[Discussion] What did we vote for? What is my responsibility in all of this?

As the dust settles, you may be wondering how much is each individual voter's responsibility. Voting usually involves some level of compromise. Let's calmly and respectfully discuss what it means to have voted for your candidate.

Also adding Dimmer's scope:

"This thread is intended to provide a focused space for the discussion about the moral and ethical choices (and consequences) of our votes which is currently overrunning other threads."

MattDaddy wrote:
Demyx wrote:

I think part of the problem is that you see other people pointing out you hold a bigoted opinion as inherently berating and insulting, whereas those people might see it more as pointing out an honest mistake that you should rectify.

I don't need to "rectify" not wanting my daughter to see a penis in the locker room.

That's fine. That's not a sufficient reason to bar me from a women's locker room.

MattDaddy wrote:
Demyx wrote:

I think part of the problem is that you see other people pointing out you hold a bigoted opinion as inherently berating and insulting, whereas those people might see it more as pointing out an honest mistake that you should rectify.

I don't need to "rectify" not wanting my daughter to see a penis in the locker room.

You're worried about your daughter not seeing a penis in the locker room, but you don't seem to be concerned about what kind of behavior you're modeling for her when it comes to gender-nonconforming people.

What if she turns out to be trans? If she (or he, in that case) knows this is your attitude, will your son feel comfortable coming to Dad for help? Or will he suffer in silence?

What if her friend comes out to her as trans? Will she be accepting, or will she turn her friend away?

What if she falls in love with a trans person? Will she feel comfortable bringing them home to meet you?

MattDaddy wrote:
CptDomano wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:
Freyja wrote:

Converting all facilities to gender-neutral facilities would be fine in my opinion, but impractical and unrealistic to achieve in a reasonable timeframe.

This is pretty much what I said I would be a good solution in my original post. Funny how no one even acknowledged that on their way to calling me a bigot and chasing me into the "penis" corner.

You only made the concession for bathrooms because there are stalls. You specifically call out locker rooms and specifically bring up penis topic, which is what started the whole thing.

MattDaddy, from the very first page wrote:

I don't care what bathroom people use. People don't walk around with their private parts exposed in the bathroom. There are stalls. Make them all unisex and only have stalls. Problem solved? Locker rooms are different. My 10 year old daughter should not have to see a penis in the women's YMCA showers.

So no, you didn't "pretty much" say that.

I didn't think Freyja was referring to locker rooms. There is no way in hell locker rooms (which include showers) are going to be made unisex without drastic changes.

I'm trying to find common ground and it's being ignored.

Okay. I am referring to locker rooms as well in that set. If your common ground includes keeping me out of a woman's locker room, that's not common ground.

e: I have no beard, hair down to my butt, hips, and a C cup, what exactly do you think is going to happen to me if I'm forced into a men's locker room?

Tanglebones wrote:

https://twitter.com/scottbix/status/...

“Homosexuality is a lifestyle, it’s a choice, and that lifestyle can be changed.” – Trump transition team's head of domestic policy

Eh, that quote's actually ten years old - eight years ago Obama had a "one man, one woman" view of marriage. Not sure how salient this is.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

https://twitter.com/scottbix/status/...

“Homosexuality is a lifestyle, it’s a choice, and that lifestyle can be changed.” – Trump transition team's head of domestic policy

Eh, that quote's actually ten years old - eight years ago Obama had a "one man, one woman" view of marriage. Not sure how salient this is.

He's a Senior Fellow at the Family Research Council and their stance is pretty dang recent.

MattDaddy wrote:

I don't need to "rectify" not wanting my daughter to see a penis in the locker room.

Not really one topic but...

Do you feel like John Ascroft that statues wiht penis's should be hidden? Why should she be forced to see a penis on a school trip to the art museum but not in the locker room? I assume you wouldn't object to that but I can't understand the reason. "Parts is parts" as it were.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

https://twitter.com/scottbix/status/...

“Homosexuality is a lifestyle, it’s a choice, and that lifestyle can be changed.” – Trump transition team's head of domestic policy

Eh, that quote's actually ten years old - eight years ago Obama had a "one man, one woman" view of marriage. Not sure how salient this is.

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-kenneth-b...

His support for religious liberty may have limits, though. Although he sides with those who believe people should have freedom of dress, he labeled Middle Eastern immigrants as followers of “radical Islam” when questioned about whether women should be allowed to cover themselves out of modesty on beaches in southern France.
He also seems to view gender-neutral bathrooms, which have sprung up in light of an ongoing discussion over transgender rights, as a “public safety risk.”
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

https://twitter.com/scottbix/status/...

“Homosexuality is a lifestyle, it’s a choice, and that lifestyle can be changed.” – Trump transition team's head of domestic policy

Eh, that quote's actually ten years old - eight years ago Obama had a "one man, one woman" view of marriage. Not sure how salient this is.

Less than eighteen months ago he compared SCOTUS' "wrong decision in this marriage case" to the Civil War, World War II and the September 11, 2001 attacks.

That and the odds are tremendously low that someone who is currently a Senior Fellow at the Family Research Council has changed their view on gay marriage. Doubly so because the Family Research Council has this to say about homosexuality:

Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects. While the origins of same-sex attractions may be complex, there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools. Attempts to join two men or two women in "marriage" constitute a radical redefinition and falsification of the institution, and FRC supports state and federal constitutional amendments to prevent such redefinition by courts or legislatures. Sympathy must be extended to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions, and every effort should be made to assist such persons to overcome those attractions, as many already have.

Personally...

I think that facilities such as locker rooms and bathrooms throughout history have been predominantly assigned by your sex, not your perceived gender. I do not think this is an unreasonable stance for society to have.

I think that it's unreasonable for a trans person to demand to use facilities in opposition because of how they feel about their gender when they completely disregard that other people feel uncomfortable with that. At that point you're basically saying that your feels trump other people's feels. There needs to be some kind of bathroom etiquette in society and division by sex is considered reasonable. And that has nothing to do with children, it has to do with a majority of people being genuinely uncomfortable displaying themselves in general and in particular to people who are not the same sex because of the possible sexual connotations of that (which almost never occur, but that doesn't mean people don't think about it).

Being able to have a relationship with the person you love? That's a hill worth dying on. Hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. etc. etc. All hills worth dying on.

Making a wee in the same style toilet in a room whose entryway happens to have an icon of a human in a dress? I have trouble seeing that as a hill worth dying on.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Docjoe wrote:

Maybe safe space isn't the right word. Never mind I'm just interested in a bit more calm conversation about not only why Trump but also now what Trump that allows other than liberal viewpoints without getting shouted down. This is probably just not the community for that. I'm trying to get past my anger and move on to trying to find a common ground now that Trump is going to be my (as an American citizen) president.

What I'm against is someone walking into a conversation, demanding everyone use language other than the correct language because it offends them, and then getting huffy because they're a "picked on conservative" or whatever. Maybe if people of supposed opposing viewpoints didn't spend so much time jumping in here immediately saying "I know I'm the brave Republican jumping into this liberal echo chamber" and putting everyone across a line in the sand before we even get to the issues, we'd have less of that. I don't display my goddamned conservative receipts every time a topic comes up, because I'm interested in discussing an issue, not playing team sports.

I'm not saying it applies in this case Bloo but that sort of thing does happen here. Whether people would like to admit it or not. This place and the people within it aren't perfect and we all have different views. But sometimes your words can be twisted or taken completely out of context. I often don't post here because I feel that because my views often conflict with others I feel I need to walk on eggshells more than not.

Sometimes it had nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. Sometimes it's just having a view that automatically has people place you in that category. I'll try not to hit on the subject any more, because it's not really relevant to the topic but it does happen or at least it feels like it does. And I think that's at least reason enough to sit back and consider.

So I guess someone born with both sets of genitals belongs nowhere? IMO our discomfort is a byproduct of prudish standards which haver never matched up with the real world and it's worth continuing to change that.

LouZiffer wrote:

So I guess someone born with both sets of genitals belongs nowhere? IMO our discomfort is a byproduct of prudish standards which haver never matched up with the real world and it's worth continuing to change that.

Yeah I'm still trying to figure out why a girl seeing a penis is such a terrible thing.

Edit: Also, re: the bigot term. If your viewpoint gets you placed in the bigot category, that's because it's a bigoted viewpoint. You can't hide behind words like viewpoints and opinions to hand-wave away any criticism.

bandit0013 wrote:

I think that it's unreasonable for a trans person to demand to use facilities in opposition because of how they feel about their gender when they completely disregard that other people feel uncomfortable with that.

If you're uncomfortable that a woman with a penis is using the women's facilities... are you comfortable with a big burly man with a beard using those women's facilities, because he has a vagina?

One or the other.

Some images to depict what you think you'd be more comfortable with:
IMAGE(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/563ba0902900002f004dc488.jpeg)
IMAGE(http://www.gaystarnews.com/wp-content/uploads/Trans_Men_Bathroom_Ban.jpg)
IMAGE(http://cdn1.theweek.co.uk/sites/theweek/files/styles/theweek_insert_main_image/public/8/88//150310-bathrooms.jpg?itok=l4HnCzdu)

bandit0013 wrote:

Personally...

I think that facilities such as locker rooms and bathrooms throughout history have been predominantly assigned by your sex, not your perceived gender. I do not think this is an unreasonable stance for society to have.

I think that it's unreasonable for a trans person to demand to use facilities in opposition because of how they feel about their gender when they completely disregard that other people feel uncomfortable with that. At that point you're basically saying that your feels trump other people's feels. There needs to be some kind of bathroom etiquette in society and division by sex is considered reasonable. And that has nothing to do with children, it has to do with a majority of people being genuinely uncomfortable displaying themselves in general and in particular to people who are not the same sex because of the possible sexual connotations of that (which almost never occur, but that doesn't mean people don't think about it).

Being able to have a relationship with the person you love? That's a hill worth dying on. Hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. etc. etc. All hills worth dying on.

Making a wee in the same style toilet in a room whose entryway happens to have an icon of a human in a dress? I have trouble seeing that as a hill worth dying on.

I am not biologically male. And the fact that you can blithely simplify to that degree the issue of me having equal access to public facilities, to be able to participate fully in society belies how uninformed you are about the situation and is incredibly hurtful.

I will not be forced into a men's locker room or restroom again, doing so forcibly outs me and makes me a target for discrimination and violence. It is a threat to my life.

Don't ever tell me this is just about 'taking a wee'.

At least I know who in this community never to let within arm's reach of me now.

Demyx wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

I think that it's unreasonable for a trans person to demand to use facilities in opposition because of how they feel about their gender when they completely disregard that other people feel uncomfortable with that.

If you're uncomfortable that a woman with a penis is using the women's facilities... are you comfortable with a big burly man with a beard using those women's facilities, because he has a vagina?

One or the other.

I never said that I personally was uncomfortable with it. As someone who visits nude beaches from time to time I could care less about your parts.

However, just because I feel comfortable walking around in the nude especially on days when it's hot and clothing makes me actively sweaty and uncomfortable doesn't mean that I think society should just change the way it works so I can shop at Macy's in the nude. I realize that there are many more members of society who on that particular issue do not feel the way I do, and that putting pants on is a small price to pay to make the people around me comfortable.

Intersexed individuals are statistically uncommon. Common sense would dictate that if you have enough physical man characteristics that the average person assumes you are a man you should just go into the men's room and use the stall.

bandit0013 wrote:

I think that facilities such as locker rooms and bathrooms throughout history have been predominantly assigned by your sex, not your perceived gender. I do not think this is an unreasonable stance for society to have.

Given how gay people and trans folks have been treated by society throughout history I'm not too keen on continuing to treat people a certain way today because that's how it was done in the past.

I certainly don't hold the view that black people should be considered slaves now because that's how it was done throughout history. sh*t changes and society has to adapt. Even if it makes people uncomfortable.

So trans and intersex people should predict what arbitrary markers every single person we meet on the street will use to gender us by, and guess what facility to use based on an unknown conclusion from an infinite set of factors, located in an infinite set of people.

We have to make this decision where if we guess incorrectly, the consequences can include arrest and violence, up to and including death.

Yeah, seems workable and fair so cis people don't have to experience the slightest discomfort or reconsider their assumptions about gender.

MattDaddy wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Pointing out the foreseeable and demonstrable consequences of someone's vote is not a personal attack.

Calling me a bigot is.

I've reread the Presidential Election thread, this one, and your derail in the Trans issues one, and don't see anyone calling you a bigot. (I'll admit it's possible I missed where that happened).

I do see people repeatedly taking pains to point out that your vote enables bigotry against marginalized populations. I see a couple of posts that call your beliefs bigoted or transphobic.

And I can understand how that might hurt your feelings.

But it's not the same as being called a bigot.

To circle back to the J Smooth video: folks are being pretty diligent about having a "what you said/did" conversation with you. You seem bent on trying to make it a "what you are" conversation. But whether or not you (or any Trump voter) are actually bigots makes no difference, in terms of the consequences of your vote.

And even being called a bigot, while it would no doubt suck, doesn't begin to approach the very real loss of legal protection and increased danger people in this thread (and elsewhere) are likely to suffer, as a result of this election.

bandit0013 wrote:
Demyx wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

I think that it's unreasonable for a trans person to demand to use facilities in opposition because of how they feel about their gender when they completely disregard that other people feel uncomfortable with that.

If you're uncomfortable that a woman with a penis is using the women's facilities... are you comfortable with a big burly man with a beard using those women's facilities, because he has a vagina?

One or the other.

I never said that I personally was uncomfortable with it. As someone who visits nude beaches from time to time I could care less about your parts.

However, just because I feel comfortable walking around in the nude especially on days when it's hot and clothing makes me actively sweaty and uncomfortable doesn't mean that I think society should just change the way it works so I can shop at Macy's in the nude. I realize that there are many more members of society who on that particular issue do not feel the way I do, and that putting pants on is a small price to pay to make the people around me comfortable.

Intersexed individuals are statistically uncommon. Common sense would dictate that if you have enough physical man characteristics that the average person assumes your a man you should just go into the men's room and use the stall.

The issue with that is that there have been documented cases where cis-women were thought to be biologically male and forced out of the woman's restroom. The common sense solution would be to stop playing bathroom police and trust people to use the appropriate bathroom for themselves.

Farscry wrote:
Freyja wrote:

e: It's unconvincing because your answer to Stengah's question means that my body as it exists is inherently more offensive than that of a cis woman's.

Which is, quite literally, the textbook definition of bigotry.

For those not finding it, this is what MattDaddy was referring to about being called a bigot. I personally agree with Freyja on this one but thought people should see where this was since it's been mentioned twice now.

I started to respond, deleted, I don't want to turn this into a transgender thread.

We will see what Trump and the congress does. It's still too early to hyperventilate over things like ACA because nothing has been changed yet nor has any bill been proposed. A lot of fear-mongering going on right now.

I do reject the labeling of Trump voters as enablers though. Freyja I find myself with empathy for the fear/pain you feel while at the same time feeling that your comments are extreme. Your comments are giving me the perception that if someone doesn't 100% back whatever you think is the right social norms that they can't be your friend. That's a very lonely position to take imho.

I voted for Hillary in this election, but looking at the conservative Trump supporters I typically encounter:

- None favor or engage in violence in any form against minority groups. I don't hang out with people like that.
- Only about a third care at all about gay marriage. This seems to line up well with recent polling data on gay marriage. That doesn't mean they're supportive or that they'd lose sleep if it got shut down, but it also doesn't mean they're actively pushing for it as a wedge issue. Most seem to accept that it's coming and would rather it just be done with already.
- Nearly all of them think legal immigration is A-OK.
- Nearly all of them think free trade deals are harmful.
- Nearly all of them think the H1-B program needs to be scrapped and redone.
- Nearly all of them think wealthy elites in both the political and business class are above the law.
- Most of them feel the wall idea is silly, but nearly all of them think that illegals have broken the law and like just about any other country on Earth they should be deported when caught.

- I don't discuss abortion with hardly anyone, too much chance for a very negative conversation so it's a topic to be avoided.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Would you guys apply the "only outcomes matter" litmus test to the Johnson voter?

Here's my own take on this: we're all responsible. I believe that everybody has a modicum of responsibility because we all participate in this democratic system and, thus, the outcome of that democratic system is a reflection on us as a country. (That includes people that abstain from voting altogether too; inaction is a choice and, thus, participation in the system as well.)

A lot of people seem to be trying to cope or paper over this by pointing to the result of the popular vote -- "look, only 25.5% of the population that voted for Trump actually supports this!" -- but the fact of the matter is that, through our actions or inactions, we have collectively brought to bear a systemic outcome that could result in considerable, irreparable harm to people inside our borders and beyond. No amount of intellectual abstraction or philosophical handwaving is going to take that harm away from those who suffer it.

It's brutal and sobering and, ultimately, it's an impossible responsibility, but I accept it anyway; nobody's perfect, nobody's ideologically pure, but everybody has the opportunity to do better and help others to do the same.

That said, some people do have a larger share in this collective responsibility than others, though. The elected officials and public personalities -- the influencers -- that actively supported this platform are, in my view, the most responsible of all because they have the most cultural capital to spend and they leveraged that to drive a bigger impact in the election process.

Those with similar levels of public visibility that simply did nothing or chose not to talk about politics carry an uncomfortably large share as well because their silence enabled scores of other potential voters to feel more comfortable in staying away from the polls, resting in the solace of knowing that, for most of these concerns, it's not their problem.

And when we want to talk about third-party voters in the American system, a democratic system that is disproportionately weighted in favor of only two primary parties, then we have to talk about the practical implications of that vote.

Do I yearn for a more diverse array of viable political parties and candidates than what we have now? Absolutely.

Was there a candidate available to me that perfectly represented my view? No.

Will there ever be a candidate available to me that perfectly represents my views? I'm not holding my breath.

We're always in a mode of compromise. No candidate is ever going to ace my test. Thus, we have a responsibility to split the difference as best as we can, leveraging what agency we have to do what we feel is the greatest good. Call it game theory, call it moral calculus, call it whatever you like - it's a process.

And I strongly feel that part of that process should include understanding what's at stake if your candidate doesn't make it. Trump presented such a danger to so many people in this country that his own declared party, a GOP that has demonstrated its own unyielding party unity through long-term obstruction in Congress, fractured under the weight of it. We've talked so much about LGBT rights in this thread and others that we haven't even touched what will happen to Muslims over the coming years. The stakes for these folks are immeasurable and we are playing this hand with their chips as well as our own. What gamble are you willing to make?

So, yeah, if I sounded incredulous earlier in this thread and others, maybe this wall of text will provide some context. I take this impossible responsibility seriously because, even though LGBT rights and the welfare of Muslims and everything else that doesn't affect me personally is "not my problem," I truly feel that all of these things are everybody's problem. The repercussions of this election and, frankly, any election transcend party lines; that's how democracy works.

You voted for this.

Everybody did.

OzymandiasAV wrote:

A lot of people seem to be trying to cope or paper over this by pointing to the result of the popular vote -- "look, only 25.5% of the population that voted for Trump actually supports this!"

What I find interesting is the steadfast belief that if 100% of the population had voted that it would have automatically resulted in a Hillary win instead of continuing the follow the established trend line via the electoral college.

It's a very illogical belief to hold.

If someone doesn't back the idea that I should have access to public life like any other woman because the facts of my existence don't comport with gender norms imposed by Western society then yes, they are not my friend.

I appreciate your concern for my social life but I'm getting married before the end of the year and am surrounded by a vibrant, loving community of lovers, friends, and chosen family. I assure you I am not lonely.

Congratulations MattDaddy and bandit! You just convinced me to immediately switch over to use the ladies facilities at college. I was previously using a gender neutral alternative until I was ready but your comments have been a useful reminder that I can do my small part for curing such ignorance by being a good example to my peers. Thanks!

If someone doesn't back the idea that I should have access to public life like any other woman does then yes, they are not my friend.

100% this tho'.

pyxistyx wrote:

Congratulations MattDaddy and bandit! You just convinced me to immediately switch over to use the ladies facilities at college. I was previously using a gender neutral alternative until I was ready but your comments have been a useful reminder that I can do my small part for curing such ignorance by being a good example to my peers. Thanks!

If someone doesn't back the idea that I should have access to public life like any other woman does then yes, they are not my friend.

100% this.

I hope it makes a positive difference.

Thank you for your congratulations. I understand that by labeling me as one of them you can be dismissive of me and it makes it not only ok, but a moral obligation to approach me with sarcasm even though I have literally voted for EVERY SINGLE gay rights issue that's ever come up.

I quite enjoy interacting with LGBQT people who acknowledge that they are outside the norms, are working to change the norms, but in the meantime are willing to bend in small ways to minimize any discomfort to those around them while still working to educate people about who they are. It is a reasoned approach that is effective at building the consensus needed to enact real, lasting change.

I don't not enjoy interacting with LGBQT people who demand absolute, immediate submission to their viewpoint and use the same type of sarcastic, shaming, and labeling tactics that bigots use. That type of behavior is narcissistic and it has more in common with Trump than you're probably willing to admit. It is a turnoff to people who might otherwise have empathy for you.

You have no idea how superhumanly patient I've been over the last 48 hours with these threads.

Honestly, based on the kind of LGBT people you say you enjoy interacting with, I'm willing to bet the queer people you know aren't being entirely honest with you, or are otherwise too tired or afraid to speak up if you treat them poorly.

I have no intention of compromising who I am, my right to exist in public as freely as a cis person, or behaving in a way that stigmatizes me or puts me in danger because someone might be uncomfortable with the realities of my existence.

If you don't enjoy interacting with me because I am unwilling to compromise my boundaries on that, I suppose I'll live with your disappointment.

RoughneckGeek wrote:

I think you'll find most of us have been and are quite patient when we're able. We all reach our breaking point where we expect you to put some effort into enlightening yourself.

Agreed, most are. CIS people have their breaking points too. Anger is natural when you are hurt or disappointed. How you channel that anger is what matters.

But having empathy for LGBQT doesn't mean that I won't say something when they engage in the same tactics that I consider to be bad behavior from CIS people. I found pyxistyx's comment to be impolite.