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

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

I keep saying there doesn’t need to be a “limiting” principle because we don’t need a law about this. There wasn’t one before.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is "passing" the limiting principle, then?

No limiting principle needed. Not everything needs to be legislated.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

No.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

For transphobes yes. 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

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.

Okay, then do that.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

What clear, objective boundary. Transwomen and transmen have been using public restrooms for decades. Why did it suddenly become a problem? I’ll answer that. Fearmongering about hypotheticals.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

And most of them were done by cishet men who never claimed to be transgender so what would change to make them stop. Maybe we should tackle “rape culture” instead and leave trans people alone? You know, deal with the group with the most actual abusers instead of humiliating and trying to control people who might hypothetically be dangerous. I remember how upset you got with the idea that women might think you are an abuser just because you are a man and how unfair that was even though the group you are in was the most likely to contain that kind of abuser. Yet you want to police other innocent people and treat them as potential abusers because it might make people in another group find it slightly harder to be creepy and pervy? Especially since transgender people (especially transwomen) are often pursued by creepy men. All the time. They are called “chasers”. It is victim-blamey.

Transgender people don’t want to be collateral due to this really weird blame shifting from the perpetrators to people that people imagine somehow passively empower perpetrators when they don’t. Creeps are creepy whether transgender people exist or not.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

It doesn’t matter what you are trying to do. It matters what you are actually doing. And you are throwing people to the wolves under the pretext that it might make other people not be creepy and weird?

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

Separate but equal hasn’t worked that well in the past.

I like the idea of single-use options but restricting certain people to only those options when others are available would likely be very discriminatory. At a queer meet-up space I go to there are only single-use options and they replaced the normal gender signs with pictures of things like aliens, dragons, robots, and unicorns. I would like that to be the case everywhere.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

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.

You do realize they don’t DNA test infants at birth to determine if they have XX or XY chromosomes right? I might have XX chromosomes with one of various abnormalities that made me develop as male. That might be the case for you too. Many never find out unless they are testing for potential problems with fertility or the like. Many die not knowing they have XX chromosomes. Your neat gender binary doesn’t work. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, longview said:

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.

Is observing the external sex organs all that’s required to determine whether someone is a woman or man in your point of view?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 4/22/2026 at 9:55 AM, smac97 said:

On 4/21/2026 at 9:09 PM, 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"?

I don’t know, but I imagine it’s over 90%.  some portion of those 10% are trans.  I would imagine most are just individuals that look more androgynous than average.

On 4/22/2026 at 9:55 AM, smac97 said:

s

On 4/22/2026 at 9:55 AM, smac97 said:

On 4/21/2026 at 9:09 PM, 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’m saying that the historic status quo was based on gender presentation not on biological sex as you presume.  Because no one has access to someone else’s biological sex without invasive search or testing.  So in arguing for the preservation of how it worked before from my point of view you’re arguing to let trans people use the bathroom of their choice. 

On 4/22/2026 at 9:55 AM, 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.

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.

And I’d argue that for the vast majority of trans people passing as the gender of their choice is the ultimate goal. So letting them use the bathroom of their choice works under your historic system in the vast vast majority cases. And if we start trying to catch edge cases, not only is it harassing for those involved, but is equally likely to target cis people that look more androgynous than average. 

Edited April 23 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

On 4/22/2026 at 10:08 AM, smac97 said:

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?

If they present as biological male from what we can see (in most bathrooms that would be fully clothed, in locker rooms more exposure more likely), I would agree since we have learned not to be near semi naked men, especially in vulnerable situations.

But I have major doubts if many women will care in reality if trans women who present as female (look biologically female or at least ambiguously leaning towards female) use the restrooms.   We aren’t trained yet to expect attacks from anyone who appears to be female and shouldn’t expect such from biological males who present as biological females to the eye given the very, very low probability of it happening (it’s not tracked it’s so low apparently)…..and if we cannot tell they are biologically male, why would we be triggered?

Edited April 23 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

As a branch from this topic it always surprised me that Latter-day Saints are as anti-trans as they are. It’s my understanding that Latter-day Saints view gender as an eternal characteristic. It’s also my understanding that Latter-day Saint doctrine allows for all types of trials in this mortal fallen world. It seems like a natural conclusion that, with those two tenets, some individuals would be born with a physical body that doesn’t align with their spirit gender. I mean people are born limbless? Is their spirit limbless as well? Some people are born with genetic abnormalities that cripple their intelligence. Are their spirits also crippled in this way? Some people are born intersex. Are their spirits intersex? People are born conjoined, deaf, blind, infertile. All manner of conditions. 
 

For those that believe trans men are just women, (and vice versa) why is gender misalignment the one thing that God doesn’t allow to happen in this world?
 

 

Edited April 23 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

On 4/22/2026 at 3:56 PM, smac97 said:

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.

The reality in my belief is it will likely be more (number wise simply because there are so many more than trans women) cisgender women who do have life harder (though not as hard most likely as trans women who pass as female who have to use male spaces) because of a law requiring only biological females to use certain spaces for two reasons…there are likely quite a few (I am speculating more in absolute numbers) cisgendered women who others will start guessing are trans women rather than biological ones and start demanding these cis women prove it to be allowed to use bathrooms.  One of my girlfriends in high school could be easily confused for male if she hadn’t worn long hair (actually two with the second depending on her clothing and if she chose to wear makeup) was tall, bony, and athletic and worn jeans and cowboy and plaid shirts (she was into horses and went riding after school when she could).  Wearing makeup and long hair may help in some cases as that can lean the face more feminine, but since trans women are likely to wear makeup, that’s not a guaranteed sign of biological female.  And plenty of women don’t want to or can’t wear makeup, like wearing masculine clothing and having short hair. 
 

Second, by making this a thing…women now having to worry about whether someone using their safe space who looks female is really biologically male rather than just ignoring that possibility, you will be increasing anxiety and discomfort for women in situations where it wouldn’t have occurred before and overall create more anxiety because even if some current anxiety exists over biological males entering women’s bathrooms gets removed by such laws (and I don’t see why it would given the ones who assault and voyeur ignore social norms already), the incidence of females looking like men in bathrooms is likely a lot higher than someone with the appearance of male trying to use a women’s only bathroom, which means more occurrences of “is she a he and not supposed to be here? What should I do?’ and therefore more anxiety and confusion. 

Edited April 23 by Calm

[smac97]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I keep saying there doesn’t need to be a “limiting” principle because we don’t need a law about this. There wasn’t one before.

No limiting principle needed. Not everything needs to be legislated.

No.

For transphobes yes. 

Okay, then do that.

What clear, objective boundary. Transwomen and transmen have been using public restrooms for decades. Why did it suddenly become a problem? I’ll answer that. Fearmongering about hypotheticals.

And most of them were done by cishet men who never claimed to be transgender so what would change to make them stop. Maybe we should tackle “rape culture” instead and leave trans people alone? You know, deal with the group with the most actual abusers instead of humiliating and trying to control people who might hypothetically be dangerous. I remember how upset you got with the idea that women might think you are an abuser just because you are a man and how unfair that was even though the group you are in was the most likely to contain that kind of abuser. Yet you want to police other innocent people and treat them as potential abusers because it might make people in another group find it slightly harder to be creepy and pervy? Especially since transgender people (especially transwomen) are often pursued by creepy men. All the time. They are called “chasers”. It is victim-blamey.

Transgender people don’t want to be collateral due to this really weird blame shifting from the perpetrators to people that people imagine somehow passively empower perpetrators when they don’t. Creeps are creepy whether transgender people exist or not.

It doesn’t matter what you are trying to do. It matters what you are actually doing. And you are throwing people to the wolves under the pretext that it might make other people not be creepy and weird?

Separate but equal hasn’t worked that well in the past.

I like the idea of single-use options but restricting certain people to only those options when others are available would likely be very discriminatory. At a queer meet-up space I go to there are only single-use options and they replaced the normal gender signs with pictures of things like aliens, dragons, robots, and unicorns. I would like that to be the case everywhere.

I appreciate your comments here.  I think I have a better grasp of your perspective than I did before.  I will take these things into consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

i’m saying that the historic status quo was based on gender presentation not on biological sex as you presume.  

I wonder if we might both be right in different ways. I’m open to correction here, but my understanding is that the historic legal standard (de jure) for sex-segregated facilities has been biological sex — so a biological male entering the women’s bathroom was technically in violation of the law or policy, even if “passing.”

At the same time, I can see how in practice (de facto) someone who presented as female was often undetected or met with a kind of generalized indifference, which allowed them to use those facilities without issue.

Does that distinction make sense to you, or do you see the historic status quo differently?

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Because no one has access to someone else’s biological sex without invasive search or testing.  So in arguing for the preservation of how it worked before from my point of view you’re arguing to let trans people use the bathroom of their choice. 

I appreciate you explaining your view — this really gets to the heart of our disagreement, and I’m glad we’re talking about it.

I quite agree that we should never have invasive searches or genital checks at bathroom doors. That would be wrong and impractical.

At the same time, I think the claim that we have “no access” to someone else’s biological sex without invasive testing overstates the reality. For the vast majority of post-pubertal adults, biological sex is highly observable from physical traits — height, shoulder width, jawline, voice, Adam’s apple, hand size, etc. That’s why the historic system worked for generations with very little conflict. Enforcement wasn’t by inspection; it was by signage, social norms, and complaint-driven response when someone clearly didn’t belong.

The old status quo wasn’t “use the bathroom that matches your presentation or gender identity.” The standard was biological sex. A biological male entering the women’s bathroom was technically (and practically) out of place under that rule — even if he presented as female and often went undetected.

The real proposed policy change is moving from that objective, sex-based standard to self-identified gender as the deciding factor. That’s what’s new, and that’s why I am evaluating it as opposed to returning to the biological-sex rule while expanding single-use/family bathrooms for anyone who wants more privacy.

I’m not trying to make anyone’s life harder. I just don’t think we should solve one person’s discomfort by removing the privacy and safety protections women and girls have always had in those vulnerable spaces.

Does that distinction make sense to you, or do you see the historic standard differently?

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And I’d argue that for the vast majority of trans people passing as the gender of their choice is the ultimate goal. So letting them use the bathroom of their choice works under your historic system in the vast vast majority cases. And if we start trying to catch edge cases, not only is it harassing for those involved, but is equally likely to target cis people that look more androgynous than average. 

I appreciate you explaining your thinking — it helps me understand where you’re coming from, and I agree that for the vast majority of trans people the goal really is just to pass and be left alone. That’s not lost on me.

At the same time, I wonder if we are sort of talking past each other on a couple of key points.

First, I think there is a fairly broadly-held position that biological women and girls have a legitimate expectation of privacy in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. That space was designed around the reality of sex-based differences — not around how convincingly someone presents. When a biological male (even one who passes well) is present, many women experience that as a loss of privacy, regardless of the individual’s intent.

Assuming we were to attempt to overcome or rebut or repudiate this position, how would we respond to it?

Second, I am concerned that basing access on “passing as the gender of your choice” creates exactly the subjective judgment problem you mention. Who decides what counts as “passing”? Many trans women do not "pass," and biological women would understandably prefer not to become the de facto bathroom police — having to evaluate appearances, confront people, or feel uncomfortable in their own space. That’s why the historic standard was simply biological sex: it’s objective, observable without invasion, and doesn’t require women to make those calls.

If we are going to move from A) the historical "biological sex" basis for differentiating who can and cannot go into women's bathrooms to B) laws authorizing entry into bathrooms based on "passing as the gender of your choice," how would we avoid the subjective judgment problem?

Third, I think we come back to the "limiting principle" issue as regarding the safety concern: Once the law shifts from biological sex to self-identified gender or presentation, there is no clear, enforceable legal barrier left to exclude bad actors. A predator who wants access no longer has to worry about being obviously out of place — he can simply claim a female identity. That raises real safety concerns for women and children, and it’s not hypothetical; we’ve already seen documented incidents after self-ID policies were adopted.

I appreciate your desire to treat trans people with dignity and compassion — I share that goal.

The problem isn’t trans people as individuals. The problem is a policy that lets access to women’s and girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers be determined by self-identified gender instead of biological sex. That removes the clear, objective barrier that used to exist.

We’ve seen this in multiple documented cases. In Loudoun County, Virginia, school policy allowed a biological male student (identifying as a “trans girl”) into the girls’ bathroom, where he sexually assaulted a girl; the district was later accused of trying to conceal the assault and even transferred the perpetrator to another school, where a second girl was assaulted. 

Another recent example is Richard Cox, a registered Tier III sex offender in Arlington County, Virginia. Under the school district’s self-ID policy, he was allowed into girls’ and women’s locker rooms and showers, where he repeatedly exposed himself to women and young girls. The policy made it impossible for staff or other users to challenge him without first engaging in invasive verification.

This is, I think, a real-world illustration of the "limiting principle" problem: Once the rule is no longer biological sex, there’s no clear, enforceable line left to keep out opportunistic bad actors. Biological women and girls lose the privacy and safety expectations they’ve always had in those spaces.

I realize that most determined predators will always try to find a way in.  However, clear, objective rules do deter many opportunistic bad actors. Under the old biological-sex standard, a man entering the women’s bathroom was immediately out of place and likely to be challenged or reported. That created a practical and social barrier. Once the rule becomes “self-identified gender” or “presentation,” that barrier disappears — a bad actor no longer has to worry about looking obviously out of place; he can simply claim a female identity (as Richard Cox did). That shift makes opportunistic behavior easier, not harder. 

This thread has helped me explore/utilize Habit Two of the Collis book: "Seek Real Learning."  We generate knowledge collectively through dialogue, evidence, criticism, and revision—not in isolation or echo chambers. Your comments here are helping me a lot in this regard, and I appreciate it.

You are also helping with Habit Five ("Hunt for the Best Argument Against You") and Habit Six ("Be Open to Change").

Habit Ten ("Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure") is a more difficult one.  We as a society apparently need to make some decisions about who can and cannot enter into women's spaces.  Do you agree with that assessment?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The problem isn’t trans people as individuals. The problem is a policy that lets access to women’s and girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers be determined by self-identified gender instead of biological sex. That removes the clear, objective barrier that used to exist.

We’ve seen this in multiple documented cases. In Loudoun County, Virginia, school policy allowed a biological male student (identifying as a “trans girl”) into the girls’ bathroom, where he sexually assaulted a girl; the district was later accused of trying to conceal the assault and even transferred the perpetrator to another school, where a second girl was assaulted. 

 

Given males have entered female only spaces and assaulted them prior to any change in law, we shouldn’t assume that the assault wouldn’t have happened if the policy wasn’t there.  Coverup….well, unfortunately coverups of sexual assaults in schools were not unknown either.

So my question is has the change actually caused an increase in assaults and coverups?  Or just a change in the perception of them?  What does the data show?

Quote

Under the old biological-sex standard, a man entering the women’s bathroom was immediately out of place and likely to be challenged or reported.

Not always reported.  I have experienced personally and know of other cases where boys and men entered women’s bathrooms for apparently convenience.  No one reported them as far as I am aware.  In my cases, they weren’t acting creepy, just urgent.  Cell phones weren’t a thing yet, so them taking pictures never occurred to me.

Edited April 24 by Calm

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if we might both be right in different ways. I’m open to correction here, but my understanding is that the historic legal standard (de jure) for sex-segregated facilities has been biological sex — so a biological male entering the women’s bathroom was technically in violation of the law or policy, even if “passing.”

At the same time, I can see how in practice (de facto) someone who presented as female was often undetected or met with a kind of generalized indifference, which allowed them to use those facilities without issue.

Does that distinction make sense to you, or do you see the historic status quo differently?

The de facto bit is correct. The de jure bit would need to be shown. There generally aren’t bathroom usage laws on the books. So I would question whether that is de jure or just an assumed custom.