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

[webbles]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

"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. 

I actually can't see it either.  It feels like Analytics position is that reasonable people will do reasonable things.  Which means that "girl's bathrooms" are wide open to unreasonable people since they don't follow reason.  And these unreasonable people couldn't be prosecuted by just going into the bathroom and doing things that are similar to what you do in a bathroom but for unreasonable reasons.  The law, up until 2013 (this is the first time a law was passed that explicitly talked about bathrooms and trans and was in California), said that if a male (either transwoman or not) entered a bathroom and were told to leave by store owner/employee and the person did not, they could be prosecuted for trespassing.  Now, in areas where it is acceptable for self-id, stores would not want to do that because they could be punished for discrimination.

How is that not a "laissez faire" approach?  If anyone can go into a bathroom per their own reasonableness, then anyone can go into a bathroom.  Why have sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc at that point?  Since there is no bright black and white boundaries, why would we keep saying there is with the sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc.

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

You have totally misrepresented Analytics position  

I don't think I have.  I think Analytics' position requires him to talk out of both sides of his mouth. 

On the one hand, he disputes the need for any limiting principles, but then he denies not wanting to impose any limiting principles.

When asked to articulate limiting principles, all he can come up with is "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate."  That is no principle at all.  It doesn't limit anything.  It does not allow any enforcement mechanism.  

As I see it, "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate" is de facto "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all."  Analytics denies this, but won't explain why.

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

I have been listening to people who disagree with me.  Where I have not understood their position, I have asked for clarification.  At other times I have pointed out flaws and gaps in reasoning and fallacies.  That's not an unwillingness to understand.  It's just disagreement.

For example, when @Analytics categorically refuses to articulate any coherent limiting principles, that needs to be addressed.

When the practical result of his preferred policy will be the eradication of sex-segregated spaces, he refuses to acknowledge or address that.

When he persistently injects fallacies and distractions from the topic so as to discuss me instead of the topics at hand, that needs to be addressed.

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

Even showing you photos of what transgenders actually look like

What some "transgenders actually look like," sure.  But that's not really pertinent to our discussion, since my preferred public policy is to administer sex-segregated spaces by biological sex, not by "self-identity" or what people "look like."

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

and why forcing someone who has transitioned to a man would cause way more upset and uncertainty.

No woman has ever, in the history of the world, ever "transitioned into a man," nor has any man ever "transitioned into" a woman.

Instead, what we often see see is biological males who have taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as women.  A man putting on a dress and makeup does not make him a woman.  His subjective self-identity doesn't make him a woman.  We can and should treat such persons with respect, but respect ought not include going along with falsehoods and delusions.

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think 18 pages of you constantly going back to square one is enough for me as well.  

Okay.  "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure."

I am there.  I hope you are too.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

there have been some "Story Hours" that plainly were highly sexual:

I wonder if drag queen sexualized story hours are actually any more common than non drag queen ones.  It’s not like there have never been lines crossed by cis gendered books at the library before (anything to do with sex education for example has likely been involved in a controversy).

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

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.

Part of having conversations is explaining our respective positions.  @Analytics has presented what I see as a denial of something fairly obvious.  

Again, 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."  @Analytics never articulated a distinction, and has now withdrawn from the discussion.  @california boy has now withdrawn.  And my point remains unrebutted.

There's no obligation to rebut it, of course.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

Here's how I deal with @Analytics reasoning, such as it is:

I see no legal daylight between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" (which I see as the practical outcome of his preferred policy position) and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate" (which is his own statement of his preferred policy).

But it looks like the discussion may be winding down.  That's okay.  This is a good opportunity for us to "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure."  No need to conclude with zingers or putdowns.  We can share our respective thoughts, compare and contrast them, evaluate them in light of reasoning and evidence, and then choose how to proceed.

I think women's spaces were originally created to benefit women and girls in terms of safety and privacy (and, re: women's sports, fairness).

I think such spaces have always been based on biological sex, not subjective self-identifications (with some potential limited, case-by-case exceptions for persons with actual DSDs).

Discussion of people with DSDs in this context is, in my view, almost purely pretextual.  We all know that we are not speaking of that tiny percentage of persons whose biological sex remains intractably epistemically uncertain.  Virtually the entirety of this discussion is about men going into women's spaces, and justifications/rationalizations therefore.

In a contest between the interests of women/girls and men who subjectively "identify" in ways incongruent with reality, I think the interests of the former should prevail.

That some men have dressed up to look like women and entered into women's bathrooms does not mean that they should.

I think subjective "self-identity" is an unworkable and unenforceable policy in terms of maintaining sex-segregated spaces.  It has the net effect of eradicating those spaces.

I think the Kansas statute is quite defensible, and I hope it withstands constitutional challenges.

I think these efforts, the deliberate and public instances of men making incursions into women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons, etc., together with the deliberate and public instances of exposing small children to highly sexualized live adult performances, are not healthy or appropriate developments for our society.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Nope.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

So not the library readings you specifically mentioned? Then why did you mention them at all?

In other words I don’t believe you.

[The Nehor]

1 hour 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

 

And transgender people or drag queens were involved in this event in what way?

Or did you just assume they were connected.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

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.

This is adults projecting their insecurities onto children. Children don’t get that confused about the whole thing. Adults do.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

So someone crossdressing is pornography. Again, turning drag queens and transgender people into pornography. You deny doing it and then keep doing it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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). 

That performance was done by a carnival troupe and not a drag queen organization or transgender group. It is disturbing how you assume the two must be connected.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

Again, crossdressing is the equivalent of a striptease. Again, turning people into porn.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

The term grooming and sexualization are being stretched beyond belief here. Child beauty paegents sexualize children. Children attending an event does not sexualize the child. You are using propagandist scare terms in an unexamined way.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

And you want to criminalize it?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

Drag queens reading children’s stories are not anything like a burlesque drag show. Also again, it is not confusing to children.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

In other words you want to police the choices of other parents.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

You are quite the busybody about other people’s choices.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

No, it is really not. Children get the concepts of queerness and transgender people pretty easily. It is the adults that are confused. I really suspect this is people who feel confused and have a problem with queer people projecting their insecurities onto children. Hence the assumption that evil adults are corrupting children when children don’t find queer people disgusting and unnatural.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

Then you should write up think pieces about why parents shouldn’t take their children to such events. Instead you seem to be calling for legal enforcement of your views. Why? Do you think you would lose in a more general ‘marketplace of ideas’ context and want to appeal to violence and coercion because of that?

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And transgender people or drag queens were involved in this event in what way?

Interesting.  The company looks more Cis gendered than anything else.  Lots of grey hair too.  Agree it’s an over sexualuzed version of a monkey. 
 

Carnival for seniors anyone?

https://mandingaarts.co.uk/about-us/

Edited Monday at 11:11 PM by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

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

And transgender people or drag queens were involved in this event in what way?

See here:

Quote

Quite why a scantily clad drag act with a sexually explicit name is needed to help children read is never spelled out. And while this talk of exploring ‘different lifestyles’ might sound innocent enough, the Drag Queen Story Hour movement explicitly promotes gender-identity ideology – including the belief that we can be born in the wrong body. Many parents are understandably wary of exposing their kids to this.

 

While this is new territory for Germany, in Britain we have seen a proliferation of drag events aimed at children in recent years. Many of these acts, as well as promoting trans ideology, draw on explicitly sexual themes. Take, for instance, the infamous case of a drag queen called ‘Flowjob’, who visited a Scottish primary school in 2020. He then read to children aged between four and 11, much to the dismay of parents. Worse still, in 2021, a performer who was memorably dubbed the ‘rainbow dildo butt monkey’ appeared at a library in Redbridge for an LGBT arts initiative. This event was supposed to be aimed at children as young as four.

Perhaps most disturbing of all was the case of the ‘Caba Baba Rave’ in March this year. Drag queens in fetish get-up put on a burlesque show in London aimed at mothers and babies, aged between zero and two. Time and again, children have been exposed to what everyone can surely recognise are adult performances.

The sexual nature of these kinds of events is almost always obscured in their marketing. This allows organisers and their defenders to dismiss parents’ complaints as bigoted and ill-informed. The Munich story hour, for example, claims that it will teach children in attendance about ‘boys in dresses, princesses with free will, the colours blue and pink… and the discovery of their own freedom’. On the surface, this sounds relatively harmless. But given the past form of these events, will it really just teach kids about their freedom to dress as they please?

When libraries and schools invite adult performers with overtly sexual public personas to interact with children, parents have a right to demand answers. It should be common sense that no four-year-old needs a drag act to teach him how to read – least of all a drag act called ‘Eric Big Clit’.

And this:

Here:

What I Saw at Drag Queen Story Hour

Quote

It was quite easy to locate my city’s chapter, and I signed up to attend one on a Saturday morning at 11:30 a.m. 

...

There were roughly 15-20 families in attendance, 98 percent of which were white. It also appeared that more than half the families were older parents, probably having had their first child when they were 35-38.

...

In total, three drag queens read stories. The emcee, already a tall man, grew into a giant when he put on six-inch heels and strutted across the stage in a bedizened outfit consisting of a short and hideously ugly purple feathered dress, a green wig, and flesh-colored stockings. He was welcomed to an uproar of cheers from the parents. The kids looked confused as their parents took hold of their wrists to make them clap along. At one point, when reading a book that introduced the various different colors, a queen asked, “Now who likes the color black?” In a sudden uproar, the parents began to woot and shout: “We do!!” I got the impression that the queens were not the only performers at the theatre.

I recently read an article in Reader’s Digest about what “really” happens at Drag Queen Story Hours, as explained by drag queen Veranda L’Ni to reporter Elizabeth Yuko. “Despite what you might have heard or read,” said Veranda, “absolutely nothing about our program is adult themed.” Having experienced one myself, I can now comfortably and objectively state that this is flatly untrue. All three queens were hyper-sexually dressed, although to varying degrees. The mildest was the tall drag queen, whose outfit I described above. The most extreme and offensive outfit was worn by a queen who flaunted a double-slitted, tight pink dress that displayed a generous amount of thigh—so much so that when he sat down, all were able to see not only the totality of his thigh, but also his butt cheek. His bodice was translucent, so we could see his fake breasts bouncing around, as well. Somewhere in the middle was the portly queen, who sported a tight bedazzled jumpsuit that hugged his BBL (Brazilian Butt Lift—one to make any woman jealous).

d

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

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.

This is adults projecting their insecurities onto children. Children don’t get that confused about the whole thing. Adults do.

I think many kids are going to be confused at this sort of thing.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Drag queens reading children’s stories are not anything like a burlesque drag show. Also again, it is not confusing to children.

I think it is confusing.  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

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.

In other words you want to police the choices of other parents.

We don't let children into certain venues and events, even with parental consent.  We as a society have made that decision, not just me.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

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.

Then you should write up think pieces about why parents shouldn’t take their children to such events. Instead you seem to be calling for legal enforcement of your views. Why? Do you think you would lose in a more general ‘marketplace of ideas’ context and want to appeal to violence and coercion because of that?

Again: 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.

Perhaps DQSH has fewer sexually explicit things going on that we've seen in some drag shows and Pride parades/events.  But that would be the "not as bad as" fallacy.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Monday at 11:53 PM by smac97

[Calm]

I think you should drop the Rainbow Monkey as evidence of LGBT+ or Drag Queen.  It is as likely to be cisgender as lgbt and it’s not technically drag, I believe.  Might be, I am not a drag professional. It’s definitely not stylized female though.  
 

Could just use it as a generic ‘let’s keep the risqué adult stuff’ out of Children’s Story Hour.   

Nowhere in your links did I see the Monkey costume documented rather than just claimed as associated with either Drag Queen hour or LGBT+ history month celebrations. One (spiked iirc) mentioned another event that was, Monkey was in July, not June or February (cheated, used chat so could be wrong).  The Drag Queen examples were another event   How can they be used as evidence for Monkey?

Given the other costumes of the group’s carnival flavor, I don’t think just because it’s Rainbow that means it’s LGBT.  They all read much more harlequin/clown to me.  A number of costumes actually have a harlequin pattern to them.  I love me an intense harlequin design.  Quite beautiful imo (the harlequin fabric, I find the monkey even without the genital accessories on the tacky side).

Stylized overmasculinized, costumes including animals (especially lions, apes, and bulls) seem like a not uncommon carnival theme from what I can tell never having delved deeply into the subject for good reason.

“Rainbow” fits the full color scheme of the Mandinga carnival troupe.  Such colour schemes can be seen on obviously nonLGBT or Drag carnival costumes.  Carnival is all about intense colours.  Caribbean (they mention this as well) decor is often rainbow colors.  

Now as to that specific costume’s sexual nature…oh yeah, I would have been shocked and disgusted if I saw it, it’s an abuse of a rainbow. But that’s lots of carnival costumes I am guessing based on what I have seen unintentionally over the years   

The costume, whatever the color scheme, was totally inappropriate imo even if the guy was covered top to bottom (feet or butt) from the picture I saw.  No actual skin exposure, just a costume with an oversized fake butt and penis included, not unusual of hyper masculinized carnival costumes from the few times I have looked at them…btw, I have no intention of ever attending or watching a carnival parade.  It has never appealed to me even when I liked parades and the idea of being in a crowd (the idea was always better than the reality, so I figured out I actually don’t like crowds).  The various numerous exquisite costumes do not justify the graphic or tacky ones, imo.
 
Bottomline for me….I want to see documentation, not just claims it’s LGBT.  It seems to be one of those claims with enough people repeating it, that everyone assumes it is a fact.

Hypermasculine is not automatically LGBT.  Neither is Rainbow (seriously, every time I write this I am hearing ‘taste the rainbow’ and seeing a skittle shower). Lots of cisgendered behaviour falls in the category as well.  
 

According to Chat btw, the name was coined by journalists (especially someone called Janice Turner), Mandinga only referred to it as the monkey costume.  There were apparently two other animal costumes, one was a frog.  
 

The series was apparently called Monkey Business.  There’s a pdf I may try to find.

I took a screenshot off a site primarily full of ads, so no link.  The costume isn’t identical as far as I can tell, but similar. It shows the costume was based in the carnival genre though, imo.

Edited yesterday at 01:10 AM by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 hours ago, webbles said:

I actually can't see it either.  It feels like Analytics position is that reasonable people will do reasonable things.  Which means that "girl's bathrooms" are wide open to unreasonable people since they don't follow reason.  And these unreasonable people couldn't be prosecuted by just going into the bathroom and doing things that are similar to what you do in a bathroom but for unreasonable reasons.  The law, up until 2013 (this is the first time a law was passed that explicitly talked about bathrooms and trans and was in California), said that if a male (either transwoman or not) entered a bathroom and were told to leave by store owner/employee and the person did not, they could be prosecuted for trespassing.  Now, in areas where it is acceptable for self-id, stores would not want to do that because they could be punished for discrimination.

How is that not a "laissez faire" approach?  If anyone can go into a bathroom per their own reasonableness, then anyone can go into a bathroom.  Why have sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc at that point?  Since there is no bright black and white boundaries, why would we keep saying there is with the sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc.

I'm not sure there can be a perfect system. Bathrooms are a space where everyone deserves to feel safe and respected. Male presenting people in a woman's bathroom can result in women not feeling safe. That's a problem. Bathroom laws like the one in discussion don't fix it.

This was a viral case from a few weeks ago. A man accompanied his daughters into the women's restroom at a truck stop: https://texaslegalgiants.com/dad-confronted-womens-restroom-texas-sb8-law/ . Laws based on biological sex allow this and other exceptions like cleaning or caring for the disabled. Additionally, Laws based on biological sex also require trans-men to use the women's bathroom. So under Kansas's law, some men are allowed in the bathroom. Other men are required to use the women's bathroom. In addition it creates a vigilante system of justice that will likely catch many gender ambiguous people in the mix. So under the Kansas regime, sometimes women will see men in the restroom.

On the other hand, states like California protect bathroom access based on professed gender identity. To my knowledge (based on limited research) this has not resulted in any increase in bathroom harassment, but if this isn't the case I'd like to know. This means sometimes a masculine looking trans-woman might be in the women's bathroom. How is this worse than a Masculine looking trans-men in the women's bathroom? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 hours ago, webbles said:

I actually can't see it either.  It feels like Analytics position is that reasonable people will do reasonable things.  Which means that "girl's bathrooms" are wide open to unreasonable people since they don't follow reason.  And these unreasonable people couldn't be prosecuted by just going into the bathroom and doing things that are similar to what you do in a bathroom but for unreasonable reasons.  The law, up until 2013 (this is the first time a law was passed that explicitly talked about bathrooms and trans and was in California), said that if a male (either transwoman or not) entered a bathroom and were told to leave by store owner/employee and the person did not, they could be prosecuted for trespassing.  Now, in areas where it is acceptable for self-id, stores would not want to do that because they could be punished for discrimination.

How is that not a "laissez faire" approach?  If anyone can go into a bathroom per their own reasonableness, then anyone can go into a bathroom.  Why have sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc at that point?  Since there is no bright black and white boundaries, why would we keep saying there is with the sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc.

 

47 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'm not sure there can be a perfect system. Bathrooms are a space where everyone deserves to feel safe and respected. Male presenting people in a woman's bathroom can result in women not feeling safe. That's a problem. Bathroom laws like the one in discussion don't fix it.

This was a viral case from a few weeks ago. A man accompanied his daughters into the women's restroom at a truck stop: https://texaslegalgiants.com/dad-confronted-womens-restroom-texas-sb8-law/ . Laws based on biological sex allow this and other exceptions like cleaning or caring for the disabled. Additionally, Laws based on biological sex also require trans-men to use the women's bathroom. So under Kansas's law, some men are allowed in the bathroom. Other men are required to use the women's bathroom. In addition it creates a vigilante system of justice that will likely catch many gender ambiguous people in the mix. So under the Kansas regime, sometimes women will see men in the restroom.

On the other hand, states like California protect bathroom access based on professed gender identity. To my knowledge (based on limited research) this has not resulted in any increase in bathroom harassment, but if this isn't the case I'd like to know. This means sometimes a masculine looking trans-woman might be in the women's bathroom. How is this worse than a Masculine looking trans-men in the women's bathroom? 

I'd just like to add, that beyond the above, it seems to be there are plenty of intermediate steps that could be taken. If people are abusing bathroom access based on gender identification to harass women (something that hasn't been proven as far as I can see), add a restriction that says gender must be changed officially before allowing access. You could require concrete steps to be demonstrated (such as hormones) etc. For locker rooms or other areas where nudity is allowed, you could require bottom surgery. There are all types of steps that can be taken to address these concerns that don't target trans people for vigilantism and additional discrimination. 

[longview]

Not only is the general public getting tired of the "tran hysteria" but the gay community is pushing back at it:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/08/24/lgbtq-crack-up-human-rights-campaign-slams-log-cabin-republicans-for-rejecting-transgender-activism/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=texas-pastors-gather-as-experts-warn-of-sharia-law-and-islamic-influence&_bhlid=98a6e89f70efd94a44cd75070047aef6552930c9

[california boy]

Today we morn the loss of Dolly Parton.  When others labeled her a whore, her own grandfather criticizing her looks to parents of her school friends, who thought she was “a bad influence,” as she wrote in her book.  They said “you look more like a hooker than you do a singer.”  Yet she lived her life and created the public image that SHE wanted to live and not worry about what others thought of her.  She also reached out to children and gave more than 200 million books out to any child requesting them.  Many probably forget the rage against Dolly Parton's persona that she deliberately chose to create.  

From a news article about her life.
 

Quote

 

"What they didn’t know is that she understood exactly what she was doing: tapping into clichés rooted deep in the cultural hive mind while confronting them at the same time. She wasn’t just going to outwork and out-sing everyone, she was going to out-sparkle them, too, subverting the very expectations she was creating."

Or, as she sang, “Don’t judge me by the cover, ’cause I’m a real good book.”

“I never cared what other people did, and I never cared what other people said about what I wore,” Parton told Vogue when her fashion memoir was released. “It was more important that I be comfortable in my own clothes and in my own self.”

 

 We all only have one life. There is no dress rehersal. Of all days, and of all the messages Dolly Parton gave in her life the greatest legacy she gave us is to be fearless and live our one life on our own terms and not let others keep you in the box they feel they must stay in.  

I get that there are some who only want to demonize those that are transgender and are willing to comb through the entire news events to find evidence to encourage others to make them out to be immoral, sexualized, grooming others etc.  But a happy life lived is the greatest answer to that criticism.  Dolly Parton lived her life in Drag.  God bless Dolly Parton.  God bless those that struggle to live their lives on their own terms despite the pushback they receive from others.

[webbles]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

I'd just like to add, that beyond the above, it seems to be there are plenty of intermediate steps that could be taken. If people are abusing bathroom access based on gender identification to harass women (something that hasn't been proven as far as I can see), add a restriction that says gender must be changed officially before allowing access. You could require concrete steps to be demonstrated (such as hormones) etc. For locker rooms or other areas where nudity is allowed, you could require bottom surgery. There are all types of steps that can be taken to address these concerns that don't target trans people for vigilantism and additional discrimination. 

I did ask claude to see if it could find an increase in abuse/harassment since 2013 and it said it did increase but since it is based off of what is reported, it wasn't sure since it could just be an increase in news reporting vs an actual increase in incidents.

But I do think some restrictions need to be in place.  I don't like the "reasonable people will act reasonable" approach.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Today we morn the loss of Dolly Parton.  

My wife admired her.

16 hours ago, california boy said:

We all only have one life. There is no dress rehersal. Of all days, and of all the messages Dolly Parton gave in her life the greatest legacy she gave us is to be fearless and live our one life on our own terms and not let others keep you in the box they feel they must stay in.

I'm not sure what "live our life on our own terms" means.  It sounds . . . untethered.

For my part, I have found that my living by my "own terms" only really works insofar as I make those terms congruent with the Lord's will.  

16 hours ago, california boy said:

I get that there are some who only want to demonize those that are transgender and are willing to comb through the entire news events to find evidence to encourage others to make them out to be immoral, sexualized, grooming others etc.  

I think those in the trans community who are sexualizing/grooming children ought not be doing those things.  Same goes for anyone else who sexualizes/grooms children.

I have provided ample instances of events which I think amount to the sexualization and grooming of children, and of endorsement and justification of those events/behaviors.

• Children as Sex Objects: Why NYC Gay Pride Parade Is Being Called a 'Celebration of Pedophilia'
• Dallas Club Investigated After Drag Show for Kids
• DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing
• Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids
• Graphic “Pride” Parades Attacking the Innocence of Children
• Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride
• Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade
• Pride Month Jumps the Shark
• Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance
• San Francisco Pride Parade features public nudity around kids, 'Fetish Zone' with urine
• SF Cop Says Nudity Around Kids is OK at Pride Parade
• Why drag queen performances are not appropriate for children
• Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’
• Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it.

Some excerpts from the above links:

Quote

• "This...er...performer? In spandex, standing next to men in thongs, shouting 'We have bandanas and lube!' from a float parading in front of young kids."
• "Christina Aguilera sporting a green strap-on penis at a concert advertised as an 'all-ages' pride event in Los Angeles."
• "This man in drag exposing his pantyhose-clad crotch at a 'kid-friendly' brunch."
• "A toddler watches as men in thongs and bondage gear whip one another at a pride parade."
• "A group of half-naked people - including men and women - gyrate on stage and simulate sex acts at a 'family-friendly' drag and pride event in Austin, Texas."
• "This drag queen wearing pop-up prosthetic genitalia that actually sprayed liquid on to a crowd that included kids."
• "Drag queens and men in women's lingerie danced provocatively in front of a crowd that included one very confused little girl."
• "This bare-breasted person twerking and gyrating near a cop, only feet from children marching in the same parade in Washington, D.C. "
• Children watching a public event involving "a bunch of men that are butt naked and they’re riding around on bicycles ... exposing their genitalia to children who came to attend the event, which was advertised as a family friendly event."  
• "{S}ome of these cyclists were covered in body paint while the majority were fully exposed, leaving nothing unseen to the eye."
• "{D}ozens of fully naked men and women playing in the fountain with children."
• "'{A} man with breasts' marching ahead of young children wearing little more than a bikini bottom walking straight up to a police officer, bending over, and shaking his rear at the cop."
• "{O}ther men walked by {children}, clad in rainbow-colored speedos with tight bulges on display."
• "{A} drag queen standing on an eggplant emoji float, proclaiming — with young children present — 'We have genitals and lube.'"
• "{C}hildren were present at a drag show featuring several men disrobing and suggestively dancing on stage."
• "Christina Aguilera was seen wearing a green, bejeweled phallus, with which she repeatedly stroked during her performance at the all-ages event on Saturday night."
• "{A}n adult forcing her reluctant child to watch the Pride parade."
• "Young children can be seen handing money to twerking drag queens. A bright pink neon sign saying 'It’s Not Going to Lick Itself!' added an extra layer of creepiness."
• "{Yale University associate professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Joseph J. Fischel} attempts to justify his argument that children should be exposed to public displays of kink and gay sexuality by taking the laughable position that such exposure will help combat 'racism and homophobia.'"
• "{Fischel inquires} 'What is the presumptive harm if a child …. sees an adult’s butt cheeks, or even an adult’s genitals or breasts?'"
• "Fischel continues, asking if a child would feel violated after witnessing any of these things, or if they’d be 'as likely to respond with curiosity?'"
• "{Fischel states that 'children might like'} public indecency at Pride."
• "{Fischel states that} we ought to celebrate kink, butts, and boobs… especially for {children}."
• "'Kids in general aren't at all fazed by seeing nudity.' ... 'It's such a fun and colorful day, it helps to let the little ones express themselves as well. Go with an open mind and be ready to have fun.'"
• "{T}wo men pantomiming perverse sexual practices, as their truck rolled slowly down the street before gazing hordes of adults and children."
• “{W}e’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.”
• “The ‘coming for your children’ chant has been used for years at Pride events."
• "{R}eporter Taylor Hansen interviewed multiple nude men on the street who attempted to justify their public nudity in front of children as natural and sometimes even good for them."
• "{N}aked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade."
• "A 9-year-old girl Hansen spoke to recounted how she saw a man wearing a Darth Vader helmet and cape 'with nothing else,' which she said made her feel 'grossed out.'
• "Hansen also posted a thread on X detailing more footage he captured of naked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade."

I think much/most of the foregoing events constitute the sexualization/grooming of children.

16 hours ago, california boy said:

But a happy life lived is the greatest answer to that criticism.  

"Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ."

For me, my pursuit of happiness works best when I follow the foregoing counsel.  The pursuit of happiness based on untethered, do-whatever-you-want sorts of things does not work for me.

In the end, we each must do what we think is right. 

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Dolly Parton lived her life in Drag.  God bless Dolly Parton.  

There was much to admire in her life.

16 hours ago, california boy said:

God bless those that struggle to live their lives on their own terms despite the pushback they receive from others.

I belief God wants us to live our lives on His terms.  I feel I am better off having accepted the moral framework of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than having fabricated one for myself.

Nonetheless, he has given us agency.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I have provided ample instances of events which I think amount to the sexualization and grooming of children, and of endorsement and justification of those events/behaviors.

• Children as Sex Objects: Why NYC Gay Pride Parade Is Being Called a 'Celebration of Pedophilia'
• Dallas Club Investigated After Drag Show for Kids
• DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing
• Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids
• Graphic “Pride” Parades Attacking the Innocence of Children
• Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride
• Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade
• Pride Month Jumps the Shark
• Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance
• San Francisco Pride Parade features public nudity around kids, 'Fetish Zone' with urine
• SF Cop Says Nudity Around Kids is OK at Pride Parade
• Why drag queen performances are not appropriate for children
• Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’
• Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Oh good.  Let’s start judging all Mormon bishops by those who have raped women and groomed teenagers to have sex with them

 

you do rather there are far more bishops who have groomed teenagers and rsprd women than transgenders doing drag shows and reading in libraries 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh good.  Let’s start judging all Mormon bishops by those who have raped women and groomed teenagers to have sex with them.

Again: "I think those in the trans community who are sexualizing/grooming children ought not be doing those things."

I am not condemning the entire community, just those within a portion of it who "are sexualizing/grooming children."

I likewise condemn any bishop - or any other Latter-day Saint - who engages in sexual misconduct against any person.

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

you do rather there are far more bishops who have groomed teenagers and rsprd women than transgenders doing drag shows and reading in libraries 

• "This...er...performer? In spandex, standing next to men in thongs, shouting 'We have bandanas and lube!' from a float parading in front of young kids."
• "Christina Aguilera sporting a green strap-on penis at a concert advertised as an 'all-ages' pride event in Los Angeles."
• "This man in drag exposing his pantyhose-clad crotch at a 'kid-friendly' brunch."
• "A toddler watches as men in thongs and bondage gear whip one another at a pride parade."
• "A group of half-naked people - including men and women - gyrate on stage and simulate sex acts at a 'family-friendly' drag and pride event in Austin, Texas."
• "This drag queen wearing pop-up prosthetic genitalia that actually sprayed liquid on to a crowd that included kids."
• "Drag queens and men in women's lingerie danced provocatively in front of a crowd that included one very confused little girl."
• "This bare-breasted person twerking and gyrating near a cop, only feet from children marching in the same parade in Washington, D.C. "
• Children watching a public event involving "a bunch of men that are butt naked and they’re riding around on bicycles ... exposing their genitalia to children who came to attend the event, which was advertised as a family friendly event."  
• "{S}ome of these cyclists were covered in body paint while the majority were fully exposed, leaving nothing unseen to the eye."
• "{D}ozens of fully naked men and women playing in the fountain with children."
• "'{A} man with breasts' marching ahead of young children wearing little more than a bikini bottom walking straight up to a police officer, bending over, and shaking his rear at the cop."
• "{O}ther men walked by {children}, clad in rainbow-colored speedos with tight bulges on display."
• "{A} drag queen standing on an eggplant emoji float, proclaiming — with young children present — 'We have genitals and lube.'"
• "{A}n adult forcing her reluctant child to watch the Pride parade."
• "Young children can be seen handing money to twerking drag queens. A bright pink neon sign saying 'It’s Not Going to Lick Itself!' added an extra layer of creepiness."
• "{Yale University associate professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Joseph J. Fischel} attempts to justify his argument that children should be exposed to public displays of kink and gay sexuality by taking the laughable position that such exposure will help combat 'racism and homophobia.'"
• "{Fischel inquires} 'What is the presumptive harm if a child …. sees an adult’s butt cheeks, or even an adult’s genitals or breasts?'"
• "Fischel continues, asking if a child would feel violated after witnessing any of these things, or if they’d be 'as likely to respond with curiosity?'"
• "{Fischel states that 'children might like'} public indecency at Pride."
• "{Fischel states that} we ought to celebrate kink, butts, and boobs… especially for {children}."
• "'Kids in general aren't at all fazed by seeing nudity.' ... 'It's such a fun and colorful day, it helps to let the little ones express themselves as well. Go with an open mind and be ready to have fun.'"
• "{T}wo men pantomiming perverse sexual practices, as their truck rolled slowly down the street before gazing hordes of adults and children."
• “{W}e’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.”
• "{R}eporter Taylor Hansen interviewed multiple nude men on the street who attempted to justify their public nudity in front of children as natural and sometimes even good for them."
• "{N}aked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade."
• "A 9-year-old girl Hansen spoke to recounted how she saw a man wearing a Darth Vader helmet and cape 'with nothing else,' which she said made her feel 'grossed out.'
• "Hansen also posted a thread on X detailing more footage he captured of naked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade."

Would you find these behaviors objectionable in that situation?  I sure would.  In fact, I would separate myself from any group or subgroup or ideology that not only tolerates, but celebrates these behaviors, platforms them, endorses them. 

As Andrew Sullivan put it:

Quote

The other major problem with this new version of the gay rights movement, he said, was the preoccupation with children’s sexual orientations.

Sullivan continued, "But this illiberalism made a fateful, strategic mistake. In the gay rights movement, there had always been an unspoken golden rule: Leave children out of it. We knew very well that any overreach there could provoke the most ancient blood libel against us: that we groom and abuse kids… So what did the gender revolutionaries go and do? They focused almost entirely on children and minors."

Any bishop who behaves inappropriately is doing so in gross violation of the policies and procedures of the Church, of the trust reposed in him, and likely also in violation of secular law.  And there is nobody going around attempting to justify or legitimize any such behavior.

In contrast, the foregoing events are happening intentionally and in public, and with the tolerance - or even endorsement - of secular officials and law enforcement.  And lots of people are going around attempting to justify or legitimize any such behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 1 hour ago by smac97

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not condemning the entire community, just those within a portion of it who "are sexualizing/grooming children."

No but you want to ban ALL transgenders from using the bathroom that fits their sexuality.  Would you be interested in banning all bishops from attending church?

The list of Mormon bishops who have groomed and actually had sex with minors is way longer than your list of performances.  Should we compare lists and then decide who gets to use bathrooms and who is allowed in churches?

 

Edited 1 hour ago by california boy