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 Friday at 11:00 PM 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 23 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 Friday at 11:48 PM 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 yesterday at 12:03 AM 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 23 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 23 hours ago by Calm

[Analytics]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

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....

Thanks to the magic of Google image search, we can get the full context on these photos.  It isn't surprising that @smac97 chose to take the photos out of context, because, unsurprisingly, the full context doesn't support the point he is trying to make.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

In May of 2025, Lily Tino went to Disney World to make a series of videos ranking the Disney World's restrooms. That seems quite tacky to me, but social media. The behavior that is objectionable here is that in some of the videos, she captured videos of people in the background inside the restroom. That is what's objectionable here--not whether the person's birth certificate has an F or an M in the box.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is an image of Paul Bixler. 

"Bixler has had a decades-long, illustrious career in public education, ranging from teacher to administrator to principal. She decided to come out of retirement in 2020 to run for an open school board seat at Liberty Elementary after seeing turnover and turmoil around the pandemic, hoping to help."

Paul was a genuine asset to her community, and was embraced by everyone around her. But she became the target of a hate campaign not because of her work for the community, but because right wing politicians and their tools thought she was a useful target. Her story can be read here:

12News: 'This is not a choice. I do not choose to be transgender': West Valley school board member becomes target of harassment

This individual claims to be inter-sex. 

In the first video, she went into a public restroom in a public building, peed, and left. Nicole Gillis, the chair of a right-wing student organization saw this. Rather than calling the cops out of any belief in a possible crime or danger, she took out her phone to record a video of her confrontation with the person as they left. When she left, Nicole shoved a camera in her face and said, "Excuse me, what were you doing in the women's bathroom?" She replies, "I'm sorry?" "What were you doing in the women's bathroom?" "I was peeing."  

In the second video." she went into the bathroom at McDonald's, with permission from that establishment. She peed, and washed her hands and left. She was the only one in the restroom. There was no allegations of peeping into stalls, exposing, photographing anyone, molesting anyone, or targeting children. While she was peeing, an angry Christian man decided to set up a video camera so he could record the confrontation he was planning when she walked out. As she was leaving, the Christian soldier angrily confronts her in the most judgmental and anti-Christian tone imaginable. The Christian triumphantly tells her, "God will take care of you in the end!" For the sin of peeing in a toilet that this other guy disagrees with. Yea. That sounds like what Jesus would say.

The amount of hate this stirs up in people is fascinating, and this is a great example of what's really going on here. If you made a list of problems in the world, an inter-sex individual who identifies as a woman using the toilet in the women's restroom rather than the men's is a tiny issue. At best. It is so clear that the point of this is to distract and manipulate voters.

 

 

On the left is Dawn Ennis, a successful journalist is who famous for being fired by ABC in 2013 for coming out as Transgender. She was on assignment from Forbes and the Los Angeles Blade to cover a swim meet at the McAuley Aquatic Center at Georgia Tech.

On the right is Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, a full-time professional anti-transgender activist. Keen-Minshull flew from England to Atlanta to protest an NCAA swimming event.

The only evidence we have that Dawn Ennis has ever used a lady's restroom is the fact that people like Kellie-Jay confront her in public and ask the loaded question, "I want to ask you for the safety of women and girls, do you use women's spaces?" As if which toilet she uses has anything to do with "the safety of women and girls."

The photo above is from Kellie-Jay stopping Dawn Ennis in a hallway at a swim event to ask that question and hopefully get a viral video out of it.  If you'd like to help Kellie-Jay make more money by harassing transgender people than she already does, you can donate here: https://www.letwomenspeak.org/

You can read the full story of this interaction here: https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/03/20/terfs-challenge-reporters-gender-at-ncaa-womens-championship/

Let's expand the examples of transgender hate to Peru. In the dress on the right is 42-year old Walter Solís Calero. Walter dressed up as a school girl and snuck into the girls restroom at a school for perverted purposes. A girl saw him and screamed. The Assistant principal called the cops and the rest is history.

Walter isn't transgender and never claimed to be a woman, nor claimed to have the right to be in the girl's bathroom. He was a male pervert pretending to be a girl so that he could sneak into the restroom for voyeuristic purposes.

A heterosexual pervert sneaking into the girls room to see girls is categorically different than a transexual going into the restroom to pee.

It seems Smac's fear is that a pervert could play the I'm-really-a-woman-and-I-have-the-right-to-be-here card, but there have been zero examples of that happening. Anywhere. Ever.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

This is Brandon Awogboro, a convicted Level 2 sex offender. He was caught hiding in a woman's bathroom and spying on a woman in another stall. 

Brandon never claimed to "be a woman" or otherwise having a legitimate right to be in the restroom. Again, a male, heterosexual pervert hiding in a bathroom stall is categorically different than a transgender individual going to the restroom to pee.

This is Anthony Roy Adams. He was drunk and found himself at a WalMart in a town that was different than where he thought he was. In his drunken stupor, he stumbled into the women's restroom, not knowing what he was. While he was arrested "in the women's bathroom", the charge was public drunkenness. 

Again, Adams never claimed to be a woman or claimed to have some sort of entitlement to be in the women's room. There is no evidence that he was spying, exposing himself, or otherwise assaulting anybody. Again, this is categorically different than a transgender individual needing to pee and making his or her own decision about which public toilet would be most appropriate. 

This one is genuinely funny. It was posted on Instagram by comedian DeStorm Power on February 23, 2024.

Here is what happens. A man takes out his phone and video tapes his daughter walking into a restroom at a park. He says "You make sure nobody's in there!" He pokes his head in and starts videotaping into the women's restroom. He yells out "Hello!" Right on cue, the man in the headphones pictured above walks out from around the corner, smiling. DeStorm says, "See! There's a man in there!" The guy in the headphone dries his hands and walks away smiling while the man recording the video says, "Hey! That's the women's bathroom!" 

Then, the man with the camera walks all the way into the woman's bathroom, still recording, and pushes open all of the stalls, recording what he finds inside. He says, "You got to go in with your kids, make sure there ain't no man in the damn bathroom!"

It boggles my mind that not everybody sees how this was obviously staged and is satire. 

And I think this is the perfect metaphor for this whole conversation. It isn't serious.

Here is my summary of the videos:

The one transgender person who did anything actually wrong in the restroom was the first one, who videotaped herself in the restroom and caught other people in the background. That was wrong, but the wrongness was their stupidity trying to be an influencer and had nothing to do with being transgender.

Other than that, the transgender people were just going about their lives and were being pretty viciously attacked by judgemental Christians for which toilet they used, without even any accusations of doing anything wrong beyond that.

Other than the one exception above, the people who did actual things that were wrong were all heterosexual, cis men who never pretended to be transgender and never asserted any right to be in the lady's room.

In context, Smac's own photographs show how this is a non-issue. Nobody is getting away with anything that is threatening or otherwise posing a danger by saying, "I have a right to be here because I say so!" Smac still hasn't provided a single example of a bad actor trying to harm someone under the guise of having a right to be in the restroom.

Other than the cis-men Smac tries to associate with transgender people, if there is anything dangerous going on, it is by so-called Christians trying to stir hate against and provoke fights with people they don't approve of.

The limiting principle should be this: if you need to go to the bathroom, go in to the one you think is most appropriate, take care of your business, and leave. That is what civilized people have been doing since sex-distinct bathrooms have existed, and there is no evidence that this is no longer working. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Analytics

[Analytics]

On 8/14/2026 at 6:02 PM, smac97 said:

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

ID’s are central to the law. Part of the law immediately and without warning or grace period revoked all driver licenses that didn’t match original birth certificates.