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

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

While he apologized after being called out for it, I think it's helpful to remember that he has compared a transgender individual passing as their preferred gender identity as being on par with them committing rape.

When someone passing as their preferred gender is seen as a violent act against you and society, it's easy to minimalize endangering their lives in return.

Yep, they can only imagine transgender people as violent because that is their gut reaction to them. Usually violence tied to fear and masculine insecurity.

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

Almost all of your arguments fall apart when you look at actual transgenders actually look like.  

I'm not sure I understand your point.  What do "transgenders actually look like"?

We've been told that "transgender" status is purely a matter of identity, not looks:

Now you are tying being an "actual" transgender to outward looks/presentation.

Could you explain/clarify your position here?  If a man who "identifies" as transgender, but who has not taken any steps toward either medical or social transitioning, is he - in your view - a "trans woman"?  Or does that not happen until and unless he "look{s} like" one?

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

People in public places base their assumptions of sex on appearance and not presenting their license or birth certificates.  

Appearance is how people form quick, practical judgments in public. That has always been true. It does not make sex itself a matter of appearance, and it does not make the underlying rule “use the facility that matches your sex” collapse.

People rely on appearance precisely because, for the overwhelming majority of human beings, appearance correlates strongly with sex. That correlation is what allows the informal system to function most of the time. When someone deliberately alters their appearance to resemble the opposite sex, the correlation is disrupted. The resulting confusion or discomfort is not evidence that sex is irrelevant; it is evidence that the visual cue people normally rely on has been made unreliable.

A rule based on sex does not require every person to produce a birth certificate at the bathroom door. It sets the standard. Enforcement in ordinary cases will continue to rest on the same appearance-based judgments people already make. The difference is that the standard remains sex, not self-identification or the success of someone’s presentation. When a conflict arises, the question is still “what sex is this person?” rather than “how convincingly do they present?” or “what do they claim to be?”

Thanks,

-Smac

Treating “people go by appearance” as a reason to abandon sex as the organizing principle confuses a practical heuristic with the category itself. The heuristic works because of the underlying reality of sex. It does not replace that reality.

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

While he apologized after being called out for it, I think it's helpful to remember that he has compared a transgender individual passing as their preferred gender identity as being on par with them committing rape.

I do not know what you are referencing here.  Could you provide a link to where I did this?

42 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

When someone passing as their preferred gender is seen as a violent act against you and society, it's easy to minimalize endangering their lives in return.

I don't think this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yep, they can only imagine transgender people as violent because that is their gut reaction to them. Usually violence tied to fear and masculine insecurity.

From a prior post:

Quote

The lack of candor appears in several recurring patterns, several of which are manifest in this thread:

• Conflating rare medical DSDs with identity claims. Treating disorders of sex development as if they justify self-identification policies, while refusing to distinguish the two.
• Selective concern for “safety.” Emphasizing the vulnerability of males who identify as women while downplaying or dismissing or ignoring the safety and privacy concerns of women and girls in the same spaces.
• Moving the goalposts on evidence. Demanding exhaustive proof that problems occur under self-ID regimes, while treating anecdotal or institutional accommodations as sufficient evidence that no problems exist.
• Euphemism and linguistic capture. Preferring terms like “gender-affirming,” “assigned sex,” or “sex assigned at birth” in ways that obscure the underlying biological distinction rather than clarify it.
• Asymmetry in application. Insisting that sex is irrelevant when males seek access to female spaces, but treating sex as highly relevant when discussing medicalization, sports performance, or criminal pattern data.
• Refusal to define terms operationally. Avoiding clear, falsifiable definitions of “woman,” “man,” or “gender identity” that could be applied consistently in law, policy, or data collection.
• Treating dissent as "harm." Framing disagreement about sex-based rules as inherently bigoted or dangerous, which short-circuits substantive debate about trade-offs and consequences.
• No limiting principles.  The refusal to state any coherent limiting principle that would prevent the category from expanding without end; and the corresponding unwillingness to acknowledge the predictable result—that women’s single-sex spaces are steadily eroded or eliminated once sex ceases to be the operative criterion.

These are not minor rhetorical disagreements. They are systematic efforts to avoid stating, in plain terms, what the policy actually requires and whom it disadvantages.

"Treating dissent as 'harm.' Framing disagreement about sex-based rules as inherently bigoted or dangerous, which short-circuits substantive debate about trade-offs and consequences."

This seems to be what you are doing.

I would like to see where I said a trans person "passing" is "on par with {a trans person} committing rape."

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m curious why this is different than other difficult to prove cases like stalking, harassment, and many cases of rape including marital rape. Cases where there exists a great deal of plausible deniability?

My comments started because Analytics said we would still be able to prosecute such cases.  And I just don't see how.  Before society changed to allowing trans women into locker rooms, a woman in a locker room who was stalked by someone didn't need that much proof if the person was a man.  Because it was assumed that he shouldn't be in there and so must be nefarious.  I agree this was bad for trans women.  But with the change in society, now if a woman is stalked by an actual man (not transwoman) who is in the locker room, she has to have even more proof or just accept being the victim.  I don't know how to make it work but it is what bugs me the most about this.  I don't see how these cases can be prosecuted anymore.  Locker rooms and other sex-segregated places are no longer safe places for woman.

Edited 2 hours ago by webbles

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, webbles said:

Quote

I’m curious why this is different than other difficult to prove cases like stalking, harassment, and many cases of rape including marital rape. Cases where there exists a great deal of plausible deniability?

My comments started because Analytics said we would still be able to prosecute such cases.  And I just don't see how. 

It seems like these crimes could be prosecuted like any other crime, with law enforcement and prosecutors gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and so on.

24 minutes ago, webbles said:

Before society changed to allowing trans women into locker rooms, a woman in a locker room who was stalked by someone didn't need that much proof if the person was a man.  Because it was assumed that he shouldn't be in there and so must be nefarious. 

Yes.  "Nefarious" can be a legitimate concern.  There are others.  From a prior post:

• In a women’s prison, is the purpose defeated only after a certain number of male-bodied people are housed there, or after a single assault, or after female inmates report that they no longer feel safe, or after they express a desire for privacy from biological males?
• In elite women’s sports, are there any other legitimate "purposes" in addition to competitive advantages (of biological males)?  Safety?  Privacy? 
• In a domestic-violence shelter, is the purpose defeated when women stop using the shelter, or only when a formal incident is documented?
• What is the purpose of a women’s bathroom or locker room? Is it solely about toilets and sinks, or does it also include privacy, dignity, and the expectation of not undressing or performing intimate functions in the presence of biological males?
• Under the “doesn’t defeat the purpose” test, how would we know when that purpose has been defeated? Does it require a documented incident of voyeurism, assault, or exposure? Or is the loss of perceived safety and privacy by female users enough?
• Should the women who feel uncomfortable, or unsafe, or who want privacy from biological males, be required to provide evidence of harm before the boundary can be enforced? If so, what form of evidence is sufficient?
• Once access to a facility is opened on the basis of self-identification, how is the line drawn for the next person who identifies as a woman? Is there a limiting point, or does each case simply get evaluated after the fact for whether harm occurred?

AFAICS, nobody has tried to answer any of these questions.

24 minutes ago, webbles said:

I agree this was bad for trans women.  But with the change in society, now if a woman is stalked by an actual man (not transwoman) who is in the locker room, she has to have even more proof or just accept being the victim. 

I'm not sure there is a requirement for "more proof."  However, I think the issue is whether the State can/ought enact measures to preserve sex-segregated spaces, and what those measures are, and whether those measures are workable and constitutionally sufficient.

24 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't know how to make it work but it is what bugs me the most about this. 

I think the part that gives me the most pause is the overarching lack of concern about - or event the wholesale elimination of - sex-segregated spaces, and the substantial number of women who want, for a variety of reasons (not just safety), to have such spaces in our society, the ongoing refusal to articulate any meaningful limiting principles, and so on.

24 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't see how these cases can be prosecuted anymore.  Locker rooms and other sex-segregated places are no longer safe places for woman.

They were never fully safe, but they will become markedly less so if we as a society implement policies which have the de jure and/or de facto effect of eliminating such spaces.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Which makes you kind of wonder whether things have changed in recent years, such that a laissez fair policy that was previously sufficient has ceased being so.

There is no evidence that the laissez fair  stopped working and that sex-segregated bathrooms would be in peril without new draconian laws. 

Conservatives being afraid of diversity isn't new. You remind me of Archie Bunker singing,

"....and you knew who you were then!
Girls were girls and men were men!
Mr. we could could use a man 
Like Herbert Hoover again
Didn't need no welfare state
Everybody pulled his weight!
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great!

Those were the days!"

The city of Minneapolis has explicitly let transgender people use the restroom of their choice since 1975. And guess what. After 51 years, sex-distinct restrooms there are still the norm and are still as safe as anywhere.

Transgender people existing and using their own judgement on which restroom to use isn't a new phenomenon--they've lived in Kansas for decades and decades, and have been minding their own business and using the restrooms they thought were most appropriate. What's changed isn't that they started using the restrooms that matched their identity. What changed is the fact that the conservative grievance-industrial complex decided this was a winning issue.

Edited 1 hour ago by Analytics

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

think the part that gives me the most pause is the overarching lack of concern about - or event the wholesale elimination of - sex-segregated spaces, and the substantial number of women who want, for a variety of reasons (not just safety), to have such spaces in our society, the ongoing refusal to articulate any meaningful limiting principles, and so on.

Someone else refusing to accept appearance as a meaningful limiting principle does not mean a meaningful limiting principle has not been articulated, imo.

I have a very strong concern about women who are forced to share spaces with those who appear to be biological males, whether they are one or not.

Edited 1 hour ago by Calm

[Calm]

Has this been posted yet and analyzed yet?  The search function says no and I haven’t read each post or all of the posts (I tend to skip over what appears to be repetition).

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/safety-in-restrooms-and-facilites/

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Which makes you kind of wonder whether things have changed in recent years, such that a laissez fair policy that was previously sufficient has ceased being so.

There is no evidence that the laissez fair  stopped working

I'm not sure about that.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and that sex-segregated bathrooms would be in peril without new draconian laws. 

Under your policy, sex-segregated bathrooms would be eliminating, since anyone could go into them.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Conservatives being afraid of diversity isn't new. You remind me of Archie Bunker singing,

"....and you knew who you were then!
Girls were girls and men were men!
Mr. we could could use a man 
Like Herbert Hoover again
Didn't need no welfare state
Everybody pulled his weight!
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great!

Those were the days!"

The city of Minneapolis has explicitly let transgender people use the restroom of their choice since 1975. And guess what. After 51 years, sex-distinct restrooms there are still the norm and are still as safe as anywhere.

Safety is not the only concern.

And the management of the City of Minneapolis is not really a bragging point.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Transgender people existing and using their own judgement on which restroom to use isn't a new phenomenon--they've lived in Kansas for decades and decades, and have been minding their own business and using the restrooms they thought were most appropriate. What's changed isn't that they started using the restrooms that matched their identity. What changed is the fact that the conservative grievance-industrial complex decided this was a winning issue.

The claim that nothing changed except “conservative grievance” is not accurate.

What changed is the formal assertion—and the institutional adoption—of a new rule: that sex is irrelevant and that self-identified gender must determine access to spaces segregated by sex. For decades, the background expectation in Kansas (and everywhere else) was that restrooms were segregated by sex. People who presented in a way that made their sex ambiguous or who quietly used the facility that matched their appearance were not the subject of a legal or cultural campaign to redefine the categories themselves.

What is new is the demand that biological males who identify as women must be treated as women for purposes of restroom access, and that any refusal to do so is illegitimate. That demand was accompanied by policy changes, institutional guidance, and activism that treated sex-based boundaries as discriminatory. The resulting conflicts—males in female spaces, the erosion of sex-based rules in schools, prisons, shelters, and sports—are what produced the legislative response.

Pointing to earlier decades of low-profile cases does not prove that sex-based rules were always optional. It shows that shared norms about sex made formal enforcement largely unnecessary. Once those norms were openly rejected and replaced with identity-based access, the prior informal arrangement no longer held. The laws have been responding to that change, not the other way around.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

think the part that gives me the most pause is the overarching lack of concern about - or event the wholesale elimination of - sex-segregated spaces, and the substantial number of women who want, for a variety of reasons (not just safety), to have such spaces in our society, the ongoing refusal to articulate any meaningful limiting principles, and so on.

Someone else refusing to accept appearance as a meaningful limiting principle does not mean a meaningful limiting principle has not been articulated, imo.

By "meaningful" I mean workable and enforceable in the real world.  The State gets to arbitrarily decide who does and does not "look" enough like a woman to enter bathrooms?  Using what criteria?  

Also, @Analytics preferred policy is not based on "appearance," but by the individual's choice.  There is no limiting principle there, "meaningful" or otherwise.

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have a very strong concern about women who are forced to share spaces with those who appear to be biological males, whether they are one or not.

Physical appearance as a limiting principle

A) is statutorily - and perhaps constitutionally - unworkable, 

B) will never be accepted as sufficient because such a policy "discriminates" against, and is even bigoted and hateful towards, "trans women" who have not socially/medically transitioned, or not transitioned enough, and causes them "harm," "denies their existence," and so on, and

C) will still result in the de jure or de facto eradication of sex-segregated spaces, or nearly so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Has this been posted yet and analyzed yet?  The search function says no and I haven’t read each post or all of the posts (I tend to skip over what appears to be repetition).

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/safety-in-restrooms-and-facilites/

I hadn’t seen that specific February 2025 Williams Institute brief circulated in this thread yet. It appears it is essentially an update and reframing of their earlier 2018 Massachusetts study (and related work).

The core claim is familiar: they find no statistically significant increase in reported safety or privacy crimes in restrooms/locker rooms after gender-identity inclusive public-accommodations policies, and they emphasize that transgender people report higher rates of harassment or denial when required to use facilities matching their sex.

The article is real and has been public since early 2025. It does not resolve the underlying disagreement about whether sex remains a legitimate basis for single-sex spaces. It measures a narrow set of outcomes under a particular set of assumptions.

Thanks,

-Smac