Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

No it can’t. How can you be this obtuse. You are FORCING people who present and pass as very masculine males to use the women’s restroom. Do you acknowledge this?

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

@smac97 How is this different from you bringing up Stefoknee over and over in other threads.

That's a fair question.

I bring Stofoknee up to illustrate a lack of limiting principles in trans ideology.

I also brought up the teenage boy I met at Encircle House, which I saw as pretty prosaic, non-provocative, not "extreme," etc., but still illustrative of the lack of any limiting principles in trans ideology.

I also brought up the group of trans women I met at Encircle House.   Again, prosaic, non-provocative, not "extreme."  Again, illustrative of the lack of any limiting principles in trans ideology.

53 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Stefoknee is an outlier

In what sense?

1. In the sense that he "identifies" as female?
2. In the sense that he "identifies" as a six-year-old female?
3. In the sense that he "identifies" as a perennially-six-year-old female?

I think you would answer "No," Yes" and "Yes" to the above three questions  Am I correct in that assumption? 

If so, why are his claimed identity of being a six-year-old female, and a perennial one, "outliers" but his "identity" of being "female" is not?

For me, I (respectfully) reject all three senses of his claimed "identity."  He is not a girl, nor a perennially-six-year-old girl, nor "female."  He is, instead, an adult biological male, and will always be so.  He deserves to be treated with decorum and respect, but I don't think that extends to endorsing or ratifying claims he makes which are incongruent with biological fact and reality.

53 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

so wouldn’t legislation based on Stefoknee and others like him be legislating from the margins? You can’t have it both ways. 

I have not proposed "legislation based on Stefoknee."  I am, instead, proposing legislation that would prohibit all biological males from women's spaces (with some accommodations for male infants/toddlers, and perhaps some particularized accommodations for some people with DSDs).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

No. “The person” in this hypothetical is a transgender male. Who is a biological female. But looks like a male. And wants to use the men’s room. But can’t because doing so would be illegal. So he uses the female restroom. Which predictably freaks out the women there. Which results in calls to the cops.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And yet I think most women don't want any biological men in women's spaces...

Perhaps. But that doesn’t mean they want all biological women in women’s spaces, either.

In the United States, hundreds of thousands of biological women look like this:

I’m not sure that “most” women want people like Patricio Manuel in women’s spaces despite the fact that biologically, they are really women.

Say you are waiting outside of women’s restroom for your wife, and Patricio starts walking into the lady’s room. Sensing your concern he says, “Hey brother. Despite the fact that I look like a manly man, I am legally required to use the women’s room. Here is my ID.” How would you handle that? Would you suggest he breaks the law and uses the men’s room, or would you suggest he obeys the law and uses the women’s restroom?

 

Edited December 6, 2024 by Analytics

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

ou 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.  

I see no reasonable way to take you seriously as a poster. For the last few pages, despite multiple people’s best efforts, you have yet to acknowledge that your proposed law requires trans men, who have beards, deep voices, facial hair (but happened to be born with a vagina) to use the women’s restroom. You refuse to address the fact that you expect the police to be called on them everytime they use the restroom in public. So yeah, I don’t think you are serious. I think your position is facile and not worthy of a serious response. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

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

No it can’t. How can you be this obtuse.

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. 

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are FORCING people who present and pass as very masculine males to use the women’s restroom. Do you acknowledge this?

First (and I have said this before), I am proposing state legislatures enact statutes to exclude biological males from women's spaces (and vice versa).  As you likely know, I am not a state legislature.

Second, statutes have the force of law because they are, well, the law.  It is weird to that you are affronted by this.

Third, the proposed legislation would prohibit all biological males from women's spaces, and vice versa (with some accommodations for male infants/toddlers, and perhaps some particularized accommodations for some people with DSDs).

Fourth, you do not seem to understand the concept of "not legislating from the margins."  I'd take the time to explain it to you, but your commentary is so incessantly nasty and hostile I don't think you would accept the effort.

Fifth, once more: 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. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

One more thought (I really wish my brain would shut down when I tell it too)…

The average response time in Provo for police is 9:57.

How would you feel, Smac, if every time you wanted to use a public restroom you had to plan to wait at least ten minutes for the police to arrive and then however long on average it takes for them to card you before you can even consider using the facilities?

I can imagine trips would have to be quite a bit longer, shopping errands unless one only took short ones to only use bathrooms at home.  Going to the movies if you had to take a bathroom break at intermission, you could count on missing a good chunk of when the movie restarted.

The one time I was stopped by police in Provo as far as I know I had done nothing wrong as I looked up the traffic rule he claimed and couldn’t find it.  All he did was check my ID and I was stopped at least 10 minutes…so that would be in addition to waiting for the cops to arrive.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

with some accommodations for male infants/toddlers, and perhaps some particularized accommodations for some people with DSDs

Lol. Can’t legislate from the margins indeed. 

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, you do not seem to understand the concept of "not legislating from the margins." 

 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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?

A biological male would avoid violating the law by never going into the women's bathroom.

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

I think the instances of this happening would be quite rare.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

ourth, you do not seem to understand the concept of "not legislating from the margins."  I'd take the time to explain it to you, but your commentary is so incessantly nasty and hostile I don't think you would accept the effort.

If the majority of trans men look like biological men, how is it legislating from the margins?

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the instances of this happening would be quite rare.

Why wouldn’t it likely happen every time such a transman tried to use a public bathroom?  Do you really believe most women and maybe men too  wouldn’t call the police if they saw a man enter a women’s bathroom?

I am not talking about average of people using the public restroom .  I am talking about how often it is likely to happen to one transman, let’s call him Brook.  Brook likes to run every morning in the park for an hour.  He likes to change up his run so he chooses a different park every day and rotates through them during the week.  Sometime during that hour Brook needs to use one of the public restrooms on a daily basis.  Lots of women run in the parks too, including older women who have had multiple babies and therefore may need to also use the restroom daily.  Each day Brook goes to use the restroom.  Each day a different woman calls the police on him and he has to wait 10-20 minutes in order to get comfortable.

Out of the hundreds of people who use that restroom daily (it is a popular park) it only happens to Brook.  So in that sense it is rare. But what about Brook’s POV?

Would you still call it rare if it happened to Brook almost every day?

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

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,

Really?

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

under your regime, how could reasonable and articulable suspicion ever exist?

The same way it exists now.

An example:

Do you think an adult woman of sound mind and average intelligence might reasonably look at the person in the gray shirt and think "Hey, that looks like a biological male in the women's bathroom"?

Do you think her statement, perhaps coupled with a photo or video of the gray-shirted person coming out of the bathroom, could constitute grounds for a responding police officer to conclude that he (the officer) has a "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that the gray-shirted person was a biological male found in the women's bathroom?

These are sincere questions.  I hope you can set aside the seething hostility against me as a person for a few minutes and answer them without rancor, snark or side-stepping.

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You have to use the toilet assigned to your birth gender.

A biological male will be excluded from women's spaces, and vice versa.

I'd like to avoid equivocation if possible.

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So you see a “man” in the women’s restroom?

My hypothetical was this: "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?"

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Wouldn’t the default reasonable assumption be that they are a trans man following the law?

I don't know what you mean by "default reasonable assumption."

Again, look at the video above, and please answer the questions I posed below it, and while doing so please set aside the acrimony and ad hominem if you can.

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The law MANDATES that they do so.

But since people do not always obey the law, the mandates of the law won't supersede testimony (and stuff like photo/video evidence) from a percipient witnesses indicating that the guy in the gray shirt had gone into the women's bathroom.

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So no reasonable suspicion could exist without some other outside information. 

Well, yeah.  "Reasonable articulable suspicion" always relies on more than a hunch or a feeling.  I have not suggested otherwise.  To the contrary, I laid out the "information" that could form the basis for "reasonable articulable suspicion."  It's right there in Step 3:

• 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.

Let's even revise it:

• 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.  And W also shows the police officer a video she took on her phone of the X exiting the women's bathroom.

Again, look at the above video.  Some stills:

If a police officer would have responded to the above incident, do you think he would be able to use that video as a basis for having a "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the person in the gray shirt was a biological male who had entered into a women's bathroom?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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?

I don't understand your question.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A biological male would avoid violating the law by never going into the women's bathroom.

Transgender men would invite calls to the police by complying with the law.

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the instances of this happening would be quite rare.

Why do you think that? In the United States, there are something like 500,000 biological women who look like men.  You want these 500,000 men-looking people to use the women’s restroom, not the men’s. If 10% of them use a public restroom on any given day, and 5% of the time they use the public restroom the police are called, then every day in America, there will be 2,500 police investigations of women who are investigated by the police for using the women’s restroom.

So why would it be “quite rare” for the police to be called when these women who look like men use the women’s restroom? Are you expecting these people to use the men’s restroom in violation of the law? Or are you expecting women to get used to seeing male-looking people in the women’s restroom?

 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand your question.

Thanks,

-Smac

Brook, the trans man/biological woman of my story above, gets police called almost every time he tries to use a public bathroom.  Thankfully he doesn’t live in American Fork where his average daily wait for police to arrive would be 20 minutes and instead lives in Provo where it is a little less that half that.

Are you okay with Brook having to wait almost every day for the cops to show up before he can use the bathroom during his run?

And please don’t say “margins” since at this point the only data that has been provided sets trans men at passing as a biological man at over 50% (details on what involved not included, but even if only those engaging in surgery and hormone treatment, it is still not a marginal part of the transmen population).

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except we’re talking about biological females.

Most of the popular discussion is about trans women, but the proposed legislation would be bilateral.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You do know that’s what a trans man is right?

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.  

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And that they absolutely look like males. They have facial hair. They have muscles and deep voices.

And yet, they are biologically female, not male.

If you can formulate a mechanism whereby the law could coherently differentiate biological-males-who-"identify"-as-women and biological males who do not, I would really like to see that.  It seems like all you'll come up with is the "The say-so of the individual.  If the person claims to be a woman, then that's it."  Is that a fair statement of your position?  Or do you have some other criteria in mind?  Some sort of quantum of medical/surgical intervention?  Clothing?  Lipstick?  A wig?  A checklist of 30 attributes for "women," 15 of which are required for the individual?

I am genuinely curious about this.  It seems like you and yours take a position that effectively allows any biological male to go into women's spaces.  Am I wrong about that?  If so, please help me understand your position.  Would you impose any restrictions on access to women's spaces?   If so, what would they be?

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And you want to force them into the women’s restroom every time they take a pee in public.

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

I think this is a pretty reasonable position.  I also think accommodating it is well within the Police Power of the state to enact laws to this effect.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand your question.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ding ding ding ding ding. Exactly. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

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.

You also seem largely incapable of accurately stating or characterizing my position.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

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?

That's not what "legislate from the margins" means.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You also seem largely incapable of accurately stating or characterizing my position.

Respectfully, this is the problem:

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand your question.

It doesn’t appear you are following this conversation. No one is confused but you. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's not what "legislate from the margins" means.

Thanks,

-Smac

Then explain please.  I assume from the way you have been using it that it means the extremes are not good test cases for general rules.  If I am wrong, I would love to know where and how you see that changes what I should understand your position is.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you think an adult woman of sound mind and average intelligence might reasonably look at the person in the gray shirt and think "Hey, that looks like a biological male in the women's bathroom"?

He is obviously a man, but without checking his birth certificate, DNA, or genitals, it is impossible to say for sure whether he is a transgender man or a cisgender man. 

According to my sensibilities, he is in the wrong bathroom; we know that with 100% certainty; all men, whether transgender males or cisgender males, should stay out of the ladies room.

But according to your sensibilities, he might be in the right bathroom--he might actually be biologically female.

Do you see the problem that your emphasis on biological sex creates?

(Out of curiosity, do you think it is okay for men to walk into women's bathrooms with their video recorders recording as long as it is done under the pretense of making sure there aren't other men in the restroom? This video you made seems awfully self-incriminating. For all we know, the guy in the gray shirt made an honest mistake about which restroom he went into, in comparison to the one who is making a video, who walked in, with his video player recording, on purpose. Are we sure who the real creep is here?).

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you think her statement, perhaps coupled with a photo or video of the gray-shirted person coming out of the bathroom, could constitute grounds for a responding police officer to conclude that he (the officer) has a "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that the gray-shirted person was a biological male found in the women's bathroom?

Perhaps, but for a few hundred thousand people in the United States who are biological females but transgender males, they will be regularly reported on if they use the bathroom they are legally required to use.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are in this situation. Do you really think it is wise, much less constitutional, to require hundreds of thousands of people in a marginalized group to use a restroom that will trigger people of "sound mind and average intelligence" to call the cops on them for obeying the law?

The obvious answer to this problem is to make bathroom laws over what gender you express rather than biological gender. 

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My hypothetical was this: "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?"

Your proposed law makes this tough, because if the man is actually biologically female, he has the right to be there. Perhaps the decent thing to do would be to say, "excuse me, this is the lady's room. Did you accidentally wander into the wrong room, or are you legally required to use the facilities here based on what your birth certificate says?"

The obvious answer to this problem is to make bathroom laws over what gender you express rather than biological gender. 

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

A lot of men that transition now have their adam's apple shaved.  Seriously, physically you could not tell a lot of them were not women without stripping them naked or doing a cheek test that takes weeks to get the results back.  Are women planning on swiping the cheeks?  Are they going to physically hold the person there until the police arrive?  

@smac97 position has become a joke.  I have dealt with guys like him my whole life.  Anything that is different than them, they want it to be made illegal.  If they can't do that, they want it surpassed.  If they can't do that, they want it restricted.  I have seen this my whole life.  You can give all the facts and evidence you want, they don't change their minds.  They believe what they want to believe.  They believe what they think the have to believe.  

Does anyone at this point think that @smac97 is going to change his mind?

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

He is obviously a man, but without checking his birth certificate, DNA, or genitals, it is impossible to say for sure whether he is a transgender man or a cisgender man. 

State-issued ID would resolve the question immediately.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I see no reasonable way to take you seriously as a poster. For the last few pages, despite multiple people’s best efforts, you have yet to acknowledge that your proposed law requires trans men, who have beards, deep voices, facial hair (but happened to be born with a vagina) to use the women’s restroom. You refuse to address the fact that you expect the police to be called on them everytime they use the restroom in public. So yeah, I don’t think you are serious. I think your position is facile and not worthy of a serious response. 

Understood.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

She probably would not know.  

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

Thanks,

-Smac

You are marginalizing every transgender person there is.  You are trying to marginalize every single one of them.