If single parent families are shown to have a higher rate of dysfunction

Not "single parent," but "single-sex parents." A significant amount of child-raising in black urban communities is done by multi-generational, but female-only, household leadership -- with grandmothers, aunts or sisters filling in for the second parent role.

There is no statistical evidence showing that two people of opposite sex are more successful parents than two people of the same sex.

Just because you haven't read it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just that research along those lines tends to be analyzed with an emphasis on the age of the caregivers, rather than the sex. Nevertheless, the facts remain that parenting in African-American households is overwhelmingly a female-only affair, and the black community suffers a preponderance of social dysfunction, especially absurdly high crime rates.

I can't definitively say that same-sex parenting is the, or even a, cause for all that. But neither can you or anyone else exclude the possibility that same-sex parenting is at least a contributing factor.

The problems of child raising in black ghettos, by single mothers who have the help of their own grandmothers, aunts, and sisters, are fairly apparent.  The community itself is economically depressed and suffers from high crime rates, the single parents do not have adequate time or money to lavish upon their children, despite the help of various other female relatives, and the family remains a single parent family despite the fact that other, non-parental relatives exist.  Your attempt to compare a same-sex couple to a single parent family in a black ghetto remains very unconvincing.  

the family remains a single parent family despite the fact that other, non-parental relatives exist.

They don't just exist, they frequently reside together because they're, you know, poor. Considering your starting from a position which asserts that any two adults should be sufficient to form a family unit, claiming that those other relatives aren't enough is absurd. Likewise, the economic concern doesn't appear to be a sufficient cause. Certainly those communities are poor, but I can point to equally poor non-black communities which don't experience the same levels of violent crime and so on. Neither is absentee parenting a new phenomenon, but harmful effects from that manner of raising children seems to have fallen disproportionately on black urban communities. Of the changes which have taken place over the years to distinguish different communities, the collapse of marriage and the rise of female-only heads of households among urban blacks is a very prominent one.

Eventually, we're going to have to start asking some very un-Politically Correct questions about the social disparity between communities with equivalent economic performance. Likewise, we'll need to accept the possibility of some very un-PC answers when we ask those questions, even if the ultimate answers are uncontroversial.

but I can point to equally poor non-black communities which don't experience the same levels of violent crime and so on.

Man...you ought to teach at a rural white school for a while.  You'd be in for a serious eye-opener.  Granted, we might be talking about per capita crime, but that might just be a function of how crowded urban places can drive folks crazy.  From my own (anecdotal) observations of the level of crime in a rural white community I'd have to say that crime might seem lower.  But I would hazard that's because it was much more spread out and intra-family (and thus often not reported at all).  The main thing I would say is lower would be crimes committed with a firearm.  But, teenage sex, drug abuse, robbery, assault blah blah blah...yep, the white folks got game.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

No, it's not so absurd as you think.  If relatives who would normally live separately are brought together by poverty, this in itself is evidence of the kind of financially derived stress which is often detrimental to modern child rearing (historically, peasant families used to live this way all the time, but the modern world makes different kinds of demands upon its members and also presents different kinds of risks; peasants in the distant past were not prone to heroin addiction or gun violence, etc.).

I see no reason to think that the problems of the black ghetto families in any way result from the gender of the parent and other supportive relatives.  If you truly believe that a child raised by two lesbian mothers is at a disadvantage as compared to a child raised by a mother and father, then you should be looking at lesbian couples and assessing their degree of success, rather than constructing these far-fetched analogies to single-parent families in black ghettos.

To really understand the social dynamics of the black ghetto we would have to trace things back to the importation of slaves into the western hemisphere, the socially harmful results of slavery, and the additional harmful effects of the racism which has lingered long after the end of slavery per se.  Then we could correlate these problems to the educational, economic, and other social problems prevalent in black communities.  None of this particularly has anything to do with same-sex relationships.  The absence of fathers from ghetto families is a problem because in a poor community, one parent, even with the support of an equally poor grandmother or aunt, does not have the resources needed for successful child raising.  This is pretty obvious, I shouldn't really have to explain it to you repeatedly.

To really understand the social dynamics of the black ghetto we would have to trace things back to the importation of slaves into the western hemisphere, the socially harmful results of slavery, and the additional harmful effects of the racism which has lingered long after the end of slavery per se.

Why then don't these problems exist to the same extent in Chinese-Americans (or Chinese-Britons for that matter), or Indian-Americans/-Britons?  Whites hurt them with centuries of colonial oppression, involuntary servitude, racism, and opium-pushing; right?

You're right about there being things wrong in poor communities (of any color) that lead to kids not being taught impulse control- which is what causes most of their plight- but blaming it on slavery and racism is... less than intellectually honest.  Unless you really believe that slavery and racism is what causes the crime and such in the ghetto, in which case I'm at a loss.

The problems of slavery and racism are part of a historical process which has lead to various social consequences at the present time, including economic problems and a feeling of alienation from the larger society in which the black sub-culture finds itself.  You could also say that the problems faced by many young blacks derive from lack of impulse control, but we still have to ask why it is that they suffer from lack of impulse control; I don't think that we can put it down to genetic pre-disposition.  A certain kind of culture has lead to a certain kind of psychology.  And that culture has historical origins.

As for other ethnic minorities that you mention, such as Chinese and Indians, they did also suffer from the destructive influence of white colonialism, but not in quite the same way as Africans did, and they started out with a very different culture from that of the Africans as well.  It is not surprising that there has been a different outcome.

Crime rates in ghettos are a symptom of a dysfunctional society.  They do not directly result from either slavery or racism, but the dysfunctional society was itself largely the product of slavery and racism, along with other problems.  Human society is complex, it is never explicable by just one or two factors.

Incidentally, your chosen user name of Mary Jo Kopechne is very charming.

Incidentally, your chosen user name of Mary Jo Kopechne is very charming.

I'm guessing it's a sockpuppet for Shumway/Urkle.  

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

That could be, of course, but even so, it's a charming name for a sock puppet.

Why then don't these problems exist to the same extent in Chinese-Americans (or Chinese-Britons for that matter), or Indian-Americans/-Britons?  Whites hurt them with centuries of colonial oppression, involuntary servitude, racism, and opium-pushing; right?

Europeans weren't able to both isolate and separate these people from their own tribes. Black Africans taken as slaves could be separated from white society, and they were also separated from their kinsmen. If you spoke the same language as the next fellow, guess what? You weren't going to see him again. You had to create your own culture with people that you barely had anything in common with.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

If relatives who would normally live separately are brought together by poverty, this in itself is evidence of the kind of financially derived stress which is often detrimental to modern child rearing

I'm not arguing that poverty creates no incentive to commit crime; it clearly does. What I am arguing is that poverty alone is not sufficient to cause the ongoing, grinding environment which coalesced in black urban areas. If poverty alone was a sufficient explanation, we should see similar rates of crime in disparate environments. We don't.

If you truly believe that a child raised by two lesbian mothers is at a disadvantage as compared to a child raised by a mother and father, then you should be looking at lesbian couples and assessing their degree of success

I agree -- we should. But that won't happen when people are, like you, asserting that there is no difference in parenting without any indication of that claim's veracity. At least I'm admitting there's something going on which I don't understand.

The absence of fathers from ghetto families is a problem because in a poor community, one parent, even with the support of an equally poor grandmother or aunt, does not have the resources needed for successful child raising.

I'll repeat: this does not jibe with what we know of other, non-black poor social groups in America, none of whom experience the same levels of social dysfunction as blacks. The worst of the non-black poor demographics are Latin American immigrants, and even they experience a crime rate under half of what poor blacks do, despite frequent handicaps like not speaking the language and no legal residency status.

This is pretty obvious

It's obviously repeated frequently, which is not the same as saying it's correct. As a side note, I notice that the creation/expansion of welfare is nowhere on your list, despite matching almost precisely the decline of a marriage tradition in black areas.

You are the one who is making the unproven assertion that same-sex couples are in some way prone to the same kind of problems with child rearing that are seen among single parent families in black ghettos, and then you complain that it is up to ME to prove that you are wrong.  Since there is nothing credible about your assertion in the first place, I do not feel any obligation to prove it wrong, I just don't believe it.  If you want me to believe it, it is up to you to offer evidence that it is true, in the form (as we have now both agreed) of a relevant study about how well (or badly) the children of same-sex couples are doing.  As far as I know, children of same-sex couples (and I have met some personally) are as well adjusted, as happy, as successful, and as normal as the children of opposite-sex couples.

In the concluding portion of your above comment you seem to be re-directing the discussion into a critique of the welfare state.  Not only do single parent families in black ghettos suffer from a lack of gender diversity (which diversity you assume to be essential to healthy families, although there is no evidence of such necessity) but these impoverished families also tend to collect welfare payments.  Hmmmm.  Maybe welfare harms children.  And let us not forget the child labor laws.  If children of poor families could be sent out to work at the age of five, the families would be less poor, they wouldn't need to collect welfare, AND the children would acquire valuable job training and learn about social responsibility!  It's a perfect solution.  And it still has no bearing on same-sex couples.

I personally think that welfare payments are a mixed bag.  Some recipients are deliberately parasitical, and they see no reason why they should work for their money if they can get it for free; others are genuinely in need and would be in very serious trouble if they did not get this kind of help.  Obviously the US would be in much better shape if it had fewer (or no) welfare recipients due to a reduction or disappearance of unemployment and poverty.  

I actually discussed the long-term solutions to poverty in general, in a different thread, some time ago.  I noted that the ideal of the socialist state, which potentially can employ everybody, would work very well if it were not corrupted as it was in the former Soviet bloc, and also that sufficient technological advances could create a totally automated economy in which no one would actually have to work, and everyone could have the material wealth that they want.  I also noted that no amount of wealth is sufficient, whether derived from socialism or science, if the population continues to grow without limit, while we continue to depend upon the resources of our single planet, so population control is essential.  

But we are wandering somewhat far afield from the original topic that I raised, of same-sex marriage, which you seem to disapprove of although you have not made any believable case for your disapproval.  Of course, I would never force you personally (or anyone else) to marry a person of the same sex if that is not what you want to do.  Same-sex marriage, much like opposite-sex marriage, must remain a voluntary institution.  For those who want to marry a person of the same sex, it can be a good thing.  Why frustrate their happiness?

You are the one who is making the unproven assertion that same-sex couples are in some way prone to the same kind of problems with child rearing that are seen among single parent families in black ghettos

No. I'm saying we don't know if same sex-couples will be prone to the same kind of problems, and that we all would be better off if we did.

Since there is nothing credible about your assertion in the first place, I do not feel any obligation to prove it wrong, I just don't believe it.

Like the man says, it's so much more attractive inside a moral kiosk.

No. I'm saying we don't know if same sex-couples will be prone to the same kind of problems, and that we all would be better off if we did.

While were at it we should also study the efficacy of opposite sex families.  And given that the preponderance of divorce seems to happen in "red states", we should probably start there.

But that's beside the point.  How would we be better off knowing this?  Hey look!  same-sex couples have just as much chance to raise fucked up kids as any other kind of couple.  Stop the presses!  

 But in the interest of science, let's play this game...

First off, what variables would you try to eliminate?  I don't even know where to start? Age? Money? Environment?  Race?  Sexual orientation?  I call out to the better-than-me-at-science-types out there help with this question.  How would we go about finding out if upper middle-class same sex couples produced dysfunctional children on par with poor, single-sex families?

Gerry...dude.  I'm hip if you don't like black people (or poor people).  I'm also accepting if you don't like teh gays.  But you're whole premise...it's...it's...fucked up.  It is the classic apples and oranges argument.

How come this orange doesn't have the same vivid hue of the first one?  Because that one is a fucking apple.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

How would we go about finding out if upper middle-class same sex couples produced dysfunctional children on par with poor, single-sex families?

The same ways we find out everything else in sociological studies: measure crime rates, dropout rates, rates of advancing to/completing college, marriage and divorce rates, and so on.

I'm hip if you don't like black people (or poor people).  I'm also accepting if you don't like teh gays.

It's not about disliking blacks, gays or the poor. It's about the risk of normalizing dysfunctional behavior. (And no, I don't include "gay" as a dysfunction.)

I should probably write a diary entry to explain in detail where I'm coming from. Look for a post in the next few days.

I meant "same sex," Lou. As per my response to skeptic above, I'm thinking of families where grandmothers or aunts fill in for the absent fathers' financial and support roles.

These families are not necessarily dysfunctional because they are headed by women. They're dysfunctional because, well...they're dysfunctional.

I'm more than willing to admit the situation is complicated, Lou. What I'm unwilling to do is automatically exclude any consideration of same-sex child rearing as a factor.

The idea that what's truly happening in black urban areas is the generational transmission of extremely bad behaviors, reinforced by inexperience and closed-mindedness, is a compelling one. Unfortunately, this may only only punt the problem of same-sex parenting. Is the society created by a black woman's experience-driven "you can't trust men; they always leave" any better then that from a lesbian's politically-driven "you can't trust men; they're all violent homophobes"?

lesbian's politically-driven "you can't trust men; they're all violent homophobes"?

That's an interesting point, Gerry.  And here I was thinking that most lesbians were chicks who dig other chicks.  Now granted, I've met some really angry, highly political lesbians who were not fond of most men...but the core reason they were lesbians was because (everybody now) they were sexually attracted to other women.

But you may have a point...perhaps as a counter-example we could look to straight men who are straight because the follow a politically driven "you can't trust homosexuals; they're all want to despoil our children".  Then, after a close shave using Ockham's razor, we could probably assume that most straight men are straight because they dig chicks.

Of course, it is probably easier to assign some nefarious motivations to a person's sexual orientation while one already has a predisposition against said person.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

When I say that the law accepts the gender reassignment surgery as definitive...

Do you know?

The claim that Thomas Beatie is legally male appears in the write-up that we are discussing.  I find it perfectly believable that he enjoys this legal status as a result of his surgery, and I therefore did not bother to investigate the matter any further.  I do know that for the purpose of the Olympics, DNA testing is used when gender is in question, and a DNA test would show that Mr. Beatie has the XX chromosome of a female.  Presumably, for the purpose of allowing him to legally marry a woman, the state accepted that his male anatomy, resulting from the gender reassignment surgery, is legitimate.  Even if no judge ever ruled specifically on the issue of Mr. Beatie's legal gender, it would still presumably be true that the state issued him a marriage license on the basis of his male gender (at least, it is true unless he is actually unmarried, perhaps does not even exist, and the entire write-up has been fabricated and has no basis in fact).

If you doubt that Mr. Beatie actually is legally male, as claimed in the write-up, you may wish to investigate further.  It would be very shocking to discover that a falsehood has been allowed to appear in a treesandthings write-up.  Heads would roll.  Trees would burn.

A quick google search and a Howstuff works article gives us the answer:

An important part of changing genders in the U.S. is changing names. An individual begins the legal name changing process by filing a court order. This usually requires completing paperwork, publishing a notice in a local newspaper and paying a fee. After changing names, a transsexual amends his or her Social Security card and birth certificate.

Transsexuals face unique issues involving marriage, sex and fertility. Although most states do not allow homosexual marriages, transsexuals are able to marry legally.

Here is a much more detailed article from a law firm dealing with transgender issues. Basically, the simple answer is that it depends on the state. Not surprisingly, Texas has ruled that transgender marriages are basically invalid, while California gives them full legal protection. Other states could be expected to fall between those extremes, YMMV. Check with lawyer first if you're thinking about getting your business removed and marrying a man.

That's no answer.

That's no answer. How so? According to the transgendered law link, in California (and presumably Oregon, where this guy is located) once you have gone through the process to legally reassign your sex, you are considered a man and can get a legal, "heterosexual" marriage. Perhaps your problem is with the fact that the person in question did not have all his equipment changed over even though he went through the legal reassignment process. That's a valid issue, but it's probably not one that has been decided in a court of law yet one way or another. Since the law generally supports that gender reassignment is legal, and that gender reassigned people can get married, then I think it's fair to say that this guy is living in a legal marriage, at least until it is challenged in court and a judge makes a determination one way or the other.

The document basically said that one can merely declare oneself to be a different sex and then act as if it were true. It also seemed to indicate that such a ruse will not hold up in the vast majority of states.

There's actually a fascinating set of laws, state-by-state, for dealing with the procedure of amending a birth certificate so that it reflects the "correct" gender of a person.  In Oregon (where our guy is from) you need a court order and a surgical procedure. In Tennessee, you can't do it at all.  Lots of states say they'll do it if a court says you've changed sexes, which really punts the whole questions more than it answers it.  

So all it takes is removal of the breasts? And then a woman can marry another woman?

In Canada (and a few other countries) a woman can legally marry another woman without having to undergo any surgical alteration at all.  In the US, where same-sex marriage remains illegal (although a marriage-like "civil union" is permitted in some states) we might well imagine that gender reassignment surgery is merely a disguise, and that all transsexuals actually remain the same sex that they were born, even though their outward appearance could be altered to suggest otherwise.  Personally I would say that people should be allowed to assume the sexual role of their choice - after all, it's their lives, what business is it of ours?  If someone wants to be male, or someone wants to be female, let them assume that gender.  The only restriction that might be appropriate would be that if a transsexual does wish to get married, then it should be required to divulge the transsexual status, so that no deception is involved.

Personally I would say that people should be allowed to assume the sexual role of their choice - after all, it's their lives, what business is it of ours?

So if I felt like taking a dump in the ladies room instead of the mens room where I belong, you'd support my right to declare myself a woman?

Sure, why not? I'll take it a step further and say that public bathrooms should be designed in a way that is uni-sex friendly, so that this simply isn't an issue. Have individual private stalls with locking doors and get rid of the urinals, and we're good to go.

If you truly wanted to be a woman rather than a man, I would support your right to live your life as a woman and to use the ladies room accordingly.  If, however, you are just a voyeur who wants to watch women while they are making use of ladies rooms, or if you are for any other reason lying about your sexual identity, then no, you do not have that right.  Stay out of the ladies rooms.

You might then ask how I could possibly know whether you are sincere or not.  But it's not that difficult to figure out.  Those who are taking active measures in terms of hormone treatment, and/or surgery to actually alter their bodies in order to more closely resemble the gender that they wish to be, are demonstrating sincerity; these things are not done lightly.  If, however, it's just a matter of cross-dressing, then no, that does not entitle you to claim a female identity.  Clothing comes on and off very easily, it does not constitute a commitment.

If, however...you do not have that right.  Stay out of the ladies rooms

Way to live and let live. Phony.

You are ignoring the logic of my comments in your conclusion that I am a phony.  I have a completely sincere respect for the right of all people to assume the sexual identity that they feel best reflects who they really are.  I do not support the right of people to adopt a fake sexual identity for an ulterior purpose, rather than to be who they really are.  This is a perfectly reasonable position which seems somehow to escape your comprehension.  That is too bad, but I can't realistically expect that everybody is capable of understanding fine points of logic.    

You are ignoring the logic of my comments in your conclusion that I am a phony

I do not support the right of people to adopt a fake sexual identity for an ulterior purpose, rather than to be who they really are

I am going to try to explain this to you a bit more carefully, although it may be that you are just not willing to understand what I am saying.  

There are some people who are not happy with the gender that they were born with.  For example, a man may feel that he is really a woman who, through some mischance of fate, was born with male sexual characteristics, for which he (or she) is psychologically unsuited.  In psychiatric terms, this would be classified as "gender dysphoria".  Psychiatry does not currently know of any way by which such a person can be reconciled with the gender that he or she was born with.  The only treatment is to alter the person's gender so that their inner psychological state matches that of their outward physiology.  Such a sex-change is a drastic and expensive process, nonetheless, it is the only thing that will remedy the problem of gender dysphoria from which some people suffer.  When I say "what business is it of ours?" I mean that it is not up to us to tell such a person what gender they should assume; that is a personal decision which must be left up to the person in question.

The other situation that you hypothesize, in which you, who are (as far as I know) a man who regards himself as a man and has no desire or intention of being anything other than a man, might wish to pretend to be a woman to gain entry to a ladies room, for the presumable purpose of voyeurism.  This is an entirely different situation, although it may also indicate a psychiatric disorder on your part, but not the same one as in the previous case.  And in this case, your voyeuristic tendencies are not as forgivable because they lead you to invade the privacy of others.  It is no longer exclusively your own business, because you are now involving other people than yourself, who have not given their consent to your voyeurism.  Do you see the difference?  You can do what you like with your own life, but you do not have free license to affect the lives of others regardless of their wishes in the matter.

Now, if this is still not clear to you despite my meticulous explanation, I will have to give up on you.

It is no longer exclusively your own business, because you are now involving other people than yourself, who have not given their consent to your voyeurism

...it may also indicate a psychiatric disorder on your part...

You did bring up another issue: if a man legally declares himself a woman, then which public restroom must he/she use? Or is that none of our business?

Ah yes, why voyeurism?  Because if you consider yourself to be a man, then you would logically use the men's washroom unless you had some motive for using the ladies room.  You didn't say what your motive was, and I could imagine others than voyeurism, but the others are even more unsavory.

You are consistently insulting in this discussion, first you call me a phony, now you insinuate that I have a psychiatric problem because I brought up voyeurism.  So, what the fuck IS your reason for wanting to use the ladies room?  Not that it matters, I am beginning to think that there is no point in communicating with you anyway.

You also ask, if a man legally declares himself to be a woman, what restroom must he/she use?  The question is itself a bit confused.  A person can legally be a woman, but we wouldn't describe that person as a man, she would be a woman, unless the legal declaration is in error.  If a man declares himself to be a woman, he is presumably lying - why else do we still call him a man and not a woman?  A person who is legally female should use the ladies room, not the men's room.  We may presume, unless proved otherwise, that such legal recognition of gender is done for good reason and should be accepted as valid.

If you have another insulting reply for me, just go and fuck yourself, OK?

You are consistently insulting in this discussion, first you call me a phony, now you insinuate that I have a psychiatric problem because I brought up voyeurism

If a man declares himself to be a woman, he is presumably lying - why else do we still call him a man and not a woman?

We may presume, unless proved otherwise, that such legal recognition of gender is done for good reason and should be accepted as valid

Actually no, I wasn't insinuating that you might have a psychiatric disorder, I was discussing the hypothetical case that you raised, in which you, as a man, choose to go into the ladies room to take a dump.  Hypothetically, if you (or anyone) were to do such a thing, I would then have reason to suspect that there is indeed some psychiatric disorder involved, since that is not a normal or socially acceptable thing to do.  Men are expected to use men's rooms.  I understand that you don't actually intend to do that, and you were just trying to discuss the implications of allowing people to have a change of gender.  Could such changes happen at any time, for any reason?  Could this be used as an excuse to invade ladies rooms?  The answer is no.

You still do not seem to get the point, when I asked "what business is it of ours?"  I am not trying to suggest that there are no circumstances under which we might legitimately be concerned about someone's gender.  There are plenty of such circumstances.  Appropriate choice of rest-rooms would be one example, that you raised yourself.  My point is that if a person actually wants to assume a certain gender AND is prepared to obtain the surgery necessary so that this person will have a physiology that is consistent with the gender that this person wishes to have, THEN it is in my opinion the right of that person to do so, and it is not my business, or anyone's business other than the person in question, to dictate what gender that person is supposed to be.  It's a personal choice, that people have the right to make for themselves.  This does NOT imply that without taking any real steps to change your sex, you might still declare yourself to be female when you are really male, so that you can then consider yourself eligible to use the ladies room (for whatever reason, as yet undisclosed, that you may wish to use the ladies room, and I have to suspect that the reason would not be a good one).

You also ask who shall do the proving, if a person is going to be proved to be dishonest in their claims of being of a certain gender.  Again, this is a hypothetical discussion.  However, let us imagine that someone, let us say, Chester (I am talking about someone other than you personally), has gone into a ladies room and claims to be a woman, but the women who are also using the ladies room claim that he is actually not a woman and that he has entered their ladies room in order to invade their privacy and possibly to do them some harm.  They therefore make a formal complaint to the police.  The police investigate.  The police may or may not feel that they are qualified to render a determination of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Chester's claim to be a woman.  If they require expert advice, they would then bring in a doctor and possibly a psychologist, and these experts could examine Chester and would then be able to render a well-informed opinion concerning Chester's gender, and whether or not Chester has any business in a ladies room.  That's how such a decision would be made, if it were necessary to do so.  I am not a doctor (or a psychologist) and I don't use ladies rooms, so I don't see myself entering into this process personally.

I hope that this clears up your questions (although so far this seems to be one of those debates that I get into every now and then, in which every time I answer a question it only leads to more questions).

If, however, it's just a matter of cross-dressing, then no, that does not entitle you to claim a female identity.  Clothing comes on and off very easily, it does not constitute a commitment.

So, if someone is commonly mistaken for the other gender without surgery, and spends years living as the other gender, that does not constitute a commitment unless accompanied by medical treatment with possibly dangerous side effects?

In general I am willing to allow people to choose their own identity and to live the kinds of lives that they wish to live.  In the case that you refer me to in your above comment, we have a person who is biologically female, who is happy to remain so, but who also chooses the kind of hair style, clothing, etc., which leads people to mistake her for male, and who doesn't want to commit herself to any specific statement of what gender she actually is.  That's OK with me; again, why should I care?  But if we ask, as zyx does above, whether this woman should be admitted to the men's washroom, I would say no, she is still female and should use the ladies room.

Perhaps in a more flexible type of society we would have more than two types of washrooms, male, female, and other.  That's probably not practical, due to the expense.  We could also aspire to have a society which is not so obsessed with sexual identity or so prone to sexual predation, in which it really wouldn't matter which washroom anybody uses, because everybody would be there only to relieve themselves, and not to infringe upon the privacy of others or to seek illegal assignations.  But as it is, we have to be careful about such things.