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

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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?

It seems that you are A) assuming that only fully-transitioned "trans women" and bad actors "want to use the women's bathroom," and B) laws restricting males from accessing women's bathrooms are worthless.  Am I correct on that?

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since women’s restrooms have stalls, bottom surgery would not be required for using toilets.  

Okay.  Not sure how this would play out at scale.  Access is lawful based on the status of the individual: Males who are "fully transitioned" trans women can go in, but all other males cannot.  Is that correct?

Or would you prefer to statute or legal mechanism at all?  Just leave the decision to the individual?

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would be needed for any locker room where exposure of penises could occur.

So by "fully transitioned" you are referring to biological males who have had their penises removed?

Would all other men be barred from women's locker rooms?

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I clarified later in the post.

Not really seeing it, but I'll look again.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Yes, the vast majority of the time, those who passed or were close enough to be ambiguous were the only ones attempting to use them…or we would have had this discussion long before it became a political rallying cry.

[Calm]

Just now, smac97 said:

seems that you are A) assuming that only fully-transitioned "trans women" and bad actors "want to use the women's bathroom," and B) laws restricting males from accessing women's bathrooms are worthless.  Am I correct on that?

Only ones I have heard of were those who were transitioned enough to pass, bad actors, and men who couldn’t or wouldn’t wait to use the men’s.

Not seeing why requiring one to have an id that says F in one’s pocket or purse would change the behaviour of the latter two.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure how this would play out at scale. 

What was the way it was done back in 1950 or 60?

Edited 17 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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

Yes, the vast majority of the time, those who passed or were close enough to be ambiguous were the only ones attempting to use them…or we would have had this discussion long before it became a political rallying cry.

I think stories like Lia Thomas and Lily Tino have given rise to these discussions.

Again: The issue did not originate with politicians inventing a controversy. It arose when institutions and advocacy groups began treating self-identification as sufficient to redefine sex-based categories in sports, prisons, shelters, and intimate facilities, and when those changes produced concrete conflicts over fairness, privacy, and safety.  That some politicians thereafter paid attention to it does not mean they created the topic, or that the underlying concerns are fabricated or "insane."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Only ones I have heard of were those who were transitioned enough to pass, bad actors, and men who couldn’t or wouldn’t wait to use the men’s.

Not seeing why requiring one to have an id that says F in one’s pocket or purse would change the behaviour of the latter two.

I think you are conflating two separate - but interrelated - issues.

Government documents should correctly recite the person's biological sex, for a variety of reasons.  But IDs are not really relevant to, for example, the Kansas law.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Government documents should correctly recite the person's biological sex, for a variety of reasons.  But IDs are not really relevant to, for example, the Kansas law.

The ID in the purse or pocket was a stand-in for any type of legal restriction that ends up still being honor based and not with guards at the doors.  Not conflating, wondering how the world such efforts are actually going to work and make any sort of significant difference in safety for biological women.

Can you tell me what sort of restrictions will stop biological nontransitioned males from using women’s bathrooms if they are bad actors or who have too small of a bladder, drank too much, ignored the signals or whatever or who got hit with fluxus ventris (was looking for a Paraguayan dialect word because you know what it is as soon as you hear it…or should, lol, but couldn’t find it, so went with Latin) or just demand instant gratification with no instantly available men’s urinal in sight?

Edited 16 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

WNBA Strongly Denounces “Bad-Faith Efforts” of Cis Men Claiming to Be Trans to Join

Quote

The WNBA has commented on the growing number of outsiders trying to use the league’s gender eligibility policies to stir up controversy.

Following news that two former NBA players, Royce White and Enes Kanter Freedom, plan to register for the WNBA draft by simply saying they identify as women, the league has spoken out against these shameless and transphobic stunts.

I think White and Freedom are making a legitimate point.  If anyone can "register for the WNBA draft by simply saying they identify as women," and if "simply saying" is not to be questioned, then White and Freedom are on their way to the WNBA.

Alternatively, the WNBA would resolve the matter by explaining who does, and does not, count as "women."  But they can't and won't do that.  If the league endorses and accepts the expansive, incoherent, "a woman is anyone who identifies as one" approach, then the point White and Freedom are making will be validated.  Alternatively, if the league puts any coherent constraints on the definition of "woman," then they'll run afoul of folks who object to those constraints. 

Quote

“There are no immediate eligibility matters affecting the WNBA, and we strongly denounce the bad-faith efforts to use these topics to demean or marginalize others,” a league spokesperson told the Associated Press on Wednesday. The statement came after a meeting in which an anti-hate task force composed of team presidents and general managers met to discuss several topics, including transgender athletes.

To the extent White and Freedom are making a point about the definition of "woman," I don't see that as "bad faith."  I see it as a deployment of Saul Alinsky's "Rule 4": "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

Quote

The WNBA’s policy currently states that “only players who are women are eligible to play in the WNBA,” with no language explicitly referencing gender identity or sex assigned at birth.

It's not just the policy.  It's the recent public statements welcoming "trans" athletes into the WNBA.

Quote

Last Friday, Freedom declared that he would be exploiting this vagueness in the WNBA language in order to declare himself a draft candidate.

“If simply declaring who you are is all that’s required, then I meet every single requirement necessary to compete in the WNBA,” Freedom wrote on X on August 7. “Based on the current guidelines, I can and am officially declaring my eligibility for the upcoming WNBA draft in April 2027.”

And he appears to be entirely correct.

Quote

White has said there would be a “huge legal battle” if he was not allowed to play. 

I am curious about this.  Ironically, the WNBA would seemingly need to rely on the reality of biological sex to defeat legal claims.

Quote

As the Associated Press, there has never been a trans woman on a WNBA roster and there is no legitimate trans athlete currently trying to declare for the 2027 draft.

"{N}o legitimate trans athlete."

If these principles are in play, then there is no mechanism whereby the WNBA can dispute a claimed "identity."

Quote

The Wednesday WNBA meeting did not end in any new policies or statutes being adopted regarding trans athlete eligibility, according to the Sports Business Journal. 

I think they want this controversy to blow over.  It may well do that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They are much weaker once the formal rule (or institutional policy) says "self-identity" controls.

When did I say self identity should be the rule?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

The ID was a standing for any type of legal restriction that ends up still being honor based and not with guards at the doors.

Can you tell me what sort of restrictions will stop biological nontransitioned males from using women’s bathrooms if they are bad actors or who have too small of a bladder, drank too much, ignored the signals or whatever or who got hit with fluxus ventris (was looking for a Paraguayan dialect word because you know what it is as soon as you hear it…or should, lol, but couldn’t find it, so went with Latin) or just demand instant gratification with no instantly available men’s urinal in sight?

No rule stops every possible bad actor or every urgent biological need. That is not a serious standard for whether a boundary is justified.

Sex-separated bathrooms have never been claimed to be perfect filters. They reduce opportunity, express a clear norm, and give women a default expectation of privacy from the opposite sex.

Determined predators, people in medical distress, or someone who simply ignores the sign can still cause problems under any regime. The same is true of locks, age limits, and “Employees Only” doors. We do not abandon those measures because they are imperfect.

The relevant comparison is not “sex-based rule vs. zero incidents," but is instead “sex-based rule vs. identity-based (or no) rule.” Under a sex-based rule, a male who enters is already in violation; staff, other users, and (where applicable) the law have a clear basis to challenge or remove him. Under an identity-based rule, a male who asserts a female identity has a claimed entitlement to be there. That changes the default and removes the clean limiting principle.

Urgent need or poor impulse control does not require us to dissolve the category. They can be an argument for single-occupancy options where feasible, and for ordinary enforcement of existing criminal laws when someone abuses a space. It is not an argument that sex is irrelevant to the purpose of the facility.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Using level of transitioning as the rule is not self identification, but appearance based.

I am not against men using women’s restrooms when there’s a need.  I was just making a list of biological males who might be accessing women’s toilets.

Quote

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.

And yet it worked for eons before….

Edited 16 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

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

Please no.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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,

Nope, my view is practical.  I don’t see how anything other than the past appearance based honor system, report the occasional problem to the police and let a judge decide if a bad actor, mistake that will be corrected in the future, or false report could feasibly work.  IDs are useless without a system checking them.

The number of passing transgender women that would be harrassed or assaulted if forced to use men’s restrooms are significantly higher in numbers than biological males taking advantage of transgenders being able to use the restroom that matches their outward appearance.  Therefore, cost is higher with the first than the second just as cost is higher if obviously non passing transgendered individuals were allowed to use restrooms of choice and a large number of them chose to use their gender’s restroom rather than their sex….though from what I hear most are respectful of others’ trauma and fears and don’t, so perhaps I am wrong to just measure by numbers of assaulted and harassed women vs numbers of transgender women of all appearances.

Edited 16 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

 

I hope they are tracking the number of biological women that will be harrassed.

I used to go out without my wallet all the time if not driving in Kansas.  Now I would need an ID to be sure I could use the restrooms at the zoo and libraries and church (trying to remember what places I used the facilities when living in Wichita. (I choose to wear men’s clothing, don’t wear makeup and have a man’s haircut at times and have been mistaken for a man from the back).

Edited 15 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

But what about the examples Analytics posted?

I agree with all but probably one of your pictures, maybe two, but that would depend on actual behaviour, not stills.  I bet everyone can guess which one I would be okay about.  If they are feminine caricatures rather than just trying to be ordinary women, that makes a difference to me.  That is calling attention to their choice, that’s more than just a struggle to be something that doesn’t fit well with your biology.

Those who don’t want to be noticed, but can’t help it because of biology, but still put the effort in to look like the average every day woman…they are not going to be flashing penises around, so in the majority of cases I think should be okay.

Edited 15 hours ago by Calm