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 yesterday at 04:12 AM by Calm

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

A huge part of the problem is that that the "substance" is largely built on speculations, slippery slopes, strawmen, outlier anecdotes, and amplified hypotheticals. It doesn't address whether the proposed solutions (e.g. the Kansas bathroom law) cause more good or harm in the real world.

I would suggest in general, as a society we should allow people the freedom to live their own lives: treat others the way you'd like to be treated, give people different than you some grace, recognize we live in a pluralistic society, and try to get along. If you think new laws are necessary (e.g. requiring all biological females to use the female restroom), it is incumbent upon you to explain why the cost of that law is worth it and explain why such a law would do more good than harm. 

The example you brought up to kick off this thread is the WNBA. If there were big scarry men who really wanted to play in the WNBA, and somehow the system was forcing the league to admit them as players, then that would be interesting news. But that has never happened. Not once. But apparently some activists got tired of waiting for this hypothetical to occur naturally and decided to manufacture the test case themselves. Today (August 24) if you go to FoxNews.com, top stories include:

• The lead story on the entire homepage: Enes Kanter Freedom discussing his confrontation at a WNBA game and his campaign to enter the WNBA.
• One of Fox’s four “Hot Topics”: “WNBA CONTROVERSY,” second only to the war with Iran.
• Another prominent story: “Fever coach urges press don’t ‘give it any gas’ as transgender firestorm rages.”
• The OutKick section promotes that story again, plus another about the Sky coach defending Natasha Cloud after her argument with Freedom.

Notice what is missing: an actual transgender WNBA player (there have been ZERO in history). An actual displaced female player. An actual injury caused by the policy. None of the harm the controversy is supposedly about has actually occurred.

It's a manufactured controversy built to push your buttons. And this is the specific story that you used to steer the discussion in this direction.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not debating whether it’s a fabricated controversy or not.  

@Analytics is, nearly to the exclusion of discussion of the topic at hand.  

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I am curious how you, smac,  would determine if something was fabricated.

I would look at evidence.  Quite a few in the "trans" community actively court public attention.  Dylan Mulvaney.  Lia Thomas.  Lily Tino.  So do some groups (such as those who are grooming children by exposing them to highly sexualized drag show and other live performances).

Politicians did not coordinate with Dylan Mulvaney.  The massive backlash against Bud Light was not orchestrated in backrooms in Washington D.C.  Political operatives did not plant Riley Gaines on the UPenn women's swim team.

10 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

From a previous post:

Quote

Step 1: It's not really happening

Step 2: Yeah, it's happening, but it's not a big deal

Step 3: It's a good thing, actually

Step 4: People freaking out about it are the real problem

I think those who endorse the sorts of trans-related controversies, such as men in women's bathrooms, are trying very hard to stay at Step 1 as long as possible.  The longer Steps 1 and 2 are drawn out, the easier Steps 3 and 4 are.  Frog and boiling water and all that.

America has transformed substantially in the last many decades, including as to LGBT issues.  I think if there were anything that could reverse acceptance of the Ts, it would be the sexualization and grooming of children mostly, but also the incursion of men, both de facto and de jure into women's sports and other sex-segregated spaces.

thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

A huge part of the problem is that that the "substance" is largely built on speculations, slippery slopes, strawmen, outlier anecdotes, and amplified hypotheticals. It doesn't address whether the proposed solutions (e.g. the Kansas bathroom law) cause more good or harm in the real world.

I would suggest in general, as a society we should allow people the freedom to live their own lives: treat others the way you'd like to be treated, give people different than you some grace, recognize we live in a pluralistic society, and try to get along. If you think new laws are necessary (e.g. requiring all biological females to use the female restroom), it is incumbent upon you to explain why the cost of that law is worth it and explain why such a law would do more good than harm. 

The example you brought up to kick off this thread is the WNBA. If there were big scarry men who really wanted to play in the WNBA, and somehow the system was forcing the league to admit them as players, then that would be interesting news. But that has never happened. Not once. But apparently some activists got tired of waiting for this hypothetical to occur naturally and decided to manufacture the test case themselves. Today (August 24) if you go to FoxNews.com, top stories include:

• The lead story on the entire homepage: Enes Kanter Freedom discussing his confrontation at a WNBA game and his campaign to enter the WNBA.
• One of Fox’s four “Hot Topics”: “WNBA CONTROVERSY,” second only to the war with Iran.
• Another prominent story: “Fever coach urges press don’t ‘give it any gas’ as transgender firestorm rages.”
• The OutKick section promotes that story again, plus another about the Sky coach defending Natasha Cloud after her argument with Freedom.

Notice what is missing: an actual transgender WNBA player (there have been ZERO in history). An actual displaced female player. An actual injury caused by the policy. None of the harm the controversy is supposedly about has actually occurred.

It's a manufactured controversy built to push your buttons. And this is the specific story that you used to steer the discussion in this direction.

You are right that there has never been a transgender woman playing in the WNBA. That fact is not in dispute. But it does not follow that the underlying issue is therefore “fabricated.”

The substance is not dependent on one specific league having already admitted a male player. It is about the principle of sex-based categories and what happens when those categories are redefined. Across multiple sports, governing bodies (such as the IOC) have already faced cases in which male-bodied athletes entered female categories and displaced female competitors or altered the competitive landscape. The pattern exists even if the WNBA itself has not yet produced a high-profile example. Treating the absence of a current WNBA case as proof that the entire concern is imaginary is like saying a fire code is unnecessary until a particular building burns down.

You also shift the burden in a useful way: if someone wants a sex-based rule, they should explain why the benefits outweigh the costs. That standard cuts both ways. Maintaining female-only categories is not a novel restriction.  It is the long-standing default that made women’s sports possible in the first place. Changing that default — so that men can enter on the basis of identity — also requires justification.  Instead, it is merely assumed.  This is especially when the performance gap between male and female bodies remains large and well-documented. The question is not whether anyone is currently “forcing” the WNBA to admit such athletes. The question is whether the eligibility rules should preserve sex as the relevant category or subordinate it.

On the broader point about living in a pluralistic society and extending grace: I agree. People should be treated with dignity. That does not automatically settle how sex-based spaces and competitions are defined. Pluralism can and should include the recognition that sex is binary and materially relevant in some domains. Dismissing every attempt to preserve those distinctions as “speculation” or “manufactured controversy” avoids the actual trade-offs rather than resolving them.

The WNBA example may be amplified, and some activists clearly seek test cases.  Lawrence v. Texas was apparently based on a contrivance. Amplification does not make the underlying policy question disappear. It is still legitimate to ask whether female categories should remain female, and to expect that question to be answered with evidence about performance, fairness, and safety rather than by declaring the discussion itself illegitimate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 8/22/2026 at 4:33 PM, The Nehor said:

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

They are different varieties of the same terrible thing: the sexualization and grooming of children.

On 8/22/2026 at 4:33 PM, The Nehor said:

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.

I have not been speaking of all drag shows, just those that involve children and highly sexualized performances.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 8/22/2026 at 7:43 PM, webbles said:

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.

Huh.  I look forward to @Analytics' response.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The example you brought up to kick off this thread is the WNBA. If there were big scarry men who really wanted to play in the WNBA, and somehow the system was forcing the league to admit them as players, then that would be interesting news. But that has never happened. Not once. But apparently some activists got tired of waiting for this hypothetical to occur naturally and decided to manufacture the test case themselves. Today (August 24) if you go to FoxNews.com, top stories include:

There was a transwoman who just recently expressed a desire to play in the WNBA.  It is possible that this is what triggered it all.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Tétart.  She is a player on the French women's division.  She expressed the desire on Aug 6.  I believe the men that smac is talking about made their announcement on Aug 7.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, webbles said:

There was a transwoman who just recently expressed a desire to play in the WNBA.  It is possible that this is what triggered it all.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Tétart.  She is a player on the French women's division.  She expressed the desire on Aug 6.  I believe the men that smac is talking about made their announcement on Aug 7.

From previous post:

Quote

Step 1: It's not really happening

Step 2: Yeah, it's happening, but it's not a big deal

Step 3: It's a good thing, actually

Step 4: People freaking out about it are the real problem

Julie Tétart entry into the WNBA may be the push that moves @Analytics on to Step 2.  

From another earlier post:

Quote

What is new is the formal demand that sex is irrelevant and that self-declared identity must override it. For decades, restrooms were sex-segregated by near-universal social norm and expectation. People who presented ambiguously or who quietly used the facility that matched their appearance were rarely the subject of a political campaign to redefine the categories themselves. The shift came when activists and institutions began insisting that biological males who identify as women must be treated as women for access purposes, and that any sex-based boundary is illegitimate.

That change is not neutral. Single-sex spaces exist because of material differences between the sexes—privacy, safety, and the documented pattern of male-pattern criminality and voyeurism. Removing the sex criterion and replacing it with an unverifiable internal state eliminates the limiting principle. Once access is based on self-identification, any male can claim entry. Evidence from prisons, shelters, sports, and multiple documented incidents shows this is not a theoretical concern.

Men in women's bathrooms is not an isolated issue.  It is interconnected with men in women's changing rooms, and sports, and prisons.

@Analytics wants no limiting principles as to who can enter into women's spaces.  None.  At all.  Anyone can go in legally for any reason or no reason at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are right that there has never been a transgender woman playing in the WNBA. That fact is not in dispute. But it does not follow that the underlying issue is therefore “fabricated.”

In this case it does. There wouldn't be an issue if the guys on your side didn't fabricate it. The WNBA was working fine on this, 100% of the time, for 30 years and counting.

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Treating the absence of a current WNBA case as proof that the entire concern is imaginary is like saying a fire code is unnecessary until a particular building burns down.

Buildings generally have a ton of stored chemical energy and exist in an oxygen rich environment. The energy of massive fires is always there. They need some activation energy to start burning and once they start, entire cities can burn down. We know all of this both from basic chemistry and from historical experience. The purpose of fire codes is to prevent this runaway process from happening. 

You seem to think that like a wooden house full of chemical energy that "wants" to burn, the world is brimming with cis-gender men who really, really, want to participate in women's sports. You seem to think that because of this overwhelming desire men have of going into the lady's room, we need heavy-handed laws with extremely sharp lines that are based on biological sex to keep them out. You seem to think there are so many guys who want to do this that they'd completely take over women sports if given half the chance. I'll refrain from speculating about why you think there are so many guys out there that want to play women's sports and hang out in women's locker rooms.

However, the truth is there are very few transgender people. Of those, very few are interested in sports. Of those, very few are good enough or strong enough to make a difference in terms of competitiveness or safety. It's a tiny, marginal issue that rarely affects anybody. 

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You also shift the burden in a useful way: if someone wants a sex-based rule, they should explain why the benefits outweigh the costs. That standard cuts both ways.

Not really. The default should be living in a free society with a minimum number of rules. Only create laws when doing so is absolutely necessary. That is a general principle. 

Nobody is arguing that girl's bathrooms should be wide open to anybody who says the right magic word before entering. That is a strawman. Even you concede that some biological males (e.g. Emily Quinn) may use the lady's room. The question is whether we need the government to create heavy-handed laws with bright, inflexible lines about who may and may not go into this or that bathroom. 

It's clear that giant swath of Fox's viewers want to be very, very upset about men entering women spaces. It's also clear that not enough men do that in order to keep the topic in the headlines. Thus, they are dispatching their own people into women's spaces and putting the resulting "controversy" on the front page. 

[Analytics]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

@Analytics wants no limiting principles as to who can enter into women's spaces.  None.  At all.  Anyone can go in legally for any reason or no reason at all.

The last time you said this about me, I corrected you and explained that is the opposite of my position. 

Clearly, you aren't interested in understanding my point of view. I'm out. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Nobody is arguing that girl's bathrooms should be wide open to anybody who says the right magic word before entering. 

You have endorsed a laissez faire approach, with no limiting principles.  I don't see how that is anything but "arguing that girl's bathrooms should be wide open to anybody."

I think it is interesting that you are claiming to adopt a "case-by-case" approach, but you really aren't.  You don't want any limiting principle.  Everyone can go into women's spaces, no exceptions.  I, on the other hand, and willing to evaluate a legitimate "case-by-case" exception to the statutory framework (based on individuals with DSDs).

I think I understand why you have spent many pages avoiding consideration of any limiting principle.  I think as soon as you do, the jig is up.  You want men - whether under the "trans women" or any other rubric ("people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate") - to be able to legally enter into women's spaces.  Trans ideology does not allow folks like you to differentiate between different "kinds" of trans women.  There is no differentiation because "a woman is someone who identifies as one."  So it's all or nothing, and the "all" obliterates sex-segregated spaces, which you have also studiously avoided acknowledging.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

That is a strawman. Even you concede that some biological males (e.g. Emily Quinn) may use the lady's room.

Some of the exceedingly small number of persons with DSDs, perhaps.  Otherwise, women's bathrooms were created for women, not men.  A very small exception to the rule should not swallow or negate the rule.

In contrast, your approach would allow anyone to enter into women's spaces.  Where I propose a rule with a narrow and clear contingent exception, what you propose is that there be no rule at all.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The question is whether we need the government to create heavy-handed laws with bright, inflexible lines about who may and may not go into this or that bathroom.

It's clear that giant swath of Fox's viewers want to be very, very upset about men entering women spaces. It's also clear that not enough men do that in order to keep the topic in the headlines. Thus, they are dispatching their own people into women's spaces and putting the resulting "controversy" on the front page. 

The “minimum number of rules” principle is fine as a starting point. The disagreement is over what counts as necessary.

Sex-based boundaries in bathrooms, locker rooms, and similar spaces existed for a long time precisely because of physical differences, privacy, and safety. Those were not novel or “heavy-handed” restrictions.  They were the ordinary background rules. What changed is the push to replace sex with self-declared identity as the access criterion. That is not a minor adjustment. It removes the ability to maintain single-sex spaces whenever someone asserts an identity. Calling the defense of the prior rule “creating new heavy-handed laws” reverses what actually happened.

It is not a strawman to describe self-ID policies accurately. When the rule becomes “anyone who identifies as a woman may enter,” the practical effect is that men can enter on their say-so. That is the policy that has been adopted or proposed in multiple jurisdictions. Pointing out the consequences of that standard is not inventing an extreme position.

On the claim that the issue is mostly manufactured for television: policy changes, school guidelines, prison placements, shelter rules, and sports eligibility decisions have occurred across many places. Some high-profile provocations exist, and media incentives amplify conflict. That does not erase the underlying shift in rules or the cases in which female safety, privacy, or fairness have been affected. The existence of opportunistic coverage does not make the category problem disappear.

The core question remains practical: should single-sex spaces be organized by sex or by identity? “Minimal rules” does not automatically answer that in favor of self-ID. It requires showing why the older boundary is no longer justified. That showing has not been made simply by asserting that any defense of sex-based rules is authoritarian or hysterical.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 12 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

@Analytics wants no limiting principles as to who can enter into women's spaces.  None.  At all.  Anyone can go in legally for any reason or no reason at all.

The last time you said this about me, I corrected you and explained that is the opposite of my position. 

You did not "explain."  You asserted, without explanation:

Quote

Quote

In effect, you are obliterating sex-segregated facilities.  Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all.

That is the opposite of what I said. I said people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate.

I see no legal daylight between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate."  And you have not articulated any distinction between the two.  Not only that, you have endorsed a laissez faire approach and denounced any legislated solution as "heavy-handed laws."

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Clearly, you aren't interested in understanding my point of view. I'm out. 

I would be happy to listen to you differentiate, in a legal context, between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate."

Or not.  "Habit Ten" of Collis's book is that we can "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure."  Not every conversation needs a winner or final resolution. We can be comfortable with ongoing dialogue and incremental progress.

While we appear to not have changed each others minds, I have nevertheless valued listening to you explain, to some extent, your position.  I hope you have a good day.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 11 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The last time you said this about me, I corrected you and explained that is the opposite of my position. 

Clearly, you aren't interested in understanding my point of view. I'm out. 

Also, your AI buddy left you with an, um, interesting name on your lectern:

 

 

[longview]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Also, your AI buddy left you with an, um, interesting name on your lectern:

 

ha ha ha ha ha ha

[california boy]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

They are different varieties of the same terrible thing: the sexualization and grooming of children.

I have not been speaking of all drag shows, just those that involve children and highly sexualized performances.

Thanks,

-Smac

You keep going back to library Drag Queens.  Can you explain how a child listening to a drag queen reading a story in a library with their parents there is in your mind grooming children?  

I honestly don't get why this is such an issue for you.  How do you consider this grooming, but have no problem with adults taking their children to a nudist resort is perfectly ok with you.  What the heck are drag queens in libraries doing to sexualize and groom children?

If it is not hyperbole articles written by the right wing press, then what actually is driving your soapbox campaign?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You have endorsed a laissez faire approach, with no limiting principles.  I don't see how that is anything but "arguing that girl's bathrooms should be wide open to anybody."

I think it is interesting that you are claiming to adopt a "case-by-case" approach, but you really aren't.  You don't want any limiting principle.  Everyone can go into women's spaces, no exceptions.  I, on the other hand, and willing to evaluate a legitimate "case-by-case" exception to the statutory framework (based on individuals with DSDs).

I think I understand why you have spent many pages avoiding consideration of any limiting principle.  I think as soon as you do, the jig is up.  You want men - whether under the "trans women" or any other rubric ("people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate") - to be able to legally enter into women's spaces.  Trans ideology does not allow folks like you to differentiate between different "kinds" of trans women.  There is no differentiation because "a woman is someone who identifies as one."  So it's all or nothing, and the "all" obliterates sex-segregated spaces, which you have also studiously avoided acknowledging.

Some of the exceedingly small number of persons with DSDs, perhaps.  Otherwise, women's bathrooms were created for women, not men.  A very small exception to the rule should not swallow or negate the rule.

In contrast, your approach would allow anyone to enter into women's spaces.  Where I propose a rule with a narrow and clear contingent exception, what you propose is that there be no rule at all.

The “minimum number of rules” principle is fine as a starting point. The disagreement is over what counts as necessary.

Sex-based boundaries in bathrooms, locker rooms, and similar spaces existed for a long time precisely because of physical differences, privacy, and safety. Those were not novel or “heavy-handed” restrictions.  They were the ordinary background rules. What changed is the push to replace sex with self-declared identity as the access criterion. That is not a minor adjustment. It removes the ability to maintain single-sex spaces whenever someone asserts an identity. Calling the defense of the prior rule “creating new heavy-handed laws” reverses what actually happened.

It is not a strawman to describe self-ID policies accurately. When the rule becomes “anyone who identifies as a woman may enter,” the practical effect is that men can enter on their say-so. That is the policy that has been adopted or proposed in multiple jurisdictions. Pointing out the consequences of that standard is not inventing an extreme position.

On the claim that the issue is mostly manufactured for television: policy changes, school guidelines, prison placements, shelter rules, and sports eligibility decisions have occurred across many places. Some high-profile provocations exist, and media incentives amplify conflict. That does not erase the underlying shift in rules or the cases in which female safety, privacy, or fairness have been affected. The existence of opportunistic coverage does not make the category problem disappear.

The core question remains practical: should single-sex spaces be organized by sex or by identity? “Minimal rules” does not automatically answer that in favor of self-ID. It requires showing why the older boundary is no longer justified. That showing has not been made simply by asserting that any defense of sex-based rules is authoritarian or hysterical.

Thanks,

-Smac

You have totally misrepresented Analytics position   After 18 pages of discussion, it is pretty clear that you don't really want to understand what the problems are with this kind of unnecessary law other than gin up the right wing public.  Even showing you photos of what transgenders actually look like and why forcing someone who has transitioned to a man would cause way more upset and uncertainty.  I think 18 pages of you constantly going back to square one is enough for me as well.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You have endorsed a laissez faire approach, with no limiting principles.  I don't see how that is anything but "arguing that girl's bathrooms should be wide open to anybody."

"I don't see": This is very much a "you" problem. Sometimes life isn't kind enough to give us bright black and white boundaries without nuance. We just have to deal with it the best we can. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You keep going back to library Drag Queens.  

Yes.  Whether or not one believes that "drag" is inherently sexual, there have been some "Story Hours" that plainly were highly sexual:

Library Apologizes For Hosting ‘Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey’ Kids Event

Even when Drag Queen Story Hours are not overtly sexualized, they remain difficult to defend as healthy for small children. Young children are still forming basic categories about sex, adults, and social roles. Presenting them with adult performers in exaggerated, often hyper-feminine or boundary-blurring costumes and personas introduces confusion at an age when clarity is more useful than ambiguity.

There is also the deeper question of purpose: why is this particular form of adult performance art being directed at toddlers and preschoolers in the first place? Reading books to children is good. Using the occasion to stage an adult entertainment style that plays with gender and sexuality—even theatrically—is a different matter. Children do not need that layer of complexity, and it is reasonable to question whether it serves their development or adult ideological preferences.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Can you explain how a child listening to a drag queen reading a story in a library with their parents there is in your mind grooming children?  

See above.

I didn’t say every drag show is “grooming” in the typically criminal sense of preparing a child for sexual abuse (the "Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey" sure seemed to be going there). 

The concern is supplemental and different. Drag, as a performance style, is rooted in adult nightlife and often involves exaggerated, sexualized, or boundary-blurring presentations of gender. When that same aesthetic is brought into a story hour for toddlers and preschoolers, it introduces adult themes and adult performance conventions into a setting meant for very young children. Parental presence doesn’t automatically make the content age-appropriate any more than it would if the performer were doing a burlesque-lite routine or a striptease while reading Goodnight Moon.

Young children are still learning basic categories—male/female, adult/child, public/private. Staging an adult entertainment form that plays with those categories can confuse them. You can oppose that as developmentally inappropriate without accusing anyone of being a predator.  That said, some of these events have includes sexualization and grooming of children. The disagreement is about what belongs in front of small children, not about whether every participant has criminal intent.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I honestly don't get why this is such an issue for you.  How do you consider this grooming, but have no problem with adults taking their children to a nudist resort is perfectly ok with you.  What the heck are drag queens in libraries doing to sexualize and groom children?

You are attributing a position to me that I have not taken. I have not said I am fine with adults taking children to nudist resorts. I’m not.

The issue with Drag Queen Story Hours is not that every participant is a predator. It is that an adult performance style rooted in nightlife, exaggerated gender presentation, and often sexualized aesthetics is being staged for very young children. That is age-inappropriate. Again, young children are still forming basic categories about sex, adults, and social roles. Introducing them to that particular form of adult entertainment—even when a book is being read—adds confusion and adult themes that do not belong in a story hour for toddlers and preschoolers.

Parental presence does not automatically make something appropriate. The same would be true of other adult performance styles. The question is whether this belongs in front of small children in the first place, not whether it meets the legal definition of grooming. You can oppose it as developmentally unsuitable without needing to prove criminal intent.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How do you consider this grooming, but have no problem with adults taking their children to a nudist resort is perfectly ok with you.  What the heck are drag queens in libraries doing to sexualize and groom children?

Again, you are repeating a claim I haven’t made. I have not said nudist resorts are fine for children. I’m not okay with that either.

The “why do you care” line is a distraction. People are allowed to object to what is put in front of young children without needing to prove a secret motive. The objection is straightforward: drag is an adult performance style that plays with gender and often draws on sexualized aesthetics. Staging it for toddlers and preschoolers in a library story hour introduces adult themes and boundary-blurring presentations to children who are still learning basic categories about sex and social roles. That is age-inappropriate.

You can disagree with that judgment. But asking what is “really driving” the concern is an attempt to change the subject rather than address whether the activity belongs in front of small children in the first place.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 8 hours ago by smac97

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Whether or not one believes that "drag" is inherently sexual, there have been some "Story Hours" that plainly were highly sexual:

Library Apologizes For Hosting ‘Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey’ Kids Event

Even when Drag Queen Story Hours are not overtly sexualized, they remain difficult to defend as healthy for small children. Young children are still forming basic categories about sex, adults, and social roles. Presenting them with adult performers in exaggerated, often hyper-feminine or boundary-blurring costumes and personas introduces confusion at an age when clarity is more useful than ambiguity.

There is also the deeper question of purpose: why is this particular form of adult performance art being directed at toddlers and preschoolers in the first place? Reading books to children is good. Using the occasion to stage an adult entertainment style that plays with gender and sexuality—even theatrically—is a different matter. Children do not need that layer of complexity, and it is reasonable to question whether it serves their development or adult ideological preferences.

See above.

I didn’t say it was “grooming” in the typically criminal sense of preparing a child for sexual abuse (the "Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey" sure seemed to be going there). That’s a serious charge, and it’s not the claim I’m making.

The concern is different. Drag, as a performance style, is rooted in adult nightlife and often involves exaggerated, sexualized, or boundary-blurring presentations of gender. When that same aesthetic is brought into a story hour for toddlers and preschoolers, it introduces adult themes and adult performance conventions into a setting meant for very young children. Parental presence doesn’t automatically make the content age-appropriate any more than it would if the performer were doing a burlesque-lite routine or a striptease while reading Goodnight Moon.

Young children are still learning basic categories—male/female, adult/child, public/private. Staging an adult entertainment form that plays with those categories can confuse them. You can oppose that as developmentally inappropriate without accusing anyone of being a predator. The disagreement is about what belongs in front of small children, not about whether every participant has criminal intent.

You are attributing a position to me that I have not taken. I have not said I am fine with adults taking children to nudist resorts. I’m not.

The issue with Drag Queen Story Hours is not that every participant is a predator. It is that an adult performance style rooted in nightlife, exaggerated gender presentation, and often sexualized aesthetics is being staged for very young children. That is age-inappropriate. Again, young children are still forming basic categories about sex, adults, and social roles. Introducing them to that particular form of adult entertainment—even when a book is being read—adds confusion and adult themes that do not belong in a story hour for toddlers and preschoolers.

Parental presence does not automatically make something appropriate. The same would be true of other adult performance styles. The question is whether this belongs in front of small children in the first place, not whether it meets the legal definition of grooming. You can oppose it as developmentally unsuitable without needing to prove criminal intent.

Again, you are repeating a claim I haven’t made. I have not said nudist resorts are fine for children. I’m not okay with that either.

The “why do you care” line is a distraction. People are allowed to object to what is put in front of young children without needing to prove a secret motive. The objection is straightforward: drag is an adult performance style that plays with gender and often draws on sexualized aesthetics. Staging it for toddlers and preschoolers in a library story hour introduces adult themes and boundary-blurring presentations to children who are still learning basic categories about sex and social roles. That is age-inappropriate.

You can disagree with that judgment. But asking what is “really driving” the concern is an attempt to change the subject rather than address whether the activity belongs in front of small children in the first place.

Thanks,

-Smac

I've pretty much given up on you understanding this issue for what it really is.  Drag queens do more than give performances in adult venues.  It is not automatically sexualizing and grooming.  It is about being ok with being different and not trying to fit into a little box that so many people like yourself try to force on anyone who is different than you.  But I doubt me saying that will change your attacks even sightly.