South Dakota's New Transgender Bathroom Bill
'If the governor signs off, school restrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities that could be occupied by multiple students may only be used by students of the same biological sex.' Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/south-dakota-school-restrooms-transgender-bill/
What are your thoughts on this?
Originally posted by Raisen
what about hermaphrodites? i don't particularly care about bathrooms but i'm interested in your viewpoint
I don't think hermaphrodites (the preferred term is Intersex, btw) face safety issues in bathrooms as long as they are perceived as the gender designated to the bathroom they are using.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think hermaphrodites (the preferred term is Intersex, btw) face safety issues in bathrooms as long as they are perceived as the gender designated to the bathroom they are using.
thanks for lecturing me on SJW preferred terms. hermaphrodite is the correct medical term
Originally posted by Raisen
thanks for lecturing me on SJW preferred terms. hermaphrodite is the correct medical term
lol, my aside regarding the currently preferred terminology really bothered you, eh? For the record, no, it's not just a SJW preferred term, the medical community, particularly in the US uses this as its preferred term: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm
I'm glad to see that your question to me really mattered to you, so much so that you at all addressed it further.
"If the governor signs off, school restrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities that could be occupied by multiple students may only be used by students of the same biological sex.
The bill states that if a student says he or she is transgender, and a parent 'consents to that assertion in writing,' the student should be given a 'reasonable accommodation.'
A 'reasonable accommodation' could include a single-occupancy restroom, a unisex restroom or the controlled use of a restroom or locker room, the bill states."
I would support it if it was limited to locker rooms and shower facilities, and did not include a parental consent requirement.
Since female-to-male transgender students cannot use a urinal, and there are no urinals in female restrooms for male-to-female transgender students to use, all transgender students would have to use a stall, which is already private, so I do not see a problem with restroom use.
And courts have already found that parental permission requirements that compel a student to disclose his or her gender identity or sexual orientation to a parent or guardian, or school officials, violate the Right to Privacy.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"If the governor signs off, school restrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities that could be occupied by multiple students may only be used by students of the same biological sex.The bill states that if a student says he or she is transgender, and a parent 'consents to that assertion in writing,' the student should be given a 'reasonable accommodation.'
A 'reasonable accommodation' could include a single-occupancy restroom, a unisex restroom or the controlled use of a restroom or locker room, the bill states."
I would support it if it was limited to locker rooms and shower facilities, and did not include a parental consent requirement.
Since female-to-male transgender students cannot use a urinal, and there are no urinals in female restrooms for male-to-female transgender students to use, all transgender students would have to use a stall, which is already private, so I do not see a problem with restroom use.
And courts have already found that parental permission requirements that compel a student to disclose his or her gender identity or sexual orientation to a parent or guardian, or school officials, violate the Right to Privacy.
I think we agree, though could you clarify one point about restrooms. If there are a female and a male bathroom, do you support that a mtf transgender student can use the female bathroom?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Why the **** is hermaphroidite supposedly offensive?
Most people who are labeled hermaphrodites are not true hermaphrodites, they are intersex.
People who are intersex have mixed chromosomes and/or gonads, but do not necessarily have mixed sets of sexual organs.
Some may appear fully-one sex, while others may have ambiguous genitals and may appear neither male or female.
"Hermaphrodite" is offensive to intersex people in the same way that "midget" is offensive to people with Dwarfism. It is a label for another condition that is being incorrectly applied to them.
There is a very rare condition that used to be called "True Hermaphroditism" where humans sort of (though not really, since there actually aren't any cases of two functioning sets of gonads): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism
But that too is called "True Gonadal Intersex" in the medical community now.
I refer you again to the US's National Institute of Health's, a government organisation (and not a SJW group or whatever you are presuming), entry on Intersex in its Library of Medicine:
Originally posted by Raisen
thanks for lecturing me on SJW preferred terms. hermaphrodite is the correct medical term
Hermaphrodite would be the correct biological term, but not necessarily the preferred or correct medical term. The correct medical term would be specific to the "hermaphroditic" nature of the medical conditions and these are somewhat adequately defined on the Prader Scale. Beyond this, I'm largely ignorant on how to get more specific than this so I'll stop here. If you're interested, look up some of the words in my post and see what I mean.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Hermaphrodite would be the correct biological term, but not necessarily the preferred or correct medical term. The correct medical term would be specific to the "hermaphroditic" nature of the medical conditions and these are somewhat adequately defined on the Prader Scale. Beyond this, I'm largely ignorant on how to get more specific than this so I'll stop here. If you're interested, look up some of the words in my post and see what I mean.
Do we really need to be so specific? If it's offensive then ok. There are other issues to be concerned about
Originally posted by Raisen
Do we really need to be so specific? If it's offensive then ok. There are other issues to be concerned about
No, we don't need to be specific at all. And if someone gets offended by it, that's their problem, not yours. I personally think it is stupid to get offended by it.
However, generally, we can get specific just to be correct.