If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
How? If gender and sexuality are fluid, how can you "prove" someone isn't trans? You could very easily have a situation where a trans woman is changing in an open locker room, keeping to herself as much as possible, but people around her notice/know and feel uncomfortable. They report her as being a man creeping on them, she's arrested, and has to somehow prove she's pre-op trans?
Same situation, but it's a dude creeping. He's subtle and keeps to himself, but people notice/know and report him for creeping. How does the prosecution prove that he's NOT pre-op trans? Gender and sexuality is fluid - modern social justice outright rejects labels and strict definitions of gender and sexual preferences. The law requires strict definitions.
Someone gets the short end of the stick. Who should it be? The large number of actual trans people, or the minority of hypothetical creeps?
As I noted above, I entirely get what you are saying on a hypothetical basis. But on a practical basis what was the source of this controversy du jour? Some huge outbreak of creepy behavior in locker rooms or restrooms? Or GOP politicians ginning up their conservative base as a backlash to recent court decisions strengthening LGBT rights? I submit it's the latter which is why I said this is "much ado about nothing". Not that a scenario you describe couldn't happen. But that it generally doesn't on a level that would require this mad dash for new legislation.
As a woman who's been called "sir" before, I have no doubt this has happened.
I've seen pics of you, that was just someone pulling your leg.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Just so we're clear, you're saying that a video on the internet could potentially be fabricated by someone with an agenda, and on its own is practically useless in supporting an argument?
I know, right? Crazy.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Same situation, but it's a dude creeping. He's subtle and keeps to himself, but people notice/know and report him for creeping. How does the prosecution prove that he's NOT pre-op trans? Gender and sexuality is fluid - modern social justice outright rejects labels and strict definitions of gender and sexual preferences. The law requires strict definitions.
Someone gets the short end of the stick. Who should it be? The large number of actual trans people, or the minority of hypothetical creeps?
The error you make here is that you seem convinced that we need some kind of law — we don't, it's a solution to an imaginary problem. Harassment by transsexuals is not a problem, especially if put in perspective with harassment of women by men.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I'm seeing posts on FB from butchy lesbians who have been denied access to the ladies room, because they have short hair and wear a hoody. I sometimes have short hair and wear a hoody. This is ridiculous.
The error you make here is that you seem convinced that we need some kind of law — we don't, it's a solution to an imaginary problem. Harassment by transsexuals is not a problem, especially if put in perspective with harassment of women by men.
That we should dismiss one problem solely due to some other greater problem is at the least an informal fallacy, no?
I mean, one can argue there's an issue of limited resources, but it doesn't appear that's the argument being made.
The argument being made (if you take it to its conclusion) is "problems only deserve to get solved if they're bad enough".
There’s more at stake in today’s transgender battles than who may be permitted to enter a girls’ locker room. What’s really being debated is the nature of reality itself, and what impact it should have on social organization.
In his recent letter on marriage and the family, Amoris Laetitia (“The Joy of Love”), Pope Francis said that sex education should teach “respect and appreciation” for sexual differences, including self-acceptance and learning to embrace the body with which one is born, rather than playing with fictional identities that deny reality.
“The young need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created,” he wrote. Thinking that we enjoy “absolute power over our own bodies,” Francis warned, leads to the delusion that “we enjoy absolute power over creation.”
This could turn out to be the most unpopular stance the pope took in the entire letter.
In a disturbing video, Joseph Backholm, the director of Washington’s Family Policy Institute, recently interviewed a number of “millennial” college students regarding people’s ability to define themselves apart from the impositions of nature.
“So if I told you that I was a woman, what would your response be?” he asked.
The responses were what one would expect on a U.S. college campus: “I would say, good for you…”; “Nice to meet you…”; “I don’t have a problem with it.”
The interviewer proceeded to probe further, asking just how far people’s self-identity was under their own control.
“If I told you that I was Chinese, what would your response be?” he continued.
“I might be a little surprised, but I would say, ‘Good for you. Yeah, be who you are,’” one young woman responded.
Pressing still further, Backholm asked, “If I told you that I was 7 years old, what would your response be?”
One student said he wouldn’t believe that “immediately.” Another said: “If you feel seven at heart, then so be it.”
Some students, however, seemed to draw the line at height.
“If I said that I am six feet five inches, what would you say?” the interviewed asked.
“That I would question,” one female student responded. “Why?” he countered. “Because you’re not.”
Pressed whether she was saying that Backholm could be a Chinese woman, but not a 6’-5” Chinese woman, the student paused, then agreed.
Another summed up her opinion by saying: “I feel like it’s not my place, as like another human, to say someone is wrong or to draw lines or boundaries.”
All of this may sound like openness and tolerance, but there’s a more insidious side to it. Twenty-five years ago, Saint John Paul II argued that allowing the will dominance over reason and reality will end up leading society over a cliff.
In his 1991 encyclical letter Centesimus Annus, John Paul wrote that in the political organization of the state, the only alternative to reason is will. If things are not based on what is, they must be based on what we want them to be.
The “we” in question here is always the strongest, whether expressed as a majority or simply as the most powerful interest group.
Having lived through both National Socialism and Marxist Communism, John Paul contended that the real difference between totalitarianism and democracy is not so much the concentration of power into a single individual or party versus a system of checks and balances, but rather the more fundamental understanding of objective truth itself.
Totalitarianism, he said, is based on “voluntarism”, or the supremacy of will over reason, whereas a rule of law places will at the service of reason.
According to John Paul, “Totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people.”
In a totalitarian state, the will of the ruler becomes the sole criterion of moral good and evil. In the case of a democracy, the will of the ruler becomes the will of the majority.
Thus, John Paul wrote that a state which “sets itself above all values cannot tolerate the affirmation of an objective criterion of good and evil beyond the will of those in power, since such a criterion, in given circumstances, could be used to judge their actions.”
It is in this light that John Paul’s oft-cited remark can be understood in its deepest sense: “A democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.”
This was not an exercise in rhetoric for dramatic effect.
Although democracy may seem to be the opposite of totalitarianism, since it distributes political power, if it fails to recognize objective truth and goodness beyond political expediency, it falls into the same error as totalitarianism. It denies the role of reason in the organization of society, and allows the will to reign.
As a society, we’ve now passed seamlessly from defining people by their sexual “orientation” to defining them by their subjective belief of who they are, regardless of what biology or genetics says, and all in less than a generation.
Where this will ultimately lead is anybody’s guess, but if the opinions of the millennial generation are to be believed, the trend has not yet nearly run its course.
And if St. John Paul is to be believed, it will not end in the flourishing of democracy, but in its demise.
Pre-op trans-women aren't women, they're men on estrogen therapy.
Here's my contention, gender is a fabrication. There aren't 100s, dozens, or even 2, there are none.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
While there are 2 sexes, there are no genders. It's a (recently) made-up concept.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Isn't everything we would call "culture" or "society" made up?
True, but it's yet another co-opted term that's been manipulated to mean something that it was never intended to mean. Sex = gender, the terms are synonymous with each other. Yet lately it's been twisted by Gender (heh) Studies "experts" to relate to who, or even what, you have sexual relations with, not your actual sex. I can't figure out why such a thing matters and people can't just shag who they want without making an exposition over it. "I like vacuum cleaners and you have to approve of whatever I want!" WTF?
(Oh, and I admit that I was wrong before, there are 3 sexes, a tiny (very tiny) minority, 1 in 2000, have both.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Really? That's the state of current-day gender studies, it's largely focused on orientation.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The argument being made (if you take it to its conclusion) is "problems only deserve to get solved if they're bad enough".
No, the question whether a problem exists at all — that's very different from there being a problem and having to judge “how bad it is”. Quite the contrary, women that “look masculine” could now be denied access to the toilet they (even according to these moronic laws) are supposed to use.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
No, a butch lesbian is not a transman. A butch lesbian sees herself as a woman, but does not want to conform to female gender stereotypes. They self-identify as women, though. A transman is a someone who was a woman at birth but wants to be a man. A butch lesbian wants to use the women's bathroom whereas a transman wants to use the men's bathroom.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Wait... I've never heard of gender being used as a term for sexual orientation.
I have heard the idea of gender being a continuum, which is where I've always heard the "100s of genders" idea spring from.
As you write the distinction between gender and sex has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Take Eddie Izzard: he seems himself as a “male lesbian” as “100 % boy and 50 % girl” but who wants to be in a relationship with women.
From a biological perspective, sex is not binary, no matter which criteria you use (e. g. chromosomes or body morphology). These ideas are also not really related to gender theory, babies born with ambiguous genitalia are not an invention of Judith Butler.
The distinction between sex and gender is useful to deconstruct what parts of, say, being a man are actually societal and which are actually biological. So people want to go beyond the roles that society typically associates with being a man or a woman, and different people have different ideas about what to do (e. g. whether they want to stick to discrete genders, say, male, female and neutral/queer, or whether they see gender as a continuum). To be more specific, some feminists make the distinction between persons who could at one point in their lives become pregnant and those who cannot; they base this on the difference that pregnancy makes in their lives.
Feminism and gender theory is not a monolithic block, there is a huge spectrum from (to my eyes) sensible to whacky.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Really? That's the state of current-day gender studies, it's largely focused on orientation.
This is a labeling problem. The discipline has always had it.
If they wanted to be as accurate as possible it would be called "Gender and Sexuality Oppression Studies".
They've fanwanked sexuality into a subset of gender, but I've never heard anyone claim your sexuality alters your gender.
From a social sciences viewpoint, one of the glorious things about the human condition is any given "single" gender is capable of the entire spectrum of sexuality. I am aware of no sexuality which actually changes your gender.
No, the question whether a problem exists at all — that's very different from there being a problem and having to judge “how bad it is”. Quite the contrary, women that “look masculine” could now be denied access to the toilet they (even according to these moronic laws) are supposed to use.
Examples of men dressing as women with the sole intent of creeping in the women's bathroom have been provided.
IOW, we were already beyond the question of whether it is a problem at all.
Examples of men dressing as women with the sole intent of creeping in the women's bathroom have been provided.
That's not a problem of transexuals molesting women, these are men sexually harassing and attacking women. That in a few examples they dressed up as women doesn't change anything. The mere fact that these two issues are discussed at the same time just exemplifies how transwomen are conflated with “men dressing up as women (for nefarious purposes)”. That's akin to how homosexual men were often conflated with pedophiles.
Originally Posted by subego
IOW, we were already beyond the question of whether it is a problem at all.
Maybe you are, but I'm not past this. I see these laws as a reaction towards the SC decision on gay marriage, and that some states want to make a point with “religious freedom laws” and “bathroom bills”. The fact that now people who look different enough to not fit into certain people's gender stereotypes are actually falling victims to these laws is not an unintended consequence (e. g. when butch lesbians are denied to use the women's restroom) — it's the rejection of the other.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
That's not a problem of transexuals molesting women, these are men sexually harassing and attacking women. That in a few examples they dressed up as women doesn't change anything. The mere fact that these two issues are discussed at the same time just exemplifies how transwomen are conflated with “men dressing up as women (for nefarious purposes)”. That's akin to how homosexual men were often conflated with pedophiles.
One of my favorite lines from the movie Reversal of Fortune is the following...
"Morality is a rapier, the law is a club".
When discussing the moral question, perfectly cleaving away those who are transgendered from those who are miscreants is a simple flick of the wrist. From a moral standpoint I do not conflate these groups.
This is a feat the law is incapable of accomplishing. The law cannot come up with a definition of transgendered people which excludes those who are not yet pretend to be.
To be clear, this is not meant as an argument a bathroom law is the only solution, I am only pointing out there are insurmountable hurdles to legally separating the transgendered from the pervs, therefore the argument the law should not exist because transgendered people aren't guilty of it is invalid.
IOW, "the law shouldn't exist because transgendered people aren't guilty of the crime" is a very different argument than "the law shouldn't exist because it's unfair to transgendered people".
I can swing with the latter. The former isn't relevant to protecting against cisgendered pervs. I conflate nothing, but the law is unable to be as precise.
This is a feat the law is incapable of accomplishing. The law cannot come up with a definition of transgendered people which excludes those who are not yet pretend to be.
???
I'm really confused by where you are going here. The rule of law (with no changes necessary) is quite simple: it's illegal to sexually assault and harass other people. You do not need legal definition for being transgender, you are covered by existing law. So even if one day a real transwoman will molest someone, you do not need to make an extra law — laws don't need to exhaust all facets of life.
Some people undoubtedly feel uncomfortable being around transgender people, homosexuals, people of a different color, but they do not get special protection. Perhaps they don't want to be in the same room, and they “feel harassed” by the mere fact of their existence. But that's not harassment in the legal sense.
These laws also force this standard onto everybody: I could see an argument where “Jane's transphobic pizza parlor” has a rule (on their own property, etc.) that customers have to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender at birth. But here people are potentially forced to act against what they believe is right.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
???
I'm really confused by where you are going here.
Your original claim (paraphrased): people are conflating the transgendered with cisgendered pervs who put on a dress to facilitate being a perv.
My response: a law which specifically protects against the latter will apply to the former, even though the former is not the target. An accusation of conflation can arise only if I have erroneously targeted the former.
IOW, how is a law targeted at cisgendered pervs conflating their behavior with those who are transgendered? Transgenderism isn't even entering the equation. It's a law protecting against something we have concrete examples of: cisgendered pervs.
I am only addressing your claim of conflation. I agree (and have said as much) laws we already have about indecency should usually be adequate.
My response: a law which specifically protects against the latter will apply to the former, even though the former is not the target. An accusation of conflation can arise only if I have erroneously targeted the former.
Laws outlawing sexual harassment and molestation apply to everyone, so yes, they apply also to transsexuals. It's just that transsexuals don't really molest people in bathrooms in a statistically meaningful way.
Originally Posted by subego
IOW, how is a law targeted at cisgendered pervs conflating their behavior with those who are transgendered? Transgenderism isn't even entering the equation. It's a law protecting against something we have concrete examples of: cisgendered pervs.
The law is not aimed at cisgendered pervs, it is targeting transsexuals. I don't get why you think it's not. The distinction these laws make is the gender at birth, not the current gender.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
True, but it's yet another co-opted term that's been manipulated to mean something that it was never intended to mean. Sex = gender, the terms are synonymous with each other. Yet lately it's been twisted by Gender (heh) Studies "experts" to relate to who, or even what, you have sexual relations with, not your actual sex. I can't figure out why such a thing matters and people can't just shag who they want without making an exposition over it. "I like vacuum cleaners and you have to approve of whatever I want!" WTF?
(Oh, and I admit that I was wrong before, there are 3 sexes, a tiny (very tiny) minority, 1 in 2000, have both.)
This seems like getting worked up over another random, crazy, anecdotal, and non-systemic thing with no real solution, Tightpants.
Laws outlawing sexual harassment and molestation apply to everyone, so yes, they apply also to transsexuals. It's just that transsexuals don't really molest people in bathrooms in a statistically meaningful way.
The law is not aimed at cisgendered pervs, it is targeting transsexuals. I don't get why you think it's not. The distinction these laws make is the gender at birth, not the current gender.
I'm not discussing a single law, I'm approaching the issue holistically.
This means, for example, the man and woman pictured earlier in the thread deserve legal protection from being hauled out of a bathroom.
If transgendered people get the legal protections I believe they deserve, would not that law also (unintentionally) serve as added protection to cisgendered pervs?
IOW, my discussion of cisgendered pervs is not meant as defense of the NC law, the NC law sparked a wider discussion of which cisgendered pervs are merely a partial component.
(
Last edited by subego; May 1, 2016 at 01:55 PM.
)
This seems like getting worked up over another random, crazy, anecdotal, and non-systemic thing with no real solution, Tightpants.
Not really. As I said, the entire discipline has a naming problem.
It used to be just women's studies, but as the discipline grew it became gender studies.
He's absolutely correct the discipline to a large extent focuses on sexuality, which isn't either women's or gender studies. I suspect that will get added to the name just like TQ was added to LGB (as an aside: one of these things is not like the others).
Another important component to the discipline which is inexplicably not in the label is "oppression". If you've ever wondered why women's studies majors don't have a sense of humor about it, it's because they're not studying women, they're studying how women get oppressed. It's a dark, and unhappy discipline.
And let's face it, if it actually tried to assess the entirety of womens' experiences... that would almost be science.
I heard a radio talking head say that this should make feminists collective heads explode because we now have "women who were born and raised as men now telling women what it means to be a woman"
This seems like getting worked up over another random, crazy, anecdotal, and non-systemic thing with no real solution, Tightpants.
You need to actually spend time at universities, it IS systemic.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You need to actually spend time at universities, it IS systemic.
I lived in a college town, home of a Big 10 US university, for 15 years. There is no grand conspiracy theory here, it is just people being people, and there are much bigger issues worth the consternation.
When, in the 1980s? There's absolutely a large, dangerous movement in universities and it's insidious and destructive in nature, poisoning the entire academic well with its authoritarian ideas. What game are you playing, here? Do you even read the news? Back in the 60s they protested an unjust war, fought for minority rights, now they're protesting for segregation and the repression of ideas they find "Triggering". Hell, professors can't even say the word "rape" in law classes, Titus Andronicus, Pericles, Cymbeline, and a host of other seminal works, have been dropped from Western Lit classes (more Triggering concerns) altogether.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
In the bad old days of the Soviet Union, Stalin, Brezhnev and the rest would literally airbrush out of photographs those who fell out of favor. Killing them and sending family members to Siberia did not suffice; they had to be erased from collective memory.
In this famous photograph, commissars who were killed or were no longer of use were removed in the dark room one by one until Stalin was left alone at the end, finally satisfied.
Now along comes ESPN airbrushing a game played by former Red Sox great Curt Schilling out of a documentary on the 2004 American League Championship Series. Unless you have been vacationing in Mars, you know that Schilling was until recently an ESPN broadcaster.
Until, that is, he dared say that men should not be allowed into women’s bathrooms, no matter how much they regretted that Y chromosome with which they were born and can never part.
I'm seeing posts on FB from butchy lesbians who have been denied access to the ladies room, because they have short hair and wear a hoody. I sometimes have short hair and wear a hoody. This is ridiculous.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
They lie a lot, either for attention or to push the agenda.
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
They're lying? Come on.
I've seen video of a cop pulling a woman away from the restroom line, all the other women saying let her be.
I should have been more specific as to what a was referring to. I was referring to the possibility the person in the story from myfox8 was lying.
There have already been documented cases, so I don't know whether a single case where a person falsely claims to have been denied access to the restroom. These bathroom laws lead to no good as the only way to conclusively prove that you act in accordance with the law is to carry your birth certificate with you.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
subego and shaddim, I apologize, I owe you both responses but quite honestly I don't have the interest in getting on my airbook to do in-depth replies lately. I'll get there eventually.
The Justice Department notified North Carolina Wednesday that the state's recently enacted law dealing with transgender persons' access to bathrooms violates federal civil rights law.
In a letter, the feds asked Gov. Pat McCrory to notify them by Monday, May 9, that he will not enforce the law.
If the state persists in carrying out the law, known as HB2, its public schools could lose hundreds of millions in federal funds, and the federal government could file a lawsuit to block the law.
Its going to be an interesting and difficult discussion if the definition of sex goes to the SCOTUS.
What's with all the sexual repression? I never felt weird in my school's or my sport's club's locker room. Only the pools occasionally had cabins, although the saunas were always mixed. It's only awkward because you make it awkward.
Insecurity for me(and I think lots of teens), puritanical society on the other.
Originally Posted by subego
Here's the thing though, my philosophy algorithm didnt even look at those variables. It didn't try to promote either the abused or the potentially abused... it tried to promote all by shooting any arrows it had in the policy. Just like it will with any policy you feed it.
Is my philosophy algorithm's result a flaw, or an unintended consequence?
It may seem like a hair-splitting distinction, but I feel there's a fundamental difference between the two.
Though you wouldn't know it listening to most libertarians, no philosophy can account for all the complexities of the real world. If we don't allow for shit results when a philosophy is directly translated into policy through the algorithm, then every philosophy is flawed, and the assertion becomes meaningless. A flaw should represent a deeper problem.
One could say my philosophy is flawed for being too simple... for not dealing with more variables. If that's the case, it's not the philosophy's fault, it's my fault for picking a bad philosophy and declaring it the best. Y U up in its shit?
Now, a flawed philosophy would be what started this. "Protect the freedom of assholes". That's flawed because it's a dumb ass-philosophy.
Isn't this easily examined by either considering the greater good? I mean, why allow lawsuits if they could be abused by bad actors (patents)? Why allow guns? Prescription painkillers? Integration? Parole?
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
I'm seeing posts on FB from butchy lesbians who have been denied access to the ladies room, because they have short hair and wear a hoody. I sometimes have short hair and wear a hoody. This is ridiculous.
No thoughts on this post, andi? AM I being unreasonable?
A group of Illinois students and parents sued the Obama administration Wednesday over its stance on transgender students’ access to school bathrooms and locker rooms, arguing that the U.S. Education Department is illegally forcing local authorities to let children use facilities that correspond to their gender identity.
The complaint alleges that the federal government has violated students’ fundamental right to privacy and parents’ constitutional right to instill moral standards and values in their children.
The complaint says that the plaintiffs are afraid of seeing a “male in a state of undress” and “are afraid of being seen by, and being forced to share intimate spaces with, a male while they are in various states of undress.”
“Every day these girls go to school, they experience embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear, apprehension, stress, degradation and loss of dignity because they will have to use the locker room and restroom with a biological male,” the complaint says.
I'm curious, are they afraid of lesbians leering at their nude bodies too? I'm not unsympathetic to their discomfort, but I do think there's another problem they may be overlooking. (and lesbians are more common than transgender too!)
Pre-op trans-women aren't women, they're men on estrogen therapy.
Here's my contention, gender is a fabrication. There aren't 100s, dozens, or even 2, there are none.
I agree with Shaddim! Gender is a social construct like race.
Originally Posted by subego
Interesting proposition.
Isn't everything we would call "culture" or "society" made up?
Yes, just like race.
Originally Posted by subego
Wait... I've never heard of gender being used as a term for sexual orientation.
I have heard the idea of gender being a continuum, which is where I've always heard the "100s of genders" idea spring from.
You forget the 2000s, my friend. (I tried hard to google an example here, but it was too obscure). When the gay marriage bans were being bandied about around 2004, I remember a few politicians arguing against homosexuality even existing because that would create two new 'genders' and as we all know, there are only two in the bible.
No thoughts on this post, andi? AM I being unreasonable?
Hey Dakar, not sure if you misunderstood my post, or where I'm coming from, but I'll summarize again: I have empathy for the transgender folks and think that the hoopla is overdone. Chances are most transgender have been blending for years.
To the "just everyone use a stall, no problem" idea, I agree in theory. If I were transgender or had a medical issue I'd use the stall rather than change in the locker room. Yes it was somewhat embarrassing at first in high school changing in a crowd. But I admired one girl who had a great attitude about it and just did her thing. Also the same girl to saunter into the locker room with a box of maxipads matter-of-factly and plunk it in her locker, not hiding it under a shirt. Just do what ya gotta do.
However for sheer practicality, there are not enough stalls/users for everyone to have a stall. If everyone waited to use a stall, gym class would be over before it began.
I'm curious, are they afraid of lesbians leering at their nude bodies too? I'm not unsympathetic to their discomfort, but I do think there's another problem they may be overlooking. (and lesbians are more common than transgender too!)
It's the same argument men have made in many circumstances against gays: they think they get “visually molested” by gay men in the locker room. It's sad that this spreads to women now, too, who have historically been much more relaxed on homosexuality. (My father managed a professional women's hockey team for ~12 years in the 1980s until the early 1990s, and the lesbian team members were completely open.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Isn't this easily examined by either considering the greater good? I mean, why allow lawsuits if they could be abused by bad actors (patents)? Why allow guns? Prescription painkillers? Integration? Parole?
Wait... do you think we should allow patents to continue in their current form? Has not this system, which was explicitly designed to serve the greater good, turned out to be an unmitigated cluster****? Don't even get me started on copyright.
Neither system started out that way... it's the endgame of government interference.
Back in the 60s they protested an unjust war, fought for minority rights, now they're protesting for segregation and the repression of ideas they find "Triggering". Hell, professors can't even say the word "rape" in law classes, Titus Andronicus, Pericles, Cymbeline, and a host of other seminal works, have been dropped from Western Lit classes (more Triggering concerns) altogether. 
Top