SeekingUnderstanding

I unfortunately do not have time to continue participation in this thread this week, so you will have to make do with a general response. The human experience is broad, complex and hard to know and understand. All we have access to is our own lived experience. Sex, while idealized as a binary, as expressed in real life is complex, based on interactions between chromosomes, allele expression, hormone levels and bio sensitivity to those hormones. Gender, further, is a social construct, with norms not determined strictly by sex chromosomes, but by the broader set of genes one has as well as biology's intersection with culture and people's lived experience. This complex structure makes gender anything but a binary. You have tomboy, femboy, alpha male, beta, butch, femme, androgynous just to name a few. You want to boil all this down strictly to a binary. Someone is either a boy or a girl period end of story. This isn't some reasoned stance based on first principals. It's a religious tenet of your faith that you accept and then go about searching for the best arguments to support like any good lawyer supporting their client. When someone tells me they experience life as a woman, even though they were assigned male at birth, that is a foreign experience to me. In talking with trans people though, this is not unique or particularly uncommon. It's the persistent lived experience of a small community. Why should I deny their lived experience? Or attempt to denigrate or undermine it? People like you act like the sky is falling because everyone knows we have to protect the women! Won't someone think of the bathrooms? I happen to think letting people pee where they want isn't going to cause any issues, but others disagree. So how to keep out the pretenders (people like you say)? CB proposes and I endorse with minor changes a proposal that creates some friction or barrier to entry. Specifically, first expand and open access to gender affirming care. Second require some amount of gender affirming care, or apply for and receive a waiver explaining why such care isn't an option. After proceeding through this minor level of scrutiny strictly in place to keep out the riffraff pretenders, we allow people to use the space that matches how they view themselves and present themselves to the world. Could this proposal receive pushback from trans activists? Maybe so. I'd certainly be happy to have a conversation with some, but I'm certainly not going to debate your version of AI about it (what is with people on this board and AI - seriously). This proposal shows that it would be easy to address your supposed concerns about limiting principles and keeping out the pretenders. What this concession has shown conclusively, however, is that you don't care about women or women's spaces. This proposal would protect women's private spaces to those who present as women. Your proposal would force men into women's spaces and women into men. You don't care. You want to force your religiously driven principals on everyone else, consequences be damned.

You really out to get out more and maybe actually talk to trans people. I'll let you know if the trans-mafia knocks on my door though. I'm not ranking anyone. I think all people deserve to be addressed and treated with respect. That their lived experience should be respected as long as that lived experience doesn't impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. I think that any legislation to address this, should include stipulations that require health insurance to cover transisitions as well as increase access to gender affirming care. Including with tax payer subsidies if necessary. I am happy to entertain exceptions. But honestly I expect this situation to be vanishingly small. In talking with family and friends who are trans, including in reading on trans forums on reddit, most people just want a safe place to pee. And most people want to choose the gendered bathroom where they will be noticed the least. These are not my views. Those are explicitly your views. I think people's lived experiences ought to be respected and acknowledged. Invalidating someone's identity is entirely your schtick, not mine. We are explicitly talking about some type of bathroom or lockerroom standard. In that limited context I am happy to support CB's proposal as outlined. Identity is sufficient lol. My aunt felt was a girl her entire life. That was her lived experience. She didn't transition until she was in her forties. She's lived openly as a woman since then. She passes. I asked a coworker that was her age (the coworker didn't know her trans status), and he said she was more attractive than my mom. Restricting her access to women's private spaces until after she transitions does not deny her womanhood or her identity. Your denial of their lived experience is your bigotry. You call their names fabricated. You want to humiliate them by forcing manly men into women's bathrooms. You want to send passing females into mens spaces. That is horrifying. You want to deputize the general population to openly harass and sue them. This is what makes you a bigot. You aren't protecting women in their spaces (since you literally want to force passing men into the women's bathroom). You are explicitly forcing your religious world view on others. This is what makes you a bigot.

Except this is exactly what this solution does. In both cases, the state punishing speech by changing classes, ordering non-contact, and imposing disciple. All based on constitutionally protected(?) speech.

Politics is about compromise, especially when balancing competing interests. I have no issues with CB's proposal. Further (as I said) I have no issue restricting areas where nudity is present to people who have fully transitioned, as long as a different place is offered for people to change privately. I don't particularly care about item 5 as you quoted in your post. You will never please everyone. Some people will complain about everything.

And would you support exactly the same remedy for to support a trans-gendered student in the same situation? Disciple for disruption and targeting. No contact orders?

Nope. So far, we've demonstrated that you think targeted sex based harassment against a student Is ok for a school to act on. Targeted religious harassment against a student is something that its ok for a school to act on. Targeted racial harassment against a student is ok for a school to act on. But targeted trans-gender harassment against a student is not ok for a school to act on because it goes against your strongly held political and religious beliefs. That is textbook bigotry in my book. edited for clarity

If that is something that matters to you, assume as you will. These individuals claim to deeply believe Patricia is a boy. So curtail the bullies speech, correct? Disrupt the bullies course schedule? Would it be ok to compel them to use the appropriate name and pronouns if they choose to address your daughter?

This is getting weird. I have no access to your hypothetical daughter's gametes (which I believe is how you define both sex and gender) nor do I want it. Let me try again. Let's pretend you have a daughter named Patricia. Patricia has always struggled with body issues because she doesn't feel as attractive as her sister or mother. At school there are a few individuals that claim to believe that Patricia is actually a boy. These students refuse to use your daughter's name. Instead they call her Patrick. When Patricia exits the women's bathroom and these individuals are nearby, they loudly point out that a male has just exited the women's bathroom and "What is the world coming to when we allow men into women's spaces". These bullies (my term, but feel free to disagree) loudly misgender your daughter in class and in the hallways. These students never overtly threaten your daughter. Your daughters grades are dropping. You found out she is cutting classes she shares with these students. She's starting to cut herself and express suicidal thoughts. What if anything *should* the public school be allowed to do to address this situation.

Based on your posting here, you come across as having the opinion that deadnaming and misgendering in college classrooms *should be considered protected speech. That if it was up to you, that’s how you’d right the law. If that’s not your opinion I certainly would like to know.

Is it really your opinion that the words of peers can't impact one's mental health? I am happy that you have never had to deal with a child being bullied at school. Well, I'm asking you. But for me it's a careful balancing act. At a university you need to have venue's that promote vigorous speech, even speech that others find harmful. On the other hand, especially in the classroom, I think every student deserves a learning environment free from discriminatory harassment. I read through a couple of the policies at universities you cited and found their approach reasonable. Apply the same limiting principles already present around race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc at these same universities. For the sake of argument, I am ceding that by any reasonable measure it constitutes harassment. The girl feels harrassed. The individual in question continually misgenders the girl say in hallways to laughing friends. The individual does it in the classroom as well. What if anything can the school do about this behavior?

So when you said you were not offering an opinion as to how the law ought to work?

Sure because religious bigotry = bad and trans-bigotry = protected speech. Got it. You want to talk pronouns, that's great. Let's say you have a daughter (I believe this is correct!). Let's say an individual at school has decided that your daughter is not actually a girl but is a boy. This individual continually misgenders your daughter in front of other classmates. This is significantly undermining your daughter's mental health. What if anything can school officials do in the face of this harassment?

Yes. We are talking about the state punishing the use of a deadname. The specific context using the links you provided were for punishing harassment of one student by another. Following your links, among other things, using a deadname as a form of harassing could lead to punishment. You strongly object to this on first amendment grounds stating "I think the State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to ... 'deadnaming.'" I never said you did. None the less this is exactly the scenario linked to in your post. Your concern is specifically about Universities regulating harassment on campus. I followed your links and read some of the harassment policies. There are quite a few limits in there on speech when it comes to religion, race, sex, national origin, etc. Who exactly is compelling speech? Banning the use of someone's temple name is not compelled speech. Banning the use of someone's deadname is not compelled speech. In what way can that be construed as compelled speech? Do we have different definitions of compelled speech? Isn't that exactly the context you linked to? Students attending university using a deadname to harrass a classmate? Because that's what you linked to. I'm still not seeing how banning a deadname on campus is akin to a faith affirmation. We are in agreement that if someone got up in a classroom and said "F*** the Mormons", that's not protected speech right? But for some reason you think a student using a deadname as harassment is protected speech on campus?

Ok so "fabricated" was used as a term of legal art, not a transphobic Freudian slip.