Bazelon, Emily. “Making Bathrooms More ‘Accommodating.’” The New York Times 17 Nov. 2015. NYTimes.com. Web. 17 Oct. 2016

Throughout this article, there is a presentation of the debated issues regarding transgendered members of society. In recent times, there have been many debates regarding the rights of some minority groups in America, most notably being the LGBT community. However, once gay marriage was legalized in 2015, another important topic that came up was the discussion of transgendered people and their rights and access to different parts of the community. Many people have brought forth concerns about having biologically male or female people in the opposing restrooms if they identify as male or female (Bazelon). Unfortunately, there is a widespread backlash in areas in which schools and public restrooms allow transgendered people to use their restrooms and locker rooms. How can they ensure the safety of all people involved? Even though this article does a good job of discussing the issue of transgender people, there are some details that they do not address. One of the main talking points was male-to-female members of society, and how some people perceived a possible threat to the biologically female citizens. While this may be a valid concern, it does not properly discuss a female-to-male members. If a male who has transitioned to a female is required to use a men’s room, there may be threats and or actions taken against them, and it may escalate the situation. There needs to be a higher level of privacy providing features that would enable all members of an area, no matter if they are trans or not, to be able to use the area effectively and feel safe in doing so.

Education about the issue will dramatically help. Whenever there is a situation that arises, it is paramount that all individuals involved understand completely what they are getting into. Without a full understanding, there can be no real concensus. People need to understand the mind set of the trans members of their society so that they are able to understand their struggles and work to improve the situation for everyone, ensuring an atmosphere in which everyone is safe.

This is one of the biggest problems. These outside groups are making their own determination as to the gender of the other person, and that should not be the case. If "Student A" perceives herself to be female, then no other person has the right to tell her that she is not.

Times have changed dramatically. America has become a very private society, and this is especially the case with young children who are beginning to change, both physically and mentally. By being forced to change in front of other people, many people experience anxiety. There needs to be a total overhaul of the system so that all people have a higher level of privacy, and this would help solve some of the issues that arise with these new debates over transgender accommodations.

Gender roles have been deeply engraved into the minds of many people. It is with this most recent generation that some people are beginning to break away from these norms. Women are no longer expected to stay at home and take care of the kids, gay people are more widely accepted. As a whole, society is advancing to a point in which they are accepting of the non-conformative people breaking these gender norms.

This is a good start. Rather than alienating the transgendered youth, they are making provisions for both groups of people, allowing them to coexist in the same area. Education about the topic is the best place to start, and if people are better able to understand the situation, it may lead to better regulations.

It is common sense. Common sense is not always right however, as it is only the construct of the society in which you belong too. One persons common sense may differ entirely from another, in the case of gender roles and who can use what, the common sense between the two parties are extremely skewed away from one another. To those who are for the movement believe it is common sense for a child to feel safe in their expression of who they are, while others, who do not share the same sentiments, common sense would dictate their aversion. In "His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society" by Emma Green, Green's common sense differs from others as she believe it is fundamental to create an environment where people can safely express their individuality.

But would this really work? Theoretically, this law may be able to help transgendered people in one way or another, but that is not going to stop the harassment from outside groups. It is one battle won in a larger, more violent war. Trans members of society have a much higher chance of not only suffering from depression and suicide, but as well as having a much higher murder rate. How much would this law really do?

To me, this appears as though she is saying that this sudden focus on transgendered members of society is a result of their previous focus on gay marriage, which is now legal. It is almost as if they area a scapegoat.

I think that the mainstream understanding of a lot of things is changing. Just a few decades ago, such things as sexuality, gender, and social norms were very rigid. However, in recent years, society is beginning to be more understanding of and accepting of what was once considered a great disparity of society.

“1600-Genderbread-Person.jpg (JPEG Image, 1600 × 1035 Pixels) - Scaled (22%).” N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2016

As the graph above illustrates, gender identity comes from the mind, the expression of which is the embodiment of the human psyche. The mind is a very complex and delicate piece of machinery, so much so that the entirety of its functions, what it can do, still remains a mystery. Gender identity, being connected to something so profound and delicate, is a topic of utmost sensitivity. The constant denial of what the mind believes itself to be causes anxiety, depression, and an overall feeling of difference. The pile up of these emotions have, as Jen mentioned, led to very high rates of suicides. They view health problems in terms of the "victim" however, they do not consider the strain it causes on the transgender student.

The same sex marriage law catered to a certain minority so that they can express their right to marry whomever they wish. The law was made to allow the basic right to marriage, yet proposed bills that cater to people who otherwise find the act repulsive, due to religious belief, are on the chopping board. Religious right is inalienable, so is the right to marry, what then, is the problem if legislation are in place to allow people to practice their belief and not attend ceremonies where the act offends their religion?

The age old argument. If men (identify as female) are allowed to use the bathroom, and the situation arises, they can overpower their women counterparts and sexually assault them. What these supporters fail to mention is that, even without legal allowance of men going to into women bathrooms, people who wish to do such acts do so without regards. These acts, despicable to the highest of levels, still happen on a daily basis. Men who wish to assault women in bathrooms exists, and will continue to do so with or without the law on their side.

Are they exposed, though? Occupants are not openly exposed when they use the restrooms. There are dividers, stalls, that separate and hide body parts. Since that is the case, what is the problem with having an identified female going to the room in which they identity with? Major concerns over privacy are no doubt just, but there is a solid metal wall that separates you from the other.

Replace "transgender" with African-Americans and the argument resembles those of past gross negligence towards the injustice faced by black citizens on issues of violence and discrimination. We now look towards that point in history with contempt and disgust, yet in today's society, we are doing just that which we criticize our predecessors for. Not unlike the past, we are not acting fast enough on these issues; we let them foster on and on. The time has come for these problems to be addressed, with clear and comprehensive legislation passed for accommodations.

"His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society" by Emma Green. Summary:

The article starts off with the acknowledgment of the changing in gender roles. Because of such changes, Green appeals that designers should take note of these differences and help promote acceptance and change through their designs. Green then goes on mentioning the condition of design within the working world of today, to which she attributes to the modernism movement; a movement deeply connected to the male perspective, as they are the ones that dominate the working force. Green makes the claim that a wave of feminism will hit the work force, in response, Tick reaches out to designers on that they should focus on incorporating "gender sensitivity" into the workplace. Giving examples of the type of changes, such as adding more windows, more "softness in texture," in essence, a re-haul of the old solid workplace catered to the male perspective, to that one that focuses on softness and hospitality.

The article then shifts gear to the actual instances where gender sensitivity has made its way into the way things are designed. Tick adds that the fastest field to incorporate this sensitivity is within fashion, due to its rapid movement. Tick gives examples of designs, such as a woman's military coat, and masculine designs for male makeup, which have been made in attempts to accommodate the changing gender roles. Ending the article, Tick brings up transgenders face on a daily basis, the use of bathrooms. Tick argues that the very first step should be providing an environment that allows an individual to express his or her identity, the issue of bathroom usage then, is the stepping stone towards creating such an environment.

Gender is not going to disappear, in fact, not only is it not going anywhere, but it is also changing at a rapid pace. The rapidity to which gender roles are changing is the focus of the article by Emma Green, "His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society," in which, she implores designers to incorporate gender sensitivity into their works, allowing for an accommodation of the differing roles.

This can be attributed to the phenomena Green mentions in her article "His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society". The world, as of now, is shaped by "modernism", a movement that centers itself around the male perspective. A new wave however, is coming, to which feminism is the cause. The shift creates anxiety within the population as the foundation on which it was built upon begins to crack, causing Americans to experience this "profound gender anxiety".

The reasoning behind bathrooms and its centrality to the argument is because they are "...spaces that are sensitive to such personal issue." (Green) Everyone can accept you for who you are, use the proper pronoun when addressing you, support you and your identity, however, that all comes to nothing when you are forced to enter a room that spells out, in big letters, the gender that you are not. That is profoundly personal, and it affects the psyche, so much so that it destroys the identity that you have built for yourself, the bathroom signs will always be there to tell you that you are not who you say you are. That is why bathrooms came next, and that is why bathroom neutrality, advocated in "His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society" is so important.

As the post above mentions, religion should not have any ties to government. The issue at hand is a state problem, not one of religion. Therefore, religion should in no way be under consideration when deciding the course of action on bathroom access.

I wonder how Keisling feels now about the issue with North Carolina Governor McCrory. McCrory does not identify as a bigot, but he is nevertheless bashed as one. Keisling would probably view him as ignorant, but I have to wonder if those are the only two categories for people of dissenting opinions or values. Does everyone have to agree in order to not be a bigot or ignorant?

This argument is a lot like the argument made by Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina. He defends his passage of House Bill 2 by saying that the resistance to it comes from a values disagreement. Government is supposed to provide for the welfare of its people, but to what extent the role should be in this controversy is what makes the debate so heated.

This section of the article is written in a way that makes those who are merely uncomfortable with sharing their spaces the victims. However, it neglects to acknowledge the severe heath problems that may arise for the transgender person. For instance, "the high rate of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, and and drug and alcohol addiction, as well as a higher suicide rate among untreated transsexual people than in the general population. Many transgender and transsexual activists, and many caregivers, point out that these problems usually are not related to the gender identity issues themselves, but to problems that arise from dealing with those issues and social problems related to them." To learn more about gender identity issues, visit: http://www.psychologistanywhereanytime.com/sexual_problems_pyschologist/psychologist_gender_identity_issues.htm

Morrill, Jim, and Tim Funk. "McCrory Says Good Friends Have Shunned Him, His Wife over HB2." Charlotte Observer. N.p., 11 Oct. 2016. Web. 17 Oct. 2016. This article is about the recent political issue in North Carolina, regarding transgender bathrooms. North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory has sparked conflict by stating that Caitlyn Jenner should have to use the men's restroom if she is to use government facilities. It is important to note that he does not include private facilities. Governor McCrory signed into law House Bill 2, which requires bathrooms in government facilities to be used by people based on the gender listed on their birth certificate. A majority of the responses to this bill have been not only negative, but calls to violent action, or at least exclusionary action. McCrory has received death threats. His wife has been shunned from events. Even life-long friends of the McCrory family are pulling support. An important point in this article, at least in my opinion, is that he is not hateful. Governor McCrory did not intend to incite or imply hatred. Being governor means that he is trusted to do what he believes is right, and he believes his view is right. He did not write this bill into law in any ill manner, but he notes that he has been confronted only with negative, hateful responses. He listens to opposing views, respectfully disagrees, and moves on. But he is not responded to in the same way. He does not identity himself as an ultra-conservative, but according to his audience, he sure is now. We are in a time of major societal change, and there is sure to be backlash and resistance. Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina is part of the resistance, but he is not violent and he is not hateful. He merely disagrees with the majority, and that is no longer a viable option anymore. As Governor McCrory aptly notes, “It’s almost like the George Orwell book ‘1984’,” he said. “If you disagree with Big Brother or you go against the thought police, you will be purged. And you will disappear.”

The first thing that comes to my mind when I read this is the Westboro Baptist Church and the way it uses its faith to justify its bigotry as conviction. In the image above, these members protest everything that challenges their faith, but they do so in a way that, arguably I assume, denies their beliefs too. They use the bible to justify their dislike and opposition to such social movements as same sex marriage, but they do so in an alienating way that comes off as extremely hateful, which is something the bible also teaches against. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/group_images/SPLC_Westboro-Baptist-Church.jpg

There is evidence that there is a greater societal dysfunction in countries with higher religiosity rates. Though most arguments use this data to say that religious people are problematic, in this instance, it can be used to explain why people act out. Religion can influence people to believe, support, and enforce social constructs that may be alienating and negatively affect minorities that challenge the status quo. http://www.skeptic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/v12n03_images/fig5_6.gif

Scientifically, during the process of fetal development, everyone starts off as females and it is only later on when its sex changes according to genetic makeup.

This goes along with my previous annotation about religiosity rates and societal dysfunction. It has an alienating affect, similar to Jim Crow laws and other private institutions.

The reason for this is that motivation is almost impossible, if not impossible, to prove in most instances.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1308 This site is from a government site, summarizing the act and giving other information. The argument is that churches have a religious exemption. They do not claim bigotry, but rather, their own right to do what they believe to be right and just. Personally, I attended a Catholic church a few days after the legalization of same-sex marriage, and the Priest was not hateful, but his sermon came from a place of concern for the ideals of the church.

This rings true in historical context of racial discrimination as well. Take the institution and laws that enforced slavery for so long. Then, even when slavery was abolished and the state recognized the severe discrimination around the Civil Rights Movement era, the laws governing the 50 states, especially in the south, were not able to change the feelings and sentiments in the Old South.

This is me on twitter :)

Blogged about green electronics a few years ago. Canada starts investing in organic electronics announced.

Image trop petite?

The word "turban" may be etymologically related to "tulip." That is is green enhances this botanical reference, and adds another image of floral blooming that resonates with the theme of sexual awakening.

This is also the second appearance of the word "green" in the story.

This just blew my mind. Reminds me of this scene in The Fault in Our Stars when Hazel is wearing a shirt with a pipe on it and tries to argue with someone that its not actually a pipe... it's only a drawing of a pipe..