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

[The Nehor]

On 8/21/2026 at 5:24 PM, smac97 said:

I have never condoned any abuse of children, whether it be the sexualized/grooming antics involved in some drag queen story hours, drag shows, Pride parades, and on one, or whether it be a Latter-day Saint exploiting access to Latter-day Saint children.

Of course the former isn’t actually abuse or grooming and the latter often is so why are you making them equivalent?

You’re implying that watching a drag queen read a children’t book is somehow equivalent to being molested or assaulted or propositioned or whatever.

That is gross. Again, this is just making drag queens (who often aren’t transgender) into porn. Always. They are a threat just by existing in the vicinity of children. This kind of thinking is sick and demented and wrong.

[webbles]

On 8/20/2026 at 3:41 PM, Analytics said:

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.

I read that article and the ordinance and I don't see any "explicit let transgender people use the restroom of their choice".  The ordinance is an anti-discrimination ordinance.  It does say that it covers "public accomodations" that could cover public restrooms, but it isn't explicit and I don't see any attempt to use this ordinance in that manner.  Additionally, in 2001, there was a case in Minnesota where a transwoman sued her employer because she was denied the right to use the women's bathroom.  It went all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court who ruled that the Minnesota Human Rights Act (which had similar language to the Minneapolis ordinance) did not protect her and that her employer could force her to use the men's bathroom.  The case is GOINS v. WEST GROUP (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mn-supreme-court/1061687.html is one location to read it).

If the Minneapolis ordinance actually allowed transgender people to use the restroom of their choice, then it is odd that she didn't sue under that ordinance.  And it is interesting that a very similar law was read the opposite.  So, I don't think that the Minneapolis ordinance has anything to do with transgender people and bathrooms.

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Part 1 of 2

Let’s do a deep dive onto this with a case study: the specific events that led to this thread being resurrected, which is you raising the issue of transgender women competing in the WNBA.

I hope we can focus on the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I hope we can focus on the topic.

This topic?

On 8/20/2026 at 7:58 PM, smac97 said:

Trans issues are ubiquitous these days.  What was previously a rare and private (or else not overtly publicize) set of behaviors and preferences are now trumpeted to the skies 24/7.  And social media did not exist back then, so all of us had fairly limited and provincial outlooks.

Nah.  Trans folks get a lot of attention these days because no small number of them go out of their way to attract and invite it.  I would have much preferred to let drag queens do their thing in adult venues.  We live in a pluralistic society, after all.  But then came the use of these shows to sexualize and groom children.  Well, that's quite problematic.

I think it is very much your side of the debate that is moving heaven and earth to make trans issues a source for daily discussion and debate and news.

There's Lili Tino.

And Lia Thomas.  And Imane Khelif, Laurel Hubbard, Fallon Fox, etc.  The whole "men in women's sports" thing.

And Dylan Mulvaney and his grotesque caricature of womanhood.

And Jessica Yaniv (Jonathan Yaniv) and his various efforts to use the power of the State to coerce estheticians to wax his genitals.

And lots and lots of news stories about teachers appropriating their influence over and proximity to children to teach controversial and contested claims about trans issues.  

And the lawsuits.  

• United States v. Skrmetti (2025) — Upheld Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors with gender dysphoria. 6–3 decision; Court applied rational-basis review and rejected heightened scrutiny arguments.
• West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox (June 2026) — Upheld state laws (West Virginia and Idaho) barring transgender-identifying males from girls’/women’s school sports teams. Court held the bans do not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX

Trans folks are going out of their way to attract attention in one way or another, and the media and social media accentuate and amplify it, and now people are paying attention and finding some things about the trans movement to be problematic:

• Tavistock GIDS (UK): The Gender Identity Development Service was shut down after the Cass Review found weak evidence for puberty blockers/hormones, poor data collection, and a rushed affirmative model. Multiple clinicians and whistleblowers raised concerns about inadequate assessment and social contagion factors.
• WPATH Files / internal documents: Leaked files and the “WPATH Files” (and later SOC8-related materials) showed members acknowledging weak evidence, high rates of comorbidities (autism, trauma, mental illness), inability of many minors to consent, and pressure to affirm rather than explore underlying issues. Critics describe this as institutional capture and suppression of dissent.
• Medicalization of minors: Rapid rise in youth referrals (especially adolescent females), use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries with limited long-term evidence of net benefit and known risks (infertility, sexual dysfunction, bone density loss, cardiovascular effects). European countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway, England) sharply restricted these interventions after systematic reviews.
• Desistance and detransition: Historical data showed most childhood gender dysphoria resolved by adulthood without transition; modern “affirmative” approaches and social transition may lock in identity. Growing numbers of detransitioners report inadequate exploration of trauma, autism, or same-sex attraction, plus medical regret.
• Social contagion / rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD): Hypothesis (Lisa Littman and others) that peer groups, social media, and online communities drive sudden-onset cases in adolescents, particularly girls. Heavily contested but supported by referral pattern shifts and parent reports.
• Sports, prisons, and single-sex spaces: Biological males identifying as women competing in female categories, accessing women’s shelters/prisons, and using female facilities — raising fairness, safety, and privacy concerns. Multiple high-profile cases and policy reversals.
• Suppression of debate and research: Clinicians, researchers, and journalists (e.g., SEGM, Genspect, Cass-associated figures) facing professional retaliation, deplatforming, or loss of funding for questioning the affirmative model. Some journals and medical bodies accused of prioritizing activism over evidence.

And on and on.

The claim that “nothing is new, wrong, or dangerous” and that this is merely about “letting people choose their own toilets” misstates both the history and the stakes.

 

[Analytics]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I hope we can focus on the topic.

 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

 

Calling this a fabricated controversy is a way to shut down discussion rather than address the substance.  

Single-sex bathrooms and changing rooms exist because of biological sex differences in strength, privacy needs, and patterns of sexual crime. Once policy shifts from sex to self-declared identity with no verification, any male can claim access.

There are documented cases of voyeurism, exposure, and assault under those conditions—enough that women have reason to object, even if absolute numbers remain lower than ordinary male-perpetrated crime.

The issues here, discussion of which you are sidestepping and trying to shut down, involve privacy invasions, the principle of sex-based spaces, or the parallel problems we already see in women’s prisons and sports.

Trans people can face real harassment.  I acknowledge that.  The solution isn’t to treat sex as optional.  Rather, we should maintain sex-based facilities and expand neutral single-occupancy options.

Once policy shifts from sex to self-declared identity with no meaningful verification or limiting principle, sex-segregatec spaces cease to exist in a de jure and de facto sense.

These issues scale immediately to other female-only categories. If self-ID is enough for a bathroom, it is enough for a locker room or changing area (where nudity is the norm), a women’s sports team, or a women’s prison wing. These are not separate issues; they rest on the identical claim that gender identity overrides sex.

Changing rooms and locker rooms are more intimate than public toilets. When access is granted on identity alone, women and girls lose the ability to undress and change without the presence of male bodies. Privacy and dignity are not optional extras.  They are the reason the spaces were sex-segregated in the first place.

Then there's the potential impact on women's sports.  Male puberty produces lasting advantages in muscle mass, bone density, strength, speed, and lung capacity. Even after hormone treatment, many of those advantages remain. The female category exists precisely to give females a fair chance to compete and win. Treating self-ID as decisive collapses that category and turns it into a mixed-sex competition in which males retain systematic physical edges.

And prisons. Female prisoners are a captive, highly vulnerable population. Sex-based patterns of offending—particularly sexual and violent crime—differ markedly between males and females. When housing decisions rest on identity rather than sex, intact males (including those with histories of sexual or violent offences) can be placed among women who cannot simply leave the facility. The physical differences that make male-on-female violence more dangerous do not disappear because of a declaration and AI-generatef meme cartoons (which areas appeals to ridicule).

These are real issues, not contrived ones.  Trans-identifying people can face real harassment; that is a legitimate concern. The solution is not to treat sex as optional across every domain. It is to maintain sex-based facilities and categories, expand neutral single-occupancy options where feasible, and handle rare, carefully assessed exceptions without making self-declaration the sole criterion.

Pretending women’s boundary concerns are just bigotry or a right-wing invention does not make the material differences in strength, crime patterns, and privacy needs disappear. The bathroom debate is the entry point; the same logic, once accepted, rewrites sports fairness and prison safety. That is why the controversy is real.

Thanks,

Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Calling this a fabricated controversy is a way to shut down discussion rather than address the substance.  

I am not debating whether it’s a fabricated controversy or not.  I am curious how you, smac,  would determine if something was fabricated.

I think Analytics did a decent job of showing the dominant voice in online media on the subject by far are the conservatives rather than the liberals or transgender communities (granted he chose just a few sources, but quite prominent ones with long reach).  Again whether that translates to fabricated controversy, I couldn’t say.

Edited 8 hours ago by Calm