Hey, there! Log in / Register

A chance to show your support for trans rights this weekend

If you agree that trans people deserve the same rights as everybody else, and want to show it in these increasingly dark days, you'll vote Yes on Question 3. And if you have time, you might even attend the Rally for Transgender Rights, 1 p.m. on Sunday at the 54th Massachusetts memorial at Boston Common, across from the State House.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Gender is not a social construct and it cannot be legislated or litigated away.

This is not an expression of hate and it is not a license to harass people going about their business. But it is an assertion that there ought to be a limit in how far personal idiosyncrasies should be enshrined in the law. Letting men into women's locker rooms and vice versa because some small percentage of men believe that they are women and some small percentage of women believe they're men is past that limit.

Criminalizing the above assertion and throwing it into the same bin as nazi ideology and burning crosses is past that limit. Tarring people of good will who agree with the above assertion as ignorant bumpkins is past that limit. Scraping up an opinion poll of motivated participants and deeming it scientific proof of gender fluidity is past that limit.

Vote no on 3.

up
Voting closed 0

Yawn

up
Voting closed 7

Don't like the rally, then DON'T SHOW UP

No need to vent your ignorant terrified little snowflake bigotry here, either. Science says you are wrong about gender and transgender people - plenty of studies, look them up.

Or are you too afraid of nothing to bother learning?

up
Voting closed 7

I determine that they are opinion polls and not reproducible scientific measurements of immutable physical quantities. A mathematically rigorous opinion poll is still just an opinion poll.

up
Voting closed 6

"I determine that they are opinion polls and not reproducible scientific measurements of immutable physical quantities." Says the lady who previously wrote "There is in fact plenty of evidence..." -without providing any of the evidence.

up
Voting closed 5

...you're really unafraid to show off your total science illiteracy. And really willing to go to bat for your ability to be able to harass people in bathrooms.

up
Voting closed 3

Can't even do a PubMed search, such a scared little boy that you are!

Maybe you can still hide in your mommy's skirts?

up
Voting closed 4

You should feel so lucky that you don't have to deal with the problems transgender people face. Do you think they want to feel different and weird and be ostracized be people like yourself? How does this law affect you? It doesn't. But it can make a huge difference for a small section of the population.

up
Voting closed 4

The benefit of yes on 3 may be a society that's more welcoming to people with a particular kind of mental illness. That's not necessarily bad. But in this case it's got some downsides that in my view do not outweigh the benefits.

The biggest downside is that it gives perverts a get-out-jail-free card. That's a real cost.

Another big downside is that it makes people choose between their personal morals and their new legal obligations. Here's an example of a woman-run beauty salon that catered to women having to defend itself in court because its employees didn't want to give a brazilian wax to a dude:
https://newbostonpost.com/2018/09/27/transgender-customer-demanded-full-...

Another downside is that it the guise of growth and societal improvement, the law merely moves the needle along a zero-sum game. In a prior discussion here, I was told that if I felt ashamed to disrobe in a locker room in front of a member of the opposite gender, I could choose to not patronize that locker room. So the zero-sum game is how many transgenders now get to go in versus how many regular people are now told to get out? Strictly by the numbers, I doubt it would be an improvement.

up
Voting closed 2

The biggest downside is that it gives perverts a get-out-jail-free card. That's a real cost.

No, it doesn't. It's been the law for years in many states (for instance, Minnesota since '93!) and there are no examples of anyone actually using this law as a way to "get out of jail free".

And as I pointed out to you the last time, there's nothing about bathrooms now that prevent someone from just going in and attacking someone or taking photos of them if they want to. And that would still be illegal under this law. So literally nothing changes unless you're overly obsessed about what the person in the stall next to you might be doing.

up
Voting closed 5

up
Voting closed 9

where's the disconnect?

up
Voting closed 0

You keep talking about lockerrooms because you are an obsessed twit. None of this is an issue or problem. That's your disconnect right there.

up
Voting closed 3

Maybe that this has been already the law of the land in MA since October 2016, and the ballot measure is to repeal it, not enact it? The disconnect here seems to be you, and you showing any evidence as to why a law in effect for 2 years should be repealed, as it obviously hasn't ended the world like you are claiming it should have.

up
Voting closed 7

I'm more afraid of republicans in my public bathrooms than trans people. You should be too:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/04/more-gop...

up
Voting closed 6

"particular kind of mental illness" "perverts" "transgenders" "regular people"

Yes, I can see that you are looking at this issue from a purely scientific angle.

up
Voting closed 4

It is an expression of hate. And also an expression of ignorance. You have bought into the idiotic fear mongering. You have been suckered. There is no evidence of transgender people causing problems in bathrooms.

Look who is on the same side as you: Religious nut jobs. People who would like to stone LGBT people. People who think homosexuality should be a crime. People who bully and assault LGBT people. Sickos who are obsessed with what bathrooms people are using. Ignorant, intolerant trash. The uneducated, poor, loser red states.
Look who is on the other side: sexual assault and domestic violence prevention groups, law enforcement groups, any decent person who is for equality and doesn't give a damn what bathroom someone uses. The educated, successful blue states.

up
Voting closed 0

There is in fact plenty of evidence of non "transgender" people causing problems in opposite gender bathrooms and removing a part of the enforcement mechanism that allows for the swift identification and prosecution of those troublemakers in order to accommodate the alternative facts a small number of people choose to live by is not good public policy.

Incidentally, the Nazis wrote parking tickets and enforced building codes and that is not relevant to the question of how much the parking meters should cost or how high the fines for shoddy electrical wiring should be.

Similarly, I don't care really care where extremists put their votes. If Black Lives Matter goes all in for police body cameras, it's a good idea and I'm on board.

up
Voting closed 5

There is in fact plenty of evidence of non "transgender" people causing problems in opposite gender bathrooms

So why don't you provide some? Here, I'll help:

This study finds that the passage of [gender identity inclusive public accommodations nondiscrimination laws] is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in these spaces. Additionally, the study finds that reports of privacy and safety violations in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms are exceedingly rare. This study provides evidence that fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not empirically grounded.

You can read the study for yourself here. It's even looking at Massachusetts specifically!

up
Voting closed 2

It's intentional that the Yes campaign isn't making the study available. It falls apart under scrutiny. The Globe had some details here:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/09/11/study-finds-link-between-tr...

To establish the scope of the issue, researchers used public records requests to obtain police incident reports and compare bathroom crime data in cities with antidiscrimination laws — Medford, Melrose, and Newton — with comparable towns that lacked them. They paired each city with communities that were comparable based on a host of data, including crime and population demographics, poverty, and voting trends.

Medford was compared to Beverly and Watertown; Melrose was compared to Beverly; and Newton was compared to Brookline and Arlington.

up
Voting closed 8

1. The error bars in the non-paywalled graph are as big as the changes in the center of the curve. That means it proves nothing, not my argument, not yours.

2. Criminal complaints aren't a good metric. If the police can't do anything now that there's a transgender law on the books, then maybe the statistics for "before" and "after" don't measure the same quantity.

3. And given its own description, it sure looks like the journal exists to publish motivated reasoning under the guise of peer review. I checked. It wasn't one of the Boghossian hoax targets. Maybe it should be his next one to see what its standards are.

up
Voting closed 0

why don't you provide us with the research that you are relying on to back up your claims?

up
Voting closed 1

Bathrooms are about plumbing, so match your plumbing to your room. If you have an inny, you go in the inny room. If an outy, use the outy room.

Simple, gender neutral. Plumbing, just plumbing.

up
Voting closed 0

... and the bathrooms were labeled, "Restroom with urinals" and "Restroom without urinals."

Or, in a scruffy bar, the sign read, "Use whatever bathroom you want. Just don't pee on the damn floor."

up
Voting closed 5

It strikes me that many of the arguments about "pervy men" lurking around women's locker rooms must be conjured up in the minds of people who imagine that as something they might do if the law allowed.

Someone who looks at Porky's or Revenge of the Nerds with aspiration.

up
Voting closed 3

It's a possibility that's conjured by the minds of men who realize full well that every man might want to do exactly that. But most men have the self-control not to, regardless of the law.

Most is not all. And men realize that most is not all. That's an empirical statement. Thus the laws are there as a stick to be used to police those among us whose ability and willingness to control our baser instincts and desires is lacking.

It's the same reason that we have laws against murder and assault. I'll bet money that at least 90% of men have had the urge to punch someone in the face over words. Maybe they've also fantasized about doing worse. Nevertheless assault and murder rates are nowhere near 90%. But we still have laws on the books to criminalize these acts because we all know the someone somewhere is thinking about committing it right now and we need a way to deter some of those people and to deal with the people who won't be deterred.

up
Voting closed 7

others yet your throw out, um, stats like: "90% of men have had the urge to punch someone in the face over words." Care to back that up?

up
Voting closed 5

"I'd bet money that 90% of men have" is different from "I assert that 90% of men have"

The former is a conjecture. The latter is an assertion. Assertions require stronger evidence than conjectures.

The evidence for my conjecture is that I have wanted to punch people in the face. Almost every man I have ever known has occasionally told me that he wanted to punch someone else in the face. I never have (not since playground fights as a kid, that is). None of them did. But nearly all of them have said they had wanted to at some point in their adult lives.

Ask the men in your life if they have ever had violent thoughts.

up
Voting closed 6

As a woman, I have no concern about a man in transition to a woman entering my gym's locker room. But thank you for your concern.

Vote yes on 3.

up
Voting closed 4

Not a big deal. Everyone dresses in the stalls anyway.

My daughter shared a hotel room with a transgender student during a school tour of Italy. Pillowfights and snoring .. OMG RUN!

up
Voting closed 4

as a woman, do you have a concern that a man who is not transitioning to a woman now has a get-of-jail free card if he decides to change in the women's locker room?

up
Voting closed 0

A man who is not transitioning is not going to use my gym's locker room.

I think we all have to step back and breath here. Most men are not going to use the women's locker room for the aforesaid reason. So your argument is based on the fallacy that a man might decide to use the women's locker room cause, what, he feels like a woman on that day? Come on, Roman. You write like you have a brain but your bias is getting the best of you. I think you need to do a bit (oh, ok, a whole lot more) reading/research on what it means to be transgender.

up
Voting closed 5

My argument is that a heterosexual man who feels like looking at naked women will decide to use the women's locker room knowing that he has a legal defense at the ready if he is confronted by patrons or management.

up
Voting closed 6

No, he wouldn't have a legal defense. He would be asked in a hearing to show that he lives as a woman, based on things like name use, photos, history of accessing relevant resources, interviews with coworkers, etc. And since he doesn't live as a woman, since he's a dude, that defense wouldn't work.

Also, you know we already have laws protecting discrimination based on gender identity, right? Where are all these men going into women's restrooms and claiming they're trans women?

up
Voting closed 0

But in this world there's this thing called "gender fluidity" that "allows" people to declare themselves to be anything at any time and who are you to judge?!

up
Voting closed 7

...put out your back or something moving the goalposts like that. First it was "science", bullshit called. Then it was "a legal defense", bullshit called. Now, apparently it's that "this thing called "gender fluidity" that "allows" people to declare themselves anything at any time and who are you to judge" is some kind of magical get out of jail free card. I'm going to guess, based on that absurd statement, that you've never been inside a court of law -- although given your blatantly antisocial attitude, I can't imagine how that's possible. Are you twelve years old?

up
Voting closed 0

So we already have the rule in place to let people choose which bathroom is appropriate for their gender. I recall ZERO incidents of what you say is the problem. There are no cases in Massachusetts where people who otherwise would have been convicted of a crime get away with something by declaring they are of the gender of the plaque on the door.

up
Voting closed 3

Do you just skip all the perverts on the T stories?

It's going to happen.

up
Voting closed 5

I share a changing room on a fairly regular basis with a trans woman. Never been an issue. Never will be.

What truly disgusts me are concern trolls like Roman, who's a blatant misogynist until he can use "defending women" as a bully club to batter some group of people he despises even more.

up
Voting closed 2

Eat shit and die.

There. I put as much thought into my post as you did in yours.

up
Voting closed 5

You are a willfully ignorant bigot and you are not welcome among decent people.

up
Voting closed 5

i'd gladly share a restroom with a trans person over a hateful, miserable curmudgeon like you any day.

maybe we should have a ballot question to ban republicans from restrooms. unlike transgender people, republicans DO have a track record of illegal activity in restrooms. you know, just a temporary ban... until we figure out what's going on.

up
Voting closed 3

Hi Adam-thanks for the heads up, this is a great, I will certainly try to attend and will be voting Yes on Question 3.

For those who Vote No, or who tell others to Vote No, can you provide an actual, linked example of a time when a Transgender Woman, in a women's locker room, behaved in any way that was at all inappropriate, threatening, dangerous, or any of the other excuses people keep throwing around regarding 'locker rooms'? Do you think someone just decides on a whim that they want to become a woman, forever impacting their lives (family relations, friendships, jobs, health, $$, etc), sometimes losing ties to family because of their decision, just so they can "sneak" into the other sides locker room? I do not understand how this is still an argument.

How many thousands of reports in this country are there of abuse, rape, bullying, sexual assault, harassment, domestic violence, etc. that occur every single day by straight men, out in the open, or in dark alleys, or in bathrooms, or hallways, or on the elevator, in classrooms, dorms, on buses, in doctor's offices, on the street, in the park, in the home, in church. If you ban transgender men and women from 'locker rooms' and bathrooms, then lets ban men from clubs, schools, hallways, streets, and throw in elevators and churches too- where actual, reported, and repeated abuse occurs. Lets ban men from being allowed to be members of the clergy (remember the hundreds of children who were sexually assaulted by men, and more that come forward every day?) Lets ban men from swim teams, football teams and lacrosse teams. Just so I don't come across as sexist, let's ban women from lacrosse teams too.

up
Voting closed 7

If you can come up with a law that specifically allows "transgender" people to enter opposite gender changing rooms while preventing non-transgender people from doing so, there'd be a different discussion.

But the entire precept of transgenderism seems to be that the state has no business in determining one's gender for them. And it is logically impossible to prosecute someone for abusing the system because "I'm a woman" become magic words that have to be believed.

Draft a law that allows people to change their legal gender (with some requirements) and maybe I can get on board with legally-defined women being allowed in designated women's locker rooms. But if all a perv has to do is assert temporary feminity, then I cannot in good conscious support that.

up
Voting closed 3

And yet still no examples of this ever occurring. A perv is a perv is a perv, as folks mentioned above, they don't need to throw on a wig and go into a woman's locker room to perv. They can stand on a sidewalk, be a business man, your boss, or just the perv on the train in plain site jerking off to 11 year olds. Again, as mentioned above, no occurrences in MA or other states have been recorded of locker room or bathroom disturbances occurring because of a transgender man or woman.

up
Voting closed 4

that's not the concern.

The concern is about pervs getting a free pass under this law because they can no longer be prosecuted for entering the opposite gender locker room. Rules and regulations that criminalize men entering women's locker rooms are exactly the thing that have been criminalized by this law.

Surely you aren't claiming that a perv has never tried to enter a women's locker room. Perhaps it's true that he's never tried using the transgender defense before* but that's because that defense hasn't existed before.

*I don't even think that's true. I may be misremembering the exact circumstances but I remember reading a news story about a dude trying this defense at some point somewhere in the US in the past few years.

up
Voting closed 0

If a woman is openly shewanking in a locker room full of women, that's illegal.

You are a rather imaginative asshole - and terrified little bunny.

up
Voting closed 6

You can repeat this abused canard all you want, but you are simply incorrect. People committing crimes will still be prosecuted. Period. "Transgender defense" doesn't and will not exist; if a crime is being committed the perp's gender, regardless of how that is determined, is irrelevant.

But you know that. So please stop with this faux concern about the safety of women's locker rooms. It is a woefully pathetic screen for your fear and bigotry.

up
Voting closed 3

How can one prove that a crime was committed if the only act is a man going into the woman's locker room and looking?

up
Voting closed 4

Look, honey: I have spent one hell of a lot of time in women's locker rooms in my life - probably three or four times as much time as you have spent in any locker room in your lifetime.

When the janitor walks in and thinks the place is empty but it isn't, is that a crime? Nope. If he starts taking pictures, or acting lewdly it is a crime. If the janitor is female and the locker room is female, it would be a crime if that same person acted lewdly or assaulted people. If a woman started shebopping in a women's locker room, that would be illegal, too - NOTHING has changed!

It isn't who you are ... IT IS HOW YOU BEHAVE!

I find it amusing that you are so concerned about what happens in women's locker rooms in an area of the country where they are complete fucking rat warrens of stupid shower - stall combinations that make sure that the five showers are not in use most of the time - and nobody sees what anybody has.

My sons have shared locker rooms, dorm rooms, and hotel rooms with FTM trans people. Again - ain't no thing. Then again, they are adults and know how to act like it.

Here's a tip: worry about your goddamn self. Us girls will be FINE without your help. In all my years I have never seen the scenario you describe, and I have shared locker rooms with transwomen on multiple occasions. Seriously - IT AIN'T NO THING! Get over your fucking hero complex - I don't need it, women don't need it, it is all about you and your problems, etc.

Get some therapy for your paranoid delusions - professional help can be good for you.

up
Voting closed 1

I knew our resident locker room expert would pipe up sometime. I have some questions about locker rooms. Lady locker rooms, specifically.

See, I am a guy. Born that way, staying that way, not even ever dressed up as a lady for halloween. So you see when I have used locker rooms they've always been men's locker rooms. I've never been in a ladies' locker room, ever.

I have used men's locker rooms at many places, from grade school through to swimming pools, YMCAs, etc. They've changed a lot since I was younger. One of the big changes I've noticed in mens' locker rooms since I was a kid was that the showers always used to be in a shower room. That's one big room with showers all around the walls.

IMAGE(https://www.nashvillefunforfamilies.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/LP-Field-Showers-Nashville-Fun-For-Families-1024x768.jpg?b06b8b)

These days a lot of men's locker rooms have shower stalls or partitions, where there's a single shower inside walls or partitions, with another shower next door on the other side of the partition, etc.

IMAGE(<a href="https://easternus.azureedge.net/~/media/Inpro/Blog%20Images/2017/locker-room-showers/Locker-Room-Showers-header.ashx?modified=20170403112944&la=en">https://easternus.azureedge.net/~/media/Inpro/Blog...</a><br />
)

Big change! It was kind of weird to go in there when you were a little kid, because naked old men all over. But at least by the time I was swimming they were done with the nude swimming at the Y thing that they did before synthetic fabrics were invented. So that's better anyway. And whereas there always used to be a YMCA and only men went there, and also a YWCA and the women went there, that's a thing of the past now, and everywhere it's coed. So the whole movement has been towards more privacy. I mean, they didn't even used to have urinals let alone partitions, it used to just be a big common trench along the wall. But anyway.

I feel old now.

So the men's locker rooms these days typically have individual shower stalls, but they still have open changing areas, like rows of lockers along the wall and then long benches, and guys who are changing plop down on the bench by the locker they're using and do their thing right there, so there's dudes in different stages of undress all in a row. It's still sometimes odd in the bench room if there are a lot of old guys, because they are still following a different script.

IMAGE(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56115942e4b00eddebd459ea/t/570922622b8dde64de0c1eb2/1460216443121/?format=2500w)

My understanding from talking to people of the female persuasion is that that's not what the ladies' locker rooms are like. They don't just have a big open area in the middle, but instead it's partially divided up into stalls for changing. Is that true? Because maybe part of the RWNJ freakout is based on an incorrect imagination of what a ladies' locker room is like, i.e. it's like the above but with women. I suspect it's not.

Really, in this day and age it's possible to just have a universal locker room. Or maybe only at crazy old Berkeley:

https://recsports.berkeley.edu/universal-locker-ro...

up
Voting closed 0

In all the ladies locker rooms I've ever been in, there are separate shower stalls and changing cubicles available (sometimes just outside each shower stall). But the lockers are in a central area with benches. Some people change in the cubicles or showers, others at the lockers. At a really busy time (like when a class lets out) there are likely not enough cubicles for absolutely everyone but enough for everyone who requires them.

up
Voting closed 0

So...you do know that there are lesbians in women's locker rooms, and gay men in men's locker rooms, right? Always have been. Are you worried about them? Are you trying to legislate to take their rights away? If not, why not?

Be a consistent bigot at least, Roman.

up
Voting closed 6

I get what you're going for, but attacking trans people has always been the easiest leg of the lgbt table to kick, and if you think the slathering bigots of the world AREN'T immediately planning on going after more established gay rights after they win their way with trans issues, you're delusional. it's a long game for them.

up
Voting closed 5

if you think the slathering bigots of the world AREN'T immediately planning on going after more established gay rights after they win their way with trans issues, you're delusional

And if you think I don't know plenty about living on this planet as a "more established" gay type person, you're both delusional and arrogant. Been there, done that, know what I'm talking about, don't need to be lectured to by some anon.

up
Voting closed 13

I don't care if a gay man is standing next to me and we're both naked. I don't.

But I don't want to stand naked next to a naked woman. To put it bluntly I worry I may become aroused while naked and among strangers. That would be very embarrassing.

The old canard is that a man thinks about sex every seven seconds. There's a kernel of truth to that. It's why I don't like it when women don't dress conservatively in the workplace. I have to work extra hard to keep reminding myself to not stare at her tits, which distracts me from my work, may distract her from her work, and I'm not perfect at it so I worry that I'm making a fellow human being uncomfortable and opening up myself to liability for nothing more than a lapse in concentration.

Nudity amplifies my fears.

up
Voting closed 8

Your real concern is naked women in the men’s locker room?

Because without new legislation they might pretend to be men and sneak in there just to annoy you by giving you a boner?

up
Voting closed 3

thank you for so eloquently laying bare (oh, im sorry, did the word "bare" trigger you? and me being a lady and all, why you must be positively overcome, my b), your misogynist logic.

"women have to dress conservatively because I can't be trusted to treat them as humans and not sexual objects (i can't even be expected to simply ignore them)"

for real, reflect on yourself a little bit.

up
Voting closed 3

How about: women shouldn't come to work with their breasts out on display for all to see because it will distract the half of the workforce that's damn-near hard-wired to be sexually aroused by the sight of a woman's breasts, no matter how self-flagellatingly woke they profess to be.

up
Voting closed 5

I mean, I guess it’s good that you’re cool with (link probably NSFW) changing in the women’s locker room.

up
Voting closed 0

When are we going to get a law that protects people based on political affiliations?

up
Voting closed 4

Identity aspects such as party designation are generally protected in terms of employment.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make exactly, but protected class status doesn't exempt people from meeting essential requirements of a job nor permit people to violate others' constitutionally protected rights.

If you claim your political affiliations require you to engage in discrimination, or to fail to treat clients who are different from you competently, you won't be magically shielded by them.

We already have many questionably constitutional laws/decisions around protecting people's supposed right to discriminate and harm others with their views -- see pharmacists being permitted to hold a pharmacy license despite believing magical thinking over their pharmacy degree training, religious entities that don't even pay taxes being permitted to have all kinds of discriminatory hiring practices, etc.

up
Voting closed 4

Identity aspects such as party designation

Since when is your favorite baseball team, political party, or soft drink considered "identity?"

up
Voting closed 0

"Thou shalt not kill" is magical thinking of the highest order but you come up with all sorts of rigorous-sounding utilitarian arguments for it because it will pain you immensely to concede that human lives have intrinsic value by virtue of being endowed with the divine spark of life. You'll get to the "intrinsic value" part and just stop, but if you keep going it's "magical thinking."

Here's some magical thinking you're probably engaging in right now: "Behavior has no basis in biology."

up
Voting closed 4

I see somebody has been stinking up this place with paranoia and bigotry set to bombast ...

IMAGE(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71B8Dw8pTnL._SX679_.jpg)

up
Voting closed 4

So the guy or girl or whatever they are who is afraid of letting people use whatever bathroom still thinks being transgender is a mental illness.

Next

up
Voting closed 4

Thanks for posting about this, Adam. Despite some commenters apparently feeling the need to pontificate about their opposition to legal protections for trans and gender nonconforming folks, I appreciate you using your site & platform to (briefly and gently) highlight a ballot question and rally that matter to many of us, our families, friends, colleagues, and neighbors.

up
Voting closed 4

Because they were black?

up
Voting closed 4

You do realize it's right across the street from the State House, and that that spot is pretty frequently used for protests and that it's well known, so that even if there isn't a deliberate attempt to link two oppressed minorities, it makes sense to use it as a meeting place, right?

up
Voting closed 5

a man can enter a women's rest and/or locker room right now and do bad things if that man wishes to do bad things. And most men are not going to do this. I am also not worried that any "get out of jail free" cards will be given to men who want to do bad things and who are found in a women's locker room and cry "Hey, its ok, I'm transitioning". Yes, it could happen but the chances of it occurring are so slim that it is not even worth considering.

Whether someone wants to transition to a different sex or whatever, it is none of my business whatsoever. As long as you are not harming another, I am cool with it. Anyone who is transgender should not be bullied, harmed, picked on, persecuted, et. al. They should not be discriminated against in any way. End of discussion.

Vote yes on 3.

up
Voting closed 3

Whether someone wants to transition to a different sex

I looked into this.

It is possible to pretend to be a different sex. Science, right now, can only help the pretending appear a little better than Mrs Doubtfire. Science cannot transition anyone's sex.

up
Voting closed 7

...but no one, NO ONE, cares about your opinion of their gender. Really, did you have parents, and if so how did they raise someone so gob-smackingly rude? Do you routinely go up to people and say shit like, "That hairstyle really doesn't work for you" or "Dude, white shoes after Labor Day? Really?" You're rude and impertinent and badly brought-up.

up
Voting closed 3

but no one, NO ONE, cares about your opinion of their gender.

And I do not care about their gender. As long as the law is clear - gender cannot be changed.... just disguised.

No on 3

No on 3 ESPECIALLY if you do not care about opinion of your gender. Opinion is free to change at whim as an individual choice. The law is different.

up
Voting closed 4

...to legally regulate whether or not you may call yourself a man.

Idiot. Laws are expressions of political power. They're not natural law. Just because you've always had the political power and hence the law on your side, does not make your assertions fact.

up
Voting closed 5

I can't wait to legally regulate whether or not you may call yourself a man.

Until science changes, people can only pretend to change their sex.

You can continue to call yourself whatever you want. Science, and subsequently the law, are based on the truth... not on the perception of one with mental illness.

up
Voting closed 0

Because of expected attendance (and perhaps also because Boston Common could be a muddy mess after tomorrow's nor'easter), this event has been moved to City Hall Plaza.

up
Voting closed 0