Has the atheist community just lost it's fucking mind?

[FaithIsFilth]

And again, by using the obvious intention of those symbols it is easy to say, "Wait a minute!  You have a penis!  You do not belong in here!"  It is clearly defined.  You can test for it.  You can easily tell if someone is not where they are supposed to be.  By giving special rights (and it IS "special rights") to the utterly undefined and legally undefinable group "transgender people" you suddenly no longer have a test.

You don't need a test. If someone wants to use the women's washroom, they can. I don't want anyone to have to prove they are trans, or to look like a woman or anything like that. I say let the person use the washroom they want to use unless they are caught causing problems, but at the same time, I want to leave the male and female symbols on the doors rather than just calling it an intersex washroom. Your idea to have more privacy and better partitions is a good idea though. Let's go back to your concern about men planting cameras. How are men caught doing that in the men's room, when they decide that they want to video tape some little boys? Are these people impossible to catch because they are not in the "wrong" washroom? No. These people get caught. The men or trans women who are perverts and want to video tape girls going to the washroom will be caught the same way the men are caught doing it in the boys room. We don't look at the reality of men video taping in the boys room and turn around and say let's kick all the men out of the washroom to protect our boys, or let's kick all of the men out who openly have a same sex attraction, just to be safe. We don't do that, because that would be wrong as hell. What about someone asking to kick all lesbians out of the women's washroom, because you know, you just can't take any chances with your kids? That's what asking for trans people to be banned from the girls room sounds like to me.

[widdershins]

You don't need a test. If someone wants to use the women's washroom, they can.

Then why do all the proposed laws say "according to the gender they identify with"?  That is setting up a test.  Why not "Anyone can go into any restroom they like at any time"?  There is nothing to test there.  You don't have to meet any requirements.

I don't want anyone to have to prove they are trans, or to look like a woman or anything like that.

You are missing the point.  If you want to get into college or get hired based on Affirmative Action laws there is a test.  You must be a minority.  I, as a white man, can't get into college based on Affirmative Action laws because I am not a minority.  The "test" I am talking about is not that they have to prove it, it is that if I, a white man, try to invoke this law it can quickly and easily be determined that my 1/32 Cherokee blood does not make me "not white".  It can be "tested for".  And EVERY law which calls out a specific group must, by necessity, be able to test for membership in that group.  It's a basic necessity of making any law which targets a subset of the population.  In many states you have to be a registered Republican to vote in the Republican primaries.  That is a test.  It doesn't mean that you are a Republican, but they have to have SOMETHING to test for to limit the group allowed to participate.  They don't have to "prove" they're Republican.  They just have to "say" they are in an official manor so that they can "test" whether the person qualifies under the particular rules.

I say let the person use the washroom they want to use unless they are caught causing problems, but at the same time, I want to leave the male and female symbols on the doors rather than just calling it an intersex washroom.

I don't understand why you would have the symbols on the door if you would walk in and just find anyone in there anyway.  I'll be honest, I'd use the ladies room before I walked up to the 10' long "trough" at my local fair grounds.  Hell, I'd damn near piss my pants before using it.

Your idea to have more privacy and better partitions is a good idea though. Let's go back to your concern about men planting cameras. How are men caught doing that in the men's room, when they decide that they want to video tape some little boys? Are these people impossible to catch because they are not in the "wrong" washroom? No. These people get caught.

I never said anything about planting cameras and that particular scenario never crossed my mind, actually.  I did mention "peeping".  And yes, it happens now.  But we're not just talking about children here.  I'm not sure why everybody's mind tends to go there by default, but adults can be victims too.  This would give pervs access to grown women too.  There would ABSOLUTELY be more opportunity to create new victims.  Just because there are victims now doesn't mean that there won't be more victims in a given scenario.  But again, the "perv" angle is a very small, almost insignificant part of my argument.

The men or trans women who are perverts and want to video tape girls going to the washroom will be caught the same way the men are caught doing it in the boys room. We don't look at the reality of men video taping in the boys room and turn around and say let's kick all the men out of the washroom to protect our boys, or let's kick all of the men out who openly have a same sex attraction, just to be safe. We don't do that, because that would be wrong as hell. What about someone asking to kick all lesbians out of the women's washroom, because you know, you just can't take any chances with your kids? That's what asking for trans people to be banned from the girls room sounds like to me.

That argument is absurd.  It is a false equivalency and, again, it assumes the bulk of my argument is about "pervs", which it is not.  You keep twisting my argument to be against ACTUAL trans people using the restroom of the gender they associate with, which it is not.  Do you think when I see a trans woman in the restroom my first thought is, "She's going to touch me!"  It is not.  I am well aware that trans/gay people are actually LESS likely to be sexual predators.  Let's face it, most trans people I've ever seen would be relatively easy to pick out of your standard lineup.

While the "perv" issue is a small part of my argument it is the lack of a test, NOT actual trans people, which makes up that argument.  I am talking about the NON trans people who then would walk into the "wrong" bathroom because they could, which, again, is happening RIGHT NOW.  It started happening IMMEDIATELY after restroom access became an issue.

But the bulk of my argument really has nothing to do with that at all.  It is that it is not a "right" when a subset of the populous is asking for special privileges nobody else has.  And it is that this "solution" doesn't actually fix the underlying problem, that our bathrooms as they are no actually REINFORCE the stereotype that sex=gender.  You're not fixing the problem with this law, you're only setting the scene for INCREASED attacks on transgender people by leaving the stereotype in place and granting them special privileges to circumvent this "norm".

Look at it this way:  If Billy Hillbilly sees a transgender woman go into the LADIES room after his little girl, what do you think he's going to do?  Do you think he's going to say, "Well, they have that right now, so I'm cool with it."?  Now what if Billy Hillbilly sees a transgender woman go into the UNISEX restroom after his little girl?  Yeah, he's still going to have his bigoted thoughts, but in his mind she is doing nothing "wrong" and, in fact, HE is allowed to walk in right after her to MAKE SURE everything is okay.  She doesn't have any rights he doesn't have.  She is not going into the "wrong" restroom because there is no "wrong" restroom.  She's not "following his little girl into the ladies room", she's "going into the restroom after his little girl went in".

I understand what you're trying to do.  You're trying to essentially force people to be okay with trans people and, I'm sorry, but it won't work.  Not only will it not work it will make things WORSE.  Because Billy Hillbilly isn't suddenly going to be made of 90% less asshole just because you pass a law.  You can't force him to comply.  He will not go down quietly.  You need to take away his reasons to be afraid, his reasons to say, "That is wrong!" and let actual acceptance happen naturally over time after he's dead, because for Billy Hillbilly ALL conversations about him changing involve a response with the words "from my cold, dead hands" in it.  So you don't try to change him because all you're going to do is piss him off and paint a target on "not like me".  You let his kids grow up with this as the "norm" and let nature take care of the "acceptance" thing 6 feet above his rotting corpse, because that is the ONLY time he will change his mind.

[PickelledEggs]

Which one is which?

By basic size analysis, the woman is the larger one.

[Draconic Aiur]

By basic size analysis, the woman is the larger one.

The woman has indeed a larger beard.

[FaithIsFilth]

You did bring up cameras being planted before, widdershins, but I'm glad that you no longer see this as an issue if that is the case. http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9344.45

And I would bet most people who would abuse this wouldn't be jerking off or anything so obvious.  They would likely have a hidden camera.  Girls' bathrooms and changing rooms are already a target for this type.  Not only would the be able to physically be there, they would have an excuse for walking in there in the first place to plant a camera.

When I said I wanted the male and female symbols to remain on the washroom doors, I meant that those symbols would be more of a suggestion than a concrete rule. Anyone can go to whichever one they want, but the majority would choose to remain in the washroom they have always used. If Bill Hillbilly has a problem with his daughter being alone in the washroom with a biological male, he is free to take his daughter into the men's washroom to go there or he can accompany her in the women's washroom, so he can keep a lookout for any potential problems that might arise in a public washroom. If Bill Hillbilly wants to assault the biological male for sharing a washroom with his daughter, he will be charged for his crime like anyone else who commits assault. Problem solved right there.

[widdershins]

You did bring up cameras being planted before, widdershins, but I'm glad that you no longer see this as an issue if that is the case. http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9344.45

Different thread, different context.  I wasn't raising a concern, I was refuting a ludicrous claim that men would be "jerking off in the stall", if I recall.  I was not claiming that "planting cameras" would suddenly become a bigger concern, just stating what I envisioned as happening IN PLACE OF "jerking off in the stall".

When I said I wanted the male and female symbols to remain on the washroom doors, I meant that those symbols would be more of a suggestion than a concrete rule. Anyone can go to whichever one they want, but the majority would choose to remain in the washroom they have always used. If Bill Hillbilly has a problem with his daughter being alone in the washroom with a biological male, he is free to take his daughter into the men's washroom to go there or he can accompany her in the women's washroom, so he can keep a lookout for any potential problems that might arise in a public washroom. If Bill Hillbilly wants to assault the biological male for sharing a washroom with his daughter, he will be charged for his crime like anyone else who commits assault. Problem solved right there.

He can be charged with assault right now, so "problem ALREADY solved" and no action necessary?

Leave the symbol, leave the mindset.  It doesn't matter to these yokels what the law "says".  What matters is what they "know" to be right.  Do you think the type who would assault a transgender person really gives a shit what the law says anyway?  I mean, really, if legality were a big issue for him do you think assault would even be an issue right now, which it is?

You can't do this by making a law.  You just can't.  You have to have a fundamental change.  And hell, even the solution you're now talking about is 99% of the way to what I'm talking about.  You would have to have more privacy to have men and women in the same restroom.  The law you're suggesting now says "anyone", not "transgender people".  The only difference is the symbol on the door.  Well, it doesn't matter what no "law" says, if the symbol on the door says "girls" and "not a girl" walks in, that's all he needs to know.  We are, after all, talking about the type who would assault a transgender person for no crime more than being different, in flagrant disregard of ALREADY EXISTING law.   Is he magically going to respect a brand new law trumped by the liberal media and feminazis?

And what are those symbols saying, anyway?  You say they're a "suggestion".  What are they "suggesting"?  The status quo.  The way things are.  That there are exactly TWO genders and they're easy to tell apart.  That's the mentality we have to do away with in the first place.

[FaithIsFilth]

I don't want to stop every assault against transgender people. That would be impossible and therefore it would be a silly goal, so it's not a goal I want to see achieved. In the extremely rare case that Billy Bob assaults a bio male for using the women's washroom with his daughter, you charge the guy with assault and that's that. I'm not trying to stop every single attack. All I know is that with trans people using the washroom that they want, there will be far less attacks on trans people. If rednecks start coming out of the woods and attacking trans people daily for using the women's washroom, then so be it because this is what transgender people asked for.

I just did some research on why washrooms don't have better partitions, and it turns out that janitors say that they would be much, much harder to clean if the partitions went all the way down to the floor. You also have the issue of smell, and the authorities are probably not going to like the idea either, because it's easier to catch people doing drugs and other stuff like that with the partitions the way they are. You're able to tell when someone has passed out and get the person help faster when you leave the partitions the way they are. For these reasons, I'm certainly not going to make a demand that the washrooms have to be more private before I support bio males being able to use the washroom with bio females. You're right when you say I want to force people to accept this and to get with the times. The longer you wait to fix this, the more trans people you see bullied, beaten up, or attempting/ committing suicide. There is no time to wait.

[widdershins]

I don't want to stop every assault against transgender people. That would be impossible and therefore it would be a silly goal, so it's not a goal I want to see achieved. In the extremely rare case that Billy Bob assaults a bio male for using the women's washroom with his daughter, you charge the guy with assault and that's that. I'm not trying to stop every single attack. All I know is that with trans people using the washroom that they want, there will be far less attacks on trans people. If rednecks start coming out of the woods and attacking trans people daily for using the women's washroom, then so be it because this is what transgender people asked for.

Those two sentences are exact opposites.  You can't "know" that there would be far fewer attacks (Ha!  Bad grammar!  You lose!! ) and in the second line you seem to go back on that statement.

I just did some research on why washrooms don't have better partitions, and it turns out that janitors say that they would be much, much harder to clean if the partitions went all the way down to the floor. You also have the issue of smell, and the authorities are probably not going to like the idea either, because it's easier to catch people doing drugs and other stuff like that with the partitions the way they are.

I'm going to stop it there with several problems with this.  First, the restrooms in America are unique in their openness.  Foreign visitors are appalled by our bathroom stalls, and rightly so.  Google "bathroom stalls in Europe" and you'll find MUCH better stalls even when they don't go floor to ceiling.

Second, it's not the job of bathroom stalls to stop illegal activity and saying that if you make them more private it would be more difficult to catch criminals in the act is tantamount to saying that if police can't listen into any phone call at any time it would be harder to stop criminals in the act.  Yes, its' true, but beside the point.  We are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not suspects in a crime which hasn't been committed yet.  The argument that better partitions would make stopping crime more difficult is a terrible one because I, a law abiding citizen, should not nave to suffer less privacy in one of the most vulnerable, personal and embarrassing of times because someone MIGHT be committing a crime in the stall next door.

You're able to tell when someone has passed out and get the person help faster when you leave the partitions the way they are.

Frankly, I don't care.  Let's count the number of times the two of us together have gotten emergency help for someone passed out in a stall.  I'm at zero.  What are you at?  Again, is the the intent of bathroom stalls to provide medical assistance?  By that argument it would be even EASIER to spot people in trouble AND illegal activity if there were no stalls at all.  Easier still if the toilets were in the middle of the store in full view of the security cameras with someone watching for illegal activity and passed out people 24/7.  Are you making that argument?  Of course not.

For these reasons, I'm certainly not going to make a demand that the washrooms have to be more private before I support bio males being able to use the washroom with bio females. You're right when you say I want to force people to accept this and to get with the times. The longer you wait to fix this, the more trans people you see bullied, beaten up, or attempting/ committing suicide. There is no time to wait.

I can see we're not going to see eye to eye on this, and that's okay.  Personally I think a "fix" is from the ground up.  I want REAL change, not some problematic patch.  And here are the problems I see with this approach:

1) it would give perverts access to the restroom AND locker room of their choice while doing nothing to address the privacy issue (I'm not claiming that there would be an increase in problems because I can't "know" that, just that it would undeniably make an increase possible)
2) it would maintain the stereotype that sex=gender, which is the root of the problem in the first place, INCLUDING leaving the symbols which mean "This room is for people in dresses" and "This room is for people NOT in dresses", suggesting that a trans person not in a dress should not use one of those rooms.
3) it would placate a very small percentage of the population while disenfranchising a MUCH larger and often much more DANGEROUS majority (who do you think it is assaulting trans people anyway?  I bet it's the SAME PEOPLE who are going to get MORE pissed off should you make this the rule of the land)
4) EVERY SINGLE suggestion about this has been ambiguous in some way.  NOBODY has defined "transgender" or made so much as an attempt to do so.  Have you ever looked over the laws pretty much anywhere?  Do you know what's at the top of most of them?  A list of definitions laying out clearly what each term which might be ambiguous means, precisely.  That isn't done here by ANYONE for the word "transgender"
5) people making this argument are conspicuously leaving out the locker room portion of the argument because they have no idea whatsoever to do about this. Not even people who want this know what they want, exactly
6) which brings me to the biggest problem of all, this isn't an "equal rights" issue.  If transgender people (specifically) can use whatever restroom they like, who does this make them "equal" to?  And if anyone can use whichever restroom they like how does making 99.7% of the population uncomfortable to make A PORTION of .3% of the population (I have to assume not all trans people actually want this) more comfortable bring about "equality"?

For "equal" rights trans people have to be "equal" to everyone else.  Well, the other 99.7% of the population does not have this right THIS VERY MINUTE, so there is no "equality" there.  You're not fighting for "equality".  You're fighting for "change".  THAT I can respect at least, but stop calling it a "rights" fight because IT IS NOT.  This argument has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with equality.  At least, that is, until someone can tell me in what way it will make transgender people "equal" to literally anyone else.

[Jannabear]

Those two sentences are exact opposites.  You can't "know" that there would be far fewer attacks (Ha!  Bad grammar!  You lose!! ) and in the second line you seem to go back on that statement.
I'm going to stop it there with several problems with this.  First, the restrooms in America are unique in their openness.  Foreign visitors are appalled by our bathroom stalls, and rightly so.  Google "bathroom stalls in Europe" and you'll find MUCH better stalls even when they don't go floor to ceiling.

Second, it's not the job of bathroom stalls to stop illegal activity and saying that if you make them more private it would be more difficult to catch criminals in the act is tantamount to saying that if police can't listen into any phone call at any time it would be harder to stop criminals in the act.  Yes, its' true, but beside the point.  We are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not suspects in a crime which hasn't been committed yet.  The argument that better partitions would make stopping crime more difficult is a terrible one because I, a law abiding citizen, should not nave to suffer less privacy in one of the most vulnerable, personal and embarrassing of times because someone MIGHT be committing a crime in the stall next door.
Frankly, I don't care.  Let's count the number of times the two of us together have gotten emergency help for someone passed out in a stall.  I'm at zero.  What are you at?  Again, is the the intent of bathroom stalls to provide medical assistance?  By that argument it would be even EASIER to spot people in trouble AND illegal activity if there were no stalls at all.  Easier still if the toilets were in the middle of the store in full view of the security cameras with someone watching for illegal activity and passed out people 24/7.  Are you making that argument?  Of course not.
I can see we're not going to see eye to eye on this, and that's okay.  Personally I think a "fix" is from the ground up.  I want REAL change, not some problematic patch.  And here are the problems I see with this approach:

1) it would give perverts access to the restroom AND locker room of their choice while doing nothing to address the privacy issue (I'm not claiming that there would be an increase in problems because I can't "know" that, just that it would undeniably make an increase possible)
2) it would maintain the stereotype that sex=gender, which is the root of the problem in the first place, INCLUDING leaving the symbols which mean "This room is for people in dresses" and "This room is for people NOT in dresses", suggesting that a trans person not in a dress should not use one of those rooms.
3) it would placate a very small percentage of the population while disenfranchising a MUCH larger and often much more DANGEROUS majority (who do you think it is assaulting trans people anyway?  I bet it's the SAME PEOPLE who are going to get MORE pissed off should you make this the rule of the land)
4) EVERY SINGLE suggestion about this has been ambiguous in some way.  NOBODY has defined "transgender" or made so much as an attempt to do so.  Have you ever looked over the laws pretty much anywhere?  Do you know what's at the top of most of them?  A list of definitions laying out clearly what each term which might be ambiguous means, precisely.  That isn't done here by ANYONE for the word "transgender"
5) people making this argument are conspicuously leaving out the locker room portion of the argument because they have no idea whatsoever to do about this. Not even people who want this know what they want, exactly
6) which brings me to the biggest problem of all, this isn't an "equal rights" issue.  If transgender people (specifically) can use whatever restroom they like, who does this make them "equal" to?  And if anyone can use whichever restroom they like how does making 99.7% of the population uncomfortable to make A PORTION of .3% of the population (I have to assume not all trans people actually want this) more comfortable bring about "equality"?

For "equal" rights trans people have to be "equal" to everyone else.  Well, the other 99.7% of the population does not have this right THIS VERY MINUTE, so there is no "equality" there.  You're not fighting for "equality".  You're fighting for "change".  THAT I can respect at least, but stop calling it a "rights" fight because IT IS NOT.  This argument has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with equality.  At least, that is, until someone can tell me in what way it will make transgender people "equal" to literally anyone else.

Watching someone trying to argue that it's horrible that someone can use a certain bathroom, *eats popcorn and watches idiocy*

[widdershins]

Watching someone trying to argue that it's horrible that someone can use a certain bathroom, *eats popcorn and watches idiocy*

Because my opinion differs from yours does not make my argument "idiocy".  You, of all people, should be sensitive to being made fun of for not being in the majority.

And I never made the argument that it's horrible for you to use the women's restroom.  It doesn't bother me one bit, in fact.  If you actually bothered to read my argument you would see that my argument is that these "patch" laws don't actually address the issues that bathroom design assumes that "sex" and "gender" are the same thing.  If you actually bothered to understand my point of view you would see that I want MORE for you than to simply be able to use the bathroom you're most comfortable with.  I want to change the way we see gender altogether so that society no longer sees you as "not normal".

But, hey, if you're happier forcing yourself on an unwilling population because you think pissing off a bunch of redneck bigots is going to somehow make you safer, more power to you.  Fuck it.  I'm done trying to explain how I'm actually trying to help you just to be called an asshole over and over by people too fucking stupid to even read what I'm saying.

[Jannabear]

Because my opinion differs from yours does not make my argument "idiocy".  You, of all people, should be sensitive to being made fun of for not being in the majority.

And I never made the argument that it's horrible for you to use the women's restroom.  It doesn't bother me one bit, in fact.  If you actually bothered to read my argument you would see that my argument is that these "patch" laws don't actually address the issues that bathroom design assumes that "sex" and "gender" are the same thing.  If you actually bothered to understand my point of view you would see that I want MORE for you than to simply be able to use the bathroom you're most comfortable with.  I want to change the way we see gender altogether so that society no longer sees you as "not normal".

But, hey, if you're happier forcing yourself on an unwilling population because you think pissing off a bunch of redneck bigots is going to somehow make you safer, more power to you.  Fuck it.  I'm done trying to explain how I'm actually trying to help you just to be called an asshole over and over by people too fucking stupid to even read what I'm saying.

Maybe I misunderstood what you had said.
But this idea that its "forcing yourself" onto an unwilling population is false.
The only reason half of these stupid rednecks even know anything about this is because of republican politicians who wanted to use it as their next divisive social issue, if it wasnt for this they wouldnt even know about transgender people using bathrooms.
Most people in reality dont really give a shit what bathroom you use, its just that politicians have trumped people up into making it a right vs left issue.

[Atheon]

Sounds like you're talking about assholes, not atheists.

Not all atheists subscribe to liberal politics.

And not all liberal politics is SJW BS.

[Jannabear]

And not all liberal politics is SJW BS.

?

[widdershins]

Maybe I misunderstood what you had said.
But this idea that its "forcing yourself" onto an unwilling population is false.
The only reason half of these stupid rednecks even know anything about this is because of republican politicians who wanted to use it as their next divisive social issue, if it wasnt for this they wouldnt even know about transgender people using bathrooms.
Most people in reality dont really give a shit what bathroom you use, its just that politicians have trumped people up into making it a right vs left issue.

That's how redneck bigots see it and I doubt they're gong to calmly listen to your argument.  And what I want, in a nutshell, is to make all restrooms unisex and remove the outdated "women's" and "men's" room labels which propagated this stupid myth that "gender" and "sex" are the same thing in the first place.  This ENTIRE issue is caused by the outdated thinking that gender is a simple, straightforward thing, so the only actual "fix" is to fix the damned cause, those stupid signs on the doors that tell us every time we walk by that gender is straightforward and "common sense" tells you which is which.  The cause of the issue is the belief that gender is as simple as writing on a birth certificate, a belief reinforced each time you see those signs on the bathroom door.

So let me set up a scenario for you and you tell me what you think.  Billy Joe Jim Bob, the white supremacist prick, takes his little girl shopping for a new swastika tattoo when she has to use the restroom.  He takes her to the restroom and she walks in.  A minute later, you come by and you walk into the restroom.  In which circumstance do you feel you would be actually safer?

A) The restroom you both walk into has a sign on it showing a stick figure in a dress
B) The restroom you both walk into is the only restroom there and not specific to any particular gender

In scenario A what goes through Billy Joe Jim Bob, the white supremacists prick's head?  "That man (because he's a prick, I would NEVER disrespect you like that) just went into the WOMEN'S room after my little girl!"  But in scenario B it's, "That man just went into the gender neutral and only restroom after my little girl."  In scenario A he feels justified in being outraged.  From his perspective, that restroom is for women, which you're not.  The sign on the door clearly say it's the "women's" room.  In scenario B you might not even be the first person to go in the restroom after his daughter.  He could even be in there with her, making sure his unrealistic stereotypical fears aren't coming true.  While he's still pissed off because you're different there is no sign on the door telling him that he's justified in being pissed off.  There is no old relic there to reinforce his stereotyping, telling him that "God made men and women!"

That is my argument.  Not that you don't deserve respect.  Not that you don't deserve to be safe.  It's actually that you deserve MORE than just a quick patch which may or may not make you safer.  It's that you deserve the ACTUAL respect of acknowledging, as a nation, that gender is not as straightforward as we led ourselves to believe for centuries and, thus, is impossible to label with a binary system as we always have.  Frankly I don't see how you ever thought that I was, in any way, arguing against you given that I want to change the whole system to accept, as a nation, the legitimacy of who you are.

[marom1963]

Why not open up an ice-cube concession at the South Pole? 1/4 of 1 percent of the World's population has a problem w/gender identity and the other 99+3/4% percent of the World's population is supposed to throw away their gender identities to make this 1/4 of 1 percent happy ... Isn't going to happen - now what?