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

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I’m not sure what you mean by “stakeholder” here, or why you think being one should determine whether someone has a legitimate interest in the issue.

Sports leagues have governing bodies who make the rules, and processes to update such rules with input from stakeholders. The process involves organizations such as the National Association of High School Sports, the Kansas State High School Activities Association, the Wrestling Rules Committees of those organizations, and the people who are elected to run those organizations. 

As a specific example, those people decided that if you weigh more than 285 pounds, then due to safety and fairness issues, you aren't eligible to wrestle. While I care about safety in an abstract way, I'm not into wrestling and these nuances, and I'm quite happy to allow them to draw the line where they see fit. It shouldn't be a political issue, and in general I trust these guys to make the decisions that are best for their sports, including whether transgender people should be excluded in the same way that people heavier than 285 pounds are excluded.

On the other hand, if somebody's never been to a collegiate swim meet in their entire life and doesn't even know how many underwater butterfly kicks you get in the breaststroke after each turn, but suddenly becomes extraordinarily concerned that the NCAA rules are unfair over a transgender issue, then I'd suggest that person look in the mirror and consider whether they are being manipulated by somebody for political purposes.

[webbles]

20 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Sports leagues have governing bodies who make the rules, and processes to update such rules with input from stakeholders. The process involves organizations such as the National Association of High School Sports, the Kansas State High School Activities Association, the Wrestling Rules Committees of those organizations, and the people who are elected to run those organizations. 

As a specific example, those people decided that if you weigh more than 285 pounds, then due to safety and fairness issues, you aren't eligible to wrestle. While I care about safety in an abstract way, I'm not into wrestling and these nuances, and I'm quite happy to allow them to draw the line where they see fit. It shouldn't be a political issue, and in general I trust these guys to make the decisions that are best for their sports, including whether transgender people should be excluded in the same way that people heavier than 285 pounds are excluded.

On the other hand, if somebody's never been to a collegiate swim meet in their entire life and doesn't even know how many underwater butterfly kicks you get in the breaststroke after each turn, but suddenly becomes extraordinarily concerned that the NCAA rules are unfair over a transgender issue, then I'd suggest that person look in the mirror and consider whether they are being manipulated by somebody for political purposes.

Isn't this the same for the other side?  Those who are pushing for transgender people to be in sports but don't know anything about sports are probably being manipulated by somebody for political purposes?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

And prisons, shelters, locker rooms, etc. raise still different considerations - privacy and safety being obvious ones. I don't think women should have to wait until someone is assaulted before those interests count. Predictable risks and reasonable expectations of privacy can themselves justify boundaries.

What if stats were to show women are more likely to be attacked by other biological women than trans women? 

For me perception of safety matters.  Even if someone is physically safe, there is emotional safety that should be considered in places where one is most vulnerable making emotional costs especially high I suspect.  

Edited 21 hours ago by Calm

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Sex-segregated bathrooms have been around for a long time, as have their intended purposes, which purposes are reasonable and legitimate.

However, I am open to hearing alternative approaches, hence my various inquiries, over the space of years, about "limiting principles."

I would suggest that until now, the limiting principle in Kansas has always been, "use the facility that best corresponds to your presentation and identity, and let laws against voyeurism, exposure, harassment, and assault continue to apply." Such a limiting principle would meet the purposes of sex-segregated spaces better than ones you support which require Brian Michael Smith (photo below) to use the women's restroom.

In the entire history of the state of Kansas, can you give me a single example of creep using the woman's restroom and who deserved to be punished but wasn't because SB 244 wasn't on the books? If there was a real rather than hypothetical need for this law, there should be entire case studies of cops saying, "we wish we could kick him out of the restroom and arrest him, but what he's doing is legal and there's nothing we can do." Or women complaining, "The lady's room has a creep loitering there and he makes me feel unsafe there!" 

When has that happened? Beyond your theorizing, please provide me some real-world examples of the problems this is intended to solve. Or one. Just one case study. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A laissez faire, let-everyone-do-whatever-they-want approach is, in my view, untenable because it has no limiting principles.

Within the state of Kansas, where is the evidence that the laissez-faire approach wasn't working? Where is the real-world evidence that we needed a new “limiting principle” beyond letting people use ordinary judgment about which restroom made the most sense?

There may be something on the order of 75,000 publicly accessible restrooms in Kansas, and they have been used tens of billions of times over the last few decades. Can you show me one Kansas case in which a man—however you choose to define that term—claimed a right to use the women's restroom and then used that access to engage in creepy behavior that was illegal or should have been illegal?

That's the part of your argument I don't understand. You keep saying we need a limiting principle, but you haven't demonstrated the problem that this particular limiting principle solves.

So what evidence is there that this was causing an actual problem in Kansas?

The relevant question is whether the rule improves the outcomes it was supposedly designed to improve. So far, I haven't seen evidence that Kansas had a meaningful restroom-access problem before S.B. 244, while we already have concrete examples of the new law causing real-world problems after its enactment.

If you have evidence showing otherwise, I'd genuinely like to see it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think that you are shifting the question.  The issue is not whether every person whose appearance is ambiguous or atypical must be aggressively policed at the bathroom door. Most people already navigate ordinary social situations with a degree of practical judgment. The issue is what the rule is when someone asserts a right of access.

Thanks to the law you support, the issue in Kansas is whether every person whose appearance is ambiguous or atypical must be aggressively policed at the bathroom door. Read the NYT article.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The discomfort that can arise in edge cases under a sex-based rule is real.  I acknowledge that.  The loss of a workable boundary under a self-ID rule is also real, and it affects the entire category, not just the edge cases.  I don't think you are acknowledging or addressing that.

The boundary Kansas had before this new law was workable. We know that because it worked. If it wasn't working, give me actual empirical evidence it wasn't working.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

One standard keeps the boundary tied to sex. The other replaces that boundary with a subjective or appearance-based claim.

I adamantly disagree with your framing here. One standard is based on common sense and allows for the good-faith judgment of the individuals it affects. That is the standard we've always had, and that is the standard that was working perfectly fine. Now social warriors want to replace that common-sense boundary that had always been working with a rigid one that makes it a crime for people like Marquise Vilsón (image below) to use the men's room and requires them to use the women's restroom. 

The laws you support are creating real-world problems to solve a hypothetical problem. The tradeoff isn't worth it.

 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You are no longer a member of the Church, yet you have spent years racking up thousands of posts commentating about the Church.  I assume that you feel you are a "stakeholder," and thus entitled to publicly speak about these matters because of your former affiliation, your acquaintance with Latter-day Saints, because the Church is part of society and has an impact on it, because we live in America and enjoy Free Speech and Association, and so on.

Could you therefore elaborate on your "if you aren't a stakeholder, it really isn't something to worry about" reasoning?

I'm not a stakeholder in the church, and I don't care what it does. Just as I don't care about the rules governing the WNBA, I don't care about the rules in the church. I don't complain about women not getting the priesthood, how long church services are, whether garments have sleeves, how old you are when you go on a mission, whether missionaries should be allowed to wear blue ties and call home every day, etc. I really don't care, and I don't recall commenting on such things.

I have commented on issues such as the size of reserve funds and whether the church ought to be tax exempt. I have particular expertise on those topics, and since taxpayers are subsidizing the church, I am a stakeholder on those issues.

Otherwise, I may have commented on the Church's truth claims and the evidence that allegedly supports it, but that is about whether individuals should believe it, not what the church itself should do.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You have frequently weighed in on, and endorsed, governmental oversight on the Church's actions. 

So how does this "They aren't stakeholders" rationale apply to that?

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Isn't this the same for the other side?  Those who are pushing for transgender people to be in sports but don't know anything about sports are probably being manipulated by somebody for political purposes?

I'm not sure. I don't think issues like this energize the liberal base like they do for conservatives.

For my part, I have very little sympathy for people like Laurel Hubbard or Lia Thomas insisting they have some sort of Constitutional right to compete as women in elite sporting events. If they want to present themselves to the world as women, then go for it. And if they swim or lift weights, then swim or lift weights. But don't try to compete at an elite level--that is like a grown man playing basketball with ten-year olds. Not cool.

I don't think I'm out of the mainstream on this.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I would suggest that until now, the limiting principle in Kansas has always been, "use the facility that best corresponds to your presentation and identity, and let laws against voyeurism, exposure, harassment, and assault continue to apply." Such a limiting principle would meet the purposes of sex-segregated spaces better than ones you support which require Brian Michael Smith (photo below) to use the women's restroom.

In the entire history of the state of Kansas, can you give me a single example of creep using the woman's restroom and who deserved to be punished but wasn't because SB 244 wasn't on the books? If there was a real rather than hypothetical need for this law, there should be entire case studies of cops saying, "we wish we could kick him out of the restroom and arrest him, but what he's doing is legal and there's nothing we can do." Or women complaining, "The lady's room has a creep loitering there and he makes me feel unsafe there!" 

When has that happened? Beyond your theorizing, please provide me some real-world examples of the problems this is intended to solve. Or one. Just one case study. 

That description reframes the historical practice. Sex-separated bathrooms were understood to be separated by sex, not by self-identified gender or preferred presentation. Informal tolerance for occasional edge cases is not the same thing as a rule that identity or appearance governs access.

Ordinary criminal laws against assault, voyeurism, and indecent exposure remain necessary under any regime. They are not a substitute for the boundary itself. Those laws address misconduct after it occurs; the sex-based rule is a prophylactic measure that keeps males out of female intimate spaces in the first place. Demanding a single, perfectly documented Kansas case in which police said “we are powerless without SB 244” sets an artificially high bar. We do not require a headline incident in one state before recognizing why women’s prisons, shelters, and locker rooms are separated by sex. 

Also, the absence of a specific law prohibiting males from entering into women's bathrooms means it may not have been a chargeable offense.  And if it was, it was likely a misdemeanor (SB 244 designates violation of the new law a Class B misdemeanor).  There is, I think, going to be little publicly-available information about incidents along these lines.

A rule that admits any male who identifies or presents as female has no coherent stopping point. That is the limiting-principle problem. Maintaining sex as the criterion preserves the purpose of the spaces; replacing it with identity or presentation does not.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Within the state of Kansas, where is the evidence that the laissez-faire approach wasn't working? Where is the real-world evidence that we needed a new “limiting principle” beyond letting people use ordinary judgment about which restroom made the most sense?

There may be something on the order of 75,000 publicly accessible restrooms in Kansas, and they have been used tens of billions of times over the last few decades. Can you show me one Kansas case in which a man—however you choose to define that term—claimed a right to use the women's restroom and then used that access to engage in creepy behavior that was illegal or should have been illegal?

That's the part of your argument I don't understand. You keep saying we need a limiting principle, but you haven't demonstrated the problem that this particular limiting principle solves.

So what evidence is there that this was causing an actual problem in Kansas?

The relevant question is whether the rule improves the outcomes it was supposedly designed to improve. So far, I haven't seen evidence that Kansas had a meaningful restroom-access problem before S.B. 244, while we already have concrete examples of the new law causing real-world problems after its enactment.

If you have evidence showing otherwise, I'd genuinely like to see it.

You seem to be treating the presence or absence of a single, perfectly documented Kansas “creep exploits self-ID” case as decisive, while treating any post-enactment inconvenience to transgender-identified people as proof the law fails. That is not a balanced standard of evidence.

Sex-separated bathrooms were not originally created in response to a statistical crisis unique to Kansas. They exist because of enduring differences between the sexes: strength, patterns of sexual offense and voyeurism, and the ordinary expectation of privacy when undressing or using the toilet. Those reasons are not refuted by the lack of a headline incident in one state that meets an extremely narrow search criterion. We do not require a recent, well-publicized assault in Topeka before recognizing why women’s prisons, shelters, and locker rooms are separated by sex.

The “laissez-faire / use whatever makes sense” approach only functions while the shared understanding remains that these spaces are separated by sex. Once identity or presentation is treated as the governing criterion, that shared understanding is replaced. At that point any male who claims a female identity has a right of access, and ordinary criminal laws become after-the-fact remedies rather than a substitute for the boundary itself.

The relevant comparison is not “zero qualifying Kansas crimes under the old informal norm” versus “some enforcement friction under the new statute.” It is whether a clear sex-based rule better preserves the privacy and safety purposes of the spaces than a rule that severs access from sex. The first has a limiting principle, the second does not. Demanding a single idealized case study before allowing the first rule to exist sets a bar we do not apply to other sex-separated facilities.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I think that you are shifting the question.  The issue is not whether every person whose appearance is ambiguous or atypical must be aggressively policed at the bathroom door. Most people already navigate ordinary social situations with a degree of practical judgment. The issue is what the rule is when someone asserts a right of access.

Thanks to the law you support, the issue in Kansas is whether every person whose appearance is ambiguous or atypical must be aggressively policed at the bathroom door. Read the NYT article.

I guess we'll need to agree to disagree about this.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The boundary Kansas had before this new law was workable. We know that because it worked. If it wasn't working, give me actual empirical evidence it wasn't working.

Perhaps the "boundary" worked previously because there were very few males trying to enter into women's bathrooms.  The social taboo/stigma was sufficient.  And perhaps in recent years there have been increasing incidents of males entering into women's bathrooms.

Put another way, “it worked” (which you assert, but do not demonstrate) only describes the period in which the operative social and legal understanding was still that these spaces were separated by sex. Informal tolerance for occasional edge cases is not the same thing as a formal rule that identity or presentation governs access.

Once the rule becomes self-identification (and as the likelihood of males who "identify" as women, but also any other males as well) see the boundary breaking down, the boundary is no longer the one that previously “worked.” Any male who asserts a female identity - and any other male, for that matter - then has a claim to enter, and the prior informal norm no longer constrains him. That is a change in the rule, not a continuation of the old arrangement.

The absence of a large, well-documented set of Kansas incidents under the old understanding does not prove that dissolving the sex-based boundary will preserve the same outcomes. It only shows that a sex-based expectation, backed by ordinary social enforcement and criminal law, was largely adequate. Replacing that expectation with an identity-based entitlement is a different regime. The burden is not solely to prove the old system was in crisis; it is to justify why the category should be redefined so that sex no longer controls access to a space created on the basis of sex.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

One standard keeps the boundary tied to sex. The other replaces that boundary with a subjective or appearance-based claim.

I adamantly disagree with your framing here.  One standard is based on common sense and allows for the good-faith judgment of the individuals it affects.

You are labeling your preferred "standard" as "common sense."  I am framing it as "replac{ing} that {sex-differentiating} boundary with a subjective or appearance-based claim."

Of the two, I think my framing is more accurate and clinical.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is the standard we've always had, and that is the standard that was working perfectly fine. Now social warriors want to replace that common-sense boundary that had always been working with a rigid one that makes it a crime for people like Marquise Vilsón (image below) to use the men's room and requires them to use the women's restroom. 

The laws you support are creating real-world problems to solve a hypothetical problem. The tradeoff isn't worth it.

The historical practice was not an open-ended “use whatever matches your identity or presentation” rule. It rested on the shared understanding that the facilities were separated by sex. Within that understanding, people exercised ordinary judgment about awkward edge cases. That is not the same thing as a formal standard that makes identity or appearance the criterion of access.

Once identity is treated as decisive and discretionary (left to the individual), the old informal norm no longer governs. Any male who asserts a female identity then has a claim to enter (as does any other male, as you have yet to articulate any legally coherent mechanism to differentiate the two categories), and “common sense” becomes optional for anyone who chooses not to follow it. That is a redefinition of the boundary, not a continuation of the prior arrangement.

A sex-based rule will sometimes create discomfort for people whose presentation diverges from their sex. That cost is real.  I think I have acknowledged this a few times now.

The cost of the alternative is also real: the loss of a coherent sex-based boundary for everyone else who uses the space.  I think you have yet to acknowledge this.

I think women's bathrooms and other sex-segregated spaces have always been intended to be fore the use and benefit of women and girls.  I think the law should support that intended purpose, even if doing so comes at the expense of some males who - for any reason or no reason at all - may want to enter into those spaces.

Calling the first cost “real-world” and the second “hypothetical” simply privileges one set of interests. Both are concrete. The question is which set of costs is more consistent with the purpose of sex-separated facilities. IMO, keeping the boundary tied to sex remains the more coherent answer.

I think our disagreement is ultimately rooted in conflicting philosophical presuppositions.

You appear to hold that at least some biological males who "identify" as women thereby become women in the relevant sense, or that “woman” should be defined in a way that is no longer anchored to sex and instead means, in effect, “anyone who identifies as a woman.” On that premise, excluding such a person from women’s facilities is treating a woman as if she were a man, which understandably looks unjust to you.

I do not share that premise. I take “woman” to mean adult human female. On that understanding, a male who identifies as a woman remains male. Admitting him to women’s facilities is not an act of recognition, but instead is the abandonment of the sex-based boundary that justifies the facilities in the first place. The discomfort this creates for some individuals who present or identify differently is real, but it does not require us to redefine the category or surrender the boundary.  And the alternative is to create problems and impositions on women and girls, for whom bathrooms and other sex-segregated spaces are intended.

So the practical dispute about restrooms is downstream of a prior disagreement about what the words mean and whether sex remains a legitimate basis for the distinction. If sex is real and relevant, a sex-based rule is coherent. If "identity" overrides sex, then the sex-based rule will always look like injustice. That is the deeper conflict. The restroom arguments are mostly a working-out of those incompatible starting points.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm not a stakeholder in the church, and I don't care what it does.

So non-stakeholders can nevertheless opine about such matters.  

Seems like we agree about that.

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Just as I don't care about the rules governing the WNBA, I don't care about the rules in the church. I don't complain about women not getting the priesthood, how long church services are, whether garments have sleeves, how old you are when you go on a mission, whether missionaries should be allowed to wear blue ties and call home every day, etc. I really don't care, and I don't recall commenting on such things.

You comment on the Church all the time.  Thousands of posts.  Over many years.

And you are quite at liberty to do so.  I encourage you to keep doing so.  

I was responding to what I thought was a gatekeeping comment by you: "Should leages be legally required to exclude trans athletes, even if they aren't breaking the curve? I don't know, but if you aren't a stakeholder, it really isn't something to worry about."

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I have commented on issues such as the size of reserve funds and whether the church ought to be tax exempt. I have particular expertise on those topics, and since taxpayers are subsidizing the church, I am a stakeholder on those issues.

To clarify: Are you saying that the only times you have commented about the Church are when you are "a stakeholder" in the topics/issues under discussion?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

For my part, I have very little sympathy for people like Laurel Hubbard or Lia Thomas insisting they have some sort of Constitutional right to compete as women in elite sporting events.

Thank you for sharing this perspective.  I would like to better understand it.

I assume you would not say that you "have very little sympathy for people {situated} like {Marquise Vilsón}" who are "insisting they have some sort of Constitutional right to {use women's bathrooms}."

"Constitutional" hyperbole aside, you seem to disregard sex-based restrictions on biological males competing in women's sports, yet you seem quite exercised about sex-based restrictions on biological males entering into women's bathrooms.  Could you elaborate on how you differentiate between these issues?

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If they want to present themselves to the world as women, then go for it. And if they swim or lift weights, then swim or lift weights. But don't try to compete at an elite level--that is like a grown man playing basketball with ten-year olds. Not cool.

Are there any other grounds to find what Lia Thomas did problematic?

There have been a few arguments in favor of differentiating biological men - including "trans women" - in different contexts:

1. Privacy and dignity: Intimate spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms, changing areas) involve undressing and bodily functions. Many people reasonably expect not to share those spaces with the opposite sex. This interest is grounded in modesty and personal boundaries, not merely fear of crime.
2. Physical safety / risk patterns: Males, as a group, commit the large majority of sexual assaults, voyeurism, and exhibitionism. Sex separation is a prophylactic measure that reduces opportunities for male-pattern offenses in spaces where women and girls are vulnerable. The argument does not require every male to be dangerous; it relies on base rates and the difficulty of screening intent.
3. Fairness in sports: Male physiology (testosterone-driven muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, strength, speed) confers large average performance advantages that are not eliminated by testosterone suppression. Sex-separated sport exists to give females a fair chance to compete and win.
4. Medical and data integrity: Sex is a binary biological variable relevant to diagnosis, drug dosing, disease risk, and research. Recording or treating people according to identity rather than sex can distort clinical care and population data.
5. Single-sex institutions and associational rights: Women’s shelters, prisons, sports teams, and certain schools or organizations were created to serve females as a class. Allowing males to enter on the basis of identity undermines the purpose of those institutions and the ability of women to associate on the basis of sex.
6. Child safeguarding: In schools and youth settings, sex separation reduces risks related to exposure, boundary violations, and the introduction of secondary-sex characteristics or adult male patterns into female spaces.
7. Limiting-principle / coherence argument: Once self-identification overrides sex, there is no non-arbitrary way to exclude any male who claims a female identity. Appearance-based or “common-sense” standards are unstable and easily contested. Sex remains the only clear, objective criterion that preserves the category.
8. Social and psychological effects on women and girls: Loss of sex-separated spaces can increase anxiety, reduce participation (especially in sport and school activities), and signal that female boundaries are secondary to male identity claims.

You seem to agree with #3 ("Fairness in sport"), but disagree with or reject most or all of the others.  Is this a fair characterization of your perspective?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I would suggest that until now, the limiting principle in Kansas has always been, "use the facility that best corresponds to your presentation and identity, and let laws against voyeurism, exposure, harassment, and assault continue to apply." Such a limiting principle would meet the purposes of sex-segregated spaces better than ones you support which require Brian Michael Smith (photo below) to use the women's restroom.

In the entire history of the state of Kansas, can you give me a single example of creep using the woman's restroom and who deserved to be punished but wasn't because SB 244 wasn't on the books? If there was a real rather than hypothetical need for this law, there should be entire case studies of cops saying, "we wish we could kick him out of the restroom and arrest him, but what he's doing is legal and there's nothing we can do." Or women complaining, "The lady's room has a creep loitering there and he makes me feel unsafe there!" 

When has that happened? Beyond your theorizing, please provide me some real-world examples of the problems this is intended to solve. Or one. Just one case study. 

Within the state of Kansas, where is the evidence that the laissez-faire approach wasn't working? Where is the real-world evidence that we needed a new “limiting principle” beyond letting people use ordinary judgment about which restroom made the most sense?

There may be something on the order of 75,000 publicly accessible restrooms in Kansas, and they have been used tens of billions of times over the last few decades. Can you show me one Kansas case in which a man—however you choose to define that term—claimed a right to use the women's restroom and then used that access to engage in creepy behavior that was illegal or should have been illegal?

That's the part of your argument I don't understand. You keep saying we need a limiting principle, but you haven't demonstrated the problem that this particular limiting principle solves.

So what evidence is there that this was causing an actual problem in Kansas?

The relevant question is whether the rule improves the outcomes it was supposedly designed to improve. So far, I haven't seen evidence that Kansas had a meaningful restroom-access problem before S.B. 244, while we already have concrete examples of the new law causing real-world problems after its enactment.

If you have evidence showing otherwise, I'd genuinely like to see it.

Thanks to the law you support, the issue in Kansas is whether every person whose appearance is ambiguous or atypical must be aggressively policed at the bathroom door. Read the NYT article.

The boundary Kansas had before this new law was workable. We know that because it worked. If it wasn't working, give me actual empirical evidence it wasn't working.

I adamantly disagree with your framing here. One standard is based on common sense and allows for the good-faith judgment of the individuals it affects. That is the standard we've always had, and that is the standard that was working perfectly fine. Now social warriors want to replace that common-sense boundary that had always been working with a rigid one that makes it a crime for people like Marquise Vilsón (image below) to use the men's room and requires them to use the women's restroom. 

The laws you support are creating real-world problems to solve a hypothetical problem. The tradeoff isn't worth it.

 

Seriously as a woman I do not want anyone who could so easily look way too intimidating in a space where we might be alone, especially if I am unclothed.  I find the law that requires apparently fully transitioned individuals to use the restrooms of their biological sex insane.  I think putting a transwoman in danger by having her use men only restrooms equally insane as forcing me and other women to use the restrooms in the presence of an apparent male (even if they aren’t actually biologically male).  That is the same in my view as requiring me to use the men’s room in terms of danger.  Why would I be willing to put someone else in that kind of danger when I wouldn’t accept it for myself.

More examples of when it comes to law, common sense ain’t that common.

Edited 19 hours ago by Calm

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The absence of a large, well-documented set of Kansas incidents under the old understanding does not prove that dissolving the sex-based boundary will preserve the same outcomes.

You haven't been able to provide a single example of somebody in Kansas merely alleging that a person claimed a "right to entry" into a women's-only space for an improper purpose. Not one. 

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It only shows that a sex-based expectation, backed by ordinary social enforcement and criminal law, was largely adequate.

You've provided zero evidence--not even a single mere anecdote--that it was anything less that perfectly adequate. 

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The historical practice was not an open-ended “use whatever matches your identity or presentation” rule. It rested on the shared understanding that the facilities were separated by sex. Within that understanding, people exercised ordinary judgment about awkward edge cases.

The only people affected by the new law are the "awkward edge cases."

 

 

 

 

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Seriously as a woman I do not want anyone who could so easily look way too intimidating in a space where we might be alone, especially if I am unclothed.  

Does this preference apply to males other than "trans women"?

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find the law that requires apparently fully transitioned individuals to use the restrooms of their biological sex insane.  

I assume, then, that you are on board with an alternative approach.  Could you elaborate on that that alternative is, and how it would differentiate "trans women" (who would seemingly be allowed into women's bathrooms) and other biological males (who would not be allowed)?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Quote

 

The historical practice was not an open-ended “use whatever matches your identity or presentation” rule. It rested on the shared understanding that the facilities were separated by sex. Within that understanding, people exercised ordinary judgment about awkward edge cases.

 

The only people affected by the new law are the "awkward edge cases."

I don't think we can say that.  Women and girls who do not want males in women's spaces have also been affected by the new law.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Constitutional" hyperbole aside, you seem to disregard sex-based restrictions on biological males competing in women's sports, yet you seem quite exercised about sex-based restrictions on biological males entering into women's bathrooms.  Could you elaborate on how you differentiate between these issues?

Nobody needs to compete in the 500-yard freestyle. But everybody needs to pee. 

The Kansas Law only effects the edge cases. If we really care about privacy, dignity, safety, etc., having a law that requires Kaleb Hobson-Garcia (photo below) to use the lady's room would be the opposite of what we need. But that is exactly what you support.

 

As Calm said above, "I find the law that requires apparently fully transitioned individuals to use the restrooms of their biological sex insane."

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think we can say that.  Women and girls who do not want males in women's spaces have also been affected by the new law.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do these alleged women and girls really want the following people in women spaces? Why? 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The Kansas Law only effects the edge cases.

I understand that is your perspective.  I think that the Kansas law affects a lot of people, including women and girls who do not want males to be present in bathrooms.

Could you elaborate on how the law does not affect these people?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Do these alleged women and girls really want the following people in women spaces?  Why?

I think there are a lot of women and girls who do not want males in women spaces.  I also don't think we can ignore these folks, or tell them that their desire for sex-segregated spaces is unreasonable or "insane."

Again: Sex-separated bathrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and prison units exist because of persistent differences in strength, patterns of sexual offense, and the reasonable expectation of privacy from the opposite sex. These are not arbitrary preferences.  They are responses to material realities that affect safety, fairness, and dignity at scale.

Assuming, arguendo, that there exists in Kansas women and girls (and others) who want sex-segregated bathrooms, do you think these are legitimate concerns, or not?

Also, I will again note that we apparently differ in how we approach matters of public policy.  As I noted previously:

Quote

I think we differ in our perspectives and approaches in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons, one of which is that you seem to approach public policy questions from the (extreme?) margins, hence your gallery of pictures featuring biological women who "identify" as men.  I tend to conceptualize public policy questions from a "how does this play out when deployed over a large area/population" kind of way.

Please note that my statement above reflects this approach: "They are responses to material realities that affect safety, fairness, and dignity {for women and girls} at scale."  This is how the law plays out as to the persons for whom sex-segregated spaces were created.

In contrast, your perspective is based on how the the law plays out as to persons for whom sex-segregated spaces were created to exclude, namely, biological males ("trans women" in particular, but all males in practice).

Again: A consistent sex-based rule means that males (however they identify or present) do not use women’s facilities, and females (however they identify or present) do not use men’s facilities. I acknowledge that rule will sometimes produce awkward situations for people whose appearance does not match their sex. That is a real cost. But then, the alternative rule (access according to self-identification) also produces costs: loss of privacy, safety concerns, and competitive unfairness for the group the spaces were created to protect.

Again: If there is/are "limiting principle(s)" by which laws could differentiate between A) "transgender" men and B) other men with nefarious reasons for entering into women's bathrooms, and also which could preserve women's and girls' interest in privacy and safety, I would really like to hear about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 18 hours ago by smac97

[Analytics]

The way I see things, for the purposes of using the restroom, the following individuals should choose the women's restroom.

 

@smac97 doesn't believe these people should be allowed to use the women's restroom because to him, they "are" men, and as such, when they go to sex-distinct spaces they should go to the men's room. No exceptions. Full stop.

The Kansas law that Smac supports has a bounty provision. Now, going to the bathroom isn't merely about going to pee. It's also about an opportunity to make some money; if you go to the bathroom and you suspect somebody's birth certificate doesn't match the sign on the bathroom door, you can sue them for $1,000.

What an amazing victory for privacy, dignity, and safety!

 

 

[Analytics]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think there are a lot of women and girls who do not want males in women spaces.  

Again: Sex-separated bathrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and prison units exist because of persistent differences in strength, patterns of sexual offense, and the reasonable expectation of privacy from the opposite sex. These are not arbitrary preferences.  They are responses to material realities that affect safety, fairness, and dignity at scale.

Do you think these are legitimate concerns, or not?

Thanks,

-Smac

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. For reasons of persistent differences in strength, patterns of sexual offense, and the reasonable expectation of privacy from the opposite sex, women want people who like Andreja Pejić (pictured below) to be forbidden from going to the women's bathroom, because they are big scary men:

 

In contrast, you want people like Marquise Vilsón (pictured below) not only to have a license to be able to use the women's room because they are really women, but to actually also to be required to use it because it is against the law for them to use the men's room. 

To be clear, I'm not attacking the general concept of gender-distinct spaces. I'm merely saying that if you are serious about the stated objectives of such spaces, you should be in favor of Marquise Vilsón using the men's room and Andreja Pejić using the lady's room. Laws that disallow such things are, as Calm correctly pointed out, insane. 

 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Analytics

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Does this preference apply to males other than "trans women"?

I think I was pretty clear on what I meant with “fully transitioned”.  If you can tell me what other males are willing to have surgery, hair removal, take meds, practice female mannerisms and invest in female clothing that may be costly as the usual sizes don’t fit them, please point actual examples out (not just hypotheticals) and I will consider them.

Even if someone is obviously a transwoman and not someone I would need a dna test to figure out they were biologically male like the above pictures I quoted, if they have gone to the effort to make themselves look as much as a woman as possible, I think I would be okay with that…never had it happen that I know of, so can’t be sure.  Have been comfortable in other situations.  Living life as a woman typically requires much more effort than just an afternoon of dressing up because it takes time and effort to learn the skills of decent makeup, etc.  There are also mannerisms that will likely get picked up overtime which would look odd or unnatural if just adopted for the purpose to invade women’s space aggressively.

There is a pharmacist that I believe is biologically male, but only because of her voice.  Her face and body are androgynous, so I could be wrong.  Her style is definitely feminine.  I would not feel the least uncomfortable if she happened to walk into the restroom if I was there, whether biomale or female.  I am like MS where no thanks to seeing penises, but that’s not going to happen with normal use of women’s bathroom since there are always stalls.  If a transwoman who hasn’t had bottom surgery, but otherwise has transitioned wants to use a locker room, hopefully there are curtained stalls for changing.  I feel bad for the inconvenience if not, hopefully there is a partitioned off toilet area or private room available….there has been curtains or an individual space in every locker room I have been in, so hopefully not having one is uncommon.  

For the times there isn’t, given that our culture has resulted in a massive number of women being assaulted and seeing a penis other than one’s partner’s has become a trauma trigger for them and a panic trigger for many other women for very valid reasons, I think the costs are ultimately higher in this specific case  (locker room where there is no way to ensure no glimpse of a penis while changing clothes) for biological women than trans women.  However, I believe accommodations should be made if it’s a work or large public environment so ridiculous situations such as being fired for making an effort to find a bathroom that is acceptable for both the employer and the employee doesn’t happen.  If any legal restriction is placed, there should a reasonable accommodation inclusion to cover the costs to the transgender individual for having to abide by it.  If that doesn’t happen, I think the law is likely immoral.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The way I see things, for the purposes of using the restroom, the following individuals should choose the women's restroom.

The way I see things, for the purposes of using the restroom, the following individuals should use the men's restroom:

Quote

@smac97 doesn't believe these people should be allowed to use the women's restroom because to him, they "are" men,

They are men not based on my perspective and not because of me.  But because of biology and reality.

Quote

and as such, when they go to sex-distinct spaces they should go to the men's room. No exceptions. Full stop.

I have repeatedly invited you to present some alternative to sex-bases segregation.  

I'll do it again: If there is/are "limiting principle(s)" by which laws could differentiate between A) "transgender" men and B) other men with nefarious reasons for entering into women's bathrooms, and also which could preserve women's and girls' interest in privacy and safety, I would really like to hear about it.

Quote

The Kansas law that Smac supports has a bounty provision. Now, going to the bathroom isn't merely about going to pee. It's also about an opportunity to make some money; if you go to the bathroom and you suspect somebody's birth certificate doesn't match the sign on the bathroom door, you can sue them for $1,000.

The “bounty” characterization is overstated, but the private right of action is real and worth addressing directly.

SB 244 creates a civil cause of action for a person who, while using a multi-occupancy facility designated for their sex, is aggrieved by the presence of someone of the opposite sex in violation of the statute. The liquidated amount is $1,000 (plus the possibility of fees). It is not a free-floating reward for anyone who merely “suspects” a mismatch and files a lawsuit; it is framed as a remedy for invasion of privacy or related harm in a sex-designated space.

Private rights of action are common in many areas of law (civil rights statutes, consumer protection, some privacy and trespass contexts). Their purpose is to give affected individuals a way to enforce a boundary when public authorities cannot or do not act in every instance. Whether this particular design is well-calibrated—amount, standing requirements, safeguards against abuse—is a fair subject for debate. Over-broad or poorly drafted private enforcement can encourage frivolous claims or harassment; that is a legitimate design concern.

It does not follow, however, that the underlying sex-based rule is unjustified simply because the statute includes a civil remedy. The policy question remains whether access to sex-separated intimate facilities should turn on sex or on identity. A private right of action is one enforcement tool; it is not the justification for the rule itself. One can support sex-based boundaries while still arguing about the wisest way to enforce them, including whether a $1,000 liquidated-damages provision is proportionate or prone to misuse.

If the objection is to the specific enforcement mechanism, that is a narrower and more productive discussion than treating any private remedy as proof that the sex-based standard is illegitimate.

Quote

What an amazing victory for privacy, dignity, and safety!

Our substantive conversation appears to be coming to a close.

Sarcasm doesn’t answer the underlying question.

If privacy, dignity, and safety are the purposes of sex-separated facilities, then the relevant test is whether a sex-based rule or an identity-based rule better serves those purposes. A sex-based rule keeps the boundary tied to the characteristic the spaces were created around. An identity-based rule severs that connection and leaves no coherent way to exclude males who claim a female identity.

You can criticize the drafting or enforcement mechanisms of a particular statute. That is fair. What is not persuasive is treating any attempt to maintain a sex-based boundary as inherently absurd or authoritarian, while treating the dissolution of that boundary as the default of “common sense.” The disagreement is about which rule actually protects the interests the facilities exist to serve.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 16 hours ago by smac97

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

assume, then, that you are on board with an alternative approach.  Could you elaborate on that that alternative is, and how it would differentiate "trans women" (who would seemingly be allowed into women's bathrooms) and other biological males (who would not be allowed)?  

The same way that happened a decade or two ago and was functioning relatively well (in the sense of with transgendered individuals and worked like tissue paper in stopping actual predators who weren’t bothered by social pressures to avoid such areas).

I highly doubt any male who is willing to pretend they are a trans woman (not just labels, but appear to be transitioned) when they are not is going to be stopped by shaming in any fashion.  Most likely it might get them a few feet closer to women, but I doubt that.  If someone reads male, females will be alert.  It would be easier, cheaper, and more believable for them to dress up like custodians and walk in like that.

Laws then didn’t stop males dressed as males from entering to assault women and requiring id or banning all transwomen to enter isn’t going to change that unless you put guards on all the doors.  Social standards and previous laws will work for those they worked for before and will continue not to work with actual predators.  If the possibility of being challenged one was male before didn’t stop assaults, why would someone think it would work now?

Edited 16 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Does this preference apply to males other than "trans women"?

I think I was pretty clear on what I meant with “fully transitioned”.  

Okay.  But I am not sure you were clear on what you think about other-than-'fully-transitioned'-'trans-women' biological males.  Hence my inquiry.  

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you can tell me what other males are willing to have surgery, hair removal, take meds, practice female mannerisms and invest in female clothing that may be costly as the usual sizes don’t fit them, please point actual examples out (not just hypotheticals) and I will consider them.

Again, my inquiry was about "males other than {fully-transitioned} 'trans women.'" 

You said: "I find the law that requires apparently fully transitioned individuals to use the restrooms of their biological sex insane."

Got it.  Understood.  But what about a law pertaining to all males?  If I understand you, you are taking the position that "fully transitioned" biological males ought to be able to go into women's bathrooms, but you would exclude all other males.  Am I correctly stating your position?

Putting aside your perspective on "fully transitioned individuals" using "the restrooms of their biological sex," what is your perspective on all other males going into women's bathrooms?  Are you for it or against it?  If so, how would you propose to differentiate between the authorized males (fully transitioned trans women) and unauthorized males (everyone except fully transitioned trans women)?

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even if someone is obviously a transwoman and not someone I would need a dna test to figure out they were biologically male like the above pictures I quoted, if they have gone to the effort to make themselves look as much as a woman as possible, I think I would be okay with that…never had it happen that I know of, so can’t be sure.  

Understood.  To clarify, I am asking for both your personal perspective and also your public policy proposals.  I hope you can elaborate on the latter.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am like MS where no thanks to seeing penises, but that’s not going to happen with normal use of women’s bathroom since there are always stalls.  

Okay.  What does "no thanks to seeing penises {in women's bathrooms}" mean from the public policy perspective?

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

If a transwoman who hasn’t had bottom surgery, but otherwise has transitioned wants to use a locker room, hopefully there are curtained stalls for changing.  I feel bad for the inconvenience if not, hopefully there is a partitioned off toilet area or private room available….there has been curtains or an individual space in every locker room I have been in, so hopefully not having one is uncommon.

In your view, should "a transwoman who hasn’t had bottom surgery" be allowed into women's bathrooms?

Apparently only a small percentage of trans women (5-13%) have undergone "bottom surgery."  So your stated position pertains to a small fraction ("fully transitioned") of a small fraction ("trans women") of biological males.  Perhaps I have overlooked where you have laid out your perspective on the vast majority of males - "trans" or otherwise - going into women's bathrooms.

You did say this:

Quote

Seriously as a woman I do not want anyone who could so easily look way too intimidating in a space where we might be alone, especially if I am unclothed.

How does this work from a public policy perspective?  Whom would you exclude from women's bathrooms?  What criteria would you use?  What "limiting principles" would you propose?  Any?  None? 

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

For the times there isn’t, given that our culture has resulted in a massive number of women being assaulted and seeing a penis other than one’s partner’s has become a trauma trigger for them and a panic trigger for many other women for very valid reasons, I think the costs are ultimately higher in this specific case  (locker room where there is no way to ensure no glimpse of a penis while changing clothes) for biological women than trans women.  However, I believe accommodations should be made if it’s a work or large public environment so ridiculous situations such as being fired for making an effort to find a bathroom that is acceptable for both the employer and the employee doesn’t happen.  

What sort of "accommodations"?  The small-fraction-of-a-small-fraction of males who meet your "fully transitioned" criterion?

Also, what sort of enforcement mechanism do you have in mind.  Assuming you are excluding all males except "fully transitioned" ones, would the law just be an "on your honor" sort of thing?  

Also, what do you mean when you say "fully transitioned"?  "Bottom surgery" seems to cover quite a few distinct procedures.  From Grok:

Quote

Here are the main categories of genital (“bottom”) surgeries performed on biological males who identify as women:

1. Orchiectomy

• Surgical removal of the testes.
• Often done alone (as a simpler procedure) or as part of a larger genital surgery.
• Reduces testosterone production and can simplify later hormone regimens.
• Does not create a vaginal canal or external female-appearing genitals by itself.

2. Penectomy

• Removal of the penis.
• Rarely performed in isolation today; usually part of a vaginoplasty.

3. Vaginoplasty (most common full genital reconstruction)

Creates a neovagina and typically includes external genital reconstruction. Main techniques:

• Penile inversion vaginoplasty The most frequently performed method. The penile skin is inverted to line the neovaginal canal; scrotal skin is often used for additional depth or for labia. The glans is usually reshaped into a neoclitoris (with the goal of retaining some sensation).
• Peritoneal pull-through (or peritoneal flap) vaginoplasty Uses tissue from the peritoneum (lining of the abdominal cavity) to form or lengthen the canal. Sometimes combined with penile inversion. Can provide more depth or better self-lubrication characteristics in some cases.
• Intestinal (sigmoid colon or other bowel) vaginoplasty Uses a segment of intestine to create the neovaginal canal. Less common as a primary procedure; sometimes used for revision when depth is insufficient or prior surgery has failed. Carries additional risks related to bowel surgery.
• Other less common or hybrid techniques Variations using skin grafts from other sites, or combinations of the above.

4. Labiaplasty / Vulvoplasty (external-only or limited procedures)

• Construction or refinement of labia and external appearance without creating a full-depth neovaginal canal.
• Sometimes chosen by patients who do not want or cannot have a canal (medical reasons, recovery concerns, or personal preference).
• May be performed as a standalone procedure or as part of / revision after vaginoplasty.

5. Secondary / revision procedures

• Labial revisions, clitoral hood adjustments, deepening or widening of the canal, scar revision, etc.
• Relatively common because primary surgery often requires later refinement.

Which of these procedures counts for the purposes of a "fully transitioned" male to be allowed to go into women's bathrooms?  What criteria are you using to include and exclude items from the "fully transitioned" meaning (from a public policy / statutory perspective)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Just now, smac97 said:

Again, my inquiry was about "males other than {fully-transitioned} 'trans women.'" 

So tell me what males want to use the women’s bathrooms who could pass for women, but aren’t transgendered women?

Since women’s restrooms have stalls, bottom surgery would not be required for using toilets.  Would be needed for any locker room where exposure of penises could occur.

Just now, smac97 said:

Apparently only a small percentage of trans women (5-13%) have undergone "bottom surgery."  So your stated position pertains to a small fraction ("fully transitioned") of a small fraction ("trans women") of biological males.  Perhaps I have overlooked where you have laid out your perspective on the vast majority of males - "trans" or otherwise - going into women's bathrooms.

 

I clarified later in the post.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I assume, then, that you are on board with an alternative approach.  Could you elaborate on that that alternative is, and how it would differentiate "trans women" (who would seemingly be allowed into women's bathrooms) and other biological males (who would not be allowed)?  

The same way that happened a decade or two ago and was functioning relatively well (in the sense of with transgendered individuals and worked like tissue paper in stopping actual predators who weren’t bothered by social pressures to avoid such areas).

What "way" are you referencing here?  Trans women going into women's bathrooms?

Also, in your view are there any other legitimate concerns of women and girls - beyond physical safety - that might be relevant to allowing biological males into women's bathrooms?

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I highly doubt any male who is willing to pretend they are a trans woman (not just labels, but appear to be transitioned) when they are not is going to be stopped by shaming in any fashion.  Most likely it might get them a few feet closer to women, but I doubt that.  If someone reads male, females will be alert.  It would be easier, cheaper, and more believable for them to dress up like custodians and walk in like that.

Laws then didn’t stop males dressed as males from entering to assault women and requiring id or banning all transwomen to enter isn’t going to change that unless you put guards on all the doors.  Social standards and previous laws will work for those they worked for before and will continue not to work with actual predators.  If the possibility of being challenged one was male before didn’t stop assaults, why would someone think it would work now?

From a public policy perspective, I think you are describing an informal, appearance-and-social-pressure regime and treating it as if it were a stable rule.  Am I correct?

That regime only functioned while the background expectation remained that the spaces were separated by sex. Within that expectation, people made practical judgments about edge cases. Once subjective "self-identity" is formally elevated over sex, the background expectation itself changes: a male who asserts a female identity now has a claimed right of access, not merely a hope of avoiding challenge.

That is the difference. Social awkwardness and the risk of being challenged can deter some opportunistic behavior when the formal rule is still sex-based. They are much weaker once the formal rule (or institutional policy) says "self-identity" controls. At that point the person who is challenged can invoke the policy or the law in his favor.

You are also setting what looks to be an impossible standard.  If a rule cannot stop every determined predator, it is supposedly worthless ("and worked like tissue paper in stopping actual predators")?  Almost no boundary works that way. Locks, age restrictions, and sex-separated prisons do not eliminate all misconduct; they still exist, reduce opportunity and express a clear norm. The same is true here. The claim is not that a sex-based rule will catch every predator. It is that the rule keeps the category coherent and avoids creating a ready-made entitlement for any male willing to claim a female identity.

If the alternative is “let appearance and informal judgment decide, and rely on ordinary criminal law after the fact,” then there is still no principled way to admit males who identify as women while reliably excluding other males. Appearance is a spectrum, identity is unverifiable, and predators are not limited to those who look stereotypically male. That is why I think the "limiting principle" question keeps returning. A sex-based rule has one. An identity- or appearance-based rule does not.

Also, I wonder if some of this discussion has been hampered by our having differing perspectives and presuppositions.  My participation here is based mostly on "public policy"-related issues, whereas you and @Analytics are evaluating the Kansas law and other legalities from the perspective of one or few individuals.  Both inquiries are legitimate, but I hope that, having now pointed out the "public policy" angle, you can weigh in on it.

I value and appreciate your perspective.  Thank you for sharing it.

-Smac