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

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Good implementation therefore matters.  

The Constitutionality of the law itself matters, too.

This particular law puts the "women"(your definition) below in an impossible situation. If they go into the women's restroom as they are legally required to do, they'll predictably need to explain to terrified women and cops that they are "women" who are there because they are legally required to use those facilities. Over and over and over.

And if they use the men's room, they'll be in violation of the law and in fear of being sued by anti-transgender activists and anybody else who would like $1,000.

What type of "training" do you think would fix this? Post their photos in every women's restroom with a sign that says, "Don't worry--these people are women and have the right to use this facility"?

I think this is a bad law and won't hold up as Constitutional under the Kansas State Constitution.

https://www.aclukansas.org/press-releases/aclu-of-kansas-statement-on-bill-undermining-transgender-kansans-privacy-and-safety-at-the-dmv-and-in-bathrooms/

Edited 15 hours ago by Analytics

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I don't disagree that sports organizations ordinarily ought to establish the rules for their sports, particularly where those rules require sport-specific expertise.

But that seems like a different point from your original statement that if someone isn't a "stakeholder," the issue "really isn't something to worry about."

You make a fair point about Title IX. But otherwise, I don't really care. If a league wants to do drug testing, do drug testing. If they want to have a strict rule about 285 pounds, I'm quite happy to let the committees that make such rules make such rules. They know the sport better than I do. 

What I'd point out, though, is regardless of where you draw the line, sports are inherently unfair. Assuming 6'2" with a 6'4" wingspan is the ideal proportions to maximize a swimmers speed, is it fair for people with different body sizes to swim against people with ideal body sizes? Of course it's unfair. But is it worth while to create different classes based on such dimensions so it can be more "fair"? I doubt it, but the people who make swimming rules can figure it out--I don't know enough about it to have an opinion worth sharing. If you don't have the idea body type for swimming or basketball or anything else, don't complain about how unfair it is (or do. It's your life. Get the rules changed). Or do what most people do: do the best you can, or choose a different sport.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

You need to to a better job of vetting your sources. For example,  Dawn Ennis was never "caught" in a women's bathroom. Rather, she was covering a swim meet in her role as a journalist. A full-time, professional anti-transgender activist flew across the ocean in order to do her activism at that same swim meet. While there, the professional activist saw Ennis was walking down a hallway, minding her own business. Ennis wasn't in a bathroom. She wasn't seen walking out of a bathroom. She was just walking down a public hallway, minding her own business.

The activist knew who she was and decided to confront her and start a fight with loaded questions. 

The compilation of video screen caps was fairly off-the-cuff.  But your correction/clarification is noted.  It does not seem to affect the overall point, namely, that legislatures are justified in passing laws prohibiting males from entering women's bathrooms.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

That is not "catching somebody in a public bathroom." And I already explained that to you. If you are going to make up your own facts and cling to them even when corrected, I don't see the point of this discussion.

I don't think I have done that.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Also, you might want to double check what "under the color of law" means. I don't think it means what you think it does.

You are probably right.  It's a term of art that typically refers to action taken with the appearance or pretense of legal authority, but usually by a state actor.  In hindsight, using it for private individuals who are simply taking advantage of a permissive policy or the absence of a prohibition arguably stretches the phrase beyond its ordinary meaning.

Some better ones:

• “pursuant to policy” or “under the governing policy”
• “with the permission of current policy”
• “as permitted by the applicable rules” / “as permitted by law”
• “under a self-identification policy”
• “because the jurisdiction has adopted identity-based access rules”
• “in the absence of a sex-based restriction”
• “by institutional permission”
• “under rules that treat self-identification as sufficient”

The underlying point remains the same: In the absence of laws enacting limiting principles, and under your preferred laissez fair regime, a jurisdiction - in a de jure or de facto sense, would effectively allow anyone to lawfully enter into women's bathrooms.  I think there are a lot of women and girls, based on safety and dignity and privacy concerns, who do not want men in women's bathrooms.  And given that a jurisdiction needs to address such matters at scale, a statutory approach is reasonable.

I hope that clarifies things.

I am not sure if you want to continue the discussion.  I am open to doing so if you are, but perhaps the discussion has run its course.  We have both expressed our viewpoints.  And although you have not persuaded me to your point of view, I do feel that I have a better grasp of it.  There is value in me listening to you explain your conclusions and the reasoning and evidence you are using to reach them.  I hope you feel the same way.  

This is a difficult topic.  Although we continue to substantively disagree, we have mostly expressed that disagreement with civility and decorum.  I appreciate that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 14 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Good implementation therefore matters.  

The Constitutionality of the law itself matters, too.

You are quite right.  I think we may differ on what the outcome of a constitutional challenge might be.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

This particular law puts the "women"(your definition) below in an impossible situation.

Not really.  Difficult, perhaps.  But not "impossible."

Do you think women and girls who want sex-segregated bathrooms, but who are in jurisdictions which allow men de jure or de facto access to women's bathrooms are "in an impossible situation"?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If they go into the women's restroom as they are legally required to do, they'll predictably need to explain to terrified women and cops that they are "women" who are there because they are legally required to use those facilities. Over and over and over.

I would like to better understand what you are saying here.  "{T}hey'll predictably need to explain to terrified women and cops that they are 'women'" because they (the women in your photos) look like men, right? 

Aren't women being "terrified" about men in women's bathrooms now?  

Consider a situation where

• (A) people who look like men and
• (B) are actually women going into women's spaces which
• (C) "predictably" results in "terrified women," which circumstance
• (D) you presumably feel is problematic. 

Am I correct in understanding your position?

Alternatively, consider a situation where

• (A) people who look like men and
• (B) are actually men going into women's spaces which
• (C) also "predictably" results in "terrified women," which circumstance
• (D) you presumably feel is not problematic. 

Again, am I correct in understanding your position?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

And if they use the men's room, they'll be in violation of the law and in fear of being sued by anti-transgender activists and anybody else who would like $1,000.

Yes.

So as between the seemingly competing and incompatible interests and preferences of (A) biological women and girls and (B) biological males  who, having taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as women, which set of interests and preferences should prevail?

In my view, I think the prevailing group should be the one for whom sex-segregated spaces were created: biological women and girls.

In your view, I surmise that you feel that the opposite should hold, or else that there should be no legal steps taken at all.  Is that a fair characterization?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

What type of "training" do you think would fix this? Post their photos in every women's restroom with a sign that says, "Don't worry--these people are women and have the right to use this facility"?

I think this is a bad law and won't hold up as Constitutional under the Kansas State Constitution.

https://www.aclukansas.org/press-releases/aclu-of-kansas-statement-on-bill-undermining-transgender-kansans-privacy-and-safety-at-the-dmv-and-in-bathrooms/

The ACLU of Kansas statement is advocacy rhetoric, not a developed legal brief. Its core constitutional assertions are:

• The law constitutes “governmental overreach” that the Kansas Constitution protects against.
• It undermines “strong constitutional protections” and subjects people to “unacceptable privacy violations.”
• Discriminatory laws of this type “violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the state constitution.”

AFAIK, a freestanding “right to use the restroom matching one’s gender identity” has not been recognized as a fundamental right under the U.S. or Kansas Constitutions in a way that would trigger strict scrutiny for this kind of rule.

I assume the ACLU will be making an "Equal Protection" argument, namely, that the the law classifies on the basis of transgender status and therefore requires heightened constitutional scrutiny.  I'm not sure that works.

The Kansas law classifies on the basis of biological sex (not "gender identity"), which is an established, constitutionally permissible basis for separating intimate facilities and for recording sex on identity documents. Whether intermediate scrutiny applies, and whether the state’s interests in privacy, safety, and accurate identification satisfy it, is the real legal battleground. Multiple federal circuits and state courts have upheld analogous sex-based facility and records rules, while some others have been more skeptical. The issue remains unsettled at the Supreme Court level in the precise posture of bathroom access and driver’s-license markers.  Sex classifications typically receive intermediate scrutiny. The state interests in bodily privacy, safety in spaces involving undress, and administrative clarity are, I think, the kind of interests the Court has historically treated as important.  A SCOTUS majority would probably find those interests sufficiently served by a sex-based rule and uphold it.  

The Court is unlikely to hold that “gender identity” itself is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification requiring heightened scrutiny across the board. United States v. Skrmetti (2025) is the clearest signal. The 6–3 majority (Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) held that Tennessee’s restrictions on certain medical interventions for minors did not classify on the basis of sex or transgender status in a way that triggered heightened scrutiny. The Court applied "rational basis" review and upheld the law. Critically, it declined to treat transgender status as a suspect or quasi-suspect class and rejected the broadest readings of Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) outside the Title VII employment context.

I guess we may need to wait and see.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited 14 hours ago by smac97

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

, if necessary, by the same kinds of identification already used in countless other contexts (driver’s license, etc.)

How is using a driver’s license not requiring ID in those cases?

I get there is no guard at the door (unless self appointed) checking IDs every time.  That is why I am curious on how it will be practically done.  
 

Quote

  I think complaint processes will require more than a vague suspicion, institutions will train staff to handle reports proportionately, and repeated bad-faith complaints should carry consequences….

On the private right of action and the $1,000 figure: any private enforcement mechanism can be misused.

Seems problematic to set up a law that gets implemented immediately without at least a general outline of safeguards against using the law for harassment.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

my view, I think the prevailing group should be the one for whom sex-segregated spaces were created: biological women and girls.

But if the point of the law is to increase both the safety and the perception of safety for women and girls in general in sex segregated spaces, how is requiring someone who looks predominantly male and likely sounds male (the voice can change with meds as well as there’s voice therapy to help with a more masculine sounding voice) to use the women’s bathroom going to not backfire and cause more fear?

Edited 13 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Quote

my view, I think the prevailing group should be the one for whom sex-segregated spaces were created: biological women and girls.

But if the point of the law is to increase both the safety and the perception of safety for women and girls in general,

Yes.

1 minute ago, Calm said:

how is requiring someone who looks predominantly male

Here you refer to women who have taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as men, correct?

1 minute ago, Calm said:

to use the women’s bathroom going to not backfire and cause more fear?

The category of persons excluded from women's bathrooms under the Kansas law is: males.

A statistically small percentage of males have taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as women.  However, the Kansas law is categorical, and so does not apply only to these men.

Your question assumes the policy requires people who “look predominantly male” to use the women’s room. That is not what a sex-based rule does.  A sex-based rule requires people to use the facility that matches their sex. Biological females use the women’s facility; biological males use the men’s. Appearance is not the criterion. Most biological females do not look predominantly male, and the ordinary social and visual cues that have always operated in sex-separated spaces continue to function.

I acknowledge that edge cases exist, that is, biological women who are tall, broad-shouldered, have a deeper voice, or otherwise present in ways some people may find ambiguous. Those individuals can encounter awkwardness or unfair scrutiny under any system that notices sex. That is a real cost, and it should be acknowledged, and I do.  However, it does not convert the rule into a requirement that males use the women’s room, nor does it erase the reason the spaces were separated in the first place.

The safety and privacy interests that justify sex separation are tied to sex-based patterns of strength, criminality, and vulnerability in spaces involving undress, not to a pure "appearance" test. A rule that tracks sex still serves those interests for the large majority of women and girls even if a small number of females occasionally draw second looks. Replacing the sex criterion with self-identification or appearance would admit men into the space, which is the outcome the safety rationale is meant to avoid.

In short, the policy requires people to use the facility that matches their sex. Residual social friction for a small number persons is a genuine downside worth managing with good complaint procedures and common sense.  But I think it is not a reason to abandon the sex-based boundary that protects the group for whom the spaces were created: women and girls.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not sure if you want to continue the discussion.  I am open to doing so if you are, but perhaps the discussion has run its course.  We have both expressed our viewpoints. 

Have you ever taken one of those personality tests that tries to give you insights into why you are the way you are? If you are interested in that, here is a version that compares you and me, based upon my position and yours (as I understand it).

Prompt:

Two people are having a debate about the use of public restrooms:

Person L believes the issue should be framed around the purpose of public restrooms: they exist because society needs places for people to use the bathroom when they are out and about. According to this person, going to the bathroom is a basic human need, and when a person needs to use a restroom and must choose which of the available bathrooms is most appropriate, that person should generally have the right to make that choice. Person L believes this is largely how restroom use has worked in practice in our society, and that it has worked well. While it is true that some people may feel uncomfortable with other people using a public bathroom because of their body, race, national origin, gender expression, religious expression, health status, age, disability, or other characteristics, Person L believes the right of a person to use the restroom that is most appropriate for them generally outweighs the interest of others in being free from discomfort caused simply by the diversity of people using a public place.

Person C believes that public restrooms are specific instances of "men's spaces" and "women's spaces," and that society needs rules based on clear "limiting principles" governing who is allowed into one space or the other. This person believes that the only coherent definition of being a "man" or a "woman" for this purpose is biological sex, and thus only biological males should be legally entitled to enter men's spaces, and only biological females should be legally entitled to enter women's spaces. Person C therefore believes that transgender people should be required to use the restroom corresponding to their biological sex rather than their gender identity or gender expression. The rationale is that biological sex is an objective fact, and that the purpose of sex-separated spaces includes privacy, safety, and dignity interests that are best protected by maintaining a clear, sex-based boundary.

Based on the arguments as presented, what reasonable inferences, if any, might be drawn about the two individuals’ respective personalities, cognitive styles, moral intuitions, emotional dispositions, and broader psychological tendencies? In particular, what differences in how they process ambiguity, risk, rules, categories, evidence, and competing values might help explain why they approach the issue so differently?

Keep answer to less than about 600 words, in a style that is easily copied into a message board.

ChatGPT 
 

Quote

Only limited inferences are justified from a single disagreement, and neither position implies a particular diagnosis or fixed personality type. But the arguments do suggest different cognitive and moral emphases.

Person L appears to reason primarily from function, consequences, and individual circumstances. The starting question is: What is the restroom for, and what arrangement works reasonably well for the people who need to use it? That suggests a relatively pragmatic and contextual cognitive style. L seems comparatively comfortable with ambiguity and edge cases and less concerned that every person fit cleanly into a formally defined category. Rules are treated as tools rather than ends in themselves: if informal judgment generally produces acceptable outcomes, L sees relatively little reason to replace it with a rigid rule.

L’s moral intuitions appear especially sensitive to autonomy, inclusion, proportionality, and avoiding unnecessary burdens on individuals. L also distinguishes subjective discomfort from concrete harm and seems reluctant to give discomfort alone much regulatory weight. In terms of risk, L appears more inclined to ask about demonstrated frequency and magnitude: Is there enough actual harm to justify restricting everyone? This is broadly an empirical, harm-based approach.

Person C appears to reason more strongly from categories, boundaries, rules, and institutional principles. The starting question is closer to: What makes a women’s restroom a women’s restroom, and what coherent rule determines who qualifies to enter it? C therefore places greater value on definitions that are objective, administrable, and applicable consistently across cases.

C seems less comfortable with rules whose application depends heavily on individual judgment, appearance, identity, or social negotiation. The desire for a “limiting principle” suggests concern about boundary erosion: if one exception is permitted, what principle prevents increasingly difficult or undesirable cases? C’s moral intuitions appear comparatively sensitive to privacy, social order, predictability, and the protection of established boundaries.

Their approaches to risk may differ especially sharply. L seems inclined toward a base-rate/consequence model: unless there is evidence of significant harm, restrictive rules require justification. C seems more receptive to a precautionary/boundary model: some rules may be justified because they prevent situations that are difficult to police after the boundary has already been relaxed.

Their disagreement about evidence also operates at different levels. L implicitly asks for evidence that the existing practice causes enough harm to warrant intervention. C does not necessarily regard empirical evidence of frequent harm as the central question; the existence and meaning of the sex-based boundary may itself be considered normatively important.

Psychologically, then, the contrast might be summarized as:

• L: contextual, pragmatic, ambiguity-tolerant, autonomy-oriented, consequence-focused, skeptical of categorical restrictions without demonstrated harm.

• C :categorical, rule-oriented, boundary-conscious, predictability-oriented, precautionary, and concerned with principles that remain coherent in difficult cases.

Neither style is inherently more rational. Both can become distorted: L’s approach can underestimate legitimate boundary or coordination problems, while C’s can give excessive weight to conceptual neatness or hypothetical risks relative to actual human consequences.

The deepest disagreement may therefore be less about transgender people specifically than about what rules are for: L sees rules principally as instruments for producing workable human outcomes; C gives greater independent weight to stable categories and principled boundaries.

 

Edited 13 hours ago by Analytics

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here you refer to women who have taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as men, correct?

I mean those who actually look like men but are biologically female.  Not interested in the why or how practically speaking when it’s my instinct for protection involved. 

See the pictures Analytics posted of biological women.  Could you tell they were transgender from those photos given their very significant masculine attributes?  If so, how?  They are more masculine than most men I know in real life. 

Edited 12 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I am not sure if you want to continue the discussion.  I am open to doing so if you are, but perhaps the discussion has run its course.  We have both expressed our viewpoints. 

Have you ever taken one of those personality tests that tries to give you insights into why you are the way you are?

You have made a number of attempts to steer the discussion about the topics - the Kansas law, men in women's bathrooms, etc. - toward inquiries and critiques of me as a person, my motives, and so on. 

I’m happy to keep the discussion on the policy itself: whether sex or identity should be the criterion for these spaces. Personality diagnostics aren’t required for that.

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If you are interested in that, here is a version that compares you and me, based upon my position and yours (as I understand it).

Thank you, but I am not interested.  I would prefer to discuss the topic(s) at hand.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Here you refer to women who have taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as men, correct?

I mean those who actually look like men but are biologically female.

Okay.  Thank you for the clarification.  The people you are referencing are:

• Women who have taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as men; AND
• Women who have not taken these measures, but who happen to nevertheless approximately "look like men" in some other sense.

Is that a fair summary of your position?

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

See the pictures Analytics posted of biological women.  Could you tell they were transgender from those photos given their very significant masculine attributes?  If so, how?  They are more masculine than most men I know in real life. 

The photos don’t refute a sex-based rule; they illustrate why appearance is a poor substitute for it.

Some biological females who have taken testosterone and undergone surgery and who wear "men's" clothes can look highly masculine—sometimes more so than many males. That is not in dispute. The same is true in reverse: some biological males who present femininely can look highly feminine. Visual ambiguity exists at the margins, and it can be intentional or otherwise.

A sex-based policy does not claim that every person is instantly and infallibly sortable by glance. It claims that the relevant criterion for access to sex-separated spaces is sex, not current appearance or self-identification. Most people are not at the extreme tail of medical transition (such as those in the pictures Analytics is posting); the ordinary visual and social cues that have always operated in these spaces continue to work for the large majority. Edge cases can create awkwardness or require secondary confirmation. That is a real cost. It is not a reason to replace the sex criterion with either self-ID or a pure “who looks masculine/feminine enough” test.

If the rule tracked appearance instead of sex, then highly masculinized females would be directed to the men’s room and highly feminized males to the women’s room. That is a different policy with its own set of problems. The sex-based rule does not require that outcome. It requires that people use the facility that matches their sex, while acknowledging that a small number of cases will be visually ambiguous and must be handled with ordinary judgment and fair process.

The phrase "legislate from the margins" generally describes a political or advocacy approach where laws, policies, or ordinances are driven by, or focused on, the periphery of an issue or the underserved groups at society's edge, rather than catering primarily to the political or cultural mainstream.  I sense that Analytics wants to this, and you may as well.  However, most legislative enactments are intended to address an issue as it applies broadly, not as it applies to situations at the extreme edges.  For those extreme edges, some exceptions can be made, such as people with DSDs. 

In short: yes, some transitioned females look very male. That fact does not convert a sex-based boundary into an appearance-based one, nor does it make sex an irrational criterion for spaces that exist because of sex-based patterns of privacy, safety, and vulnerability.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

You make a fair point about Title IX.

Thank you for conceding that.

 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

But otherwise, I don't really care. If a league wants to do drug testing, do drug testing. If they want to have a strict rule about 285 pounds, I'm quite happy to let the committees that make such rules make such rules. They know the sport better than I do. 

I think we're mostly in agreement here. I'm not arguing that I should be writing the NCAA rulebook for swimming, wrestling, etc.

But "the governing body should make the rules" and "outsiders shouldn't have an opinion about those rules" are different claims. I can accept the former without accepting the latter.

 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

What I'd point out, though, is regardless of where you draw the line, sports are inherently unfair.

I disagree that "sports are inherently unfair." I think there is a meaningful difference between inequality and unfairness. Someone like Michael Phelps having unusually advantageous proportions for swimming may very well make competitors unequal, but that isn't normally considered unfair. 

Unfairness enters into the equation when the advantage violates the conditions of the competition. A heavyweight fighting a lightweight isn't unfair simply because he's bigger. It's because he's competing outside the category that was established to account for that difference. The same would be true of an adult entering a children's division, or an athlete using prohibited PEDs.

Sports inevitably involve inequalities. But that doesn't mean every advantage is therefore fair within every competitive category.

 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Assuming 6'2" with a 6'4" wingspan is the ideal proportions to maximize a swimmers speed, is it fair for people with different body sizes to swim against people with ideal body sizes? Of course it's unfair. But is it worth while to create different classes based on such dimensions so it can be more "fair"? I doubt it, but the people who make swimming rules can figure it out--I don't know enough about it to have an opinion worth sharing. If you don't have the idea body type for swimming or basketball or anything else, don't complain about how unfair it is (or do. It's your life. Get the rules changed). Or do what most people do: do the best you can, or choose a different sport.

I think you're misunderstanding why I brought up Franklin's height and wingspan. I wasn't suggesting that her proportions gave her an unfair advantage or that swimmers should be separated by wingspan. The point was to show the level of difference which persists even when obvious physical variables are roughly held equal. Despite being almost identically sized, one of the greatest female backstrokers in history wouldn't be able to come remotely close to competing against a similarly situated male swimmer.

Yes, sports tolerate tons of natural advantages, but that doesn't mean all physical advantages are therefore interchangeable. If it did, I'm not sure what rationale would remain for having a female category at all. We could simply tell women who can't qualify for the open team what you've suggested here: "do the best you can, or choose a different sport."

We don't do that. We created a female category expressly because the performance effects associated with sex are sufficiently large and systematic that without the category, women would have dramatically fewer opportunities to compete at elite level. And that would be a net negative, IMO.

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The phrase "legislate from the margins" generally describes a political or advocacy approach where laws, policies, or ordinances are driven by, or focused on, the periphery of an issue or the underserved groups at society's edge, rather than catering primarily to the political or cultural mainstream.  I sense that Analytics wants to this, and you may as well.

Here is my closing argument on this thread.

I'm not trying to legislate anything, from the margins or otherwise. You are the one who wants new laws requiring people like this to use the men's restroom:

And requiring people like this to use the women's restroom:

And you have failed to make the case for why such a law is necessary. 

I'm simply taking the extremely practical position that it isn't a problem for the top person to use the women's room and the bottom person to use the men's. You think it is a sufficiently serious problem to merit a legislative response. I'm arguing that the new laws you support create more problems than they solve.

That isn't legislating from the margins. It is looking at the actual people affected by the laws you support and asking a very practical question: What problem are these laws solving, and is that problem serious enough to justify them? You haven't convinced me that it is.

Somebody going into a bathroom to pee doesn't hurt anyone. Even on the relatively unusual occasion when someone looks as though they might not belong there, momentary discomfort is not the same thing as harm.

On two occasions, I've seen women use the men's room. Both happened in Kansas City, Missouri, at crowded events where the line for the women's restroom was much longer than the line for the men's.

On the first occasion, a feminine, cis-gender looking woman simply got in line with the guys, waited her turn, walked past the men at the urinals, and went into a stall. The men noticed her, but everyone ignored it and went about their business. She used the restroom and left. Nothing happened.

On the second occasion, I was next in line when a feminine, apparently cisgender woman came up to me and said she had to pee very badly and couldn't possibly survive the women's line. I jokingly told her she could go ahead of me, but first she had to identify as a man. She played along, I stepped aside, and she went in. Again, the guys noticed her but went about their business. She peed, washed her hands, and left. Nobody was harmed.

That's the practical point I'm making.

The primary purpose of a public restroom is to provide people with a place to use the bathroom—not to provide them with a place where they are guaranteed to encounter only people of their own biological sex.

If someone enters a restroom for the ordinary purpose of using the toilet, the relevant question should be what that person does, not whether everyone else agrees with the category that person belongs in. Harassment, voyeurism, assault, and other misconduct can and should be prohibited regardless of who commits them.

So if a transgender woman is simply going into the women's restroom to pee, I don't see a sufficient reason for the government to make that illegal. Her presence might make a few people uncomfortable on some occasions. But discomfort is not the same thing as harm—and before we start passing laws restricting people's behavior, there ought to be some evidence of an actual problem those laws are intended to solve.

Edited 11 hours ago by Analytics

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Here is my closing argument on this thread.

I'm not trying to legislate anything, from the margins or otherwise.

Neither of us is "trying to legislate anything."  Both of us are commentating about the the Kansas legislature and other lawmaking bodies should do in relation to men in women's bathrooms.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

You are the one who wants new laws requiring people like this to use the men's restroom:
...
And you have failed to make the case for why such a law is necessary. 

I appreciate your perspective.  For my part, you have failed to make the case for why laws like the one in Kansas are unnecessary, or why they should not be enacted, etc.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm simply taking the extremely practical position that it isn't a problem for the top person to use the women's room and the bottom person to use the men's.

I am taking the position, which I also think is "extremely practical," which endorses biological sex as a limiting principle as pertaining to men going into women's bathrooms.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

You think it is a sufficiently serious problem to merit a legislative response. I'm arguing that the new laws you support create more problems than they solve.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

That isn't legislating from the margins.

But it is arguing from the margins, so it amounts to the same thing.

Sex-segregated spaces are created and maintained for the benefit of women and girls, or half the population.  I think the Kansas legislature passed the law to benefit woman and girls.

Sex-segregated spaces impose some difficulties on a statistically small - even tiny - number of men.

I think it is reasonable for the Kansas legislature to do what it did.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

It is looking at the actual people affected by the laws you support and asking a very practical question: What problem are these laws solving, and is that problem serious enough to justify them? You haven't convinced me that it is.

I'm okay with that.  You haven't convinced me of the merits of your position either.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Somebody going into a bathroom to pee doesn't hurt anyone.

Respectfully, I think this needs to be demonstrated, rather than assumed/demonstrated.  From one of my posts on Friday:

Quote

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.

IIRC, you did not address these, and are now simply declaring that they don't exist at all ("doesn't hurt anyone").

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Even on the relatively unusual occasion when someone looks as though they might not belong there, momentary discomfort is not the same thing as harm.

On two occasions, I've seen women use the men's room. Both happened in Kansas City, Missouri, at crowded events where the line for the women's restroom was much longer than the line for the men's.

On the first occasion, a feminine, cis-gender looking woman simply got in line with the guys, waited her turn, walked past the men at the urinals, and went into a stall. The men noticed her, but everyone ignored it and went about their business. She used the restroom and left. Nothing happened.

On the second occasion, I was next in line when a feminine, apparently cisgender woman came up to me and said she had to pee very badly and couldn't possibly survive the women's line. I jokingly told her she could go ahead of me, but first she had to identify as a man. She played along, I stepped aside, and she went in. Again, the guys noticed her but went about their business. She peed, washed her hands, and left. Nobody was harmed.

That's the practical point I'm making.

I don't think you are situated to speak on behalf of women and girls.

• I think many, likely most, women and girls have reasonable expectations of privacy and dignity, and to not to share bathrooms, locker rooms, changing areas with the opposite sex.  You decline to recognize violations of privacy and dignity as "harm."
• I think many, likely most, women and girls view males, as a group, as committing the large majority of sexual assaults, voyeurism, and exhibitionism, such that prophylactic measures - such as sex-segregated facilities - reduce opportunities for male-pattern offenses in spaces where women and girls are vulnerable.  You decline to recognize the elimination of sex-segregated spaces as "harm."
• 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.  You are declining to recognize this as "harm."
• 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 are declining to recognize this as "harm."

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The primary purpose of a public restroom is to provide people with a place to use the bathroom—not to provide them with a place where they are guaranteed to encounter only people of their own biological sex.

I think that description is incomplete.

The primary practical function of a restroom is, of course, to allow people to relieve themselves. But the reason public restrooms in this country (and most of the world) have long been separated by sex is not that society was indifferent to who else was present. Sex separation exists precisely because these are spaces that involve partial undress, vulnerability, and physical proximity. The design choice reflects a judgment that privacy, safety, and comfort interests differ systematically by sex, especially for women and girls.

If the only purpose were “a place to use the bathroom,” unisex multi-stall facilities would have been the historical default. They were not, and still are not. Single-sex multi-occupancy restrooms became the norm because people, particularly women, valued not having to share that intimate setting with the opposite sex. The “guarantee” of sex separation is not an accidental side effect; it is the point of the architectural and legal convention.

You can argue that the privacy and safety interests are overstated, or that self-identification should now override them. Those are substantive claims worth debating. But it is not accurate to treat sex separation as irrelevant to the purpose of the facility. The purpose has always included both the functional need to relieve oneself and the conditions under which that occurs.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If someone enters a restroom for the ordinary purpose of using the toilet, the relevant question should be what that person does, not whether everyone else agrees with the category that person belongs in. Harassment, voyeurism, assault, and other misconduct can and should be prohibited regardless of who commits them.

So if a transgender woman is simply going into the women's restroom to pee, I don't see a sufficient reason for the government to make that illegal. Her presence might make a few people uncomfortable on some occasions. But discomfort is not the same thing as harm—and before we start passing laws restricting people's behavior, there ought to be some evidence of an actual problem those laws are intended to solve.

The argument treats the only legally relevant question as discrete misconduct (harassment, voyeurism, assault). I think that is too narrow.

Sex-separated restrooms exist because the setting itself involves undress, vulnerability, and enforced proximity. The boundary is not solely a back-end enforcement tool against bad actors.  Instead, it is a front-end design choice that reduces the occasions on which those risks and privacy costs arise.

We do not wait for a documented assault in every locker room before maintaining sex separation, any more than we wait for a documented assault before maintaining sex separation in shelters, prisons, or changing areas. The category is the point of the rule, not an irrelevant side issue.

“Discomfort is not harm” understates what is at stake for many women and girls. The interest being protected includes the ability to use a multi-occupancy facility without the presence of men while in a state of partial undress. That interest has long been treated as legitimate in law and social practice. Calling it mere “discomfort” reframes a privacy and safety claim as mere subjective sensitivity so it can be dismissed.

On evidence: the claim that there is “no actual problem” is contested. There are documented incidents of males accessing female facilities and committing offenses.  I provided a list of reported instances, which I think you have not addressed at all:

• Judge Rules Loudoun County Teen Sexually Assaulted Female Student in Girls' Bathroom (2021)
• 6 Men Who Disguised Themselves as Women to Access Bathrooms (from 2016)
• Transgender woman arrested for voyeurism at Ammon Target (2016)
• Man Dressed as Woman Arrested for Spying Into Mall Bathroom Stall, Police Say (2015)
• Cross-Dressing Man Secretly Taped Women at Macy’s (2013)
• Sex offender posed as woman, went into women's locker room
• Man Undresses In Front Of Children In Walmart Restroom (2010)
• Purdue police investigate report of man taking photographs in women's restroom (2008)
• Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter (2014 in Canada)
• ‘Transgender’ man may continue using girls’ locker room, says college (2012)

I don't know how you can reconcile these incidents with your "no harm" argument.

There are also surveys and testimony from women and girls about reduced willingness to use facilities, sports changes, and shelters when men are present. One can debate the frequency and weight of those incidents. One cannot accurately say the policy concern is invented out of thin air or that the only permissible legal response is after-the-fact prosecution of discrete crimes.

The framing “a transgender woman is simply going in to pee” assumes the conclusion that sex is irrelevant and only current identity and immediate intent matter. That is the policy dispute, not a foregone conclusion. A sex-based rule says biological sex remains the relevant criterion for these spaces precisely because the physical and privacy stakes track sex, not self-description. You can reject that criterion; you cannot treat its rejection as self-evident while demanding that the other side alone supply overwhelming proof.

As we are concluding the discussion, I won't say anything else except to thank you for sharing your thoughts and perspective.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 9 hours ago by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

that a fair summary of your position?

Yes….if you mean my position for this discussion only.

At this point I am avoiding ideological or morality arguments and am simply examining what law, if any, could maximize women’s sense of safety.  Even if it’s a statistically small amount of transgender individuals that clearly pass as the sex they want to be, anticipation of a possible occurrence can drive up anxiety and the feeling of being threatened and cause someone to completely avoid a situation…and anticipation is not always connected to statistical reality.  So dismissing something as not necessary to think about because it’s unlikely doesn’t apply when talking about sense of safety.

For that sense of safety, seems to me it could be useful to create an exception biological females could apply for if they believe they would pass as male in a visual evaluation.   If the evaluator agrees, they could be granted some sort of ID showing an exception…though with their appearance I don’t see any reason why someone would ever challenge them.

And same thing for biological females who would clearly pass as male to avoid not only awkwardness and embarrassment of men using the facilities, but remove the likelihood of harassment and violence that someone who looks like a woman too often encounters if they go in men dominated spaces.

This above is a discussion meant to help me understand what you see as the purpose of the law because for the life of me, I can’t understand how it improves safety or the sense of safety to require the cases where there would be overwhelming consensus someone is male to use the women’s restrooms or the reverse of someone who the vast majority of people would assume to be female using the men’s restrooms. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

sense that Analytics wants to this, and you may as well. 

Nope.  At this point it seems to me any new law is going to screw it up given what I am seeing. I am not decided for anything at this point beyond I want people to be safe and feel safe (and when positions contradict, I would go for maximum benefit determined by number of individuals) and I would like that to be the purpose of the laws, but the laws themselves as well as how they are being enacted too quickly and too vaguely different do not seem to be heading in a safe direction to me.  

Edited 10 hours ago by Calm

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Thank you for the clarification.  The people you are referencing are:

• Women who have taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as men; AND
• Women who have not taken these measures, but who happen to nevertheless approximately "look like men" in some other sense.

Is that a fair summary of your position?

The photos don’t refute a sex-based rule; they illustrate why appearance is a poor substitute for it.

Some biological females who have taken testosterone and undergone surgery and who wear "men's" clothes can look highly masculine—sometimes more so than many males. That is not in dispute. The same is true in reverse: some biological males who present femininely can look highly feminine. Visual ambiguity exists at the margins, and it can be intentional or otherwise.

A sex-based policy does not claim that every person is instantly and infallibly sortable by glance. It claims that the relevant criterion for access to sex-separated spaces is sex, not current appearance or self-identification. Most people are not at the extreme tail of medical transition (such as those in the pictures Analytics is posting); the ordinary visual and social cues that have always operated in these spaces continue to work for the large majority. Edge cases can create awkwardness or require secondary confirmation. That is a real cost. It is not a reason to replace the sex criterion with either self-ID or a pure “who looks masculine/feminine enough” test.

If the rule tracked appearance instead of sex, then highly masculinized females would be directed to the men’s room and highly feminized males to the women’s room. That is a different policy with its own set of problems. The sex-based rule does not require that outcome. It requires that people use the facility that matches their sex, while acknowledging that a small number of cases will be visually ambiguous and must be handled with ordinary judgment and fair process.

The phrase "legislate from the margins" generally describes a political or advocacy approach where laws, policies, or ordinances are driven by, or focused on, the periphery of an issue or the underserved groups at society's edge, rather than catering primarily to the political or cultural mainstream.  I sense that Analytics wants to this, and you may as well.  However, most legislative enactments are intended to address an issue as it applies broadly, not as it applies to situations at the extreme edges.  For those extreme edges, some exceptions can be made, such as people with DSDs. 

In short: yes, some transitioned females look very male. That fact does not convert a sex-based boundary into an appearance-based one, nor does it make sex an irrational criterion for spaces that exist because of sex-based patterns of privacy, safety, and vulnerability.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

it is think you is trying to legislate from the margins.  The people I know and met that have transitioned do all they can to look the gender that they feel represents them.  That is the vast majority of transgenders.  And the ones I have met and know fall very close in line with what the photos Analytic has posted.  That is the reality you are ignoring or passing off as not being that important.  The whole reason why people transition is because they don't feel comfortable in their bodies they were born into.  So they go though a very long expensive multi year process to change how they present to for the first time in their life, they feel comfortable with.  

 

The law you are championing has the opposite affect of exactly what you are presenting as the reason for the law if the point is to make women feel safe in a restroom.  If in fact there is ANY person, male or female transitioned or cis is doing things in any restroom that is making people uncomfortable then they should not be allowed to use the facilities.  THAT should be the intent of the legislation.  How someone looks or identifies should not be a criteria of determining bad behavior.  There are way too many variables to simply judge by a birth certificate.  We don't pass laws against a class of people simply because how they look is uncomfortable for some.  

 

 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

If in fact there is ANY person, male or female transitioned or cis is doing things in any restroom that is making people uncomfortable then they should not be allowed to use the facilities.

At this point, this is probably the closest to my actual position if you are interested in that, smac.  It is not what I am currently exploring though.  

I also recognize that for many “appearance” counts as what someone “does”, so not sure how to achieve this.  

Edited 10 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

it is think you is trying to legislate from the margins.  The people I know and met that have transitioned do all they can to look the gender that they feel represents them.  That is the vast majority of transgenders.  And the ones I have met and know fall very close in line with what the photos Analytic has posted.  That is the reality you are ignoring or passing off as not being that important.  The whole reason why people transition is because they don't feel comfortable in their bodies they were born into.  So they go though a very long expensive multi year process to change how they present to for the first time in their life, they feel comfortable with.  

The law you are championing has the opposite affect of exactly what you are presenting as the reason for the law if the point is to make women feel safe in a restroom.  If in fact there is ANY person, male or female transitioned or cis is doing things in any restroom that is making people uncomfortable then they should not be allowed to use the facilities.  THAT should be the intent of the legislation.  How someone looks or identifies should not be a criteria of determining bad behavior.  There are way too many variables to simply judge by a birth certificate.  We don't pass laws against a class of people simply because how they look is uncomfortable for some.  

Some points need separating:

First, prevalence. You say the people you know who have transitioned “fall very close in line” with the highly masculinized photos and that this is “the vast majority.” That may reflect the circles you move in. It is not the general picture. Many people who identify as transgender have not undergone extensive testosterone use, surgery, and permanent masculinization of the kind shown in those images.  Presentation varies widely. Even if a large share of the subset who medically transition do end up looking highly masculine, that still does not convert the policy question into an appearance test. The rule under discussion tracks sex, not how successfully someone has approximated the opposite sex’s appearance.

Second, the purpose of the rule. A sex-based boundary is not a law “against a class of people simply because how they look is uncomfortable for some.” It is a rule about which sex uses which multi-occupancy facility in settings that involve undress and vulnerability. The interest it serves is the long-standing one that justified sex separation in the first place: privacy and safety patterns that track sex. Conduct rules against harassment, voyeurism, and assault remain necessary and should be enforced against anyone. They have never been treated as a complete substitute for the boundary itself. We do not eliminate sex-separated changing rooms, shelters, or restrooms on the theory that “only bad behavior matters.”

You argue that a sex-based rule has “the opposite effect” of making women feel safe if highly masculinized females are directed to the women’s room. I am not persuaded that you are speaking on behalf of women and girls who want sex-segregated bathrooms.  Moreover, I think your comment misstates the rule. Highly masculinized females remain female under a sex-based criterion; they use the women’s facility. The awkwardness that can arise in those edge cases is real. It is still a different—and smaller—problem than admitting anyone into women's space on the basis of subjective identity or appearance (or not even based on that). Replacing sex with either self-identification or a pure looks-based test does not eliminate discomfort or risk; it relocates and, for many women and girls, increases it.

“There are way too many variables to simply judge by a birth certificate” is a reason some people prefer self-ID or case-by-case appearance judgments. It is not a demonstration that sex is an irrational or purely aesthetic criterion for these spaces. Sex is the characteristic the facilities were separated on. Edge cases (including people with DSDs and people whose appearance is ambiguous) can be handled with ordinary judgment and fair process. They do not require abandoning the category that organizes the rule for everyone else.

Third, your comment here: "If in fact there is ANY person, male or female transitioned or cis is doing things in any restroom that is making people uncomfortable then they should not be allowed to use the facilities."  

That standard sounds reasonable until you try to operate a restroom under it.

“Making people uncomfortable” is not a workable access rule. Discomfort is subjective, varies by person, and can be triggered by ordinary presence, appearance, disability, age, or nothing more than nervousness. A rule that turns on whether someone is “making people uncomfortable” gives no clear notice of what is prohibited, invites selective or viewpoint-based enforcement, and collapses into complaints about who “belongs” rather than about discrete misconduct.

Sex-separated facilities already exist because the setting involves undress and vulnerability. The boundary is categorical: it reduces the occasions on which those privacy and safety interests are implicated. Conduct rules against harassment, voyeurism, loitering, recording, or assault remain necessary and should be enforced against anyone. They are not a substitute for the boundary itself. We do not eliminate sex separation in changing rooms, shelters, or multi-stall restrooms on the theory that we can simply eject whoever makes someone uncomfortable after the fact.

If the proposal is that facilities should be open to all and that only proven bad acts justify exclusion, that is a policy choice—one that abandons sex as a criterion. It is not the same as saying the current design is irrational or that discomfort is the only legitimate concern. The disagreement is whether the category still matters. Treating every access dispute as a pure conduct case does not resolve that disagreement; it assumes one side of it.

In short: the photos show that some females can look very male. That fact is not ignored. It simply does not establish that the proper response is to drop sex as the criterion and rely only on after-the-fact policing of “bad behavior.” The disagreement remains whether the category still matters. That is a substantive dispute, not a failure to notice that transition can change appearance.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 9 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

If in fact there is ANY person, male or female transitioned or cis is doing things in any restroom that is making people uncomfortable then they should not be allowed to use the facilities.

At this point, this is probably the closest to my actual position if you are interested in that, smac.  It is not what I am currently exploring though.  

I also recognize that for many “appearance” counts as what someone “does”, so not sure how to achieve this.  

How do you imagine a state law would be drafted so as to allow everyone into women's bathrooms except those who enter the bathroom, do something "that is making people uncomfortable," and then have a legal process whereby a judge enters an order stating "they should not be allowed to use the {women's} facilities" in the future.

From a public policy position, I don't think CB"s proposal works.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How do you imagine a state law would be drafted so as to allow everyone into women's bathrooms except those who enter the bathroom, do something "that is making people uncomfortable," and then have a legal process whereby a judge enters an order stating "they should not be allowed to use the {women's} facilities" in the future.

From a public policy position, I don't think CB"s proposal works.

Thanks,

-Smac

Quite possibly, would need to think about it.  I would assume it would be a list of behaviors that would be outlawed.

I think for me the male/female appearance is a predictor of behaviour and I am uncomfortable with behaviours that are more typically performed by males (aggressiveness, intrusiveness, loudness).  Therefore a more aggressive (violent graphic T-shirt, hair and jewelry reminiscent of bike gangs, etc) male appearance even in obvious women I think triggers alarms for me.  OTOH, someone who has made an effort to be dressed in typical every day female apparel is going to read to me “they aren’t here to be noticed or make trouble” and so it’s likely I will feel safe around them.  But given my mild face blindness, maybe I focus more on clothes and hair than others do.  I would like to see studies on what signals “safe” to a variety of people to see how others think about safety.

Edited 9 hours ago by Calm

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

From one of my posts on Friday:

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.

Requiring this person to use the women's restroom doesn't promote privacy and dignity.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

1. 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.

Requiring this person to use the women's restroom doesn't promote anybody's physical safety.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

1. 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.

Requiring this person to use the women's bathroom has nothing to do with fairness in sports.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

1. 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.

You had also said on Friday that as far as you could tell, I didn't care about the integrity of data. In fact I do. As you know, I'm an actuary, and sex is an important factor in mortality and morbidity. I'll simply note that it wasn't doctors, actuaries, and demographers who passed the Kansas legislation in a rushed, procedurally truncated process that bypassed the normal opportunity for public hearings and development of an evidentiary record. Rather, it was done by the religious right.

I trust doctors to look at the full, nuanced medical history of their patients, which has nothing to do with whether a drivers license has an M or an F on it. And I can tell you as an actuary who makes decisions with money on the line regarding these things, calling the person pictured in this post a "Female" doesn't enhance the data.

Furthermore, these issues have nothing to do with whether this person is legally required to use the women's restroom.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

1. 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.

Women's shelters and prisons should be allowed to make the best decisions possible on a case-by-case basis, and shouldn't be required to admit this person as a woman just because the birth certificate has an F on it:

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

1. 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.

That has nothing to do with whether we should allow this person to use the male bathroom (as I want), or whether they should be required to use the female bathroom (as you want).

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

1. 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.

Using common sense and good judgement on a case-by-case basis is neither arbitrary nor incoherent. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

1. 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.

I'd love to hear a professional psychologist explain why requiring this individual to use women's restroom would be psychologically beneficial to women and girls.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

• I think many, likely most, women and girls have reasonable expectations of privacy and dignity, and to not to share bathrooms, locker rooms, changing areas with the opposite sex.  You decline to recognize violations of privacy and dignity as "harm."

It's interesting that the only woman participating in this conversation (and who also happens to be a psychologist) disagrees with you. Surveys show that most women agree with me on this issue. I may be wrong, but I really don't think most women and girls want this type of person to share their bathrooms and locker rooms with them:

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

• I think many, likely most, women and girls view males, as a group, as committing the large majority of sexual assaults, voyeurism, and exhibitionism, such that prophylactic measures - such as sex-segregated facilities - reduce opportunities for male-pattern offenses in spaces where women and girls are vulnerable.  You decline to recognize the elimination of sex-segregated spaces as "harm."

Actually, I'm fine with sex-segregated spaces. My problem is with your definition of how the line should be drawn and who makes the final decision in edge cases. To illustrate the problem, consider which of these two individuals you think is a woman and which you think is a man. 

Your definition indicates this is a woman:

Your definition indicates this is a man:

This is my proof about how defective your definition is.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The primary practical function of a restroom is, of course, to allow people to relieve themselves. But the reason public restrooms in this country (and most of the world) have long been separated by sex is not that society was indifferent to who else was present. Sex separation exists precisely because these are spaces that involve partial undress, vulnerability, and physical proximity. The design choice reflects a judgment that privacy, safety, and comfort interests differ systematically by sex, especially for women and girls.

That doesn't mean woman and girls want to go to the bathroom in the same room as these people:

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We do not wait for a documented assault in every locker room before maintaining sex separation...

And if you are a republican, you don't wait for anybody to put a litter box in a school bathroom before creating laws that outlaw it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There are documented incidents of males accessing female facilities and committing offenses.  I provided a list of reported instances, which I think have not addressed at all:

• Judge Rules Loudoun County Teen Sexually Assaulted Female Student in Girls' Bathroom (2021)
• 6 Men Who Disguised Themselves as Women to Access Bathrooms (from 2016)
• Transgender woman arrested for voyeurism at Ammon Target (2016)
• Man Dressed as Woman Arrested for Spying Into Mall Bathroom Stall, Police Say (2015)
• Cross-Dressing Man Secretly Taped Women at Macy’s (2013)
• Sex offender posed as woman, went into women's locker room
• Man Undresses In Front Of Children In Walmart Restroom (2010)
• Purdue police investigate report of man taking photographs in women's restroom (2008)
• Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter (2014 in Canada)
• ‘Transgender’ man may continue using girls’ locker room, says college (2012)

Sexual assault, voyeurism, spying, exhibitionism, etc., are all awful and are prosecuted aggressively, as they should be. You haven't established how requiring people  like this to use the woman's bathroom somehow causes malum in se crime to go down:

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't know how you can reconcile these incidents with your "no harm" argument.

There are also surveys and testimony from women and girls about reduced willingness to use facilities, sports changes, and shelters when men are present.

Surely you aren't claiming those surveys say women and girls don't have a reduced willingness to use facilities if this person is there, because according to you, "she" is a woman and they are comfortable with women.

Do sex-distinct facilities have value? Sure. Nobody is arguing against that. The question is whether your criteria for the "limiting principle" is the right one. 

The photographs I've shown here prove that you are drawing the line in the wrong place. When women say they would prefer to pee in women-only spaces, they are not saying they want to pee in places where the "women" I've shown here are required to pee, too. You are imposing your defective definition of "woman" on them.  

If you showed these two photographs to a woman and asked her which one she'd feel more comfortable with in the bathroom, how many are going to say, "I can't answer that based on their photos. I need to see their birth certificates!"

Edited 8 hours ago by Analytics

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Requiring this person to use the women's restroom doesn't promote privacy and dignity.

Requiring this person to use the women's restroom doesn't promote anybody's physical safety.

Requiring this person to use the women's bathroom has nothing to do with fairness in sports.

These are value judgments about which reasonable minds can and do disagree.

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You had also said on Friday that as far as you could tell, I didn't care about the integrity of data. In fact I do.

I don't recall saying you "{don't} care about the integrity of data."

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

As you know, I'm an actuary, and sex is an important factor in mortality and morbidity.

You cannot or will not define what a "woman" is.  You conflate actual women with men who, having taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear as a woman, "identify" as, and become, a woman.  Your position requires society to radically re-define "woman."

Again: 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.

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'll simply note that it wasn't doctors, actuaries, and demographers who passed the Kansas legislation in a rushed, procedurally truncated process that bypassed the normal opportunity for public hearings and development of an evidentiary record. Rather, it was done by the religious right.

It was done by the Kansas State Legislature.

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I trust doctors to look at the full, nuanced medical history of their patients, which has nothing to do with whether a drivers license has an M or an F on it. And I can tell you as an actuary who makes decisions with money on the line regarding these things, calling the person pictured in this post a "Female" doesn't enhance the data.

I think we're mixing issues again.

First, clinical care. Good doctors do rely on the full medical history, current anatomy, hormones, and relevant labs—not on the letter printed on a driver’s license. No serious argument says otherwise. The license marker is not a substitute for a chart. It is a basic administrative and identification field that is also used outside the exam room: for screening in sex-separated spaces, for records that feed population data, for matching to prior medical and legal history, and for ordinary verification. Saying “doctors should look at the whole history” does not answer whether the underlying sex marker itself should be accurate.

Second, data. If the claim is that recording the person as “Female” does not enhance the data, that cuts against self-ID, not in favor of it. Actuarial, epidemiological, and clinical datasets are useful only to the extent the categories track the biological and physiological differences that actually drive risk, drug response, disease prevalence, and outcomes. Sex is one of those variables. Replacing it with an identity label that can diverge from sex introduces noise precisely where sex is the relevant covariate. An actuary who needs reliable sex-stratified data is not helped by a system that treats the marker as a self-reported preference.

"Trust doctors to read the chart: is not a reason to make the official sex marker inaccurate, nor is it a reason to claim that calling a male “Female” improves the data. If anything, the actuarial point runs the other way—categories that no longer track sex make the data worse for the purposes for which sex is recorded.

You being an actuary, I am curious.  Here is my understanding:

• Actuaries price and reserve on the basis of factors that demonstrably correlate with claim costs.
• Sex is one of the strongest and most persistent of those factors in mortality, certain morbidity, and some casualty lines (especially young-driver auto).
• Male and female populations show different average life expectancy, different patterns of cardiovascular disease, cancer, disability, and (at younger ages) accident frequency/severity.
• Those differences are biological and behavioral in origin; and are therefore not created by the gender marker on a license.

Are these substantively accurate statements?

Continued:

• If a risk truly varies by biological sex, recording or pricing a biological male as “female” (or vice versa) does not improve the data—it introduces misclassification error. For example, hormone therapy and surgery change some risk factors (e.g., certain hormone-dependent conditions, thromboembolic risk) but do not rewrite the entire sex-based risk profile.
• Where the carrier has credible experience or medical evidence that a transitioned person’s residual risk now more closely resembles the identified sex, some will adjust. Where it does not, birth sex (or a substandard rating that reflects the actual medical history) remains the more accurate approach.
• Broadly speaking, actuaries do not treat “identifies as a woman” as automatically equivalent to “is female for risk purposes.”
• Practices differ by product, carrier, and jurisdiction.
• When sex is a material rating factor, the safer and more common actuarial default is still biological sex / sex at birth, supplemented by individual medical underwriting.
• Self-identified gender is used more often when required by law, by document-matching convenience, or when the carrier has decided the residual risk difference is small enough to absorb.

I am really out of my field here, hence my request for your input.  From the outside looking in, I would think that from a pure data-quality standpoint, if the risk varies by sex, labeling a person according to subjective "self-identity" rather than sex reduces, rather than enhances, the usefulness of the classification.

How do you, in your professional capacity as an actuary, define "woman"?

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's interesting that the only woman participating in this conversation (and who also happens to be a psychologist) disagrees with you.

As you like.  It is interesting to me that the two women I have spoken with about this topic in recent days - my wife and my sister - agree with me.  

Or is that perhaps a "faulty generalization"?

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Surveys show that most women agree with me on this issue.

I'm not sure we have good data.  It seems like surveys/polls are carefully drafted to not address the presence or absence of limiting principles.  For example, if the question were "Would you support a law that essentially eliminates sex-segregated bathrooms, changing rooms, etc.?", I think quite a few, perhaps the majority, would say no.  Or "Would you support a law that allows anyone who looks or acts or subjective 'self-identifies' as a woman to enter into women's bathrooms, changing rooms, etc.?", I think there would be a lot of people opposing this.

I would be interested in any data you have on this.  For example, I found this report by YouGov, but it is about "gender neutral toilets," not "men in women's bathrooms."  Moreover, the split seems to vacillate over time.  Moreover, the methodology is questionable.   YouGov uses an online opt-in panel rather than random telephone sampling. My understanding is that opt-in panels can skew results or attract insincere respondents on rapid-turnaround cultural topics.

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I may be wrong, but I really don't think most women and girls want this type of person to share their bathrooms and locker rooms with them.

I agree.  You may be wrong.  

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Actually, I'm fine with sex-segregated spaces.

A space in which any male for any reason can enter into women's spaces, with no limiting principles at all, is not "segregated" in any meaningful sense.

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My problem is with your definition of how the line should be drawn and who makes the final decision in edge cases.

Yes, I acknowledge we disagree.

I am not in the Kansas State Legislature, nor did I have anything to do with its approach to sex-segregated bathrooms.  I do agree with it, though, and find it reasonable.  You do not.  Such are the vicissitudes of living in a pluralistic society.  

I would prefer if you were refrain from personalizing this thread, as you have done many times now.  But so far I think we've managed to stay on topic despite those efforts.  I'm glad of that.

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Sexual assault, voyeurism, spying, exhibitionism, etc., are all awful and are prosecuted aggressively, as they should be.

I agree.  

Where we disagree is what sort of preemptive/prophylactic measures a jurisdiction can/should deploy to mitigate the risk of these things happening.

We also disagree in that you appear to focus overwhelmingly on what one of several grounds I have cited.

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You haven't established how requiring people  like this to use the woman's bathroom somehow causes malum in se crime to go down:

You haven't "established" anything either.  This is just an informal discussion about public policy.

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Do sex-distinct facilities have value? Sure. Nobody is arguing against that.

And yet you oppose any "limiting principles" designed to keep such facilities "sex-distinct."  I disagree with you on this point, as i think limiting principles are important.  I also think biological sex is a very good, and perhaps the best (in terms of public policy and enforcement), limiting principle.

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The photographs I've shown here prove that you are drawing the line in the wrong place.

I don't think they do.  That a man may go to great lengths to pass as a woman does not make him one.  And vice versa.

So the general rule of biological sex is reasonable.  I also think that some particularized exemptions/exceptions for people with DSDs would be reasonable.

Where we disagree is whether the entirety of the male population should be able, for any reason or no reason at all (there being no coherent limiting principles under your preferred regime), be allowed by law to enter into women's bathrooms.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 8 hours ago by smac97

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I assume the ACLU will be making an "Equal Protection" argument, namely, that the the law classifies on the basis of transgender status and therefore requires heightened constitutional scrutiny.  I'm not sure that works.

The Kansas law classifies on the basis of biological sex (not "gender identity"), which is an established, constitutionally permissible basis for separating intimate facilities and for recording sex on identity documents. Whether intermediate scrutiny applies, and whether the state’s interests in privacy, safety, and accurate identification satisfy it, is the real legal battleground. Multiple federal circuits and state courts have upheld analogous sex-based facility and records rules, while some others have been more skeptical. The issue remains unsettled at the Supreme Court level in the precise posture of bathroom access and driver’s-license markers.  Sex classifications typically receive intermediate scrutiny. The state interests in bodily privacy, safety in spaces involving undress, and administrative clarity are, I think, the kind of interests the Court has historically treated as important.  A SCOTUS majority would probably find those interests sufficiently served by a sex-based rule and uphold it.  

The Court is unlikely to hold that “gender identity” itself is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification requiring heightened scrutiny across the board. United States v. Skrmetti (2025) is the clearest signal. The 6–3 majority (Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) held that Tennessee’s restrictions on certain medical interventions for minors did not classify on the basis of sex or transgender status in a way that triggered heightened scrutiny. The Court applied "rational basis" review and upheld the law. Critically, it declined to treat transgender status as a suspect or quasi-suspect class and rejected the broadest readings of Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) outside the Title VII employment context.

I guess we may need to wait and see.

On these legal issues, I'll give some background on Kansas. Under the Kansas state Constitution, women here still have a Constitutional right to abortions. The religious right has been fighting this furiously. The Kansas legislature had basically outlawed second-term abortions, and this was successfully challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional under the state Constitution. In Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt (2019) the Kansas Supreme Court ruled 6–1 that this language protects a fundamental right of personal autonomy including bodily integrity, self-determination, and decisions concerning one's body, health and family life. The court concluded that deciding whether to continue a pregnancy falls within that protected sphere. This was reaffirmed in 2024. 

The religious right continues to fight against this by trying to change the Constitution and most recently by changing how supreme court judges are selected, but they continue to fail.

Given how the citizens of Kansas enjoy an outsized fundamental right to personal autonomy, bodily integrity, self-determination, decisions about your own body, health, and family life, I'm guessing this will be a strict scrutiny case in Kansas, and that the big-government Christians will lose again. We'll see if their luck finally changes.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The law you are championing has the opposite affect of exactly what you are presenting as the reason for the law if the point is to make women feel safe in a restroom.  

This is a law that Smac and its other defenders can't show a single instance of being needed. Can't show a single case where other laws have been inadequate to keep people safe. Personally I think the law passed is serving its exact and intended purpose. It's purpose is clearly to make transgendered individuals feel marginalized unsafe and unwelcome. To harass those (including cis gendered individuals) that don't fit into societies gender norms by deputizing citizens to harass people trying to pee. Hooray for loving christians!