U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 16, 2016 12:48 PM UTC
43 Comments
Never in the field of human conflict have so many fought so much over where so few pee.
For those who have not yet read the Bathroom Edict
Barack, by the grace of God President of the United States, the insular territories, and the District of Columbia, to all to whom these presents come, greeting:
Among all the infinite benefits God in his mercy has shown fit to bestow upon us, none is more precious than that of indoor plumbing. It has long permitted us the remarkable ability to produce, and thence to remove away from ourselves all manner of bodily wastes and of fish and other small pets what have croaked.
Therefore on this, the thirteenth day of May in the year of our Lord two thousand and sixteen, we do by this edict establish and proclaim in perpetuity that:
Those who have been described as transgendered do also need to poop and to pee and to flush all manner of deceased house pets down the toilet.
These transgendered individuals, therefore, have the right to poop and pee in public toilets, as do all those of other genders, each according to the gender to which they claim allegiance.The flushing of small animals to be reserved only for private toilets, as they may clog up the pipes.
By my hand and seal affixed
OBAMA
Bravo, Pseudo.
The way I see this debate, it isn't really about bathrooms or lockerrooms. This is instead about what gender is and who gets to define it.
In the past social conservatives complained about marriage being redefined. The complaints were largely ignored because marriage is just a social custom and social customs get redefined all the time.
Gender is different. Sure, there is a "custom" to see it the same as sex (and to bundle all the intersex conditions into a loose "other category" that is dealt with on a case-by-case basis to the extent they are even thought of), but unlike the marriage debate, that custom is based on a very solid biological reality. Short of rare DNA encoding errors, nature instills gender through items that go down to our very DNA. We, like all animals, view the world through the prism of binary gender regardless of whether there are rare intersex exceptions. In fact, gender/sex is more real biologically than racial classifications.
Because there is an underlying biological reality supporting the custom, the social conservative – who has screamed like chicken little in the past on redefining social institutions – is joined by others on this one who previously didn't care that about issues like redefining marriage.
As for myself, I was originally pretty hostile to the idea of mixed bathrooms or lockerrooms. At this point though I don't really care that much about the former in any circumstances. As for the latter, I have continued concerns about pre-transitioned transgendered people using such locations. The issue with safety there isn't that transsexuals are criminals at a higher propensity than the general populace; instead it is that if our laws change to allow people to use lockerrooms based on mere identification and there isn't a stigma with being transgendered, then there will be little incentive in the future to prevent criminals who aren't transgendered from pretending they are to commit crimes.
Another thing that matters to me on this topic are sex-specific programs in society: sports leagues being the first that comes to mind. With sports leagues at least I think that segregating by male/female doesn't make much sense. Instead, I think the proper segregator should be whether you have gone through male puberty regardless of what gender you identify with.
All of these are policy items however; I simply don't care much if a man wants to live his life as a woman or vice versa. On the more fundamental question of whether gender exists, however, I strongly agree with the social conservatives: I think it is real and short of an intersex condition like Androgen Insensitivity Disorder I think it is simply one's sex. And on that one, I think I am hardly alone among non-social conservatives.
Bathrooms are ok, locker rooms aren't? Was that the gist, EF?
No.
My comment was only partially about policy (and you left out sports leagues on the policy side). It was also about issues pertaining to how gender gets to be defined and why some are objecting to its redefinition.
I totally get why some are objecting to gender redefinition (the individual gets to define his/her own gender).
However, I think that traditional gender definers (church/religion, biological parent(s), medical authorities) should not be able to define any Constitutional rights. (Even if they object). Rights should attach to the person, not the gender, even if the gender changes / is redefined.
I disagree that there is a constitutional right to be a different gender than what you are born with
Being born with the outward appearance via genitalia of one gender does not necessarily make it "the gender you were born with". Gender is more complex and, not to get into a long drawn out post covering all biological contingencies, some people are born with the appearance of being one gender when in reality they are not that gender. It's not choosing or pretending to be a gender they are not. They are truly not the gender their genitalia makes them appear to be.
And the policy for schools is nothing so casual as a boy pretends to decide for the day that he's really a girl to get into the girls' bathroom. The policy demands that the person has specifically requested to be recognized and treated as the gender with which they identify at all times at school. So that boy can't just say, as various conservative pols have contended, I feel like a girl today so I'm going to us the girls' bathroom or locker room. The "boy" has to completely commit to being viewed as a girl all day, every day, in every situation at school. Not something your average boy who just wants to get into the girls' locker room is going to be willing to commit to.
Please google some good science based sites for accurate info on what transgender really means. It does not mean deciding or pretending to be anything other than "the gender you were born with".
Gender is a social construct and society has long regarded it as roughly equivalent to sex. I say roughly equivalent because sex isn't binary (see intersex conditions) while gender almost completely is (at most we have an "other" category). To the extent you want to make vague reference to "science" to dispute this you are no different from a personhood supporter who claims that science has proven that one is a person at conception: i.e. a person who thinks that science can speak through a non-falsifiable experiment. It can't and you know better than to assert to the contrary
As for identification, your "this needs to be planned in advance" point is completely unpersuasive for a simple reason: so what? If there are perceived benefits to claiming to be a different gender you don't identify and weren't "assigned at birth" with and no perceived costs, some will inevitably use fraud to make the claim. A worrisome example of how that could create problems would be in the field of government contracting were female owned businesses can get preferences for contracts worth millions of dollars.
You obviously haven't bothered to google. This isn't about social constructs or ideologies. Look it the fuck up.
If you have a point please make it
Thank you, B.C. Nicely done. And just for the record, 1 out of every 100 children is born with ambiguous genitals. In other words… Mother: "Is it a boy or a girl?"
Doctor: "Um…gimmee a sec, I'm trying to figure that out."
And in the not very distant past, when Skinner's blank slate behaviorism reigned supreme and everything from homosexuality to autism to schizophrenia was your mother's fault for being a lousy parent, when babies were born with genitalia displaying both male and female characteristics the thinking was, subtracting being easier than adding, snip it off, raise the child as a girl, no problem. But of course there were plenty of problems because you're not a boy or girl just in your crotch but in your cells, in your brain.
I know a family who wanted a girl and so adopted out of China since the fact that the Chinese pretty much only make girls available would not be a problem for them and Chinese adoption has a good reliable rep. Well from the get go their little girl insisted that he was a boy.
At four he had no agenda about gender being a social construct, no ideological point to make, he just knew he was a boy. Fortunately he had been adopted by a liberal family living in Boulder and as it became clear that this was very real, not a phase, his entire extended family was completely accepting and so was the school system. He is being guided and supported and will probably one day have the surgeries he needs to make the full physical transition to a body to match his true gender. And it's obvious to everyone who knows him that it is his true gender, that things like this happen sometimes in a baby's development and that he is the boy he's always felt himself to be.
But, Elliot, your argument goes all to hell when we get to transmen. Most transmen never have "bottom surgery" of any kind, mostly because it has wholly unsatisfactory outcomes. Should, therefore, transmen be forever barred from men's facilities? Also, if transmen are forced into women's accommodations, aren't they giving cover to that (non-existent) pervert who would enter women's facilities for nefarious purposes? I know, everybody, you've heard this rant from me ad nauseum, but as long as some people insist on conflating sex the chromosomal state, with gender, the internal sense of self, I'll keep ranting; and a couple of you know why.
Bathrooms I don't care. Locker rooms I still think yes they should be barred, but I am much less confident of the argument than I was a few months back.
Here is what I am thinking about: I don't see F->M as men (though if they have done the hormone therapy and gone through male puberty I think they need to be barred from female sports). As such, I don't think they have a dispositive argument for going into the male locker room. But on the other hand I don't see a particularly strong argument for keeping them out. M-> F though I think has a stronger argument on being kept out of the female locker room, namely on the safety issue (which isn't that Trans people are dangerous rather that dangerous people could pretend to be Trans). Still thinking about this really actively though so my views on a lot of this could shift
Elliot, While you're thinking, consider this: there has NEVER been a verified case of a transwoman attacking, harassing or in any other way behaving improperly in a women's facility. On the other hand, every year, on the Transgender Day of Remembrance, a list of transwomen who have been murdered is read (we're up to, I think, 23 this year) next is read a list of transpeople who have been attacked. Other than on the street, the most frequent place of incident is in men's restrooms when a transwoman has been forced to use one.
The safety concern on my end isn't really from fears that M->F TGs will attack women, it is that rapists will pose as such TGs when they aren't for access.
I also think that if a private/public location chooses to have gender integrated locker rooms this needs to be disclosed prominently to people who may use them. And I do not think it is appropriate to force a private location to have such gender integrated locker rooms
I agree that gender is more biologically differentiating than "race", whatever "race" is. The point of feminism is that biology is not destiny. So I don't get why going through male puberty should be a screener for participation in athletic teams.
The US Army is coming around to the view that going through male puberty isn't necessary to perform at a level protective of one's fellow soldiers.
The ability of females to perform at the same level of athletic competence as males may be rare, but that is mostly cultural conditioning, not inherent to female biology.
In my youth, I worked in construction for years. I had a couple of frank conversations with male crewmembers; one articulated his concern as that I would not carry my weight work-wise, or would endanger fellows because of weakness, thus creating a burden for them. Once I demonstrated that this fear was unfounded, the fear disappeared.
In the case of TG individuals using bathrooms of choice, it has been pointed out that this practice has been happening for years with no incidents of abuse or harassment. So that proof of “no harm” has already happened.
Regarding transgender and "intersex" folks, they are existing outside of the boxes we are all used to, and so there is some discomfort. But the past behavior of this population (no or negligible instances of criminal harassment in the last decade from gender-benders) should be our guide in predicting future behavior, not hypothetical instances of "What if"? And, as the President and Attorney General of the US affirmed, basic human rights, (including Constitutional rights of due process not to be treated as a criminal without criminal conduct), do not disappear when gender identification changes.
You really don't want to be on the same side as Chaps and his potty-lurking demons in this fight.
MJ, I really don't care that much who agrees with me in a debate; I care more about what I think the best position is. On this one I agree with Gordon more than I agree with some of my liberal friends.
As for male puberty, the issue isn't whether one can perform without it, instead it is whether having gone through it gives you a massive competitive advantage. To be clear, when I say male puberty I am also including F -> M TGs who have testosterone shots and experience the irreversible changes that go along with that. Under this metric, a M -> F TG should be able to participate in women’s sports so long as the transition occurred pre-puberty.
I'll let others argue this out. Time to go to work. Finals week, yay!
On the issue of pre-adolescents undergoing transition, I offer a little education. Pre-adolescents can be given puberty blockers that will keep them in a developmentally immature state until they are 18 and able to give informed consent for cross-sex hormone therapy but I know of no clinic anywhere that will administer cross-sex hormones to minors. So there goes the idea of so long as the transition occurred pre-puberty. Also, any transwoman will tell you that, unless they work out with weights, they lose that masculine upper-body strength very quickly after beginning estrogen therapy. even then, they lose the bulky musculature they had before.
I know a family with a child presenting as female who has always felt himself to be male and what you say is accurate. You don't let very young children make that kind of decision so there is no such thing as surgically transitioning before puberty.
I meant puberty blockers for transitioning M -> F TGs. Sorry for not being clear on that one
Male, Christian, pedagogy cannot persist in the face of that truth, mama. Those men who fear their "feminine" side are incapable of maintaining their egos without such prejudice.
Duke, so to be clear you think that gender is based solely on ego and not at all on biology? Or am I misunderstanding you?
That isn't what that quote means and you know it. Shame on you for trying to be the Bad Lawyer who twists words completely beyond their rational meaning.
FEMINISM is a movement and set of beliefs, not a gender.
And last I checked, a man's feminine side isn't about the presence of certain biological features either.
Well then maybe the author should write more clearly instead of leaving me to guess at what he was trying to say.
You always misunderstand me, Elliot. Sometimes it seems almost intentional…
and thanks for the back-up, PR..
You made an edit MJ, so I want to respond to the "no safety issue with TGs in locker rooms and bathrooms" point.
I agree that there is little to fear from transgendered people themselves using the "wrong" (my view not yours) bathroom. The issue instead as I see it on safety comes from two factors in a future society: 1) the ease of declaring oneself transgendered (i.e. No surgery, no hormones required); and 2) the lack of stigma from doing so. These factors make it an effective strategy for a criminal in the future who isn't really transgendered to PRETEND he/she is.
Example: Let's say Evil Tim Tebow (imaginary version of real Tim Tebow who has completely different moral code but same physical form) decided he wanted to spy on naked women in the locker room. Let's also assume Evil Tim Tebow isn't transgendered; he completely identified as a male. This over six foot tall athlete would not need to dress as a woman, have his gentalia changed, or take hormones to come to the locker room. He could simply enter and share shower facilities with unwilling women while having an erection.
The counter to this though would be: so what? We already allow people to use locker rooms where they are attracted to those who are getting changed (homosexuals in locker rooms). A good question would be why this would be that different.
At the same time though, it does seem different. Evil Tim Tebow isn't simply showering people of similar body type that he is attracted to, he'd be showering with people he'd be attracted to with drastically different body types and body types that are in fact much smaller and weaker than his in almost all cases. Because Evil Tim Tebow is, well, evil, and showers aren't the most secure places in the world this would also seem to open up a public safety issue.
So to recap, while I see some good arguments for integrating locker rooms, I have concerns. Not because of TG people; but rather because of others.
Now you're bringing in a new factor, media/sports hero. If Tebow had won a Super Bowl he could shower anywhere, with or without that erection you seem fearful of 😉
You underestimate the power of the Evil Tim Tebow erection
/Darth Vader Ominous voice
/sarcasm
Not nearly as much as he overestimates, by multiple factors, his T-ness's football prowess …
… Tebow winning the Super Bowl, WTF ?!?
This entire conversation is lunacy. Pee-pees, and predators, and Tebow — oh my …
… did I just miss seeing all of FOTF’s breathless concerns about Hastert, Sandusky, or pedophile clergy?? This is not about gender, or genderness, but bigotry, hypocrisy, and prejudice — and, we all know it. Voyager had it right, right from the opening comment.
Indeed, dio,
Enough already with this foolish discussion. Elliot will continue to prod as long as he has the spare time.
There is one other item here seemingly overlooked. It has to do with these religious zealots, like Lundberg and the denizens at Focus on the Family, who call themselves conservatives. They have a long standing fixation on; obsession with; female body parts. Now, their obsession and fixation is expanded to peoples' bathroom habits. That is not conservative; it's just plain WEIRD.
Regards, Conservative Head Banger
Some people never learned everything they always needed to know in kindergarten …