The transgender bathroom issue has gotten everyone's panties in a bunch [link removed]

As it should. This is such a non issue.

Non-issue eh?

I guess these physicians might disagree with you: Web Link

Safe link.

DKHSK, being that you are quoting a "small conservative" group of physicians that base their medicine and science on scripture and right wing ideology, yeah I still stand behind it being a non issue. I happen to know transgender children and they are sweet loving kids and not the pervs that conservatives make them out to be. Quote me science and not ideology.

Web Link

DKHSK, AcPeds is a small organization (fewer than 200 members) founded on a common belief that gay people shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else. You should also know that their beliefs are in direct opposition to the much larger (60,000 members) American Academy of Pediatricians.

You really should pick your sources with more care.

What, you guys are science deniers?

Hmmm...

So let me get this straight: if one believes in religion, one is a wacko. But if one believes, without any scientific evidence, that he is a she, he/she is normal?

Got it...you've convinced me.

(psssst, not really)

I suppose next thing you'll be saying is that these guys really are dogs? Web Link

(psssst, oh forget it!)

This woman BELIEVES she is a cartoon character: Web Link

Is she?

DKHSK, this has been in place for two years in Pleasanton. Can you point to any problems here?

DKHSK, I'm not sure how you got off on those wild, irrelevant tangents, but I do now see where you get your "science" from...Glen Beck. Web Link

Personally, I try to cite articles that aren't likely to show up on snopes, but you're free to do as you wish. Just don't expect any of us to treat your arguments seriously.

Kathleen,

As clearly evident in my previous posts, I am speaking to the biological position of what it means to be a male OR a female. (Get what I did there?)

If you can't tell that I am against the policy, now you know.

And let me just put this out there, but first I want to say that I hope it NEVER happens: what do you suppose is going to happen when a man who IDENTIFIES as a woman (or vice versa) goes into woman's bathroom and commits a crime?

I'll give you my guess: 1.) The public will go crazy (to put it lightly). 2.) The organization that facilitated the crime through policies such as these are going to be sued until the cows come home and rightly so. (Hello Target)

Now again I don't wish this to happen, but, human nature being what it is I fear it just might.

All because someone BELIEVES he/she is different, when biologically he/she isn't.

The best way to keep one's foot of one's mouth is, do not comment!

Of course, many people are a blend of male and female on many levels.

For instance, genetically Web Link

DKHSK, you aren't really contributing anything to the debate, you're merely echoing what you've heard on conservative talk shows or at church. The transgender-sexual-assault-in-the-bathroom myth has been completely debunked: there is absolutely nothing to it. Police, victims rights advocates and others have pointed out that the myth is groundless. Hilariously, several news sites have already pointed out that more sexual assaults in bathrooms have been committed by Republican lawmakers (3) than by transgender people in the history of gendered bathrooms (0).

Do you have anything new to add? Or are you just going to be parrot of received opinion?

So policy has been in place two years and you obviously aren't aware of problems.

I would expect that a male who identifies as female will face justice for any crime, although what crime would,it be? What about a female who identifies as male? Seems few are ever worried about crime in that situation.

I'm guessing there are more than two possibilities, most far less dramatic.

I am sorry you don't see this is more than belief.

"I am sorry you don't see this is more than belief".

I'm open to see any biological evidence that concludes that someone born with male chromosomes and reproductive organs is actually a female.

Otherwise, it is a belief and it is science.

BobB,

Your obtuseness aside, this is not about those fairly rare cases where someone is born with physical abnormalities. Gender identification is basically proclaiming, without biological precedence, that they are the opposite gender "inside".

Inside *where* is anyones guess.

Michael,

I always look forward to your interesting contributions to a topic.

Thanks!

Edit to my last response to Kathleen:

Otherwise, it is a belief and NOT science.

"Do you have anything new to add? Or are you just going to be parrot of received opinion?"

Hey Scotty,

If you have some science around this topic then please, provide the link and I promise I will take a look at it and evaluate.

Just remember though, Psychology is not a science.

"Just remember though, Psychology is not a science." -- DKHSK

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. It's funny how you have NOW gotten all picky about the source of your "science."

Anyway, a literature review is probably the best place to get started. Here's a recent one that covers the major papers. Web Link

Scott,

It hasn't gone un-noticed that while you and others attack the AcPeds for religious beliefs, you suspiciously haven't attempted to refute ANY of the information they provide.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how you can attack the BELIEFS of those who are religious, yet act as if the BELIEFS of those who are transgendered are somehow pious.

How is that not hypocritical?

Got a source that doesn't require me to sign up?

DKHSK, Well if you want this to be about science, religion is not science. You can look for the science regarding any human condition that does not conform to your belief structure. Here's one: Web Link

Arguably, it is a new field and it will take time and a lot of research. In the meantime, it is difficult to believe that in the Bay Area, you aren't already working with people who do not fit the limited definitions you presented. Experience should be informative, not dogma. How, otherwise, might you explain "men of god" who abuse defenseless children?

Kathleen,

You assume I am religious. I am not.

You said:
"How, otherwise, might you explain "men of god" who abuse defenseless children?"

This is a very interesting rhetorical question (assuming it is rhetorical) and I'm glad you brought it up!

How would YOU explain "men of God" who abuse defenseless children? Is it biological or behavioral or both?

And you are mistaken by suggesting that I'm using "dogma", when I'm really just comparing. I am simply pointing out that both (trans-gendered and the religious) require belief as justification for action.

Why?

Pull quote from your link:

"While the biological gender is usually manifested in the physical appearance, the individual gender IDENTITY IS NOT IMMEDIATELY DISCERNIBLE AND PRIMARILY ESTABLISHED IN THE PSYCHE of a human being.” (emphasis mine)

"Psyche" does not mean what you think it does. Given that Psyche involves the Conscious and Unconscious of the human mind, perhaps someone (or you) can show us what those look like, biologically?

DKHSK,

Medscape requires you to sign up? If it does, I'm pretty sure it's free. Go out on a limb and sign up. Don't get ALL your "science" from obviously biased sources/hate groups (See Web Link

I don't care about "belief"; the lit review I posted surveys papers that have collected and analyzed data. Here's their conclusion:

"Current data suggest a biologic etiology for transgender identity. Studies of DSD patients and neuroanatomical studies provide the strongest evidence for the organic basis of transgender identity. Because the sample sizes of most studies on this subject were small, the conclusions must be interpreted with caution. Further research is required to assign specific biologic mechanisms for gender identity."

In a nutshell: It seems clear that gender identity is rooted in biology, but we don't know the exact mechanisms. We need to do more research to figure out exactly how it works.

I'll just let the paper (and its bibliography) refute the AcPeds "science."

Letting AcPeds frame the debate on LGBT rights is like letting Ken Ham frame the debate on evolution: it's pathetic and entirely pointless and unnecessary.

Again, will you be contributing anything AT ALL to the debate? Or could we just replace you with a parrot that listens to idiotic radio shows aimed at the chronically uninformed and willfully ignorant?

"You assume I am religious. I am not." -- DKHSK

Ok, this is completely off topic, but your statement reminded me of poor Peter from Matthew 26:73-75:

73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee.

74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

Also from the link I provided: There is some early evidence, then, that science is catching up with something many of us already assume, and for good reason: Gender identity exists on a scale, rather than in narrow dichotomized groups.

From a LA Times article: Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition . . . Web Link I cut the quote where it dives into it being nearly exclusively men.

I disagree that being transgender is a belief system. I don't think someone gets up one day and suddenly says, I believe I want to dress like a woman (or man).

So sex and religion, two conversational no-nos. All we need now is the presidential contest.

Restricting bathrooms to men or women exclusively has not prevented crime from occurring in restrooms. Does a change to policy guarantee an increase in crime? So I'm going back to my original question, what problems have occurred in the last two years of PUSD policy? Or anywhere?

Kathleen,

I'm glad you brought up pedophilia.

If you agree with what the link indicates, then my hypothetical question to you is this: would you allow a known pedophile to share a bathroom with your small son or daughter?

Scott,

We're going around in circles.

I get it, you identify as a female, that's your "choice". Happy?

Interesting question. A pedophile already can be in a restroom any day if we use the example of men and little boys. So there is no bathroom cross gender usage issue. And we don't tell a man they can't use a restroom. Unless we use a scarlet letter system: P for pedophile, TM or TF for transgender, H for heterosexual, I for intersex, H for homosexual how would we know who should use which restrooms? Do you let your daughter in a restroom with a lesbian? How would you know? So, knowing your environment and general caution are already necessary. Hysteria needn't play a role.

Kathleen,

Would you allow your young son or daughter to share a bathroom with a known pedophile?

DKHSK

After two years of a policy at PUSD, do you know of any problems?
Do you let your daughter in a restroom with a lesbian?
(Do you let your son in a restroom with a gay man?)
How would you know?

Kathleen,

Are you now equating homosexuality to pedophilia? The "experts" in your link might have something to say about that! /sar

I know its a tough answer to give because on the one hand, to answer it affirmatively means that you expose your children to harm from a person whose sexual preference you define as "normal" but different than your own. But if you answer negatively you set yourself up to be labeled a hypocrite.

:)

I've been very clear about ANY policy that pertains to opposite sex usage of bathrooms. I'm against it unequivocally. Duh!

My answer about a known pedofile, although questioning how I would know, is that my children didn't go into restrooms unattended. Neither do my grandkids. Caution, not hysteria.

I was asking if your aversion carries over to others you may not want in restrooms.

But your basis for being against is what exactly? You still have not answered about known problems in the district after two years of the policy being in place. I suspect there isn't much, if anything.

Kathleen,

As I mentioned, pmt question is hypothetical since YOU brought up pedophilia.

Was there a danger of your children going to the bathroom unattended?

BTW this is the third time you have evaded answering the question directly.

Nor have you answered mine.

Kathleen,

I most certainly answered your question earlier when I said I was unequivocally against the policy.

Now if you please, reciprocate.

DKHSK,

Pedophiles are criminals who sexually abuse children. They have no place in this discussion. What we're talking about is the rational policy of simply allowing people to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. You have ignored the science that describes the biological basis for gender identity; you keep harping on about hypothetical situations engineered to generate fear; you are, quite simply, a parrot. I shall, henceforth, call you Peter the Parrot. The parrot who denied his true beliefs.

You want a hypothetical that is appropriate for our discussion? Fine. Leaving aside the question of any type of sexual violence, would you, as a woman, feel comfortable being forced to use the men's room? As a man, would you feel comfortable being forced to use the ladies' room?

You quite simply don't know what you're talking about. Unfortunately, that rarely stops people like you from opining.

The question was do you know of any problems since the policy was put in place in PUSD, not are you against transgender people using bathroom of identity.

Scotty,

Kathleen shared a link that indicates that pedophilia is on the same spectrum of sexuality as heterosexuality and homosexuality. In fact, she compared pedophilia to homosexuality. Your beef is with her in this regards.

My question to you is this: is a person who identifies as a pedophile but who does not act out his impulse a criminal?

And a follow on for Scott, if you answer no, then do you consider pedophilia to be normal sexual feeling? Because By definition of the link Kathleen sent, you should.

Can't wait to see your response.

Parrot,

Do I need to type more s l o w l y for you so that you can keep up? We are discussing questions of gender identity not sexual orientation; pedophilia is not germane to this topic. If PW does a story on pedophiles, perhaps, I'll comment on it...but until then, I see no reason to discuss it.

DKHSK,

Why do you say this is not about "those fairly rare cases ..."? Would you make an exception to bathroom policy for someone with XXY, or XXXY who identifies as a gender that doesn't superficially match his/her outward appearance? What about other genetic, epigenetic, or hormonal variations? They may be far more common than you think. As pointed out above, science is just beginning to understand the biology behind all this. Many of these people have it hard enough already. I'm willing to give them a break when it comes to going to the bathroom.

Sorry for the pedophilia diversion. Not my intention; looking at spectrum of identity and preference.

BobB,

I said "rare" because it is rare.

And one more time, what you linked is a biological fact. I can test it and verify its existence. Gender identity in the sense that that the chromosomes are either xx or xy, with corresponding correct and intact reproductive organs, but where one decides that they are opposite their biological gender, is not a biological fact no matter what anecdotal evidence is presented.

Scotty and Kathleen,

I'm going to let you slide on the pandoras box that Kathleen opened. You're hesitance in answering my questions speak very loudly to your hypocrisy on this issue.

Peace.

Edit: Your, not you're.

DKHSK, it wasn't Pandora's box. Just a quote that spoke to spectrum. However, to your question. The answer is there are several possible answers, including why would I, a female, be taking my son into a men's restroom? Alternatively, if I knew the person was a pedophile, there are the non-confrontational approaches of walking away or waiting for the pedophile to leave or taking my son into the ladies room (do you oppose that too?).

So, now please reciprocate and answer my question--what problems have arisen in PUSD as a result of this policy, in place for two years.

Kathleen,

So you admit that in the case of a pedophile, whom you have suggested is as behaviorally normal as a heteorsexual or homosexual, you would prefer to not have your kids be in close contact in bathrooms? Interesting.

In answer to your question: None that I'm aware of.

The article said they are on a spectrum. If they act on their interest, they are criminals. Read the science about their brains. You have a very small definition of normal; science is proving it to be incorrect.

Everyday, everywhere, you don't actually know anything about those with whom you are in close contact. Selecting one group or another to discriminate against does not guarantee you are eliminating close contact with all those you are trying to keep away.

Kathleen,

Are you indicating that pedophilia is "normal"? Because you seem to indicate you agree with what is stated in the link.

Same question to you that I gave to Scotty:

Would you have the same answer from your last post if someone who identifies as a pedophile but has not carried out his/her impulse? Would you feel comfortable having your kids share a bathroom with the non-practicing pedophile?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that pedophilia isn't normal. I make no apologies for that view and I'd reckon a guess that most people would agree with that no matter what the anecdotal evidence. And it IS anecdotal, make no mistake about that.