[Discussion] Trans Issues and Rights

This thread is for the discussion of current events relating to trans rights, for discussion of the lives of trans people and difficulties they face, and for basic questions about the lives and experiences of trans people. (If basic questions become dominant we'll look at making a Q&A thread at that time.)

And I don't think there's anything laudable or creditable in invading a thread with toxic bigotry. Freya's equanimity however is awesome.

I'm legitimately lost as to why it would be so horrible for anyone's daughter to see a *gasp*penis! or to see someone possessing sexual organs not compliant with their gender. I guess intersex people are S.O.L. and only get to change and shower at home *eyeroll*

Even if trans* persons were flailing their genitals around showers and locker rooms (which simply doesn't happen) I'm sorry but I'm just not grasping a child's "right" not to see these things, it really comes across more as parental discomfort discussing things with said child and I'm afraid one's discomfort of having a basic anatomy lesson or discussion about gender issues with their child does not trump the right to safety and security the trans person can gain by being there instead of with their assigned gender.

Freyja I first want to say thank you and apologize. I like to think of myself as a very progressive, open minded person who strongly believes in the liberty and rights of all. But when this conversation started I have to admit that my initial reaction was "yeah, I don't want my daughter to see a penis in the locker room either".

I have to admit that none of my friends or acquaintances are transgender (that I know of). My views of gender I think are very "traditional" and anatomy based. This conversation has really made me think a lot about that biased (and bigoted) view.

So I know this doesn't mean anything from some random internet guy but you are welcome to share a locker room or shower with my daughter any time. And I will fight for your right to do so.

I'll say that in my own experience, trans women are always likely to cover themselves up aggressively. We don't want to be a spectacle, we just want to use the exercise facilities.

This is enough of a point of anxiety that I have avoided such places entirely since starting my transition. This would probably be harder if I was a regular user of such spaces before starting, because I haven't looked like a guy in quite some time*. One of the reasons I'm looking forward to my bottom surgery (which is coming up soon) is that once I heal I will feel okay going to the gym. Because even though I know that there are ways I can cover up (keeping tight exercise shorts on, for example) I feel super super anxious in that kind of place.

A trans woman friend of mine who does use such spaces habitually (she's a triathlete) used the "family" changing room for a couple of months. Until one day the room was occupied for a long period of time, and her 8-year-old daughter pulled her into the women's changing room. She still covered up very aggressively. (Her swimming outfit was a too-small swimsuit with a triathlon suit over it.)

She, by the way, rushed to get her surgery taken care of. She had some of the most severe dysphoria related to her genitals I've ever seen and was regularly driven to visualizing cutting herself. There's more to this story about when she was a child—but it's pretty distressing. Let it suffice to say that between the ages of ~14 and ~44 she repressed the memory of being trans so far that when she realized it and the memories started flooding back she was utterly shocked.

Anyway... whee. This stuff is hard for trans people, and it's harder because we know that people don't want us there. My friend lives in suburban central Virginia. Deep Trump country. Low density. Where everybody knows everybody. She cannot escape the fact that everyone knows who she is, and that she is trans. Her son recently met a new person at school and made a new friend... and the first thing she had to ask was "do his parents know about me?" Because there's every likelihood that if they don't then once they learn, her son will no longer have a friend.

Anyway, so... the point I was trying to make is that we don't want people seeing our junk. Some of us have a choice of having surgery. Some of us can't afford it. Some of us absolutely cannot have surgery (I know a trans woman who is hemophiliac).

So the question to be addressed about our use of public facilities needs to be: "What should we do?"

Many of us use our old facilities until we start getting really weird looks. After that, we might switch right away, or we might just not use anything for a little while until we feel more comfortable. Or we might be in an area where switching right away is accepted, if we can bring ourselves to do it. (I couldn't.)

Many of us try to use gender-neutral facilities when possible.

We pretty much all cover up—just like everybody else does.

But what happens when we can't do this? What happens when we've had no option to switch facilities (because boobs are pretty obvious. Hannah stole the thing about "C cups" from me. But I didn't say C cups, because I wear an F cup bra. And yes, that's just hormones, too. Not everybody's breasts are, and that's fine, too—because the biggest thing about breasts for trans women is fitting in. And F cups are not that big on my frame. They're certainly hard to miss, though.) What happens when we cover ourselves up but... something slips? We slip on the floor and drop our covering. We injure ourselves and somebody needs to remove part of our clothing to see how bad. etc.

For trans men, the issues are just the same. If they haven't had top surgery, they might still have substantial breasts but also a full beard. If they have had top surgery, they'll have obvious surgical scars for a while. If their towel slips, they're going to be missing some pretty obvious tackle. The typical solution for breasts is to wear a binder (a super-tight athletic shirt designed to hold in breasts). There's not much solution for the rest, though.

So... what happens then?

In the world that we can use the facility we feel most comfortable in, people might be surprised. They might get an eyeful of something they didn't expect, in very very rare case. Much like when the towel drops and they learn what old lady boobs look like, or that old guys are not entirely with it. Or what a mastectomy scar looks like. Or what kinds of things, exactly, can happen when you run into shrapnel in combat.

But nobody gets hurt, nobody meant any harm, and things are resolved quickly and calmly.

In the world that we have to have some particular configuration or documentation to use facilities, things get weird.

We have people who are obviously women going into the men's facilities and getting ogled and made a spectacle of, and having to prove their legal need to be there. We have people who are obviously men going into the women's facilities in the same situation. In both cases, those people are marked as outsiders, and there's a good chance that somebody is going to beat them up eventually.

If they go into the place where they are not an obvious outsider, then they are violating the law—and when something slips, or they need medical attention, or the like, it will come to light... and they will face legal penalties. (And possibly also violence when it becomes obvious, since it being against the law means it's wrong and they deserve it, right?)

Of these two cases, the thing that causes the least disruption, really, is that we go where we feel most comfortable—because that's always going to be the place where we stand out least and make the least amount of trouble for everyone. And if something does go awry, we don't get legal penalties for being there.

(And of course, other scenarios are at least as weird. Consider NC HB2—right now, I'm consigned to men's spaces, despite being obviously a woman, unless I want to violate the law. If I updated my WA birth certificate, which I am legally allowed to do right now, I would be legally obliged to use women's spaces... despite still having a penis. If I have surgery and do not update my birth certificate (and if I had been born in Ohio, that would be the case, because you may not update you birth certificate if you were born in Ohio), I would have a vagina and breasts and be legally obliged to use the men's room. So... yeah, that's a little odd.)

Or... we can just be effectively forbidden from using these places. "Use the unisex bathroom" works great, until it's closed for maintenance... and you can be sure nobody thinks about the fact that there are people who aren't allowed in either the men's or women's room (which is a broader problem, because think about non-binary people), and until you consider that when a trans man is with a bunch of guys and suddenly has to peel off to not go with them into the men's room it kind of makes it clear that something is going on.

One of Trump's surrogates during the campaign suggest we "just go at home". And... I've done that, and it limits you dramatically. Do you ever use public restrooms while out shopping? Or on a trip? Maybe at rest areas while driving? Well... if we have to "just go at home", we can't do any of those things. (Or if we do, we are violating the law.) Not to mention the fact that I used "public" restrooms while at work. For NC HB2, that would be a problem for any trans state employees if they were obliged to "just go at home".

(And to add insult to injury: the anti-androgen that trans women take in the United States? It's a diuretic.)

Anyway, I just... wanted to say how it is not as simple as all of that, for any of this. For the most part, trans people do not go around aiming to shock people, or wanting to stand out. We just want to live our lives. The thing that terrifies us about bathroom bills in particular is that they demand that we live our lives in a certain way that we know is less safe than what we are doing. It puts us in a position of choosing either to do what we know is safe (go where we'll be recognized as belonging), or to do what is legal.

(Added bonus: it's not like the cops enforce this stuff fairly, anyway. I've heard first-hand accounts of people thrown out of bathrooms by cops in the freaking Castro in SF because somebody decided they were in the wrong place—despite the law in California being on the side of the trans people in that situation.)

And further, the thing that frustrates us about opposition to Public Accommodations bills is that those aren't just about bathrooms—they're about denying service to people because they're trans. (In most of Pennsylvania, where I live, people can simply refuse to serve me for being trans. This is true in most of the US. The same thing holds for gay people, as well—less than half of the states in the US have laws forbidding that sort of behavior. The lawsuits about gay wedding cakes and stuff you've heard about that were found in favor of the gay couple? Those only happened in protected states.)

Sorry for the long rambly post. This is a big issue. It is a personal issue. It is stressful as all get out for trans people. When Florida was considering a bathroom bill last year, I had to tell my work "if this law gets passed, I will not be able to attend this professional conference we run because I will not be safe without breaking the law." So... this all really, really sucks.

* I switched with bathrooms I use in public long after I first started getting confused looks from people for being in the men's room. I stopped using public restrooms except at work the first time that happened, which severely curtailed the set of things I could do. No more movies for me! I was going to wait until I got the gender marker on my ID changed, but ended up giving up on that after about six months of waiting. It eventually took eight months to make that change.

SallyNasty wrote:

I am a father to two young girls, so I get the natural desire to be protective of them. My daughters are active girls, so we are always at pools, gyms, parks with public restrooms - and the amount of times they have been exposed to naked people (other than family) is zero. The idea that somehow if trans people use public restrooms/showers means that there are going to be a lot of confused children/children being exposed to genitalia is just anti-trans propaganda. Every restroom that the girls have ever used has had stalls - even when I take them in the men's room with me, we use stalls. Trans people are no different than cis people in their bathroom habits - it isn't as though they are going to be running around showing off. I see no reason to even consider that a possibility. Most people in restrooms just want to get their business done and be left alone.

This so much. It's sad that people have bought into it.

This was the ad the National Organization for Marriage ran in NC attacking Cooper. It's horrifying.

You may not want to watch.

But this is the picture they're painting, that somehow sexual assaults are going to happen all the time in bathrooms now. And it's just not true.

If you're really worried about your kid getting sexually assaulted it's much more likely to happen by one of your male relatives or friends that the kid is left alone with than it is by some stranger in a bathroom. Sadly those are the actual statistics, it's usually someone the kid knows.

Stele wrote:

This was the ad the National Organization for Marriage ran in NC attacking Cooper. It's horrifying.

This ad is substantially similar to one that ran in Houston against the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance. There, they use this to convince voters to entirely repeal the law that provided for protections in Houston for all classes. So because of fears about trans people using bathrooms, voters repealed protections against discrimination on the basis of "sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy" for housing, employment, and public accommodations (which, recall, is much more than about bathrooms).

It's pretty distressing.

And I'm glad it looks like Cooper may beat McRory in NC, although stuff is still in a lot of flux there.

edit: eh, this probably won't be as helpful as I imagined it would when I typed it.

There are so many people here that are more eloquent than I am, but I just wanted to post something that is probably very obvious to most, but maybe not to all. It is probably impossible for people to fully understand the difficulties some people face, even if we are sympathetic to their situation in general. As a white non-LGBT male, I can see the transgressions against people of other ethnicities, women, and LGBT people - but that doesn't make me feel what they feel every day of their lives. I don't know what it's like to be in their position as much as I can try and understand. We shouldn't pretend to know what they feel.

I... have some very serious issues with that analogy. But I'll let it go, since this isn't really the place for them.

Freyja wrote:

I promise I have a longer answer, but I'm phone posting right now.

Short answer: If a bunch of people in Western society can arbitrarily assign traits and behavior into a incomplete heuristic of a rigid binary that doesn't exist, why can't I say "No it's more complex than that?"

For me, the only way I know I'm a woman is experiment - I tried being a man and I wanted to die. I tried being both and I felt fake. I tried being a woman and I felt *right*.

As for trans folk skewing to traditional presentation and roles - sadly we often have to to be seen as who we are, and for our own safety.

Sometimes this means we get accused of upholding the gender binary. We're in a constant double bind. (This isn't happening here.)

Oh, to be clear - I wasn't saying that someone embracing norms of their own volition was bad in any way. I was just mentioning that it tends to be the case, so I understand the question I'm bringing up is not really a very pressing or large issue. My worry was that it sounded like I was bringing in the spectre of those stupid strawmen people make about "lol I identify as attack helicopter!" and wanted to cut that off.

Personally, I think the whole "bathroom" thing is a giant red herring thrown up by conservatives and I'm not sure we are accomplishing anything by giving more power to it through discussion. I'm so frustrated that there are much more significant things at stake given the current political climate, and the whole bathroom thing is being used to hide where the real discussions should be around Trans rights. This is the same approach that conservatives are using for voter fraud.

The fact that people are using differences to sow fear, doubt, and hatred against another HUMAN BEING is abhorrent.

The thing with the bathroom bill that makes me laugh is that people seem to forget that sexual assault is already illegal in bathrooms. It's illegal pretty much everywhere.

Wait no, it's illegal literally everywhere in this country.

JC wrote:

Personally, I think the whole "bathroom" thing is a giant red herring thrown up by conservatives and I'm not sure we are accomplishing anything by giving more power to it through discussion. I'm so frustrated that there are much more significant things at stake given the current political climate, and the whole bathroom thing is being used to hide where the real discussions should be around Trans rights. This is the same approach that conservatives are using for voter fraud.

The fact that people are using differences to sow fear, doubt, and hatred against another HUMAN BEING is abhorrent.

I question whether there is any discussion to be had around trans rights. You either accept that they are human beings with all the rights to which they are due, including being treated with dignity, or you don't.

What passes for discussion is a bunch of amazingly patient people trying to explain their lives to either 1) well meaning but often thick headed people who want to help, o/ or 2) pushing back against either raving or faux rational bigotry.

I agree completely Devil! I'm trying to pull attention to focus on other pieces of what this administration could do to diminish the rights of the people in it. If we continue to talk about bathrooms, we're going to miss the other stuff they try to pass and it will be too late.

JC wrote:

I agree completely Devil! I'm trying to pull attention to focus on other pieces of what this administration could do to diminish the rights of the people in it. If we continue to talk about bathrooms, we're going to miss the other stuff they try to pass and it will be too late.

Cool, fair enough.

Hypatian wrote:

I... have some very serious issues with that analogy. But I'll let it go, since this isn't really the place for them.

If the analogy was offensive in any way, I apologize (I removed it). It wasn't meant to be and realize it was a big stretch. Being neither pro gun or a member of the LGBT community I should have just said something simple to show my support. It's too easy to put my foot in my mouth. So I'll try again.

I hope someday soon that all people can be accepted for who they are, without prejudice, without fear and without hate. Just know that while there are people who aren't there yet, there are many who are and accept you.

JC wrote:

Personally, I think the whole "bathroom" thing is a giant red herring thrown up by conservatives and I'm not sure we are accomplishing anything by giving more power to it through discussion.

Concurred. As "The Gay Agenda" has become a less and less potent bit of animating rhetoric, they've shifted to "The Bathroom Issue" as their new front with which to frighten.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

What passes for discussion is a bunch of amazingly patient people trying to explain their lives to either 1) well meaning but often thick headed people who want to help, o/ or 2) pushing back against either raving or faux rational bigotry.

Agreed. It's tough to have a discussion when the starting point is "You're not full human and not deserving of basic rights and dignities."

robc wrote:

If the analogy was offensive in any way, I apologize (I removed it). It wasn't meant to be and realize it was a big stretch. Being neither pro gun or a member of the LGBT community I should have just said something simple to show my support. It's too easy to put my foot in my mouth. So I'll try again.

I hope someday soon that all people can be accepted for who they are, without prejudice, without fear and without hate. Just know that while there are people who aren't there yet, there are many who are and accept you.

I wouldn't say it was offensive, just that I disagreed with it. The heart of my concern is simply that there's a difference between laws about gun ownership (which are not about any class of people—rather, they're about the rights and responsibilities of any person who seeks to own, owns, or seeks to dispose of a firearm) and laws about trans people.

thinks for a moment

I've seen this distinction kind of not connect for people before, so I'm thinking about how to explain it. It's similar to the difference between laws having to do with marriage-in-general (which control how one goes about marrying someone, and the rights and responsibilities that come with that) and laws having to do with whether or not gay people can marry. Some people against gay marriage made the argument that "it's really a general law—it says that nobody can marry someone of the same sex, and that holds whether you're straight or gay" (forgetting other sexualities, as usual, but I digress). However, that missed the fact that the impact was "straight people can marry who they're in love with" vs "gay people cannot marry anyone they fall in love with" (and further, "bisexual and other people cannot marry some people they might fall in love with").

(Or to quote Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.")

The other aspect of this gets into the whole "born that way" thing... which honestly is a big mess. To look at sexuality again: it shouldn't be necessary to say "I can't be in love with anyone except someone of the same sex" in order for your desire to marry who you love to be valid. A bisexual person might be able to fall in love with straight people... but that doesn't mean that you should really think of this as a choice. Similarly, for non-cisgender people, it shouldn't matter whether we're trans and we transition because we have no choice, or if we have a choice and we make it. Either way, our gender should be respected. Certainly there are some people who have no reasonable choice but to transition. Certainly there are other who do have a choice, and that's equally valid.

Anyway, that was a bit of a long digression, but... the key thing is that for many people who transition "just don't be trans" is not a choice we can make (although again the choice of those who can is just as valid). And many of us do try very very hard to make that choice. I did for over twenty years, and... it got really really bad.

As a further aspect—one that hits very hard for many trans people—being trans is not something we can just "leave behind". Just like people cannot leave their perceived race behind, and people cannot leave their sexuality behind, and people cannot leave their age, etc. etc. behind... we cannot leave our gender behind. Doing so is just the same as "don't be trans". (Of course, not being able to leave gender behind is a problem for other people, as well—because gender is in large part about how we interact with other people.)

So there are a few distinctions here between the concepts of trans bathroom rights and gun rights. (And you can extend this to other sorts of groups that are typically made into protected classes.)

First: laws about gun ownership do in fact apply to all people. Yes, different rules apply to gun owners than to others, but they have specifically to do with guns and gun ownership, not with any other parts of life. For example, someone who wishes to carry a gun might be required to get a license to carry that firearm. (Note that we don't particularly find licenses for driving a motor vehicle, or for a given vehicle to be operated, or laws about transfer of vehicle titles to be particularly onerous in the way that we do similar restrictions for firearms. This suggests that there's some additional assumption of malice on the part of the government when firearms are involved... even though limiting someone's access to vehicles would for most people cause far far far more problems.)

Second: people may choose whether or not they wish to own a gun. It is true that in some areas there is a very strong culture of gun ownership—but that doesn't make it any less of a choice. And again, the restrictions on their life created by that choice only have to do with the choice itself (the ownership of firearms), and can be lifted at any time by choosing not to own a firearm. To take another sort of example: there are certain restrictions on people who choose to be business owners, with respect to what they can do with their business. Things like how and what taxes are to be paid. Things like for what reasons they might choose to refuse service to members of the public. Things like food safety, or building safety, etc. We don't generally think of these as onerous, either. (Except some people who don't like the public accommodations requirements, and think they should be allowed to ignore them for certain classes of people.)

Third—when the rights of gun owners to use their guns in certain ways are limited, this generally means that they might have to leave a gun behind when they might otherwise wish to carry it. The owner of a bar might have a policy forbidding firearms on the premises. Open carry might not be allowed in certain civic buildings. The owner always has the choice to leave their firearms behind. The restrictions are not on them, but on their guns. To make a final analogy: consider people who own pets. There might be certain legal requirements of pet owners. And local businesses might restrict whether some or any pets are allowed into their establishments. But they can always leave their pets behind, and aside from certain situations (like service animals, which are required to be allowed in some places, so long as the service animals are properly trained and licensed) we don't particularly see anything wrong with that.

So... that's the long form of what I was thinking about when I said I had some problems with the analogy.

The big difference is between: 1) trans people being allowed to participate in society by visiting stores, renting rooms at hotels, being employed, using exercise facilities, using public restrooms, etc. (first because some of us will always be obviously "other", and second because these laws force us into places where people do not want us based on how we look), and 2) firearm owners being allowed to participate in society by visiting stores, renting rooms at hotels, being employed, etc. etc. while carrying a firearm.

And honestly, if anybody started trying to refuse service to gun owners just for being gun owners, rather than forbidding weapons in their establishments? I would be right up there arguing against that sort of policy being allowed.

It might be nice for some of us if we could leave our gender or our genitalia behind. But... I don't think that option is likely to happen any time soon. I spent way too many years waiting and hoping for us to develop nanotechnology to the point where I could have the body I always imagined I would grow up to have... and the waiting game is just not worth it.

I was sad to hear that calls to Trans Lifeline are up but glad to know my monthly donation continues to be put to good use.

Hannah and Kat, you continue to be two of the most badass women I know. I'm always in awe of your insights and patience.

Hypatian wrote:

I wouldn't say it was offensive, just that I disagreed with it. ...

Well, since my analogy didn't really illustrate what I was feeling very well it is best left in the trash.

I think I get your distinction and I agree with it wholeheartedly. While the gun ownership analogy was bad for the reasons you illustrate (and thank you for taking the time to make your points), I wasn't trying to make such a literal connection between the two (the right to own a firearm and the right to be who you are).

Yup. I just wanted to, on reflection, talk about the differences.

When we're speaking of questions of ethics—of the philosophical principles of "right action", what someone ought to do in a given situation—it's important to examine the details and think about the differences between scenarios.

The decisions that people make get awfully complicated, because we all have different levels of understanding and knowledge of the situation, and we all hold different axioms (different basic principles) which serve as the foundation of our choices.

But when we have thought through more different scenarios and considered more different factors, it will help us be clear about why we're making choices, no matter what our axioms are. That means we know ourselves better and can think critically about our choices better. It also means we can more easily explain ourselves to others. And finally, it means that we can more easily understand the positions that others take.

For myself, and for other trans people... there are a lot of axioms that most people accept that we're breaking just by existing, and that we are forced to closely examine through our lives. Things like "there are exactly two genders" and "gender is a thing that you have from birth and which never changes" are pretty obvious. But "men and women must be kept separate in certain situations" is both simpler and more profound.

Consider that it's not just that the definitions of "man" and "woman" are less clear than people would like to think, but that (for example) I was a woman who was forced to use men's facilities for so far around 90% of my life (hooray that that will be dropping more and more over time). And all that really resulted in was me feeling horribly horribly uncomfortable because people expected me to act like a man.

(When I was in second grade, I think it was? That's when I learned that if I sat down to pee, I would be ruthlessly mocked for it. Before then, I always sat in a stall when I used the restroom. After that, I developed protective coloration to avoid being bullied. It was a huge relief to finally, some 30 years later, be able to set that sort of thing aside again.)

All of that smashing through axioms is, I think, the thing that really makes so many people feel threatened. (Although... I don't think many are aware of the origin of their discomfort.) Trans people are living proof that the world isn't as simple as people would like to believe, and that apparent complexity is rather scary. It's my hope that over time we'll find ways to defuse that fear and to rebuild our ideas of how the world works, rather than finding ways to deny the fear and to try to bury those whose experiences defy traditional explanations. Because we don't really need more complicated explanations to account for trans people, just different ones... and after we learn them, perhaps even simpler ones.

<3

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I find the "bathroom bill" stuff to be similar to denying a diabetic insulin. Gender dysphoria is a potentially deadly condition, and the only cure is transition. Using the restroom of your true gender is a vital part of said transition. Therefore, by denying that right to a trans person, you're denying a part of their life-saving treatment.

I'm totally speaking as a pre-diabetic SJW and not a mod when I say it's a bit unfair to deny a diabetic insulin because you don't like the possibility of your kid seeing a syringe. Or maybe you don't want them checking their blood sugar in public because your kid might see blood. Something along those lines.

This issue also reminds me of the issues around women breastfeeding in public and people telling them they need to take it into the bathroom rather than the almost non-existent chance that their kids might see a woman's breast and be scarred for life. I can't help but think that maybe they are the ones who need to go eat their dinners in the bathroom instead.

Funny thing is that kids never see any of these naked body parts, breasts, penises, whatever, as any sort of big deal until their parents start making a huge fuss over it and teaching them that it needs to be a big deal. (And usually in a very negative and harmful way.)

Thanks for that Kat, and while we can wax hypothetical about and so forth I think it's extremely important to reiterate that for people like yourself this isn't theoretical, it's not some cute thought experiment. For our trans* goodjers and countless other trans* people across America this stuff and the consequences are extremely real, I think it's important that everyone remember that and keep it solemnly in mind.

edit: eh, on second thought, I really shouldn't play Parent's Advocate in this place.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

edit: eh, on second thought, I really shouldn't play Parent's Advocate in this place.

Thanks for that. As much as we make fun of you for it, I do love when people self-edit.

bekkilyn wrote:

Funny thing is that kids never see any of these naked body parts, breasts, penises, whatever, as any sort of big deal until their parents start making a huge fuss over it and teaching them that it needs to be a big deal. (And usually in a very negative and harmful way.)

SO MUCH THIS!

SallyNasty wrote:

There is nothing magical about a penis(my own excluded)

Slight derail, but we all just glossed over the fact that Sally has a magic penis. Carry on.

nel e nel wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

There is nothing magical about a penis(my own excluded)

Slight derail, but we all just glossed over the fact that Sally has a magic penis. Carry on.

For most of us, it's common knowledge.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

There is nothing magical about a penis(my own excluded)

Slight derail, but we all just glossed over the fact that Sally has a magic penis. Carry on.

For most of us, it's common knowledge.

A rather, er, friendly fellow, I gather?