US, though not in Europe and Australia in particular any more. Marriage is still denied us (unlike in most of the US) but otherwise we’ve made significant progress.
At least 30% of Intersex people are anti-Trans too BTW. And many are anti-Gay as well.
You have to laugh. I submit there is no greater proof that despite what SMP might say, we’re all human.
Yeah, that’s pretty illuminating. Humans, who might benefit fron the re-emergence of an improved (armored, maybe) saber-toothed tiger to get us working together again. The HRC MEMBERS responded that way? Wow. I literally don’t know what so say about that. Hmm, lets see: “They’re a bunch of”members”, all right.” I guess I managed to say something anyway.
Correction – 2007 not 2009. Otherwise correct.
Then again, we do have Muslims. And midgets.
It’s challenging for people with children, Zoe.
Especially parents of Trans or Intersex children.
Like me.
My son required genital reconstruction for purely medical reasons before age 2. He doesn’t look very different from the usual, though we went for functionality and reversibility rather than cosmesis. The surgeon called us in halfway through the procedure, to confer about this. You never know what you’ll find.
We also put money aside for further surgery in case things didn’t turn out as planned. Fortunately he’s happy with what he has, there were no complications (only about 30% chance of being so lucky) and is psychologically 100% boy, no unusual feminisation of the brain. If there had been,, we would have been supportive of course, but I thank my lucky stars he didn’t need that.
To see the kind of issues parents of Intersex kids face, see
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/should-we-fix-intersex-children/373536/
Yes I know you think they cannot exist, or if they do, are one in a billion.
Unlike Aliya, we had no choice – the condition was increasingly painful, and there were increasing difficulties with urination.Surgery was a medical necessity.
We got a good surgeon. We were lucky. My son was 8.1llb not 1.5lb, but premature too, and with not just hypospadias (as with Aliya’s boy), but severe chordee. Moreover, he’s very much a boy, and some girls at his school are rather smitten with him – which he has no objection to at all. Honourable. Protective. With Integrity. Improving his grades as he wants to be in Army Aviation, and go through med school.
He has a lot of your good qualities, Steven. That’s how we’ve brought him up – though you don’t always get that, no matter what you do.
He turns 14 soon.
I’d that that the “Ick Factor” is inescapable when it comes to discussions on this subject. But common logic is also in play, too. You have to overlook a lot of plain biological facts in order to fall in line with the politically correct dictates.
I missed your last paragraph, Zoe. Traditionally in primitive societies, their name for themselves translates into “The People”. (For example, the Navajo call themselves the Dineh… meaning people.) All others are “gentiles” or something worse!
>WE are the human race and you are tolerated only to a point.,
That, sir and bystanders, is unilateral disarmament in the fight against evil. You are throwing away your means of defending yourself.
The fight against evil starts inside ourselves. Every Christian knows that. Unless we protect ourselves against the internal onslaught of evil, we wind up joining those who commit atrocities instead of fighting against them.
Once you tell yourself that chromosomal oddities make Trig Palin or Zoe Brain not human, you have nothing to stop you from turning into one of history’s worst monsters, except maybe the fear of being caught. You have stopped your ears to the Sixth Commandment.
What’s the whole point of this entire site? Why is it called “Ethics Alarms”? Because people drift into ethics violations unless they have alarm bells that wake them up when they say “I’m desperate” or “These are not ordinary times”.
Alarm bells are not enough when you start denying someone’s humanity. That kind of thought should set off an ear-splitting air raid siren.
You’re taking me a bit too literally, Fred. I’m not the one who denied them their human heritage. They did it to themselves. If they actually want to live that way… fine. It’s when they not only try to legitimize their deviance, but likewise impose it on others that there comes the breaking point. Certainly, no Christian would deliberately seek these people out solely because of their condition. But as men, we are tasked with guarding the safety of our loved ones. When such danger threatens, we take action. And once again, the case of “chromosomal oddities” is very rarely a factor. I don’t even see how Trig Palin is relevant here.
Fred – apparently it’s our own fault that we’re not human. Even Intersex newborns.
John 9 comes to mind.
If it’s any consolation – we’re used to it. I couldn’t have celebrated my 57th birthday yesterday if I let it get to me too much.
Just please don’t let such people as the Harris County GOP chair get into positions of power, nor have a determinative voice in policy-making, no matter how good a person he is (and he is) in many areas.
All I can do is ask that, and give reasons why. While there are far, far more of us than most realise… we’re still very much a minority, and very much at the mercy of the electorate.
Currently there are 4 separate bills that are aimed at us before the Texas House. It’s a full court press, and not just in Texas. Florida’s pretty bad too.
You can reclaim your human heritage any time you want to, Zoe. I hope you do. Nor do I bear you any ill will, despite your efforts to make it appear that way. But I understand some of the essential qualities that raises a human being above the animal kingdom. You and Fred apparently reject all that. I certainly wish you’d reconsider, get in touch with your Creator and free yourself from the immoral chains that bind you. In the meantime, I have my duties as a protector against predators to deal with. BTW: The “full court press” is mainly that of radical federal court judges attempting to force people into soulless slavery to the sick and ambitious. The press is on us… and we’re preparing to fight back with whatever it takes.
Hey, happy birthday, Zoe !
Thanks Joe! That was most thoughtful of you.
http://aiclegal.org/i-really-have-to-go/
In a just world, Mr Pilling would have a chromosome test, and find out he’s one of the 1 in 300 men who don’t have 46,XY “male” chromosomes.
But that’s 1 in 300, so while a pleasant thought, not a good bet.
I haven’t been keeping up with this thread for the last several days due to work requirements, so I expect I’ll find a number of snide and deceptive posts of this nature along the way. I’m not really concerned with what you think you are or what you believe about your genetic heritage, Zoe. Since you’re sexually ambiguous and unable to face that challenge, I naturally expect you to do what your compatriots have done and seek whatever excuse- however weird- to justify your existence. For myself, I am male and have no problem whatsoever in handling that reality and what comes with it. Good luck with your problems. Did you ever consider finding yourself a good man and settling down to a normal life? Just asking.
Of course I did. So did my partner. It would have been the sensible thing to do.
But we love each other too much. We arranged a division of assets.. but she wanted to give me more than I’d accept, I wanted to give her more than she would accept, and our boy wanted us to stay together too.
The counsellors that were attempting to help us split in a civilised manner gave up when we both burst into tears the first time the D-word was mentioned.
We were advised that usually a d-word would be granted with no problems, but in our case, we’d be unable to even meet the minimal requirements for proving an “irretrievable breakdown of the relationship” if we were both going to do that at the mere mention of the word,
Later, I found out that as I’m Intersex, our marriage would be voided immediately should anyone with standing challenge it.
See
My partner could re-marry. I could not.
Zoe: Your relationships are your own business… UNTIL they become part of a movement to redefine the all-important nature of marriage and the family. At that point, it strikes at the very heart of the human society. That’s where it becomes an issue. And it’s a big one.
Marriage has been re-defined in the past, to its benefit, not detriment.
Women are no longer deemed to have their legal identity extinguished and subsumed into that of their husband’s. (See Blackstone on the subject)
Polygyny has been largely abolished in some societies, due to the unfortunate effects it has when practiced widely, and the power imbalance that almost always happens. More work needed here, to allow it (and Polyandry) in rare case-by-case bases if it can be proven that it’s not detrimental in those specific circumstances, but even then good mechanisms for dealing with break-ups may not be possible.
Marriage is no longer between a man and a woman of the same race.
I mention polygamy because the places that allow it are the most vociferously against same sex marriage. Uganda for example, where it’s quite common for Christian men to have multiple wives, it’s seen as the bedrock of society, while gays are routinely murdered on the streets.
Please stop with that interracial junk, Zoe. It’s irrelevant. The issue is marriage as an institution between a man and a woman for the purpose of establishing a family. That… plus the agenda of certain decadent elements to destroy the keystone of a free and decent society for the purpose of political dominance; something that cannot be accomplished when a strong family and God are present. That’s what this is all about.
I’ve unfortunately been too busy to be active on this topic until now, but I’ve read the comments. I’ve got an alien perspective, as usual, but maybe some people can give me feedback on just how alien it is.
I personally prefer to deal with people as bodiless conscious entities that happen to be operating a body, and the characteristics of that body only matter in a logistical sense. For me, the important aspects of a person are independent of their physical form. I do consider it a problem that some people do not merely wish their body had different properties, but are emotionally distressed because of it. Emotional distress is a problem. However, I don’t see why we should make things more difficult for them. If their brain doesn’t match their body and this causes them distress, we should probably try to help them change their body to something less distressing if we can. We should modify the body instead of the brain because artificially changing people’s desires to match reality instead of changing reality to match their desires abnegates the person’s consciousness. That is, consciousness is about changing what we can and dealing with what we can’t, and rewriting ourselves isn’t dealing with it.
I think that technically, having any type of body dysphoria (a negative feeling towards one’s physical form, unlike simply being non-heterosexual) is an actual disorder according to the following definition: it is unusual AND it reduces the quality of life for a person irrespective of their treatment by society (hair color is not a disorder). It had better be a disorder, because otherwise I would wonder why my tax dollars should be spent on helping people with it via counseling and surgery and such. Like any other disorder, though, it’s a superficial trait of a person’s mind that is only indirectly related to their character. I do think, however, that if society overcame the traditional gender norms that have arisen from evolutionary psychology, a considerable number of transgender people wouldn’t be quite so dysphoric because there wouldn’t be gender norms to identify with and to associate with their body in the first place. Then again, I’m possibly the least “human” person here in terms of mentality, so it might be harder for other people to look at themselves and others like genderless conscious entities.
There are genitals, there are chromosomes, there are neurons, there are hormones… There are two popular archetypes (that vary with culture) which each incorporate a collection of traits in these categories, but it is a false dichotomy. “Masculinity” and “femininity” are things humans made up so they didn’t have to deal with individuality. [b]You can’t tell me my feelings and values should be one way or another because of what I look like or what my genetic material says.[/b] That’s insanity. For most important roles in society, physical form is irrelevant or can be easily worked around, and for these I say you cannot tell me I must or cannot take any of them based on my physical form. I am constantly surprised at how attached humans are to such bizarre assertions.
As for the bathrooms, I think that bathrooms have been gender-segregated because of the idea of physical or emotional vulnerability of members of the “female” gender while disrobing in close proximity to members the “male” gender. Unisex bathrooms with a separate room for each stall would solve this problem, I feel. I’m attempting to change culture to empower people, but even then I’m not sure what paradigms it would take to gender-integrate bathrooms. As for me, I wouldn’t mind gender-integrated bathrooms, but then I’m physical male, am not unusually attractive of body, am not particularly shy, and am perfectly comfortable with my ability to defend myself one way or another. I can understand why female humans would not want males in their vicinity.
Having read through the comments, I have seen some great dialogue and communication skills across paradigms. There is a consistent exception: I continue to be bothered not by Stephen Mark Pilling’s lack of respect, nor his beliefs, but rather his uncanny ability to dismiss other people’s valid points as vacuous (I can’t remember him conceding a single point) while making vacuous points that he treats as valid. This is what happens when you can’t forget what you “know” and build it back up from scratch. You cling to certainties because you have no idea what you’d believe or how you’d deal if they weren’t true. I’m still not certain he’s not a Poe (a troll pretending to be a fundamentalist), just because his insulting descriptions of other people and their reasoning fit himself and his own baseless claims so much better that I have trouble believing he can’t see it himself. I’m bothered that he appears to learn literally nothing, ever, regarding anything to do with gender, sexual, or romantic minorities, confabulates reasons for not having to think about what other people say when it disagrees with him, and continues to make SMPlistic assertions with no basis whatsoever. If this is your “humanity,” then I want no part of it.
I’m less inclined than some, I guess, to cut SMP slack on his character, partly because I haven’t seen that much of his good side, partly because I have no evidence his good ideas come from anything more than the same dogma his bad ideas come from and therefore don’t have any reason to believe he has any critical thinking skills at all (a stopped clock is right twice a day), and partly because meaning well means next to nothing without the strength of character to seriously question whether you’re doing the right thing in the first place.
Great post and observations as usual. So good to have you back.
+1 Insightful. Agree to all, except I’d cut SMP more slack.
As the aggrieved party I think my opinion should count more – though not much more – than ,most.
He has a quirk. On this one subject. On other subjects, he appears reasonable, even if he disagrees, and dialogue is possible. On this one…not so much.
I just tell the truth as I see it, Zoe. In this area, I see a deadly danger to civilization itself.
Exactly.
Masculinity and femininity are not “made up”, Poddy. They can have broad definitions, certainly, but there are both physical AND psychological difference inherent in the two sexes; the result of genetics and biological imperative. Virtually every past and present society worth mentioning has reflected “le difference” in its codes and traditions for precisely this reason. You cannot abrogate reality through legal coercion and philosophical denial. All you can achieve is chaos and the destruction of that society from within. That also explains why the Left has so enthusiastically endorsed the “gay agenda”… as this is exactly what they want.