Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[smac97]

1 hour 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.

Oh, come on.

Please dispense with the "examine them to see if {they are} biologically male or female" nonsense.  I have never suggested that or anything like that.  I expect this sort of absurd caricaturing of my position from Analytics, SeekingUnderstanding, etc., but not from you.

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): ___________________________________.

This is a hypothetical question about a likely real-world scenario, and one for which I am seeking a reasonable, non-farfetched response.  Is your answer "E) Something else"?  And are you seriously suggesting that this "something else" should involve the women "tak{ing} the time to examine {the person she reasonably believes to be a man} to see if {he is} biologically male or female"?  If so, what do you mean by "examine"? 

And given that this examination would presumably not be consensual, are you suggesting that the woman use force for this "examination"?

I have said nothing about what you are describing here.  Not even close.

I get that this is a sensitive and difficult topic, but the caricatures and unserious responses are not helpful.  We should be able to meaningfully discuss, and disagree about, such things without resorting to absurdities.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Peacefully]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

+1,000

I think he is arguing for argument’s sake. It’s getting kind of silly. 

[Analytics]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

You said your position is "not allowing any biological males into women's spaces [emphasis in original]” Now you are saying that some biological males should be allowed into women-only spaces. I’m glad you are changing your mind on this issue.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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.

You said your position is "not allowing any biological males into women's spaces [emphasis in original]” Now you are saying that some biological males should be allowed into women-only spaces. I’m glad you are changing your mind on this issue.

As to infants and toddlers, yes, I think the law needs some accommodation for that (and perhaps also for the exceedingly few instances of people with DSDs).

As to, generally, adult biological males - the rather obvious topic in this discussion - no.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Please dispense with the "examine them to see if {they are} biologically male or female" nonsense.  I have never suggested that or anything like that.  I expect this sort of absurd caricaturing of my position from Analytics, SeekingUnderstanding, etc., but not from you.

I mean look them over, not touch.   I was thinking in terms of how I would examine a piece of art in a museum, paying closer attention to details than I usually would.

My mind would be looking to see if there was an Adam’s apple for example, not something I typically think to do.  Skin texture might be another appraisal.

Maybe you should ask for clarification before assuming the worse.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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

Or unisex bathrooms.  Again, we generally don't legislate from the margins.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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

She probably would not know.  

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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? 

Again, we generally don't legislate from the margins.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, come on.

Please dispense with the "examine them to see if {they are} biologically male or female" nonsense.  I have never suggested that or anything like that.  I expect this sort of absurd caricaturing of my position from Analytics, SeekingUnderstanding, etc., but not from you.

The problem is that your position is the absurd one. 

I understand your point about how biologically, Patricio Manuel is in fact a woman. But if you insist that as a biological woman it should be illegal for him to use any restroom other than the woman’s room, you aren’t being serious.

Seriously. You are the one arguing that if this person needs to pee, it should be illegal for him to do so in the men’s room but not the lady’s room.

 

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Please dispense with the "examine them to see if {they are} biologically male or female" nonsense.  I have never suggested that or anything like that.  I expect this sort of absurd caricaturing of my position from Analytics, SeekingUnderstanding, etc., but not from you.

I mean look them over, not touch. 

Again, my question:

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): ___________________________________.

Please note the "she reasonably believes {the person} to be a man" part of the scenario.

Are you positing a "Something else" response?  Or are you not responding at all?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 5, 2024 by smac97

[Analytics]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She probably would not know.  

Thus, she’d be terrified, just as @SeekingUnderstanding said. She’d call the cops if she had the sensibilities you recommend, and the person would be harassed by the cops for using the bathroom that you legally require him to use, just as Seeking Understanding said. Over and over and over.

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, we generally don't legislate from the margins.

In a thread about "Trans Policies”, how the policies affect trans people isn’t a marginal issue--it is the main issue. The bathroom laws you champion were invented in direct response to the trans movement and not in response to cis-gender creeps who hang out in women’s rooms for malicious purposes.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Analytics

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The problem is that your position is the absurd one. 

I think you do not understand what I mean by "legislating from the margins."  Either that, or you are simply declining to address it.

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I understand your point about how biologically, Patricio Manuel is in fact a woman.

But you do not appear to understand "legislating from the margins."

That said, you have "arguing from the margins" down really well:

Quote

An "argument from the margins fallacy" refers to the logical error of basing a conclusion about a broader group or issue solely on the experiences or perspectives of a small, extreme, or marginalized subset of that group, essentially misrepresenting the overall situation by focusing only on the outliers or exceptions rather than the typical cases. 

Key points about the argument from the margins fallacy:

• Overemphasizing extreme cases: This fallacy occurs when someone uses a few extreme examples from the fringes of a group to make a generalization about the entire group, ignoring the majority experience.
• Misrepresentation of the norm: By focusing only on the most unusual or problematic cases, the argument can create a distorted view of what is considered "normal" within the group.
• Selective sampling: This fallacy often involves cherry-picking specific examples that support a pre-determined conclusion, while ignoring evidence that contradicts it. 

Example scenarios:

• Claiming all vegans are unhealthy because a few extreme cases of vegan malnutrition are reported in the media.
• Concluding that all police officers are racist based solely on incidents of police brutality by a small number of officers.
• Asserting that all immigrants are criminals because a few cases of illegal activity by immigrants are highlighted in news stories.

How to identify and avoid this fallacy:

• Consider the full spectrum: When evaluating an argument, ensure that the evidence presented represents a diverse range of experiences within the group being discussed, not just the most extreme cases.
• Check for representative data: Look for data that is based on a large and representative sample size to avoid drawing conclusions from outliers.
• Ask about the source of information: Be critical of sources that selectively focus on extreme examples to support their claims. 

"{B}asing a conclusion about a broader group or issue solely on the experiences or perspectives of a small, extreme, or marginalized subset of that group, essentially misrepresenting the overall situation by focusing only on the outliers or exceptions rather than the typical cases."

Check.  You are doing this be repeatedly and exclusively focusing on Patricio Morel.

"{E}ssentially misrepresenting the overall situation by focusing only on the outliers or exceptions rather than the typical cases."

Check.  You are doing this be repeatedly and exclusively focusing on Patricio Morel.

"Overemphasizing extreme cases: ... someone uses a few extreme examples from the fringes of a group to make a generalization about the entire group, ignoring the majority experience."

Check.  You are doing this be repeatedly and exclusively focusing on Patricio Morel.

"Misrepresentation of the norm: By focusing only on the most unusual or problematic cases, the argument can create a distorted view of what is considered "normal" within the group."

Check.  You are doing this be repeatedly and exclusively focusing on Patricio Morel, and then calling my position "absurd" and "{un}serious."

I encourage you to consider the "How to identify and avoid this fallacy" portion above.

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But if you insist that as a biological woman it should be illegal for him to use any restroom other than the woman’s room, you aren’t being serious.

I have not been speaking about Patricio Manuel.  I have, instead, been speaking about biological males as a category.  

I think it is entirely reasonable for women to want to categorically exclude biological males from women's spaces.  I think that is a serious and legitimate perspective for women to have.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 5, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

She probably would not know.  

Thus, she’d be terrified, just as @SeekingUnderstanding said.

Or, not.  She could just exit the bathroom and call the police.  

No need to infantilize women to score a rhetorical point.

29 minutes ago, Analytics said:

She’d call the cops if she had the sensibilities you recommend,

Yes.  Most adult women have such sensibilities.

29 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and the person

"{T}he person" being . . . a biological male.  In a women's bathroom.  In a jurisdiction that excludes biological males from women's bathrooms.

29 minutes ago, Analytics said:

would be harassed by the cops

Police officers enforcing the law is "harassment"?  I don't think so.

A police officer asking for a person's state-issued ID based on a credible report of a violation of the law is "harassment"?  I don't think so.

29 minutes ago, Analytics said:

for using the bathroom that you legally require him to use,

And once again, you misrepresent my position.  Must be a day ending in "y."

I am proposing state legislatures enact statutes to exclude biological males from women's spaces.  

As you likely know, I am not a state legislature.

29 minutes ago, Analytics said:

just as Seeking Understanding said. Over and over and over.

Neither you nor SU can be trusted to accurately state or characterize my position.

29 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In a thread about "Trans Policies”, how the policies affect trans people isn’t a marginal issue--it is the main issue.

Again, you do not understand the concept of "legislating from the margins."  Try ditching the histrionic emotionalisms and approaching the proposed legislation in a level-headed way.

This is where your lack of training and experience in the law comes into play.  You seem largely incapable of addressing difficult topics such as this in a clinical way, so you reflexively go emotional, go personal, go ad hominem, etc.  This works here because this is just a message board, and because you are writing such things while hiding behind a pseudonym.

I have been litigating for twenty years now.  This includes addressing controversies privately (attorney-attorney, attorney-client, attorney-opposing party, etc.), mediations, written and oral arguments to a trial judge, written and oral arguments to appellate courts, and so on.  I also have some (though not a lot) experience in working with attorneys who have intersected with members of the state legislature. 

In these experiences I have had a lot of time to review, research, and apply various state and federal statutes.  I also have a pretty good grasp of how they are drafted and implemented.  I think you are unable or unwilling to examine these issues in this context (proposed legislation).  I think you let your emotions, your personal and political preferences, your hostility to the Latter-day Saints, cloud your ability to clinically evaluate points and evidences and positions with which you disagree.  So you resort to distortions, personal taunts and ad hominem, logical fallacies, and other distractions which impede substantive discussion. 

You often, very often, fail to meaningfully engage the substantive points from your opponents.  

Some years ago I attended a CLE ("Continuing Legal Education") at which several judges from the Utah Supreme Court and Utah Court of Appeals participated in a panel discussion, followed by a Q&A.  One of the questions asked was something like "What is the most common shortcoming you find in attorneys who appear before you, either in their written briefs or their oral arguments?"  Virtually every judge wanted to respond, all saying the same thing along these lines: "Answer our questions.  Don't be evasive.  Don't equivocate.  Don't side-step.  Don't make stuff up.  You don't do yourselves any favors by avoiding addressing weaknesses or gaps in your case."

This experience often comes to mind when I read your commentary on this board. 

You do not answer questions, and instead re-frame and distort the question, and then answer the distorted version.

You evade and equivocate and side-step.  All.  The.  Time.

You make stuff up as you go along. 

You're obviously a smart guy, but you are pretty terrible when it comes to discussing legal or legislative issues (and also issues pertaining to the Latter-day Saints, but I digress...).

29 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The bathroom laws you champion were invented in direct response to the trans movement and not in response to cis-gender creeps who hang out in women’s rooms for malicious purposes.

And yet I think most women don't want any biological men in women's spaces, so the proposed legislation (which, again, covers more than bathrooms - boy, you just can't help but distort and mischaracterize my position) addresses both issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 5, 2024 by smac97

[Peacefully]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you do not understand what I mean by "legislating from the margins."  Either that, or you are simply declining to address it.

But you do not appear to understand "legislating from the margins."

But you have "arguing from the margins" down really well:

"{B}asing a conclusion about a broader group or issue solely on the experiences or perspectives of a small, extreme, or marginalized subset of that group, essentially misrepresenting the overall situation by focusing only on the outliers or exceptions rather than the typical cases."

Check.  You are doing this be repeatedly and exclusively focusing on Patricio Morel.

"{E}ssentially misrepresenting the overall situation by focusing only on the outliers or exceptions rather than the typical cases."

Check.  You are doing this be repeatedly and exclusively focusing on Patricio Morel.

"Overemphasizing extreme cases: ... someone uses a few extreme examples from the fringes of a group to make a generalization about the entire group, ignoring the majority experience."

Check.  You are doing this be repeatedly and exclusively focusing on Patricio Morel.

"Misrepresentation of the norm: By focusing only on the most unusual or problematic cases, the argument can create a distorted view of what is considered "normal" within the group."

Check.  You are doing this be repeatedly and exclusively focusing on Patricio Morel, and then calling my position "absurd" and "unserious."

I encourage you to consider the "How to identify and avoid this fallacy" portion above.

I have not been speaking about Patricio Manuel.  I have, instead, been speaking about biological males as a category.  

I think it is entirely reasonable for women to want to categorically exclude biological males from women's spaces.  I think that is a serious and legitimate perspective for women to have.  

Thanks,

-Smac

@smac97 How is this different from you bringing up Stefoknee over and over in other threads. Stefoknee is an outlier so wouldn’t legislation based on Stefoknee and others like him be legislating from the margins? You can’t have it both ways. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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."

lol no. You say women should just call the police on trans men whenever they are in the women’s restroom. The restroom you would dictate by law that they have to use. They are then detained until police arrive and can ascertain their gender. What if they refuse to cooperate by exercising their fourth and fifth amendment rights? Would you force them to submit to DNA samples? If they refuse to provide ID? Do they go to jail? For someone that complains about an overreaching government you sure are cavalier when it comes to throwing away other people’s rights. You keep it up though! Good to see the Lords work being done with love and kindness. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour 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 think most people here think you should call the police, or notify store management. The difference between us, is you would force people that look like men including facial hair to use the woman’s bathroom. So people following the law in SMAC’s world would be subjected to harassment every time they use the toilet. But perhaps that’s the point.

Edited December 5, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

1 hour 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): ___________________________________

With the law has been in the past, in entering if there is a man present she should immediately leave the restroom and contact whatever security oversees the area as soon as she is at a safe distance or with someone she knows is safe or surrounded by a lot of people.  He may just need to use the toilet and it was an emergency, so calling security should be enough if he does not follow her out.

As long as the man is not in custodial gear etc, if he enters the bathroom with the woman already in it…I assume any custodian will leave if asked u til the woman is done, at which point she thanks him.

If not a custodian….ifhe stops moving towards her when he sees her, she should ask why he is there.  If he says he is looking for someone or needs to use the toilet, ask him to leave and stand away from the door so she can leave without worry.   If he says he is a trans man who is using the female restroom because it is safer for him, she can congratulate him on his successful transition and still ask him to leave and wait until she is done if she can sincerely not tell if he is really a biological male or not.  Apologize and explain “I am sorry to put you out, but I don’t feel safe in intimate places with men and you look like a man to me.”  Hopefully they will understand and maybe even think it is a compliment?  Would like feedback on this if such would be insulting or not from those familiar with the community.

If on the other hand, he refuses to stop and/or moves towards her, hit 911 if possible and scream bloody murder and try to keep out of his reach.  Hopefully he looks dumbfounded and leaves the restroom in a hurry.  If she sees him outside  and he then explains what he was doing there, she can always apologize and explain she practices ‘better safe than sorry’. If he doesn’t leave and moves to grab her, start kicking his soft places or beneath his knee, stamp on his instep, etc.

I haven’t yet made up my mind on what to do if the law gets changed to force biological women who intentionally look like men to use the women’s bathroom.  I would want to ask for suggestions from the trans community, especially the trans men themselves on how best to use the facilities so both groups can feel safe.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"{B}asing a conclusion about a broader group or issue solely on the experiences or perspectives of a small, extreme, or marginalized subset of that group, essentially misrepresenting the overall situation by focusing only on the outliers or exceptions rather than the typical cases."

Again, the margins are what we are talking about.

Approximately 99% of human beings are cis gender, and we agree on which restroom they should use. The issue is limited to the question of which restroom the other 1% should use. You think transgender people should be legally required to use the restroom that aligns with their biological sex, and I think they should be free to use the restroom that they are most comfortable using.

It isn’t arguing for the margins to point out that if you had your way, the prevalence of manly looking people in women’s restrooms would go up, not down.

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, we generally don't legislate from the margins.

What makes you think this is the margins for trans men who are intentionally trying to look like biological men?

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

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 think most people here think you should call the police, or notify store management.

I think that is likely.

A statute that specifically excludes biological men from women's spaces surely would help in those circumstances.

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The difference between us, is you would force people that look like men including facial hair to use the woman’s bathroom.

Like @Analytics, you cannot be trusted to accurate state or characterize my position.

I am proposing state legislatures enact statutes to exclude biological males from women's spaces.  As you likely know, I am not a state legislature.

And I have said nothing about legislative enactments which categorize people based on "look{ing} like men including facial hair."

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So people following the law in SMAC’s world would be subjected to harassment every time they use the toilet.

No.  Biological males would be breaking the law by going into women's spaces.

And if a police office has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that such a law has been broken, he can ask for the individual to produce state-issued ID to confirm the individual's biological sex.

If the ID says "female," then the police officer gives the ID back and says "Have a nice day.  Sorry to have troubled you."

Alternatively, if the ID says "male," then the police officer just caught the individual breaking the law, and can proceed accordingly.

None of this amounts to "harassment."

And all of this is within the control of the individual.  If you are a biological male, don't go into women's spaces.

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But perhaps that’s the point.

As I just noted a moment ago to @Analytics: "You seem largely incapable of addressing difficult topics such as this in a clinical way, so you reflexively go emotional, go personal, go ad hominem, etc.  This works here because this is just a message board, and because you are writing such things while hiding behind a pseudonym."

Same goes for you.  Your comment above typifies my point.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

f the ID says "female," then the police officer gives the ID back and says "Have a nice day.  Sorry to have troubled you."

Alternatively, if the ID says "male," then the police officer just caught the individual breaking the law, and can proceed accordingly.

None of this amounts to "harassment

Under your regime, this is almost guaranteed to happen everytime a trans man uses the restroom and that absolutely is harassment. It’s hard to take seriously a poster that claims having to stick around for an interview with police everytime you want to pee is no big deal. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And all of this is within the control of the individual.  If you are a biological male, don't go into women's spaces.

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except we’re talking about biological females. You do know that’s what a trans man is right? And that they absolutely look like males. They have facial hair. They have muscles and deep voices. And you want to force them into the women’s restroom every time they take a pee in public. And you think it’s reasonable that they should have to stick around to wait and talk to Police, every time they want to take a pee. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

nd all of this is within the control of the individual.  If you are a biological male, don't go into women's spaces.

So are you okay with a trans man who has successfully transitioned to the point he looks like a biological male to most people having to wait to use the restroom each time a woman calls the police to ID him?

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And if a police office has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that such a law has been broken, he can ask for the individual to produce state-issued ID to confirm the individual's biological sex.

Respectfully, under your regime, how could reasonable and articulable suspicion ever exist? You have to use the toilet assigned to your birth gender. So you see a “man” in the women’s restroom? Wouldn’t the default reasonable assumption be that they are a trans man following the law? The law MANDATES that they do so. So no reasonable suspicion could exist without some other outside information. 

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

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."

lol no.

Your commentary is typically unserious and facile and steeped in ad hominem.

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You say women should just call the police on trans men whenever they are in the women’s restroom.

Yet again, you cannot be trusted to accurately state or characterize my position.

My question: "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?"

This applies to any person she "reasonably believes to be a man."  

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The restroom you would dictate by law that they have to use.

Yes.  Biological males should be excluded from women's spaces, and vice versa.

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

They are then detained until police arrive and can ascertain their gender.

I have not said anything about this.  I think most women would not attempt to physically restrain someone they believe to be a biological male from leaving the bathroom.

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What if they refuse to cooperate by exercising their fourth and fifth amendment rights?

Then the police officer responds the same way he would in any other circumstance.

I invite you to educate yourself a bit on how law enforcement procedures work.  Keep an eye out for two particular phrases: "Articulable Suspicion" and "Probable Cause."

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Would you force them to submit to DNA samples?  If they refuse to provide ID? Do they go to jail?

You seem to be under the impression that the proposed legislation would plow new legal ground, that law enforcement would need to create new ways to interact with a suspect who is being detained.  Respectfully, that's not realistic.

Here's a generalized scenario:

• Step 1: Police receive a credible report that a person (X) has broken a law (the one excluding biological males from women's spaces, and vice versa).
• Step 2: Police arrive on the scene and find the person making the report (W) and X still there.
• Step 3: W articulates the basis for her belief that X is biologically male, and makes a statement that she encountered X in the women's bathroom.
• Step 4: The police officer, having spoken with W, then speaks with X (who may or may not cooperate).
• Step 5: The police officer makes a judgment call about whether he has a "reasonable articulable suspicion" ("RAS") that is, whether he has "specific, objective facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime is being committed, has been committed, or is about to be committed."
• Step 6: If the officer believes he has RAS, then he can legally demand that X produce identification.  
• Step 7(a): If X produces ID and it confirms that X is female, the detention is over and the parties go their separate ways.  
• Step 7(b)(1): If X produces ID and it confirms that X is male, then the officer follows whatever laws/procedures in in place in the jurisdiction (citation, arrest, whatever).
• Step 7(b)(2): If X refuses to produce ID, the officer follows whatever laws/procedures are in place in the jurisdiction.  This may involve arrest, since refusing to produce ID upon lawful order from a police officer is generally a bad idea.

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

The legislation would also address, I hope, excluding biological males from women's sports.

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For someone that complains about an overreaching government

State legislatures using the Police Power to protect women and girls in women's spaces is not, in my view, an example of governmental overreach.

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

you sure are cavalier when it comes to throwing away other people’s rights.

Respectfully, I'm not sure biological males have a "right" to go into women's spaces.  That's being litigated right now, so we'll see.

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You keep it up though! Good to see the Lords work being done with love and kindness. 

You seem largely incapable of addressing difficult topics such as this in a clinical way, so you reflexively go emotional, go personal, go ad hominem, etc.  

Your comment above typifies this proclivity.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

What makes you think this is the margins for trans men who are intentionally trying to look like biological men?

To add a note…I googled what percentage of trans men pass as men and got 62%.  I am not deep diving, so don’t know if it’s accurate, but if it is, a trans man looking like a biological male is definitely not the margins if it includes the majority.

Shutting down for now, may revisit. May not. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Why would that be avoided if no biological males ever enter a woman’s bathroom/changing room since women would still be calling police because they thought biological males were entering the bathroom even if those who looked like biological males were biological females?

The male looking biological females are still be stopped and carded whether a biological male comes within a mile of the place.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm