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.

[smac97]

So we've had a lot of discussion, in this thread and elsewhere, about "limiting principles" in relation to trans ideology.

Essentially, it appears that there are no "limiting principles" to trans advocates as to who is, and who is not, a "woman."  

It looks like this issue - are there any "limiting principles" as to "what is a woman" - is quickly coming to a head in the context of women's sports:

Ex-NBA Players Say They’re ‘Declaring’ For WNBA As League Considers Transgender Player Policy

Quote

Key Facts

• Royce White, who played in three games of a singular NBA season more than 10 years ago, and former NBA center Enes Kanter Freedom have both said they’ll try to be drafted by the women’s league next year and that, under the league’s inclusionary approach, they should be eligible.

• Kanter, who legally changed his name to include "Freedom" after becoming a U.S. citizen in 2021, said he'd reviewed the league's eligibility framework and should qualify under the "self-identification and inclusion" rules.

• His declaration went viral Friday night and was quickly followed by a similar one from White, who told Fox News, “I identify as sometimes identifying as a woman for purposes of… professional basketball.”

• Kanter said his statement did not intend to “mock, make fun of, or disrespect any community or personal choices,” but that he was pushing the WNBA to refine its guidelines around who could play in the league.

• White, who said he thinks he'd be "unstoppable" in the WNBA, said he, too, was trying to challenge the WNBA: "I'd like to know what the parameters are."

• The pair are weighing in on a conversation sparked by Indiana Fever star Sophie Cunningham, who last month said she would not support transgender women playing in the league, and later fueled by Fox News-owned sports outlet OutKick, which goaded a French transgender basketball player into admitting she'd like to play in the league in an effort to push the WNBA to change its noncommittal stance.

CRUCIAL QUOTE

"If simply declaring who you are is all that’s required, then I meet every single requirement necessary to compete in the WNBA," Kanter said.

WHAT DO THE WNBA RULES SAY ABOUT ELIGIBILITY?

Article XIII, Section 1(a) of the WNBA Collective Bargaining Agreement says, "Only players who are women are eligible to play in the WNBA." The policy does not explicitly define the term "woman" or specify any criteria about biological sex, hormone levels or physical attributes. There is no clause that allows someone to be eligible simply by declaring or self-identifying as a woman.

WHAT HAS THE WNBA SAID ABOUT TRANSGENDER PLAYERS?

Not much. On Friday, WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert sent a memo to teams that said a task force of team presidents and general managers will discuss the issue of transgender players at a meeting next week. WNBA player eligibility rules are governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, meaning they aren’t at the sole discretion of WNBA leadership, but she did say "preserving the integrity of our game and ensuring fair competition will always remain among the league’s highest priorities.” The WNBA Players Association issued a formal statement Friday, emphasizing diversity and inclusion while saying the organization "will not be used as political pawns." The statement said the union hopes to "protect women’s sports while creating transformational change," adding, "Hate, abuse, and demonization of any person or group of people, including transgender people, only fuel fear, division, and harm."

And here:

Quote

The WNBA has found itself at the center of a storm of controversy amid questions over the league's approach to transgender players' eligibility.

On Friday, WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert sent a memo outlining the league's response to the eligibility question, the same day two former NBA players said they would officially declare for the WNBA Draft, an apparent effort to force the league's hand.

The memo followed weeks of controversy after Indiana Fever star Sophie Cunningham gave a wide-ranging interview to ESPN, in which she said the WNBA should block biological males from participation.

What did the WNBA memo say about the league's policy?

In her Friday memo, Engelbert said she was aware many teams had been fielding questions over the league's eligibility guidelines in recent weeks, adding that she expected the issue to "continue to receive significant attention" in the coming days.

"I wanted to reach out to share how we are approaching these conversations at the league office and to thank those of you who have responded to questions from the media with thoughtfulness and professionalism," Engelbert reportedly wrote in the memo, which was obtained by The Associated Press and ESPN.

"We recognize that this is a complex and nuanced topic, and we will continue to have important conversations with all of you and the Players Association in the weeks and months ahead," she added.

The topic will be discussed further with a group of league leaders, including team presidents and general managers, at a previously scheduled meeting this week.

I am very curious about how the WNBA will formulate eligibility requirements for players.  In many quarters the preferred - and perhaps sole - criterion for "woman" in essentially every context is "someone who identifies as a woman."  Fundamentally, this is incoherent - it does not define "woman" - and also lacks any "limiting principle." There also appears to be no limitation on what motives an individual may have for identifying as a woman. 

Here are some of the discussions we have had about "limiting principles" in this context:

Here:

Quote

Quote

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

It is important to note that previous to transgender issues streaming to the forefront that there weren’t any laws about being in the wrong gendered bathroom. There were even reasons to ignore those rules like the men’s bathroom not having a changing table.

There wasn’t a rash of perverts rushing into women’s bathrooms. Weirdos spinning tales of how they would have claimed they “felt like a woman” in High School in order to change in the girl’s locker room are just weirdos outing themselves.

Transgender people rarely switch which restrooms they use until they are passable or androgynous at least and many actually plan around not having to use public restrooms out of fear. They just want to pee. They aren’t excited to use them or anything.

Although the above discussion pertains to trans women - that is, biological men - entering into women's bathrooms, the same broader questions and concerns are now landing in the WNBA.  If a male's "self-identity" as a woman is sufficient to justify him going into a woman's bathroom, is it also sufficient to justify him joining the WNBA?

The above discussion is between myself (the initial quote) and @The Nehor.  His approach has been, essentially, that no "limiting principles" are required at all:

Here:

Quote

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.  

 Here:

Quote

Quote

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.

Quote

Is "passing" the limiting principle, then?

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

If trans women (biological men) can "self-police" for purposes of entering into women's bathrooms, can they also "self-police" for purposes of entering into the WNBA?  "No limiting principle needed"?

Others seem to think that physical appearance should be the limiting principle:

Here:

Quote

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.
...
Which brings me back to the question of "limiting principles."  Is there one?  If so, what is it?
...
Assuming you disagree with biological sex as the delineating/limiting principle re: access to women's bathrooms, what alternative principle would you propose?  

Can looking like a woman be a "limiting principle" in the WNBA?  If so, what counts?  Nail polish?  Wearing a dress?  Wearing pink?  This does not seem to work.

Here:

Quote

Quote

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

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

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

Here I floated the idea of getting rid of sex segregation altogether.  Can that work in the WNBA?  Is the WNBA really prepared to not define "woman" at all, even though the "W" in the acronym is the sine qua non of the league's existence?

 Here:

Quote

Quote

 

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?

Quote

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?

Here:

Quote

Quote

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

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

Can "obvious biological males" be a "limiting principle" in the WNBA?  If so, can that same reasoning be applied in other contexts (bathrooms, etc.)?

What about "passing" ("androgynous or passable")?  Can that be a "limiting principle" in the WNBA?

Here:

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are my comments.  I think the "limiting principle" should be biological sex.  But that does not work in some quarters.  So what should work?  

Here:

Quote

Quote

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?

In the context of the WNBA, male players are both a physical threat to female players (because they are, on average, so much stronger than women), but also a "threat" in terms of dominance in play.  Former NBA players entering the WNBA will destroy the league.  There is also the question/concern about whether the female players will consent to having biological males in the locker rooms.

Here:

Quote

Quote

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.
...

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.
...
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.

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?

"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."

Should this same reasoning apply when it comes to who is eligible to play in the WNBA?

Here:

Quote

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.
...

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.

These are my comments.  If Richard Cox can, via "self-identity" as a woman, enter into women's locker rooms and showers, then is that a workable "limiting principle"?

Is there any impediment to Enes Kanter Freedom using "self identity" to declare for eligibility to play in the WNBA?

Here:

Quote

I think an increasingly central tenet - perhaps the central tenet - of trans ideology is re-define "woman" so as to remove any meaningful limiting principle regarding the concept.  This is an interesting exercise, given that the word "definition" "comes from the Latin word dēfīnītiōn- or dēfīnītiō, which means 'fixing of a boundary, precise description.'"  As regarding "women," some folks do not want it to have anything like a "{fixed} boundary," or "precise description."  Instead, they want it to mean pretty much anything, and therefore mean nothing.  Rowling is quite correct: "{I}f a man is a woman, there is no such thing as a woman." 

Moreover, this absence of a limiting principle sure seems to upend all sorts of fundamental concepts.  If a biological male can, by filling out a government form (or even not doing anything other than "identifying"), become a "woman," then a teenage boy and "identify" as a dog, Eva Tiamat Medusa can "identify" as a dragon, and so on.

There is no limiting principle in this ideology.

Here:

Quote

Quote

Also, if a person like dresses, let them wear a dress.

I don't think that's where the problem lies.

"If a biological male thinks he is a woman, let him compete in women's sports, use women's bathrooms, be housed in women's prisons, and so on."

I think such accommodations become difficult pretty quickly.  Further, there is no limiting principle.  If a biological male can "identify" as a woman, then can Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug "identify" as "Black?"  Can "Stefoknee Wolscht," a biological male in his 50s, call himself a perpetual six-year-old girl?  Can a 5'9" white guy "identify" as a six-foot-tall Chinese woman?  Can Eva Tiamat Medusa "identify" as a dragon?  Can Naia Ōkami "identify" as a wolf?  

If not, why not?  

Can I "identify" myself as someone or something I am not?  Can I use the force of law to coerce other people into capitulating to that identity?  

These are my comments, and they seem to be relevant to the current WNBA controversy.

Regarding "limiting principles," @Analytics weighed in:

Here:

Quote

Quote

And how, as a legal matter, can we stop at gender?  There does not seem to be any limiting principle.  Can a fifteen year old "identify" as a 25-year-old and, on that basis, buy and consumer alcohol?  If not, why not?

Regarding laws dealing with sex and gender, we should recognize that not everybody neatly and accurately fits into the broad-brush categories of being biologically male or biologically female. Furthermore, laws should recognize that depending on the situation, somebody's gender identity might be more pertinent than their biological sex. Laws are in fact evolving to deal with these realities.

Some people are objectively intersex--they aren't 100% male or 100% female. That complexity is biological fact. However, that type of complexity doesn't exist with whether you are a human, how old you are, etc. 

Putting aside his rejection of the sexual binary, is the "complexity" he describes - associated with persons with DSDs - a valid "limiting principle" for the WNBA?  It seems not, as it goes against the seemingly prevailing "self-identity" sentiment.  Lia Thomas, for example, does not have a DSD.  Nor, I think, does Enes Kanter.

Here:

Quote

Society ties function (sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc.) to biology, not to subjective, impossible-to-quantify, no-limiting-principles, endlessly-malleable "gender identity" concepts. 

This is my statement, and I think it is reasonable.  Others disagree.  For those people, what "limiting principle{s}" do you have in mind in relation to WNBA eligibility?

Here:

Quote

Third, trans ideology is based on substantial logical errors, such as the absence of limiting principles, equivocation, and emotional manipulation ("Failure to use 'preferred pronouns' drives trans people to suicide").

Trans ideology broadly lacks limiting principles, allowing definitions to expand indefinitely without clear boundaries. For instance, a "woman" is defined as a biological adult female and also anyone who identifies as one, creating an open-ended category that includes virtually anyone, regardless of biology, age, or intent. This absence of constraints leads to absurdities, like self-ID policies enabling convicted male sex offenders to access women's prisons simply by claiming identity, with no objective criteria to prevent abuse or ensure consistency. Without limiting principles, the ideology risks undermining the very concepts it seeks to redefine.  It turns "inclusion" into an unlimited free-for-all that erodes protections for women and girls.

This is my comment.  Is Enes Kanter Freedom playing in the WNBA an "absurdity"?  If so, why?  Why can't he "self identify" as a woman?  Who polices this?  What does and does not count as "self identifying" as a woman?

This is a difficult topic.  In everyday discourse, it's easy to make broad declarations about "trans women are women" and "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" and so on.  However, sooner or later, these declarations encounter reality, such as we have seen with biological males entering into women's sports, bathrooms, prisons, and so on.  And when those declarations are applied, they lead to untenable results, such as Enes Kanter Freedom being eligible to play in the WNBA.

We all deserve presumptive measures of respect and kindness.  The vagaries arising from applying the central tenets of trans ideology, though, seem very difficult.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So we've had a lot of discussion, in this thread and elsewhere, about "limiting principles" in relation to trans ideology.

Essentially, it appears that there are no "limiting principles" to trans advocates as to who is, and who is not, a "woman."  

It looks like this issue - are there any "limiting principles" as to "what is a woman" - is quickly coming to a head in the context of women's sports:

Ex-NBA Players Say They’re ‘Declaring’ For WNBA As League Considers Transgender Player Policy

And here:

I am very curious about how the WNBA will formulate eligibility requirements for players.  In many quarters the preferred - and perhaps sole - criterion for "woman" in essentially every context is "someone who identifies as a woman."  Fundamentally, this is incoherent - it does not define "woman" - and also lacks any "limiting principle." There also appears to be no limitation on what motives an individual may have for identifying as a woman. 

Here are some of the discussions we have had about "limiting principles" in this context:

Here:

Although the above discussion pertains to trans women - that is, biological men - entering into women's bathrooms, the same broader questions and concerns are now landing in the WNBA.  If a male's "self-identity" as a woman is sufficient to justify him going into a woman's bathroom, is it also sufficient to justify him joining the WNBA?

The above discussion is between myself (the initial quote) and @The Nehor.  His approach has been, essentially, that no "limiting principles" are required at all:

Here:

 Here:

If trans women (biological men) can "self-police" for purposes of entering into women's bathrooms, can they also "self-police" for purposes of entering into the WNBA?  "No limiting principle needed"?

Others seem to think that physical appearance should be the limiting principle:

Here:

Can looking like a woman be a "limiting principle" in the WNBA?  If so, what counts?  Nail polish?  Wearing a dress?  Wearing pink?  This does not seem to work.

Here:

Here I floated the idea of getting rid of sex segregation altogether.  Can that work in the WNBA?  Is the WNBA really prepared to not define "woman" at all, even though the "W" in the acronym is the sine qua non of the league's existence?

 Here:

Here:

Can "obvious biological males" be a "limiting principle" in the WNBA?  If so, can that same reasoning be applied in other contexts (bathrooms, etc.)?

What about "passing" ("androgynous or passable")?  Can that be a "limiting principle" in the WNBA?

Here:

These are my comments.  I think the "limiting principle" should be biological sex.  But that does not work in some quarters.  So what should work?  

Here:

In the context of the WNBA, male players are both a physical threat to female players (because they are, on average, so much stronger than women), but also a "threat" in terms of dominance in play.  Former NBA players entering the WNBA will destroy the league.  There is also the question/concern about whether the female players will consent to having biological males in the locker rooms.

Here:

"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."

Should this same reasoning apply when it comes to who is eligible to play in the WNBA?

Here:

These are my comments.  If Richard Cox can, via "self-identity" as a woman, enter into women's locker rooms and showers, then is that a workable "limiting principle"?

Is there any impediment to Enes Kanter Freedom using "self identity" to declare for eligibility to play in the WNBA?

Here:

Here:

These are my comments, and they seem to be relevant to the current WNBA controversy.

Regarding "limiting principles," @Analytics weighed in:

Here:

Putting aside his rejection of the sexual binary, is the "complexity" he describes - associated with persons with DSDs - a valid "limiting principle" for the WNBA?  It seems not, as it goes against the seemingly prevailing "self-identity" sentiment.  Lia Thomas, for example, does not have a DSD.  Nor, I think, does Enes Kanter.

Here:

This is my statement, and I think it is reasonable.  Others disagree.  For those people, what "limiting principle{s}" do you have in mind in relation to WNBA eligibility?

Here:

This is my comment.  Is Enes Kanter Freedom playing in the WNBA an "absurdity"?  If so, why?  Why can't he "self identify" as a woman?  Who polices this?  What does and does not count as "self identifying" as a woman?

This is a difficult topic.  In everyday discourse, it's easy to make broad declarations about "trans women are women" and "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" and so on.  However, sooner or later, these declarations encounter reality, such as we have seen with biological males entering into women's sports, bathrooms, prisons, and so on.  And when those declarations are applied, they lead to untenable results, such as Enes Kanter Freedom being eligible to play in the WNBA.

We all deserve presumptive measures of respect and kindness.  The vagaries arising from applying the central tenets of trans ideology, though, seem very difficult.

Thanks,

-Smac

It was my understanding that legally, a "reasonable person" standard exists. Is this not the case? Would a reasonable person conclude that these individuals are trolling or not?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It was my understanding that legally, a "reasonable person" standard exists. Is this not the case? Would a reasonable person conclude that these individuals are trolling or not?

I'm not sure I understand your question.  A “reasonable person” standard is useful in many legal contexts, but it does not solve the eligibility problem.  I'd like to lay out my thinking on that, and hope that you can respond:

• If the governing criterion is self-identification (or an undefined term like “woman” that some interpret as identity-based), then the league has to decide how to apply that criterion consistently.
• Once the rule turns on an internal, subjective claim rather than biological sex, distinguishing “sincere” identification from strategic or satirical identification becomes difficult and inherently discretionary.
• A "reasonable" observer may conclude that a particular declaration is trolling. However, another observer—or a court reviewing a discrimination claim—may treat the same declaration as protected self-identification that the league is obligated to honor under its own stated principles.  If the WNBA allows subjective self-identification for this person, then they will have a hard time formulating a non-arbitrary and legally viable way to differentiate supposedly "trolling" trans women from supposedly "real" trans women.

That is the core issue. Rules that rest on self-ID create an opening that invites both genuine claims and opportunistic ones. The league then faces an unattractive choice: accept the claim and compromise the category, or reject it and explain why this particular self-identification does not count while others do. The second path quickly looks like viewpoint- or motive-based enforcement.  That becomes legally problematic very quickly. 

The second path may also becomes problematic the other way, namely, the WNBA will join the UK Supreme Court in establishing parameters for what "woman" means, and those parameters may end up excluding all "trans women" (because excluding some "trans women" is almost certainly going to end up being discretionary/arbitrary).

Whether any given former NBA player is trolling is secondary. The policy question is whether eligibility for a women’s professional league should turn on sex or on a subjective identity claim that is hard, perhaps impossible, to police consistently. A reasonable-person intuition that “this one is obviously not serious” does not supply a stable, non-arbitrary rule for the next case.

I've been saying this for a long time now: the ideological claims based entirely on subjective self-identity ("trans women are women," "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman") are, in a legal setting, not coherent and lack limiting principles. 

I think Enes Kanter Freedom and his attorneys have seen this, and so they are going to hoist the WNBA by its own petard.  The WNBA cannot maintain its allegiance to the foregoing ideological principles and also exclude Enes Kanter Freedom.  It either has to abandon the former or let Enes (and anyone else who subjectively "self identifies" as a "woman") play.  Scylla and Charybdis, indeed.

What are your thoughts?  What do you think the WNBA should do?  Assuming you want to differentiate between "legitimate" claims of being a woman from illegitimate/trolling ones, how do you think the WNBA could do that?  What "limiting principles" do you think the WNBA should use to allow some self-identified "trans women" into the WNBA while keeping others out?

I'm not really looking for an argument or to score points.  I really do want to understand your perspective.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Tuesday at 05:28 PM by smac97

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

the governing criterion is self-identification (or an undefined term like “woman” that some interpret as identity-based), then the league has to decide how to apply that criterion consistently.

Seems like they would have to self identify as a woman in all contexts where possible though, not just the one of the sport?  Are they willing to do so?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Seems like they would have to self identify as a woman in all contexts where possible though, not just the one of the sport?  Are they willing to do so?

Thank you for your input.  I wonder if your suggestion actually illustrates the difficulty.

If the eligibility rule is pure self-identification, then the speaker’s willingness (or unwillingness) to identify as a woman in every other context is irrelevant. The claim itself is supposed to be sufficient. Introducing a consistency-across-contexts requirement converts the rule into something else: a judgment about how thoroughly, how publicly, or how sincerely the person lives out the identity. That is no longer self-ID; it is an external assessment of presentation, lifestyle, or commitment.

Once that door is opened, the league (or any decision-maker) must decide which forms of self-identification count and which do not. Does the person need to change their legal documents? Use certain pronouns everywhere? Undergo medical steps? Present in a particular way full-time? Each of those conditions reintroduces objective criteria and discretionary judgment—the very things a pure self-ID rule claims to avoid.

In short, requiring consistency “in all contexts” would seem to be an admission that unadorned self-identification is not a workable or stable standard. It quietly replaces the stated rule with a different, more demanding one. That is precisely the incoherence the declarations of Kanter and Smith seem to be testing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited yesterday at 04:04 AM by smac97

[Analytics]

On 8/11/2026 at 10:31 AM, smac97 said:

Putting aside his rejection of the sexual binary, is the "complexity" he describes - associated with persons with DSDs - a valid "limiting principle" for the WNBA?  It seems not, as it goes against the seemingly prevailing "self-identity" sentiment.  Lia Thomas, for example, does not have a DSD.  Nor, I think, does Enes Kanter.

What should be noted is that for the WNBA, the only reason this is an issue is because some people who do not identify as women and who in reality do not want to play in the WNBA are pretending they are and do in order to make a political point.

For my part, I don't think there is a constitutional right to play in the WNBA, and I'm quite content to let them figure out for themselves what is and is not fair.

In high school wrestling, they have a rule that in order to wrestle in the heavyweight division, your weight needs to be between 215 and 285. Is that fair to everybody? I don't know. But I'm happy to let the stakeholders in high school wrestling figure it out. Ditto NCAA swimming. 

On 8/11/2026 at 10:31 AM, smac97 said:

In everyday discourse, it's easy to make broad declarations about "trans women are women" and "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" and so on.  However, sooner or later, these declarations encounter reality, such as we have seen with biological males entering into women's sports, bathrooms, prisons, and so on. 

Likewise, in everyday discourse it's easy to make broad declarations that "only biological women are women" and "only biological men are men." But the problems of taking rigid philosophical absolutes and insisting they be rigid "limiting principles" is that the world is messier than these abstract principles. What's wrong with letting people use the bathroom that is most comfortable to them? Why do we need a law that this person must use the women's restroom?

 

Why do we need a law that this person must use the men's restroom? 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by Analytics

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Analytics said:

What should be noted is that for the WNBA, the only reason this is an issue is because some people who do not identify as women and who in reality do not want to play in the NBA are pretending they are and do in order to make a political point.

Except they are saying they do identify as women.  And in virtually every other circumstance the questioning of a person's self-identity is verboten.

I think you are entitled to dispute their self-identification by suggesting they are doing this "to make a political point."  Are others entitled to dispute the "self-identification" of other trans women by suggesting they are doing this to garner attention and/or because they have a mental illness?  If not, why not?

Also, what is the limiting principle here?  When are we at liberty to dispute someone's wholly subjective "self-identity" (as you have done here) and when are we not at liberty to do so?  I don't see how you can make such a distinction without running afoul of the "Special Pleading" fallacy.

25 minutes ago, Analytics said:

For my part, I don't think there is a constitutional right to play in the WNBA, and I'm quite content to let them figure out for themselves what is and is not fair.

In high school wrestling, they have a rule that in order to wrestle in the heavyweight division, your weight needs to be between 215 and 285. Is that fair to everybody? I don't know. But I'm happy to let the stakeholders in high school wrestling figure it out. Ditto NCAA swimming. 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.

You are right that there is no constitutional right to play in the WNBA, and that sports organizations are generally free to set their own eligibility rules. No dispute there, really.

The difficulty is that the rule the league (and many similar bodies) has effectively adopted — eligibility based on self-identification as a woman — does not contain a coherent limiting principle. Once the category is defined by identity rather than sex, it becomes difficult to explain, on principled grounds, why a male who identifies as a woman is admitted while another male who makes the same claim (even if the claim is perceived as insincere or political) is excluded. The distinction ends up resting on judgments about motive or authenticity rather than on a clear, pre-announced standard.

Weight classes in wrestling are, I think, different in kind. They rest on a measurable criterion (body weight) that is applied uniformly. Self-identification is not a comparable criterion; it is subjective and, by design, not externally verifiable. That is why the “complexity” associated with DSDs does not function as a stable limiting principle for a self-ID rule.  DSDs are medical conditions, whereas the prevailing eligibility claim is not medical at all.

One can prefer that the WNBA simply decide the matter for itself. But if the decision is going to be defended as fair or principled, it still needs a workable definition of the category it is protecting. Self-identification alone has not supplied one.

25 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Likewise, in everyday discourse it's easy to make broad declarations that "only biological women are women" and "only biological men are men." But the problems of taking rigid philosophical absolutes and insisting they be rigid "limiting principles" is that the world is messier than these abstract principles. What's wrong with letting people use the bathroom that is most comfortable to them? Why do we need a law that this person must use the room?

The world is certainly more complicated than slogans and declarations, and rare developmental conditions (DSDs) certainly exist. That does not mean the underlying binary is arbitrary, or that every boundary drawn on the basis of sex is therefore illegitimate, or that biological males who subjectively "identify" as women have no material distinction from those few people with DSDs.

Sex-based spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and shelters were created for reasons of privacy, safety, and dignity that track average physical differences and the reality of sexual offense patterns. Those reasons do not disappear because a small number of people experience gender dysphoria or because some individuals feel more comfortable in the opposite facility. Comfort is not the only interest at stake; the interests of the other people using the space also count.

A rule that simply says “use the facility that matches your self-identified gender” has no internal limiting principle. It provides no coherent basis for excluding anyone who makes the same claim. Once the criterion becomes subjective and unverifiable, the original purpose of the sex-separated space is difficult, even impossible, to maintain. That is why many jurisdictions have retained sex-based rules, sometimes with limited, case-by-case accommodations, rather than adopting an open-ended and infinitely malleable "self-identity" standard.

I think we as a society can acknowledge some (very few) edge cases exist, but also differentiate those edge cases (people with DSDs) from people who are wholly male but who claim to be women based on purely subjective self-identity. 

I think we also can conclude that the default organizing principle should remain biological sex.

The existence of complexity does not require abandoning the categories that complexity is defined against.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 22 hours ago by smac97

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Except they are saying they do identify as women.  And in virtually every other circumstance the questioning of a person's self-identity is verboten.

Context matters.  

Just because in almost every other circumstance saying “I love you” means someone cares in a positive way doesn’t mean we need to take an “I love you” from someone beating us up seriously.  

Edited 22 hours ago by Calm

[Analytics]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Also, what is the limiting principle here?

Why does there need to be a limiting principle? If somebody looks like a man, acts like a man, presents themselves to the world as a man, and would make everyone around them feel most comfortable if they used the men's restroom, why is it so freaking important to you that they use the women's restroom if they really "are" a woman? Why are you trying to create laws that say certain female-looking people must be inserted into male-only spaces? How does doing that make the world a better place?

Why not just trust people to make their own decisions about what's most appropriate for their individual situations?

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The world is certainly more complicated than slogans and declarations, and rare developmental conditions (DSDs) certainly exist. That does not mean the underlying binary is arbitrary, or that every boundary drawn on the basis of sex is therefore illegitimate, or that biological males who subjectively "identify" as women have no material distinction from those few people with DSDs.

Likewise, that doesn't mean that in terms of choosing clothes, hair styles, activities, pronouns, and bathrooms the underlying biological binary must be of primary importance, set as an absolute "limiting principle" in all cases. Again, why do we need a limiting principle at all? What's wrong with letting people choose based on what makes the most sense in the given situation?

If the WNBA wants to admit transexual people based on a uniform rule or a case-by-case basis, I really don't care. I'm not a stakeholder. 

Edited 22 hours ago by Analytics

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Also, what is the limiting principle here?

Why does there need to be a limiting principle?

That's a fair question, but perhaps it is answered by Enes Kanter Freedom's declaration for joining the WNBA.  In the absence of a limiting principle, what would prevent him or any other male from joining?

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

If somebody looks like a man, acts like a man, presents themselves to the world as a man, and would make everyone around them feel most comfortable if they used the men's restroom, why is it so freaking important to you that they use the women's restroom if they really "are" a woman? Why are you trying to create laws that say certain female-looking people must be inserted into male-only spaces? How does doing that make the world a better place?

Why not just trust people to make their own decisions about what's most appropriate for their individual situations?

I think the question is not whether every individual must be policed at the door. It is whether the category itself retains any stable meaning.

But to answer your question anyway: Sex-separated spaces exist because of average physical differences and because many people—particularly women—have legitimate interests in privacy and safety that are tied to sex, not to appearance or self-description. A rule that reduces the matter entirely to individual comfort and self-identification removes the basis for having the separation in the first place. If the only criterion is how someone feels or how they present, then the boundary becomes whatever any person says it is. That is the practical meaning of having no limiting principle.

Most people already navigate these spaces with a degree of common sense and restraint. The difficulty arises when policy formally elevates self-identification over sex. At that point the rule is no longer an informal social accommodation; it becomes an entitlement that others are expected to accept regardless of their own privacy or safety concerns. Trusting individuals to decide “what’s most appropriate” works only so long as everyone shares roughly the same understanding of the underlying categories. I don't think we can really say that anymore, or else we are saying it now to re-assert what has been diminished in recent years.  Once that shared understanding is replaced by an unbounded identity claim, the trust model no longer resolves the conflict.  Rather, it simply declares one side the winner.

We as a society can support reasonable, case-by-case accommodations for people with gender dysphoria without accepting the premise that sex-based boundaries are illegitimate or that any limiting principle is unnecessary. The two positions are not the same.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Likewise, that doesn't mean that in terms of choosing clothes, hair styles, activities, pronouns, and bathrooms the underlying biological binary must be of primary importance, set as an absolute "limiting principle" in all cases. Again, why do we need a limiting principle at all? What's wrong with letting people choose based on what makes the most sense in the given situation?

If the WNBA wants to admit transexual people based on a uniform rule or a case-by-case basis, I really don't care. I'm not a stakeholder. 

Some domains are low-stakes and can reasonably be left to personal preference—clothing, hairstyles, and forms of address among willing participants.

Other domains are not. Bathrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and sex-separated sports involve shared physical spaces or competitive fairness where sex remains material. In those settings, treating self-identification as decisive does not merely expand individual choice; it revises the terms on which everyone else must participate.

So I think a "limiting principle" (or principles) is/are needed precisely because resources and spaces are finite and because the original rationale for separating them by sex does not vanish just because someone asserts a different identity. Without such a principle, the category becomes unbounded: any male who claims a female identity is entitled to the same access or eligibility. That is not a neutral “case-by-case” approach; it is a rule that privileges one set of claims over the privacy, safety, and fairness interests of others.

We can be personally indifferent to the WNBA’s internal decisions and yet still recognize that the league’s choice of criterion has consequences for the integrity of women’s sport. The same is true of other sex-separated spaces.  And these decisions are not limited to the WNBA.

I submit that the existence of rare developmental conditions (DSDs) does not require us to treat sex as irrelevant, nor does it obligate us to accept self-identification as the sole or overriding standard. Though some "complexity" exists, it does not erase the underlying distinction or the reasons the distinction was drawn in the first place.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlipBlap]

On 4/23/2026 at 4:24 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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?
 

 

The problem is the assertion that "trans" people are merely "born that way" holds no water and that current pro-trans discourse wants to force the general population to simply take them as an otherwise "normal person" i.e. a person that is not otherwise afflicted with a psychiatric problem.  Banning any kind of conversion therapy supports this idea and is an attack against the autonomy of those that see their condition as a problem.

While one can say that it can be a natural conclusion that one can be born in a physical body that doesn't align with their spiritual gender, that doesn't mean said conclusion is correct or logically valid.  The first issue is presuming that gender was ever meant to be separate from biological sex.  The second is that, if it was a trial to overcome, how does one go about proving such?  The more likely notion is that "being born in the wrong body" isn't the trial, but the feeling itself is the trial.

Using the word "allow" is likewise an interesting choice, implying some kind of direct divine imputation of specific trials onto people.

[The Nehor]

Professional sports organizations can figure out their own standards of eligibility. They don’t need transphobes concern trolling about how hard it will be on their behalf.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Context matters.  

Just because in almost every other circumstance saying “I love you” means someone cares in a positive way doesn’t mean we need to take an “I love you” from someone beating us up seriously.  

I agree with you.  Context matters.  And once it does, we have already conceded that self-identification is not an absolute that must be accepted without further inquiry.

In ordinary social settings we often extend courtesy and decline to interrogate someone’s stated identity. That is a social practice, not a metaphysical rule. When the claim is used to demand entry into a sex-separated space, a competitive category, or a legal protection that was created on the basis of sex, context does matter—and the relevant context includes biological sex, physical reality, and the interests of the other people in that space or category.

The analogy to “I love you” is quite useful. We do not treat every utterance of those words as binding or sincere regardless of circumstances. We evaluate them in light of behavior, setting, and consequence. The same is true here. If self-identification is decisive in every context, then the Kanter/White-style claims cannot be dismissed as illegitimate; they meet the stated criterion. If those claims can be dismissed because of context, motive, or physical reality, then self-identification was never the actual rule, sex and material distinction still are.

You cannot have it both ways: either self-identification is the controlling standard, or context (including sex) is allowed to limit it. The moment context is admitted as relevant, the claim that self-identification must be accepted without question no longer holds.

I would like to hear more of what you have to say about this.  if "context matters," which contexts allow us to question/dispute a person's subjective "self-identity" and which do not?  And who is it that decides which contexts matter?

Thanks,

-Smac

ETA: Just saw this:

A few responses:

Quote

So, what you're saying is that to be truly trans you have to got through hormone therapy and sexual reassignment surgery? Someone just can't identify as trans? Am I getting it right? 

Quote

Wow do you "demand" this of all the dudes that say they are trans? Also when did you get to change the rules? Before all you had to do is identify as a woman. Weird how when someone you don't like follows your rules you change them.

Quote

Wait until we tell the rest of the trans community that they have to meet your requirements to be called a woman. I'm popping some popcorn.

Quote

No no no you don’t get to move the goalposts now bigot.

Quote

It used to be enough to simply state "I identify as a woman".... Now that sane people are pushing back at this... you are now placing guardrails on what it means to be a transgender "woman".

Quote

So you dont support Lia Thomas then? He did not medically transition

Quote

That’s not the point they’re making. It’s the fact that they can choose to identify whatever they want to be is the point. That a man can be a woman because they want to regardless of biology.

Quote

Ohhhh, so NOW you can’t identify. You have to prove to you they have gender roles that fit YOUR narrative. I thought this was transphobia according to your mantra? Funny how hypocrisy works.

Quote

But that’s not a requirement for men entering women’s restrooms, or boys playing in girls sports, or even what defines what a woman is, Walter. A woman, according to the left, is anyone who identifies as such. We didn’t make these rules.

Quote

How is gatekeeping womanhood progressive? Are you saying all the trans folk who have not medically transitioned or have not done it to the timeframes you arbitrarily require are not valid?

Quote

So you’re saying you don’t recognize a trans person UNLESS they’ve had the surgery??? That would be a large group! Does that mean that I don’t need to recognize a trans person unless they’ve had the surgery? And that won’t make me a bigot? Just checking!

Quote

That doesn’t make you a woman, Walter. It’s the feeling of being a woman. Unless we’re moving the goalpost and you’re saying the only way a trans woman can be considered a woman is through all this. Let’s us know what you mean.

Quote

Your "chemically transition for years" requirement just eliminated a ton of high school competitors.

Quote

Are you saying you have to do all those things to identify as a woman?

Quote

They dont have to do any of that. Plenty of trans identifying people out there who arent on HRT. Making HRT mandatory to identify as trans goes against gender identity.

Quote

So, unless you've done these things, you are not considered a transwoman anymore, right?

Quote

Why should they do those things when other trans-athletes aren't required to?

Quote

Now apply this rule to high school sports and college sports, smart guy.

Quote

No no no no. The rules YOU ALL put out there was: If someone says they are a woman, they ARE a woman. You never said anything about medical interventions or time tables. You said THE MINUTE someone says they are a woman, they are a woman.

Quote

Should we also do it for any man that goes into women bathroom? Kind of like covid vaccine card, but trans card that you must display before you walk in there?

Quote

Get Planned Parenthood to change this then, "Progressive"

Quote

So I guess you think the same bit should be applied before males can compete in any women's sport, amateur or professional, and use women's bathrooms and locker rooms? I'm sure you've advocated for that,right?

Quote

Sorry...we have been told over and over that these things are not necessary for someone to declare themselves a woman. If someone says they are a woman, that is enough. Hell, maybe they are gender-fluid and they are only women on game nights.

Seems like there are no "limiting principles" and context doesn't matter, until there are and it does.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 5 hours ago by smac97

[MustardSeed]

I’ll make the conversation complicated- there’s a case in WA where a Japanese bathhouse was sued for not allowing a trans woman in.  The rule had become you have to have a vagina to participate in the naked activities.  (Surgically or biologically no matter).  The bathhouse lost the suit and now it has gone to federal court.
it is important to me to be considerate of trans people and to treat them like human beings and to be Christlike and all the things. But I do not want a penis exposed to me ever under any circumstance unless I married it or it’s under the age of 3 and there’s dressing involved. 
https://komonews.com/news/local/women-only-spa-takes-fight-over-transgender-access-to-supreme-court-olympus-spa-lynnwood-tacoma-pierce-county-transgender-woman-identity-korean-body-scrubs

Edited 6 hours ago by MustardSeed