All Activity

This seems to be quite vague and subjective. It can be deployed to describe almost anything. How do we go about quantifying what is and is not "symbolic violence?" For example, when Christians declare that Jesus is the sole source of salvation, do you take that as "symbolic violence" leveled against non-Christians? How do we know when a thing "goes beyond disagreement?" In this context, for example, the Church presents, as a foundational truth claim, that angelic ministers descended from heaven and restored priesthood authority that had previously been lost from the earth. This is a teaching that, while public, is not really publicized. It's an important doctrinal principle, as disagreements over authority have long impeded professed Christian groups and individuals in various ways. It's in our belief system, and it's in our manuals and missionary lessons, but we don't go around and publicly flaunt it or brag about it. If two people separately approach a house, one of them being a police officer with a search warrant for the house (looking for weapons) and the other being a private citizen who keeps tabs on things in the neighborhood, one of them has legal authority to enter into the house, and one of them does not. The civilian genuinely feels cares for the welfare of his neighbors, and that is admirable, but it's not the same as actually having law enforcement authority. I don't think it is "symbolic violence" to say so. That "if" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. The Latter-day Saints believe that the "Light of Christ" influences, or can influence, every child of God. We also believe that the Spirit can and does move and influence people of every walk of life. We do have a particularized assessment of the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" as referenced in Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:45. Acts 2:38 associates it with baptism, and so with priesthood authority. We believe such authority is something that must be bestowed by those who have it and under proper authority. And we do invite anyone who wants to join our church to do so through baptism. I struggle to characterize this as "symbolic violence." I am sorry to hear this has happened. "{W}hen we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man." (D&C 121:37.) I can't formulate a good faith circumstance in which the above behavior is expressed. It ought not to be. Gratifying pride and vain ambitions, methinks. I'm sorry about that. Also worthwhile tools to avert conflict: humility, kindness, circumspection. The Third Convention was a very interesting chapter in the history of the Church: And here: The question of authority is interesting and important. It is not in any way intended to demean or disparage any group or person. Thanks, -Smac

I think it is. You want to eliminate, either de jure or de facto or both, women's spaces by letting anyone into them. That is "something new and radical." I don't know that any of this is "incumbent" on me. This is, after all, just a message board. And your say-so about "zero evidence" is just an assertion. And whether the Kansas law was "needed" is a matter of perspective and preference and policy. This is the kind of statement that makes it hard for me to take you seriously. That biological sex is not observed, and that it is instead voted on or "assigned" by a doctor, is "something new and radical." And probably 99.98% of the time, the doctor correctly identifies the child's biological sex. What the doctor does is not a "judgment call." A judgment call is a subjective decision or choice made using personal opinion and experience because there is no clear rule, fixed formula, or single right answer. The doctor looking at the baby is working off objective criteria (external sex characteristics), not subjective ones. I don't think that is how "assigned at birth" means. I think what is typically meant is this: a doctor (or midwife) looked at the newborn and recorded a sex on the record, and they want that recording treated as a bureaucratic label rather than an observation of the child. I think the gap between us is that you seem to think that what a doctor does is subjective and/or arbitrary (a "judgment call"). I don't think that. If I say "black licorice tastes great," that is a judgment call. This is not akin to what a doctor is doing because a child's biological sex is an objective fact, not a subjective opinion. If I say "California borders on the Pacific Ocean," that is not a "judgment call," and is instead a statement of fact that I am acknowledging. My say-so does not alter the reality of what is being observed. This is akin to what a doctor is doing because a child's biological sex is an objective fact, not a subjective opinion. In very rare circumstances, yes. That means the doctor's declaration of the child's biological sex was factually incorrect. It does not mean that biological sex is subjective or left to the discretion of the doctor to choose. Right. But again, "assigned at birth" is intended to man a doctor (or midwife) looked at the newborn and recorded a sex on the record, and they want that recording treated as a bureaucratic label rather than an observation of the child. I do not think I said this. I have made allowances for the exceedingly small number of persons with DSDs and whose biological sex is insuperably epistemically uncertain. Emily Quinn is, as I understand it, an XY person with complete androgen insensitivity (CAIS). That is a disorder of sex development in a male reproductive pathway. Exceedingly rare exceptions to the rule, yes. Well, no. Your proposal has the exception swallow the rule. My maintains the rule. I don't think males who "identify" as women can rely on an exception/exemption for persons with DSDs as a basis for opening women's bathrooms to everyone. But they are exceedingly rare. And they have no relevance to so-called "trans women" who do not have a DSD. Lia Thomas. Lily Tino. Dylan Mulvaney. Drag Queen Story Hours and drag shows with children in attendance. All very public. All really trying to garner attention. As for "winning issue," I'm not sure what that means. I think men should not be in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports or prisons. Publicized incidents in which men have accessed these spaces openly are fairly new. I think "trans" issues have garnered a lot of attention. Outside of the few threads such as this, I think very little about the topic. I do feel that there is much harm coming from this movement, both to adults and children. At its most fundamental level, the movement affirms deluded, incongruent-with-reality notions that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, that sex is a spectrum and not a binary, that biological sex is "assigned" by a doctor, that expressing suicidal ideation as a basis for obtaining sex trait modification procedures is legitimate, and that anyone who disagrees or questions these assertions, even in communications full of respect, civility and decorum, is a "bigot." I think advocates of trans ideology have done, and continue to do, a lot of harm to a lot of people. Not just those with Gender Dysphoria, but their family members and friends and co-workers who effectively feel coerced into complimenting the Emperor's New Clothes, or else lose their association, be called a "bigot," be accused of trying trans people to suicide ("Would you rather have a live daughter or a dead son" is at or near the apex of emotional blackmail and manipulation of parents). Lily Tino and Lia Thomas and Dylan Mulvaney and marchers in parades, and demonstrators/protesters, and so on are all actively courting public attention, and they are getting some. I think this point could have been made without attempting to distract and personalize. You persist in personalizing. I don't watch Fox News. I occasionally come across links to its content, but no more than CNN, MSNow, and so on. Thanks, -Smac

I don’t understand this reasoning. Can you clarify? If you made a pagan cry because you asserted that Jesus is the Christ rather than affirming their own beliefs, then you would be being committing symbolic violence towards that pagan? Also, are you saying that the best way to have faith is to abstain from all certainty? So the best way to have faith in Christ is to remain uncertain that He is the Christ, for example? That seems like a paradox considering some of the things you have asserted previously so I must be missing something.

Doing well?

I am a big fan of Bourdieu and his concept of "symbolic violence" as a true form of violence. It is something similar to the idea of "soul wounds" which epigenetics takes such an interest in. Bourdieu's symbolic violence can be defined (online at least) as "Pierre Bourdieu defines symbolic violence as a subtle, non‑physical form of domination in which the dominated unknowingly accept and legitimize social hierarchies through everyday meanings, norms, and classifications. It operates through misrecognition, habitus, and cultural capital, making inequalities appear natural rather than arbitrary. While this is a bit long-winded, it speaks to the kind of violence created within religious inequities and domination created by doctrinal or dogma norms. It goes beyond disagreement in that it makes the dominated "less than" or "the other" according to a church or individual. If, for example I, as a seventy-year Christian, am deemed as having zero likelihood of being able to access the Gift of the Holy Spirit in my life within my own Christian community, then I am relegated to being less than every baptized and confirmed member of the LDS Church on earth. Probably not two in ten members of the LDS church would acknowledge that as doing me violence, yet I have seen my dear wife come home in tears after being assured of the truth and certainty of the LDS doctrine that however godly she may appear, she does not know the fullness of the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and they do. They would determine this, not based on her own spirituality, but on their own doctrine, which trumps what they see in her. This is a prime example of religion as conflict, which can be averted by a nice dose of incertitude, which in reality is a great foundation for faith, probably better than certainty. The protest of the Third Convention Mexican members of the Church in the 1930s is another example of religious violence - in this case better characterized as "protest violence." Protest violence is not physical violence except in that it is manifested with the feet - in leaving. It can be considered violence to the perpetrator as well as to the Church. Interesting stuff. That is it for now. Best wishes.

Romans are a refugee civilization and they integrated every belief they found. Like Eastern called Ostern in german, based on the celtic goddess of fertility called Osteia. That is why a rabbit hides eggs. The rabbit is fertile and the eggs are a sign of fertility. Also lets be "gay" for a moment which didn't mean homosexual in the old days as you can see here: It stood for happiness. Now I sadly can't tell you in an open forum about the Swastika... but look up its history.

Ancient Romans, who say they are remnants of the Trojan empire, have a remarkable history. Rome is called the eternal city for a reason. The roman empire was brought to its knees 4 times. The legions killed and the gates blown open... and yet the holy man of Rome stepped outside and told the invaders to go home and 4 times it worked. The staff of the pope... it has a symbol on it. A pine cone and that stands for the pineal gland and fluoride which is inside tap water cripples it. I do not brush teeth and have no teeth problems. Not the prettiest white but healthy. Anyway it makes sense that they cripple it because according to the CIA Uri Geller is a reality. Also as a child you have stronger dreams because your pinieal gland is healthy. The hat of the pope is also peculiar. Myth has it that it represents the fish god Dagon. And well the christian symbol is a fish! I was an intelligence soldier. I see patterns inside noise, its what I was trained for. The CIA also declassified parts of Thomas Chan's The story of Adam and Eve. Fascinating stuff. I am now reading the story of Aeneis. The troyan prince that founded Rome according to the legend. Also Paris is named after... a Troyan prince? And I read that the King of Londinium was called Brutus of Troy and wrote a letter to Ceasar about both being of Troyan origin... About the 4 times that Rome fell: Brennus Huns Goths Carthago

Looks like Dario has stored up some ideas since last he posted, but is having a problem starting anew thread even in Social, so here’s one for him.

I also did some research on Santa Clause. A german youtuber going by the name DieZuversicht has been telling a lot of facts. Santa Clause is not an invention of Coca Cola. But comes from Sibiria. The Christmas tree is a Nordmann Tanne, the right kind of tree grows in Scandinavia and Sibiria. The flying sled is from Odin. The color is most peculiar. Red and white. Like the psychedelic mushroom that grows in sibiria where the raindeer live. And legend has it that children are given presents taht are put under the tree because we used to give mushrooms to children that grow below the Nordmann Tanne. The wicked children however received coal. Because they would have a bad trip. That is why Schmutzli the companion of Santa has black skin. He is actually some other color but black because he takes care of the coal. Now my mother reminded me of the most interesting thing. Italians do NOT believe in Santa but La Befana. That is a whitch which showed the 3 kings according to legend the way to the newly born baby Christ. And there even is a book from a US American that tells us that all of Christianity is about Magic mushrooms. Google it. John Marco Allegro. La Befana does the same stuff Santa does, and the catholic church tries to rid the world of her... because she is non canon. But so are the ethipian books that have been discovered. Mel Gibson is making a second Jesus movie about them. And they used to be part of christianity until Catholics kicked it out and buried it in the library.

Oh I should also mention, I found an old christian book from 1682. Printed in modern times but still. Its John Bunyan "the holy war". This book is about the war over mans soul. The king of man's soul is called El Shaddai and the enemy is Diabolus. Not about the crusades in the holy land. And most of its text are bible phrases. Now, from my understanding your mormon handshakes and temple practices are partially or somewhat similar to freemasonry. Freemasons "believe in some god" and I heard they are the remnants of Zoroastrism. That makes sense to me. Walter Elias Disney was one as was Washington and so forth. The USA, is a freemason country, just have to look at Washington DC. Anyway, Christmas used to be the celebration of the Sun god. The story of Christ is found in many ancient religions, but with a different name. The 24th of December was never the true date of when Jesus was born. It was declared the day of celebration. And the orthodox have a different date. The jews even live in a different year than us. Your apostles or highest leader may know more. But listen, be wary of the "voices". I always had a godly but not holy feeling when touching or reading in your book. There is something godly about it yes but which god is it? Now I was not long gone in a psychiatric ward, put into an isolation cell because I yelled when there was a goal in football world cup. They put me into an isolation day for 6 days straight. Worse than a concentration camp. I had no pillow. No shower. I was given a yoghurt without a spoon. The doctor laughed at me when I defied his wickedness. On the 5th day I was about to mentally crack so I tried to write a prayer... but I had no streangth to write with this dull pencil that I was given. So I prayed... the way I was told by my mother. On my knees the Vater Unser. And afterwards I pleaded to Jesus and god to help me in my struggle. I may even cried out: Father, why have you forsaken me! That is the sentence Jesus said right before his death. And right after, a storm and an earthquake hit the temple of the jews. So goes the legend. Anyway I did hear a faint but pure and gentle voice coming from the heart. It told me... well it was weak I think it said to stay calm and believe. I did that. And see and behold on the 6th day I was let out of my cell. Since then I devoted myself fully to god and Jesus Christ. And I had one encounter after another where I could do good deeds. But I also... provoked Zion by writing a mail to the ambassador. I think it struck a nerve. I will gladly share it to those who want to see it via mail. Anyway the deeds I did since then was helping the homeless, giving faith to those who have lost it and I see the world improving a little. Coincidences keep happening. I listen to Linkin Park and see a crying woman in a Linkin Park T-shirt. So I go and help her. And thanks to my faith and conviction... it worked out well it seemed. I am becoming like Hiob. I have found a good wife yes but I am loosing more wealth day by day and the trials are getting harder and yet my resolve my conviction and faith and well being have never been higher. Maybe less is more. Maybe full devotion to Christ can be the way... The plot thickens. We live in remarkable times is all I am saying.

The basic way you continue to misrepresent my position is by claiming I advocate for something new and radical. That just isn’t true. What I'm claiming is that there is zero evidence that the new 2026 law in Kansas was needed. It is incumbent upon you to show why this new law is needed and explain why this law does more good than harm. This is the kind of statement that makes it hard for me to take you seriously. When a child is born, a doctor quickly examines them and makes a call on whether to put an “F” or “M” on the birth certificate. Making that judgement call is what it means to “assign” a sex to somebody. I’m sure you’re aware of this. I don’t understand why you are adamant that it is impossible for a doctor to do what they do every single time they fill out a birth certificate. Furthermore, doctors sometimes get this wrong. Emily Quinn is an example. When he was born, his doctor thought the “observable fact” was that he is female. It turns out the doctor was mistaken--biologically, the baby was male, not female. He is a male who was assigned to the sex “female” at birth. First, note that earlier in this thread, you said that some men should use the women’s restroom. An example you gave is Emily Quinn. Emily Quinn is a man. That is the hard, cold, biological fact of the matter. Yet you are okay with him using the women’s restroom. So we both agree that there are cases when biological men should use the women’s restroom. What we disagree about is the edge cases: where the line should be drawn, and who should make those calls. These edge cases aren’t recent. What actually is recent is culture warriors deciding this is a winning issue and constantly throwing it in your face. The only reason you know who Lily Tino or Lily Thomas are is because the people who curate your news want this to be an issue. Just because Fox News only recently started publicizing this doesn’t mean it’s a new issue.

Oh I forgot to mention. Cristina wants to solve one last issue, the love of a bolshevik boy and a christian girl wanting to mary. She fears that they may go and do suicide because nobody in town agrees with their love. In the end they go to the river and almost succeed but the town overcomes its differences and saves the couple in the spirit of Cristina.

In the first or second movie is the most heart touching story I could think of. It is about Madame Cristina. An old woman which has solved problems in the town ever since and was a teacher so she knows them all since childhood. On her deathbed she demands from them both to be buried with her flag, the flag of the long gone king. And her coffin to be transported through town in silence covered in the flag. This is a major offence to the church and the bolsheviks but because they both love her so much they overrule the democratic council and enforce her last wish. Also please pray for the young woman that died in Aarau recently. We had a mass shooting incident. The 22 year old christian girl from Italy was poor and had a hard life and did not deserve death. But... as I prayed for her I felt... holy... please pray for her for she is now with Jesus in heaven and her mom and dad have to bury her... it breaks my heart. And I feel responsible in a way that I can't explain. I meet so many young woman on facebook these days... and all of them have an onlyfans... what is happening in this world... I read in the news that psychiatrists are ringing the alarm bell because woman dream of rape because they read "spicey" books... keep your children safe and forgive them if they ever wrong you for the world is truely going dark. Also I pray for Vinnie Paz the rapper. Keep moving on is playing as I write this. Good man.

The 5 Don Camillo movies are a cultural treasure and have brought me back to Christendom after a deep crisis. He and the Bolshevik major fight but also are friends because of their past as soldiers in WW2 AFAIK. Also do not underestimate duality. I have always been a horny pervert who was into whores... so I read the Whore of Babylon first and what I read inspired me to read it all. The more you descend into darkness the more attracted you become to the light.

Make of this what you will but I see it as soft disclosure The planet is called Tiamat and it may be the asteroid belt. Chinese may be from Deneb. One of the levels is in Egypt. Also read up on The law of One. It is available but you have to look it up with russian google called Yandex.com to find the website. Enter Jesus into the searchbar of the website about it. The "contact" tells us about Jesus accidentaly causing death of a child when he was a child himself...

I see your point. However, the percentage of "trans men" in the overall U.S. population is fairly small. Per this article, the number of of "trans men" is about 730,500 people. A still smaller percentage of that number have had "top" surgery. And only a very small percentage of those "pass" in the way that this woman does (she really does like a male). Male adults and teens 15 and over comprise around 137 million persons, 100% of whom would, under Roger's proposal, be free to "come into a {woman's} restroom." By sheer numbers, the difference in policy outcome (legal segregation by sex v. no legal segregation at all), and the concomitant impact on women and girls who want to have sex-segregated spaces, is enormous. We cannot, of course, speak for all women, but I think many of them would prefer to maintain sex-segregated spaces. Roger's proposal eliminates them. The same would be said of the 137 million actual male adults and teens who will, under Roger's proposal, be legally entitled to enter into women's spaces. I wonder how many women and girls would prefer that circumstance. And yet, she's not male. She is a biological woman who has taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as a man. If there is a legally coherent limiting principle that would allow "trans men" to go into women's bathrooms, I sure would like to hear it. Roger categorically refuses to articulate any such principle. It's entirely left to the discretion of the individual. I admire and respect CB for presenting his "Steps (A)-(E)" proposal, but holy cow, it is steeped in "objectionable" points, including from most "trans advocacy" organizations. This is, I think, why people who call for radical societal change keep things nice and broad and vague. They don't want to address the real-world foreseeable ramifications of their proposals or, worse, use silence and obfuscation to smuggle in those ramifications. Meanwhile, all this commentary centers on the impact of sex-segregated spaces on a relatively tiny number of women ("trans men") who have masculinized themselves, and essentially no attention at all is paid to the welfare and preferences of the tens of millions of women and girls who expect sex-segregated spaces to segregate by sex. Thanks, -Smac

The song we sung at my Firmung The movie with Sean Connery as a Monk The Chinese Jesus An orthodox video

I also have this... its about Jesus in China.

12.09. as in 12th of September... you Americans have this weird attitude of writing month before day...

Thank you for the warm welcome back. I do not remember my old username but that may have been it. I do not remember much of said discussion but hope it stayed constructive. Anyway I would like to stay on topic and yes please do create a thread/topic of its own so that I do not hijack this one. I have a fiancee and will mary her on the 12.09. "unofficially" and my mormon friends are all invited. The missionaries on the phone were overjoyed and gratulated me. I am blessed but times are still hard... and I a child born on christmas and with some curly red hair (like mohammed)... I am on a mission to unite every one of the 8 or so christian churches of Winterthur. Jesus would want 1 church for all of Christendom. And it pained me greatly that even catholicism had 3 schisms.

Dario, I have wondered how you were doing. I assume you are the same as the poster Dario_M. If you want to discuss them in the main forum, I or someone else can start a thread for you. Otherwise, welcome back!

Hello, my name is my Username and I come in peace. I am a Roman Catholic who has the joy to visit Mormon gathering center in Switzerland Winterthur and call many Mormons my friends. I even gave testimony and was allowed to do prayer once (they forgot that I am not allowed to apparently but I made Jesus proud hopefully). Your food is delicious btw but I really come for the community. The reason I write here is that for some reason my browser or Windows 11 has a problem creating new threads. This is the most fitting one I found for my content that I want to share with you. A moderator may move it. Now I know the Roman Catholic church does not consider you christian and... its debatable. I see you as fantastic people who do their best to believe in Jesus so it is a pleasure knowing you. I will spare you my problems with your version of Christianity. Tbh I posted them in the past with another account that is deleted. The reason I post is I made pictures of old bible and old church and of the Catholic Katechismus (probably spelled wrong... I am german, it is our guidebook for the faith.) I believe that the more we share about our believes the better we can understand each other and overcome our differences. So I post these pictures not to shatter your faith or to convert you, but to strenghten your relationship with Jesus. The text will be in german but you can find many ways to translate. Sadly its photos not text so it would take some effort. Pictures are either from Wallisellen history book or Bible or old Bible or Katechismus... Didn't sort them so... Anyway here goes:

Someone needs to show me solid documentation, not just anecdotes or worse, speculation that I will not only be safer, but feel safer when I see this man come into a restroom I am currently using, because I know how I will react when I see him walk in and am pretty confident how the vast majority of women will react as well (both in negative ‘what the hell is this guy doing in the restroom’ and positive ‘wow, he is gorgeous’ versions, which may happen at the same time). Because on the level I am interacting with him, he is a man no matter what his biology is. I will only be reacting to him as a man as I won’t have the time or inclination to have a discussion with him about his chromosomes when my purpose is to become more physically comfortable and then clean up and then leave the premises as fast as possible (the hard surfaces of a bathroom create a very uncomfortable environment for me, I don’t like even being in my home bathrooms for the same reasons). Now if I was participating in a discussion about the ideology, biology, politics or something else around transitioning, I likely would use “them” and “they” and “biological female” for accuracy to describe him, but during any casual interaction and perhaps brief verbal conversation, in my head and gut I am going straight to “him” and “man” without a second thought. And it is a guaranteed fact that I would either walk out feeling rather offended and fearful because this guy thought he had a right to ignore the social rules and intrude on my privacy and how screwed up he must be to do that, increasing my sense of vulnerability and exposure by his unjustified use of my space (because that’s how I have always felt when it happens, which it has only once or twice in my life without an explanation of intense need and an apology) or I would be walking out feeling very awkward and embarrassed that I had forced them to share with me their medical and social background I did not need to know out of their concern for my few minutes at most discomfort. And then I would be left uncomfortably wondering how often this was going to be happening in the future, someone who is a man in all ways that they interact with me being forced by law to awkwardly and unfortunately share secluded, but still public space with me based on a law that ignored practical realities…and knowing me, my use of public restrooms would drop way low not because I felt unsafe with them, but because I wouldn’t want them to feel unsafe with me and I know I am too old and too programmed at this point not to react with fear on my face and body language if I see someone who is obviously a man (as far as I can tell) walk into the restroom for some reason without a custodian uniform on. Seriously, looking at pictures like this I find it so hard to believe that biologically this person is female. My gut would never be convinced, my emotional reaction to them will always be “he’s male”.

I'm not sure what Roger's point here is. What does "conspicuously out of place" mean? And isn't a big part of the problem that this hypothetical fellow is, under Roger's policy proposal (anyone uses any bathroom), legally entitled to enter into the women's bathroom. And because he is there legally, being seemingly "out of place" and "intense{ly} scrutin{ized}" does has no legal force or effect. The women and girls in the bathroom will just have to lump it. Because hallways are not segregated by sex. Because women and girls are not relieving themselves, or undressing themselves, or otherwise having any sort of expectation of privacy from males in a hallway. These seem axiomatic. Right. But under your proposal, they can't do anything about it. They can't tell him to leave. They can't call the police and report him. Instead, they must surrender the space which they were told would be segregated by sex. Men have attacked women in restrooms in the past not because they can walk in unquestioned by others when there are multiple women using it, but because they typically wait until there is one woman alone within. Thus any law barring any biological male from entering a women’s restroom will be highly unlikely to affect these types of attacks, imo. I think they would have some real effect. Under Roger's proposal, if a lone woman enters a bathroom and finds a man there, there is nothing she can do about it. She must do her business with him a few feet away from her. In contrast, under a sex-segregated policy, if a lone women enters a bathroom, she can immediately demand that he leave, and/or call the police, and/or scream, and/or immediately take defensive measures because his mere presence in the bathroom is a violation of the law. She does not need to wait until he manifests ill intent. Thanks, -Smac

Men have attacked women in restrooms in the past not because they can walk in unquestioned by others when there are multiple women using it, but because they typically wait until there is one woman alone within. Thus any law barring any biological male from entering a women’s restroom will be highly unlikely to affect these types of attacks, imo.