Public Restrooms in the USA and Transgenderism and Ethical Concerns

[SMGS127]

I am not, and never have, discussed this issue (intersex), or is this the topic here. I used examples of comparison to* transgender* claims. You say my examples are not valid because intersexed people exist. This is a classic example of strawman fallacy. I have no doubt you are aware of the differences between transgender, transsexual and intersex, as am I. Can we please stick to the topic of transgender, for the sake of simplicity as well as the integrity to this particular thread topic.
God is blamed for many evil things in the past. I simply do not believe it the novelty of “spiritual gender”. If a person really did believe this, however, then he, she or it, should be willing to suffer the consequences of their religious beliefs, as must we all.

They are different as per our current medical understanding. But, when neurological research on transgender people is complete, if they are found to have structural differences in their brain, they would then be considered intersex. So they are different societal topics but they may not actually be different medical words, just one more specific than the other. Either way, I mention those issues because you are trying to compare a transgender person to someone who believes they are a dog or plant or different age or race, none of which could possibly have biological reasoning behind them. But a transgender person could have a biological reasoning. That is why your analogies don’t work. I am not bringing up intersexism as a strawman, nor discussing the main issue (restrooms) by mentioning it, only bringing it up to explain why your analogies don’t work.

I would like to point out that almost every sin man has ever know, almost every weird doctrine ever conceived, has had someone that attached divine revelation to that knowledge. What we can say is that such a person cannot be judged (though the actions may). They may be acting in accord to their sincere beliefs. This does not mean though, that we can not do likewise and hold them to common standards of decency.

I am hardly arguing that there is some “divine revelation” here. But most transgender people you talk to (and as a formerly active lesbian, I met many, many transgender people) will tell you they do not see themselves as one gender. They feel they’ve ALWAYS BEEN one gender; it’s just not compatible with their external biology. Doctrine on immutability and predeterminance of gender are Catholic ideas, and their feelings are consistent (note: not necessarily correct, just consistent) with Catholic doctrine.

 

[pnewton]

That is why your analogies don’t work. I am not bringing up intersexism as a strawman, nor discussing the main issue (restrooms) by mentioning it, only bringing it up to explain why your analogies don’t work.

Then I will just disagree, and I won’t stop using them. I consider the whole idea of spiritual gender and transgenderism crazy. I will continue to support it being treated like any other delusion.

I am hardly arguing that there is some “divine revelation” here.

You used the phrase “God-given knowledge”. I know of no better definition of divine revelation.

 

[SMGS127]

Then I will just disagree, and I won’t stop using them. I consider the whole idea of spiritual gender and transgenderism crazy. I will continue to support it being treated like any other delusion.

Well you actually can’t disagree with spiritual gender. It’s a Catholic concept. Our post-death glorified bodies (aka our spiritual bodies) are gendered. You are free to disagree with me about whether or not earthly external biology necessarily mirrors our spiritual/glorified body’s gender though, and I don’t blame you for disagreeing. I am merely pointing out why I believe it’s possible to be reconciled with Catholicism.

You used the phrase “God-given knowledge”. I know of no better definition of divine revelation.

Not at all. Divine revelation means you have to have some form of doctrine revealed. That is much different than “God-given knowledge.” If something is inherently known to one through God’s grace, that isn’t divine revelation. For example, the Holy Spirit brought me to the Church after having been baptized as a child in a Protestant church. That isn’t divine revelation, but it was an inherent knowledge ever since I was in high school that the Catholic Church was the true Church, even though I fought it for years.

 

[mommamaree]

You’re missing my point. I am not even claiming that transgender people are intersex, but rather that it has been already proven that abnormalities can occur that alter the biological gender of one whose spiritual body is not of that gender in the form of intersex. This has not been proven in any other example you give. One cannot, through original sin, be granted Native American birth skin without genetic origin. One cannot, through original sin, become President at birth. Do you see what I am arguing?

No, I for one do not understand your point. Please clarify. Thank you.

 

[SMGS127]

No, I for one do not understand your point. Please clarify. Thank you.

He was arguing that someone discussing their self-identity as a member of the sex their genitalia did not match was the equivalent of someone discussing their self-identity as a frog or as an old man. I was pointing out that there ARE cases where a unified exterior body has been proven, in the last decade, to actually be a much more muddled case of intersexism (such as in complete androgen insensitivity syndrome [CAIS], 5-ARD, 17-BHDD, de la Chapelle syndrome, etc.), but there are no such cases where an externally-appearing baby is actually an old man or a plant internally.

I am not arguing by any means that transgenderism is necessarily intersex instead of a psychological issue. I am arguing that there is the POTENTIAL for it to be, and so we should not immediately jump to compare them to such ludicrous situations. Fifty years ago, a hermaphroditic (mixed external genitalia) person who identified with the gender their parents didn’t raise them to be were treated the same as transgender people are now. Twenty years ago, intersex people with external genitalia clearly “matching” one gender but mixed internal organs and who identified with the opposite gender were treated the same as transgender people are now (and indeed were considered to be transgender themselves).

Thus, many people we now consider to be transgender could just be cases of undiscovered intersex conditions. I never endorse surgery or anything, but I do defer to people’s identity if they wish me to, because I have no way of knowing whether they have a muddy genetic situation I don’t know about (or science doesn’t know about).

 

[pnewton]

Should we defer to the gender of a person who considers themselves to be an “it”, that is neutral? Are we going to have to have an Its’ room next?

 

[pnewton]

but I do defer to people’s identity if they wish me to,

How we handle things personally would be a whole separate question, and one with many facets and variables. Like, what does it mean to defer to their gender? I would probably just avoid pronouns myself. I would suggest (if it was Church) that they should use the correct restroom, the one designed for their physical bodies and designated as such.

 

[mommamaree]

Okay, I understand better now. Thank you.

I know this issue of transgenderism is much larger than this issue of shared spaces where people are vulnerable: bathrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc. However, as a woman and a mother, this is likely to be the time when I feel most confronted with the ethical concerns of these issues. I do not want to form an opinion of greater issues, because that is beyond my knowledge at this point. I do feel compassion for people who struggle with these issues of transgenderism, homosexuality, intersexism, etc. They carry a heavy cross. However, the issue of the public restrooms troubles me. I do not see how it would be appropriate for a person with a male body to be using the ladies’ facilities. It is just something that my instincts and my conscience tell me is wrong.
There may be many possible solutions that preserve the dignity and privacy of both women and transgender persons. But merely legislating that ladies’ facilities may no longer be reserved to biological females, without also giving clear solutions as options for compliance, seems like a way for the government to actually DESTABILIZE society and lead to greater chaos. That is not the role of government.
Going forward, for my own part, I will have to continue to be vigilant in protecting my children. I worry about times when my children will need to use public facilities. At some point very soon, my son will be too old to come into the ladies’ room with me. And it is inappropriate for my daughters to use the men’s room when she is out with her father, so that is concerning for him, too. I know that if I see anything strange happening in or around restrooms of either sex, I will report it for safety sake. But if everyone is minding their own business and are not obviously out of place, then there is no reason for concern. But I really have a hard time swallowing the concept of reporting suspicious activity or persons being classified as a hate crime, just because the person happened to be transgender. And a couple of posters here assert that it is considered harassment of transgender persons to report their presence, even if they appear to be out of place. That seems unjust to me, and it gives transgender persons more rights under the law than anyone else.

 

[SMGS127]

Should we defer to the gender of a person who considers themselves to be an “it”, that is neutral? Are we going to have to have an Its’ room next?

No, because that is not in line with Catholic doctrine nor is it scientifically possible for someone to be born without gendered organs. They can have mixed organs, but they can’t have no organs.

How we handle things personally would be a whole separate question, and one with many facets and variables. Like, what does it mean to defer to their gender? I would probably just avoid pronouns myself. I would suggest (if it was Church) that they should use the correct restroom, the one designed for their physical bodies and designated as such.

I just use the name and pronouns they wish me to. They know my position on the issue. I’m just being polite to them and recognizing that they could be right, but that it’s very unwise to give my endorsement in case they’re not.

 

[SMGS127]

Okay, I understand better now. Thank you.

I know this issue of transgenderism is much larger than this issue of shared spaces where people are vulnerable: bathrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc. However, as a woman and a mother, this is likely to be the time when I feel most confronted with the ethical concerns of these issues. I do not want to form an opinion of greater issues, because that is beyond my knowledge at this point. I do feel compassion for people who struggle with these issues of transgenderism, homosexuality, intersexism, etc. They carry a heavy cross. However, the issue of the public restrooms troubles me. I do not see how it would be appropriate for a person with a male body to be using the ladies’ facilities. It is just something that my instincts and my conscience tell me is wrong.
There may be many possible solutions that preserve the dignity and privacy of both women and transgender persons. But merely legislating that ladies’ facilities may no longer be reserved to biological females, without also giving clear solutions as options for compliance, seems like a way for the government to actually DESTABILIZE society and lead to greater chaos. That is not the role of government.
Going forward, for my own part, I will have to continue to be vigilant in protecting my children. I worry about times when my children will need to use public facilities. At some point very soon, my son will be too old to come into the ladies’ room with me. And it is inappropriate for my daughters to use the men’s room when she is out with her father, so that is concerning for him, too. I know that if I see anything strange happening in or around restrooms of either sex, I will report it for safety sake. But if everyone is minding their own business and are not obviously out of place, then there is no reason for concern. But I really have a hard time swallowing the concept of reporting suspicious activity or persons being classified as a hate crime, just because the person happened to be transgender. And a couple of posters here assert that it is considered harassment of transgender persons to report their presence, even if they appear to be out of place. That seems unjust to me, and it gives transgender persons more rights under the law than anyone else.

I agree mostly with what you say. Restrooms should be by genitalia, just out of safety concern. (I know I wouldn’t want my daughters’ safety risked over a convenience issue; that’s why I prefer family restrooms to exist). I will say that when people mentioned “harassment,” it was because a poster on here claimed a poster here was being harassing to transgender individuals, not because it was somehow a widespread belief that religious people were “harassing” transgender individuals. You can’t be charged with a hate crime unless you murder (or brutally assault) someone, and you can’t be sued over a hate crime unless you fire or evict someone, so hate crime designations don’t apply either.

 

[mommamaree]

I agree mostly with what you say. Restrooms should be by genitalia, just out of safety concern. (I know I wouldn’t want my daughters’ safety risked over a convenience issue; that’s why I prefer family restrooms to exist). I will say that when people mentioned “harassment,” it was because a poster on here claimed a poster here was being harassing to transgender individuals, not because it was somehow a widespread belief that religious people were “harassing” transgender individuals. You can’t be charged with a hate crime unless you murder (or brutally assault) someone, and you can’t be sued over a hate crime unless you fire or evict someone, so hate crime designations don’t apply either.

Yes, they claimed that I was targeting transgender persons for harassment and that under Canadian law, if I did what I said I would do about reporting suspicious persons, no matter what their attire, that I could be charged with a hate crime and be jailed. To which I said that I shall never go to Canada.

 

[SMGS127]

Yes, they claimed that I was targeting transgender persons for harassment and that under Canadian law, if I did what I said I would do about reporting suspicious persons, no matter what their attire, that I could be charged with a hate crime and be jailed. To which I said that I shall never go to Canada.

Oh Canada! Sorry I thought you meant the US. I still don’t think you can be charged with a hate crime for reporting a transgender person in Canada, but I have no idea about Canadian law. That’s not possible in the United States because speech (which includes reports, etc.) is protected by a constitutional amendment.

 

[mommamaree]

Oh Canada! Sorry I thought you meant the US. I still don’t think you can be charged with a hate crime for reporting a transgender person in Canada, but I have no idea about Canadian law. That’s not possible in the United States because speech (which includes reports, etc.) is protected by a constitutional amendment.

That is good to know. I live in the US, of course, and therefore much of this thread has been addressing concerns this side of the border. But the Catholic Church is the universal church and so the realities faced by Catholics elsewhere are relevant.
For the purposes of this thread though, I think I have the answer to my question now. There are greater issues dealing with transgenderism, but I do not desire to enter into that conversation at this time.
Thank you everyone who participated in the discussion. It has been very helpful for me in grappling with this issue.

 

[Elizium23]

If we allow gender identity, why not age and race identity (and species identity, though some think that analogy improper)?

Species identity disorders are real and celebrated by the “furry” community.

 

[Corki]

If we allow gender identity, why not age and race identity (and species identity, though some think that analogy improper)?

This is the problem I see with governmental mandates to such a subjective area.

It’s one of those things that just keeps getting harder to deal with. At the college my son attends, the LGBT advocacy group recently had an “awareness” event on the topic of trans students. Evidently the group that is most misunderstood, and therefore most likely to be discriminated against (according to them) are those who are transfluid. I had to look it up. These individuals decide on a daily (or even more frequent) basis which gender they identify with. So today an individual could “feel” like a woman but tomorrow morning “feel” like a man but be back to a woman by evening.

I can’t even imagine how I would interact with an individual like that, let alone how the government would expect them to be treated.

 

[SMGS127]

Species identity disorders are real and celebrated by the “furry” community.

That’s not a “species identity disorder” . Have you ever met a furry? Did they tell you that they were, in fact, an animal? Because I know several furries, and that’s not what it’s about.

It’s one of those things that just keeps getting harder to deal with. At the college my son attends, the LGBT advocacy group recently had an “awareness” event on the topic of trans students. Evidently the group that is most misunderstood, and therefore most likely to be discriminated against (according to them) are those who are transfluid. I had to look it up. These individuals decide on a daily (or even more frequent) basis which gender they identify with. So today an individual could “feel” like a woman but tomorrow morning “feel” like a man but be back to a woman by evening.

I can’t even imagine how I would interact with an individual like that, let alone how the government would expect them to be treated.

Yeah, people who believe in gender transience/fluidity/mobility are clearly outside Catholic doctrine.

 

[marymary1975]

Yes, they claimed that I was targeting transgender persons for harassment and that under Canadian law, if I did what I said I would do about reporting suspicious persons, no matter what their attire, that I could be charged with a hate crime and be jailed. To which I said that I shall never go to Canada.

Mommamaree I just wanted to mentionthat for most people who are not lawyers, the definition of harassment is way broader than what it actually is i. e. I can’t tell you how many people I have had that came to me asking to sue for harassment and they were quite upset about finding out that what they call harassment, legally is not harassmemt, hence despite of how bad you feel harassed you cannot do anything legally about it, so beware that many saying that you could end up in jail may have incorrect ideas or may just have incomplete knowledge they have grasped out of seeing just the top of an iceberg.

I am not a lawyer in Canada and yes laws there are very different from the US but one, I can assure you that what you said in the US is very very far away from harassment; and second while I am not a lawyer in Canada I can tell you that the crime of harasmemt has to be defined in Canada by either statute or Court and no one can throw you in jail if your action does not fit the requirements that have been given by the statute or the court, and sincerely I have trouble believing that Canada defines harassment as going to a cop to report a situation. Unless Canada has a specific law giving special rights to transgendered and specifically stating that that action is a hate crime, which in case I would ask for the link to the law to see it, I have the feeling that what has been said to you is an exaggeration.