Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

am curious what you think of @Analytics "no big deal" dictum. 

See Bluebell’s response as she expresses my view well.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

This does not address my question about an articulable legal mechanism for differentiation.

But it does explain why I think you are taking a myopic view of the issue and aren’t asking the right questions.

So . . . no differentiation, then.  

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

This does not address my question about an articulable legal mechanism for differentiation.

Or does it?  Is this your proposal?  That anyone who "does anything that makes it generally plausible that they sincerely identify as a woman or as non-binary" should have access to women's bathrooms, and those who do not "{do} anything that makes it generally plausible that they sincerely identify as a woman or as non-binary" should be excluded?  Is this your proposal? 

Yes.

Okay.  So . . . no differentiation.  

Again, my inquiry: "I have not seen anyone articulate a mechanism for allowing 'trans women' (that is, biological-males-who-'identify'-as-women) into women's spaces, but excluding other biological males."

You are not answering my question here.  Instead, you are providing an alternative approach.  I think your approach is worth discussing, and I appreciate you raising it, but you have not addressed my inquiry.  Your approach does not differentiate.  It allows all men access to women's bathrooms (and, presumably, changing areas/rooms as well).  Is this an accurate characterization of your position?

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

This is, in your view, a a mechanism for allowing "trans women" (that is, biological-males-who-"identify"-as-women) into women's spaces, but excluding other biological males?  One that can be legislated, signed into law, and enforced by police officers?

Yes.

I don't think you are understanding my inquiry.  Your proposal does not "exclud{e} other biological males" from women's bathrooms, and instead lets all men into women's bathrooms.  Is that correct?  

Your proposal is to give all men everywhere complete access to women's bathrooms (and, presumably, changing rooms/areas), and then punish those who do something untoward/creepy/illegal after they have already done so while in the women's bathroom.  Is that correct?

It looks like you can't articulate a differentiating mechanism after all.

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

You think police officers will be able to formulate either RAS (Reasonable Articulable Suspiction) or PC (Probable Cause) by assessing whether an individual has "{done} anything that makes it generally plausible that they sincerely identify as a woman or as non-binary," such that his entry into a women's bathroom is lawful?

Yes. Such RAS’s and PC’s should focus heavily on what the person is actually doing in the restroom and not merely about whether they are or are not “a woman” as defined in this hypothetical bathroom law.

Again, you are not addressing my inquiry.  My inquiry was about a mechanism to allow some biological males into women's bathrooms, but otherwise excluding other biological males from women's bathrooms. 

I get that your proposal is to let all men into women's bathrooms (hence no need for a differentiating mechanism).  But I am looking for just such a differentiating mechanism, which you said you would address, but you have not (unless your response is "there is no such mechanism available," in which case you can just say as much).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

And safety from potential predators is not the sole basis for women-only spaces.  

It should be of primary importance that needs to be solved if possible before addressing lesser concerns.

And addressing it first simplifies discussing the issue.  

Not really.  "{A}ddressing it first" amounts to arguing/legislating from the margins.

Half the population of the United States is female.  Legislation about women's spaces will focus on this group primarily, not secondarily.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So . . . no differentiation, then.  

Okay.  So . . . no differentiation.  

Again, my inquiry: "I have not seen anyone articulate a mechanism for allowing 'trans women' (that is, biological-males-who-'identify'-as-women) into women's spaces, but excluding other biological males."

You are not answering my question here.  Instead, you are providing an alternative approach.  I think your approach is worth discussing, and I appreciate you raising it, but you have not addressed my inquiry.  Your approach does not differentiate.  It allows all men access to women's bathrooms (and, presumably, changing areas/rooms as well).  Is this an accurate characterization of your position?

I don't think you are understanding my inquiry.  Your proposal does not "exclud{e} other biological males" from women's bathrooms, and instead lets all men into women's bathrooms.  Is that correct?  

Your proposal is to give all men everywhere complete access to women's bathrooms (and, presumably, changing rooms/areas), and then punish those who do something untoward/creepy/illegal after they have already done so while in the women's bathroom.  Is that correct?

It looks like you can't articulate a differentiating mechanism after all.

Again, you are not addressing my inquiry.  My inquiry was about a mechanism to allow some biological males into women's bathrooms, but otherwise excluding other biological males from women's bathrooms. 

I get that your proposal is to let all men into women's bathrooms (hence no need for a differentiating mechanism).  But I am looking for just such a differentiating mechanism, which you said you would address, but you have not (unless your response is "there is no such mechanism available," in which case you can just say as much).

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not Analytics but I believe the majority of a male turned female, is going to be the real deal or a transitioned person. I don't believe we will see a heterosexual male dressing up like a woman to attack a woman in a bathroom or elsewhere. Are there reports of this happening that I missed? 

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My point has been, for some time now, that there does not seem to be a coherent legal mechanism for allowing some biological males into women's spaces but not others.  Any attempt to differentiate will, I think, run into insurmountable legal/constitutional hurdles, or protests from the trans community, or protests from women's groups, or all of these.

For the sake of clarity, allow me to define my terms: Sex is biological: male or female, based on anatomy and chromosomes. Gender is social: roles, behaviors, and identities shaped by culture, expectations, and personal experience. They’re related, but not the same.

As I have understood them, 100% of the women who have weighed in on this topic and want spaces for women want the word “women” to be based on Gender and not Sex. I get it that making laws based on Sex rather than Gender creates a brighter line that makes it more simple to definitively determine if somebody is innocent or guilty of being of the wrong Sex in the wrong space. But that isn’t what people want. They want a space for people of female Gender, not a space for people of female Sex.

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

My point has been, for some time now, that there does not seem to be a coherent legal mechanism for allowing some biological males into women's spaces but not others.  Any attempt to differentiate will, I think, run into insurmountable legal/constitutional hurdles, or protests from the trans community, or protests from women's groups, or all of these.

So how come when someone else says “no solution”, you disagree, but then turn around and insist there is no solution here?

I have not said there "is no solution."  I have said there does not seem to be a coherent legal mechanism for allowing some biological males into women's spaces but not others.

I have, instead, argued that there is a solution, and I'm catching quite a bit of heat for it (our ironically-named @SeekingUnderstanding has even publicly suggested that I have evil, malignant motives).  The solution is to limit women's spaces to biological women (with some accommodations for male infants/toddlers, and perhaps some particularized accommodations for some people with DSDs).  This solution can be brought about through state-level legislation and subsequent enforcement.

There is no solution that will make everyone happy, but that is pretty much always the case.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  "{A}ddressing it first" amounts to arguing/legislating from the margins.

Half the population of the United States is female.  Legislation about women's spaces will focus on this group primarily, not secondarily.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course.  And focusing on women’s safety from predators before issues like comfort or whatever else you are thinking of is most sensible since the highest harm will result if they are not safe.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

Just now, Analytics said:

Quote

My point has been, for some time now, that there does not seem to be a coherent legal mechanism for allowing some biological males into women's spaces but not others.  Any attempt to differentiate will, I think, run into insurmountable legal/constitutional hurdles, or protests from the trans community, or protests from women's groups, or all of these.

For the sake of clarity, allow me to define my terms: Sex is biological: male or female, based on anatomy and chromosomes. Gender is social: roles, behaviors, and identities shaped by culture, expectations, and personal experience. They’re related, but not the same.

We can disagree about that later.  For the sake of this discussion, though, let's stay focused on biological sex.  More clarity, less room for ambiguity, equivocation, etc.

Just now, Analytics said:

As I have understood them, 100% of the women who have weighed in on this topic and want spaces for women want the word “women” to be based on Gender and not Sex.

What?  When did this happen?

Just now, Analytics said:

I get it that making laws based on Sex rather than Gender creates a brighter line that makes it more simple to definitively determine if somebody is innocent or guilty of being of the wrong Sex in the wrong space. But that isn’t what people want. They want a space for people of female Gender, not a space for people of female Sex.

Again, let's put aside arguments about the sex/gender conflation/distinction issue, and instead focus on my inquiry (you have no obligation to do so, but it would be appreciated).

My point has been, for some time now, that there does not seem to be a coherent legal mechanism for allowing some biological males into women's spaces but not others. 

If you can articulate such a mechanism, I would like to see it.  If you cannot, then just say so and we can move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have not said there "is no solution."  I have said there does not seem to be a coherent legal mechanism for allowing some biological males into women's spaces but not others.

Which is in essence saying there is no solution to this problem, so let’s ignore it and address what you want to be the problem instead.

And your belief that carding biological females who present as male is a reasonable, workable solution is only able to be claimed as a solution by ignoring all the points others, including myself have brought up challenging it.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Of course.  And focusing on women’s safety from predators before issues like comfort or whatever else you are thinking of is most sensible since the highest harm will result if they are not safe.

I agree.  I don't see a conflict between assessing "focusing on women’s safety from predators" and "issues like comfort or whatever else."  I think they both weigh in on the same side of the scales.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

Again, my inquiry: "I have not seen anyone articulate a mechanism for allowing 'trans women' (that is, biological-males-who-'identify'-as-women) into women's spaces, but excluding other biological males."

I'm not Analytics but I believe the majority of a male turned female, is going to be the real deal or a transitioned person.

Respectfully, this does not seem to address my inquiry.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not Analytics but I believe the majority of a male turned female, is going to be the real deal or a transitioned person. I don't believe we will see a heterosexual male dressing up like a woman to attack a woman in a bathroom or elsewhere. Are there reports of this happening that I missed? 

Exactly. If a hypothetical person is a cisgender man but pretends to be a woman because he gets his kicks off of peeing in a toilet in the women’s room, that fact should be quite obvious to a cop or a judge and playing the I’m-really-a-transgender-woman card isn’t going to be taken seriously.

Furthermore, I expect such a thing would be vanishingly rare. Am I wrong? In the videos and photos @smac97 has presented of cisgender men invading female spaces, how many of them claimed to be a woman? Exactly zero.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

My only issue with this is there are a number of reasons the doors in stalls do not go all the way down besides just cleaning issues. This page talks about some of them, though some of the things they bring up are easily dismissed like when they say the gap makes it easier to tell someone is in there when this is much better solved with the European or airplane handle that says "occupied" in red. 

The ADA compliance issue is a new one to me, but obviously if you have a single toilet bathroom with no stall the door goes all the way so it makes me think it is more of a space of area or doorway issue. That may be a little tougher to deal with. 

The air circluation issue will require ventalation changes. 

The cleaning issue isn't as big to me.  I think if you have stalls that go to the floors it will be about as tough to clean whether the door goes to the floor or not. Either way, the cleaner will need to be in the stall with the door closed at some point. 

So yes, I like the fully enclosed idea, but there are a lot of things to consider when chnging over to them, with circulation being the biggest issue.

 

 

 

The ones I’ve been to have the red/ green indicator outside when it’s locked from the inside. 
 

Cleaning is the cost of progress I suppose. 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I have not said there "is no solution."  I have said there does not seem to be a coherent legal mechanism for allowing some biological males into women's spaces but not others.

Which is in essence saying there is no solution to this problem, so let’s ignore it and address what you want to be the problem instead.

Respectfully, no.  I am not saying that.  I resent your misrepresentation and mischaracterization of my position.  '

I have said nothing like this.  I have not said "there is no solution."  I have not said "let's ignore" problems, nor implied it.

The road in front of my house has a 25 MPH speed limit.  Lost of people go considerably faster than that, though, since it's a long stretch (over 2 miles) with no stop signs.  I am sure there are plenty of people who would like to see the speed limit raised to 35 MPH, or even faster.  Those of us who live on the road, however, would not only like to keep it at 25, but have law enforcement do a better job of enforcing the speed limit.

Of the two approaches (raising the speed limit or keeping it as is and enforcing it), one of them has to win out.  The government must choose one or the other.  That does not mean that "there is no solution to this problem," or that the government should "ignore" issues in relation to the controversy.  Instead, the government must weight to pros and cons, the merits of each side's position, and then adopt a course of action - a solution - to address the problem.  Some people will be unhappy regardless of what the government does, but that does not mean that the solution does not exist, only that it's not universally popular.  

The same goes for biological males in women's bathrooms.  I am not saying that there is no solution, and am instead proposing a solution, a legislative one, that will not be universally approved by all sides.  C'est la vie.  That's the way the law works in a pluralistic society operating under the rubric of a constitutional republic.

Nor am I saying "let's ignore" aspects of the dispute between the various factions.

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

And your belief that carding biological females who present as male is a reasonable, workable solution is only able to be claimed as a solution by ignoring all the points others, including myself have brought up challenging it.

Again, you are distorting and mischaracterizing my position.  And again, I resent it.

I have said nothing about "carding" as a precondition to access into women's spaces.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Exactly. If a hypothetical person is a cisgender man but pretends to be a woman because he gets his kicks off of peeing in a toilet in the women’s room, that fact should be quite obvious to a cop or a judge and playing the I’m-really-a-transgender-woman card isn’t going to be taken seriously.

Furthermore, I expect such a thing would be vanishingly rare. Am I wrong? In the videos and photos @smac97 has presented of cisgender men invading female spaces, how many of them claimed to be a woman? Exactly zero.

None of this addresses my inquiry about a differentiating mechanism.

Rather, under your proposal, the gray-shirted man in the video did nothing wrong.  He was legally authorized to be in the women's bathroom.  Right?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What?  When did this happen?

In this thread. Specifically, I believe that @Calm and @bluebell have both clearly articulated that they think transgender women are welcome in women’s spaces, and transgender men are not.  

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, let's put aside arguments about the sex/gender conflation/distinction issue, and instead focus on my inquiry (you have no obligation to do so, but it would be appreciated).

No, let’s not. The reason nobody seems to be on your side in this discussion is because you see this issue as being about biological sex, when almost everybody else on this thread thinks the real issue is about gender identity.  

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My point has been, for some time now, that there does not seem to be a coherent legal mechanism for allowing some biological males into women's spaces but not others. 

I agree that is your point.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you can articulate such a mechanism, I would like to see it.  If you cannot, then just say so and we can move on.

I've already stated my opinion. If you think determining whether a person is sincerely presenting a female gender to the world is a question that is just too complicated for the law to handle in a coherent way, then I acknowledge that is your opinion.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

have, instead, argued that there is a solution, and I'm catching quite a bit of heat for it (our ironically-named @SeekingUnderstanding has even publicly suggested that I have evil, malignant motives).

And I stand by that. You propose a law that would force men to use the women’s restroom subjecting them to continual harassment everytime they want to use the restroom in public. When called on this, you cavalierly ignore the issue and state that such harassment can be avoided by using the restroom according to their biological sex. That’s either evil, or malignantly ignorant at this point. 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

If you can articulate such a mechanism, I would like to see it.  If you cannot, then just say so and we can move on.

I've already stated my opinion.

But you have not stated an articulable differentiating mechanism for allowing "trans women" (that is, biological-males-who-"identify"-as-women) into women's spaces, but excluding other biological males.  I am not saying you have to agree or endorse the differentiating mechanism.  I just wanted to see if someone on your side of the argument can articulate one.  At this point, I will conclude that you are not capable of formulating one.  Which is pretty much the outcome I expected.  I am curious if anyone else can address the inquiry.

Given that you are apparently refusing to address my inquiry about a differentiating mechanism, let's pivot over to your proposal.  I understand that your approach is to give all men legal access to women's spaces (except, I suppose, for certain individuals previously convicted of some types of criminal offenses), and then only take action if and when the individual biological male does something illegal while in the women's bathroom.  Is that a fair statement of your position?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

As I have understood them, 100% of the women who have weighed in on this topic and want spaces for women want the word “women” to be based on Gender and not Sex

Not really for me.  So far I have only been addressing the easiest issue of a biological female who presents as fully male because it clearly shows the weaknesses in Smac’s alleged solution, imo.

At this point I am not seeing a solution that I want except perhaps turn all vulnerable spaces into single user ones (though I realize that doesn’t solve all the issues of safety).  And that isn’t practical in many cases (for example, older buildings that can’t be retrofitted for example, smaller buildings that still need quite a few spaces such as restrooms in parks).  

Practically speaking though, I don’t see it as possible that the majority of women or girls will find it acceptable to use restrooms and lockers in the presence of someone who presents fully as a man.  That for me is an easy determination based on a lifetime of being a woman and associating with women in vulnerable spaces as well as talking about it with other women and encounters with various self defense/protection resources.  I don’t see this changing until at least the majority of women no longer experience significant sexual harassment and the rape stat drops way down.  Self protection is too much of a requirement in most women’s lives.

It is also a nobrainer for me that anyone who has been raised as a female and lives as a female gets to use female only spaces if desired when there are anomalies present biologically.  I think we run into problems if we start differentiating whether someone looks feminine enough to be labeled a woman even if they have previously been identified as a woman in their life.

Unfortunately that still leaves the rest of the issue to be explored….

I do not know at what point most women and girls will feel safe with someone who presents in some significant ways as male and others as female, which is likely a significant portion of those who identify as a gender as women while being of the biological sex male.  Women need to be able to rely on instinct to alert them to dangerous spaces.  Telling them they have to turn it off because it’s not trustworthy in certain situations will lead to less dependence on it when it’s actually needed because trust in it will have been lost.  And unfortunately instinct isn’t a precise measurement instrument.

So we get into the same morass of determining what is feminine enough to be labeled a woman.  Only in this case, we are now dealing with those who have not previously been labeled female, but male.  At this point I do not know how to fairly or practically address this issue.  Biological males who present as females in some ways have the same rights to protection as biological males who fully present as female.  

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

have, instead, argued that there is a solution, and I'm catching quite a bit of heat for it (our ironically-named @SeekingUnderstanding has even publicly suggested that I have evil, malignant motives).

And I stand by that.

And I fully expected you to stand by that.  You've been imputing evil motives onto people with whom you disagree for quite a while.

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You propose a law that would force men to use the women’s restroom subjecting them to continual harassment everytime they want to use the restroom in public.

This is not an accurate statement of my position.

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When called on this, you cavalierly ignore the issue and state that such harassment can be avoided by using the restroom according to their biological sex. That’s either evil, or malignantly ignorant at this point. 

As usual, you resort to conclusory declarations and ad hominem in lieu of substantive, reasoned, evidence-based argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

agree.  I don't see a conflict between assessing "focusing on women’s safety from predators" and "issues like comfort or whatever else."  I think they both weigh in on the same side of the scales.

There is a big conflict between safety and comfort present in your own solution of requiring biological females who present as male to frequently wait to be carded by police or security in order to use female only spaces for both those who are carded where the waiting and the carding will not be comfortable at all and for other women who likely will not be comfortable with someone who looks like a man using the restroom they are using even if a cop tells them ‘it’s okay, the man is of the female sex’.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not really for me.  At this point I am not seeing a solution that I want except perhaps turn all vulnerable spaces into single user ones (though I realize that doesn’t solve all the issues of safety).  And that isn’t practical in many cases (for example, older buildings that can’t be retrofitted for example, smaller buildings that still need quite a few spaces such as restrooms in parks).  

Practically speaking though, I don’t see it as possible that the majority of women or girls will find it acceptable to use restrooms and lockers in the presence of someone who presents fully as a man.  That for me is an easy determination based on a lifetime of being and associating with women in vulnerable spaces as well as talking about it with other women and encounters with various self defense/protection resources.  I don’t see this changing until at least the majority of women no longer experiences significant sexual harassment and the rape stat drops way down.  Self protection is too much of a requirement in a woman’s life.

It is also a nobrainer for me that anyone who has been raised as a female and lives as a female gets to use female only spaces if desired when there are anomalies present biologically.  I think we run into problems if we start differentiating whether someone looks feminine enough to be labeled a woman even if they have previously been identified as a woman in their life.

Unfortunately that still leaves the rest of the issue to be explored….

I do not know at what point most women and girls will feel safe with someone who presents in some significant ways as male and others as female, which is likely a significant portion of those who identify as a gender as women while being of the biological sex male.  Women need to be able to rely on instinct to alert them to dangerous spaces.  Telling them they have to turn it off because it’s not trustworthy in certain situations will lead to less dependence on it when it’s actually needed because trust in it will have been lost.  And unfortunately instinct isn’t a precise measurement instrument.

So we get into the same morass of determining what is feminine enough to be labeled a woman.  Only in this case, we are now dealing with those who have not previously been labeled female, but male.  At this point I do not know how to fairly or practically address this issue.

Calm, what are your thoughts about @Analytics's proposal to let all men into women's bathrooms (and, I suppose, all women into men's bathrooms)?  Are you on board with that as a solution?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Quote

I don't see a conflict between assessing "focusing on women’s safety from predators" and "issues like comfort or whatever else."  I think they both weigh in on the same side of the scales.

There is a big conflict between safety and comfort present in your own solution of requiring biological females who present as male to frequently wait to be carded by police or security in order to use female only spaces for both those who are carded where the waiting and the carding will not be comfortable at all and where other women will not be comfortable with someone who looks like a man using the restroom they are using even if a cop tells them ‘it’s okay, the man is of the female sex’.

I don't know what you are referencing by "wait to be carded."  I have said nothing about this.  

The proposed legislation would limit exclude biological men from women's space (and vice versa for biological women).  I have said nothing about "carding" to gain entry.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

None of this addresses my inquiry about a differentiating mechanism.

Rather, under your proposal, the gray-shirted man in the video did nothing wrong.  He was legally authorized to be in the women's bathroom.  Right?

Absolutely not. I have no idea how you came up with this.

Under my proposal, if a cop saw him walk out of the women’s restroom then the cop would say, “you are under arrest for being a man in a woman’s space; based on your physique, dress, body hair, facial hair, etc., your gender is that of a man, and as such it is illegal for you to be in a woman’s space; you aren’t doing anything that makes it plausible in any way that you identify as a woman. Even if you were to claim you ‘feel like a woman on the inside,' based on how you present yourself to the world you are a man, and therefore are required to use the men’s restroom."

Under my proposal, this is an open-and-shut case. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

In contrast, under your proposal, looking like a man and presenting himself as a man isn’t enough--he actually has to biologically be a man. If it turns out that his birth certificate says “F” on it, then he was using the only restroom at the park he was legally authorized to use.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Of course, all of this can be avoided by biological males not going into women's bathrooms and changing rooms.

Evil, ignorant or bigoted. You choose.