Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[MrShorty]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

What do you propose to be the mechanism for differentiating biological males from biological males who identify as trans women?  If it's not the unquestionable say-so of the individual, then what is it?  

It's too bad we can't ask God how He would make this determination and get a clear, unambiguous answer free from uncertainties. In other issues, when we ask how to discern God's truth about topics, we invoke revelation, why can we not seek and obtain revelation from God on this topic? If we have sought and received revelation, can we publish those revelations? Because revelation often comes with uncertainties, can we explain how we have addressed and minimized human error in receiving these revelations?

In the absence of such revelation, my opinion is that, for the average, run-of-the-mill person attending and participating in church activities, we should take an individual's word for their gender. As I go through anecdotes like those in Richard Ostler's podcast, I see many transgender LDS who claim revelation from God approving their transitions, and I see no reason to doubt their revelations.

There will be special considerations for competitive sports, but the church's policies are not intended to govern competitive sports. From what I can see, none of the arguments that pertain to competitive sports would apply to whether or not to welcome Bro/Sis Jones into EQ/RS.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But I think that an abstract risk of X violating the law over here is not a justification for Y to violate the law over there.

You do realize that it is not abstract for many trans individuals who have been assaulted.

Isn’t this all abstract?  Worry about an unknown trans person violating the law at some unknown time?  

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I think you are resorting to a form of the "Fallacy of Relative Privation," described here:
...

Thefts and assaults and such are worse than biological males in women's spaces.  Ergo, society should do nothing about biological males entering into women's spaces.

By your reasoning, police should also stop any and all enforcement of illegal parking, jaywalking, and hundreds and hundreds of non-violent or less-serious-then infractions, misdemeanors, etc., because doing results in police - in your view - "neglecting" more serious crimes ("thefts and assaults, accidents, drug busts, etc.").

No, my reasoning is if laws are intended to be enforced, enough funding and manpower should be provided as well because if not, that is when mistakes are made.  

If you propose more work for police, you should propose ways it can be done rather than just wave your hands and say ‘make it work’.

I do not think the legislation discussed above would require much, if any, additional "funding and manpower."

If a merchant wants to trespass someone from their store because they are speaking loudly, or behaving in an untoward way, etc., they can ask the individual to leave.  If the individual refuses, makes a scene, etc., police can be called.

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

The numbers of trans individuals is going up.

Pretty strong evidence, then, that this is a sociological/psychological phenomenon.

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even more important the awareness of their existence has skyrocketed and it is highly likely that sightings and suspected and mistaken identifications are likely to skyrocket now as well at least for a time.   Past resources are likely not going to be enough. It is wise in making a law that if you want it to be enforced to determine how it will be funded.

I would be happy for a state-level DOGE to be created that would identify and eliminate wasteful government expenditures.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

So somehow there is not going to be any costs occurring due to callouts to bathrooms and running cheek swabs and generic tests, additional training of police on handling responsibly such confrontations, etc.

I really hope you are never involved in city planning or making laws if you truly believe just because something appears to be a good idea, the cost will be negligible.  My guess is you just haven’t thought it through.

I think you are substantially overstating the "costs" because you dislike, on ideological grounds, the proposed legislation, and so you are casting about for any reason to preempt even a preliminary discussion about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Return to the status quo ante.  Prohibit males from going into women's spaces.

Pass legislation, then enforce it.

I reject the premise.

And the supposed concern for biological women is . . . interesting.

From the UN piece's recommendations:

A driver's license would, in many instances, likely be a sufficient ad hoc means of facilitating enforcement of statutes prohibiting biological men from women's spaces.

From the article:

From this article:

Nobody has suggested using snarky social media posts as a mechanism for enforcing statutes prohibiting males from entering into women's spaces or participating in women's sports.  Your implication to the contrary is pretty silly.

Yes.  That is typically the way such things are handled.

I assume you meant to say "detain the person."  You seem to be referencing something like "Citizen's Arrest," described here:

As you can see, there is a lot of variation as to the circumstances under which a Citizen's Arrest can take place.

As a practical matter, I think most people would likely call the police, and possibly record the incident for evidentiary purposes, but otherwise leave it at that.  I think many women would not feel capable of physically restraining a biological male, nor inclined to attempt it.

My understanding is that private parties do not have the right to demand to see another person's ID in the context of a suspected crime having been committed or under way.  

However, could legislation allow merchants/businesses to require ID to access female changing areas, locker rooms?  Sure.

In ad hoc circumstances, no.  Law enforcement could principally rely on state-issued ID to determine biological sex.  If further confirmation is necessary, a cheek swab would be appropriate.  In extraordinarily rare circumstances, genetic testing may be necessary (such as for participating in women's sports, incarceration, etc.).

I get that you are trying to argue that enforcement of legislatively-enacted statutes re: biological sex would be some sort of logistical/practical quagmire.  Respectfully, I think you are exaggerating the difficulty.  A lot.  State-issued ID designates biological sex.  Then, if necessary, a cheek swab.  Then, if still necessary, genetic testing.  These latter two would, as a practical matter, be very rarely utilized.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was mistaken for a guy when I was younger and had very short hair. So I should have been subjected to an ID check and a cheek swab because someone was mistaken? Serious question. 

Edited December 5, 2024 by Peacefully

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Pretty strong evidence, then, that this is a sociological/psychological phenomenon.

That is like saying because there are rising numbers of kids attending school that is strong evidence that IQ is rising.

Or it is evidence that schooling/transitioning is more accessible to many.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you are substantially overstating the "costs" because you dislike, on ideological grounds, the proposed legislation, and so you are casting about for any reason to preempt even a preliminary discussion about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

You are totally ignoring my multipley stated position.  Do you appreciate it when people ignore your stated motivation and instead insert pure speculation and portray you in the worst way possible from their POV?  At this point, it seems you are accusing me of lying about my own ideals and beliefs.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

would be happy for a state-level DOGE to be created that would identify and eliminate wasteful government expenditures.

When I actually see a government lowering expenditures wisely over an extended period of time across the board, I will shout “hallelujah”.  
 

Wishfulness is not efficient nor practical government nor is “I don’t think it will cost that much”…don’t forget the cost of the lawsuits for enforcement mistakes or just opportunists looking for a buck.

[Calm]

Smac, let’s assume the law passes and the majority of people self enforce, etc.

What in your view is likely to happen when a fully transtitioned, bearded, dressed in masculine clothings biological female walks into a female only restroom which is occupied by two young ladies 8 and 10 years of age?

This is not me trashing the law, this is me exploring the limits to see if a functional law can be reasonably constructed and enforced without significant costs…iow, work in the real world.

If you are wondering why I am going this route, Title IX backfires are always bright in my memory, the one that bugs me the most is the loss to women of all those female coaches that have been replaced by men.

Unintended Consequences happen because lawmakers and the people who push for laws too often do t take the time to explore possible implications.  Was it really that difficult to imagine men pushing to coach female teams if they got paid decently for it?

I wonder by what amount the abuse rate of female minors by coaches increased by the infusion of men into these relatively intimate relationships with minors.

Just because I am against poorly thought out/formulated laws doesn’t mean I am against well thought out, supported laws.  I have had to jump through too many ridiculous legal hoops in several countries to trust anyone saying “I think it will work out even if we do t have many details yet”

Edited December 5, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

What in your view is likely to happen when a fully transtitioned, bearded, dressed in masculine clothings biological female walks into a female only restroom which is occupied by two young ladies 8 and 10 years of age?

 

Seriously, how do I as a mother or that young girl tell the difference between a law abiding trans man (biological female, but fully transitioned) and a looking for victims cis man with or without a fake ID****? Or just a cis man who doesn’t want to trek across the building to use the men’s room (yes, that has occurred in my life).  Man,I would have so freaked out as a kid if what appeared to be a man walked into a public bathroom I was using and even now, facing someone who reads to me as a man in the bathroom, no way am I doing anything but getting out of there as quickly as possible.  How am I, a woman, supposed to feel safe if I can’t tell the difference?  No way am I going to get close enough to ask for ID.

***https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fITMYR1h-aI

 

Not a transwoman or claiming to be, he had just walked in.

Quote

Hilliard police said a 60-year-old woman was attacked last Friday inside the restroom of a local store. The incident occurred around 4:00 p.m. at the At Home store on the 3500 block of Park Mill Run Drive. The woman was assaulted by an unknown man, later identified as 26-year-old Mohamed Camara, of Columbus. Camara allegedly tried to strangle the woman and cover her mouth. However, she fought back and managed to get the attention of her family, who rushed to her aid. The family then called 911 and detained Camara until officers arrived.

Here’s another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cudjad0upYY

I have heard these assault/rape stories all my life.  The BYU Police had a seminar after a series of rapes on campus when I was a student there.  One of the warnings was to get out as soon as possible if there was a man in a public restroom. Heard it from self defense classes.

Its probably a big reason why not fully transitioned trans women are often not going to be welcomed in female only spaces…after women and girls being drilled forever to avoid males in these spaces.

 

Edited December 5, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Thefts and assaults and such are worse than biological males in women's spaces.  Ergo, society should do nothing about biological males entering into women's spaces.

Nope, not my reasoning.  

Yep, your reasoning.

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am looking for a plan of enforcement that could work.  Would actually love to have one on the table for negotiation.

I am not a legislator, and we are on a message board, and I think the actual enforcement costs would be either de minimis or could be provided for by specific allocation or re-allocation/diversion via a DOGE-like division of the state.

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you remember, which you apparently don’t, I am not someone who is pro allowing biological males into female only spaces only on self identification.

I don't remember, sorry.  I have a hard time keeping track of which items you agree with me on and which you do not.

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am challenging your ideas that I believe are poorly thought out or supported because they are poorly thought out,

Okay.  I disagree.  The basic premise is sound.  The funding for enforcement, if needed, could be found in a variety of ways.

State legislatures add new misdemeanors and modify old ones all the time.  I don't know if they always look for and establish funding mechanisms (I suspect they do not).  And again, I don't think additional funding would be needed or significant.

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

not because of the principle behind them.

I stand corrected then.  I apologize.

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am simply asking to see a realistic version of enforcement from you.  Haven’t seen it yet.  All I see is increased problems in not only the restrooms, but elsewhere…similar to how child protection services are overwhelmed in some places due to mandatory reporting.

By pretty much everyone's reckoning, the actual number of "trans" people is very, very small.  The number of "trans" and other people who would be inclined to violate a statute limiting women's spaces to women would be even smaller still.  And the additional burden on law enforcement would, I think, be either negligible or could be funded via DOGE-like means.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

would be happy for a state-level DOGE to be created that would identify and eliminate wasteful government expenditures.

When I actually see a government lowering expenditures wisely over an extended period of time across the board, I will shout “hallelujah”.  

Meanwhile, though, the topic is legislation to limit women's spaces to biological women.  I respectfully reject the notion that this would amount to some sort of substantial unfunded mandate burdening law enforcement.  And if and when that were to happen, most states have plenty of less-worthy projects with funding that could be diverted.

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Wishfulness is not efficient nor practical government nor is “I don’t think it will cost that much”…don’t forget the cost of the lawsuits for enforcement mistakes or just opportunists looking for a buck.

Sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

I was mistaken for a guy when I was younger and had very short hair. So I should have been subjected to an ID check and a cheek swab because someone was mistaken? Serious question. 

Public bathrooms?  No.

Changing rooms at a merchant/business?  I think they should have the option to request ID, so yes.

To participate in women's sports/events?  ID would normally be sufficient.  Cheek swab for rare instances.  Genetic testing for still rarer instances.  (This is the approach recommended in the UN report noted previously).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

But I think that an abstract risk of X violating the law over here is not a justification for Y to violate the law over there.

You do realize that it is not abstract for many trans individuals who have been assaulted.

I was responding to a comment about an abstract risk, not a specific incident.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Peacefully]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Public bathrooms?  No.

Changing rooms at a merchant/business?  I think they should have the option to request ID, so yes.

To participate in women's sports/events?  ID would normally be sufficient.  Cheek swab for rare instances.  Genetic testing for still rarer instances.  (This is the approach recommended in the UN report noted previously).

Thanks,

-Smac

I would say no to the first two. Sports would be subject to rules by the governing bodies. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The basic premise is sound.

Again, how is a woman or girl to safely tell the difference between a fully transitioned transman/biological male and a cis male intent on invading female only spaces?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was responding to a comment about an abstract risk, not a specific incident.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is not abstract if it has occurred for people though, is it?  Isn’t that why people are justifying making laws excluding biological makes from female spaces?  Not because every transman has assaulted a woman, but because somewhere it has happened.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By pretty much everyone's reckoning, the actual number of "trans" people is very, very small.  The number of "trans" and other people who would be inclined to violate a statute limiting women's spaces to women would be even smaller still. 

I would agree with the trans women would be less likely to violate the spaces.

The problem I see is it becomes more difficult if it is illegal for fully transitioned trans men to to use male only bathrooms for a woman or girl to determine if the male appearing person in front of them in the female only bathroom is a threat or not….and a moment hesitation may mean a difference between surviving or not.  If we have to take the time to ask ourselves is this a biological woman who has transitioned to male who is legally using this bathroom or a rapist before acting defensively in such a situation, my guess is there will be more victims, not less than if we allowed fully transitioned (female in appearance) to use public female restrooms.  They are likely far fewer in number than cis men willing to take advantage of the excuse to walk into a woman’s bathroom.

The laws as they now stand do not stop all cis men from entering women’s only spaces and assaulting them.  In sheer numbers my guess is the number of cis men who would dress up as women to assault women pales in comparison to the number of cis men who don’t bother.  I think it makes much more sense therefore to exclude from female only spaces biological females who fully appear as men.  And if they can pass as males then they should also be safe in male only restrooms, I am guessing.  I assume there are stalls to avoid having to display scars or if they lack bottom surgery.

Though my preference is single user restrooms for new builds and retrofitted where possible.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

stand corrected then.  I apologize.

You have apologized before, several times iirc to me and others.  Somehow you do it again.  The apology no longer comes across as sincere to me.  If you want to be sincerely respectful, stop speculating about motivations, mindreading etc if you aren’t willing to keep track of someone’s actual position.  Speculating about motivation, what is and isn’t acceptable to someone is not necessary, especially when you could just ask.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

If by "trans male" / "trans female" you mean "biological females who 'identify' as male" / "biological males who 'identify' as female," then yes.

But is a biological male who "identifies" as a woman, actually a woman?  No.  There is no such thing as "transitioning" into "being a woman."  The only justification for such a claim is an extended exercise of equivocating about the definition of "woman."  It's a very recent phenomenon, and one that is ad hoc, contrived, and incongruent with biological science and reality.

First, I do not know what you mean by "are trans."  

A biological male may subjectively feel like, and want to "identify" as, a woman, and there may well be some sort of neurochemical or other technically "biological" component to that subjective feeling.  But that subjective feeling cannot override biological science and reality.  No matter how much he may feel like he is female, he is, and always will be, male.

Earlier in this thread I related the following:

Do I believe that the teenager I describe above exists?  Yes.  I met him, and I recall the interaction.  I was not under the influence of any mind-altering substance, I am of sound mind, and the event was fairly recent so my recollection of it is pretty good.

Do I believe that this teenager "identifies" as a dog?  Well, yes.  He said as much ("'Hi!  My name is Jack, and I identify as a dog.'").  He was dressed up as a dog (dog ears on his head and a collar around his neck).  He was acting like a dog (he was squatting on the floor, like a dog sits on his haunches).  He barked like a dog ("'Woof!'").

Do I believe that this teenager is actually a dog?  Respectfully, no.  He should be treated with kindness and respect, but I don't think that kindness and respect compels me to deny biological fact and reality, and to instead go along with the false notion that he is a dog because he "identifies" as one.

I am strongly opposed to any form of extra-legal violence.  But I think that an abstract risk of X violating the law over here is not a justification for Y to violate the law over there.

Thanks,

-Smac

I mean biologically trans as they are geared towards a certain gender. So if they are refused to use the women's or men's restroom I guess (different topic) they will have to use the men's restroom looking like a female. Won't that cause a riot or some form of violence? Since it's been brought to a fever pitch.

[california boy]

This whole freaking out about biological men sneaking into women's bathrooms is based on a huge fallacy.  Is there any cases where a biological man entered a woman's bathroom claiming he was transitioning and used that as the excuse to assault a woman?  

The reality is, if a predator intends to commit a physical assault on a woman in a bathroom, he could simply walk into the bathroom and commit the assault.  He doesn't need to claim he is trans.  People who commit assaults on women don't stop before the assault and tell the person they are trans, so therefore, that gives them access to a woman to commit the assault.  A gun or a knife is far more likely to be used to commit the assault than a claim that they are trans so they have the right to enter a space to commit the assault. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

What do you propose to be the mechanism for differentiating biological males from biological males who identify as trans women?  If it's not the unquestionable say-so of the individual, then what is it?  

It's too bad we can't ask God how He would make this determination and get a clear, unambiguous answer free from uncertainties.

About 99.9+% of the time, a person's biological sex is clear and unambiguous and free from uncertainties.

For the statistically tiny number of people with DSDs, some nuance and accommodation can and should be involved in societal/legislative treatment of these issues.

That said, the vast vast majority of "trans" people do not have a DSD, and instead have some sort of gender dysphoria or other subjective preference to "identify" as the opposite sex.  For these people, their biological sex is clear and unambiguous and free from uncertainties.  And while we should treat all members of society with kindness, respect and decorum, we are not obligated to ratify and endorse subjective preferences and feelings about "gender identity" which are incongruent with biological fact and reality.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

In other issues, when we ask how to discern God's truth about topics, we invoke revelation, why can we not seek and obtain revelation from God on this topic?

Because we live in a constitutional republic, not a theocracy.  Legislating secular laws may reflect some aspects of social/moral/ethical preferences informed by religious belief, but in the main legislatures ought to be guided by the Constitution, common law, precedent, the preferences of the electorate, and so on.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

If we have sought and received revelation, can we publish those revelations? Because revelation often comes with uncertainties, can we explain how we have addressed and minimized human error in receiving these revelations?

In the absence of such revelation, my opinion is that, for the average, run-of-the-mill person attending and participating in church activities, we should take an individual's word for their gender.

Okay.  I respectfully disagree with that.  I think we should take the individual's biological sex as determinative.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

As I go through anecdotes like those in Richard Ostler's podcast, I see many transgender LDS who claim revelation from God approving their transitions, and I see no reason to doubt their revelations.

I do.  See Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool analogy:

Quote

1. Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool:

I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

If I experience what I think to be "personal revelation" from God, I compare it with the other three legs of the stool (Scripture, Prophets and Reason).  All of those would, in my view, militate against the notion that a biological male can become a woman by "identifying" as such. 

The Proclamation states that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  The Proclamation's use of "gender" is clarified here:

Quote

How does the Church define gender?

Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The intended meaning of gender in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” is biological sex at birth.

In a similar vein, from the UK's Telegraph: Sex is biological fact, NHS declares in landmark shift against gender ideology

Quote

The NHS is to declare that sex is a matter of biology in a landmark shift against gender ideology.

I think we will see more of this in the days ahead.  Reconciling ourselves with basic biological facts such as these has been a long time coming.

And part of this reconciliation will include legal mechanisms and processes to return us to the status quo ante, in which biological males were excluded from women's spaces.

Quote

Changes to the health service’s written constitution proposed by ministers will for the first time ban trans women from women-only wards, and give women the right to request a female doctor for intimate care.

The NHS constitution, a document that aims to set out the principles and values of the health service and legal rights for patients and staff, was last updated in 2015. It has to be updated at least every 10 years by the Secretary of State. 

Campaigners for women’s rights welcomed the significant shift, which comes after years of wrangling and follows accusations that the health service had been captured by “gender ideology”.

Ideological pressures have, in some quarters, predominated over scientific and empirically demonstrable realities.  I am glad we are getting past this sort of thing.

Earlier in this thread I related an experience I had meeting teenager who said that he "identifies" as a dog.  He said as much ("'Hi!  My name is Jack, and I identify as a dog.'").  He was dressed up as a dog (dog ears on his head and a collar around his neck).  He was acting like a dog (he was squatting on the floor, like a dog sits on his haunches).  He barked like a dog ("'Woof!'").  Do I have reason to doubt his identity as a dog?  Yes.  I can use my eyes, and reasoning, and common sense, and discern that he is not, in fact, a dog, and is instead a male homo sapiens.

About 99.9+% of the time, an individual's biological sex is obvious and unambiguous at birth.  And that biological sex will never change, regardless of cosmetic and chemical interventions.  

I can't speak for you, but I do have "reason{s} to doubt" a person claiming "revelations" from God that are incongruent with biological fact and reality, incompatible with the Proclamation, incompatible with the teachings of prophets and apostles, and so on.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

There will be special considerations for competitive sports, but the church's policies are not intended to govern competitive sports.

Generally, yes.  But the Church, as with most social organizations, differentiate by biological sex in some pretty significant ways.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

From what I can see, none of the arguments that pertain to competitive sports would apply to whether or not to welcome Bro/Sis Jones into EQ/RS.

I think some of the societal issues affecting biological males in women's sports overlap with societal issues affecting the Church's policies which entail segregating by biological sex.  The Church also has doctrinal grounds to do so, such as the Proclamation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Again, how is a woman or girl to safely tell the difference between a fully transitioned transman/biological male and a cis male intent on invading female only spaces?

If the individual in a specific instance is concerned, she can call the police and let them handle the matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Return to the status quo ante.  Prohibit males from going into women's spaces.

My understanding is that the status quo ante is that while people may have assumed that gender was strictly binary and that transexual people didn’t exist, people have always used the restroom where they felt the most comfortable (or really, where they felt the least uncomfortable). You went in, took care of your biological functions, and didn’t worry about other people unless they were intimidating or harassing you.

In historical context, the idea that there should be “men’s” restrooms and “women’s” restrooms isn’t much more than 100 years old. And the concept of there being laws that say restroom use should be strictly and legally based on biological sex isn’t much more than 10 years old (e.g. North Carolina’s HB2 was passed in 2016). From my perspective, such laws are extremely wrongheaded.

As a case study, here is a specific example. On July 22, 1985, a healthy baby girl named Patricia Manuel was born. Their birth certificate says “female” and their genetic profile says female.

Patricia is transgender and now expresses their self as a male. They now go by Patricio. Here is what Patricio now looks like:

Your position, as I understand it, is that by law, Patricio’s identification should identify them as “female” and that by law, Patricio should be required to use female restrooms in public.

In contrast, my position is that since Patricio expresses themself as a male, Patricio should use the male’s restroom.

Could you help me understand why the world would be a better place if Patricio is legally required to use the women’s restroom?

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I mean biologically trans as they are geared towards a certain gender.

I do not know what you mean by "biologically trans."  "Trans" is not a sex.

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So if they are refused to use the women's or men's restroom I guess (different topic) they will have to use the men's restroom looking like a female.

Yes.  Or unisex bathrooms.  Those are pretty common.

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Won't that cause a riot or some form of violence?

There is also the risk of altercations in having biological males going into women's bathrooms:

Any risks here?  What if the dad in the video had not checked the bathroom?

As it happens, the father seemed to be in control of himself.  Someone less so might have resorted to physical violence against the guy in the bathroom.  Do you agree?

Another:

Any risk of violence here?  

Any concern?

Any risk of violence here?

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Since it's been brought to a fever pitch.

Extra-legal violence is never appropriate.  But neither is allowing biological males into women's spaces.  The risk of the former is not a justification for disregarding the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac