Bathrooms and Pedophiles

Bathrooms and Pedophiles April 24, 2016

 

Photo Cred: Flickr
Photo Cred: Flickr

I don’t care who can use what bathroom, if you let your child go into a bathroom alone, you’re an idiot. I don’t let my 14 year old daughter go into a public restroom alone. There is a reason why women go to the bathroom in groups, because that’s the safest thing to do.

I was raped as a child by a mechanic, pedophiles come from all walks of life, trans people taking a leak are the least of my worries.

Women also abuse children sexually and men in men’s restrooms have killed little boys. So nothing about this “new development” changes the dangers of predators seeking victims in my humble opinion. The man who raped me was living in the same house as I was and when dinner was over and my mother was washing the dishes, he would sit me on his lap to watch TV like he was spending time with me but instead he was actually molesting me. My mom trusted him, he wasn’t a man dressed like a woman, we weren’t in a public restroom and yet he sexually abused me for years including raping me at the age of 5. Yes, I get the fears of people who have been sexually abused, but that fear doesn’t make me irrationally think that the issue here is trans people, because it’s not. The problem are monsters who sexually abuse children, and that can happen anywhere.

The only thing that this debate does is make Christians look crazy. Especially Catholics because really, we have priests who have sexually abused children, so we shouldn’t let our children go into the confessional alone? That’s crazy, we do it all the time because we don’t assume that all priests are pedophiles. I know plenty of people will be pissed at me for saying that, but it’s true. We have a lot more good priests than bad ones, but really we can’t assume all trans people are sexual predators when we are quick to say not all priests are. This is bait to make Christians look like bigots, stop taking it. Talk to some trans people and see them as human beings for God’s sake.

I completely understand that gender theory and homosexual acts go against Church teaching and why. I get that the reality is we are born male or female and that matters, but the way to get that across to people is with compassion and logic, not with insults and irrational fear of them raping us in the bathrooms at target.

Sending children into public restrooms alone is irresponsible parenting, I don’t care what your position is on transgendered people using whichever bathroom they want to use. Nothing has changed. Also, how exactly is anyone supposed to “prove” that someone is in the wrong bathroom? We are supposed to assume which women are trans and then what? Ask them to drop their pants? Do people even get how absolutely un-freaking-christian that is?! Both of those actions also go against Catholic Church teaching: rash judgement and immodesty. How else can you keep a trans person out of a certain bathroom? You can’t.

We have to live in the world that we live in, not the world that we wished we lived in and we live in a world where gay people and trans people live. They have a right to live in peace without people thinking they are evil pedophiles simply because they are gay or trans. As Catholics we are called to respect their dignity no matter what, we are called to love them (and not the kind of love that tells them how evil they are because that feels good) and to be examples of God’s love for them. At some point we, as Catholics, will have to figure out how to deal with these issues without flipping out. It is possible, at least it should be for people who claim to follow Jesus Christ.


Browse Our Archives

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Hugh1

    Surprised to see such a personal and down to earth and accurate assessment of the issue, but it is appreciated. The molesting part by a trusted adult figure is very troubling.

  • Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    Every word of this is truth.

  • Hilary

    Finally, a sane Catholic response! Even if you admit you don’t want a world with gay and trans people (we live in the world we live in, not the one we wished we live in) at least you’re not an ass about the fact that we exist. With Catholics like you I feel that there is at least a chance of live and let live.

  • Peter

    Not as long as Christian bakers hafta make gay wedding makes or get sued outta existence. Live and let live exists only until you can get the majority to call us bigots, and then it ceases to be so mutual. That’s the real story here!

  • Bemused

    How is it any different than a Catholic baker being expected to make cakes for 2nd or 3rd or 4th marriages? They are still “helping” people to live in mortal sin according to the Church.

    (It’s not, it’s just economically unfeasible to refuse to make cakes for later wedding, so nobody does it.)

  • Donalbain

    14 years old and your daughter is not allowed to use public toilets alone? What happens if she is out on her own and needs to use one? Is she under instructions to wait until she is home? You are a sadly paranoid woman.

  • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

    If gay bakers are required to serve you, why doesn’t it work the other way around?

  • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

    Yeah, I’d say 14 years is a bit old for that. By adolescence, children should be learning how to be independent. A teenager should know how to recognize danger and get help or get away.

  • Hilary

    I was wondering that myself. If conservative Christians can opt out from serving gay customers for their weddings, can every gay florist, baker, wedding coordinator, dress designer, choral director, DJ, caterer and photographer refuse to work for a Traditional Christian wedding?

    If it’s ok for certain Christians to refuse service to some people, then there is no need to complain when others people refuse to do business with them.

  • Lorry Davis

    The way I see it, this has just opened the door wide for anyone intending to do harm, to have a safe guard excuse to be where they don’t belong.
    How do I know, beyond any doubt, that the male entering into my restroom has an identity problem with his God given sex? I don’t! And neither do you!
    This whole thing has reignited fears I have had since my early teenage years, of entering into a room where someone could be waiting again, behind closed doors, to harm me – and I am NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS THIS FEAR!!!!!!
    But so many of you think more about the person, a small minority, of people who could easily continue to use the appropriate rooms, without putting us who do know who we are, in a legal jeopardy if and when people are going to be hurt by it!

  • Mark

    I don’t think males with male body parts should be in women’s bathrooms. Period. The problem is making all bathrooms non gendered which means that women have to use the bathroom with men including in colleges where they have to shower. This is insane. It is not bigoted to worry about my daughter having to shower in the same bathroom as a male.

  • Kathy McGlaughlin

    We must not, however, lose sight of the fact that this movement toward unisex bathrooms does not just involve public restrooms. We’re talking schools. We’re talking changing rooms and locker rooms.

  • Emily Davis

    For me it’s not about transexuals, but the several idiots all over the news lately, who have gone into the girls bathroom just to be voyeurs. All have been arrested, none were transexual. I think we just open ourselves up to more of those issues than anything. I remember years ago when Lane Bryant told me that men can come in and try on bras, clothing, etc. And it was the last time I tried anything on in their store. Not because I was afraid of a transexual, but because I find it uncomfortable to be in a dressing area, traditionally for women, that a man can be in as well. For me that is just not right. In the end, I don’t think we can compare Catholic Priests as a whole to Transgenders or gender fluid people… but I do think your post is interesting. I always parent however I see fit, I don’t know too many parents who don’t. I care two peeps about what folks think of my rules, etc. My son goes to the bathroom by himself. He is 12. He has done since about the age of 10. I am right outside the door. I give him a minute or two and then I will walk in. That’s me. I have no opinion on what others do. One last thought, I think it is funny that you call for charitableness from others, but lack it in your post. Sigh.

  • Rhonda Ross Jackson

    I know and respect the teaching of the Church and I know the implications are far reaching but come on, people. Trans have been using their selected restrooms for years and no one knew.

  • Emily Davis

    I say, go for it.
    You might lose money, but in the age of a zillion and one choices, I think we should reserve the right to serve who we want…

  • In fact, if it hadn’t been for incidents where schools were forced to let confused kids use the locker rooms/bathrooms of the gender they wished to be, this wouldn’t have come up at all.

    It isn’t really about transgenders being dangerous people. It’s about the effective result of such a law. And that is essentially unisex bathrooms. It is also about privacy and dignity. No longer will a man, any man, standing in a woman’s restroom be any cause to think something might be amiss. What used to be a safe space for women to do women things away from the eyes of men no longer exists.

  • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

    I’d rather not see either type, really. Discrimination isn’t good for the goose or the gander.

  • Michel White Bachman

    This article is very shortsighted. Supposed “pedophile” transgendered people are not the issue. The issues are:

    1) modesty – I do not want to see or be seen by a biological male in the bathroom.

    2) culture – hundreds of years of social norms in our country are being instantaneously changed

    3) our right to disagree, respectfully, with the secular left

    4) the actual safety concerns raised by the fact that ANY man with ANY sexual proclivity may now enter a women’s bathroom or locker room without being questioned.

    On a business trip to Belgium, I literally bumped into a male coworker in a unisex restroom. He was just turning away from the urinal. Do we REALLY want that situation to become common in the US?

  • captcrisis

    You won’t know it’s a transgender person unless you actually look over the stall to check their genitals. I’m not about to do that. Are you?

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    1) modesty – I do not want to see or be seen by a biological male in the bathroom.

    How do you expect do know if someone is a ‘biological male’ or not? It’s impossible to know someone’s biological sex without either examining their DNA or looking at their genitals (without even getting into intersex people) – and the latter is what you were trying to avoid in the first place!

    2) culture – hundreds of years of social norms in our country are being instantaneously changed

    That’s not a very good argument by itself, without showing why the previous social norms were better than the new ones. Race and gender based discrimination have a very long history in our country, yet you’re (presumably) not arguing a return the societal norms of the late 18th century.

    3) our right to disagree, respectfully, with the secular left

    I emphatically oppose any legal restrictions on free speech, but that’s not even the issue here. Having your ideas criticized isn’t a violation of your right to speech, in fact, it is the very epitome of free speech rights.

    4) the actual safety concerns raised by the fact that ANY man with ANY sexual proclivity may now enter a women’s bathroom or locker room without being questioned.

    Do you think that actual predators would be otherwise deterred by the stick figure outside the bathroom? Sexual harassment and assault still remain very much illegal.

    Also, consider what ‘bathroom bills’ like North Carolina’s HB 2 actually do. These laws allow a male sexual predator, for example, to walk into the womens’ bathroom while claiming to be a transgender woman. Despite their gender being visibly different, their ‘objective biological sex’ would require them to use that bathroom. There are real transgender people in this scenario – except, they aren’t predators. They’re just normal people who are being forced into what the proponents of the laws seem to think are the ‘objectively correct’ bathrooms.

    On a business trip to Belgium, I literally bumped into a male coworker in a unisex restroom. He was just turning away from the urinal. Do we REALLY want that situation to become common in the US?

    I….what? Do unisex bathrooms have some kind of structural layout that makes it more likely to bump into urinal users? Seriously, what does this argument even have to do with anything?

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    I think we just open ourselves up to more of those issues than anything.

    How? Is spying on people in the bathroom legal now, or are people going to be somehow less likely to report it?

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    We have to live in the world that we live in, not the world that we wished we lived in and we live in a world where gay people and trans people live.

    This is the only line I take real issue with? You seem to be implying that you would prefer to live in a world where LGBT people don’t exist.

    Otherwise, excellent post! While we disagree on whether to accept other sexual orientations or gender identities, we should all strive first and foremost to treat each other with basic human respect and dignity.

  • Statistics Palin

    Jim, you’re a deeply arrogant and ignorant thug. You’re not God. God is not a ass with a middle school understanding of biology.

  • Croquet_Player

    There is no such thing as a “gay” wedding cake. Or a “straight” wedding cake, for that matter. There are just wedding cakes. If bakers make wedding cakes, they should make them for whoever wants to buy them. What the customers do with them after that is up to the customer, and is no longer any of the baker’s business.

  • June Burnett

    So if you are a mom out with your 12yo son, do you take him into the ladies room with you? What if you are a dad out with your young daughter? Take her into the men’s room?

  • Dawn Walker

    My (divorced) sister had the answer-she stood at the door to the men’s bathroom and listened. Her son was supposed to yell if anyone approached him or said anything he wasn’t comfortable with. Oh, that momma bear would’ve gone in, don’t be mistaken.

  • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

    I don’t think it’s a desire for LGBT people to disappear or not exist, but an admission that these awkward and painful issues wouldn’t exist if the LGBT distinction didn’t exist. If they didn’t exist, we wouldn’t perceive their absence and there’d be nobody losing out. The same way we don’t perceive the absence of smizmars, and smizmarphobism doesn’t exist.

  • Korou

    I’m very sorry to hear that you were abused and that you suffered.
    I’m a bit confused. Most of your article sounds very sensible and sane. Are you serious, though, when you say that a child should never be allowed to go into a restroom alone? Or was that a joke I didn’t get?

  • Korou

    This seems to raise the problem of helicopter parenting. There comes a point where caring for children goes too far.
    By the way, does that mean you’d stand outside the confessional as well and listen?

  • tt

    Exactly. This young woman is less than 2 years away from being legally allowed to drive and hold a job. She needs to be developing independence. As a high school teacher, I have too often seen the bad results when parents shelter and fill teens with fear. I know of high school graduates who remain at home, are afraid to drive or go anywhere alone. Both young women and young men. They were never given enough freedom to learn to function on their own. If you want your kids to grow up to be independent, functioning adults with jobs, relationships and perhaps children of their own one day, you have to let go and let them learn independence now.

  • Richard_L_Kent

    Ms. Adams, my condolences for your suffering. But you are visciously dead wrong about this. It DOES open the door to further rape. The transsexuals are merely the key to the perverts’ door.

  • Emily Davis

    My statement was about the perverts who have been in the news recently. Not transgender… just using the “we are allowed to be here” excuse.

  • Emily Davis

    Agreed.
    Where will it end? Will all girls schools have to allow boys and vice versa?
    All tradition should just be tossed out the window to make transgender people comfy? It’s too much.

  • baffledlife

    I’ve been comfortable using public restrooms for many years and suspect that I will continue to do so, however, if I run into a guy who thinks he’s a gal I would wait, or ask him what’s going on, choose another facility. I might “think” I’m Aretha Franklin but I can’t sing and I’m not black. There’s some mental gymnastics that’s needed to ignore what is obvious. That means my mental health is less valued than a “transgendered individual”. My privacy concerns are less important than a “transgendered” person. Somebody is getting hosed and I think it’s me and my grandaughters.

  • ahermit

    It’s easy to find stories about straight cis-men, Republicans and religious leaders molesting people in public bathrooms. Transgender people? Not so much…

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/04/why-breitbarts-anti-trans-top-twenty-five-bathroom-predator-stories-are-bunk.html

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    I still don’t see how these laws change anything. Do you think those kinds of people would be deterred if the laws didn’t exist?

  • The entire bathroom debate from this Catholic is NOT about Transgender at all. Its about opening the door to MORE voyeurism, more rape, more molestation rather than dealing with the issues we already have. If a person can’t deal with, or refuses to deal with who they were born as, how then can that person demand that others deal with it?

  • baffledlife

    that’s not really the point is it.

  • lady_black

    To me, it’s the point.

  • lady_black

    You don’t get to define what someone was “born as.”

  • lady_black

    I assure you that nobody is “going potty” with him/her at school. Of course sending your child into a public restroom alone isn’t “irresponsible parenting” and is even necessary. That’s the reality of parent’s lives. Daddy can’t accompany his 14 year old daughter into the ladies room, and she sure doesn’t belong in the men’s room, either. The same with mothers and sons.
    Of course, family restrooms are wonderful, not only for parents, but anyone who is caring for someone of the opposite sex who is disabled and needs help in the restroom.

  • lady_black

    No. That’s ridiculous.

  • lady_black

    I did that when my boys were early elementary school aged. Not because I feared for their safety, but to remind them not to dawdle, and to wash up afterward.
    But not at age 14.

  • baffledlife

    the underlying principles of the Left are: eradicate religions, eradicate defined sexes and their roles (they are only social construts anyway), eradicate the concept of race (it’s only a social construct), eradicate the concept of privacy, eradicate the concept of private property, eradicate the concept of Individualism. This is the programing of the Socialists/Communists.

  • baffledlife

    yes she does.

  • lady_black

    I would argue that there is a great deal of variety within “defined sex” and it’s not as binary as you appear to believe it is.
    It has nothing to do with “eradicating” religion. Just the idea that your religious rights end at the tip of your own nose. They don’t superimpose upon the rights of another.

  • lady_black

    No, actually, she doesn’t.

  • baffledlife

    if you are confused, look in your drawers or consult your birth certificate.

  • lady_black

    So you believe that sex is a binary concept? It isn’t. It’s what’s in your brain, not what’s in your drawers. Attempting to define another person is arrogant, and ignorant.
    I appear to be a woman, but without genetic testing, I can’t prove I’m not an XY/XX chimera. I can’t even know for myself what mysteries might be contained in my genetic makeup.

  • lady_black

    I get “seen” every time I go out in public by males, as much as I would be seen by one in a restroom. Perhaps you don’t exit a stall fully dressed, but I tend to make a point of doing so, and couldn’t care less who sees me combing my hair or washing my hands.
    The concept of urinals is that they are unnecessary. They’re certainly convenient for men, but I’ve never seen one single private home that contains one, yet men manage to take care of nature’s call just fine every day in their own homes.
    As far as being questioned, that happened to my daughter, and it was horrifying that I had to fear being beaten up because some big, fat idiot didn’t think my daughter looked “feminine” enough, and questioned her right to use the bathroom. THAT’S RUDE. Don’t ever do that.

  • baffledlife

    nice deflecting, but it is the dignity of the person that you would like to assault, the right of a human being to the dignity of their own body. I reject the concept of “sex is really a continuum” rather than specific binary roles; totally unscientific. The idea that sexual identity is fluid is grotesque. Check your DNA and proceed accordingly.

  • lady_black

    Yeah, no thanks. Only if YOU’RE paying for it will I “check my DNA.”

  • Emily Davis

    When a company says men can use the women’s bathroom, that just gives them license to act out, and do so legally, so yes… yes I do.

  • baffledlife

    See an MD or a PHD., but don’t attempt to make humankind adjust to your own situation. It’s really bullying isn’t it. And, I do have some sympathy for your situation but not your viewpoint.

  • lady_black

    Please don’t waste your “sympathy” on my “situation.” I don’t HAVE a “situation.” I am who I am.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    When a company says men can use the women’s bathroom

    Transgender men are men, not women; and transgender women are women, not men.

    …that just gives them license to act out, and do so legally

    Um, sexual assault and harassment, as well as spying on people in bathrooms, are still illegal. Also, do you really think that the only thing stopping sexual predators has been the signs on the door?

  • lady_black

    Only if rape, or non-consensual voyeurism were to suddenly become legal. And that hasn’t happened, so…

  • lady_black

    Why yes. Putting “Women” on a bathroom emits magical anti-perv rays that automatically keep pervs out of bathrooms.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    Its about opening the door to MORE voyeurism, more rape, more molestation rather than dealing with the issues we already have.

    Because actual sexual predators have some sort of inability to enter the opposite-gender restroom when laws like HB 2 are in place.

    Not only have there been essentially zero cases of actual transgender people committing sexual assault/harassment in bathrooms, there’s no reason to think that these laws will stop actual predators.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    It’s like garlic, but for sexual predators instead of vampires! I guess?

  • lady_black

    It must be really rough living life being that fearful.

  • lady_black

    “Simple” appeals to simple minds. These people are not “confused.” You are.

  • lady_black

    Right… because we all know women don’t have genitals. Geeze, were you born this obtuse, or did you work at it?

  • lady_black

    Cakes don’t have sexual preferences. They’re just cakes. You eat them. They are FOOD, so who cares?

  • lady_black

    Sure! Whites-only hospitals for all.

  • ahermit

    The point is this whole thing is a non-issue. Trans people go to the bathroom to use the bathroom. They aren’t a threat to anyone, and in fact are more likely to be victimized. Imagine a trans woman who looks like this being forced to use the men’s room:

    http://imagesmtv-a.akamaihd.net/uri/mgid:ao:image:mtv.com:98562?quality=0.8&format=jpg&width=980&height=551

    Or this trans man being forced to use the women’s room:

    https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6244795/JP_Sheffield.0.png

    People pushing for these laws haven’t really thought this through…

  • lady_black

    They don’t simply remove the genitals. They reconstruct them.

  • lady_black

    Maybe that’s what YOU believe. I don’t see much of a plan for “creation” where fetuses develop missing brains, kidneys, etc. And intersex.

  • lady_black

    I don’t understand your question.

  • Look! Pretty balloons!

    I’m baffled by this type of post coming from a Catholic whatsoever.

    God made them man and woman, says Genesis. And now, instead of looking at this issue from a Catholic philosophical viewpoint, we get a lecture on parenting? Seriously?

    This post seems to merely boil down to, “yeah yeah, I know what the Bible says about this issue, but you need to get over it and be better parents and give up your irrational fears.”

    That’s not an intellectual Christian point of view. It’s intellectually lazy liberalism.

  • Look! Pretty balloons!

    No need to encourage them.

  • Look! Pretty balloons!

    Genesis says exactly that. God made them man and woman.

    It doesn’t say, God made them, then asked them if they wanted to be man or woman.

  • lady_black

    Is that your excuse for a science text?

  • lady_black

    No.

  • Look! Pretty balloons!

    Is there a registered transgender list somewhere we can use to back up your claim? Men who crave other men have a related set of issues. Some identify as women, as a matter of fact.

  • Look! Pretty balloons!

    Yes, the entire article is an insult to logic and tolerance.

    And we’re admonished by this “author” to be better parents, lol.

  • Look! Pretty balloons!

    It’s not a good argument to say that this is a non-issue, either. Modesty is a virtue, and as people have pointed out, people don’t have a sign on their foreheads labeling them as transgender, meaning pervs can now walk in the women’s room with no repercussions.

  • Look! Pretty balloons!

    It’s one thing for something to go on as a matter of course.
    It’s quite another to be forced to acquiesce to it.

  • Look! Pretty balloons!

    Poor logic. Now, women can’t assert that the men are not allowed, lol.

  • Look! Pretty balloons!

    That’s all nice and fuzzy. But your argument fails. No set of laws is perfectly neutral, and secularism is in fact far from neutral.

    Everyone has a worldview, and what you’re doing is attempting to disqualify a set of worldviews because they are deemed “religious”.

    Many secularists are just as religious. In the end, the views are all worldviews and you can’t logically dismiss “religious” worldviews by definition. It’s intellectual dishonesty.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    meaning pervs can now walk in the women’s room with no repercussions.

    Actual sexual assault/harassment doesn’t have ‘no repercussion’ – it’s still illegal.

  • ahermit

    More importantly can the advocates of this bill back up their claim that transgender people are a threat to anyone’s safety?

    Because I haven’t seen any evidence that they are. Just a lot of ridiculous fearmongering.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    If anything, these bills are what’s ‘encouraging’ predators. Why bother ‘dressing up as a woman’, when you can simply walk into the woman’s bathroom while claiming that your ‘objective biological sex’ is female?

  • lady_black

    If by “secularism” you mean “science” and by “religion” you mean “unscientific”… but I don’t think that’s what you really mean, is it?
    I’m not “disqualifying” any worldview that doesn’t conflict with reality, regardless of the source.
    The notion that everyone fits into one of two boxes, one labeled “male” and the other labeled “female” simply isn’t true. It’s not scientific, and yes, I reject that. There are people with XY chromosomes who never masculinize because their cells cannot use testosterone. Normally, they develop incomplete female reproductive organs (because during embryonic development, female is the default). Because their gonads are testes, they cannot become pregnant on their own, but sometimes can using a donor ovum.
    Now what IS such a person? They are genetic males. However, most of them identify as female, look female, and have no problem living as women. I tend to agree. For all intents and purposes, they ARE female. It doesn’t matter what their DNA says.

  • lady_black

    They never could to begin with, if by “men” you mean something that has a twig and berries. What are you going to do? Women have been sharing the restroom with transwomen forever. Nothing has changed. You cannot demand that people show their genitals to you.

  • lady_black

    Human. But not necessarily clearly male or female.

  • lady_black

    Like you have any authority to speak for a god.

  • lady_black

    Tell that to a genetic male with CAIS. I’ll say this for you… you’re certainly arrogant to think you can know the mind of ‘the Almighty.’ I don’t think I’m qualified to speak on the behalf of a deity. And neither are you.

  • lady_black

    You know they both start out the same in development, right? For every female part, there’s a corresponding male part. So YES, they are still genitals. They are genitals whether they “generate” or not.

  • lady_black

    Oh, and by the way, female genitals NEVER “generate.” The reproductive parts are internal.

  • lady_black

    Humanity, of which you’re certainly no expert.

  • My son would not go to the confessional alone the first several times. And he still won’t go to a priest he doesn’t know.

  • lady_black

    No. Not for women.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    Sorry, but that’s really not correct.

    Do you have anything to back up your statement that “Men who *think* they’re women are still men. Women who *think* they’re men are still women.”

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    So science has now proven that a person born with male “plumbing” can biologically be a female (as in having fully functioning ovaries and the machinery to bear children) and women can grow male reproductive organs?

    Are you suggesting that functioning reproductive organisms are necessary to be considered a particular gender? What about people born without functioning reproductive organs? Or people with androgen insensitivity, or any number of sex-chromosome related disorders?

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    So…you don’t. Why exactly should I believe you?

  • Chant

    Chances are you wouldn’t even recognize a transgendered person in the bathroom unless you were conducting a crotch check outside of the stall. What is wrong with you?

  • Chant

    Respectfully, grow up.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    Apparently the law of non-contradiction has been repealed.

    How is this law being violated?

    You have yet to explain why I should believe you over several leading medical and psychological organizations.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    I am suggesting that somebody born with a penis is a man and with a vagina is a woman. That’s not a construct, it’s objective scientific fact. And note that I said the “machinery” to bear children….not the “ability” to bear children.

    Several medical organizations would beg to differ.

    Furthermore, you ignore ignore intersex people.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    I reject the concept of “sex is really a continuum” rather than specific binary roles; totally unscientific.

    I guess intersex people. just don’t exist, then.

    The idea that sexual identity is fluid is grotesque. Check your DNA and proceed accordingly.

    Neither does any sort of chromosomal abnormality, it would seem. Also, how is the idea of sexual fluidity ‘grotesque’?

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ
  • Korou

    I don’t think that transgender people should have to go into the restroom for the sex that they were born as; and I think most people would agree, if they saw a muscular, bearded gentleman in the woman’s room, or a beautiful long-haired person in a dress in the men’s room.

  • Korou

    What about homosexual people? Just because you’ve got a bunch of men showering together or a bunch of women showering together, doesn’t mean some of them aren’t being turned on by the sight.

  • Korou

    Actually, a bunch of people cheering them on is exactly what they do need. The rates of bullying, abuse and suicide that transgender people suffer from is horrendous. If you really do love them, then please treat them as the people they feel like they are, as the medical and psychological communities recommend.

  • Not a joke — I know parents who have this rule. At school, of course, they go in a group with their friends.

    I don’t have this rule because I live in a safe area and bathroom predation is extremely rare anyway, but my boys are young yet so it doesn’t come up — we go together. When they’re a little older, they’ll have to use the men’s ….. uh-oh, hope no predators are in there! (They probably aren’t. Though if the place looks really sketchy I might suggest finding another place to go.) Either way, anti-trans laws are not going to keep my young sons safe.

  • Modesty is a non-issue because people wear clothes outside the stall and no one can see inside the stall (without being obvious and getting reported).

    It’s also kind of odd to draw the line where biological females are allowed to see you and biological males are not. Why? It seems more reasonable to say “people who would never be attracted to me can see me, while people who might be, can’t” but, of course, women’s bathrooms have lesbians in them. Me, maybe I’m an outlier, but I’m not comfortable with *anyone* seeing me naked, so I don’t get naked in public shared areas. Luckily it seems to be the majority opinion in public bathrooms, because I have never in my life seen any nudity in there.

  • lady_black

    Well, let’s not be inconsistent here! Serve only who you want to serve! Isn’t that what was said?

  • lady_black

    Functional genitals? Yes. They work. The truth is, you don’t know the truth.

  • lady_black

    Being female doesn’t depend upon childbearing ability.

  • lady_black

    Because, speciation. You can look that up on your own time.

  • Korou

    True, they’re not.
    If it’s any comfort crime rates have been going steadily down. Your children are at much less risk than you or I were growing up. What has been going up is the sensationalising of news stories about children getting kidnapped and abused.
    Not at all to minimise the horror of a child getting kidnapped or abused or murdered, but they’re at considerably more risk of being killed in a car crash, or of dying from falling down some stairs, than they are of someone raping them in the toilets at school.
    Also, if children are going to be abused, the statistical likelihood is far, far higher that it will happen at home, with an adult that they and their parents – if it isn’t one of their parents – know and trust.
    Which is why I find it a little silly to hear people saying “I don’t let my fourteen year old son go to the bathroom alone.”

  • lady_black

    Speciation also says that the offspring of two dogs, is a dog. The offspring of two cats is a cat. And the offspring of two humans is a human.
    There is no other possibility.

  • Korou

    Not being confused doesn’t mean you’re right. There’s plenty of very wrong people who are quite sure that they’re right.
    Bertrand Russell put it well: “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
    Not that I’m saying you’re stupid; just that saying “I’m not confused” may not be giving the message you seem to think that it is.

  • Korou

    Imagine you were a teacher. You go into a school and see a child who’s deeply depressed and thinking of suicide, because they’re bullied.

    It might be technically accurate to say “this child is a threat to their own safety” but it seems to me it would be much better to focus on stopping the bullying.

    Studies show that when transgender people are accepted for what they want to be, the rates of suicide drop sharply. Which isn’t at all surprising.

    So it’s not transgenderism that’s to blame, it’s the bullies – open or hidden – who make their lives hell.

  • lady_black

    Let’s get something straight here, OK? First of all, in no way, shape or form, am I in favor of white-only hospitals.
    Public accommodations need to serve the public. I don’t care what race or color you are, what sex you are, what religion you are, or your marital status, disability status, etc. When a person obtains a business license for a public accommodation, they agree to serve the public. ALL OF THEM.
    If you only want to bake wedding cakes for “certain people” then don’t offer them as a service to the public.
    What you DON’T get to do, is offer a service to the public. and then use your own imagination to determine who is “worthy” of getting that service.
    See, this is what churches do. They don’t offer wedding ceremonies to the public and then pick and choose who gets one. They serve their own members. So start a club of your own if that’s what you want to do.

  • Korou

    I’m suggesting that it doesn’t make sense to say that women might be exposing themselves to people who look at them lustfully, because that’s happening already.
    Perhaps a solution would be to have individual shower cubicles, instead of open shared showers?
    Also, see ahermit’s post up above. Look at that photo! Do you want a law that would force your wife to share a shower with him?

  • lady_black

    And YOU need to stop conflating “genitals” and “reproductive organs.” They are not the same thing. Because of a total hysterectomy, I have no “reproductive organs.” I still have GENITALS, and I can still function sexually.

  • lady_black

    It doesn’t depend upon “mechanics” either.

  • Korou

    Do you think that’s what you do? Does that mean that when you meet a transgender woman you don’t say – if asked – that she’s experiencing gender dysphoria and is really a man?
    Good for you. I apologise for misjudging you.

  • Statistics Palin

    There you go again with constructive proofs that “baffledlife” is an idiot.

  • Statistics Palin

    “Whenever I hear some bigmouth in Washington or the Christian heartland
    banging on about the evils of sodomy or whatever, I mentally enter his
    name in my notebook and contentedly set my watch. Sooner rather than
    later, he will be discovered down on his weary and well-worn old knees
    in some dreary motel or latrine, with an expired Visa card, having tried
    to pay well over the odds to be peed upon by some Apache transvestite.”

    Christopher Hitchens

  • lady_black

    Exactly. But the genitals and the “reproductive organs” (actually, gonads) do not always agree.

  • lady_black

    In your eighth grade science understanding, maybe.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    You do realize that there aren’t religious exemptions for race, gender, or even religious belief of the patient. Why are you treating sexual orientation differently?

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    which means gender isn’t a social construct, it’s most definitely a medically identifiable trait.

    Perhaps you didn’t read what those organizations had to say. All of them support the idea that people can have a different gender identity from the one they were assigned at birth (i.e. transgender).

  • mitch64

    I hope not…some of them are already tacky enough!

  • mitch64

    Its the last gasp of a dying cause…its a petty childlike reaction. They bungled their campaign so bad and lost both in the courts and with the American public. What to do..what to do??try to deny service..is a starter, find some sudden deeply held religious convictions…(such as serial bride Kim Davis) and stamp your feet and say, “I am not going to serve them and I am NOT a bigot..your a BIGOT against Christians!” and since the Kim Davis of the world are not really, shall we say, cuddly, or sympathetic or really well groomed, they try to use the few baker cases to make their points…(I mean, who hates bakers, especially when they are a nice young couple trying to make their way or an old lady!)

  • lady_black

    Pretty much. I mean, I’m not a baker, I’m a nurse. But if I was a baker, it wouldn’t make economic or moral sense to mentally “disqualify” people from buying what I was trying to sell.
    Whether the customer is gay, straight, celebrating an upcoming 50th anniversary with a replica of their original cake, just enjoys wedding cake, or wants the cake as a film prop, my answer would be “Yes, sir/ma’am. And when may I have this cake ready for you? Will that be cash or charge?”

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    Things that are *self-evident* do not *require* “evidence.”

    Yes – it’s obviously self-evident that you can not unambiguously assign every single human as either “male” or “female”, and that transgender people exist. Things that are *self-evident* do not *require* “evidence.” The fact that you ask for “evidence” about this shows the high level of insanity that people such as you are “leading” towards.

    See, I can play this game too.

    If you can refer to any legitimate medical organization that agrees with you, I may be inclined to take your argument seriously. Otherwise, I see no reason why I should take the word of a random commentor over actual medical organizations.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    “Gender identity” doesn’t exist.

    Unfortunately, the organizations I cited earlier disagree with you.

    *Genitals*–they exist.

    Yes, genitals do exist. Not only is gender identity a distinct concept, but not every has genitalia that can be unambiguously classified as ‘male’ or ‘female’.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    Do you have anything at all to back up your position, besides claiming that it’s ‘self-evident’?

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    So, how do you classify intersex people? What if they feel that the gender they were assigned was incorrect?

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    And I should find that convincing…why?

    If you want to believe that, you’re perfectly free to do so. However, unless you have some actual evidence to back that up, please don’t try to force your belief on others.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    Then, why are you against recognizing transgender people? Surely if someone’s sex was assigned incorrectly, they should be able to identify as a different gender?

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    I can also identify myself a different species, to wit: I recently read an article about somebody trying to transition to a dragon (the person also attempted to transition gender previously).

    Identifying as a different gender isn’t the same as identifying as a different species. Not only is there evidence that the brain structures of transgender people are similar to those of the gender they identify as, but intersex people also exist. Show me an example of someone whose species at birth was ambiguous, and I’ll consider the idea.

    Identity isn’t reality. How many people identify as Christians who act nothing like Christians?

    Oh, I do love a good No True Scotsman. What do you say to the people who believe that your behavior is nothing like how a true Christian would act.

    And there’s no such thing as “assignment”. As if a baby emerges from the vaginal canal with a penis and the attending physician or mid-wife arbitrarily decides that the child is a male.

    Yeah, it’s a good thing that ambiguous genitalia don’t exist.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    If a person’s *sex* was wrongly assigned in the exceedingly rare *intersex* scenario, then the person’s *sex* needs to be *rightly* assigned, as best as can be determined.

    Yes – many transgender people chose to have a medical/phsyical transition, as part of changing their gender.

    Do you have any actual evidence to back up your position, or are you just going to fall back to your religion again?

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    No – why should I believe that such a God exists? You seem to expect me to believe that some words in a book come directly from a deity, without providing any evidence.

  • mitch64

    Exactly….I can see if a baker says, I don’t have two male or female cake toppers or whatever the hell they call them (do they come stuck together????) but a cake is a cake. What I don’t get is, why these bakers (and its only been a few of them) or any business owner, gets upset about a secular event that has nothing to do with them or their faith. But then, we also have our lovely bishops yabbering on about it being ” a grave sin,” and that Catholics have a “duty” to oppose it. But, then Catholics listen to the Bishops on that as much as they do birth control.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    You must be joking. You can’t seriously expect me to believe that, just because you said so.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    Further, somebody doesn’t get change their racial identity so please don’t bring race in or try to paint me as a racist or a homophobe: can somebody born one race transition, via surgery, to another race?

    I also mentioned the religious belief of the patient. What if a ‘non-affirming’ therapist tries to convince someone that their religious belief is wrong, or would be sending them to Hell? Isn’t it a violation of their conscience to ask them to violate their conscience by not warning someone of the danger their belief places them in in the afterlife?

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    You specifically quoted from your holy book. How is this that not religion?

    I can claim that ‘Natural Law’ says that transgender people are real. OF course, I have evidence to back that up, whereas your declaration of what ‘Natural Law’ means relies on the person buying into the claims of your holy book.

  • lady_black

    Do you mean testes? That’s a male. Now, bear in mind that sometimes, the testes are internal (in the case of androgen resistance) and the external genitalia that develop are the female type, or something ambiguous. That’s because every embryo starts developing the genitals of a female and they are at some point masculinized.
    Internal testes are incapable of producing either sperm or ovum, and because they can become cancerous inside the body, they must be removed.
    Therefore, regardless of DNA, most of the people with testosterone resistance are classified as female, identify as female, and live as females. There is no female counterpart to this.

  • lady_black

    I think those plastic bride and groom toppers are tacky, tacky, TACKY. I wouldn’t carry those at all if I were a baker. But I digress. Bakers make their living selling baked goods, and I would sell baked goods to anyone with money to buy. It has nothing to do with religion.

  • historiavita

    This is an article worth thoughtfully reading from a man who suffered through sex-change surgery and dissociative disorder. He has received healing and lives a life of hope and peace now.

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14688/

  • historiavita

    This post from Prof. Robert George is full of wisdom. I note especially his encouragement not to refer to people with gender struggles as “transgender,” because such a person does not exist, and it is no act of truth to use such terms. The author’s continued use of “trans-people,” although well-intentioned, is exactly what George is talking about.

    “There are exceptionally rare cases of individuals of radically ambiguous and perhaps even indeterminate sex…. But there are no “women” trapped in men’s bodies or “men” trapped in women’s bodies. There are just men—males—and women—females. No one is actually transgendered, and people who understand this fact should not speak of “transgender women,” and the like. Even if motivated by kindness or politesse, talking this way is a sin against the truth. At the same time, there are people who really do experience acute anguish as a result of body dysphorias of the sort that produce the feeling or belief that they are, for example, “psychologically female,” despite being biologically male. These suffering people deserve to be treated with compassion, kindness, and respect—just like anyone else. It is wrong to despise them, ridicule them, call them “freaks,” or disrespect them in other ways. They are precious members of the human family, made in the very image and likeness of God. We can speak and stand up for the truth while loving them as our neighbors, even if they buy into an ideology or alleged solution to their problems that we cannot but oppose as false and, ultimately, destructive. Love is the active willing of the good of the other for the sake of the other. It can not be divorced from truth without degenerating into mere sentimentality. But it is never compatible with holding others in contempt or failing to view and treat them as bearers of profound, inherent, and equal human dignity. No matter what.”

    — Prof. Robert P. George

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    The word “man” means something. It describes a creature that is *not* a “woman”, and vice versa.

    Yes, that’s correct. No one is attempting to change that.

    Again, basic sanity. And if you *really* think that *insanity* is just fine–as long as a few “leading medical associations” sanction the insanity–then you’re part of the problem and not part of the solution.

    Again, I don’t particularly care how you define ‘insanity’, since you seem unwilling to provide any real explanation as to *why* you think that way.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    Good luck with playing fast and loose with the law of non-contradiction.

    How exactly am I violating that law?

  • lady_black

    Absolutely not. That is not my argument. Biological male is an entirely different matter than genitals or identification. Biological male is as simple as having one X chromosome and one Y chromosome.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    First, do you know what percentage of people who identify as transgender have other serious underlying psychological conditions? I’ve read 90%.

    Transgender people are also incredibly likely to experience violence and sexual assault. Do you think there’s any possibility that the two are related?

    Did you know that no less a leading medical facility than Johns Hopkins and its former leading psychologist, now Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology, indicate that gender dysphoria is a condition to be treated and not something natural and Johns Hopkins no longer engages in reassignment surgeries?

    Yes, and not all transgender people have gender reassignment surgery. many studies do show, however that transgender people had lower rates of suicide after sex reassignment surgery.

    Second, what do I say to the people who say that my behavior (what would you know of my behavior?) is nothing like a true Christian? I say they’re absolutely right. I’m fallen, as is all of mankind. I can only try my best and hope Christ forgives me. And part of trying my best is to love others more than myself, including loving them enough not to be relativistic and tell them everything they do is fine. I’m no more going to tell a man he’s a woman than I’m going to tell another man that it’s fine to cheat on his wife or tell a pedophile that he/she should go ahead and engage in their desires. But I’m also not going to say things to them unless asked. I approach every human being with love and genuine concern. I also accept them with their faults as I hope they accept me with mine.

    I was referring specifically to your statement “Identity isn’t reality”, as you seemed to be implying that many Christians aren’t ‘real Christians’ because of the way they act.

    And with that said, I’ll believe anything once doctors can make it possible for a man to bear a child with a few surgical procedures but that day seems quite a distance off since there is a much higher demand for a procedure that will allow women who cannot reproduce naturally to do so. As that has not happened to date, I’m loathe to believe that a man can be made into a woman.

    Why do you treat ability to reproduce as essential to being a woman? Do you apply this standard to cisgender woman who are unable to have children? What about people who choose not to have children?

    Also, gender ambiguity has nothing to do with this discussion unless you posit that all of the children (all .0067%, at MOST, of all children born) who have ambiguous genitalia at birth eventually wind up suffering from gender dyshporia.

    My point is simply that it’s not always possible to unambiguously classify people as ‘male’ or ‘female’.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    I see that attitude on display on from several psychologists and God knows that you approve of that.

    I certainly do not approve of that, and I’m sorry that your sister experienced that.

    Furthermore, that expressly goes against the American Counseling Association’s code of ethics (see page 9).

  • PGrajnert

    The quote from Bob is filled with hate, bigotry and irrational fear. It seems to be based on ignorance. For instance, for what reason is it destructive? What is destroyed in the process?

  • historiavita

    It is extraordinarily sad to me that writing such as George’s here could be construed as being filled with “hate,” given what hate actually looks like. If this is hate, then hate no longer means anything more than “not agreeing with, or approving of, what I want to do or be.” You have rendered the word almost meaningless, and seem possessed of such a warped and distorted mindset that you would take his language about treating with love and charity and see that as hate. What, then, is love? Patting everyone on the head and agreeing with whatever they want? It seems almost impossible to dialogue when the terms to be used bear such wildly disparate meanings.

    As to ignorance, I don’t think George is the least bit ignorant on the topic, unless ignorance here means, “I disagree.” As for fear, if you mean fear of persons, then of course he is not. If you mean fear of what disorders might do to someone, or what unwise and misguided cultural changes might wreak upon our society, then, perhaps he is afraid. I cannot and will not speak for him in that regard. He readily responds to people who email him, so (seriously) reach out to him and ask.

  • historiavita

    When he writes of something being destructive, he refers to misguided attempts to argue that such people as “transgender” exist, that the metaphysic behind this idea, the biology, the philosophy are true, and that this should be accepted and celebrated. As to why it is destructive, because the people who are suffering will not find healing going down this false path, and will instead only be further damaged and misled. Not only them, but our culture will be damaged, and seriously so, the more we accept that men and women are not necessarily men and women, with all that might follow from that. Not only this, but then seeking (as is already happening) to employ the coercive power of the state to establish this belief and work against those who may not accept it.

  • Alternatively, these kind of posts put issues into perspective in a real-world sense (I’m an intellectual at heart myself – real world articles can be useful too!). I was amazed when I saw this was written by a Catholic – a really positive post. It just doesn’t make any sense to kick up a fuss about this issue. There’s no sound evidence for any link between homosexuality or transgender identity and paedophilia. This has been born out several times. One can believe the two are “wrong” or “sinful”, but there’s no arguing with the simple case the author has put across above. One can be an intellectual Catholic and not contradict widely accepted evidence or be horrible to people. :P

  • Hey Leticia Adams – seems you’re getting a lot of hate and nonsense for a really simple sound argument. I also am extremely sorry to hear about your abuse (several people very close to me have been, so I won’t pretend I understand, but I definitely empathise and my heart and emotions reach out to you across the web). I was super-surprised when I saw this was written by someone on the Catholic channel. It’s impressive that you have distinguished the political issue from any theological models or ideas that you have.

    As a boringly white, straight male from the UK, I certainly don’t have any personal involvement in the issue. But that doesn’t mean I don’t care about it. I just think the obsession with “my religion has to impose its morals on society” is misguided. What would Catholics say if Muslims tried to ban alcohol (since they believe it is evil and no Muslim can drink) or ran rampant through churches and monasteries and converts stealing wine for the sacrament of communion?

    You say “thank you for reading” – I say, my pleasure and it’s a joy to see a new blog on Patheos Catholic with something interesting and insightful to say. :-)

  • That’s sadly very sensible and necessary, given there are numerous priests with such wicked tendencies. It’s not “lacking faith” or even making an accusation. It’s just dealing with the reality that anyone, anywhere, of any sex, race, colour or creed can have paedophilic desires or intentions, including priests.

  • Intersex people exist – that’s a scientific fact. People born with a combination and mix of the sexual characteristics and organs of both sexes. Most Catholics who know this scientific fact will argue from it that this is a result of the Fall or whatever, but there’s no arguing with the fact that sex is a continuum and whilst most people are born clearly male or female biologically-speaking, around 3 in 1000 (as far as I’ve seen) are born intersex. How does your theology accommodate them? Do you love them, welcome them? If not, then you are being remarkably unlike the Jesus portrayed in the four canonical gospels.

    I mean all foetuses start out biologically female. That’s why men have nipples. Your labia are what the testicles would be made out of if you were female and the clitoris you have (presuming as I am that you are biologically female here) would have grown into a penis.

  • Jack

    I have better things to do than worry about which restrooms are frequented by people I don’t even know.

  • Korou

    The medical and psychological communities disagree with you. And when I said that you should treat them as those communities recommend, you said that you did.
    I’m sad, but not surprised, to hear that you don’t.

    You know, I do actually agree with you – a man who has a sex change isn’t, in biological fact, still a woman. And I’m sure that she is aware that a clone grown from her cells would be a man.

    But when I am confronted with people who have a fixed, lifelong feeling that they should be of the opposite gender; and when I see the distress they are caused by this, and by the horrific treatment they receive from elements who hold similar views to you (although who enforce those views more strongly); and when I hear the medical and psychological communities saying that the best thing for transgender people is to accept them as they wish to be; and when we see how the rates of depression, self-harm and suicide drop sharply when they are so accepted…

    Why, then, as far as I can see, the choice is easy: I’ll call them whatever they want to be called. You should too.

    Now IF ASKED “Am I a woman?” by a transgender woman, I would say yes. And if pushed to it, I would give an answer something like I outlined above. And then, whenever I referred to this woman, I would use the words “she” and “her.”

    Would you do that? Or would you say “I know a man who has had a sex change. He now calls himself Emma.”

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    Regarding lower rates of suicide after reassignment, it drops to 20% which is still five times the general population. Also, between

    So, because that 20% drop is still higher than the rest of the population, we shouldn’t do anything? You seem to be saying that because gender reassignment surgery isn’t a magical panacea for the issues transgender people face, we shouldn’t do it, since it’s not as good as you want it to be.

    Next, I DON’T TREAT ABILITY TO REPRODUCE AS TANTAMOUNT TO WOMANHOOD. You’re trying a very old liberal trick of trying to ascribe beliefs to me that I explicitly reject.

    Well, let’s see what you said:

    And with that said, I’ll believe anything once doctors can make it possible for a man to bear a child with a few surgical procedures but that day seems quite a distance off since there is a much higher demand for a procedure that will allow women who cannot reproduce naturally to do so. As that has not happened to date, I’m loathe to believe that a man can be made into a woman.

    You’re rejecting the idea that ‘a man can be made into a woman’ explicitly because we aren’t able to allow men to bear children. How is that not saying that ability to reproduce is essential or tantamount to womanhood, regardless of what you state you believe?

    It is possible to identify people (we don’t assign gender, that’s not up to you or I) because even those born with ambiguous genitalia have an organic make-up that is more amenable to reproduction one way or the other. So while the exterior might be ambiguous, the internal is not.

    Would you mind clarifying what you mean by ‘that’s not up to you or I’?

    Despite your earlier claim, you yet again seem to be equating ability to reproduce as an essential part of being a particular gender. Why should having genitalia that are “more amenable to reproduction one way or the other” mean that your biological sex is objectively either male or female?

  • In a public restroom you’re more likely to be involved in sexual misconduct with a Republican politician than you are a transgender person. This is a simple, unambiguous fact. This whole issue is ridiculous. The politicians who created and/or voted for the new NC legislation are an embarrassment to the human race and the trans-phobic and homophobic public that support it are unthinking fools and bullies.

    What gender someone is is no one else’s business and those who say otherwise are the ones with the problem. Frankly, I’d rather my kids be in a public toilet with any transgender person than a religious freak who obsesses over other people’s sexuality.

  • jessej

    This type of article is irksome at best. Attribute the worst or most foolish motivations to those you disagree with, then just call your interlocutor crazy.

    This speaks volumes about Ms Adams. Adams is required as all Catholics are to ascribe the most charitable motivations to those she disagrees with.

    Assuming the worst about people you disagree with doesn’t buttress your point. It usually leads to strawman argumentation, which is what Adams does.

  • jessej

    I didn’t find her arguments “sound” at all. She seems to have ascribed bad motives to those she disagrees with then suggests the strawman argument that people are clamoring to look at other people’s junk before they enter a bathroom.

    The same society that has delt with sexualy confused people entering any bathroom they like for ever may feel like defining deviancy down is bad for society and not just simply dislike a whole group of people.

    They may think laws allowing this may encourage lifestyles that can prove destructive.

    They may think a law specifically designed to codify this behavior could legally muzzle them if they see something they belive might be dangerous.

    I could easily make another list of good motivations on the other side of this issue but those motivations don’t seem to be in question.

    You don’t have to disagree with Ms Adams to notice she has used poor argumentation. I think issues like this often cloud, if not darken, the intellect.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    First, well, despite the astronomically, nearly mathematically impossible odds, atheists like yourself tend to believe things all happened by random chance. I happen to believe in a Creator. So when I say things aren’t up to your or I, to me it means God decides, to you it means nature or randomness but in either event it’s not up to us.

    Are you really a creationist? Exactly what things are you claiming could only happen because of a god?

    You’re seriously wasting a lot of time. Psychologists might tell you that you should treat people however they want to be treated (I hope you never have to intervene in a situation involving somebody who is suicidal as your response would obviously be to either encourage euthanasia or to assist the person in obtaining and purchasing whatever means he/she would use to complete the deed)

    Wow – you complain that I’m ascribing beliefs to you that you do not hold, despite statements of yours to the contrary. What have I said that could possibly lead you to believe that my response would be “to either encourage euthanasia or to assist the person in obtaining and purchasing whatever means he/she would use to complete the deed”? Was there any specific statement that I made, or is this just the standard “Oh, atheists don’t believe in anything, so they have no objective morality, so anything goes, you have no reason to be moral, etc.”?

    but no biologist or Doctor is going to tell you that a human being can switch genders and be fully whatever gender to which they are attempting to switch.

    As I told you eight hours ago the first time you tried to twist this, I am referring to having the parts that comprise the engine, not whether the engine runs.

    I have linked to several medical organizations that say otherwise. Are they not real doctors?

    Furthermore, there is also evidence to suggest that transgender people have brain structures similar to those of people of the gender they identify with. For someone who seems to believe that gender is such a fundamental, immutable part of humans, you seem to have a very narrow-minded view of what determines it (i.e. only reproductive organs at birth).

  • Korou

    Of course it’s a problem that suicide rates are so high among transgender people. The reason they’re so high is that transgender people feel villified and demonised by society, from people who want to punch them in the face to people who say “I love you, but can never accept you.”
    Look at this:
    http://endtransdiscrimination.org/report.html
    “The National Transgender Discrimination Survey is the most extensive survey of transgender discrimination ever undertaken. Over 6,450 responses are included in the survey, which explored discrimination in all aspects of life.
    This study brings to light what is both patently obvious and far too often dismissed from the human rights agenda. Transgender and gender non-conforming people face injustice at every turn: in childhood homes, in school systems that promise to shelter and educate, in harsh and exclusionary workplaces, at the grocery store, the hotel front desk, in doctors’ offices and emergency rooms, before judges and at the hands of landlords, police officers, health care workers and other service providers.”

    And then look at this study:
    http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/08/suicide-rate-much-higher-for-transgender-canadians-study
    What we see is that when transgender people are accepted, are loved, are supported and are allowed to go through sex-change transitions, the rates of suicide go down. Why would you be against that? Are you claiming that transgender people should be subjected to therapy to make them change their minds and accept the bodies they were born with? Sadly, that doesn’t help, it just makes their experiences worse. Just because having supportive parents makes a big difference for the better, it doesn’t mean that transgender people don’t have any problems any more. They still live in a world that rejects them.
    This is indeed a very big problem, one that you are part of. You don’t have to be. You can instead help us move towards a world in which transgender people can live happy, fulfilled lives, instead of miserable ones.

  • Korou

    Hardly settled? Perhaps you should tell that to the American Psychiatric Association who, in 2012, announced that they supported transgender people in transitioning to their preferred sex, and strongly opposed legal and social discrimination against them.

    If the leaders in the field of psychiatry disagree with you about a psychiatric manner you ought to consider changing your mind.

  • Lark62

    Have you met a trans person? Have you read any of the first person accounts written by trans people?

    There is nothing wrong with a trans woman using the ladies room.

  • Lark62

    Trans people exist. And sometimes they need to pee.

    Your desire to live in Beaver Cleaver land does not change reality. Your unwillingness to accept the reality of people who are not you does not make them vanish.

    There are people with “male” on their birth certificates who have been taking hormones for years who look female. These people do not poof vanish just because someone else is uncomfortable and incapable of empathy.

    Can I say catholics do not exist? I disagree with nearly all Catholic teaching. I think catholics are deluded. Yet you exist. You are human being worthy of respect and human dignity.

    Trans people likewise exist and are worthy of human dignity and respect.

  • Lark62

    The bible contains absolutely zero direct guidance about which public restroom with separate stalls and flush toilets should be used by people receiving hormone treatments. Not one word.

    Jesus did say to show mercy and compassion.

  • Lark62

    Human embryonic development is more complex than a kindergarten understanding. Not everything is neat and clean and sortable into neat little boxes.

    Did you know some people have two sets of DNA because the xygotes of fraternal twins merged immediately after fertilization? In one case, a woman’s children were genetically tested for child support purposes, and she was accused of fraud because none of the children were hers per DNA tests. But she physically gave birth to them. It turns out the DNA in her reproductive organs was different from the DNA in her cheek cells.

    What if the fraternal twins who merged hours after conception were different genders? These people exist.

    We don’t have to understand everything. It is necessary to be humble and show compassion.

  • lady_black

    They do.

  • Ruthann Piepenburg

    I have a question for Leticia. You might not be able to answer but I’d like your take on it. I agree that parents who send children unaccompanied into public restrooms are irresponsible. I used to wonder how I (female) would take care of sending a son to a public restroom. I didn’t have to face the problem because I ended up having all daughters. But I still wonder about it.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    You have posted links to nothing, NOTHING, that suggests that a male can successfully have ovaries, Fallopian tubes, etc. surgically transplanted without regard to those organs being effective. Really, it’s quite humorous that I am considered irrational for believing that life on Earth didn’t just randomly happen and that the conditions that support life here, the minute difference b/t the Earth’s circumfrence and distance from the sun and moon being perfectly suited for life, etc. when the probability of all of this happening randomly has been calculated at 1 in 10^40 by evolutionists.

    Given that you state that you’re not a young earth creationist, I’m not entirely certain what you mean by the term ‘evolutionist’ You seem to be conflating evolution with abiogenesis – the latter of which describes how living organisms came about from inorganic matter.

    The critical difference between abiogenesis and whatever form of creationism you’re arguing for is that the former is a scientific theory. It is testable, and can be confirmed or rejected based on evidence. Exactly what evidence do you have to support your idea that some god magically created life?

    What is curious to me is that a materialist, who can view the organic make-up of two human beings, one make and one female, and easily construe that there are major biological differences, is not irrational for going along with such a sentimentalist, metaphysical type thought as gender being a construct, as people being whatever they identify as. What next, belief that people have a soul and conscience that exists outside the realm of any possible testing that could result in physical, scientific evidence.

    I have repeatedly stated that brain scans of transgender people have shown similarities between their brain and the brain of cisgender people of the opposite gender. Furthermore, you agreed that gender reassignment surgery greatly has the rate of suicide in transgender people – doesn’t suggest that transgender people are not merely ‘confused’?

    Finally, regarding the suicide comment, well, just turning your own tricks on you: it seems that your solution to psychological issues is to encourage and cheer on the affected people so it only stands to reason that you would be very enthusiastic in aiding a suicidal person to carry out the means of his/her death.

    I ‘encourage and cheer on’ transgender people precise because, as you yourself have admitted, things such as gender reassignment surgery have a positive effect on transgender people, i.e. decreasing the suicide rate. Unless you can show why being transgender is a psychological issue on par with being suicidal in terms of harm done, I don’t see why it’s reasonable to compare the two.

    Surely you have done the same to me regarding reproduction despite the fact that I have reiterated over and over that it’s not about whether the reproductive organs works but whether they are present at birth.

    You can’t even keep your story straight within the same comment! Here, you claim that it’s the presence of reproductive organs (at birth), rather than their ability to function, that matters.

    Yet, at the top of your post, you stated:

    You have posted links to nothing, NOTHING, that suggests that a male can successfully have ovaries, Fallopian tubes, etc. surgically transplanted without regard to those organs being effective.

    So, cisgender people merely need to have reproductive organs presnet at birth, but transgender people must have fully functioning reproductive organs. You either have an incredible double standard, or place an extreme emphases on ‘at birth’ without deigning to give an explanation as to why.

  • mitch64

    We were talking about cakes above..and denying service to gay people. However, now that you brought it up the bathroom issue IS indeed a by product of the dying cause…they lost out on gay marriage and they are loosing the right to deny gay people, or anyone, service due to their “deeply held religious beliefs..” or at least those that back up their neurotic biases..so now they jump on the bathroom thing, hysterically yelling about male perves dressed as women going in to sneak a look or attack a little girl. It shows their desperation, but as they kids say, “Haters gonna hate!”

  • ahermit

    Damn right! We need a law to keep Republicans and baptist preachers out of public washrooms!

  • ahermit

    Sure. And that would mean letting trans men use the men’s room and trans women use the women’s room. Unless you’re checking people;s genitals as they go in and out you’re not going to know anyway. And then you’d be the one causing the problem…

  • waltercarlson

    Liberals like you destroy all common sense and safety. If someone looked like a man tried to get into a female bathroom that was being used by my daughters I would kick his ass. We have a wack a doodle liberal Pope now so you must be happy.

  • ahermit

    If people are using the bathroom “discreetly” anyway then what is the point of passing a law? Trans people using the washroom like everyone else hasn’t been a problem so why pass a law against it? And again, how do you enforce it without having someone at the washroom door checking everyone’s genitals? The whole thing is just so stupid…

  • ahermit

    Except this law would force a transgender person who looks like a man to use that womens’ washroom…

    Haven’t really thought this through have you?

  • CSmith

    I think you are missing the main point–which is not transgender people. The point is if a man is seen walking into a women’s bathroom now, he is considered a threat. What business does he have being in a women’s bathroom? Nothing good. But if the laws are changed any man can legally walk into a women’s bathroom, and there is nothing we can do about it. What? There’s going to be guard outside every bathroom making sure some one is truly transgender before he can go in?

  • A typical liberal point of view :-)
    Do you check out all your son’s teachers before you send him to school alone? The number of teachers/social workers that abuse kids is around 2%. The number of religious that abuse is around 1%. Guess you are taking a bigger risk sending your kid to see the teacher!, Try doing some research before you share your opinions. Why don’t the schools have to pay out if they abuse more? Because in most states the statute of limitations is less than 3 yrs to report it. Not the 20-30 yrs the Govt held the churches to. Now I agree it was and is horrendous. And the 1st time the offender should have been thrown out. But notice how the State protects its treasure and offenders with more lenient rules. :-(

  • I have no children – I’m 21. (Though, obviously, that’s not a bar to having children, it certainly reduces the likelihood of me having children of that sort of age range.)

    You say “liberal” as if it’s a dirty word. I’m happy with that label (ish) if you want to call me that. I do like John Stuart Mill and the like, so feel free! :P

    As someone who knows lots about statistics, I’d be genuinely interested to see some source for the figures you gave. I *always* “do research” before giving opinions.

    I am a Brit, so I can’t and won’t speak for American safeguarding principles and procedures, but over here teachers are only ever extremely rarely in *exceptional* circumstances in one-on-one contact with children. (I’ve taught in schools and have done safeguarding w.r.t. British standards and requirements.) There are *numerous* safeguards in place to protect children as best as is humanly possible and a number of my closest friends and family have been abused, so I totally care about and know a reasonable amount about it.

    The same is not true of sending one’s child off to sit in a cubicle with a priest to confess their sins one-on-one with nobody else legally required to be around. If the Roman Catholic Church is serious about this, they should encourage parents not to feel guilty for sitting in on or accompanying their children to confession. Equally and even probably superior to this, priests could have someone sit there during these times when confessions are heard just as a safeguarding matter so that the Church is “above reproach”, which should always be the goal. Sure, I’m a visiting atheist (it’s an interfaith forum!) but I’m not at all “bashing” the Church [my in-laws are devout RCs!] or suggesting it’s worse than any other institution where such things have happened. It’d just be good to ensure the Church, like any other institution, is “above reproach” and has proper adequate safeguarding in place in all its churches. (Because some *already* do this, I say “all”.)

    I don’t know what you mean about the “statute of limitations” because I’m no specialist in American politics or law, so unlike many people on the internet who do comment on things they don’t know about, I’m not going to say anything on that, because I have nothing worthwhile to say! :-)

  • As a happy member of “the Left”, I’d probably say my “underlying principles” were: love, fairness, mercy, relief of poverty (material and immaterial)… there’s actually plenty of overlap to my mind with a Catholic worldview when expressed holistically and bearing in mind that, for example, Jesus spends far more time addressing religious hypocrisy and love of money than on gender roles and homosexuality, even if you believe that they are “constructs”, “wrong”, or whatever.

    Also as a pure technical point (as a politics grad!), “the Left” is a broad thing. It encompasses liberalism, socialism, communism, social democratic types, etc… it’s like me saying “the underlying principles of the black people” or “the underlying principles of women”. :-)

    Please venture out and speak to left-wing friends of yours and ask what their principles. (I do the same with right-wing and religious friends of mine and I’m an atheist here – Patheos is interfaith!!!) :P

  • Hi Brian! :-)

    I’m an atheist and secularist, but I’d never claim that religion and science can’t or don’t mix. (In fact I’m currently writing a 3000 word paper addressing the topic to show how complicated historically, epistemologically and sociologically the relationship is! I agree with you there!)

    However, just to be clear, the biology of sex *is* complicated. Just as one example… Rokitansky syndrome affects roughly 1 in every 5000 women. I’d recommend this excellent British article on the topic.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36054969

    That’s only the beginning. As far as I’ve always understood, around 3 in every 1000 babies are born intersex (i.e. with a mix and match or sometimes both male and female “bits”). Plus every foetus starts out as “female” (loosely speaking – I’m not a biological wizard). That’s why you (presuming you are a man) have nipples. The penis is largely an oversized clitoris and the scrotum is grown from the cells of the labia.

    Any theology you wish to develop must be welcoming and have thought carefully about this. Otherwise you may hurt people, when I am sure that you wish to be the love of God to them. :-)

    (If you’re finding you’re at loggerheads with people below, then I’ll try and be as helpful, polite and friendly as I can be and not pretend to talk about anything I don’t know about.) ^_^

  • I’d pretty much agree with you there on the whole “but you can’t speak if it hasn’t happened to you”, but it might be beneficial for you to chat with someone who is trans to get their outlook on life and ask a few questions. Often there is a *heck* of a lot of violence towards them, for example. Far higher than average.

    I am sure you wish to be the love of God to people and obviously it’s a no brainer to either of us that trans people are people, first and foremost. :-)

  • Hi CSmith, ^_^

    As someone who has plenty of experience (especially considering my young age of 21!) of people who have been abused sexually, please remember that paedophiles often attack young boys as much as young girls. I would strongly suggest that parents should not let their children go unaccompanied to the loo in any public place. Equally, I would suggest the same for anything, having done much safeguarding for teaching and youth work, including things like confession, because some priests (as everyone knows) abuse their office and position of authority and it’s always best to minimise risk, as I’m sure you agree, given your comment above. :-)

    I’d also suggest speaking with both trans people to ask them about their lifestyle, thoughts, experiences, etc… (if you haven’t already done so – you may have done) They often experience a heck of a lot of abuse, violent assaults, and so forth. It’s worth bearing in mind, since obviously as a Catholic you are boldly attempting to live out the Great Commandment. (I have at least three trans friends of mine I can think of.)

  • Korou

    I’m afraid you’ve got individuals and anecdotes to support your claims, while I’ve got surveys and studies.

  • Yes. Yes I do check out public school teachers and bus drivers these days, and not because I’m a liberal- but because I’m a conservative who distrusts anybody who was in high school after 1954. That’s when the sexual revolution seems to have taken off, and libertine sexuality brings abuse.

  • I can only say there is no “sound evidence” if my definition of “evidence” is limited to eliminate any study linking transgender identity, homosexuality, and paedophilia. In fact, I consider transgender identity and homosexuality in most cases to be the result of a form of paedophilia.

  • CSmith

    You’re missing my point also, which is not about transgendered people at all. This is about predators who would exploit the altered laws.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    I cannot continue on this discussion ad infinitum. Regarding creationism, evolution, abiogenesis, I can only comment that as to date, science is relying on something completely unscientific in espousing abiogenesis: blind faith. Living matter has never been observed to have come from or created in a lab from non-living matter.

    Actually, that’s incorrect: http://www.cnet.com/news/scientists-create-alien-life-form-with-artificial-genetic-code/

    There remain many unanswered questions concerning abiogenesis.

    Absolutely! That’s what science is about – not being satisfied with what you already know, and striving to find out more about the world.

    Regarding the theory:

    Experiments have yet to demonstrate the complete transition of inorganic materials to structures like protobionts and protocells and, in the case of the proposed RNA world, have yet to reconcile important differences in mechanisms in the synthesis of purine and pyrimidine bases necessary to form complete RNA nucleotides. In addition, some scientists contend that abiogenesis was unnecessary, suggesting instead that life was introduced on Earth via collision with an extraterrestrial object harbouring living organisms, such as a meteorite carrying single-celled organisms; the hypothetical migration of life to Earth is known as panspermia.

    Again, absolutely correct. We don’t yet know how life originated, and it may be a while yet until we completely understand it.

    I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist it was it boils down to.

    Regarding that, and your earlier comment about ‘blind faith’ in abiogenesis:

    You are absolutely correct that we don’t yet know exactly how life originated. However, you seem to think that because we cannot understand it, it must have been magic. That is deeply unscientific – rejecting magical explanations for which there exists no evidence is not the same thing as accepting tentative explanations that do have evidence.

    I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist it was it boils down to.

    So, faith is a bad thing? Would you abandon your religious beliefs if they required ‘too much faith’?

    Finally, the thing upon which we disagree, aside from your disingenuous nature, is that you deny metaphysics in explaining how life came to be, yet positively affirm it in terms of a spirit or soul apart from the body in that a male, despite all organic and biological evidence to the contrary, can be a female on the basis of feeling or intuiting that he is a female. I’m no materialist but I more materialistic than that.

    One need not invent concepts such as a ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ in order to accept the concept of gender identity. The answer lies in the brain, to which all of the available evidence points as determining who we are. I have repeatedly stated that there is evidence to suggest that the brain structures of transgender people are similar to those of cisgender people of their gender identity. To dismiss it as a matter of ‘feelings’ is ridiculous.

    Finally, back to the suicide discussion, the rate of suicide post-op is over 20%, five times the rate of society in general. Among other things this rate excludes is the fact that 70-80% of people who suffer from dysphoria at some point eventually and spontaneously lose that feeling and it never returns and the suicide rate drops back to the general population. That begs to me to either allow the dysphoria to run its course or to treat it. But one in five people throwing away life is not a success story to me.

    Seriously, what are you even trying to say? You previously stated (emphasis mine):

    Regarding lower rates of suicide after reassignment, it drops to 20% which is still five times the general population.

    I believe something like 41% of transgender people attempt suicide without gender reassignment surgery – again, are you suggesting that nothing should be done, because the post-op suicide rate is still high compared to the general population?

  • Watosh

    We who hold for the Christian/Catholic view that there is a biological basis for being classed as a male or a female, a physical difference that God crated for a purpose and a morality based on this biological fact, have long been told by those who eject this morality have long been asked, “Who gave your the right to impose your sexual morals on everyone.? This question attacks the idea of anyone imposing their morals on everyone else. Well these same people are hell bent on imposing their morals on us now.

  • jessej
  • ahermit

    Here’s the problem though. I have two transgender acquaintances. One has had surgery and hormone treatment, dresses, looks, acts sounds like the woman she is but because her birth certificate says “male” this new law (and I have to disagree with you here, it’s absolutely a new law) would require her to use the men’s room; a very uncomfortable situation for her.

    The other hasn’t had surgery, but if you met him I don’t doubt you would think him a fine young man and never suspect that his birth certificate says “female”; the law would send him to the ladies room. An uncomfortable situation for him and probably for the women there too…

    It’s a stupid law; it doesn’t fix anything or prevent the real troublemakers from doing anything, but it creates real problems for good people like my two friends.

  • If you are born with a penis, you are a boy. If you were born with a vagina, you are a girl. :) Science agrees and that can’t be changed with any amount of surgery or hormones.

  • I’m hoping you’re joking Joan. It’s very hard to tell without the use of emoticons! :P (If you’re not, there are many papers addressing the topic empirically – there’s not even the slightest link between the two. I say this as someone who speaks with great comfort in the realm of statistics and far less so on other matters where I will defer to expertise, like Catholic theology, for example. xD)

  • “I would strongly suggest that parents should not let their children go unaccompanied to the loo in any public place.” (above)

    That’s the main response – ideally never let your children go into public toilets unaccompanied (I was accompanied as a child). Those with intent to molest children or sexually assault people can and do just walk into women’s bathrooms anyway. This really is a non-issue; the UK has not had any such problems and it’s been around for quite a while here.

    It’s a bit like when everyone said gay marriage would like “destroy everything” and “bring on the apocalypse”. I’m not commenting on whether it’s *sinful* or not, purely that I found it rather weird that such crazy projections were being made. And nobody’s forced the Catholic Church in the UK to conduct SSM either, which everyone went nuts about. (and equally I would kick up as much of a fuss about as an atheist if that were to occur, but I highly doubt it will)

    So we just kinda look at the States and go “hey guys, we’re confused”. :P

  • Truly, these studies are *fatally* flawed. I have no bias at all to want to find any particular results, I’ve just looked at the evidence for myself here. I’m decidedly straight, cisgender, male, getting married in July, etc… very bland and boring and only interested in whether or not there actually *is* a *causal* pattern, rather than a “link” which means nothing to a statistician. xD

    I’ve examined a fair few of them as someone who knows a *lot* about statistics and does statistics. Either trust me here or choose not to, I have too many demands on my time to post an in-depth response (and I imagine you probably do to read and respond). If you believe there is sound evidence, please feel free to link me to some studies and if I have an inch of time left in my schedule, I’ll try and indicate what’s wrong with them as quickly and simply as I can. Here’s just one article I happened to save in my bookmarks which provides a basic introduction to some of the issues with such “studies” being produced by heavily biased “think tanks” and the like. (Though there are way many beyond these problems, I just don’t want to go into heavy statistical analysis here. Neither do you… probably. :P)

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09/19/903178/-Gays-are-pedophiles-No-Here-s-the-proof

  • Okay, it seems like you’re serious, sadly… I always try and read the best in folk and not assume anything, but *sigh*. I’m not going to post a proper response, just drop this here for anyone interested in evidence rather than assertion.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09/19/903178/-Gays-are-pedophiles-No-Here-s-the-proof

    It would be just as ridiculous for me to say the following:

    ‘All Catholic priests are paedophiles. Every. Single. One.’

    This is just blatantly false. I just need to find one who isn’t. (And I know two priests, neither of which are. Ergo, above hypothetical statement above is disproven.)

  • Yes, anything that goes against the group think mind control of Daily Kos must be fatally flawed. You are biased by your lack of understanding of natural law and the issues with relying on peer review and mere statistical analysis to find Truth.

  • I’m not “hell-bent” on imposing my morals on anyone as an atheist, agnostic, liberal, secular, humanist, left-winger and many other labels. (Though I’d define each one myself rather than have anyone define what I mean by it!)

    I’d just ask, as I have done a couple times, what about intersex people? They do exist and they have feelings, lives, dreams, fears, etc… like the rest of us. About 3 in every 1000 babies are born intersex. Sex is incredibly complicated biologically speaking. Any of my biologist or doctor friends can tell me that. I mean, take, for example, Rokitansky syndrome, which affects around 1 in 5000 women. Any theology you have has to consider such people.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36054969

    Biological sex is complicated and it has long been known that intersex people feel extremely alienated from churches of all types because of rigid ideas of sex where they are excluded in some way.

    And of course, it’s not as relevant, but sex in the natural world is *fascinating*. There are hermaphrodites (i.e. both male and female anatomies; some human beings are born like that though not many), species which can just change their sex themselves… all sorts! I’m only mentioning this one as a tangent, because it’s really interesting!

  • Pope Francis really isn’t as liberal as many people think he is – I say this as a visiting atheist. (Patheos is interfaith!) :P He just gets misinterpreted all the time by media outlets who want him to be a liberal. xD

  • As a male with my Mum, Mum would just take me as a young child into the female loos and nobody minded. I imagine culturally it’d be far harder with a father and a daughter facing the same decision. And of course the ability to do this wanes as the child hits puberty, that’s the harder part.

  • There are a few more intellectually nuanced arguments which have been made to me about this topic, but by and far I’ve heard this argument so many times and it makes me want to cry inside! And as a liberal atheist here, frequently I get labelled with bad motivations all the time, so I’m kinda used to that. ;-)

    As for sex and gender… I’m going to repeat myself to death I imagine, but its incredibly complicated. For starters, 1 in every 5000 women are affected by Rokitansky syndrome, where (simply put for brevity) they don’t have vaginas.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36054969

    And around 3 in every 1000 babies are born intersex, as far as I remember. There’s far more nuance here than I have the time to articulate (especially to multiple people) – but it’s worth considering reading some stuff on the topic, if you haven’t already done so. (Obviously you could be a MD for all I know.)

    As I’ve also said, the UK hasn’t had a problem with this for quite some time… and we just (as with many things like gun mania and not liking universal healthcare and Joel Osteen), we Brits just kinda go “huh?” xD

  • Please indicate sound evidence to me, that’s all I’m asking for. It’s the same as if you said to me homoeopathy is a good cure for cancer or tigers have wings. I need some good evidence and information. I can’t just make my decisions randomly. As for the Daily Kos, did you read the article? Please do me the courtesy of at least reading it. It will give you some of the main statistical problems with such papers as you seem to suggest you’ve read but haven’t cited to me.

    You say “natural law”. Please define that term to me. (I know what it means but different people mean different things by it, so it’s helpful to know what *you* mean by it.)

    If you mean nature, then the natural world is incredibly complicated. How much biology of sex and gender and sexuality have you read about? Around 3 in every 1000 babies are born intersex. Many animals are hermaphrodites (having both male and female anatomies, and some humans are, though this is rare) and some can even change their biological sex (like clownfish). Many many many animals enter affectionate same-sex couplings, like giraffes, elephants and penguins.

    If you mean “God’s Law” in some form, that’s a whole different ball park.

    Right, so we can fling mud at each other and call each other biased, or we can engage in “the conversation on faith” which is what Patheos is about. Please refrain from ascribing such words to me. It really doesn’t help you establish your case.

  • It is your use of the term “sound evidence” that gives you away, Harry. A truly unbiased person knows only evidence, and does not judge its quality or reduce truth down to the echo chamber of one’s peers.

    Homeopathy does have its uses; so does statistics. Both can be used to lie as well.

    I use natural law as science and the Roman Catholic Church (which invented modern science) has for 2000 years. I see no reason to revise it; the perponderance of evidence before 1960 was always for it, it was only the bias of the last 56 years that is against it.

    Your 3 in 1000 isn’t enough to force the rest of society to change for. Birth defects are abnormal exceptions to the rule, they should not define the rule; but then again, your modern staticians at Daily Kos have forgotten the meaning of the word normal.

    As for the quotes in the Daily Kos article, I think it’s because they have the link between pedophilia and homosexuality exactly backwards: Homosexuals are not pedophiles, homosexuals are the victims of pedophiles. Pedophilia causes homosexuality; in particular, pedophilia before the age of five.

  • Just as a note, Prof. Robert P. George is an expert in family law and has no qualifications or credentials in biology, medicine, psychology or related fields.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._George#Education

    I can quote a Professor of Biology at my university for their opinion on the history of the Catholic Church in the 14th century. It wouldn’t tell you much though! xD

    He shows an ignorance in his “only men and women exist” of actual biology. What does he believe about intersex people, for example? Any medical doctor can tell you all sorts of intersex people exist neither male nor female.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Population_figures

  • I use “sound” evidence for a variety of reasons, because I am trained in statistics. I can show you a correlation between shoe size and height and claim your height is determined by your shoe size. I can say look – high crime rates occur in areas with high police numbers – police are causing lots of crime! Or show you that people in hospitals are more sick than those outside them – oh gosh hospitals are making people ill!

    A truly unbiased person *DOES* weigh evidence because it is all of varying quality. Any medical doctor or statistician will tell you that. I’m amazed you think that there isn’t variation in the quality of evidence when establishing a claim?

    I’m not going to go into homoeopathy. If you believe it “has its uses”, fine – just I’d suggest not to try treating cancer with it. Or anything besides dehydration. ;-)

    I disagree that the Roman Catholic Church “invented modern science” and I’m in the process of writing a 3000 word paper on the topic. The relationship between religion and science is extremely complex; that’s not to make the equally stupid claim that “religion had nothing to do with the development of modern scientific methods” or “religion impedes science”. Again, here is another indication that you’re writing to a *flexible* thinker and not some hard-headed New Atheist type. I will always go on the basis of sound evidence and logic.

    3 in 1000 is *important*. Primarily because it breaks apart easy notions of “biologically male” and “biologically female”. Right, so you’re going to alienate 3 in every 1000 people you meet? So much for what I have understood as the Catholic bedrock of the Great Commandment. Like… John 4 and the Samaritan Woman at the well springs to mind…

    That’s all demonstrably false. I have several friends who are homosexual and haven’t been abused and even more friends (and family) who have been abused and who haven’t “become” gay. Where on earth is your evidence for that claim?

  • I do not believe in the existence of “sound evidence”- only truth and falsehood. Statistics, like any complex topic, can be cherry picked to lie. There is zero need to upend all of society for a .03% minority.

  • If you don’t distinguish between “sound evidence” and “evidence” then… like… you can’t do anything legally, historically, medically, biologically, social science… uh… anything really. Like surely you agree that court cases for murder, for instance, sometimes are clearer than others? Surely you agree a medical trial of a new treatment which only had ten or thirty patients who were all children would not be “sound evidence” that it actually works on adults, for example. Like… truth and falsehood is all well and good, but when you are figuring out which is which you won’t always have the quality of information you need. Court cases vary. Some murder convictions are beyond beyond a shadow of a doubt. They have DNA evidence, witnesses, letter of intent written by suspect, etc… other cases you might just have two witnesses with potential motivations to lie, etc…

    I agree statistics can be manipulated. I study that daily. That’s why I work on teaching people how to spot statistical lies for themselves in various forms. :-)

    As for “group think mind control” – you can claim that of anything. I can claim that of the Roman Catholic Church in order to ignore anything you say, but I’m not going to, because that would be entirely unfair to you. :-)

  • Bias comes in many forms- some more subtle than others. Unfortunately, I don’t have time today to go deeper on this topic.
    There is a reason change *should* come slowly, that we should be skeptical- but we should also be skeptical of our skepticism itself. Perponderance of evidence takes time, and I remain unconvinced that we have had the centuries necessary to correctly assess the evidence available to us. Instead, we’re forced at the point of a gun into a conclusion just because a group of peers has reviewed the data- peers who already had a predetermined conclusion before they even looked at the first data point.
    I don’t see anything good coming out of gender studies at all. Only confusion to get grants to create more confusion. It’s like the global warming issue. Insanity.

    Yes, the .03% exists- and if we were a fair and just society, we’d make special room for such small minorities, isolated from the general population. But there is zero need at all to upend all the rules for everybody else for a .03% minority.

  • I agree that bias comes in many forms. Could you be biased by the traditions you grew up with? Could you be biased towards conservative Catholic conclusions? I imagine (and hope) you would say there is at least that possibility. I have written papers addressing philosophical topics like global scepticism (i.e. Descartes, Putnam) and the like, so yeah, that’s not unfamiliar territory to me. :-)

    Global warming is established science, though – I have studied the issue countless times at great length and I personally know those who have devoted their lives to studying such things, even some from a Catholic perspective. The Catholic Church officially supports this (as opposed to remaining non-partisan on evolution and cosmology) – it’s about creation stewardship. See Encyclical Laudato Si, for example!

    If you don’t believe in global warming as a settled academic matter, then… like… I don’t think there’s genuinely any way I could attempt to persuade you on anything… in the kindest possible way… I just don’t see any avenue at all… if you’re sceptical (as my in-laws are) because of seeing some link with contraception, the two are not related. One can reduce climate change by remaining celibate [as has long been praised in Catholic theology!] or teaching one’s children to reduce, reuse and recycle.

    As I have said, many brilliant Catholic scientists have made the case evidentially time and time again. It’s not a religious issue, it’s a scientific one, and one beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am not a scientist, but I am well-read in anthropology and “big history” and changes in carbon in the atmosphere have had a huge impact on human civilisations over the spans of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years. I’ve been reading a book this morning on early Neanderthal “burial” practices, which is really interesting. (Yes, I’m an ‘evolutionist’ but only because of the evidence I have seen on both (very uneven!) “sides” of the debate. Even the Pope has confirmed one can be a Catholic and be an evolutionist, as far as I am sure.)

  • Tradition is knowledge distilled by evolution. Of course I am influenced quite strongly by tradition.

    Part of that tradition is the scientific method. “established science”- the very concept of established science is against the scientific method. Settled academics is an oxymoron- NOTHING can ever be considered settled under the scientific method. You need tradition- and the slow evolution of tradition over many centuries- to test theories by time before they can become settled.

    Persuasion is for politicians, not for scientists or philosophers or theologians. Our realm is truth, painfully tested and retested over many millenia, not the easy lies of persuasion.

    I’ll believe global warming the day the persuaders give up such polluting technologies as the jet airplane, and embrace the use of plastics and styrofoam as a way to lock up atmospheric carbon in landfills.

    Or better yet, embrace urban farming to use our own food and bodies to reduce carbon pollution in the atmosphere.

  • Watosh

    Yes there are a wide rang of behaviors that can be observed. I heard of someone who insisted he was in love with his car, really in love. People are very plastic and do some rather strange things. But we should never confuse the normal with the abnormal.

  • CSmith

    I’m certain you must be trying some sarcasm here. No one is saying all trangender people are pedophiles. I’m talking about predators, whatever their stripe, (straight, gay, trans, whatever) who would exploit the new laws. That’s all.

  • Some things are “established” – e.g. the earth goes round the sun; if I place myself within a chamber with temperatures of 5000 degrees celcius, I will most certainly die; the theory of general relativity indicating that time is part of a (at least) 4-dimensional fabric (or topology) which objects of large mass can measurably warp [if you have a GPS – it only works because of relativistic physics], etc… the scientific method tests ideas to destruction and those that have survived, like evolution by natural selection, man-made climate change and so forth, can be called “established science”, unless you have extremely strong evidence to the contrary. It’s like me saying “it is known that if you shoot yourself in the face, you will almost certainly die” and you saying “ah but nothing is known for certain”. Well – I won’t dare you to put that to the test! xD

    I am a “persuader” and I’ve never flown in a plane. I cycle everywhere I can. I reduce, reuse and recycle. Unfortunately, the likelihood is, given your approximate age (I’m guessing here that you’re over 50 – tell me if I’m wrong), you will die before you can know for certain how bad it will be. I most likely will see change in my lifetime and my children’s children and their grandchildren most definitely.

    I’m amazed you have seemingly not addressed the fact that your own Church contradicts you here – see Encyclical Laudato Si. The Church teaches climate change as a serious problem stemming from attitudes of Christian stewardship.

    Weather patterns are already being disturbed, because the hotter the climate, the more water an atmosphere can hold, meaning you get crazier and less predictable weather. We’ve already begun seeing this in our own era – I’ve seen extremely convincing evidence of this from religious friends of mine writing scientific articles.

    As for “persuasion”, you are “persuaded” of the truth of Catholic teaching and you attempt to “persuade” others. Persuasion should be based on evidence and proper deductive or inductive logic.

  • CSmith

    Yes. Absolutely, accompany your child. And go in groups of two or more when possible. I agree with you on that.

    “Those with intent to molest children or sexually assault people can and do just walk into women’s bathrooms anyway.”

    No. The is the crux of it, Harry. As our laws are now, men can’t just walk into a women’s bathroom. If someone tried, anyone could challenge him. I would. I know my husband certainly would. If the laws are changed, we couldn’t legally do that. Changing those laws make for less safe environments.

  • Traditionally the earth goes around the sun. Previous traditions had the sun going around the earth. Both are actually true, and depend upon a frame of reference. Neither tells the whole story- which is that the sun is a comet moving through space draging the rest of the solar system which is really orbiting the tail of the comet, and that “sun going around the earth” and “earth going around the sun” are optical illusions based on particular frames of reference.

    The definition of celcius itself is traditional and based on the melting points of water, it’s a technology and an arbitrary definition.

    None of these things are truly established. They are working models for how the world works, and they work until they don’t. “Established Science” is an oxymoron used to persuade weak minds and to prevent questioning, when the entire purpose of science is to continue questioning.

    Evolution doesn’t just work in biology- it also works on science itself. Bad models die because they fail to be useful, good models survive because they are currently useful, and good models may become bad models in the future.

    I’m currently 45. I not only reduce, reuse, and recycle, but I’m practicing urban farming on my quarter acre, and I actually use transportation that is about conservation (yes, I drive one of those hated prius, and I’m the type of driver everybody hates, driving for fuel conservation rather than speed).

    Weather patterns are always disturbed, because weather is a complex enough system that chaos is an element in it. Note, I’m not denying that global climate change exists; it does and always has. I’m saying that when Pope Francis or Al Gore preaches about pollution and then steps on a jet airplane to use more carbon in an hour than I will generate in a year, there is a problem with the connection between persuasion and science.

    I’m also saying that our current models of global climate change have little to no predictive value- they’re never correct. Maybe in a couple of hundred year we’ll get there, but we’re not there today.

    Logic and persuasion are about cherry picking data and never telling the whole truth.

  • As a precursor to the below, thanks for being pleasant and discussing. SO many times on Patheos I’ve seen bad interactions in the comments unnecessarily not just on here but every channel. O_o

    I disagree – regularly there have been cases of men just walking into women’s bathrooms. If they have such a wicked inclination, they will do (and have done) it regardless. And a transexual person quietly using the loo (and they regularly get urinary tract infections medically from not being able to for fear of assault) is noticeably different from someone molesting a child in a loo. Like, the latter would be noticed if anyone was around and if anyone wasn’t, there wouldn’t be anyone around to prevent the monstrous action anyway. Societal expectations and “the law” don’t tend to matter to paedophiles and I’ve enough friends (and family) with such unfortunate experiences to know that they don’t give two hoots (to put it politely!)

    The UK has had it this way for some time and there’s been no problem with it. At all – same for a number of other countries. As I said above, we’re kinda amazed at so many American hangups like guns, this whole bathroom bill thing, megachurches and so on. Though equally, we Brits have a massive binge drinking problem which I just cry about. I see it all the time.

    There are way bigger fish to fry even if this was an issue (I don’t think it is) – like tackling the victim blaming that means it is underreported, completely redoing sexual education so that consent and relationships are meaningfully covered in a modern way (I was never taught what positive consent meant or what love and marriage was about – only how to use a condom! And I still haven’t had use for that knowledge! xD) and so forth.

  • That is indeed weird and (if serious) I would agree that is potentially abnormal in a psychological manner. Also, everything I say is meant to be read in a friendly and constructive manner, so take it that way. :-) [I try to read from all the Patheos channels!]

    I’m trying to challenge your conception of “normal”, though. There are intersex people of many differing degrees. Have a quick look at the wiki table – it’ll only take a second.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Population_figures

    Sex isn’t an easy thing biologically or medically speaking to conceptualise. No practising medical doctor or biologist of any kind would agree with black-white conceptions of sex.

    As for “normal” – if you mean “not statistically near the mean”, then lots of behaviours are not practised by the majority and are therefore “abnormal”. Skiing is not practised by the majority of the world’s population – it’s abnormal. Skiing is also not exactly “natural” as in we don’t see many animals constructing wooden planks, tying them to their feet and weaving their way down mountains. :P

    In some species of animal, homosexuality approaches the normal, with around half of couplings being same-sex, like some giraffes. (I 100% agree that homosexuality and bisexuality and hermaphrodites and sex-changing fish like clownfish aren’t statistically normal if you take nature as a whole! I’d also agree morality and what is “natural” should be separated, though often Catholic friends of mine state that they are the same thing… weirdly! Right – let’s practise cannibalism as some species do!!! xD)

    You can argue “same-sex romantic/sexual relationships are wrong” but it’s difficult to tie in observed zoological findings. Same goes for biological sex. I can’t really contradict you if you say “God’s ideal plan is for everyone to be born a clear male or female and the Fall has introduced abnormalities into the system whereby people are born intersex”, but nobody can say descriptively “people are born either male or female”, because around 0.3% of people aren’t and theologies need to accommodate that.

    I mean, I’m sure you’d agree intersex people can be Catholics, be saved, receive communion, need love, etc… :-) [Or at least I hope so – I try and presume kindness in everyone!!!]

  • Thanks. :-)

  • That’s alright. I’m only interested in evidence and good logic and discussion and appreciation and learning. That’s what my ideal for Patheos is. I spend half my life deconstructing really silly New Atheist ideas like currently writing a 3000 word paper on the idea that religion and science are inevitably at war forever. The relationship is far more complex as any historian of science or religion can tell you! :-)

    I don’t like to call anyone “simple”. I understand why you might think that, but I’d suggest having a look at the biological mechanics of sex (as in male or female rather than love-making, obviously!) – 3 in every 1000 babies are born intersex. Have a quick look at this table – it will only take a second of your life! :P (Biology is indeed a fact! Biologically, sex is complicated.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Population_figures

    Which bathroom should these people, like say a hermaphrodite with both male and female anatomies, use? Should they be able to marry? If so, whom can they marry and why? It’s all very complicated.

    I think that would be a half-reasonable solution. My university has many non-gendered toilets around campus for intersex, trans, non-binary (all these words confuse me intuitively as a straight, white, cisgender male!) and in fact anyone who wants to use them (I have used them!). I am really glad you’re thinking practically – yes, disabled loos have also been used traditionally, though there still aren’t enough of them! My local library has two lockable disabled-friendly non-gendered individual loos and that works great for everyone.

    The problem is that the construction of special toilets takes a lot of money. It would also be a half-compromise, since these people still believe that they are “female” (as a trans woman) or “male” (as a trans man).

    And using the restroom at home is not convenient for anyone! Many trans people suffer urinary tract infections from not going to the loo when they need to, sadly, because they face the real fear of being assaulted. (Many of them are and obviously as a Catholic and myself as a Humanist would agree they need love and compassion as human beings and violence should be denounced.) ^_^

    I definitely agree it’s not an easy issue – but it’s worth discussing, especially given such disproportionately high rates of violence and suicide accompany being LGBT+. The Catholic Church has a vital role to play in being loving and understanding here, as much as everyone else does. (Atheism, my “church” (though I’d never call it that!), has it’s own problems too.)

    Also, I agree with labelling people – I just tend to accept a floating mid-way between what people label themselves and what the dictionary definition is!

  • I am speaking of anomalies (in the statistical sense), yes. But this at the very least proves the notion that biological sex is either male or female false (as a *few* here have claimed against the undeniable medical evidence) and hopefully awareness of this fact will help the Catholic Church to start being more loving to intersex and trans people, I hope, and make them consider what to “do” with intersex people (can they marry – if so, whom can they marry? At what point can a person be considered male or female enough to marry?). At the very least, I’m hopeful we agree there. :-)

    There’s definitely a logic here, but then which bathroom should intersex people use and why? Also, I imagine you would feel very differently if you were trans or intersex. I mean to give a pretty ridiculous example, Jews are a small percentage of the total population (like less than 1% globally or something comparable), but should we not care about anti-Semitism?

    An ideal solution might be to just have genderless lockable loos friendly to disabled people, as I have in my local library here in Britain (and as my university mainly has). People can just go into one, or a child can go into one without any problems because outside the locked door there is a massive open space. The difficulty is w.r.t. cost. Remember that incidences of trans women (and intersex people too) particularly getting violently or sexually assaulted in men’s loos is *very* high, at least as high as any supposed issues about “fake” trans women using the loos maliciously here (we’ve had this to be the case for many years in the UK). I’m sure you care as much about their assault as the other issues you’ve raised. :-)

  • ahermit

    So who is being protected by keeping those two individuals out of the washrooms they wold be most comfortable in? They aren’t a threat to anyone… it’s cruel and demeaning to treat them as guilty and punish them just because they are different.

  • lady_black

    Science says no such thing.

  • Since you asked me to, I did re-read your prior comment. What do you think of my counter-argument? Specifically – ‘Jews are a small percentage of the total population (like less than 1% globally or something comparable), but should we not care about anti-Semitism?’

    My view is, as a utilitarian, that one must consider the intensity of happiness considerations rather than pure numbers. Violent (and sexual) assault frequently happening to trans women in male toilets is far more intense a happiness consideration than people’s “creeped-outness”, for example.

    And I would argue that the incidence of assault is almost certainly higher than the incidence of preventable paeodphilic offences (another high-intensity consideration), with respect to this law alone by banning trans people from entering the toilets of their identified genders.

  • That’s quite alright – I try and bust pointless stereotyping of Catholics and atheists at the same time. ;-)

    The only thing I’d ask is that did you have a look at the Wiki entry? It’d at least establish the claim I wanted to make and wouldn’t take much longer than a minute of your day!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Population_figures

    (This was specifically in response to your Genesis quotation “he made them male and female” – well, that may have been true in your pre-Fall theology, but it’s very hard to make clear distinctions between male and female biologically for a relevant minority of people in the world *today* on a biological basis.)

  • ahermit

    Well that law was intended to protect the right of all people to go out in public without being discriminated against regardless of their marital status, sexual orientation, and gender identity . Kind of like the law against racial segregation.

    It’s not lunacy to protect vulnerable people from discrimination.

  • mitch64

    “Legislate morality” is kind of an ironic term as the Christian Right have been trying that for years. This is the first time and the first issue that have a failed at, on such a grand scale and so quickly.

    Bias are beliefs Brian and the amount of people that hold those in this case are getting smaller every day.

  • PGrajnert

    Whose philosophy is he referring to? What biology? You say this is a “false” path? By what definition of “false?” Where is this definition written or said? Who said it? I have no idea what may or may not follow from accepting “that men and women are not necessarily men and women.” I actually have no idea what you are referring to when you refer to accepting or not accepting something about women or men. Can you define what it is that is being accepted or not? You say that the state is being used to coerce people into something. You say that the state is being used to establish a belief? What belief is being established?

  • PGrajnert

    The reason that it is hate filled is because it seeks to impose a set of beliefs on someone else. Then it seeks to make their experience into a disorder. It states that their actions damage something. But what is being damaged is not discussed. It seeks to make their experience of what is happening into an abnormality based on an unspecified definition of normality. You state that the these “misguided” (another hateful term) lead to changes that “wreak havoc on society.” Can you explain what the havoc is that is being wreaked? He can reach out to me, if he wishes. I use my real name.

  • ahermit

    And all transgender people want to do is use the washroom without fear.

    Why does the possibility of someone who is transgender using the same washroom as you make you afraid? It’s not contagious…

  • ahermit

    Yes I do think that only trans people will “take advantage.” There are already laws against molesting people in washrooms. The kind of people who do that sort of thing aren’t going to be deterred by a law that prohibits innocent people from using the washroom.

    The only motive I know of for trans people wanting to use the washroom is the same one that sends all of us there from time to time…there’s no reason to treat them like criminals for that.

    Discrimination is wrong whether it’s on the basis of race, religion or gender.

    You say you’re afraid to be in a washroom with strange men, well so is my friend, a transgender woman. The law you’re defending would force her to use the men’s room…a place full of strange men. Why would you want to force her to do that?

    It’s absurd to suggest that perverted cis-men will be lining up to use womens’ washrooms, or that trans women are somehow a threat to other women.

  • ahermit

    Just to be clear; teh law you are defending would force the first person here to use the men’s room:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B__23cmUMAA-Hdl.jpg:large

    And the second person to use the ladies:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTDut0_WwAEOWGB.jpg:large

  • ahermit

    We actually have building codes that mandate making washrooms accessible for such “anomalies.”

    What you’re saying is that we should punish people for being different. I think that’s wrong.

  • ahermit

    I’m sorry you feel you have to live your life in fear of people just because they are different from you. you have my deepest sympathy. I hope you have the opportunity to get to know someone who is transgender so you can learn that they aren’t a danger to you.

  • Statistics Palin

    My adult self says this woman is probably nuts. In fact, I think your message from God may have been a psychotic break with reality.

    My adolescent self thinks “I’ve heard this sh!t enough, and I’ve never bothered anyone and I never will. Why don’t YOU go kill yourself, lady? You’re the one with the problem. In fact, you can have my razor blade if it will help. I was never molested, but you were not my mother– Thank God!”

    Finally, if you’re going to use the word “faggot” in my presence in front of children or adolescents, I’ll drag you by your hair to the nearest sink and wash your mouth out with the most caustic soap I can find.

  • Statistics Palin

    I’ve heard this shit so many times before. Back in the 70’s the rednecks spread an urban legend that a bunch of black men attacked a poor little white boy in a public restroom, cutting his penis off. In the 80’s Paul Cameron, an anti-gay expert from the religious right, recycled the urban legend changing blacks to gays and used the blood libel to defeat an equal

    rights ordinance that would have given gays some fragment of the protections Christians have under civil rights law.

    No such event ever happened.

  • Statistics Palin

    Robert George is an idiot when it comes to medicine. I was at Princeton in the 90’s. George said insurance companies shouldn’t have to pay medical bills for gay men with AIDS because AIDS was an assumed risk. He didn’t take into account that most of those infected at the time were infected twelve years earlier before the cause of AIDS was known. The cause was published in 1984, George said this in 1993. So advocated condemning mostly innocent people to death by denying them medical benefits that they had paid for.

  • Korou

    George Reikers, Ted Haggard, or any of a hundred other Republican politicians whom one could charitably assume were bashing gays because of their own repressed sexual tendencies.

  • Korou

    Well, bonus points to you for just withdrawing instead of continuing to deny the evidence…

  • I entirely agree with you. I suffer from anxiety so sometimes I do crazy overprotective things just so *I* don’t worry. But in reality I know my kids are quite safe, especially because I do all the things one is supposed to do to keep my kids safe from being molested by someone they know (teach them about their right to their own body, listen to their “no” whenever they say it, make myself a safe person to tell about stuff, know who they’re with and check up on those people, etc. etc.).

    But I do get why someone would make silly rules … it’s to manage their OWN anxiety, rather than necessarily to keep their children safe. Letitia said as much above.

  • Statistics Palin

    No, Benedict XVI.

  • Leyla1001nights

    You know, I’m appalled at the amount of fear I am reading in the comments. What is much worse, is that women are being sexually assaulted every day, killed in domestic violence disputes and being harassed. Did you read the story in Oklahoma where the court ruled that forced oral sex, when the victim was unconscious, was NOT rape? We need to worry about actual cases, not potential cases of sexual assault. There are NO recorded cases of transgender people assaulting other people in the restroom.

  • GoodCatholicGirl

    That is most non-Christian!

  • GoodCatholicGirl

    The first sentence says it all – If you let your child go into a bathroom alone, you’re an idiot.

  • jessej

    If you’re engaging any kind of thoughtfulness to an article like this then you are probably very close to converting to a world-view compatible either with the Judaism or Catholicism :)

  • Well, I identify as the following combination of things for now: open, agnostic, atheist, secular, humanist. I am good friends with people of many world religions and am part of an interfaith chaplaincy community, which is nice. Not sure how many of those Americans see, but it’s pretty common over here and facilitates good polite dialogue and much tea (given we’re British!) haha. :-)

    Thoughtfulness is essential, not optional, whatever worldview one is currently signed up for! That’s why I enjoy Patheos. ^_^

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    The anti-trans bathroom laws hypothetically are the more supportive of predators. The more apparent reality is that trans people and people perceived as trans will and have been abused.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    These anti-trans laws just tell predators that they don’t have to go to any wacky hijinks to get into people’s bathrooms. They just have to say that the law forces them to use that bathroom. Even that consequence, though more plausible, sounds ridiculous.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    “Modesty is a virtue”

    Modesty is more like a dirty bandage. The bandage may look like it’s taking care of an ugly wound while making the wound all the worse.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    Edit in a ‘don’t’ before ‘exist’.

  • disqus_uspgq2j3XQ

    Oops, thanks! Fixed.

  • Korou

    If laws pass that say that transgender people must use the restroom that corresponds to their birth gender, then that is exactly what will happen. So isn’t it in all our interests to say that transgender people should be able to choose which restroom to use?

  • Bershawn300

    Hi there. As a sexual-assault survivor myself, I agree with you that anyone can be an abuser…any class, race, type, etc. of person.

    However, that said, any law that makes it even EASIER for molesters or abusers is to abuse is not a good one. We need laws that protect, not enable.

    This has nothing to do with trans people. It has to do with a law that rather than PROTECTING the greatest number of people, actually encourages endangerment of more (who is going to stand outside the women’s room checking to see if someone is really trans or just pretending to be trans to gain greater access to women and children in a vulnerable position)?

    Life is complicated enough. Let people go where their biology dictates, for the greater safety of all.

  • Pesq87

    Bershawn, by that reasoning, the law should require only single-person restrooms, with one toilet and one sink, as opposed to allowing public restrooms that put you behind a closed outer door with any other human being.

  • Pesq87

    There is no credible evidence that pedophilia causes homosexuality. The only known link between pedophiles and gay people is that pedophiles routinely target kids that are different, alone or otherwise already set apart from society: gay kids, foster kids, kids with mental disabilities.

  • Pesq87

    Natural law theory has its uses, but it routinely fails miserably when applied to explain human sexual behavior.

  • There is that “credible evidence” again. Evidence is either true or false, it is not human and thus is not credbile or incredible.

    Reductionism is irrational.

    And abusers work to convince foster kids and kids with mental disabilities that abuse is normal. And thus we get the homosexual community- where abuse is considered normal.

  • Pesq87

    Ted, you’re not making sense. if you are saying that homosexuality behavior between consenting adults is abuse, then we should just put down our pens on this topic.

  • All fornication and sodomy is abuse- hetero or homo does not matter, consent does not change this because consent can be in error.

  • Bershawn300

    Statistically speaking, that’s not true. Men by far commit the most pedophilia and sexual assault. On women. And children. Not the other way around.

    Therefore strange MEN should stay out places where women and children are vulnerable. Common Sense.

    Do. You. Even. Planet. Earth?!!

  • Pesq87

    Ah. Do you understand that your comment is 100% the OPPOSITE of what the civil law holds, and this entire issue is about civil law?

  • Yes. But civil law has been in total violation of natural law since the late 1950s, and without the right to life that was lost in 1973, is irrational and illegitimate.

    The sexual revolution (what you call civil law) is an illegitimate government to be resisted in all non-violent ways.

  • I would be fine with that. I avoid public restrooms as a rule, even before this, due to the lack of privacy and abuse.

  • Pesq87

    OK, then by that reasoning, the law should require that all public restrooms for adult men should be single-use rooms. This is the logical conclusion of your reasoning.

  • Pesq87

    No, that’s incorrect. If you testify at trial, it is entered as evidence, whether you are lying or not. It’s all evidence – some is credible, some is not credible. Some is half-credible. That is why one “weighs” evidence.

    There is NO credible evidence that pedophilia causes homosexuality. I hate instructing people without getting paid for it. But you need the education, so I’ll do it.

  • Once again, we have already established that civil law left the realm of reality quite long ago; that the government is currently illegitimate and has zero influence on natural law.

    Therefore, the reductionism of “credible evidence” is neither a rational nor correct method of judging truth. It is however a great way to railroad people into the prison industrial complex.

  • Pesq87

    Harry, read her history of comments before you waste more brain power. I like the one where she says blacks bear the mark of Cain and are meant to be slaves…

  • Pesq87

    Pencils down.

  • You are the one who is trying to convince me that civil law is rational. You failed miserably.

  • Korou

    That rate goes down when people accept transgender people and goes up when they reject them. Which side are you on?

    I think I’ll say this again:

    Of course it’s a problem that suicide rates are so high among transgender people. The reason they’re so high is that transgender people feel villified and demonised by society, from people who want to punch them in the face to people who say “I love you, but can never accept you.”
    Look at this:
    http://endtransdiscrimination….
    “The National Transgender Discrimination Survey is the most extensive survey of transgender discrimination ever undertaken. Over 6,450 responses are included in the survey, which explored discrimination in all aspects of life.
    This study brings to light what is both patently obvious and far too often dismissed from the human rights agenda. Transgender and gender non-conforming people face injustice at every turn: in childhood homes, in school systems that promise to shelter and educate, in harsh and exclusionary workplaces, at the grocery store, the hotel front desk, in doctors’ offices and emergency rooms, before judges and at the hands of landlords, police officers, health care workers and other service providers.”

    And then look at this study:
    http://www.torontosun.com/2015
    What we see is that when transgender people are accepted, are loved, are supported and are allowed to go through sex-change transitions, the rates of suicide go down. Why would you be against that? Are you claiming that transgender people should be subjected to therapy to make them change their minds and accept the bodies they were born with? Sadly, that doesn’t help, it just makes their experiences worse. Just because having supportive parents makes a big difference for the better, it doesn’t mean that transgender people don’t have any problems any more. They still live in a world that rejects them.
    This is indeed a very big problem, one that you are part of. You don’t have to be. You can instead help us move towards a world in which transgender people can live happy, fulfilled lives, instead of miserable ones.

  • gigi4747

    I am very grateful to the evangelical group in my state that has taken the lead in opposing our bathroom bill. They are not the “crazy” ones. There is nothing unchristian or uncharitable about keeping women and children safe. I know that sexual abuse can be devastating and often leaves survivors with impaired judgment and boundary issues. I cannot help wondering if that is in play here.

  • Forgive me! :P

  • My experience with Catholicism has been mixed.
    The lower in the hierarchy, the kinder.
    By the time you reach the Bishop stage, it’s a lost cause.

    I’m Intersex. One of the rarer syndromes, like 5ARD, 17BHSD, or as in my case, the 3BHSD form of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia.

    These syndromes cause an apparent natural sex change. Certainly you’re born looking genitally more like one sex, then change later in life genitally and otherwise to look more like the opposite. Taking the simplistic view that genitals determine sex, the sex change is real. Taking the more nuanced view that Gender is determined by neuro-anatomy not genital anatomy, the change is merely superficial.

    It can either cause or cure Gender Dysphoria. You’re either effectively transsexual before, or transsexual after (barring medical intervention to halt and reverse the change).

    Theologians hate that. My mere existence contradicts the currently fashionable dogma of the Theology of the Body, currently an article of Faith in Catholicism.

    My personal experience can be summarized by the following quote:

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alters their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.

  • Korou

    Weak stuff, really. Heard of any atheist speakers being caught out in hypocrisy? It’s not like Richard Dawkins became famous as a feminist speaker. Now if there was an epidemic of atheist people who had deathbed conversions…no, that wouldn’t be any use to you either, would it?

    I suppose for a comparable case you’d have to find a load of atheist speakers who were secretly religious but pretending to be atheists for the money?

    Anyway, here’s the atheist community’s reaction:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2014/06/the-richard-dawkins-facepalm-watch-vol-iii/
    Generally, people seem to think that Richard Dawkins is a brilliant scientist and a wonderful communicator about atheism, but someone who seems to put his foot in his mouth a lot when it comes to social issues.

  • Korou

    The medical and psychological communities are telling you two things:
    1. Transgenderism is not “a condition be treated,” it’s a condition to be accepted.
    2. When it is accepted, rates of wellbeing go up.

    Why won’t you accept the opinion of the professionals instead of relying on anecdotes?

    Also, do you have sources for your claim about 70-80%? And how do you suggest that the “condition” be treated?

  • If a mom sends a boy into a Men’s rest room where she cannot go, she wants to be sure nothing bad happens to the boy in there. Likewise, if a man has taken his daughter out to the store, and she needs to go the Lady’s room, where he cannot enter, he does not want the potential of a predator in there. The point is not about transgender, the point is that there are those who will misuse the law. Going back to the man sending his daughter in a women’s restroom. He doesn’t want a male predator in there posing as a transgender who then molests or rapes his daughter. Having a safe bathroom should not be such a major deal. This definitely will affect brick-and-mortar stores and push sales online. Who wants to shop with little children with these kinds of laws? If pushback comes, it should come with people s shopping with their feet and wallets. Avoid Target and other stores that push this agenda. Safety should be in favor of the majority, not the minority. It is like gun laws…requiring more restrictions on guns will have no effect on criminals. Making laws that allow anyone into bathrooms make it easier for sexual predators. It is always the people who want decency and the law who pay the price for these kinds of laws, not the criminals. The criminals have a heyday, they love it, no more worries about jail for them, no more laws to break! They can do what they want, and the those who want to be clean, moral, and decent citizens suffer.

  • GoodCatholicGirl

    This is either a joke or the work of someone who is seriously hateful. If it’s a joke, it’s gotten out of hand. If it’s not a joke, it’s frightening. I don’t see God killing gay people because they are gay and no one on earth has any right to kill anyone. You need more prayers than I could ever muster but perhaps enough people will pray for you to save your soul.

  • Sus_1

    Finally! A blog post about this issue that doesn’t make me embarrassed to be a Catholic. I am much more worried about the heterosexual close family friend sexually abusing my kids than a gay or trans person in a public bathroom. All this angst over public bathrooms is ridiculous! These people have been in the bathrooms all along!

  • Sus_1

    Nope!

  • Korou

    Just pointing out that all the bull thrown out by liberals about evil conservatives and Christians is spot on, and you don’t really have anything on our side to point to.

  • Korou

    Exactly. You’re building your case on anecdotes, and “people I’ve known” and “there once was a guy who…”

    Which makes your case very weak. As I’ve pointed out many times, and referenced, the medical and pschological communities disagree with you.

  • Darren

    Here’s the rub about this article. The use of the words “trans” and “gay” as if those words actually describe a classification of people. Words have meaning and people don’t seem to care what the words describe any more.

    People who claim “gayness” or “transsexualness” are in psychological help. There is NO classification of “gays” or “trans”. It’s all on feelings. Gender dysphoria is something that is not to be given life to as something normal. “oh well, this is the world we live in and we just go with the flow” which is what this article implies. NOT.
    Although this article is correct that not entering with your child is irresponsible parenthood and people suffering from these delusions are in need compassion but not to care about who enters which bathroom is “irresponsible”.
    Men do not go into women’s bathrooms. Period. Or vice versa. Allow people who have these psychological issues go into a single “unisex” or “family” bathroom with no one else in there.
    They needs prayers not acceptance of pychological illnesses as something normal that doesn’t need help.

  • Ron Turner

    April Fools Day was a month ago, Lettie.

  • Sus_1

    While the family bathroom is a great idea, few exist. The ones that do are for people who have little kids.

    Don’t you realize that trans people ( woman to man) are already doing their business in the next stall to you? Same as a man to woman have done their business next to me in a public restroom.

    What you are suggesting does not make sense. Walk through the issue.

    There’s a person who was born a man, they dress as a woman, identifies as a woman, looks like a woman, lives as a woman and takes feminine hormones. You think because they were born a man, they should use the men’s room?

    A person was born a woman. They now identify as a man. Take hormones and look like a man. You don’t think that’s going to cause an issue when they go into the ladies room?

    Where is the common sense? You think its a mental illness. Fine. The majority have overruled you. Not walking through the issue does not help your side. It appears foolish.

  • LM

    That is not true. NOTHING is every single one.

  • ahermit
  • Bershawn300

    Ah, a Huff post user. We may have to back up a bit as your illogic will trail for longer than the non-Huff persons.

    IF MEN START USING THE WOMEN”S ROOM …THERE ARE NOW MEN AND WOMEN PRESENT IN THE RESTROOM…BY YOUR OWN HUFF POST LOGIC….HOW IS THAT SAFE FOR ANYONE ANYMORE? IT WOULD NO LONGER BE A WOMEN’S ROOM!!

    I can’t explain this anymore. The level of insanity has truly reached a fever pitch. I can’t believe I’m even having this conversation….

    If you are biologically a male, but now ‘identifying’ as a female, you are (biologically speaking, not according to the voices in your head) A MAN. No amount of wishful thinking erases your chromosomes, dna, brain function, masculinity…it cannot be surgically ‘swept away’ like certain organs can.

    I feel sorry for trans people. I do. But we have compassion on the mentally ill. We help them, We don’t enable their delusion!.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    The ant-trans bathroom bills actually make it easier for predators to get into bathrooms. Even then, the situation is ridiculous because as Joslyn points out, the predator fears are being created by anti-trans protesters (strangely being OK with feeding into beliefs that the groups they belong to such as Republicans and Christians are supportive of sexual predation).

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    “However, that said, any law that makes it even EASIER for molesters or abusers is to abuse is not a good one. We need laws that protect, not enable.”

    Then why are you supporting ati-trans bathroom bills? It is clear that they enable abuse of people who do not match up to arbitrary gender standards (not just trans people). Also, these hypothetical predators (the current examples have been anti-trans protesters manufacturing the fear justification) have an easier time getting to their victims if all they have to say is, “The law forces me to use this bathroom.”
    Even that is ridiculous as it would still mean subjecting oneself to the stigma and abuse trans people face as well as the fact rape is still illegal no matter who can use the bathrooms.

  • Bershawn300

    “Arbitrary gender standards”?

    What am I missing?

    Gender is defined by biology–chromosomes, anatomy, brain function, muscle mass, hormones, etc.

    For the very rare, few who are genuinely born intersex…THEY ARE ASSIGNED A GENDER AT BIRTH BY DOCTORS.

    Any confusion people feel after that can be sorted with a counselor.

    Beyond this, I’m afraid I can’t comment on your post as it makes no sense.

    Food for thought: (Hetero men posing as transgender or as women to gain access to women’s rooms in order to harm.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzwMJAFWLtQ

  • Korou

    As far as I can see, the problems that atheists have is that they occasionally make dubious or controversial claims (which, importantly, don’t show them up to be hypocrites); and the problems that conservative Christian preachers and politicians have is that they’re hypocrites who cheat on their wives. Comparing the two is simply apples and oranges.

  • Bershawn300

    Dear heart, Yes. With all love I classify what you are experiencing/describing as mental illness.

    You have my sympathies and my prayers. You do not have access to my bathroom, if I have anything to say about it.

    I do not have to be a mental health professional to assess this: you are going against biology and nature.The average five year old could figure this out.

    No more than a ‘professional’ is needed to know that if a man told me he self-identified as a ‘toaster’, something had gone radically off the rails.

    Something has become tortuously disordered in your thought processes and heart and for that you have my sympathy.

    Regardless of the external changes you have made to your outward anatomy though, every chromosome in your body still is imbued with masculine traits, even male and female brain function is different, the way men’s and women’s bodies process oxygen in the bloodstream is different, muscle mass is different, and on and on. You can ‘erase’ certain external features, but you cannot change fundamental irreducible cellular biology or biology at the subatomic level. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/men-women-different-brains.htm

    As for the (very rare) cases of people genuinely born with a biological intersex condition, even the intersex webpage asserts: “sex is a product of our total genetic makeup”. TOTAL GENETIC MAKEUP-THIS MEANS BIOLOGY DICTATES.

    And again, for someone truly born with this rare condition, a gender–either male or female -is assigned using their total genetic makeup–is assigned to that person.

    This is not what the bathroom bill is about. If we were having a sane national conversation, it would be apparent that biology would dictate the parameters of the discussion, not a person’s “self-reported feelings” on a given day, which is what the current discussion is focused on.

    In other words, biology leads!

    In the most non-pejorative way I can muster, let me say that I will say a prayer for you! Peace.

  • Bershawn300

    No. It’s not. Because I said men commit the most violent sex crimes against women and children. Not against other men. Sigh. Men with other men in a restroom is not the problem.

    Ack..what am I even having to defend?? Do I seriously need to be explaining this? The country just seems to have lost its mind.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    Given the reality of the people these bills target for abuse (adding also that the aim is poor seeing as three cis women have already been affected by it because of abusers like yourself) saying, “See these factors! We have gender figured out!”, is a big red flag that we are not yet very knowledgeable of human gender. The doctors assigning gender to intersex people is less like a red flag and more like fireworks making the sky look like it’s bleeding out. We do not have gender figured out and going back to the equivalent of “Christians! protect your white women!” is not helping at all.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    Saying the country lost its mind when you would rather have us keep our eyes closed and ears plugged going, “NAH NAH NAH NAH!” because nature doesn’t follow a narrative from when we barely even knew what we did not know or that easy authoritative answers could be overturned by evidence- that’s all just so darkly comical.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    “THEY ARE ASSIGNED A GENDER AT BIRTH BY DOCTORS.”

    BIG. RED. FLAG.

    Tell you what, how about someone give you the best transition treatments in the world against your will and everyone treats you like how you look. We’ll just tell you Jesus did it even if you can find no evidence of his invisible presence using the doctors (himself being called “The Greatest Physician”). Any cries you make that you are really the other sex we’ll just dismiss as mental illness because Jesus doesn’t make mistakes in assigning you your natural sex and gender. If you persist in trying to get transition treatments we will dismiss you with doubt that you believe Jesus is God and coerce you with our own Christian approved mental health treatments (remember! the system can’t fail! only you can fail the system!) until you wonder if the world went nuts that they could think how you are being treated is okay.

    Why would you not be okay for that scenario to happen to you or someone else, but when the “physician” is “Jesus”/a feature of life on Earth you’re just stone-cold set on forcing that situation on “that minority of our own children who are just numbers who don’t matter”?

  • Bershawn300

    Dear heart, rare intersex people are assigned a gender at birth by doctors who use that person’s overall genetic makeup to determine what sex they are. This does not mean that doctors are arbitrarily assigning gender. THEY USE BIOLOGY. In other words, even if the person’s anatomy is ambiguous, there are other genetic markers – at the cellular level – that professional doctors can use.

    A gender assignment based on genetic makeup IS NOT ARBITRARY. IT IS BASED ON BIOLOGICAL MARKERS.

    Meanwhile, for the majority of people whose biology is very clear, and not ambiguous at all, this is not even an issue. Should a regular person born one gender feel displaced even in that gender, it is clear that they are at odds with nature, at odds with biology, and they are suffering from what even the DSM (as secular a psych manual as is out there) says is a mental disorder (gender dysmorphia).

    There is help for them.

  • Pesq87

    But I am a man, and I am most likely to have a crime of personal violence committed against me by another man. So I should be protected from all other men by having them kept away from me, in locker rooms and dressing rooms and public toilets, in the same way that you want men to be kept away from children and women.

    You don’t think through the ramifications of what you propose. You just stop the analysis where it suits you.

  • Bershawn300

    Nature usually follows a pretty constant narrative. I said that there ARE very rare cases of people being born intersex, and for those, gender assignment occurs.

    Those cases are the exception, not the rule. It is you who keeps wishing to go “NAH, NAH, NAH” to this basic fact and the fact that for 99% of people, gender is a NON-ISSUE.

  • Bershawn300

    You just are really having a hard time thinking through this one, aren’t you.

  • Pesq87

    No. I’m saying that your solutions are naive and unreasonable.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    I don’t have to shut out my senses to ignore we 99 percenters. Some of us are not under the illusion that we can treat trans people like some of us treated people with darker skin over the same bogus safety “concerns”. Pro-tip: Even a god cannot justify bigotry based on arbitrary factors like skin color or genitalia, and Christians don’t even have a god.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    The only thing at odds is your mumbo jumbo. The big hint is all the trans people’s satisfaction with your tell it like it is. No, they don’t have their own experiences that weigh far more than your pet hypotheses as well as meticulous work by certified psychological professionals calling BS on your views at all/sarcasm

  • Bershawn300

    Okay. Two-gender bathrooms –which have worked for hundreds of years–are now ‘naive and unreasonable’. Got it.

  • Bershawn300

    I’m sorry facts alarm you.

  • jessej

    Our society has been happy to accommodate people who have deluded themselves about reality for some time, from homeless men with tinfoil hats to men dressed like women using the ladies room. This law is a push back against turning our polite behavior into a law that would muzzle anyone who saw something they believed dangerous e.g. I let people cut me off in traffic but I would not support a law that codified cutting off people into law.

    Many real criminals are apprehended by police acting on especially egregious traffic violations that surpass common infractions.

    I’m sorry you feel embarrassed about this as a Catholic but this is really is an Aristotlian, teleological argument and has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with form and purpose of form and what women can expect from a polite society.

  • jessej

    Afraid you’re dealing with people who are arguing the equivalent of insisting someone NOT talk on the phone during a movie is being “intolerant”…once they’ve gone that far down the rabbit hole there’s nothing you can do.

    Kind of crappy Ms Adams has a platform to be this foolish.

  • Bershawn300

    There IS hard evidence that men and women are different in every cell of their body. It is not pseudo-science (?!) (Do I really need to provide websites for that?)

    You are clearly committed to your delusion, that much is clear, so good luck with that. Again, you have my sympathy; you will not receive my enabling.

    You claimed: “My chromosomes no longer determine my sex.”

    This is factually incorrect. You can chop your member off, add breasts, and feminize certain features. However, you SCIENTIFICALLY CANNOT change your chromosomes, or re-configure them, so they stay as what they were when you were conceived. You’re stuck with your chromosomal makeup and they indicate gender one sex or another. http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask35

    Corrective lens are to put the eyes back to working AS NATURE INTENDED.

    “Gender re-assignment” is a procedure to put the body AT ODDS WITH NATURE. THUS THE PREFIX “RE” in the phrase “gender re-assignment”. Sigh.

    I wish you all the best,

  • jessej

    Ms Adams here’s a list of the ghouls that started this horrible mess….sorry you feel embarrassed when Catholics push back against them???

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/a-new-devastating-critique-of-the-global-sexual-revolution

    BTW not being embarrassed is not a consolation given to the baptised. Ref: crucifixion/naked/mocked/spit-on.

  • Bershawn300

    “Please do explain it to me like I’m an idiot”

    …if the shoe fits…

  • Bershawn300

    The abc ‘example’ you provided reads:

    “But her DNA says she’s a man. That’s because she has male chromosomes, an X and a Y, instead of two Xs, like most females. It’s a disorder of sexual development in the womb.”

    Notice that is says ‘she’ is a man .

    Also notice the fact that it calls this unfortunate, rare condition “A DISORDER”.

    It does not call it “a normal state of being”.

    Again. being intersex is an unfortunate condition where the reproductive organs only partially match the chromosomes. It is different from ‘gender dysmorphia’ (transsexualism) which is at least for now, still classified in the DSM Diagnostic Manual for mental disorders, as a mental disorder.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    An entire movement that was brought about by supposed “expertise” in the traditional understandings of sexuality and gender now has far more information that puts facts squarely in their favor. I’m sorry that arguments used to segregate people of color from we “sane, stable” majority people still sound good to you.

  • jessej

    Catechism of the Catholic Church

    2333 Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

  • jessej

    Yes. That’s the exhortation in Fidei Depositum part 3.

    “The Catechism of the Catholic Church….is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine… I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion”

  • jessej

    Ad hominem and red herrings are not really arguments so I’m not sure how to reply to you :(

  • jessej

    I think the catachesim is pretty clear there.

    There are many things in the CCC that are difficult to live by for many people and for many reasons.

    This is not a ‘my community is a especially burdened subset of Catholics’ issue. The Church and Christ put burdens on us all and it does no one any good to see themselves as a unique victim :)

  • waltercarlson

    If you look like a man you should not use a woman’s bathroom. Why would anyone say anything different ?????? Do yoy want perverts going after women in rest rooms ? Do you ???

  • Korou

    If laws get passed which say people must use the bathrooms of the gender they were born as, then we will have people who look like men using the women’s restroom, and people who look like women using the men’s restroom. Legally, they won’t have a choice. A woman who has gone through a sex change, got a penis and grown a beard will be forced to use the women’s bathroom.

    Also, transgender people aren’t perverts. If you search, you’ll find lots and lots of instances of transgender people being assaulted, in and out of bathrooms – but you won’t find any instances of them assaulting other people.

  • jessej

    “Why do you think the catechesim is ‘pretty clear”

    LOL because I can read Joslyn :)

  • In humans and many other animals, specific chromosomes (X & Y) determine sex. Its actually quite simple to see the difference.

  • lady_black

    No, it is NOT that simple.

  • Lisa Marie

    Someone made a pretty sorry attempt. Luckily even the title put “Trans” in quotation marks. This is clearly a case of a few lunatics exploiting the law in order to prey on women.
    No Transgender man has raped a woman in a bathroom, rapists dressed as women have unfortunately attempted to do so. I won’t try to understate the fact that it’s a minute percentage. I will say, this is not even on the radar as far as women or children being assaulted. In most cases, it’s a family member or someone we know who assaults us. Not some random stranger, dressed in drag and never an actual trans person.
    Meanwhile, a child is shot to death every other day in the US. But surely bathrooms are the problem.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/5-times-transgender-men-abused-women-and-children-amanda-prestigiacomo

  • Yes. It is simple and you can’t change it :) Have a nice day

  • lady_black

    It’s NOT “simple.”

  • Only because you don’t want it to be :) God bless you and bring you reality

  • Michelle

    I haven’t read all of the comments here so my apologies if this has already been stated several times. I have a huge problem with you accusing parents of being irresponsible and idiots for allowing their children to use public restrooms unaccompanied. I have six children and I most definitely allow my children to use the restrooms while I’m out running errands, I will not teach my children to be afraid everywhere they go. I’m not going to drag the entire family into the bathroom so one child can go and I’m not going to force my son to use the ladies room at eight years old and my husband is not going to drag my daughters through men urinating so they can go. The huge concern for me with all of this is locker rooms. For instance, My children go to swim lessons and they use locker rooms to change and shower. I should be able to expect that I can send my sons in to shower after their lesson and they are not going to be exposed to a pair of breasts on the person changing next to them. I should also be able to send my girls into the shower without them seeing a penis. Why is no one talking about this aspect of all of this??? Because if transgendered individuals can use any bathroom they want they most definitely will be able to use any locker room they want.

  • Korou

    Meanwhile, the Catholic Hierachy is doing its best to calm the situation, saying that they love the sinner but hate the sin…
    Or, actually, not. What they’re saying is that transgdender people are demonic.

    http://deadstate.org/senior-vatican-official-transgender-rights-are-of-demonic-forces-and-will-bring-the-death-of-god/
    Shame! Shame!

  • Matt Kososki

    THANK YOU for finally saying it!!!

  • Dustin Anderson

    The common misconception here is that liberals automatically assume some ill concieved notion. When it involves a minority they think its racism, when its gays or transgender they think its bigotry. The truth is far simpler than that.

    The LGBT community makes up only 2% of the population. But even in that small group they are largely satisfied with current bathrooms. We are really only talking about a small subsect of that community. Transgenders make up .03% of the population. So roughly 3 out of every 10,000 people fall into this group.

    Whats more is that these rare people are already well accomidated. They have access to both the restroom of thier gender OR private unisex bathrooms.

    Nobody assumes that gays are inherently rapists or pedophiles. But the reality is that rapists and pedophiles do exist whether gay or not and in much larger numbers than the transgender community.

    We dont worry about the gay guy in the bathroom we worry about the man who’s only in there to take advantage of a ridiculous law to exploit it for his own sexual gain. There is no possible way to keep pedophiles from using this law to thier advantage.

    So in essence we are putting countless millions at risk in order to provide a mild convenience to a very very few.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with hating gays and everything to do with keeping people safe.

    This law has far too much potential for widespread abuse. Can you imagine what will happen when bars start allowing men into the womens restroom?

  • Bradley James

    I was born and raised a Catholic. The Church leaders in the vatican are evil satanist pedophiles now asking for cash donations from parishioners to defend church pedophiles. They told me to vote for the Bushes and Hillary.= pure evil .
    I will never set foot in a catholic church again. Pure evil.

  • Mike French

    Safe. How many kids have been molested by trans people? None on record, right. You sound so very concerned, when your conclusion is no different than any other Christian ranter. How many trans men have used the r.r. at the same time as you? I would wager many more than none? Fucking bigot.

  • Mike French

    Do you now or have you ever heard of any trans person doing this? I imagine “No” is your answer. Any more hypotheticals? Nobody’s talking about this because it’s never been a problem. You seem to have a rather kinky imagination.

  • Joy Inskeep

    Agree, but on one point.
    In both the Dioceses I am familiar with if the priest & confessee are not in an old fashioned confessional with seperate compartments confession w children must be done in a room w a glass door or window. They aren’t allowed to be in a room alone w a child here, no one is. Not a teacher, lay worker no one.
    Basically anyone could in theory be a pedophile. Which is why kids should not be in public bathrooms alone, period. I don’t care what gender is using the bathroom with them. They shouldn’t be alone.