smac97

And transgender people or drag queens were involved in this event in what way? See here: And this: Here: What I Saw at Drag Queen Story Hour d This is adults projecting their insecurities onto children. Children don’t get that confused about the whole thing. Adults do. I think many kids are going to be confused at this sort of thing. I think it is confusing. In other words you want to police the choices of other parents. We don't let children into certain venues and events, even with parental consent. We as a society have made that decision, not just me. Then you should write up think pieces about why parents shouldn’t take their children to such events. Instead you seem to be calling for legal enforcement of your views. Why? Do you think you would lose in a more general ‘marketplace of ideas’ context and want to appeal to violence and coercion because of that? Again: The “why do you care” line is a distraction. People are allowed to object to what is put in front of young children without needing to prove a secret motive. Perhaps DQSH has fewer sexually explicit things going on that we've seen in some drag shows and Pride parades/events. But that would be the "not as bad as" fallacy. Thanks, -Smac

"I don't see": This is very much a "you" problem. Part of having conversations is explaining our respective positions. @Analytics has presented what I see as a denial of something fairly obvious. Again, I see no legal daylight between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate." @Analytics never articulated a distinction, and has now withdrawn from the discussion. @california boy has now withdrawn. And my point remains unrebutted. There's no obligation to rebut it, of course. Here's how I deal with @Analytics reasoning, such as it is: I see no legal daylight between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" (which I see as the practical outcome of his preferred policy position) and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate" (which is his own statement of his preferred policy). But it looks like the discussion may be winding down. That's okay. This is a good opportunity for us to "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." No need to conclude with zingers or putdowns. We can share our respective thoughts, compare and contrast them, evaluate them in light of reasoning and evidence, and then choose how to proceed. I think women's spaces were originally created to benefit women and girls in terms of safety and privacy (and, re: women's sports, fairness). I think such spaces have always been based on biological sex, not subjective self-identifications (with some potential limited, case-by-case exceptions for persons with actual DSDs). Discussion of people with DSDs in this context is, in my view, almost purely pretextual. We all know that we are not speaking of that tiny percentage of persons whose biological sex remains intractably epistemically uncertain. Virtually the entirety of this discussion is about men - actual men - going into women's spaces, and justifications/rationalizations therefore. In a contest between the interests of women/girls and men who subjectively "identify" in ways incongruent with reality, I think the interests of the former should prevail. That some men have dressed up to look like women and entered into women's bathrooms does not mean that they should. I think subjective "self-identity" is an unworkable and unenforceable policy in terms of maintaining sex-segregated spaces. It has the net effect of eradicating those spaces. I think the Kansas statute is quite defensible, and I hope it withstands constitutional challenges. I think these efforts, the deliberate and public instances of men making incursions into women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons, etc., together with the deliberate and public instances of exposing small children to highly sexualized live adult performances, are not healthy or appropriate developments for our society. Thanks, -Smac

I don't think I have. I think Analytics' position requires him to talk out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he disputes the need for any limiting principles, but then he denies not wanting to impose any limiting principles. When asked to articulate limiting principles, all he can come up with is "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate." That is no principle at all. It doesn't limit anything. It does not allow any enforcement mechanism. As I see it, "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate" is de facto "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all." Analytics denies this, but won't explain why. I have been listening to people who disagree with me. Where I have not understood their position, I have asked for clarification. At other times I have pointed out flaws and gaps in reasoning and fallacies. That's not an unwillingness to understand. It's just disagreement. For example, when @Analytics categorically refuses to articulate any coherent limiting principles, that needs to be addressed. When the practical result of his preferred policy will be the eradication of sex-segregated spaces, he refuses to acknowledge or address that. When he persistently injects fallacies and distractions from the topic so as to discuss me instead of the topics at hand, that needs to be addressed. What some "transgenders actually look like," sure. But that's not really pertinent to our discussion, since my preferred public policy is to administer sex-segregated spaces by biological sex, not by "self-identity" or what people "look like." No woman has ever, in the history of the world, "transitioned to a man," nor has any man ever "transitioned to" a woman. Instead, what we often see see is biological males who have taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as women. A man putting on a dress and makeup does not make him a woman. His subjective self-identity doesn't make him a woman. We can and should treat such persons with respect, but respect ought not include going along with falsehoods and delusions. Okay. "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." I am there. I hope you are too. Thanks, -Smac

Yes. Whether or not one believes that "drag" is inherently sexual, there have been some "Story Hours" that plainly were highly sexual: Library Apologizes For Hosting ‘Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey’ Kids Event Even when Drag Queen Story Hours are not overtly sexualized, they remain difficult to defend as healthy for small children. Young children are still forming basic categories about sex, adults, and social roles. Presenting them with adult performers in exaggerated, often hyper-feminine or boundary-blurring costumes and personas introduces confusion at an age when clarity is more useful than ambiguity. There is also the deeper question of purpose: why is this particular form of adult performance art being directed at toddlers and preschoolers in the first place? Reading books to children is good. Using the occasion to stage an adult entertainment style that plays with gender and sexuality—even theatrically—is a different matter. Children do not need that layer of complexity, and it is reasonable to question whether it serves their development or adult ideological preferences. See above. I didn’t say every drag show is “grooming” in the typically criminal sense of preparing a child for sexual abuse (the "Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey" sure seemed to be going there). The concern is supplemental and different. Drag, as a performance style, is rooted in adult nightlife and often involves exaggerated, sexualized, or boundary-blurring presentations of gender. When that same aesthetic is brought into a story hour for toddlers and preschoolers, it introduces adult themes and adult performance conventions into a setting meant for very young children. Parental presence doesn’t automatically make the content age-appropriate any more than it would if the performer were doing a burlesque-lite routine or a striptease while reading Goodnight Moon. Young children are still learning basic categories—male/female, adult/child, public/private. Staging an adult entertainment form that plays with those categories can confuse them. You can oppose that as developmentally inappropriate without accusing anyone of being a predator. That said, some of these events have includes sexualization and grooming of children. The disagreement is about what belongs in front of small children, not about whether every participant has criminal intent. You are attributing a position to me that I have not taken. I have not said I am fine with adults taking children to nudist resorts. I’m not. The issue with Drag Queen Story Hours is not that every participant is a predator. It is that an adult performance style rooted in nightlife, exaggerated gender presentation, and often sexualized aesthetics is being staged for very young children. That is age-inappropriate. Again, young children are still forming basic categories about sex, adults, and social roles. Introducing them to that particular form of adult entertainment—even when a book is being read—adds confusion and adult themes that do not belong in a story hour for toddlers and preschoolers. Parental presence does not automatically make something appropriate. The same would be true of other adult performance styles. The question is whether this belongs in front of small children in the first place, not whether it meets the legal definition of grooming. You can oppose it as developmentally unsuitable without needing to prove criminal intent. Again, you are repeating a claim I haven’t made. I have not said nudist resorts are fine for children. I’m not okay with that either. The “why do you care” line is a distraction. People are allowed to object to what is put in front of young children without needing to prove a secret motive. The objection is straightforward: drag is an adult performance style that plays with gender and often draws on sexualized aesthetics. Staging it for toddlers and preschoolers in a library story hour introduces adult themes and boundary-blurring presentations to children who are still learning basic categories about sex and social roles. That is age-inappropriate. You can disagree with that judgment. But asking what is “really driving” the concern is an attempt to change the subject rather than address whether the activity belongs in front of small children in the first place. Thanks, -Smac

Also, your AI buddy left you with an, um, interesting name on your lectern:

The last time you said this about me, I corrected you and explained that is the opposite of my position. You did not "explain." You asserted, without explanation: That is the opposite of what I said. I said people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate. I see no legal daylight between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate." And you have not articulated any distinction between the two. Not only that, you have endorsed a laissez faire approach and denounced any legislated solution as "heavy-handed laws." I would be happy to listen to you differentiate, in a legal context, between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate." Or not. "Habit Ten" of Collis's book is that we can "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." Not every conversation needs a winner or final resolution. We can be comfortable with ongoing dialogue and incremental progress. While we appear to not have changed each others minds, I have nevertheless valued listening to you explain, to some extent, your position. I hope you have a good day. Thanks, -Smac

You have endorsed a laissez faire approach, with no limiting principles. I don't see how that is anything but "arguing that girl's bathrooms should be wide open to anybody." I think it is interesting that you are claiming to adopt a "case-by-case" approach, but you really aren't. You don't want any limiting principle. Everyone can go into women's spaces, no exceptions. I, on the other hand, and willing to evaluate a legitimate "case-by-case" exception to the statutory framework (based on individuals with DSDs). I think I understand why you have spent many pages avoiding consideration of any limiting principle. I think as soon as you do, the jig is up. You want men - whether under the "trans women" or any other rubric ("people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate") - to be able to legally enter into women's spaces. Trans ideology does not allow folks like you to differentiate between different "kinds" of trans women. There is no differentiation because "a woman is someone who identifies as one." So it's all or nothing, and the "all" obliterates sex-segregated spaces, which you have also studiously avoided acknowledging. Some of the exceedingly small number of persons with DSDs, perhaps. Otherwise, women's bathrooms were created for women, not men. A very small exception to the rule should not swallow or negate the rule. In contrast, your approach would allow anyone to enter into women's spaces. Where I propose a rule with a narrow and clear contingent exception, what you propose is that there be no rule at all. The “minimum number of rules” principle is fine as a starting point. The disagreement is over what counts as necessary. Sex-based boundaries in bathrooms, locker rooms, and similar spaces existed for a long time precisely because of physical differences, privacy, and safety. Those were not novel or “heavy-handed” restrictions. They were the ordinary background rules. What changed is the push to replace sex with self-declared identity as the access criterion. That is not a minor adjustment. It removes the ability to maintain single-sex spaces whenever someone asserts an identity. Calling the defense of the prior rule “creating new heavy-handed laws” reverses what actually happened. It is not a strawman to describe self-ID policies accurately. When the rule becomes “anyone who identifies as a woman may enter,” the practical effect is that men can enter on their say-so. That is the policy that has been adopted or proposed in multiple jurisdictions. Pointing out the consequences of that standard is not inventing an extreme position. On the claim that the issue is mostly manufactured for television: policy changes, school guidelines, prison placements, shelter rules, and sports eligibility decisions have occurred across many places. Some high-profile provocations exist, and media incentives amplify conflict. That does not erase the underlying shift in rules or the cases in which female safety, privacy, or fairness have been affected. The existence of opportunistic coverage does not make the category problem disappear. The core question remains practical: should single-sex spaces be organized by sex or by identity? “Minimal rules” does not automatically answer that in favor of self-ID. It requires showing why the older boundary is no longer justified. That showing has not been made simply by asserting that any defense of sex-based rules is authoritarian or hysterical. Thanks, -Smac

From previous post: Julie Tétart entry into the WNBA may be the push that moves @Analytics on to Step 2. From another earlier post: Men in women's bathrooms is not an isolated issue. It is interconnected with men in women's changing rooms, and sports, and prisons. @Analytics wants no limiting principles as to who can enter into women's spaces. None. At all. Anyone can go in legally for any reason or no reason at all. Thanks, -Smac

Huh. I look forward to @Analytics' response. Thanks, -Smac

It does seem like Dehlin was going out of his way to design his website so as to mimic the Church's designs, themes, color palette, motifs, etc. Thanks, -Smac

They are different varieties of the same terrible thing: the sexualization and grooming of children. I have not been speaking of all drag shows, just those that involve children and highly sexualized performances. Thanks, -Smac

You are right that there has never been a transgender woman playing in the WNBA. That fact is not in dispute. But it does not follow that the underlying issue is therefore “fabricated.” The substance is not dependent on one specific league having already admitted a male player. It is about the principle of sex-based categories and what happens when those categories are redefined. Across multiple sports, governing bodies (such as the IOC) have already faced cases in which male-bodied athletes entered female categories and displaced female competitors or altered the competitive landscape. The pattern exists even if the WNBA itself has not yet produced a high-profile example. Treating the absence of a current WNBA case as proof that the entire concern is imaginary is like saying a fire code is unnecessary until a particular building burns down. You also shift the burden in a useful way: if someone wants a sex-based rule, they should explain why the benefits outweigh the costs. That standard cuts both ways. Maintaining female-only categories is not a novel restriction. It is the long-standing default that made women’s sports possible in the first place. Changing that default — so that men can enter on the basis of identity — also requires justification. Instead, it is merely assumed. This is especially when the performance gap between male and female bodies remains large and well-documented. The question is not whether anyone is currently “forcing” the WNBA to admit such athletes. The question is whether the eligibility rules should preserve sex as the relevant category or subordinate it. On the broader point about living in a pluralistic society and extending grace: I agree. People should be treated with dignity. That does not automatically settle how sex-based spaces and competitions are defined. Pluralism can and should include the recognition that sex is binary and materially relevant in some domains. Dismissing every attempt to preserve those distinctions as “speculation” or “manufactured controversy” avoids the actual trade-offs rather than resolving them. The WNBA example may be amplified, and some activists clearly seek test cases. Lawrence v. Texas was apparently based on a contrivance. Amplification does not make the underlying policy question disappear. It is still legitimate to ask whether female categories should remain female, and to expect that question to be answered with evidence about performance, fairness, and safety rather than by declaring the discussion itself illegitimate. Thanks, -Smac

@Analytics is, nearly to the exclusion of discussion of the topic at hand. I would look at evidence. Quite a few in the "trans" community actively court public attention. Dylan Mulvaney. Lia Thomas. Lily Tino. So do some groups (such as those who are grooming children by exposing them to highly sexualized drag show and other live performances). Politicians did not coordinate with Dylan Mulvaney. The massive backlash against Bud Light was not orchestrated in backrooms in Washington D.C. Political operatives did not plant Riley Gaines on the UPenn women's swim team. From a previous post: I think those who endorse the sorts of trans-related controversies, such as men in women's bathrooms, are trying very hard to stay at Step 1 as long as possible. The longer Steps 1 and 2 are drawn out, the easier Steps 3 and 4 are. Frog and boiling water and all that. America has transformed substantially in the last many decades, including as to LGBT issues. I think if there were anything that could reverse acceptance of the Ts, it would be the sexualization and grooming of children mostly, but also the incursion of men, both de facto and de jure into women's sports and other sex-segregated spaces. thanks, -Smac

Calling this a fabricated controversy is a way to shut down discussion rather than address the substance. Single-sex bathrooms and changing rooms exist because of biological sex differences in strength, privacy needs, and patterns of sexual crime. Once policy shifts from sex to self-declared identity with no verification, any male can claim access. There are documented cases of voyeurism, exposure, and assault under those conditions—enough that women have reason to object, even if absolute numbers remain lower than ordinary male-perpetrated crime. The issues here, discussion of which you are sidestepping and trying to shut down, involve privacy invasions, the principle of sex-based spaces, or the parallel problems we already see in women’s prisons and sports. Trans people can face real harassment. I acknowledge that. The solution isn’t to treat sex as optional. Rather, we should maintain sex-based facilities and expand neutral single-occupancy options. Once policy shifts from sex to self-declared identity with no meaningful verification or limiting principle, sex-segregatec spaces cease to exist in a de jure and de facto sense. These issues scale immediately to other female-only categories. If self-ID is enough for a bathroom, it is enough for a locker room or changing area (where nudity is the norm), a women’s sports team, or a women’s prison wing. These are not separate issues; they rest on the identical claim that gender identity overrides sex. Changing rooms and locker rooms are more intimate than public toilets. When access is granted on identity alone, women and girls lose the ability to undress and change without the presence of male bodies. Privacy and dignity are not optional extras. They are the reason the spaces were sex-segregated in the first place. Then there's the potential impact on women's sports. Male puberty produces lasting advantages in muscle mass, bone density, strength, speed, and lung capacity. Even after hormone treatment, many of those advantages remain. The female category exists precisely to give females a fair chance to compete and win. Treating self-ID as decisive collapses that category and turns it into a mixed-sex competition in which males retain systematic physical edges. And prisons. Female prisoners are a captive, highly vulnerable population. Sex-based patterns of offending—particularly sexual and violent crime—differ markedly between males and females. When housing decisions rest on identity rather than sex, intact males (including those with histories of sexual or violent offences) can be placed among women who cannot simply leave the facility. The physical differences that make male-on-female violence more dangerous do not disappear because of a declaration and AI-generatef meme cartoons (which areas appeals to ridicule). These are real issues, not contrived ones. Trans-identifying people can face real harassment; that is a legitimate concern. The solution is not to treat sex as optional across every domain. It is to maintain sex-based facilities and categories, expand neutral single-occupancy options where feasible, and handle rare, carefully assessed exceptions without making self-declaration the sole criterion. Pretending women’s boundary concerns are just bigotry or a right-wing invention does not make the material differences in strength, crime patterns, and privacy needs disappear. The bathroom debate is the entry point; the same logic, once accepted, rewrites sports fairness and prison safety. That is why the controversy is real. Thanks, Smac

I hope we can focus on the topic. Thanks, -Smac

Well, that's debatable. The two fellows are claiming to "identify" as women. And per standard trans orthodoxy, "woman" is an undefined or infinitely malleable term, and nobody is allowed to question anyone's declared identity anyway. Fallacy of relative privation (also called "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as"). Even if this were relevant, it would not really work as a basis for accusing me of hypocrisy, since I have frequently spoken at length about protecting children, including from other predatory Latter-day Saints, and I have utterly condemned any and all such abuse. I have never condoned any abuse of children, whether it be the sexualized/grooming antics involved in some drag queen story hours, drag shows, Pride parades, and on one, or whether it be a Latter-day Saint exploiting access to Latter-day Saint children. Again, I'm happy to discuss any concerns you have about bishops interviewing children, but not as a means of distracting from the topics under discussion in the last several pages of this thread. Again, you persist in attempting to distract from the topic and criticize me as a person. Classic ad hominem. I hope you can get past it. I acknowledge that the discussion of trans issues amounts to a straying a bit from the original topic of this thread, and that I introduced this straying topic into the thread. Fortunately, I contacted the person who started the thread and got his specific permission to talk about trans issues in it. He has no problem with it at all. Thanks, -Smac

...says the man who is obsessed with starting threads on these topics. You persist in attempting to distract from the topic and personalize this thread. I hope you can get past that. I've been trying to better understand your perspective and to challenge my own biases and to that end, I've licensed Grok as a thinking tool that doesn't share my biases. I think I've made my perspective and assessment quite clear. That you disagree with it is fine, but I would prefer to discuss the topic rather than me and my motives, as I see that as a combination of ad hominem, appeal to motive, and fallacy of relevance. Okay. But I'm not really interested in arguing over who is doing what and why. This analysis presupposes that safety is the only concern. While it is an important one, it is not the only one. I have noted this many times in this thread. Moreover, "no prosecutions" is not, I think, a useful indicator for prevalence of the problem. From a legal perspective, the basis for a statute does not need to be empirically demonstrated. This may have some relevance to the constitutional scrutiny, though. The "personal autonomy" right under the Kansas Constitution is somewhat unique, so legal challenges to the statute will be interesting to watch. The law is defensible if courts accept that sex-separated spaces serve a compelling privacy interest and that a biological-sex criterion is narrowly tailored to that interest. The law may be vulnerable if courts expand personal autonomy to encompass a right to have one’s gender identity govern access to intimate facilities and identity documents. The outcome will turn heavily on how broadly Kansas courts define the autonomy right beyond the abortion context. We'll see what happens. Rather than engage the points I have made, you are going to Grok and asking it to speculate about motives. I don't think that does much to advance the discussion. Fallacy of relative privation (also called "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as"). Again with distractions from the topic at hand. I hope you can get past this. FWIW, I uploaded your questions to Grok and asked it to identify logical fallacies and flawed reasoning. The results: I agree that your question was loaded a bit. Same here. Many trans folks and advocates are actively courting attention, and they are getting it. Again, safety concerns are not the only ones. This was my assessment as well. Please note that the foregoing critiques your posted arguments, not you as a person. I am happy to discuss issues pertaining to bishop's interviews, but not as a distraction from the topic at hand. Thanks, -Smac

You did. You cited it's ordinance. I have not said that. The efforts to distract from the topic and personalize this thread are continuing. I hope you can get past this. Trans issues are ubiquitous these days. What was previously a rare and private (or else not overtly publicize) set of behaviors and preferences are now trumpeted to the skies 24/7. And social media did not exist back then, so all of us had fairly limited and provincial outlooks. Nah. Trans folks get a lot of attention these days because no small number of them go out of their way to attract and invite it. I would have much preferred to let drag queens do their thing in adult venues. We live in a pluralistic society, after all. But then came the use of these shows to sexualize and groom children. Well, that's quite problematic. I think it is very much your side of the debate that is moving heaven and earth to make trans issues a source for daily discussion and debate and news. There's Lili Tino. And Lia Thomas. And Imane Khelif, Laurel Hubbard, Fallon Fox, etc. The whole "men in women's sports" thing. And Dylan Mulvaney and his grotesque caricature of womanhood. And Jessica Yaniv (Jonathan Yaniv) and his various efforts to use the power of the State to coerce estheticians to wax his genitals. And lots and lots of news stories about teachers appropriating their influence over and proximity to children to teach controversial and contested claims about trans issues. And the lawsuits. United States v. Skrmetti (2025) — Upheld Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors with gender dysphoria. 6–3 decision; Court applied rational-basis review and rejected heightened scrutiny arguments. West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox (June 2026) — Upheld state laws (West Virginia and Idaho) barring transgender-identifying males from girls’/women’s school sports teams. Court held the bans do not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX Trans folks are going out of their way to attract attention in one way or another, and the media and social media accentuate and amplify it, and now people are paying attention and finding some things about the trans movement to be problematic: Tavistock GIDS (UK): The Gender Identity Development Service was shut down after the Cass Review found weak evidence for puberty blockers/hormones, poor data collection, and a rushed affirmative model. Multiple clinicians and whistleblowers raised concerns about inadequate assessment and social contagion factors. WPATH Files / internal documents: Leaked files and the “WPATH Files” (and later SOC8-related materials) showed members acknowledging weak evidence, high rates of comorbidities (autism, trauma, mental illness), inability of many minors to consent, and pressure to affirm rather than explore underlying issues. Critics describe this as institutional capture and suppression of dissent. Medicalization of minors: Rapid rise in youth referrals (especially adolescent females), use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries with limited long-term evidence of net benefit and known risks (infertility, sexual dysfunction, bone density loss, cardiovascular effects). European countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway, England) sharply restricted these interventions after systematic reviews. Desistance and detransition: Historical data showed most childhood gender dysphoria resolved by adulthood without transition; modern “affirmative” approaches and social transition may lock in identity. Growing numbers of detransitioners report inadequate exploration of trauma, autism, or same-sex attraction, plus medical regret. Social contagion / rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD): Hypothesis (Lisa Littman and others) that peer groups, social media, and online communities drive sudden-onset cases in adolescents, particularly girls. Heavily contested but supported by referral pattern shifts and parent reports. Sports, prisons, and single-sex spaces: Biological males identifying as women competing in female categories, accessing women’s shelters/prisons, and using female facilities — raising fairness, safety, and privacy concerns. Multiple high-profile cases and policy reversals. Suppression of debate and research: Clinicians, researchers, and journalists (e.g., SEGM, Genspect, Cass-associated figures) facing professional retaliation, deplatforming, or loss of funding for questioning the affirmative model. Some journals and medical bodies accused of prioritizing activism over evidence. And on and on. The claim that “nothing is new, wrong, or dangerous” and that this is merely about “letting people choose their own toilets” misstates both the history and the stakes. What is new is the formal demand that sex is irrelevant and that self-declared identity must override it. For decades, restrooms were sex-segregated by near-universal social norm and expectation. People who presented ambiguously or who quietly used the facility that matched their appearance were rarely the subject of a political campaign to redefine the categories themselves. The shift came when activists and institutions began insisting that biological males who identify as women must be treated as women for access purposes, and that any sex-based boundary is illegitimate. That change is not neutral. Single-sex spaces exist because of material differences between the sexes—privacy, safety, and the documented pattern of male-pattern criminality and voyeurism. Removing the sex criterion and replacing it with an unverifiable internal state eliminates the limiting principle. Once access is based on self-identification, any male can claim entry. Evidence from prisons, shelters, sports, and multiple documented incidents shows this is not a theoretical concern. Calling enforcement of longstanding sex-based rules “the heavy hand of government” inverts the situation. The government (and institutions) is being asked to compel people to share intimate spaces on the basis of identity rather than sex. Defending the original organizing principle—sex—is not novel interference; abandoning it is the novelty. Edge cases and polite individual exceptions never required rewriting the rule for everyone. Thanks, -Smac

Lily Tino is not right wing. Tavistock clinic. Children undergoing radical and permanent and ill advised medical procedures. WPATH's shenanigans. And on and on.

I hadn’t seen that specific February 2025 Williams Institute brief circulated in this thread yet. It appears it is essentially an update and reframing of their earlier 2018 Massachusetts study (and related work). The core claim is familiar: they find no statistically significant increase in reported safety or privacy crimes in restrooms/locker rooms after gender-identity inclusive public-accommodations policies, and they emphasize that transgender people report higher rates of harassment or denial when required to use facilities matching their sex. The article is real and has been public since early 2025. It does not resolve the underlying disagreement about whether sex remains a legitimate basis for single-sex spaces. It measures a narrow set of outcomes under a particular set of assumptions. Thanks, -Smac

Someone else refusing to accept appearance as a meaningful limiting principle does not mean a meaningful limiting principle has not been articulated, imo. By "meaningful" I mean workable and enforceable in the real world. The State gets to arbitrarily decide who does and does not "look" enough like a woman to enter bathrooms? Using what criteria? Also, @Analytics preferred policy is not based on "appearance," but by the individual's choice. There is no limiting principle there, "meaningful" or otherwise. Physical appearance as a limiting principle A) is statutorily - and perhaps constitutionally - unworkable, B) will never be accepted as sufficient because such a policy "discriminates" against, and is even bigoted and hateful towards, "trans women" who have not socially/medically transitioned, or not transitioned enough, and causes them "harm," "denies their existence," and so on, and C) will still result in the de jure or de facto eradication of sex-segregated spaces, or nearly so. Thanks, -Smac

There is no evidence that the laissez fair stopped working I'm not sure about that. Under your policy, sex-segregated bathrooms would be eliminating, since anyone could go into them. Safety is not the only concern. And the management of the City of Minneapolis is not really a bragging point. The claim that nothing changed except “conservative grievance” is not accurate. What changed is the formal assertion—and the institutional adoption—of a new rule: that sex is irrelevant and that self-identified gender must determine access to spaces segregated by sex. For decades, the background expectation in Kansas (and everywhere else) was that restrooms were segregated by sex. People who presented in a way that made their sex ambiguous or who quietly used the facility that matched their appearance were not the subject of a legal or cultural campaign to redefine the categories themselves. What is new is the demand that biological males who identify as women must be treated as women for purposes of restroom access, and that any refusal to do so is illegitimate. That demand was accompanied by policy changes, institutional guidance, and activism that treated sex-based boundaries as discriminatory. The resulting conflicts—males in female spaces, the erosion of sex-based rules in schools, prisons, shelters, and sports—are what produced the legislative response. Pointing to earlier decades of low-profile cases does not prove that sex-based rules were always optional. It shows that shared norms about sex made formal enforcement largely unnecessary. Once those norms were openly rejected and replaced with identity-based access, the prior informal arrangement no longer held. The laws have been responding to that change, not the other way around. Thanks, -Smac

My comments started because Analytics said we would still be able to prosecute such cases. And I just don't see how. It seems like these crimes could be prosecuted like any other crime, with law enforcement and prosecutors gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and so on. Yes. "Nefarious" can be a legitimate concern. There are others. From a prior post: In a women’s prison, is the purpose defeated only after a certain number of male-bodied people are housed there, or after a single assault, or after female inmates report that they no longer feel safe, or after they express a desire for privacy from biological males? In elite women’s sports, are there any other legitimate "purposes" in addition to competitive advantages (of biological males)? Safety? Privacy? In a domestic-violence shelter, is the purpose defeated when women stop using the shelter, or only when a formal incident is documented? What is the purpose of a women’s bathroom or locker room? Is it solely about toilets and sinks, or does it also include privacy, dignity, and the expectation of not undressing or performing intimate functions in the presence of biological males? Under the “doesn’t defeat the purpose” test, how would we know when that purpose has been defeated? Does it require a documented incident of voyeurism, assault, or exposure? Or is the loss of perceived safety and privacy by female users enough? Should the women who feel uncomfortable, or unsafe, or who want privacy from biological males, be required to provide evidence of harm before the boundary can be enforced? If so, what form of evidence is sufficient? Once access to a facility is opened on the basis of self-identification, how is the line drawn for the next person who identifies as a woman? Is there a limiting point, or does each case simply get evaluated after the fact for whether harm occurred? AFAICS, nobody has tried to answer any of these questions. I'm not sure there is a requirement for "more proof." However, I think the issue is whether the State can/ought enact measures to preserve sex-segregated spaces, and what those measures are, and whether those measures are workable and constitutionally sufficient. I think the part that gives me the most pause is the overarching lack of concern about - or event the wholesale elimination of - sex-segregated spaces, and the substantial number of women who want, for a variety of reasons (not just safety), to have such spaces in our society, the ongoing refusal to articulate any meaningful limiting principles, and so on. They were never fully safe, but they will become markedly less so if we as a society implement policies which have the de jure and/or de facto effect of eliminating such spaces. Thanks, -Smac

From a prior post: "Treating dissent as 'harm.' Framing disagreement about sex-based rules as inherently bigoted or dangerous, which short-circuits substantive debate about trade-offs and consequences." This seems to be what you are doing. I would like to see where I said a trans person "passing" is "on par with {a trans person} committing rape." Thanks, -Smac

I do not know what you are referencing here. Could you provide a link to where I did this? I don't think this. Thanks, -Smac