SCOTUS Decision: Ban on "Talk" Conversion Therapy is Unconstitutional

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think you are approaching this entirely from only one end of the equation.

I came here to hear perspectives other than my own, so I am glad we are getting that.

59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Instead I encourage you to do a Google image search for “transmen”. Look at the variety.

I guess this goes back to my prior comments about "limiting principles," or the lack thereof.  Again, it seems like there is no "limiting principle" as to sex-segregated bathrooms if entry into them is based on subjective self-identity (rather than biological sex).

The "variety" you reference is about visual appearance, which is indeed varied.  Is visual appearance, in your view, a viable "limiting principle?"  It seems that this (visual appearance) or subjective self-identity both end up at the same place, which is no regulation at all.  Many biological males who identify as women do not "pass," especially post-puberty. The policy would either A) arbitrarily exclude some while admitting others based on aesthetics rather than any principled line, or else B) not exclude anyone for fear of "gate-keeping." Self-ID advocates reject appearance-based gatekeeping precisely because it is seen as gatekeeping.

I also sense that women are concerned about predators and opportunists who would have increased access either way to women's spaces for voyeurism, assault, filming, etc.  There are also substantial privacy concerns for women and girls.  

Which brings me back to the question of "limiting principles."  Is there one?  If so, what is it?

59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

These are people that you are saying HAVE to use the women’s restroom.  Do you think that will make cis (and transwomen) users feel more comfortable?

By "transmen" you are referring to biological females, correct?

Assuming you disagree with biological sex as the delineating/limiting principle re: access to women's bathrooms, what alternative principle would you propose?  

59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Huge muscled guys. Big bearded guys with potbellies. They are biologically female. AFAB. Should they be in the women’s restroom and the women’s locker room? Is this the lane you want to be in? This is what you are advocating for.

Yes, there are difficulties no matter which way we go.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, there are difficulties no matter which way we go.

 

Indeed.  Thank you for stating this .  No one wins here. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Huge muscled guys. Big bearded guys with potbellies. They are biologically female. AFAB. Should they be in the women’s restroom and the women’s locker room? Is this the lane you want to be in? This is what you are advocating for.

Yes, there are difficulties no matter which way we go.

Thanks,

Since you are super concerned about limiting principles, what’s your here? You propose that passable men (AFAB) use women’s bathrooms. Men with beards and muscles. Forced to use women’s bathrooms. What’s your limiting principle to prevent these people from being harassed in the women’s bathroom? What’s the enforcement mechanism? Do we need DNA tests to use the bathroom? Bathroom guards that check state issued ID? See from my end that world looks way worse and more complicated than mine where people just go by how they present. 

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Since you are super concerned about limiting principles, what’s your here?

I am re-evaluating my perspective on this topic, and am attempting to do so in ways that improve on my prior communications.  See here:

Quote

I would like to see more substantive and reasoned and civil discussion about gender dysphoria and how we as a society should address it.  Before we do that, however, I think we need to take a few steps back from the Culture Wars and reassess where we are and how the discussion should proceed.

I've been reading an excellent book, Habits of a Peacemaker by Steven T. Collis, that is causing me to fundamentally alter how I approach such matters and how I discuss them.  Here's a brief outline of the book:
...

I am finding myself lacking in a number of these habits, and so have started to work on them.

Gender dysphoria seems to be a topic about which people who are talking about it have already reached strongly-held conclusions, and so state them at the beginning of conversations as thought they (the conclusions) are The Facts, The Way Things Are.

I would like to change that for myself.  Part of Habit One: "We must reframe conversations from 'winning' to 'solving a shared problem.'"  I have found this to be quite a challenge for myself regarding the controversial aspects of this topic.

I am not saying I don't have an opinion on these matters, but I am attempting to re-evaluate that opinion using the Collis book as a framework.

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You propose that passable men (AFAB) use women’s bathrooms.

Actually, I'm not proposing this, nor anything else.  I am, instead, attempting to better understand perspectives that vary from mine, and do so by asking questions, such as this exchange with Daniel:

Quote

Quote

• I also find it puzzling in the sense that most transgender individuals I know (which is likely more than most--not because I'm gay, but because my workplace is VERY progressive and openly promotes itself as a safe-space for everyone, regardless of religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.) have fully or mostly transitioned, and would CLEARLY be out-of-place if they ended up having to use the bathroom of their gender at birth.

One concern I have seen, and find relevant, is about what could be termed a "lack of limiting principle," that is, it seems like there is no "limiting principle" as to sex-segregated bathrooms if, as you propose, entry into them is based on subjective self-identity (rather than biological sex).  Is there any such principle in your view?  Or do you think we should abolish sex-segregated bathrooms?

I am not trying to maneuver Daniel, or Nehor, or you into answering these questions in an adversarial or "gotcha" kind of way.  I am instead trying to apply Habits One, Two and Three from the Collis book:

Quote

Habit One:
Intellectual Humility and Reframing

Core Idea: Most of us know far less than we think we do (Dunning-Kruger effect). Recognizing our ignorance is the foundation of peacemaking. We must reframe conversations from “winning” to “solving a shared problem.”

Habit Two:
Seek Real Learning

Core Idea: We generate knowledge collectively through dialogue, evidence, criticism, and revision—not in isolation or echo chambers. Peacemakers actively seek accurate information and resist manipulation by dopamine-driven platforms, foreign actors, and heuristics.

Habit Three:
Assume the Best About People

Core Idea: Default to assuming good faith and moral luck in others’ lives. This reduces defensiveness and opens the door to understanding rather than condemnation.

"We must reframe conversations from 'winning' to 'solving a shared problem.'"

Biological men in women's spaces is, I think, a "shared problem" because of its controversy.  "Winning" is not my objective, both because I am attempting to turn over a new leaf, and also because there is no such thing as "winning" in an online forum like this one.  So I'm trying to explore the "solving a shared problem" approach.

You and Nehor (not sure about Daniel) are apparently in favor of trans women (biological men) in women's spaces, so I am attempting, per Habit Two, to "actively seek accurate information and resist manipulation."  I want to hear what you and Nehor and others have to say.  Not to "win," but to help me to better understand your perspective and to re-assess mine.

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Men with beards and muscles. Forced to use women’s bathrooms.

Yes, I can see the problem when framed this way.  I can also see it from women's perspectives "Women forced to use bathrooms and changing rooms with biological men present."  Both sides are making a fair point.

Are we at an impasse?  Or can the discussion continue?  If the latter, then what questions ought we be asking?  If the one about "limiting principles" (posed to Daniel above) appropriate?  

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What’s your limiting principle to prevent these people from being harassed in the women’s bathroom?

I don't want anyone to be harassed.  And any "limiting principle" would be one implemented by a legislature or civil body, not by me.

In the past, the "limiting principle" was, it seems, based on biological sex.  Is subjective self-identity a better limiting principle?  Physical appearance?  Or do we just abolish sex-segregated bathrooms altogether?  I'm interested in hearing what you have to say and your reasoning for it.

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What’s the enforcement mechanism?

To segregation based on sex?  I'm not sure I understand your question.  Law enforcement, I suppose. Bathroom segregation by biological sex has been the default in the U.S. (and most societies) for a long time. Enforcement is not primarily by police or genital checks at the door. It relies on, I think, three layered and practical mechanisms (from Grok) :

Quote

• Clear, Objective Signage + Property Rights Doors are labeled “Men” or “Women” based on biological sex. The property owner (business, school, government building, etc.) has the legal right to set and enforce rules for who may use which facility. This is the same authority that allows restaurants to exclude shirtless people, shoes-off policies, or age-restricted areas.
• Social Norms and Self-Enforcement The overwhelming majority of people voluntarily comply with the signs. Women and girls (and parents) routinely notice and challenge obvious biological males. This social norm is highly effective precisely because biological sex is binary and observable in the vast majority of cases.
• Complaint-Driven / Case-by-Case Response When a biological male enters the women’s facility, other users complain to management/security. Management then enforces the rule (ask the person to leave, escort them out, or call law enforcement if they refuse). In schools, prisons, shelters, and workplaces, administrators apply the biological-sex rule using existing records (birth certificate, school records, medical history, or observable anatomy if a genuine dispute arises). No widespread policy requires invasive inspections; enforcement is reactive and based on clear evidence when needed.

Why Biological Sex Is Enforceable (While “Looks Like a Woman” Is Not)

• Objective and verifiable — Biological sex is determined at birth by reproductive anatomy, chromosomes, or gametes. It is binary and stable. Records (birth certificate, driver’s license sex marker, medical history) provide a clear line.
• Tied directly to the justification — The policy exists to protect female safety (male-pattern strength and sexual offending rates do not change with appearance) and privacy (avoiding exposure to opposite-sex bodies/genitalia).
• Low administrative burden — 99.9+% of cases are obvious and self-enforcing. Rare disputes are handled individually without new bureaucracy.

“Visual appearance” fails every one of those tests: it is subjective, invites endless disputes (“But I look like a woman!”), does nothing to mitigate male-pattern risks, and cannot be applied consistently.

Real-World Precedents

States and localities that have maintained or returned to biological-sex bathroom policies (e.g., after repealing self-ID laws) use exactly the mechanisms above. Schools, prisons, and shelters apply the biological-sex rule using existing documentation or observable sex. Complaints are investigated case-by-case; no jurisdiction has implemented “bathroom police” checking genitals at the door.

Bottom line: The enforcement mechanism for biological-sex bathroom segregation is straightforward, low-cost, and effective: objective signage + property-owner authority + complaint-driven response + social norms.

It works because the rule is clear and rooted in immutable biology, not aesthetics. “If they look like a woman” is not a limiting principle — it is an unenforceable invitation to chaos.

But before we discuss enforcement of the rule, I would like to better understand what the rule is or ought to be.  

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Do we need DNA tests to use the bathroom? Bathroom guards that check state issued ID? See from my end that world looks way worse and more complicated than mine where people just go by how they present. 

I appreciate that, but that brings us back to the "limiting principle" question.  The Grok summary above presents some interesting concepts.  Which parts of it, if any, do you find objectionable?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Women and girls (and parents) routinely notice and challenge obvious biological males.

This part. This is the correct limiting principle. You want “ obvious” males to use women’s bathroom. I do not. I’m not sure what’s wrong with this standard. In my system people use the restroom that matches their gender presentation. In your system obvious men are forced into women’s spaces and vice versa. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This part. This is the correct limiting principle. You want “ obvious” males to use women’s bathroom. I do not. I’m not sure what’s wrong with this standard. In my system people use the restroom that matches their gender presentation. In your system obvious men are forced into women’s spaces and vice versa. 

Edited to add, the law (as far as I can tell) is replete with ambiguity. What’s a “reasonable” person. What’s “cruel” punishment. If you have to for some reason legislate bathrooms beyond preventing harassment and assault, why not pass a “reasonable” effort to pass as the gender of your choice? What’s the problem here? The threat that trans men pose to biological women is so far down the list of problems in a society that elected a civilly liable rapist as president (one that openly bragged about invading women’s dressing rooms to ogle women) that this whole side show full of pearl clutchers is just absurdly laughable to me.

Edited April 22 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, I'm not proposing this, nor anything else. 

Good, because with a law requiring trans men  to use women’s public bathrooms no matter how transitioned they are, women will still have to guess whether that individual who looks like a biological male and who even has a penis has a legal right or not to be in that bathroom or locker room.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Women and girls (and parents) routinely notice and challenge obvious biological males.

This part. This is the correct limiting principle.

Okay.  What are your thoughts about the other parts?

Quote

Bottom line: The enforcement mechanism for biological-sex bathroom segregation is straightforward, low-cost, and effective: objective signage + property-owner authority + complaint-driven response + social norms.

Also, what happens if the law does not exclude "biological males" from women's bathrooms?  

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You want “obvious” males to use women’s bathroom. I do not.

This is not an accurate statement of my position.

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m not sure what’s wrong with this standard. In my system people use the restroom that matches their gender presentation. In your system obvious men are forced into women’s spaces and vice versa. 

Are the "obvious men" here biological women?

Are the "obvious{wo}men" here biological men?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Good, because with a law requiring trans men  to use women’s public bathrooms no matter how transitioned they are, women will still have to guess whether that individual who looks like a biological male and who even has a penis has a legal right or not to be in that bathroom or locker room.

Do you have any thoughts about the "limiting principle" issue I have raised?

Also, what do you think of this "enforcement mechanism"?

Quote

Bottom line: The enforcement mechanism for biological-sex bathroom segregation is straightforward, low-cost, and effective: objective signage + property-owner authority + complaint-driven response + social norms.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

I want to see that stats that show we needed the laws in the first place, that this isn’t a cause looking for a problem before I see the need to start figuring out a new limiting principle. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

both because I am attempting to turn over a new leaf,

I missed this but will assume this is true and moderate accordingly. 
 

Any restriction based on biological sex is inherently problematic. No one without being completely invasive has access to what someone else’s biological sex is. All that normal people in society have access to is how someone presents themselves. That’s it. And gender presentation is a continuous spectrum and heavily culturally influenced.  When I meet someone I instinctively categorize them as male or female, but there are many times I genuinely don’t know.  Add to this, some people intentionally present their gender as opposite of their biological sex. That’s life and that’s the society we live in. We have no access to any strangers biological sex. Any law that bases bathroom access on biological sex is inherently problematic because it will inherently rely on how people “appear” which doesn’t map onto  biological sex for many individuals - subjecting them to continued harassment.
 

In an ideal world people go into bathrooms to pee, poop and wash their hands free of harassment. I see no problems letting people use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity as long as they don’t bother anyone. I really don’t see a need to think beyond that point? What’s the problem?

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I want to see that stats that show we needed the laws in the first place, that this isn’t a cause looking for a problem before I see the need to start figuring out a new limiting principle. 

From Grok:

Quote

Regarding the "limiting principle" thing, did we previously have laws that prohibited biological men in women's spaces and vice versa? Or was this just a custom/expectation?

Yes, the U.S. (and virtually every other society) had long-standing laws, regulations, and policies that segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, shelters, prisons, and similar spaces by biological sex. It was far more than mere "custom" or social expectation — it was the official, enforceable standard.

Historical Legal Framework

• Federal level: Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (and its implementing regulations) explicitly permitted and assumed sex-segregated facilities in schools and educational programs. The Department of Education and courts interpreted "sex" as biological sex for decades. Similar assumptions applied under the Civil Rights Act and other federal statutes governing public accommodations.
• State and local laws: Most states and municipalities had building codes, health codes, and public accommodation statutes that required separate toilet facilities for males and females in public buildings, schools, workplaces, restaurants, etc. These were typically phrased as "men" and "women" or "male" and "female," with the plain meaning being biological sex. Examples include:
  • California, New York, Texas, Florida, and dozens of other states had explicit regulations requiring sex-segregated restrooms in schools, prisons, and public facilities.
  • Many states had "indecent exposure" or "disorderly conduct" statutes that were routinely used to enforce boundaries when a biological male entered a women's facility.
• Prisons, shelters, and sports: State departments of corrections and shelters operated on strict biological-sex separation for safety reasons. Sports governing bodies (high school, college, Olympic) used biological sex as the dividing line.

This framework existed for well over a century — long before the modern transgender movement — and was rooted in protecting female privacy, modesty, and physical safety from male-pattern strength and sexual offending risks.

Enforcement Was Routine and Effective

• No widespread "bathroom police," but clear, objective rules: Signs said "Women" or "Men." Property owners (schools, businesses, governments) had the legal right to exclude people of the opposite sex.
• Violations were handled through trespass, disorderly conduct, or specific facility rules. Staff, security, or other users would intervene when a biological male entered the women's area (or vice versa).
• Courts consistently upheld sex-segregated facilities as constitutional and reasonable until the self-ID policy shift in the 2010s.

When Did It Change?

The shift away from biological sex to "gender identity" or self-ID is extremely recent:

• Pre-2010: Essentially zero jurisdictions had policies allowing biological males into women's facilities as a matter of right.
• 2010s onward: A handful of states and cities (and Obama-era federal guidance under Title IX) began adopting self-ID policies. Many of these have since been rolled back or struck down in court (e.g., after the Cass Review in the UK and growing evidence of safety issues).

Bottom Line

Biological-sex segregation of bathrooms and similar spaces was not just a vague custom — it was the codified, enforceable public policy of the United States for generations. It was reflected in statutes, building codes, school policies, prison regulations, and common-law property rights. The "limiting principle" was always observable biological sex, not subjective feelings or appearance.

"Visual appearance" or self-ID never functioned as the rule. The recent experiment with self-ID is the departure from the historical norm — not the other way around.

If you'd like specific examples of statutes from particular states or court cases upholding biological-sex segregation, I can provide them.

I think the issue of biological males going into women's spaces is a dispute of very recent derivation.  Do you disagree?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Also, what do you think of this "enforcement mechanism"?

Quote

Bottom line: The enforcement mechanism for biological-sex bathroom segregation is straightforward, low-cost, and effective: objective signage + property-owner authority + complaint-driven response + social norms.

Complaint driven response is based on gender presentation not biological sex. Until you get around that it’s a nonstarter. Social norms and bathrooms are also around gender presentation not biological sex. Until you get around that it’s a non-starter.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Complaint driven response is based on gender presentation not biological sex. Until you get around that it’s a nonstarter. Social norms and bathrooms are also around gender presentation not biological sex. Until you get around that it’s a non-starter.

This…Seeking is presenting what I think better than I am, so I will leave it to him for now. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are the "obvious men" here biological women?

Are the "obvious{wo}men" here biological men?

 

How the &$@? am I supposed to know? I’m not a pervert lol. But seriously how is anyone supposed to know what another persons dna looks like? All I can go off is how they look to me. And I’ve seen many “obvious” women that claim to be have been male at birth. And I’ve seen many “obvious” men who claim to have been female at birth. 
 

On a personal note, my Aunt is a trans woman. I still see her as male sometimes in photos. But I asked an older coworker onetime if my Aunt or mother was more attractive and he ( a heterosexual male) said my aunt was better looking. Do you see the problem?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

think the issue of biological males going into women's spaces is a dispute of very recent derivation.  Do you disagree?

It’s a wedge issue propped up recently by the rich and powerful to win elections. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I missed this but will assume this is true and moderate accordingly. 

Thank you.  

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Any restriction based on biological sex is inherently problematic.  No one without being completely invasive has access to what someone else’s biological sex is. All that normal people in society have access to is how someone presents themselves. That’s it. And gender presentation is a continuous spectrum and heavily culturally influenced.  When I meet someone I instinctively categorize them as male or female, but there are many times I genuinely don’t know.  Add to this, some people intentionally present their gender as opposite of their biological sex. That’s life and that’s the society we live in. We have no access to any strangers biological sex. Any law that bases bathroom access on biological sex is inherently problematic because it will inherently rely on how people “appear” which doesn’t map onto  biological sex for many individuals - subjecting them to continued harassment.

I appreciate you laying this out clearly — I can see you’re genuinely trying to find a fair way to let people use the bathroom without harassment or tension. That is a goal we both share.

I agree that most of us instinctively categorize people by how they present, and that presentation exists on a spectrum influenced by culture and personal style. I also get why you arre concerned that a biological-sex rule could lead to awkward situations or harassment for people who don’t “look” like their birth sex.

Here’s where I see the limiting principle differently. The reason we have sex-segregated bathrooms (and why they’ve been the norm for over a century) isn’t based on “how someone looks.” It’s based on the objective, observable reality of biological sex — the same reality that determines physical strength differences, crime patterns, and the need for privacy from the opposite sex in vulnerable spaces.

In practice, we have never needed invasive checks at the door. The rule has always been enforced through:

• Clear signage (“Women” / “Men”)
• Property owners’ right to set and enforce reasonable rules
• Social norms and complaint-driven response when someone clearly of the opposite sex enters

That system worked for generations without the seemingly constant conflict we are seeing now (though perhaps more in discussion than in reality). Basing the rule on “gender presentation” or “how someone looks” would seem to create the very subjectivity and enforcement problems you are worried about — because appearance is in the eye of the beholder, and predators have already used that ambiguity to gain access.

The data on male-pattern violence and sexual offending doesn’t change based on clothing, makeup, or self-identification. That’s why, I think, biological sex has been the consistent, workable limiting principle. It protects the safety and privacy of women and girls (and, frankly, gives everyone clearer boundaries) without requiring anyone to police appearances.

Nevertheless, I am trying to understand perspectives that disagree with the foregoing assessment.  Nobody deserves to be harassed.  The solution should not require us to pretend biological sex does not exist or that presentation is a reliable proxy for it. Single-occupancy options, family bathrooms, or third spaces seem like a much more compassionate way to accommodate everyone without compromising the original purpose of sex-segregated facilities.

Curious to hear your thoughts on that. What do you think is the strongest reason a presentation-based rule would actually protect privacy and safety better than a sex-based one?

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In an ideal world people go into bathrooms to pee, poop and wash their hands free of harassment. I see no problems letting people use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity as long as they don’t bother anyone. I really don’t see a need to think beyond that point? What’s the problem?

I agree that in an ideal world, bathrooms should just be places where people can pee, poop, and wash their hands in peace, without any harassment or fear. That’s a goal we both share.

The reason I think we do need to think beyond “as long as they don’t bother anyone” is that the rule itself shapes what counts as normal and expected in those spaces. When access is based on gender identity rather than biological sex, it removes the clear, objective boundary that has protected women’s and girls’ privacy and safety for generations. 

I think privacy and safety are the principal problems with abolishing sex-segregated bathrooms.  Further, even if the vast majority of people using the bathroom aligned with their gender identity have no ill intent, the policy still creates real problems:

• It gives any biological male (including those with bad intentions) easy access to women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, or changing areas simply by claiming a female identity. We’ve already seen documented cases of voyeurism, filming, and assaults in women’s facilities after self-ID policies went into effect.  This is part of why I have been asking about "limiting principles."
• For many women and girls, the mere presence of a biological male in that intimate space feels violating.  Privacy isn’t just about behavior in the moment; it’s about not being exposed to the opposite sex while undressed or vulnerable.
• “Don’t bother anyone” puts the burden on women and girls to decide whether someone is crossing the line in a private space. That’s the kind of subjective judgment that clear sex-based rules helped avoid.

Biological sex has been the limiting principle because it’s objective, verifiable, and directly tied to the reasons we segregate these spaces in the first place (physical differences and the need for privacy from the opposite sex). The argument in view is that "gender identity" or "presentation" is too subjective to serve as a reliable safeguard.  That is obviously the perspective I hold, but I am not seeking to advance it right now.  I am, instead, trying to better understand contrary points of view.

I am not against treating people with dignity or finding compassionate solutions. The challenge here is that one solution (eliminating sex-segregated spaces) solves one person’s discomfort by creating discomfort, risk, and loss of privacy for others (women and girls) in spaces that were designed to protect them.

What are your thoughts about single-occupancy bathrooms or third spaces?  Are they a better way to accommodate everyone without compromising those protections? 

Or do you think those protections are not worth maintaining?

What do you see as the strongest safeguard if we base bathroom access on gender identity instead of biological sex?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

. I also get why you arre concerned that a biological-sex rule could lead to awkward situations or harassment for people who don’t “look” like their birth sex.

Out of curiosity, why is “look” in quotes? Not challenging, trying to understand what you are trying to convey since it appears you mean something different than simple appearance.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This part. This is the correct limiting principle. You want “ obvious” males to use women’s bathroom. I do not. I’m not sure what’s wrong with this standard. In my system people use the restroom that matches their gender presentation. In your system obvious men are forced into women’s spaces and vice versa. 

I thought he was saying the opposite.  That he's speaking about obvious males that are trans women using women's private spaces.  But I could be misunderstanding the statement.

[Daniel2]

Just wanted to pop in and apologize for my lack of response in this thread, especially to Smac.  I don't have the time I once did to post, other than the other day when I had some down time and randomly checked in and posted a few times in this post. I simply don't have time to review and answer lengthy posts posing questions sentence-by-sentence. 

I really appreciate the recommendation of "Habits of a Peacemaker," Smac.  I continue to listen to it via Audible when commuting to/from work and other travel times in my car. I'm really enjoying it and hope to adopt many of its principles in my own communication styles in both written and verbal forms in all aspects of my life. 

My views very much echo SeekingUnderstanding's posts on this page, above. SU, thank you for articulating that transmen and transwomen are not threats in bathrooms.  This issue actually isn't based on biological sex (no one, ever, to my knowledge, has to 'prove' their biological sex to enter a bathroom, in the US).  It also seems to me that any recent complaints are actually based on perception of gender, not actual 'biological gender' (which I think is a too-simple reduction of the issue, anyway).  There's no need to change anything as far as how it's been done the last 50 years of my life: gendered bathrooms are fine, gender-neutral/single-use bathrooms are almost universally available for those that prefer to use them, and patrons using bathrooms can choose which bathrooms they use based on their own gender identity, with no one having to prove otherwise. I also agree this issue, and the attention around it, has been almost entirely driven by a political agenda by those on the right to drive people to support their political agenda.  Lastly, it seems to me that this whole controversy ignores the biological reality of intersex people--gender is NOT limited to male vs. female, regardless of any personal belief system that refuses to acknowledge that reality. 

I realize the above 'info dump/summary' doesn't comport with the habits outlined in "Habits of a Peacemaker"--but since my time was limited, I wanted to at least explain my lack of response and at least summarize my views, since I just don't have time to respond point-by-point. 

Thanks everyone for the good conversation--I'll continue to chime in as/when I'm able.

Daniel

[smac97]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Women and girls (and parents) routinely notice and challenge obvious biological males.

This part. This is the correct limiting principle. You want “ obvious” males to use women’s bathroom. I do not. I’m not sure what’s wrong with this standard. In my system people use the restroom that matches their gender presentation. In your system obvious men are forced into women’s spaces and vice versa. 

In your system obvious men are forced into women’s spaces and vice versa. 

Are the "obvious men" here biological women?

Are the "obvious{wo}men" here biological men?

How the &$@? am I supposed to know? I’m not a pervert lol.

I am trying to understand your statement.  I am presently not trying to advance any "system," but to understand alternative perspectives to my own.  

I noted: "Women and girls (and parents) routinely notice and challenge obvious biological males {in women's bathrooms}."

You responded: "This is the correct limiting principle. You want 'obvious' males to use women’s bathroom. I do not."

You omitted an important, even essential, word in my statement: "biological."

So when you say "In your system obvious men are forced into women’s spaces and vice versa," whom are you describing with your reference to "obvious men?"  I was referring to "obvious biological males."  Are you doing the same?

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But seriously how is anyone supposed to know what another persons dna looks like?

I think the normative system has been more or less along these lines:

Quote

Bottom line: The enforcement mechanism for biological-sex bathroom segregation is straightforward, low-cost, and effective: objective signage + property-owner authority + complaint-driven response + social norms.

"Objective signage" would put the onus on the individual (who would know his or her biological sex) to enter into the correct bathroom.

"Complaint-driven response" would, in virtually all circumstances, not require examination of DNA because in almost all circumstances, people of normative intelligence and experience can identify an "obvious biological male" by physical appearance, visible secondary sex characteristics, and so on.  An example:

Now, this person might be a biological woman who has undergone extensive medical procedures to make herself look like a man.  Or this person may just be a biological male.  I assume we are in agreement on that?  

This video is interesting:

This person, the one with stubble and a receding hairline, states that he is a "trans woman," that is a biological male.  So there is, I think, no question about his biological sex.  But if we were to nevertheless take a poll and ask 1,000 people to guess if this person is a biological male, I think 99+% would say "yes."  And they would be correct.  There is no need for Person A to know what Person B's "dna looks like" because biological sex is, in virtually all circumstances, obvious and clear.

Now, the video also shows a clip of a well-known trans woman named Blair White who is commenting on the above person:

I am not denying that some biological males can dress and act in such a way as to give the impression that they are women, and lead others to surmise that they are (biological) women.  Blair White is a good example of this.  That surmise would be in error, correct?

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

All I can go off is how they look to me.

The vast majority of the the time, "how they look" yields an accurate assessment of a person's biological sex.  Would you agree with that?

See, e.g., this article: Sex perception from facial structure: Categorization with and without skin texture and color

Quote

Sex identification of faces without any cultural or conventional sex cue is primarily based on two independent components: a) shape or facial structure, and b) surface reflectance (skin texture and color). 
...
Nevertheless, among the most reliable information that a human face provides is the sex or gender of its owner. In a sociocultural context, there are several conventional signals that indicate a person’s sex through their faces, such as hairstyle, facial hair, clothing (hat, bonne), accessories, makeup, etc. However, research shows that even when all these traditional cues are removed, people are still able to identify sex with 96–98 % accuracy from facial stimuli (Bruce et al., 1993, Bruce et al., 1987, Sæther et al., 2009).

Perceiving Sex Directly and Indirectly: The Role of Body Motion and Morphology in Sex Categorization

Key finding: Body shape cues (shoulder-to-hip ratio, waist-to-hip ratio) alone allow correct sex categorization at rates well above 90% (according to Grok, as I could not access the article directly).

I would like to better understand if this proposition - that an individual's biological sex is overwhelmingly clear to most people based on apparent visual indicators - is in dispute.  What are your thoughts about that?

Again, I am not trying to advance my perspective, but to better understand yours.

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And I’ve seen many “obvious” women that claim to be have been male at birth. And I’ve seen many “obvious” men who claim to have been female at birth. 

Okay.  But again, I did not say "'obvious' men." 

I said: "Women and girls (and parents) routinely notice and challenge obvious biological males {in women's bathrooms}."

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

On a personal note, my Aunt is a trans woman. I still see her as male sometimes in photos.

I appreciate you sharing this, as you have a few times before.  I recognize that this might create a strong personal investment in this topic for you, and I am working to respect and acknowledge that.

When you say "my Aunt is a trans woman," I take the implication to be that this person is a biological male who identifies as a woman.  Is that correct?

When you say "I still see her as male sometimes in photos," are you referring to this person's biological sex?

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But I asked an older coworker onetime if my Aunt or mother was more attractive and he (a heterosexual male) said my aunt was better looking. Do you see the problem?

In relation to public policy re: biological males in women's bathrooms and other spaces?  I am not sure what "problem" you are referencing.  Could you clarify?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22 by smac97

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

This part. This is the correct limiting principle. You want “ obvious” males to use women’s bathroom. I do not. I’m not sure what’s wrong with this standard. In my system people use the restroom that matches their gender presentation. In your system obvious men are forced into women’s spaces and vice versa. 

I thought he was saying the opposite.  That he's speaking about obvious males that are trans women using women's private spaces.  But I could be misunderstanding the statement.

You are mostly correct.  I did not say "'obvious' males."  I said "obvious biological males."

However, it might be incorrect to infer that all "biological males" found in women's bathrooms are "trans women."  See the first video in my above post, with the father of the young girl opening the door to the woman's bathroom and finding a bearded person there.  That person sure looks like a biological male, but is he a "trans woman?"  How would anyone know, given that "trans" is a wholly subjective "identity?"  

Until fairly recently, it seems like the phrase "biological male" would have been a tautology, like "canine dog" or "new innovation."  And perhaps it still is, except in discussions centering on trans issues, in which words like "man" and "male" and "woman" and "female" have been, in some quarters, re-defined to remove their biological component.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I think the issue of {allowing} biological males going into women's spaces is a dispute of very recent derivation.  Do you disagree?

It’s a wedge issue propped up recently by the rich and powerful to win elections. 

I appreciate that perspective.  What are your thoughts as to how long it has been a topic in society?  It seems to be a very new thing, just a few years old.  Am I incorrect in this perception?

As I survey discussions on this topic, it seems like quite a few women have a lot to say about it.  Some in favor (of allowing biological males in women's spaces), and some against.  Do you think it is a legitimate topic for social discussion and debate?

Thank you,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Bottom line: The enforcement mechanism for biological-sex bathroom segregation is straightforward, low-cost, and effective: objective signage + property-owner authority + complaint-driven response + social norms.

Complaint driven response is based on gender presentation not biological sex.

What percentage of the time does "gender presentation" align with "biological sex"?

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Until you get around that it’s a nonstarter.  Social norms and bathrooms are also around gender presentation not biological sex. Until you get around that it’s a non-starter.

Could you elaborate here?  Again, I am not advocating for the above enforcement mechanism, and instead provide it as my understanding of the historical status quo.  I acknowledge that we are currently have a societal debate about this stuff, but are you and I in agreement on that (re: historical status quo)?

I appreciate you pushing back on this — I can see you’re genuinely concerned about making enforcement practical and avoiding harassment for everyone. That’s a goal we both share.

You’re right that in everyday life, people often make quick judgments based on how someone presents (clothing, hair, mannerisms, etc.). That’s normal human perception. However, the reason the traditional complaint-driven response and social norms around bathrooms have worked so effectively for generations is that, for the vast majority of adults, presentation aligns very strongly with biological sex.

When there is a clear mismatch (a biological male entering the women’s bathroom), women in that space tend to notice and complain — not out of malice, but because they feel their safety or privacy is being compromised in a vulnerable area. The complaint is the trigger, but the standard being enforced has always been biological sex, not “does this person look feminine enough?”

I sense that you are in favor of shifting societal rules so that entry into women's spaces is determined by "gender identity" or "presentation."  Am I correct on that point?

If so, is there a risk that this standard, rather than solving problems associated with subjectivity, will actually increase them?  It would seem like this standard would compel everyone in society (other users, staff, property owners) to guess at someone’s internal sense of identity rather than rely on the clear, observable biological reality that these spaces were designed to accommodate.

Alternatively or additionally, wouldn't this standard have the practical effect of abolishing sex-segregated spaces altogether?

Also, I think the concern about altering the historical status quo to solve one group’s discomfort is that doing so ends up creating discomfort, risk, or loss of privacy for women and girls in spaces that were built to protect them.  I anticipate that you disagree with this sentiment, but I would like to better understand the particulars of why you disagree.  Could you lay out your reasoning here?

The "historical" system — objective signage + biological sex as the boundary + complaint-driven response — has been low-conflict and practical precisely because it uses a verifiable standard instead of a subjective one.  I am, nevertheless, trying to better understand perspectives that find this system unacceptable.

I’m curious about your view: In practice, do you think a policy based on self-identified gender identity or presentation actually creates clearer, more consistent boundaries than one based on biological sex? I’d genuinely like to hear your thoughts.

Thank you,

-Smac

I’m curious about your view: In practice, do you think a policy based on self-identified gender identity or presentation actually creates clearer, more consistent boundaries than one based on biological sex? I’d genuinely like to hear your thoughts.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I appreciate you pushing back on this — I can see you’re genuinely concerned about making enforcement practical and avoiding harassment for everyone. That’s a goal we both share.

I'm going to respond more later (if I can), but I will just remark here that your efforts in communicating in a less adversarial way are remarkable. Honestly, I tend to try and reflect the energy of the poster I respond to (as I perceive it) in online settings (a personal failing of mine), and it is a particular challenge for me in this instance due to our past interactions but I will try.