There was always the social expectation that all people use the appropriate facilities if those facilities were designated for a specific gender, otherwise what would be the purpose of separating these areas by gender? The assumption always has been that gender segregation could be enforceable if necessary. Exceptions were made for babies and young children. Obviously this is a restriction rather than a "right".Originally Posted by tiny
If transgenders are given the right to choose which facility to use should cisgenders also be given that right? If that is the case then we don't need gender segregation at all. But if we do that some people will feel their "right to privacy" has been compromised. If we retain gender segregation but redefine "gender" in such a way that there is no practical way to determine the gender of an individual in public then gender segregation becomes unenforceable and, therefore, meaningless. Again, concerns over the right to privacy will come up. If we say only transgenders have the right to choose, that would raise some serious questions about rights. Saying everyone is "required" to use only the facilities of the gender they "believe" they are would be just plain ridiculous.
It's not so much a question of whether or not anyone's rights are being violated. It's more a question of who's rights would we rather violate. This is why I would rather look for a practical solution than continue a philosophical discussion on rights.
I can't say with absolute certainty that transgenderism isn't some kind of psychological mechanism needed by some people to deal with the realities of society, but I will say I firmly believe it is something else, something beyond the general public's popular psychological concepts. I believe this because I've read about research and evidence that supports the theory that our subconscious minds form powerful, permanent attachments and aversions to various types of things present in our environments in the early years of our development. This theory is becoming widely accepted in psychology and behavioral sciences, and I can almost guarantee it is the best theory you will have in your lifetime to explain these things. It doesn't do away with genetics or psychology but adds to them.I don't want to offend anyone, but maybe transgender people feel that their own nature doesn't fit in with society's gender-roles. Maybe they don't feel capable of expressing their natural interests/behaviours, and become convinced that the best way to "fit in" is to change their gender/sex so that society treats them in a way that is more in line with who they feel they are...? Does that make sense?
I believe it matters because if it is a psychological problem then then the solution is psychological treatment for the individual, not making controversial changes to the culture over what might only be delusions. But I see no reason to believe transgenderism is any more delusional or "curable" than homosexuality or infantilism. I don't see any of these as being psychological in origin but they all obviously have a psychological impact on individuals and society in general.I can't see why it matters (from a legal/practical point of view) whether gender identity is psychological or biological. :-/
If people become transgender because of a psychological issue with how they see themselves in society, then maybe it might make sense to provide counselling to resolve this dysphoria in some cases instead of surgery, etc.