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

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

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. 

Same here.  It may well end up being a paradigm shift for me, and one that has been needed for a long time.

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

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. 

I quite agree with you here.  But this goes back to the "limiting principle" inquiry.  Assuming that the vast majority of trans women (biological males) in women's bathrooms "are not threats," is there a risk of biological males who are "threats" going into women's bathrooms?  If so, how would we propose to differentiate between the two groups?  What limiting principle would allow non-threatening biological males into women's spaces but disallow potentially threatening biological males into women's space?

Also, it seems like safety is not the only factor under consideration.  I think many (most?  even a supermajority?) of women want to have private spaces from which biological males are excluded.  Do you think that is a legitimate expectation?

My concern isn’t about trans individuals as a group — it’s about the policy of allowing biological males (regardless of identity) into women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Biological sex is the reason those spaces were segregated in the first place: to protect female privacy and safety from male-pattern physical advantages and sexual offending risks.

The proposal here, which I am evaluating, seems to be that entry into women's spaces should be based on "gender identity" and/or "presentation."  And the purpose of this proposal is to solve one group’s discomfort (that is, trans women).  However, this solution seems to compromise many women's preferences and expectations regarding privacy and safety in vulnerable spaces.

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

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.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, even when you were short on time. I appreciate the summary and the spirit in which you wrote it.

I agree that in everyday life most people simply walk into the bathroom that matches how they present, and for the vast majority of adults that presentation aligns with their biological sex. The reason sex-segregated bathrooms have been the norm for over a century isn’t because we were checking birth certificates at the door — it’s because biological sex is observable and the spaces were designed around the real, average differences between males and females (privacy, safety, and modesty).

The shift that has created the current controversy is the move from that long-standing biological-sex standard to self-identified gender identity as the deciding factor. That change is, I think, quite recent. When a biological male (regardless of "presentation") enters women’s facilities, many women and girls experience it as a loss of privacy and safety — even if that individual has no bad intent. That concern is based on biological reality and documented incidents, not politics.

DSD (intersex) conditions are real and deserve compassionate care, but they are extremely rare (roughly 0.018% of births that involve ambiguous genitalia) and don’t change the fact that sex is binary for the overwhelming majority of humans. Public policy is typically built on for the 99.98%, not the exception.

That being the case, are single-occupancy or third-space options a better way to accommodate everyone without creating new problems?  What do you think is the best way to balance those competing needs?

I’d genuinely be interested in your thoughts on that approach whenever you have time.

Thank you,

-Smac

Edited April 22 by smac97

[Senator]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Same here.  It may well end up being a paradigm shift for me, and one that has been needed for a long time.

I quite agree with you here.  But this goes back to the "limiting principle" inquiry.  Assuming that the vast majority of trans women (biological males) in women's bathrooms "are not threats," is there a risk of biological males who are "threats" going into women's bathrooms?  If so, how would we propose to differentiate between the two groups?  What limiting principle would allow non-threatening biological males into women's spaces but disallow potentially threatening biological males into women's space?

Also, it seems like safety is not the only factor under consideration.  I think many (most?  even a supermajority?) of women want to have private spaces from which biological males are excluded.  Do you think that is a legitimate expectation?

My concern isn’t about trans individuals as a group — it’s about the policy of allowing biological males (regardless of identity) into women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Biological sex is the reason those spaces were segregated in the first place: to protect female privacy and safety from male-pattern physical advantages and sexual offending risks.

The proposal here, which I am evaluating, seems to be that entry into women's spaces should be based on "gender identity" and/or "presentation."  And the purpose of this proposal is to solve one group’s discomfort (that is, trans women).  However, this solution seems to compromise many women's preferences and expectations regarding privacy and safety in vulnerable spaces.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, even when you were short on time. I appreciate the summary and the spirit in which you wrote it.

I agree that in everyday life most people simply walk into the bathroom that matches how they present, and for the vast majority of adults that presentation aligns with their biological sex. The reason sex-segregated bathrooms have been the norm for over a century isn’t because we were checking birth certificates at the door — it’s because biological sex is observable and the spaces were designed around the real, average differences between males and females (privacy, safety, and modesty).

The shift that has created the current controversy is the move from that long-standing biological-sex standard to self-identified gender identity as the deciding factor. That change is, I think, quite recent. When a biological male (regardless of "presentation") enters women’s facilities, many women and girls experience it as a loss of privacy and safety — even if that individual has no bad intent. That concern is based on biological reality and documented incidents, not politics.

Intersex conditions are real and deserve compassionate care, but they are extremely rare (roughly 0.018% of births that involve ambiguous genitalia) and don’t change the fact that sex is binary for the overwhelming majority of humans. Public policy is typically built on for the 99.98%, not the exception.

That being the case, are single-occupancy or third-space options a better way to accommodate everyone without creating new problems?  What do you think is the best way to balance those competing needs?

I’d genuinely be interested in your thoughts on that approach whenever you have time.

Thank you,

-Smac

For what its worth, I appreciate that you have taken the personal initiative to change the dynamic of the discussion.  How refreshing it is to observe a discussion and come away actually informed and my understanding broadened.

Kudos!

 

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

I quite understand.  In fact, I would not be surprised if you suspected that my change in tone and approach, being both abrupt and substantial, is pretextual or a ruse or something.  That is why I cited the book.  It has been a catalyst for me (along with numerous discussions with my wife, with whom I have been reading the book).  Leaders of the Church have often spoken of being "peacemakers."  My Patriarchal Blessing speaks of it.  But twenty+ years of litigation has created some default habits that are sufficiently - as you put it - "adversarial" as to keep "peacemaking" at a distance. 

I can only declare my intentions.  Time will tell if those intentions - of striving to be a peacemaker - are borne out.  The Hollis book is providing a solid framework, but I still need to utilize it.  I am working on that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

Thanks.  I really am trying to turn over a new leaf.  Old habits die hard, which is why I am specifically and repeatedly referencing the Collis book.  It provides a sort of visible benchmark by which I hope to measure my words.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Senator said:

For what its worth, I appreciate that you have taken the personal initiative to change the dynamic of the discussion.  How refreshing it is to observe a discussion and come away actually informed and my understanding broadened.

Kudos!

 

Thanks!  I highly recommend the Habits book.  It really is making an impact in my life.  The General Authorities (and the Scriptures, and my Patriarchal Blessing, and my wife) have long spoken of the need to be peacemakers.  Hollis's book has, for me, created a framework to pursue that objective.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Same here.  It may well end up being a paradigm shift for me, and one that has been needed for a long time.

I quite agree with you here.  But this goes back to the "limiting principle" inquiry.  Assuming that the vast majority of trans women (biological males) in women's bathrooms "are not threats," is there a risk of biological males who are "threats" going into women's bathrooms?  If so, how would we propose to differentiate between the two groups?  What limiting principle would allow non-threatening biological males into women's spaces but disallow potentially threatening biological males into women's space?

Also, it seems like safety is not the only factor under consideration.  I think many (most?  even a supermajority?) of women want to have private spaces from which biological males are excluded.  Do you think that is a legitimate expectation?

My concern isn’t about trans individuals as a group — it’s about the policy of allowing biological males (regardless of identity) into women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Biological sex is the reason those spaces were segregated in the first place: to protect female privacy and safety from male-pattern physical advantages and sexual offending risks.

The proposal here, which I am evaluating, seems to be that entry into women's spaces should be based on "gender identity" and/or "presentation."  And the purpose of this proposal is to solve one group’s discomfort (that is, trans women).  However, this solution seems to compromise many women's preferences and expectations regarding privacy and safety in vulnerable spaces.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, even when you were short on time. I appreciate the summary and the spirit in which you wrote it.

I agree that in everyday life most people simply walk into the bathroom that matches how they present, and for the vast majority of adults that presentation aligns with their biological sex. The reason sex-segregated bathrooms have been the norm for over a century isn’t because we were checking birth certificates at the door — it’s because biological sex is observable and the spaces were designed around the real, average differences between males and females (privacy, safety, and modesty).

The shift that has created the current controversy is the move from that long-standing biological-sex standard to self-identified gender identity as the deciding factor. That change is, I think, quite recent. When a biological male (regardless of "presentation") enters women’s facilities, many women and girls experience it as a loss of privacy and safety — even if that individual has no bad intent. That concern is based on biological reality and documented incidents, not politics.

DSD (intersex) conditions are real and deserve compassionate care, but they are extremely rare (roughly 0.018% of births that involve ambiguous genitalia) and don’t change the fact that sex is binary for the overwhelming majority of humans. Public policy is typically built on for the 99.98%, not the exception.

That being the case, are single-occupancy or third-space options a better way to accommodate everyone without creating new problems?  What do you think is the best way to balance those competing needs?

I’d genuinely be interested in your thoughts on that approach whenever you have time.

Thank you,

-Smac

I know that the 'limiting principle" is part of your main focus regarding the issue of bathroom usage.  And I think we both can agree that we'd like everyone, cisgender men, cisgender women, trans men, and transwomen of all ages to be able to feel safe with whatever level of privacy they personally find most comfortable.

I also agree that most concerns regarding who's using which bathroom are a fairly new phenomenon, though it seems to me that that that is most likely because the issue has become more political and is being intentionally used as a wedge issue to divide voters and spur fundraising and increase voting, and is not actually correlated to any increase in transgender individuals, themselves.  Just today, I watched a 2016 Town Hall in which our current president insisted that there have been "very few problems or complaints" with trans people using bathrooms/people with using the bathrooms of their choice, to "leave it the way it is," and that Caitlyn Jenner would be more than welcome to use the women's bathroom (or the bathroom of her choice) at Trump Tower (see below).  Indeed, the following week after that Town Hall, Ms. Jenner made her own video entering the women's bathroom at a Trump property to reinforce the point. 

So far as that "limiting principle,' then, my position echo's that same 2016 position as our current president: leave it the way it is now--let people use their bathroom of choice.  That means still having gendered bathrooms, still allowing anyone--cisgender or trans of either gender--to use a gendered bathroom, OR use a singe-use bathroom, if they're not comfortable sharing a bathroom with other people, regardless of gender.  Cisgender women (whom you refer to as biological women--a term that I personally don't feel is helpful, but understand others may) are entirely free to use a private, single-use bathroom, if they don't want to share a space with transwomen. 

When it comes to policing behaviors including sexual assault and/or physical violence, I believe in prosecuting and punishing whomever is committing any acts of sexual or physical violence to the full extent of the law, regardless of gender.  That said, the absurdity of attempting to ‘protect’ cisgender women from sexual violence by passing bathroom access bills is highlighted in a routine by comedian Raanan Hershberg, as follows:

Quote

So... many people now think that if you let transgender women into women’s bathrooms, it’ll be like a loophole for predators, you know?  And if you think that, that means... that you believe... there are guys out there goin’... “Man… I’d love to go into a woman’s bathroom and abduct and murder someone… but unfortunately, I’m not allowed in there… so I guess... I’m just never gonna murder anyone ever again. I guess I’m just done murdering people. I wanna murder. It’s in my soul—but it says ‘Woman’ on the sign! I mean, I’ll murder someone, but I’m not about to break bathroom sign rules!  I’m not a monster!  It’s like that time I was chasing a woman in the park with a knife and I almost got her… and then she got into the woman’s bathroom, and I was like, ‘<explitive>! #$% damnit! I was so close! I’m just gonna stand out here and wait for a bill to get passed!”

This argument, that bathroom restrictions do not stop potential predators, is a common theme in debates surrounding transgender rights, and from what I see online, is often supported by safety organizations that argue existing laws already criminalize assault.  Tying it back to the "limiting principle," again... my belief is that all patrons can and should be using whatever bathroom in which they feel best, most private, and safest--be they men's, women's, or single use. 

I am glad we both agree that intersex people, while rare, are real and deserve compassionate consideration. I also agree that their existence doesn't change the fact that binary biological sex is a reality for the majority of people, and that public policy is typically built on for the 99.98%, not the exception.  Indeed--we've spoken about this in the past, and there's an actual legal term for this phenomenon: "legislating from the margins."  I don't believe that transgender individuals' ability to use the bathroom of their choice--with trans men and women, as well as non-binary/gender non-conforming individuals, also all being a small minority of our population--require us to make any change to our current approach to gendered or single-use bathrooms, and we can apply the same standard for all: everyone, use the bathroom that makes you most comfortable, each maintaining our preferred privacy and safety level.  That's the way, in the words of our president, that "it already is," and has been, for decades. Sexual assault or physical violence should likewise be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any other personal characteristic. 

My two cents,

Daniel

Edited April 22 by Daniel2

[Rain]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks.  I really am trying to turn over a new leaf.  Old habits die hard, which is why I am specifically and repeatedly referencing the Collis book.  It provides a sort of visible benchmark by which I hope to measure my words.

Thanks,

-Smac

That is good to know.  It felt a little like a hammer of "you should do this thing that I'm doing" so it is good to know it is a reminder for yourself. I get that it is a good thing (the book is now on my list of books to read) and you're excited to share what you're learning and I'm good with that. 

Incidentally, I know I bring this book up a lot, but 7 Habits of Highly Effective People go right along with what you have quoted here, specifically habits 4 and 5 of thinking win-win and seek first to understand and then be understood, though those habits build on the first 3. 

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

My concern isn’t about trans individuals as a group — it’s about the policy of allowing biological males (regardless of identity) into women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Biological sex is the reason those spaces were segregated in the first place: to protect female privacy and safety from male-pattern physical advantages and sexual offending risks.

One other thought, Smac... Again, I think we both don't want to expose women to violence or put them at risk of assault. 

Everything that I have read, when it comes to actual stats of that happening, indicates that allowing trans women to use their restrooms of choice does nothing to increase violence, or even reports of violence among cisgender (biological) women, and in fact, show trans women are actually most at-risk... This is the most recent one, from January of this past year:

Quote

Reported cases of trans people assaulting women in bathrooms

Researched on January 12, 2026

 

PubMed Central

School Restroom/Locker Rooms Restrictions and Sexual Assault Risk Among Transgender Youth - PMC

Medium

Transgender People, Bathrooms, and Sexual Predators: What the Data Say | by Julia Serano | Medium

NBC News

No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds

Psychology Today

The Science of Trans-Inclusive Bathroom Bills | Psychology Today

 

Executive summary

Reporting and peer-reviewed studies consistently find no evidence that allowing transgender people to use restrooms matching their gender identity increases assaults on cisgender women, and multiple large surveys instead document that transgender people themselves face harassment and physical or sexual assault in bathrooms; however, the available sources do not represent an exhaustive criminal-incident database and cannot prove the absolute nonexistence of any isolated criminal case ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

 

1. What the empirical research shows about perpetrators and bathroom safety

Multiple academic and policy studies have searched for links between trans-inclusive restroom access and increased crime and have found none; analyses comparing localities with and without nondiscrimination ordinances (Massachusetts) found no increase in reported assaults or privacy violations after protections were enacted ^[2], and commentators summarizing law-enforcement responses across states report no verifiable pattern of trans people harassing cisgender people in public restrooms ^[3].

2. Where the data point instead: transgender people as victims in restrooms

Large surveys repeatedly record that transgender people are disproportionately targets of harassment and violence in gendered spaces: the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey found roughly 12% of respondents reported verbal harassment, physical attack, or sexual assault in a restroom in the past year ^[1], national survey series and advocacy organizations report high rates of verbal harassment (around two-thirds) and nontrivial rates of physical assault in restrooms ^[5] [6], and peer-reviewed youth research shows transgender and nonbinary teens face elevated sexual-assault prevalence overall and especially when denied access to facilities matching their gender identity ^{[7] [8] [9]}.

3. School studies — bathroom restrictions and increased risk for trans youth

School-based research finds an association between policies that force transgender students to use sex-assigned-at-birth facilities and higher rates of sexual assault against those students: analyses of nearly 3,700 teens showed about 36% of transgender or gender-nonbinary students with restricted bathroom/locker-room access reported sexual assault in the prior 12 months, and forced-restriction environments correlated with 1.3–2.5-fold increased risk in some subgroups ^{[8] [10] [9]}.

4. The absence of a catalogue is not the same as absolute proof — limits of the available reporting

The sources compiled are empirical studies, major surveys, policy-research reports and advocacy summaries that consistently find no population-level surge in restroom assaults attributable to trans-inclusive policies and document high victimization of transgender people in those spaces, but they do not constitute a complete criminal-case registry for every jurisdiction or year; therefore they support the conclusion that claims about widespread or systematic crimes by trans people in bathrooms are unsubstantiated by the best available research, while not allowing the categorical denial that a rare individual offense could ever have occurred ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

5. Political narratives, implicit agendas, and alternative viewpoints

The “bathroom predator” narrative has been used to justify restrictive laws and has clear political effects: advocates and some commentators frame inclusive policies as risk-free based on studies and law-enforcement statements ^[2] [3], while opponents use hypothetical predator scenarios to argue for limits; analysts warn that those narratives can stigmatize a vulnerable population and that many anti-trans bills leverage fear rather than empirical evidence ^[11] [10]. Sources such as GLAAD and the Williams Institute explicitly argue that bathroom bans increase risk to transgender people and do not improve safety for others ^[11] [6], whereas public concern about privacy and safety persists in some quarters despite the research ^[12].

6. Bottom line for public understanding and policy

The weight of peer-reviewed studies, government and advocacy analyses, and law-enforcement reviews in the collected reporting shows no demonstrable pattern of transgender people assaulting women in bathrooms at a scale that would validate the “predator” argument used to restrict restroom access, while documenting that transgender people are frequently harassed or attacked in these spaces and that restrictive policies can exacerbate their risk; however, the assembled sources cannot claim to have inventoried every individual criminal report nationwide, so public-safety claims should be judged against empirical research rather than isolated anecdotes ^{[1] [7] [2] [3]}.

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

I also agree that most concerns regarding who's using which bathroom are a fairly new phenomenon, though it seems to me that that that is most likely because the issue has become more political and is being intentionally used as a wedge issue to divide voters and spur fundraising and increase voting, and is not actually correlated to any increase in transgender individuals, themselves.  Just today, I watched a 2016 Town Hall in which our current president insisted that there have been "very few problems or complaints" with trans people using bathrooms/people with using the bathrooms of their choice, to "leave it the way it is," and that Caitlyn Jenner would be more than welcome to use the women's bathroom (or the bathroom of her choice) at Trump Tower (see below).  Indeed, the following week after that Town Hall, Ms. Jenner made her own video entering the women's bathroom at a Trump property to reinforce the point. 

Thanks for sharing that 2016 clip — I appreciate the historical context.

I agree that politicians on both sides have used this issue for political gain, and that can make things feel more heated than they need to be.

At the same time, I think the noticeable rise in concern since around 2016–2018 isn’t just political spin. That period coincided with a very visible shift in policy and culture: the move from “live and let live” toward self-ID policies that allowed biological males into women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and especially sports. High-profile examples like Lia Thomas competing in women’s swimming, Dylan Mulvaney’s very public campaign, Drag Queen Story Hours in schools, and the sharp increase in medical interventions on minors all made the practical consequences of those policy changes much more visible to average people.

I think that in 2016, most Americans had never encountered a self-ID bathroom policy in practice. Once those policies were implemented and the effects became real (women and girls reporting discomfort, loss of privacy, and documented incidents), public concern grew — not because trans people suddenly appeared, but because the rules changed in ways that affected sex-segregated spaces that had been stable for generations.

I don’t think this is purely a “right-wing wedge issue.” Some segments of the trans activist community and their allies pushed hard for self-ID policies that went far beyond basic tolerance. Is it possible that this activism, combined with institutional adoption of those policies, have contributed to the new social friction we have been experiencing?  

Also, do you think the concerns women have raised about privacy and safety in bathrooms and locker rooms are entirely manufactured by politicians, or do you see some of those concerns as legitimate reactions to real policy changes?

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

So far as that "limiting principle,' then, my position echo's that same 2016 position as our current president: leave it the way it is now--let people use their bathroom of choice.  That means still having gendered bathrooms, still allowing anyone--cisgender or trans of either gender--to use a gendered bathroom, OR use a singe-use bathroom, if they're not comfortable sharing a bathroom with other people, regardless of gender.  Cisgender women (whom you refer to as biological women--a term that I personally don't feel is helpful, but understand others may) are entirely free to use a private, single-use bathroom, if they don't want to share a space with transwomen. 

Thank you for explaining your position clearly. I appreciate you wanting to keep things practical and minimize conflict for everyone.

I agree that in an ideal world we would have enough single-use bathrooms so that anyone who feels uncomfortable can have privacy. That would be a compassionate solution.  But it won't work in all places.  For example, I co-own an RV park, and we have recently installed private single-use bathrooms, each of which has its own locked door.  So we won't be encountering any problems along the lines of what we are discussing here.  However, down the road there may be an older RV park that has sex-segregated bathrooms.  Do you think it would be incumbent on the owners of such a facility to spend a substantial sum revamping their facilities to turn them into single-use bathrooms?

Also, I think that the “leave it the way it is — let people use the bathroom of their choice” is actually a new policy, not the status quo of the last several decades. For generations, the limiting principle for women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers has been biological sex, not self-identified gender. That bright-line rule was simple, enforceable, and grounded in the real differences between males and females that make sex-segregated spaces necessary for safety and privacy.

Allowing biological males into women’s facilities (even if they identify as women) changes the fundamental nature of those spaces. Many women and girls experience that change as a loss of privacy and safety — not because they assume every trans woman is a threat, but because biological sex is the reason those spaces were segregated in the first place.

I’m not asking anyone to harass trans people. I’m just trying to explore the perspective your are presenting here, which perspective, if enacted, would seemingly solve one person’s discomfort at the expense of others' discomfort (i.e., requiring women and girls to surrender the privacy and safety protections they’ve always had). Single-use bathrooms or third spaces are a much better way to accommodate trans individuals without compromising those protections.  But even that does not seem to be a comprehensive solution.  Nevertheless, if we keep the traditional biological-sex rule for women’s facilities, do you see single-use or family bathrooms as a reasonable way to give trans people privacy and dignity?

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

When it comes to policing behaviors including sexual assault and/or physical violence, I believe in prosecuting and punishing whomever is committing any acts of sexual or physical violence to the full extent of the law, regardless of gender.  That said, the absurdity of attempting to ‘protect’ cisgender women from sexual violence by passing bathroom access bills is highlighted in a routine by comedian Raanan Hershberg, as follows:

[quote]So many people now think that if you let transgender women into women’s bathrooms, it’ll be like a loophole for predators, you know?  And if you think that, that means... that you believe... there are guys out there goin’... “Man… I’d love to go into a woman’s bathroom and abduct and murder someone… but unfortunately, I’m not allowed in there… so I guess... I’m just never gonna murder anyone ever again. I guess I’m just done murdering people. I wanna murder. It’s in my soul—but it says ‘Woman’ on the sign! I mean, I’ll murder someone, but I’m not about to break bathroom sign rules!  I’m not a monster!  It’s like that time I was chasing a woman in the park with a knife and I almost got her… and then she got into the woman’s bathroom, and I was like, ‘<explitive>! #$% damnit! I was so close! I’m just gonna stand out here and wait for a bill to get passed!”[/quote]

I appreciate you sharing that routine — it’s funny, and I get the point it’s trying to make. No reasonable person believes a bathroom sign magically stops every determined predator. We both agree that anyone who commits sexual assault or physical violence should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, regardless of gender or identity.

The bathroom policy debate isn’t about pretending signs are foolproof barriers. It’s about whether we should keep the long-standing, objective limiting principle of biological sex for women’s facilities. That clear, enforceable standard has protected women’s privacy and safety in vulnerable spaces for generations. Changing it to self-identified gender identity removes that objective boundary, such that it seems to make things easier for bad actors to gain access without raising any red flags.

The comedian’s bit assumes the only thing stopping predators is a sign on the door. In reality, the policy itself matters: when we remove the biological-sex rule, we lower the practical and social barriers that used to deter opportunistic behavior in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. That’s the concern many women have expressed.  I am trying to weigh those concerns while evaluating your proposal.  Any thoughts on how I should do that?

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

I am glad we both agree that intersex people, while rare, are real and deserve compassionate consideration. I also agree that their existence doesn't change the fact that binary biological sex is a reality for the majority of people, and that public policy is typically built on for the 99.98%, not the exception.  Indeed--we've spoken about this in the past, and there's an actual legal term for this phenomenon: "legislating from the margins."  I don't believe that transgender individuals' ability to use the bathroom of their choice--with trans men and women, as well as non-binary/gender non-conforming individuals, also all being a small minority of our population--require us to make any change to our current approach to gendered or single-use bathrooms, and we can apply the same standard for all: everyone, use the bathroom that makes you most comfortable, each maintaining our preferred privacy and safety level.  That's the way, in the words of our president, that "it already is," and has been, for decades. Sexual assault or physical violence should likewise be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any other personal characteristic. 

Thank you for the thoughtful reply — I really appreciate that we’re finding some common ground on intersex conditions and the need to prosecute violence regardless of identity. That’s helpful.

Where I see the issue differently is that the approach you describe — “everyone use the bathroom that makes you most comfortable” — seems to be a recent policy shift, not the way things have always been. For decades the clear, objective standard for women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers was biological sex. That bright-line rule was simple, enforceable, and grounded in the real physical differences between males and females.

Allowing access based on self-identified gender identity (or personal comfort) removes that objective boundary. It’s not about assuming every trans person is dangerous — it’s about recognizing that biological males as a group retain male-pattern strength and sexual offending risks, and that many women and girls experience a genuine loss of privacy and safety when the rule changes.

I agree that single-use bathrooms are a compassionate way to accommodate people who prefer more privacy. But I struggle with the idea of solving one group’s discomfort by asking another group (women and girls) to give up the sex-based protections they’ve always had in those spaces.

Do you see any downside to keeping the traditional biological-sex standard for women’s facilities while expanding single-use options for anyone who wants them?

And meanwhile, what do we do with facilities that are already in place?  Do we impose on private property owners (such as RV park owners) an obligation to retrofit sex-segregated bathrooms, or else add single-use bathrooms?  Or do we just abolish sex-segregated bathrooms altogether?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Cisgender women (whom you refer to as biological women--a term that I personally don't feel is helpful, but understand others may)

It is confusing because technically “biological women” could mean trans men because people often use female and women interchangeably and indeed it’s become a political issue for some to try and require female and women to be seen as identical and not applied to trans women (biologically male or assigned male at birth).

Cisgender women works best in my view as it means female in both biology and appearance.

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

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?

In general the advice to transwomen and transmen is not to switch public bathroom usage until you are androgynous or passable.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Yes, AFAB people who identify as men. Many take testosterone. Some have masectomies. Relatively few have some form of bottom surgery. Speaking generally they have a higher rate of passing than transwomen and get to that point more quickly. 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Self-identification and also for law enforcement not to be involved at all. They weren’t before. It is a self-policing situation.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

How about doing nothing then?

The fear seems to be that cishet men will situationally identify as women under false pretenses to go into a women’s bathroom and perv on them. There was nothing legally stopping them from doing this before without having to identify as a woman before and bathrooms were not experiencing mass invasions.

This is a solution that doesn’t work looking for a problem that doesn’t exist.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is confusing because technically “biological women” could mean trans men because people often use female and women interchangeably and indeed it’s become a political issue for some to try and require female and women to be seen as identical and not applied to trans women (biologically male or assigned male at birth).

Cisgender women works best in my view as it means female in both biology and appearance.

The challenge I have with "Cisgender women" is that fundamentally alters the meaning of "woman."  It makes "biological women" a subcategory, alongside "trans women," and thus presupposes the re-definition of "woman" that severs the word from biology, which I think is encountering a lot of resistance.

"Cisgender," as a neologism, also seems to have a strong sociopolitical bent.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The challenge I have with "Cisgender women" is that fundamentally alters the meaning of "woman."  It makes "biological women" a subcategory, alongside "trans women," and thus presupposes the re-definition of "woman" that severs the word from biology, which I think is encountering a lot of resistance.

"Cisgender," as a neologism, also seems to have a strong sociopolitical bent.

Thanks,

-Smac

it is clunky much like AMAB and AFAB are clunky.

But in this context saying biological women includes transmen. Using the term “cis” is a simple identifier good for use when distinctions are important even if it is clunkier than people like.

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

The challenge I have with "Cisgender women" is that fundamentally alters the meaning of "woman."  It makes "biological women" a subcategory, alongside "trans women," and thus presupposes the re-definition of "woman" that severs the word from biology, which I think is encountering a lot of resistance.

"Cisgender," as a neologism, also seems to have a strong sociopolitical bent.

it is clunky much like AMAB and AFAB are clunky.

Those neologisms ("AMAB" = "Assigned Male at Birth" and "AFAB" = "Assigned Female at Birth") are also fairly loaded with ideological presuppositions, which I think makes their utility difficult.  

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But in this context saying biological women includes transmen.

Is there any context in which "biological women" does not include "trans men"?

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Using the term “cis” is a simple identifier good for use when distinctions are important even if it is clunkier than people like.

I think its implicit and ideological connotations make it something other than a "simple identifier," but I can understand how people could disagree about this.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It makes "biological women" a subcategory, alongside "trans women

No, biological women is the broader category, the two subsets being ciswomen and trans men. 

This is the most common usage, I don’t remember seeing it used a different way except by someone intentionally trying to be confusing with a parody (badly done, so I am assuming it was a parody), guessing from what they said they were conservative as they were mocking the use of trans or transgendered women for biological males.

Edited April 22 by Calm

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

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

In general the advice to transwomen and transmen is not to switch public bathroom usage until you are androgynous or passable.

So the "limiting principle" is being "androgynous or passable"?  A "trans woman" who does not look sufficiently like a "woman" would, under color of law, be prohibited from entering a woman's bathroom?

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, AFAB people who identify as men. Many take testosterone. Some have masectomies. Relatively few have some form of bottom surgery. Speaking generally they have a higher rate of passing than transwomen and get to that point more quickly. 

Is "passing" the limiting principle, then?

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

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

Self-identification and also for law enforcement not to be involved at all. They weren’t before. It is a self-policing situation.

Would this have the functional effect of abolishing sex-segregated bathrooms?  "Self-identification" is an entirely subjective thing, after all.

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

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

How about doing nothing then?

Yes, that is certainly an option.  Some (many?) women, though, might want something to be done to preserve women-only spaces (with "women" being biological women).  I understand this is the bone of contention.

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The fear seems to be that cishet men will situationally identify as women under false pretenses to go into a women’s bathroom and perv on them.

I think the safety concern is broader than that, and the privacy concern is there too.

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There was nothing legally stopping them from doing this before without having to identify as a woman before and bathrooms were not experiencing mass invasions.

This is a solution that doesn’t work looking for a problem that doesn’t exist.

I appreciate you laying that out directly. I agree that the vast majority of men ("cishet" or "trans" or otherwise) are not predators, and that bad actors have always existed. I also agree that we should focus on actual behavior and prosecute assault or voyeurism to the fullest extent of the law.

The concern isn’t that a bathroom sign magically stops every determined criminal. The concern is that changing the rule itself from biological sex to self-identified gender identity removes the clear, objective boundary that used to exist. Before self-ID policies, a man entering the women’s bathroom was immediately out of place and likely to be challenged. Now, under a self-ID rule, he can simply claim a female identity and there’s no objective standard left to push back on.

That shift has already produced documented cases of voyeurism, filming, and assaults in women’s facilities — not mass invasions, but enough real incidents to make many women and girls feel their privacy and safety have been compromised in spaces that were designed to protect them.

I’m not trying to make life harder for trans people. I just struggle with the idea of solving one group's discomfort (that of trans women) at the expense of another group (biological women) by asking/requiring that other group to surrender the sex-based protections they’ve always had. Single-occupancy bathrooms or third spaces seem like a far better way to accommodate everyone without creating new risks.  But even then, the solution is not plenary, as there will be plenty of private and public places with sex-segregated bathrooms.  So "doing nothing" would seem to be a de facto elimination of sex-segregated bathrooms.  I think plenty of women would object to that.

I’m curious what you think: If we kept the biological-sex standard for women’s facilities and expanded single-use options for anyone who wants privacy, would that at least partially address the legitimate concerns on both sides?

Thank you,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

It makes "biological women" a subcategory, alongside "trans women."

No, biological women is the broader category, the two subsets being ciswomen and trans men.

I'm not sure I understand you.

If "woman" is re-defined to eliminate its biological component, then "woman" becomes a category that includes subsets: biological women and biological men ("trans women").  Do you disagree with this?

What is the difference between a "ciswoman" and a "biological woman?"

Thank you,

-Smac

Edited April 22 by smac97

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand you.

If "woman" is re-defined to eliminate its biological component, then "woman" becomes a category that includes subsets: biological women and biological men ("trans women").  Do you disagree with this?

What is the difference between a "ciswoman" and a "biological woman?"

Thank you,

-Smac

Okay, I get what you mean now….I think.
 

The sets in my view overlap more like Venn diagrams rather than a tree (can’t remember the most accurate word) because “woman” and “man” are used in multiple ways.

I don’t see it an issue for biological men to be called “trans women” or some other variation using “women” if they look like females.  I am in transition over whether it makes sense to ask others to call oneself a woman when one presents (outward appearance is biologically male), haven’t made up my mind yet because expectations are so dependent are appearance and roles are about expectations more than anything else in my experience.   While I think it is polite to call someone the label they wish to be called, especially if the only work it adds amounts to the same level as remembering a name, if what is wanted is more complicated than that for some reason, while it may be uncomfortable for the transgendered individual, it makes sense to me to have realistic expectations of others and that means their habitual practices will be the default unless asking first becomes required by their job.   But I could change my mind on this.  Racial segregation would still be going on (and is in some ways) if we waited until it became comfortable for people.  I don’t know well enough how much being treated as one’s preferred gender even when one doesn’t look like that affects quality of life. Extrapolating from my own experience of discrimination against females growing up, how my appearance excluded me from many opportunities just because I was never considered because I was a “girl” even though I didn’t feel like a “girl” to myself (didn’t feel like a boy for sure either in case someone was wondering, my gender has always been “me” in the sense of it was the only ‘place’ I fit) likely isn’t that accurate because I didn’t want to be a part of something because of my gender identity, but only if I was interested in what was going on in a group.

I have always thought as “woman” as more of an appearance or social role myself.  I don’t have the least problem calling myself female, that’s my biology.  “Woman” is different though. I always feel it’s off to call myself that.  It doesn’t describe who I am in the way I was taught to understand “woman”, which was a particular role or set of expectations (and there were so many I hated) more than my biology.  

Up until meeting other females on this board, I never felt a part of any women’s social group.  I hung out with girls when younger only because it was what I was told I had to do, I was more interested and enjoyed the boys’ company more.  I wasn’t interested in what girls talked about back then except for a few girls who were into horses, I wanted to do workshop, not home ec; boys gravitated towards science and math, which was my center.  I didn’t like being called a girl.  I loved my name (short form) because it was used by boys more than girls at that time.  As an adult, I was bored to death talking about family and extended family with women, in church, at family reunions, practically everywhere women gathered.  I don’t want to approach the scriptures in a devotional way which was all I got in RS or from other women (until I got into apologetics), but with scholarship and treating scripture from an academic POV.   I found men who enjoyed this, no women.  I have always thought men’s clothing was more comfortable, hated dresses.  Since I have been choosing my clothing, it’s always pants if I have a choice.  Never wore a skirt in 4 years of high school.  My closet has no lace, but lots of collared button-down ‘boy shirts’.  My husband always gives me his hand me downs.  If my shape allowed it, you would only see me shop in the men’s aisles.  You get better made clothing for less.  My chosen haircuts were all male style except when I was trying to see how long I could grow my hair out (got down to my hips, but new babies pull on it so).  

It’s not that I wanted to be male or a man, they just had better options for what I wanted. I just wasn’t invested in most things “women”.  Even the motherhood thing…it was just me doing it, it never made me feel “female” or “womanly” or bonding with other females generally speaking.  So this whole idea that “women” has this inherent meaning of female just doesn’t gel with me.  All it’s meant to me all my life is people making the wrong assumptions about me and having to work hard to inform them and failing a great deal.

Others might not feel that way, I get it, but making “woman” the social identity and female the biology one is my preference.  I could convey my personal stance a lot quicker if it was understood that way generally.  In my head, female is always biology, woman is social most often (if I am repeating or modifying in my head what others say, woman may be used for female because they used it that way).  Having said that, with my spoken or written language, I typically go with what’s the default understanding because I don’t like making waves when I have to deal with them immediately, lol.  I need time to deal with intensity, especially aggressiveness/confrontation or even confusion and only writing gives me that typically.

——

A cis woman is always a biological woman whose appearance is typically seen as feminine, female.  This is in most people’s views in my experience at this time what is meant when they only see one word alone, “woman”.  I doubt if those who see “woman” as a social identity is even a large minority yet. A ciswoman presents the same as her biology.   “Cis” is Latin for “on the same side”, iow presentation/cosmetic matches what’s underneath (cellular/physical state at birth)

A “biological woman” however includes the possibility of being a cis woman, but includes other possibilities as well.  Adding a descriptor to “woman” here signals one sees a need to be more precise, which does imply an understanding that “woman” means more than just “female”.

Edited April 23 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Those neologisms ("AMAB" = "Assigned Male at Birth" and "AFAB" = "Assigned Female at Birth") are also fairly loaded with ideological presuppositions, which I think makes their utility difficult.  

What would you considered not loaded and not ambiguous?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

expanded single-use options for anyone who wants privacy,

While this is ideal imo, this is still a problem in preexisting buildings such as schools that would require significant investment to create single use options that are not out of the way.  

And what if there are multiple users besides the likely few transgendered individuals who want to use single use during the breaks between classes?  Autistic, sensory sensitive, socially shy, kids with health issues…physical or emotional, etc all would likely prefer single use options (that would have been so lovely if allowed when I was a kid as smells, noise, and lights were stressful for me as well as always wondering what do I need to say if I see someone in the bathrooms so I preferred use during class time to breaks, but knew my teachers disliked that…which caused other issues).

 ——

Anyone know if bathrooms in elementary and secondary schools are sex segregated in countries that have mixed sexes in other public spaces?  Curious because issues of bullying seem like they would be more likely to happen in elementary and secondary schools where kids know each other than total strangers.  And the whole lack of impulse control in youth makes me think that might be asking for trouble. Not that there isn’t bullying by the same sex, just that it adds another layer to for youth to deal with. 

Edited April 23 by Calm

[Calm]

To me safety is of prime importance.  Choose the method that doesn't just create the greatest perception of safety for the most people, whoever they are, but the one that actually lowers violence, bullying, etc the lowest and then if people are unhappy, provide education and if they refuse to accept the facts, then it will just have to penetrate their awareness by living it.

 

Edited April 23 by Calm

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Those neologisms ("AMAB" = "Assigned Male at Birth" and "AFAB" = "Assigned Female at Birth") are also fairly loaded with ideological presuppositions, which I think makes their utility difficult.  

I don’t think anyone really likes these terms. They are clunky and not entirely accurate but no better term has caught on.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is there any context in which "biological women" does not include "trans men"?

Typically in discussions it is “biologically female” and not “biological woman”.

If you mean “does not include all trans men” then yes. Some trans men were born intersex.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think its implicit and ideological connotations make it something other than a "simple identifier," but I can understand how people could disagree about this.

Do you have a better term?

[smac97]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Those neologisms ("AMAB" = "Assigned Male at Birth" and "AFAB" = "Assigned Female at Birth") are also fairly loaded with ideological presuppositions, which I think makes their utility difficult.  

I don’t think anyone really likes these terms. They are clunky and not entirely accurate but no better term has caught on.

Thank you for the candid reply — I really appreciate you acknowledging that the terms are clunky and not entirely accurate.

I am curious: What specifically do you find “not entirely accurate” about AMAB and AFAB?

As I see it, the previous understanding was always that the doctor delivering the baby observes the baby’s sex and notes it on the birth certificate.  The alternative term, “assigned,” implies a subjective decision rather than an objective observation.  These acronyms implicitly presuppose the idea that “male” and “female” (the M and F) as something arbitrarily “assigned” at birth rather than something the doctor observes and records based on biological reality.  This framing makes it much easier to treat sex as a social construct instead of a biological reality. Once that move is made, statements like “trans women are women” or “men can menstruate” start to sound coherent, even though they conflict with observable reality (unless we re-define "women" to include not only biological females, but also males who "identify" as women).  The difference between "observe" and "assign" is, I think, significant because the former is reflective of scientific reality, whereas the latter is ideological.

I also think repeatedly pulling the terms “man/woman” and “male/female” away from their biological grounding moves us further from reality. Even within much of the trans community, there seems to be a recognition that these terms cannot be infinitely malleable — that’s why we see efforts to preserve “male/female” for biological sex while using “man/woman” for gender identity or presentation. I sense the same underlying challenge when we try to materially differentiate “sex” from “gender.”

I’m not trying to be difficult about language. I just think precision and grounding in biological reality matter here, especially when policies affect single-sex spaces, sports, and medical decisions. Curious to hear your thoughts on the “assigned” part specifically.

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Is there any context in which "biological women" does not include "trans men"?

Typically in discussions it is “biologically female” and not “biological woman”.

I would like to better understand the distinction you are making between “biologically female” and “biological woman.” What do you see as the meaningful difference between those two terms?

For me, the increasing separation of “female” (treated as merely biological, though even then "female" seems to be used to describe something subjective, such as in "AFAB") from “woman” (treated as gender identity or social role) feels like it implicitly imports a particular ideological framework — one that treats “woman” as something that can be detached from biological reality.  To some extent, this has already happened, as society has more or less mainstreamed the term "trans woman."  We all know that a "trans woman" is a neologism referring to males/men who "identify" or work to "appear" as females/women, but we go along with the neologism because older terms (like "transsexual" and "transvestite" and "crossdresser") are outdated (and, I infer, offensive).  By way of example, I just remembered this 1999 episode of Frasier:

Quote

Roz: ... Frasier Crane Show, what's your problem?
Roger: [v.o.] I'm thinking of changing careers, I feel kinda trapped.
Roz: Well, it's not a very exciting problem, but I'll see if I can get you on. Hold, please. [takes next call] Frasier Crane Show, what's your problem?
Bill: [v.o.] It's sort of embarrassing.
Roz: Amen! Bill: I was a bed-wetter as a child and I think the problem's coming back.
Roz: Great. Hold, please. [goes back to Roger] Hey, Career Change, I've got a bed-wetter holding. When you say "trapped," is it possible you feel you are a woman trapped inside a man's body?
Roger: I don't think so.
Roz: I don't think I can get you on today, then.
Roger: Gee, I really wanted to talk to him... I guess that could be part of it.
Roz: Good answer. Hold, please. [to Bill] Hey Bed-Wetter, I've got a transsexual in crisis, you gotta beat that. Have you ever wet a bed with anyone else in it? A hooker, a stripper, or maybe your best friend's wife?
Bill: No.
Roz: Do you want to talk to the doc or not?
Bill: OK. Er, I guess the third one.
Roz: Hold, please. [to Roger] Hey Transsexual.
Roger: Is that me?
Roz: Yeah. Have you ever run for political office, or considered running for political office?
Roger: What, you mean like congressman or something?
Roz: [takes that as an answer] Perfect!

That the Frasier writers in 1999 were comfortable with a popular character (Roz) using the word "transsexual" is perhaps indicative that the term was not offensive then.  But times have changed, so now we use "trans."  Although this too has some ideological connotation, I can't think of a better term.  I often add the parenthetical “(biological male)” when I refer to “trans women” — it’s my way of keeping the biological reality front and center rather than unconsciously accepting the separation.

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you mean “does not include all trans men” then yes. Some trans men were born intersex.

Ah.  That goes into DSDs and epistemic uncertainty / ontological certainty and the sexual binary (and the denial thereof).  Perhaps that's a discussion left for another day.

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Quote

Using the term “cis” is a simple identifier good for use when distinctions are important even if it is clunkier than people like.

I think its implicit and ideological connotations make it something other than a "simple identifier," but I can understand how people could disagree about this.

Do you have a better term?

That’s a fair question. I don’t have a single perfect replacement term that everyone would love, and I’m comfortable saying that.

I agree with you that when a distinction truly needs to be made, we need some way to communicate it clearly. That’s why I’m not arguing we should ban the word “cis” from all discourse. If it’s useful in a specific context, people can use it ad hoc. I’m fine with that.

For my own part, I choose not to adopt “cis” as a default framework because it feels like it quietly imports an ideological assumption I don’t share — that everyone has a “gender identity” that may or may not match their biological sex. I prefer to simply say “women” or “men,” or “biological females” / “biological males” when a distinction is necessary. Those terms feel more grounded in observable reality to me.

I realize not everyone will see it the same way, and that’s okay. This is one of those areas where we may just have to live with some ongoing disagreement rather than reaching a neat resolution.  Perhaps this is where Habit Ten of the Hollis book ("Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure") comes into play. Not every conversation needs a winner or final resolution.  I am content to attempt to keep talking and make incremental progress where we can.

How do you usually handle it when you need to make a clear distinction without using “cis”?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 23 by smac97

[longview]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Those neologisms ("AMAB" = "Assigned Male at Birth" and "AFAB" = "Assigned Female at Birth") are also fairly loaded with ideological presuppositions, which I think makes their utility difficult.  

What would you considered not loaded and not ambiguous?

Assigned? What effrontery! When the sex organ is unambiguously male <exclusive-OR> female AND/OR the DNA is either XX <exclusive-OR> XY AND sex organ aligns with DNA THEN there is no need to engage in woke "beating around the bushes".

A better word would be recognized or observed. No need to monkey around with the birth certificate.

[Calm]

On 4/23/2026 at 9:38 AM, smac97 said:

The alternative term, “assigned,” implies a subjective decision rather than an objective observation.

Because it is somewhat subjective when not all the needed information is checked, but the doctor goes on probabilities….which are quite high, of course.  If they did chromosomal testing for each baby, that would help, but unlikely to happen unless it gets much cheaper and easier.  And chromosomes aren’t the only determinant either, so there might be some ambiguity still unresolved even with that test globally done.

Assigned makes sense as there are cases where it’s ambiguous and the doctor assumes it is not ambiguous based on external genitalia. 

 Those cases are not a large percentage.  Several sources I just checked have it between 1 in 4,500-2000, I didn’t check what source they used, so it might have been all the same one, but wiki is good with it).  That would make it around 116,000 such individuals in the US.  To me that’s enough to be recognized in the language rather than ignored as an exception.

Quote

as something arbitrarily “assigned” at birth

Not really, the arbitrariness is something people infer.  A “best guess” is not arbitrary when it is based on high probability and observable data, but it is still a guess if the actual determinant of biological sex is not the appearance of genitalia, but chromosomes and other factors not immediately apparent.  The doctor in most cases is dealing with incomplete data, which in most cases is not an issue, but in a small, but imo significant percentage is.

Quote

even then "female" seems to be used to describe something subjective, such as in "AFAB

Not really if I understand correctly.  A person who is colorblind who assumes based on other cues that a stop sign on a bedroom door is red (now I used this example I am imagining Mark speaking up and saying ‘red is subjective!’, but hopefully this conveys what I mean), but is wrong because someone customized it as orange does not mean the color red is subjective, it means the person’s best guess was inaccurate.

I like the idea of female as a biological term and woman as a social construct because there is biology and then there is the role and it would make conversation quicker if biology and expectations (roles are a collection of expectations imo) were more easily separated to determine what is actually required vs what is wanted by society, etc.

Is the separation of female as biology and woman as role likely to happen?  Nope, but a female can dream, can’t she?

Quote

. I just think precision and grounding in biological reality matter here, especially when policies affect single-sex spaces, sports, and medical decisions.

I agree.  I also believe having only one word always used for biology, male or female applicable for the vast majority of the population, would make for more precision than having more than one term, especially when those other terms are also used at times for something besides biology.

Edited April 27 by Calm