Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you mean by "fully transitioned." 

Let’s put it as someone who cannot be immediately determined what sex they are so a woman will have to take the time to examine them to see if biologically male of female and may not be able to tell they are female even if they are.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.  

Hard cases make bad law. 

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.  

My assessment is that not allowing any biological males into women's spaces will resolve most issues.  It looks like we agree that most trans women would be less likely to violate a law excluding them from women's spaces.  There will always be some percentage of society who will disobey the law.  In those instances, a concerned party can call the police and let them handle it.

Broadly speaking, the only biological males who go into women's bathrooms are (A) those who "identify" as women, and (B) perverts and malefactors.  While there may be some overlap in these categories ("trans" people can engage in sexual misconduct too), I see these as mostly discrete categories as to motives for their presence in women's spaces.  But as I see it, there is no way to legislatively differentiate an allowance for some biological males to be in those spaces and disallowing all other biological males.  The "trans" identity is an endless spectrum, which a malefactor could opportunistically adopt.  And even outside of that, I think most women and girls don't want any biological males in their spaces, regardless of "trans" identity.

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

They are likely far fewer in number than cis men willing to take advantage of the excuse to walk into a woman’s bathroom.

Right.  But how do you legislatively differentiate the former from the latter?  In my view, you can't.  Ergo, the legislative differentiation must be based on biological sex.

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

The laws as they now stand do not stop all cis men from entering women’s only spaces and assaulting them.  

I think this varies by jurisdiction.  But if this is the case, then let's pass some legislation and fix it.

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.  

So a malefactor can evade a statutory prohibition and go into a bathroom by putting on some sort of "female" affectation?  A dress?  Lipstick?  A handbag?  A wig? 

What metric would a law enforcement officer have to differentiate between a biological male who is legally authorized to be in a woman's bathroom and a biological male who is not legally authorized to be there?  My answer is: "Biological sex, as listed on state-issued ID."  I think your approach is far more subjective and problematic.

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

That's a good option.  But if and when there are spaces intended for only women, all biological males should be excluded from them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, that will no doubt be reassuring to all the women who decide to wait for ten minutes or longer for the cops to appear instead of immediately screaming for help and therefore end up pinned up against the wall with their mouth covered, unable to defend themselves from being assaulted.

I agree that law enforcement should depend on ID. Women under the threat of rape typically don’t have the opportunity to ask for ID and if they were to do so, the person getting the ID out and handing it to them could use such as a ruse that get the woman within arm’s reach to grab and restrain and silence.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

 

 

That status quo was never having people who look fully male in women's bathrooms, and people who look fully female in men's bathrooms though.  What would be the point of having a person with muscles and a full beard forced to use the lady's room?  What purpose would that serve?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Quote

I don't know what you mean by "fully transitioned." 

Let’s put it as someone who cannot be immediately determined what sex they are so a woman will have to take the time to examine them to see if biologically male of female and may not be able to tell they are female even if they are.

I don't know what this means.

If a woman enters a women's bathroom and observes someone there she things is biologically male, she can call the police.  The police can resolve the issue by asking the individual to show state-issued ID which includes biological sex.  If the biological sex on the ID is female, then the woman who called the police made a mistake.  That happens, but the resolution is both quick and orderly.  I think the instances of such errors would be fairly rare.

On the other hand, if the biological sex on the ID is male, then the police office can act according to the statute (issue a citation, make an arrest, whatever).

If the individual does not have ID, then the police officer would likely need to go through a "probable cause" assessment, perhaps call his supervisor, etc.  This may entail taking the individual to the police station for further efforts at both identification (name, address, etc.) via fingerprints or interview, and also evaluating biological sex via a cheek swab.  All this could be laid out in the statute.

Again, there will always be a segment of society who disobeys its laws.  But a statute that categorically prohibits all biological males from women's spaces would, in my view, be pretty effective in terms of deterring such behavior.  And I don't think it's an unfunded mandate.  And if enforcement does entail some added expense, I think DOGE-based diversions of funds should be used.  Virtually every state wastes all sorts of money that could be better spent on improving the safety of women and girls in women's spaces and events.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

In other words, there is no coherent mechanism for differentiating biological males from biological males who identify as trans women.  Would you agree?

 

That's like saying that there is no coherent mechanism for identifying porn, so I don't know if I agree or not.

But, I do know that there are plenty of trans people who you cannot tell are trans by looking at them, so as far as publicly being able to differentiate, I think you are likely correct.  But, forcing people who are completely transitioned to use their biological bathroom is no answer. 

Do you want someone who in every way appears to be a 20 something young woman to be forced to use the men's bathroom, or someone who in every way appears to be a 40 year old man to be forced to use the women's?  Would that that make anyone's daughters and wives feel safe?

Your solution is just the opposite side of the same coin--putting people in danger and making people feel really uncomfortable/unsafe in public restrooms.

Not many people in this thread (if anyone) is arguing that there should be no rules about who can use what bathroom and people should be able to do whatever they want because it's a nonissue. 

What you are getting flack for is an instance on a solution that is undoable, unreasonable, and solves exactly zero of the problems associated with this concern.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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

Yes, that will no doubt be reassuring to all the women who decide to wait for ten minutes or longer for the cops to appear instead of immediately screaming for help and therefore end up pinned up against the wall with their mouth covered, unable to defend themselves from being assaulted.

I have no idea what you are saying here. 

A woman enters a women's bathroom and sees someone in there whom she reasonably believes to be a man.  What do you think she should do?

• A) Nothing.
• B) Exit the restroom and call the police.
• C) Scream, shout, make a scene, etc.
• D) Physically assault the individual and restrain him pending the arrival of law enforcement.
• E) Something else (explain): ___________________________________.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

Just now, smac97 said:

I have no idea what you are saying here. 

A woman enters a women's bathroom and sees someone in there whom she reasonably believes to be a man.  What do you think she should do?

• A) Nothing.
• B) Exit the restroom and call the police.
• C) Scream, shout, make a scene, etc.
• D) Physically assault the individual and restrain him pending the arrival of law enforcement.
• E) Something else (explain): ___________________________________.

Thanks,

-Smac

What should she do if that person is actually biologically female but is living as a transman?  I mean, the person is using the correct bathroom, according to you since they are using the bathroom of their biological sex.

 

[Analytics]

In case anyone is interested, here are my personal experiences I have with these issues.

On a relatively frequent basis, I'll see a man bring his young daughter with him into the men's room. Should this be illegal? @smac97 seems to think so.

About 15 years ago, I noticed my drivers license said I was female. Once I tried to use it to avoid paying a cover's charge at a bar on lady's night, but the bouncer laughed at me and I paid. When I got my license renewed, my official sex almost stayed "F" until I pointed it out, and they changed it to "M" without me having to provide a DNA test or show my birthcertificate.

Several years ago, my wife was celebrating her birthday at a crowded bar. A woman came up to me and said, "Analytics! You have to see this!" She physically dragged me into the women's bathroom. I resisted, but it came to the point where I had to either start a violent fight with her or let her pull me into the lady's room. A couple women looked at me and the person who dragged me in announced, "It's all right! He's with me!" With that, everyone there shrugged their shoulders and ignored me. The woman who dragged me in showed me a white board that had an elaborate birthday message for my wife on it--that is what she wanted to show me. I said, "That's great, thanks for showing me" and then ran for the exit. The least comfortable person there was me, by far.

A couple of years ago, I was in a crowded club, where there were perhaps 20 people in line for the women's room, and about 5 for the men's. A feminine, in all likelihood cis-gender female confidently and quietly got in line for the male room. She went inside, walked past the guys standing at the urinals, went to a stall and took care of her business. I didn't see what happened next, but I assume she washed her hands and left.

About a year later, a similar situation happened with a slightly less confident woman--she really needed to go, and decided it would be better to ask to cut in front of 3 men than ask to cut in front of 25 women. At this point these issues were in the public discussion, and she asked me if she could cut in front of me because she needed to pee really, really badly. I jokingly told her she could if she identified as a male. She laughed, but I insisted she say it. She finally said, "Okay, I identify as a male!" I then waved her in and she peed with the guys. 

I would think that there are laws that say it is illegal to loiter in public restrooms with intentions of voyeurism, assault, intimidation, bullying, etc., regardless of whether you are male or female, and regardless of what the sign on the restroom door says. If someone does anything like that, they should be busted on that basis, not for committing the crime in a room that doesn't happen to conform to your biological sex. The purpose of restrooms is to relieve your biological necessities, not to enjoy sanctuary in a place that is guaranteed to be free from people with a birth certificate that is different than your own.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Analytics

[smac97]

Just now, bluebell said:

Quote

In other words, there is no coherent mechanism for differentiating biological males from biological males who identify as trans women.  Would you agree?

That's like saying that there is no coherent mechanism for identifying porn, so I don't know if I agree or not.

Respectfully, I think there is a big difference here.  The definition of "pornography" is pretty vague.  The sexual binary, the differentiation between biological males and females, is not.  Pornography is an "eye of the beholder" thing.  Biological sex is not.

Just now, bluebell said:

But, I do know that there are plenty of trans people who you cannot tell are trans by looking at them, so as far as publicly being able to differentiate, I think you are likely correct. 

First, I don't know what you mean by "completely transitioned."

Second, you are now differentiating between some "trans" who ostensibly can go into women's spaces ("people who are completely transitioned," whatever that means). 

• How do you propose to quantify this differentiation? 
• What counts as "completely transitioned?" 
• Which biological-males-who-"identify"-as-"trans" do you think should be allowed into women's bathrooms, and which biological-males-who-"identify"-as-"trans" do you think should not be allowed into women's bathrooms?

Third, you are not addressing my position, which is not predicated on a differentiation arising from subjective appearances.  Rather, my position is that we should differentiate based on biological sex, and that this biological sex can be established in a law enforcement context by state-issued ID (and, in particularized and rare circumstances, by cheek swab or further genetic testing).

Just now, bluebell said:

But, forcing people who are completely transitioned to use their biological bathroom is no answer. 

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. 

Again, I don't think you can coherently differentiate between trans women who have "completely transitioned" and those who have not.  If you disagree, please explain which "trans women" you think should be allowed into women's spaces and which should not.  And please also explain how law enforcement would differentiate between the two categories.

I also don't think you can coherently differentiate between biological-males-who-"identify"-as-"trans" and biological-males-who-opportunistically-"identify"-as-"trans."  If you disagree, please explain how law enforcement would differentiate between these two categories.

I think forcing women to tolerate biological males in women's spaces "is no answer."  I think the only feasible answer is to differentiate on the basis of biological sex.

Just now, bluebell said:

Do you want someone who in every way appears to be a 20 something young woman to be forced to use the men's bathroom, or someone who in every way appears to be a 40 year old man to be forced to use the women's?  Would that that make anyone's daughters and wives feel safe?

Hard cases make bad law.

Just now, bluebell said:

Your solution is just the opposite side of the same coin--putting people in danger and making people feel really uncomfortable/unsafe in public restrooms.

I respectfully disagree.  I think women and girls should have women's-only spaces, free from biological males of any orientation, "identity" etc.

Just now, bluebell said:

Not many people in this thread (if anyone) is arguing that there should be no rules about who can use what bathroom and people should be able to do whatever they want because it's a nonissue. 

Okay.  So what "rules" do you have in mind?  Because all I'm seeing is a  a de facto (and perhaps even de jure) "people should be able to do whatever they want" approach, which I think is very much an issue.

Just now, bluebell said:

What you are getting flack for is an instance on a solution that is undoable, unreasonable, and solves exactly zero of the problems associated with this concern.

Respectfully, I disagree.  I think legislatively protecting women's spaces and events is very much a worthwhile endeavor.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have no idea what you are saying here. 

A woman enters a women's bathroom and sees someone in there whom she reasonably believes to be a man.  What do you think she should do?

• A) Nothing.
• B) Exit the restroom and call the police.
• C) Scream, shout, make a scene, etc.
• D) Physically assault the individual and restrain him pending the arrival of law enforcement.
• E) Something else (explain): ___________________________________.

Thanks,

-Smac

As a refresher, you are the one who is insisting that manly looking people be legally required to use the women's restroom.

In any case, what is the hypothetical man doing? Is he peeing? Washing his hands? Putting on lipstick? Standing in the corner with a camera and a roll of duct tape?

In general, I would suggest that if the woman enters a restroom and suspects that somebody there is of the wrong gender, she should evaluate how she feels. if she doesn't feel safe, she should leave. If she does feel safe, she should pee, wash her hands, and then leave, in that order.

 

[Analytics]

53 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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: did you see this post?

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

I have no idea what you are saying here. 

A woman enters a women's bathroom and sees someone in there whom she reasonably believes to be a man.  What do you think she should do?

• A) Nothing.
• B) Exit the restroom and call the police.
• C) Scream, shout, make a scene, etc.
• D) Physically assault the individual and restrain him pending the arrival of law enforcement.
• E) Something else (explain): ___________________________________.

Thanks,

-Smac

What should she do if that person is actually biologically female but is living as a transman? 

I would like an answer to my question.

My answer is (E).  as I noted in a previous post:

Quote

If a woman enters a women's bathroom and observes someone there she things is biologically male, she can call the police.  The police can resolve the issue by asking the individual to show state-issued ID which includes biological sex.  If the biological sex on the ID is female, then the woman who called the police made a mistake.  That happens, but the resolution is both quick and orderly.  I think the instances of such errors would be fairly rare.

A woman enters a women's bathroom and sees someone in there whom she reasonably believes to be a man.  What do you think she should do?

• A) Nothing.
• B) Exit the restroom and call the police.
• C) Scream, shout, make a scene, etc.
• D) Physically assault the individual and restrain him pending the arrival of law enforcement.
• E) Something else (explain): ___________________________________.

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I mean, the person is using the correct bathroom, according to you since they are using the bathroom of their biological sex.

Yes.  So what's the problem here?  The woman who called the police made an honest mistake.  That happens all the time.  Meanwhile, however, there was no physical altercation, no breach of the peace.  A law enforcement officer showed up, asked to see state-issued ID, determined from the ID that the individual was biologically female, and let her go on her way.

Alternatively, if the woman who called the police did not make a mistake, and if the individual she saw in the bathroom is biologically male, then the police officer would ascertain that from the state-issued ID, and then proceed as he would with any other violation of the law (issue a citation, make an arrest, whatever).

Over time, society would become more and more aware of the enactment and enforcement of the statute which excludes biological males from women's spaces.  This would likely lead to a gradual - or maybe even a rapid - decline in the instances of biological males going into women's spaces.  I think that would be a great thing, as I think women and girls need legal protections in relation to bathrooms, changing rooms, participation in sporting events, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

As a refresher, you are the one who is insisting that manly looking people be legally required to use the women's restroom.

As a refresher, I have neither said nor "insisted" anything of the kind.

I am proposing that states enact legislation that exclude biological males from women's spaces, and that this exclusion can typically be enforced by resorting to the biological sex listed on an individual's state-issued ID.

Nothing in there about "manly looking people."  That is a fabrication of your own making.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

In any case, what is the hypothetical man doing? Is he peeing? Washing his hands? Putting on lipstick? Standing in the corner with a camera and a roll of duct tape?

I don't really care what he is doing.  His being in the women's bathroom is itself, or ought to be, a violation of the law.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

In general, I would suggest that if the woman enters a restroom and suspects that somebody there is of the wrong gender, she should evaluate how she feels. if she doesn't feel safe, she should leave. If she does feel safe, she should pee, wash her hands, and then leave, in that order.

A woman enters a women's bathroom and sees someone in there whom she reasonably believes to be a man.  What do you think she should do?

• A) Nothing.
• B) Exit the restroom and call the police.
• C) Scream, shout, make a scene, etc.
• D) Physically assault the individual and restrain him pending the arrival of law enforcement.
• E) Something else (explain): ___________________________________.

I guess, for you, the answer is (A).  They will always have that option, but I think (B) would be the more appropriate response, particularly after the statute is on the books.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am proposing that states enact legislation that exclude biological males from women's spaces, and that this exclusion can typically be enforced by resorting to the biological sex listed on an individual's state-issued ID.

Is this a one-way thing for you? Should women be allowed to use the men’s room if they want?

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

His being in the women's bathroom is itself, or ought to be, a violation of the law.

Just to make sure I understand your point, according to you it should be a violation of the law for this person to use the women’s bathroom:

In contrast, you think it should be perfectly legal for this person to use the woman’s bathroom:

Can you see why somebody might find your proposed law problematic? 

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A woman enters a women's bathroom and sees someone in there whom she reasonably believes to be a man.  What do you think she should do?

• A) Nothing.
• B) Exit the restroom and call the police.
• C) Scream, shout, make a scene, etc.
• D) Physically assault the individual and restrain him pending the arrival of law enforcement.
• E) Something else (explain): ___________________________________.

I guess, for you, the answer is (A). 

For me, what they are doing there matters. If somebody is loitering in a bathroom with the intention of raping a child, that behavior should be equally illegal regardless of the sex of the perp and regardless of the sign on the bathroom door. If somebody is in the bathroom to pee, wash their hands, quickly touch up their makeup, and then leave, I don’t think you should worry about what their birth certificate says.

And I would think the vast majority of women would prefer to be in the restroom with a man who expresses themself as a woman (e.g. Caitlyn Jenner) rather than with a woman who expresses themself as a man (e.g. Patricio Manuel). Am I wrong about that?

Edited December 5, 2024 by Analytics

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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).

The sexual binary is not an assumption.  It is a biological and scientific fact.

DSDs do not create a third or any additional number of biological sexes.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

You went in, took care of your biological functions, and didn’t worry about other people unless they were intimidating or harassing you.

I think many (most?) women and girls do not want biological males in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, etc.

I think this is an entirely reasonable expectation. 

I also think it is entirely within the state's Police Power to enact legislation which excludes biological males from women's spaces.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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 yet, we have it now.

We do have increasing numbers of unisex bathrooms, so that's good.  But that does not address biological males in women's sports.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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.

The number of people with DSDs is extremely small.  And these folks can and should be treated with decorum and respect (and, in some circumstances, some specialized treatment under the law).

That said, the vast majority of "trans women" do not have any sort of DSD, and are instead plainly and unambiguously biologically male.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Your position, as I understand it,

Oi.  You seldom accurately re-state my position.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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.

Not necessarily. See above.

And again, Patricio represents a statistically tiny fraction of the instances in which a biological male is in women's space.  The vast, vast majority of men doing this are indisputably biologically male.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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

From a previous post:

Quote

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.

Perhaps we may (give me a moment while I check for pig's flying outside my window) . . . actually agree to some extent on this issue?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 5, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Is this a one-way thing for you? Should women be allowed to use the men’s room if they want?

No.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Just to make sure I understand your point, according to you it should be a violation of the law for this person to use the women’s bathroom:

Yes.  Caitlin Jenner is a biological male.  

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In contrast, you think it should be perfectly legal for this person to use the woman’s bathroom:

See my above comments re: people with DSDs.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Can you see why somebody might find your proposed law problematic? 

Yes.  Others (many?  most?) may well be on board with the proposed legislation.  

We'll never achieve 100% consensus on such issues.  Such are the vagaries of living in a pluralistic society.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

For me, what they are doing there matters.

For me, biological males being in women's bathrooms, in and of itself, matters.

Biological males being in women's bathrooms while also doing something else bad (peeping, taking videos, leering, masturbating, physically accosting others, etc.) also matters.

The legislation I am proposing would resolve all of these things that matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

In case anyone is interested, here are my personal experiences I have with these issues.

On a relatively frequent basis, I'll see a man bring his young daughter with him into the men's room. Should this be illegal? @smac97 seems to think so.

Smac97 has not addressed this issue, so your characterization of his position is, as usual, inaccurate.

I would not object to the law allowing a mother/female to bring an male infant or toddler into the woman's bathroom, or vice versa for fathers/males and female infants/toddlers.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  So what's the problem here?  The woman who called the police made an honest mistake.  That happens all the time.  Meanwhile, however, there was no physical altercation, no breach of the peace.  A law enforcement officer showed up, asked to see state-issued ID, determined from the ID that the individual was biologically female, and let her go on her way.

 

Lol your solution is to continually harass trans men with police  investigations and detainment until the police arrive. Not to mention terrify women using the restroom. You are a gem. 

Edited December 5, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Quote

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

That status quo was never having people who look fully male in women's bathrooms, and people who look fully female in men's bathrooms though. 

The status quo ante was that men, biological males, did not go into women's bathrooms.  This was, and mostly still is, a de facto circumstance as much as, and perhaps more than, a de jure one.  

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

What would be the point of having a person with muscles and a full beard forced to use the lady's room?  What purpose would that serve?

The purpose of laws excluding biological males from women's spaces, and vice versa, would be to exclude biological males from women's spaces, and vice versa.

There is a very small contingent of people with DSDs, and those folks can perhaps seek some accommodation under the law.

I think the instances of a biological woman meeting your description ("a person with muscles and a full beard") would be quite small, but yes, biological women may be in women's spaces,  whereas biological males should not be there.  

Generally, we don't legislate from the margins.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Yes.  So what's the problem here?  The woman who called the police made an honest mistake.  That happens all the time.  Meanwhile, however, there was no physical altercation, no breach of the peace.  A law enforcement officer showed up, asked to see state-issued ID, determined from the ID that the individual was biologically female, and let her go on her way.

Lol your solution is to continually harass trans men with police  investigations and terrify women using the restroom.

No.  The legislative solution is to exclude biological males, all of them, from women's spaces.

The only people who would be involved with "police investigations" are those who violate the law.

I have no idea what you mean by "terrify women using the restroom."

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are a gem. 

You are dependably lacking in your willingness and/or capacity to have a reasoned argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

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. 

You took the words out of my mouth. Public restrooms, for the most part, aren’t secure and aren’t policed. Women, and men, have always been vulnerable in these public spaces because they aren’t secure. Trans people have nothing to do with how easy it is for someone to go into a public restroom and commit a crime. 

[Analytics]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Lol your solution is to continually harass trans men with police  investigations and terrify women using the restroom. You are a gem. 

+1,000

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Let’s put it as someone who cannot be immediately determined what sex they are so a woman will have to take the time to examine them to see if biologically male of female and may not be able to tell they are female even if they are.

I feel sorry for the poor people who are going to wet their pants, or worse, waiting for someone (who? We don’t know) to decide they are allowed into a public restroom. 

[Analytics]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The only people who would be involved with "police investigations" are those who violate the law.

If you had your way, this person would be required to use the women’s restroom whenever he needs to excrete. 

On what basis would women know this individual is legally a woman and should be in the women’s restroom?

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have no idea what you mean by "terrify women using the restroom."

You want this person to use the women’s restroom. Why wouldn’t that be terrifying to people who want to pee without men in the room?