• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Tennessee sees new step in wave of anti-Trans bills

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
From the APA:
"Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth."

"Gender expression and behavior". So a guy who likes to wear makeup and feel pretty can be called " transgender" under that definition. Billy Porter is "transgender" under that definition. :rolleyes:
Has the APA ever actually called anyone who didn't have a gender identity that doesn't conform to their AS a trans person?
Because I've seen (TGNC) Transgender and gender nonconforming (https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf Link opens a PDF) before but never that the latter was the same as the former.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree about warning about hazards.

That isn't what I said. In fact it's pretty much the exact opposite what I just said.

And since the rest of your post proceeds from that misunderstanding, I don't see any reason to respond to it.

Feel free to try again.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Has the APA ever actually called anyone who didn't have a gender identity that doesn't conform to their AS a trans person?
I don't understand the question. Are you asking if the APA goes around declaring specific individuals as transgender? Because that's not how the APA works. That's just the definition of it that they use, and it's very vague like I said.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
True. I never saw a problem in that. I don't think people care in general. I don't live in a too conservative area but that's not my fight. Not sure what else to add.
I do see this kind of toxicity and angst about bathrooms more online than irl, ngl. But in saying that as a cis person, perhaps I’m blind to it. Like I didn’t notice any homophobia until it looked like Same Sex marriage was going to be legalised in my country (and thankfully came to fruition.) So I’m a bit more weary of underlying bigotry now.

I do think those against unisex bathrooms are on the losing side ultimately. They complained about integrated bathrooms, then they complained about gays in the bathrooms. This is just the latest gasp of breath from the dying conservatives (relatively speaking.)

Just to be clear I have no issue with people holding traditionalist views. Just that when it comes to these kinds of issues, society always progresses and we find something new to fight about.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
That isn't what I said. In fact it's pretty much the exact opposite what I just said.

And since the rest of your post proceeds from that misunderstanding, I don't see any reason to respond to it.

Feel free to try again.
Sorry if I misunderstood. To reiterate, I think the important takeaway is:
This isn't for cushioning the blow for people who were used to things the old way. This is to punish LGBT friendly businesses in LGBT hostile areas and encourage businesses to not allow trans people in the bathrooms of their gender identity. The same legislator who did this banned it in public schools for students and teachers just days before.

Secondarily: people are in the bathroom with trans people all the time, they just don't know it. For every trans person they clock I'm sure there's five they didn't clock. And we shouldn't acknowledge being scared of someone who looks different than our long-standing concepts of gender is an appropriate response, even while acknowledging that change is sometimes difficult. '(x person demographic) is dangerous' is an inherently harmful stereotype, so we shouldn't be warning people that that demographic exists in day to day life. I personally think making bathrooms unisex is a better solution than this sign, but I'd just be happy if people kept their minds out of other people's pants.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't understand the question. Are you asking if the APA goes around declaring specific individuals as transgender? Because that's not how the APA works. That's just the definition of it that they use, and it's very vague like I said.
I agree the definition seems wonky. It looks like a cover for the actual guidelines PDF, which further distinguishes transgender people from gender non-conforming people, stressing gender expression not being an inherent part of gender identity, and also separate from sexual expression and societal gender roles. So I doubt the APA actually uses that definition in practice?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
I agree the definition seems wonky. It looks like a cover for the actual guidelines PDF, which further distinguishes transgender people from gender non-conforming people, stressing gender expression not being an inherent part of gender identity, and also separate from sexual expression and societal gender roles. So I doubt the APA actually uses that definition in practice?
I hope not. I've seen the same definition in other places, too, over the years and in discussions.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Sorry if I misunderstood. To reiterate, I think the important takeaway is:
This isn't for cushioning the blow for people who were used to things the old way. This is to punish LGBT friendly businesses in LGBT hostile areas and encourage businesses to not allow trans people in the bathrooms of their gender identity. The same legislator who did this banned it in public schools for students and teachers just days before.

Which doesn't establish punishment as their motive.


Secondarily: people are in the bathroom with trans people all the time, they just don't know it. For every trans person they clock I'm sure there's five they didn't clock. And we shouldn't acknowledge being scared of someone who looks different than our long-standing concepts of gender is an appropriate response,

No one's calling it an appropriate response. It's a predictable and to a large extent understandable response. That's not the same thing.

even while acknowledging that change is sometimes difficult. '(x person demographic) is dangerous' is an inherently harmful stereotype,

Making people aware of the fact that they're interacting with people of a particular demographic is probably the surest way of dispelling unfair stereotypes.

so we shouldn't be warning people that that demographic exists in day to day life.

Again awareness equals acceptance.

Not always of course, but I don't see how there can be any acceptance without it.

I personally think making bathrooms unisex is a better solution than this sign, but I'd just be happy if people kept their minds out of other people's pants.

I think we all know that that's never going to happen.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
It can be kind of hard to miss the Adams apple. Unless it's covered by a beard, which isnt unheard of

Granted I've spent most of the last 20 years of my life in college towns on the West Coast. People tend to flaunt their differences here.

The thing is, do you (people) eye the person down with the adams apple or go and do your business with a shrug. Can't imagine California. Virginia is a southern state with northern tendencies.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
The thing is, do you (people) eye the person down with the adams apple or go and do your business with a shrug. Can't imagine California. Virginia is a southern state with northern tendencies.

Mostly a shrug. I probably tend to notice things like that more than most people here because I'm 62 and I'm from the Midwest, but all that means is that there might be a momentary delay before the shrug.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Which doesn't establish punishment as their motive.
I think his record on transgender law speaks for itself. Part of that aforementioned banning trans from bathrooms in public schools including providing a provision for suing the school for 'emotional damages' by people who are exposed to trans in bathroom there. Literally threatening punishment to the schools for non-conformity.
I don't think he could manage that with private businesses without the state getting hit with civil lawsuits, so instead he's making businesses which are pro-LGBT visible and targetable in a state that's very anti-LGBT. This isn't a type of awareness that's productive. It's more like a forced outing. I agree that awareness needs to be had, but how that bridge is built should be on trans people's terms. Not government legislators. Especially not ones that have no intention of helping them.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I'm pretty sure somebody's 80 year- old church- lady grandmother on her way into the bathroom to powder her nose is going to be freaked out by a 6 foot 4 transvestite with 5:00 shadow regardless of whether or not that's the "right" reaction to have.
Oh come on, are we doing the "trans women are men in drag" bit again?
Hasn't this gotten old by now?
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
I think his record on transgender law speaks for itself. Part of that aforementioned banning trans from bathrooms in public schools including providing a provision for suing the school for 'emotional damages' by people who are exposed to trans in bathroom there. Literally threatening punishment to the schools for non-conformity.

Even with that, you're assuming that punishment was the primary motive rather than a desire, as they saw it, to protect thier children.

It's an assumption, and it makes a weak case.

To carry that assumption over into
subsequent legislation is even weaker.


I
I don't think he could manage that with private businesses without the state getting hit with civil lawsuits, so instead he's making businesses which are pro-LGBT visible and targetable in a state that's very anti-LGBT. This isn't a type of awareness that's productive. It's more like a forced outing.[/quote,]

How? Are transgender people going to be made to identify themselves at the door?

If not I don't see how this is in any way a forced outing.


I
I agree that awareness needs to be had, but how that bridge is built should be on trans people's terms.

Why? You're asking for a one-sided, no compromise method I'll bring people together. How well does that ever work?

Doesnt sound like you're talking about building a bridge at all, sounds more like you want to span the gap by shooting everybody else out of a cannon.


I
Not government legislators. Especially not ones that have no intention of helping them.

So the people as a whole shouldn't be represented in any of these decisions?
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Even with that, you're assuming that punishment was the primary motive rather than a desire, as they saw it, to protect thier children.

It's an assumption, and it makes a weak case.

To carry that assumption over into
subsequent legislation is even weaker.
@ADigitalArtist

Ok, this post got screwed up somehow and our wonderful system will let me fix it.

Hopefully you can decipher it
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Even with that, you're assuming that punishment was the primary motive rather than a desire, as they saw it, to protect thier children.
Even if I bought the 'think of the children' reasoning often used to demonize minorities, why would I also not draw the conclusion that one wants to punish those 'harming the children'? And why should I care? Nobody gets any respect points from me for holding onto fear that trans people are secret sex predators. **** 'em.
Why? You're asking for a one-sided, no compromise method I'll bring people together. How well does that ever work?

Doesnt sound like you're talking about building a bridge at all, sounds more like you want to span the gap by shooting everybody else out of a cannon.
I'm sure a lot of people thought that when 'whites only' signs underwent forced removal.
And in any case I offered a compromise several times, including changing bathrooms to unisex to avoid needing to bother with the sign at all.

So the people as a whole shouldn't be represented in any of these decisions?
That's a pretty egregious misinterpretation of what I wrote. But sure, 'the people as a whole' have a notoriously poor track record of handling civil rights in this country. The 'people as a whole' in Tennessee would rather not see transgender people operating out in the open at all.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm pretty sure somebody's 80 year- old church- lady grandmother on her way into the bathroom to powder her nose is going to be freaked out by a 6 foot 4 transvestite with 5:00 shadow regardless of whether or not that's the "right" reaction to have.
".
You know there are 6 ft 4 cis women with honest to god beards, right?
And having known actual honest to god Drag queens, they pass as more feminine than I do as a cis woman.
Although part of me would still like to see such a reaction from dear old granny..
I would wager it would amuse me greatly









Oh I’m so going to hell lol
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Even if I bought the 'think of the children' reasoning often used to demonize minorities, why would I also not draw the conclusion that one wants to punish those 'harming the children'?

Because you're doing more than that. you're acting like that's all that's going on.


And why should I care? Nobody gets any respect points from me for holding onto fear that trans people are secret sex predators. **** 'em.


Because you're accusing them of something. You should care whether or not your accusations are accurate

I'm sure a lot of people thought that when 'whites only' signs underwent forced removal.
And in any case I offered a compromise several times, including changing bathrooms to unisex to avoid needing to bother with the sign at all.

I think to a lot of people, a unisex sign showing up on the bathroom door would serve more or less the same purposr as the sign.


That's a pretty egregious misinterpretation of what I wrote.

I don't think it is. You said "how the bridge is built should be on trans people, Not government legislators. Especially not ones that have no intention of helping them"

If government is going to stay out of this decision, who's going to represent the people as a whole?

That is, after all, the function of government.


But sure, 'the people a whole' have a notoriously poor track record of handling civil rights in this country.

So what's the alternative,?


The 'people as a whole' in Tennessee would rather not see transgender people operating out in the open at all.

Then where did the sign come from?
 
Top