Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[smac97]

Running out of time.  A few parting thoughts before I step away for the night:

1. The notion that biological males should not be in women's spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons) is widely held.  Perhaps even by the majority of people in the United States.  It is not extreme or fringe, nor is it unreasonable.  

2. So far I have not seen anyone articulate a mechanism for allowing "trans women" (that is, biological-males-who-"identify"-as-women) into women's spaces, but excluding other biological males.  If someone could articulate that, I would appreciate it.

3. In the absence of a mechanism per #2, all men will have access to women's spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons), which I think ought not to be.  I think most women and girls would agree on that point.

4. It sure would be nice if we could have discussions about difficult topics without incessant accusations and barbed invective that to oppose biological men in women's spaces is to be bigoted, etc.  But I guess I won't hold my breath on that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

State-issued ID would resolve the question immediately.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps, but did you read my story about how my state-issued drivers license identified me as a female? I had it for a year before I noticed it said I was female. When I got it renewed they initially kept it as an “F” until I pointed out the error. The clerk then went back and corrected it without requesting any proof or anything. In my state at least, to get a drivers license you need quite a bit of proof about your address and your insurance, but the sex they indicate on your ID is whatever the clerk decides to type in.

In any case, I suppose the solution could be that whenever a transgender male walks into the lady’s room and somebody acts nervous, he can offer, “It’s all right. Despite the fact that I am a man, biologically I’m a female and I therefore am legally forbidden from using the men’s room and legally authorized to be here. Would you like to see my ID?” I guess that could be done in order to minimize the frequency of unnecessary 911 calls, but I’d like to see arguments between excellent attorneys about whether putting this burden on a significant minority of the population would be constitutional. 

A much better solution would be to have all males, both transgender males and cisgender males, to use the men’s room and all women, both transgender women and cisgender women, to use the women’s room.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would like an answer to my question.

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

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): ___________________________________.

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

Do you honestly think that a police officer is going to show up though before the person is gone?  It only takes a few minutes to pee.  Call the police on all the fully-transitioned transgender people using the biologically correct bathroom just isn't a valid solution.  The police have much better things to be doing, for one, and they are never going to show up in time to check people's gender, for two, and they are going to make a lot of people feel really terrible, for three.

You've spoken about how much you don't like being viewed by women as dangerous just because you are male but you don't think a trans person should find it all problematic if someone views them as dangerous and gets the police involved just because they need to use a public restroom?  That seems like a huge double standard. 

And honestly, as a woman, this idea of legally being forced to use the restroom with someone who looks completely male in every way is not, from my perspective, at all in my best interest.  I resent the idea that a man would attempt to legally force this on me in the name of 'protection of women's spaces'.  

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.  

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

You keep saying that the purpose of the law would be to exclude biological males from women's spaces as if that in and of itself is the end-all-be-all of solutions to this issue.  But you haven't yet explained why that solution is the best.

Why is it best for a transman like that boxer pictured above, to legally be forced to use the women's restroom.  Why is it best for the women?? 

What does it provide for the women in our smac-approved spaces that isn't there if that transman is allowed to use the men's bathroom.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

2. So far I have not seen anyone articulate a mechanism for allowing "trans women" (that is, biological-males-who-"identify"-as-women) into women's spaces, but excluding other biological males.  If someone could articulate that, I would appreciate it.

I'll address this issue.

But first of all, I reject the premise of the question; I reject the idea that there are and should be public “women spaces” that are legally only for a well-defined subset of human beings who are “real” women (however you define that). Public women’s rooms are not “women spaces” where women can go to be completely comfortable and relaxed because everyone who might make them feel uncomfortable is strictly forbidden from entering that space. Rather, they are places women go to pee, poop, wash your hands, perhaps adjust makeup and then leave. Even if restrooms were places you go to feel totally relaxed, strictly forbidding men from entering isn’t going to accomplish the objective--from what I’ve heard and seen in movies, there are plenty of women who are bullies in their own right, and a rule to keep out guys won’t keep out female bullies. In all cases, you only use public restrooms in situations where going home to do these things is too inconvenient. A law that punishes somebody for pissing in the wrong toilet just seems facile. 

People almost always use the restroom that is deemed socially acceptable not because of the law, but because it’s the socially correct thing to do. And the fact of the matter is that in almost all restrooms, there aren’t cops guarding the doors. If a guy wants to hide in the women’s room and rape the next woman who comes in, a rule against “no men in the lady’s room” isn’t going to prevent them. So shouldn’t we just rely on sociological norms to define and enforce who uses which restroom?

I get it that the idea of a cisgender man walking into a woman’s restroom could be uncomfortable. But if all they do is walk in, use the toilet, wash their hands, and promptly leave, and if they don’t make a mess, then objectively, it shouldn’t be that big of a deal. The problem is if the individual is loitering or acting in a way that is unlawful, voyeuristic, invasive, predatory, harassing, exploitative, illicit, or otherwise creepy.  But those things are what’s wrong--not whether or not they are entering a sacred toilet room with the correct genitals. 

My position is that if somebody does anything that makes it generally plausible that they sincerely identify as a woman or as non-binary, they should be given the benefit of the doubt and if they want to, be allowed to walk in, use the toilet, wash their hands, quickly touch up their makeup, and then leave. But the moment they start loitering or acting in a way that is voyeuristic, invasive, predatory, etc., that is when they are breaking the law and should be arrested. What is wrong is doing those predatory things, not being somebody of the wrong gender who is peeing in the wrong toilet.

I mentioned in another post that on two different occasions, I’ve seen women brazenly use crowded men’s rooms because the line was shorter. In the end, it really wasn’t that big of a deal. I sensed that the guys in the restroom felt uncomfortable when these women marched in, but here’s the fact of the matter: being in a public restroom isn’t a comfortable thing in the best of scenarios. The guys treated these women who invaded their space as if they were guys--they kept on pissing, kept on washing and drying their hands, and walked out without making eye contact.

Even if you think that women’s restrooms are bona fide women-only spaces and that it is immoral for a man to enter such spaces, is men using the women’s restroom really that big of a problem in terms of how frequently it happens? You have posted and reposted a video of a guy walking into a women’s restroom at a park, videotaping another guy who appears to be walking out of the same women’s restroom right after he washed his hands.  If either of these guys were in the restroom to hurt somebody or otherwise get some illicit kicks, then that is incredibly wrong. But hanging out in a women’s room in a park to hurt a child should be exactly as illegal as hanging out in a men's room in a park to hurt a child. A law about “no men in the lady’s room” doesn’t actually fix anything. 

Edited December 6, 2024 by Analytics

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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.

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

I don’t see Stefoknee as being trans. I see him as mentally ill if he really thinks he is a six year old girl. I don’t see a parallel between the two. It is like comparing gay people to pedophiles in my mind. So, yes, I see him as an outlier who should not be part of the mix when deciding on legislation for trans people. 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Running out of time.  A few parting thoughts before I step away for the night:

1. The notion that biological males should not be in women's spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons) is widely held.  Perhaps even by the majority of people in the United States.  It is not extreme or fringe, nor is it unreasonable.  

2. So far I have not seen anyone articulate a mechanism for allowing "trans women" (that is, biological-males-who-"identify"-as-women) into women's spaces, but excluding other biological males.  If someone could articulate that, I would appreciate it.

3. In the absence of a mechanism per #2, all men will have access to women's spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons), which I think ought not to be.  I think most women and girls would agree on that point.

4. It sure would be nice if we could have discussions about difficult topics without incessant accusations and barbed invective that to oppose biological men in women's spaces is to be bigoted, etc.  But I guess I won't hold my breath on that.

Thanks,

-Smac

1. The notion that biological women that look exactly like biological males should not be allowed in women's spaces is also widely held. Perhaps even by the majority of people in the United States.  Not wanting someone who looks exactly as any biological male looks in a woman's bathroom is not extreme, or fringe, nor is it unreasonable.

Which is why I don’t think your solution is viable.  It doesn’t solve the issue, it just moves it around.

2. There is not one.  Many difficult problems don't have solutions.

3.  In spite of there being an absence of mechanism per #2, all men don't currently have access to all women's bathrooms right now, so there is no reason to assume point 3 is valid.

 

Edited December 6, 2024 by bluebell

[Calm]

 

10 hours ago, california boy said:

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?  

This is one of the things I see as contributing to the complications of this issue, leading it to being in my view like bluebell expressed a difficult problem that has no solutions. I don’t see a possibility of a compromise that will leave all biological women feeling safe in female spaces and trans women able to trust that biological men will not attack them because they look like females.

If biological women have to right to be protected from potential predators who choose them as victims because of what they look like—women, then why don’t trans women also have the right to the same protection?  Is a predator who sees what appears to be a biological woman in front of him coming into the restroom by herself going to stop and think “this is really a man, so hands off” or is he possibly going to think “prey” and attack?  Do not biological men have the same rights to be protected from assault that biological women do?  Should we not attempt to max out the protections for men against rape as much as we do for women?  If we wouldn’t ask a woman to use a men’s restroom because it puts her at risk for being attacked because she looks female, how can we demand that trans women put themselves at a similar risk?

There is no way I will ever feel safe with someone who looks male to me in a bathroom or locker room.  Too many decades of self defense programming, let alone all those lessons on modesty and not exposing too much of myself to any male, but my husband in the privacy of my home and an occasional doctor in the privacy of his office (and thankfully now in the presence of another woman).  I imagine there are many women in my situation, including women who have actually been attacked by men when they were alone with them.

But if one insists that the laws are for the purpose of  protecting biological women, then objectively speaking protecting transmen falls under that category.  And humiliating them by requiring them to frequently, perhaps always even, get permission from police or security to use public female only restrooms and locker rooms is not helping them feel or be safe.

I can easily see emergency situations where they are in dire need and therefore risk getting attacked even by those thinking they are defending women from a biological man because they have no option but to insist on using the facilities without waiting to get carded by police.  And I wouldn’t trust my ability to tell a decent fake ID from a real one, I imagine most people likely can’t. It is not an expertise we have needed to develop in the past.  Plus I can’t see myself or other women taking the risk of asking what appears to be someone who is stronger and likely bigger in muscle mass at least than we are for their ID when we are alone.  All that does is create a better chance to be grabbed as far as I can see.  After all, I wouldn’t give my ID to a total stranger to hold or put it down on  counter and step away.  Too much of a risk of getting ripped off.  So it is logical the only way to view an ID is to get up close and personal, which means it has to be left to cops…which is a poor option if the need is immediate.

I just don’t think people who see requiring transmen to show ID in order to avoid being thought a predator intent on finding victims have thought out what is likely to happen.

How long are they suppose to wait if police are tied up with other issues?  Will the person who called the police be required to wait as well?  If the alleged transman is actually a predator, requiring the woman to wait for the police is putting her at greater risk.  A predator who plans this stuff out and doesn’t just act on impulse could be aware of the average time it takes for police to get there and even go to the extent of having a police scanner so he would know if the police were maxed out at that time.  The woman secure in the idea the person was patiently waiting for police to appear and therefore was likely harmless could be caught off guard.   It doesn’t make sense for the woman to stay anywhere near a man who is willing to break social rules to invade what is usually off limits to him for good reason.

So then you have the situation where the police are called and responding only to show up and find there is no need for them…since as soon as the woman has left, the transman can use the facilities and take off as well.

So will the law need to be written to require the two to stay like at the scene of an accident so police know nothing untoward has happened, no woman’s been abducted?  One can assume that is easily solved by the woman calling the police after she is done with her business and and exits the room…like police lines aren’t busy enough in many places.  

Plus what woman is going to assume she is safe enough to use the facilities while a potential predator who already demonstrated the willingness to come into the restroom or locker is hanging around the entrance?  Which means not only does the transman have to wait for the cops to relieve themselves, but so will the woman who has called the cops most likely.

I hate using public restrooms, so if I am using them it’s for an immediate need that won’t wait till I get home.  I can well imagine given the hassle of having to wait 10, 20 minutes or longer to even enter the restroom, transmen will also only be using such places if the need is dire.  They won’t be having the option in those cases of not making a fuss and pushing their way in…at which point I would expect people to start recording them as a way to shame the apparent biological man for invading a woman’s space…as smac provided an example of.

It also seems absurd to me that someone is going to be required by law to carry their ID at all times to ensure they won’t end up in a very embarrassing situation.  When I go for walks or bike rides, I leave my ID at home.  It’s a hassle to carry such around with me, especially since I worry I will lose it since it’s small and could slip out of a pocket, etc.  Not everyone makes the same choice, but it seems to me they should have the same right I do to be able to not have that concern.

Public restrooms are for the public. Requiring one part of the population to show ID in order to use them solely because of their physical appearance while others breeze in and out without being challenged seems to veer close to certain segregated practices.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

This is one of the things I see as contributing to the complications of this issue, leading it to being in my view like bluebell expressed a difficult problem that has no solutions. I don’t see a possibility of a compromise that will leave all biological women feeling safe in female spaces and trans women able to trust that biological men will not attack them because they look like females.

If biological women have to right to be protected from potential predators who choose them as victims because of what they look like—women, then why don’t trans women also have the right to the same protection?  Is a predator who sees what appears to be a biological woman in front of him coming into the restroom by herself going to stop and think “this is really a man, so hands off” or is he possibly going to think “prey” and attack?  Do not biological men have the same rights to be protected from assault that biological women do?  Should we not attempt to max out the protections for men against rape as much as we do for women?  If we wouldn’t ask a woman to use a men’s restroom because it puts her at risk for being attacked because she looks female, how can we demand that trans women put themselves at a similar risk?

There is no way I will ever feel safe with someone who looks male to me in a bathroom or locker room.  Too many decades of self defense programming, let alone all those lessons on modesty and not exposing too much of myself to any male, but my husband in the privacy of my home and an occasional doctor in the privacy of his office (and thankfully now in the presence of another woman).  I imagine there are many women in my situation, including women who have actually been attacked by men when they were alone with them.

But if one insists that the laws are for the purpose of  protecting biological women, then objectively speaking protecting transmen falls under that category.  And humiliating them by requiring them to frequently, perhaps always even, get permission from police or security to use public female only restrooms and locker rooms is not helping them feel or be safe.

I can easily see emergency situations where they are in dire need and therefore risk getting attacked even by those thinking they are defending women from a biological man because they have no option but to insist on using the facilities without waiting to get carded by police.  And I wouldn’t trust my ability to tell a decent fake ID from a real one, I imagine most people likely can’t. It is not an expertise we have needed to develop in the past.  Plus I can’t see myself or other women taking the risk of asking what appears to be someone who is stronger and likely bigger in muscle mass at least than we are for their ID when we are alone.  All that does is create a better chance to be grabbed as far as I can see.  After all, I wouldn’t give my ID to a total stranger to hold or put it down on  counter and step away.  Too much of a risk of getting ripped off.  So it is logical the only way to view an ID is to get up close and personal, which means it has to be left to cops…which is a poor option if the need is immediate.

I just don’t think people who see requiring transmen to show ID in order to avoid being thought a predator intent on finding victims have thought out what is likely to happen.

How long are they suppose to wait if police are tied up with other issues?  Will the person who called the police be required to wait as well?  If the alleged transman is actually a predator, requiring the woman to wait for the police is putting her at greater risk.  A predator who plans this stuff out and doesn’t just act on impulse could be aware of the average time it takes for police to get there and even go to the extent of having a police scanner so he would know if the police were maxed out at that time.  The woman secure in the idea the person was patiently waiting for police to appear and therefore was likely harmless could be caught off guard.   It doesn’t make sense for the woman to stay anywhere near a man who is willing to break social rules to invade what is usually off limits to him for good reason.

So then you have the situation where the police are called and responding only to show up and find there is no need for them…since as soon as the woman has left, the transman can use the facilities and take off as well.

So will the law need to be written to require the two to stay like at the scene of an accident so police know nothing untoward has happened, no woman’s been abducted?  One can assume that is easily solved by the woman calling the police after she is done with her business and and exits the room…like police lines aren’t busy enough in many places.  

Plus what woman is going to assume she is safe enough to use the facilities while a potential predator who already demonstrated the willingness to come into the restroom or locker is hanging around the entrance?  Which means not only does the transman have to wait for the cops to relieve themselves, but so will the woman who has called the cops most likely.

I hate using public restrooms, so if I am using them it’s for an immediate need that won’t wait till I get home.  I can well imagine given the hassle of having to wait 10, 20 minutes or longer to even enter the restroom, transmen will also only be using such places if the need is dire.  They won’t be having the option in those cases of not making a fuss and pushing their way in…at which point I would expect people to start recording them as a way to shame the apparent biological man for invading a woman’s space…as smac provided an example of.

It also seems absurd to me that someone is going to be required by law to carry their ID at all times to ensure they won’t end up in a very embarrassing situation.  When I go for walks or bike rides, I leave my ID at home.  It’s a hassle to carry such around with me, especially since I worry I will lose it since it’s small and could slip out of a pocket, etc.  Not everyone makes the same choice, but it seems to me they should have the same right I do to be able to not have that concern.

Public restrooms are for the public. Requiring one part of the population to show ID in order to use them solely because of their physical appearance while others breeze in and out without being challenged seems to veer close to certain segregated practices.

I admit that I really resented Smac’s implication that only childish women would be afraid of a trans man in the women’s bathroom, especially since the whole premise of his argument was to protect women.  

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'll address this issue.

But first of all, I reject the premise of the question; I reject the idea that there are and should be public “women spaces” that are legally only for a well-defined subset of human beings who are “real” women (however you define that). Public women’s rooms are not “women spaces” where women can go to be completely comfortable and relaxed because everyone who might make them feel uncomfortable is strictly forbidden from entering that space. Rather, they are places women go to pee, poop, wash your hands, perhaps adjust makeup and then leave. Even if restrooms were places you go to feel totally relaxed, strictly forbidding men from entering isn’t going to accomplish the objective--from what I’ve heard and seen in movies, there are plenty of women who are bullies in their own right, and a rule to keep out guys won’t keep out female bullies. In all cases, you only use public restrooms in situations where going home to do these things is too inconvenient. A law that punishes somebody for pissing in the wrong toilet just seems facile. 

People almost always use the restroom that is deemed socially acceptable not because of the law, but because it’s the socially correct thing to do. And the fact of the matter is that in almost all restrooms, there aren’t cops guarding the doors. If a guy wants to hide in the women’s room and rape the next woman who comes in, a rule against “no men in the lady’s room” isn’t going to prevent them. So shouldn’t we just rely on sociological norms to define and enforce who uses which restroom?

I get it that the idea of a cisgender man walking into a woman’s restroom could be uncomfortable. But if all they do is walk in, use the toilet, wash their hands, and promptly leave, and if they don’t make a mess, then objectively, it shouldn’t be that big of a deal. The problem is if the individual is loitering or acting in a way that is unlawful, voyeuristic, invasive, predatory, harassing, exploitative, illicit, or otherwise creepy.  But those things are what’s wrong--not whether or not they are entering a sacred toilet room with the correct genitals. 

My position is that if somebody does anything that makes it generally plausible that they sincerely identify as a woman or as non-binary, they should be given the benefit of the doubt and if they want to, be allowed to walk in, use the toilet, wash their hands, quickly touch up their makeup, and then leave. But the moment they start loitering or acting in a way that is voyeuristic, invasive, predatory, etc., that is when they are breaking the law and should be arrested. What is wrong is doing those predatory things, not being somebody of the wrong gender who is peeing in the wrong toilet.

I mentioned in another post that on two different occasions, I’ve seen women brazenly use crowded men’s rooms because the line was shorter. In the end, it really wasn’t that big of a deal. I sensed that the guys in the restroom felt uncomfortable when these women marched in, but here’s the fact of the matter: being in a public restroom isn’t a comfortable thing in the best of scenarios. The guys treated these women who invaded their space as if they were guys--they kept on pissing, kept on washing and drying their hands, and walked out without making eye contact.

Even if you think that women’s restrooms are bona fide women-only spaces and that it is immoral for a man to enter such spaces, is men using the women’s restroom really that big of a problem in terms of how frequently it happens? You have posted and reposted a video of a guy walking into a women’s restroom at a park, videotaping another guy who appears to be walking out of the same women’s restroom right after he washed his hands.  If either of these guys were in the restroom to hurt somebody or otherwise get some illicit kicks, then that is incredibly wrong. But hanging out in a women’s room in a park to hurt a child should be exactly as illegal as hanging out in a men's room in a park to hurt a child. A law about “no men in the lady’s room” doesn’t actually fix anything. 

You and bluebell have wrapped up the case for me anyway! Thanks to the both of you!

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

 

This is one of the things I see as contributing to the complications of this issue, leading it to being in my view like bluebell expressed a difficult problem that has no solutions. I don’t see a possibility of a compromise that will leave all biological women feeling safe in female spaces and trans women able to trust that biological men will not attack them because they look like females.

If biological women have to right to be protected from potential predators who choose them as victims because of what they look like—women, then why don’t trans women also have the right to the same protection?  Is a predator who sees what appears to be a biological woman in front of him coming into the restroom by herself going to stop and think “this is really a man, so hands off” or is he possibly going to think “prey” and attack?  Do not biological men have the same rights to be protected from assault that biological women do?  Should we not attempt to max out the protections for men against rape as much as we do for women?  If we wouldn’t ask a woman to use a men’s restroom because it puts her at risk for being attacked because she looks female, how can we demand that trans women put themselves at a similar risk?

There is no way I will ever feel safe with someone who looks male to me in a bathroom or locker room.  Too many decades of self defense programming, let alone all those lessons on modesty and not exposing too much of myself to any male, but my husband in the privacy of my home and an occasional doctor in the privacy of his office (and thankfully now in the presence of another woman).  I imagine there are many women in my situation, including women who have actually been attacked by men when they were alone with them.

But if one insists that the laws are for the purpose of  protecting biological women, then objectively speaking protecting transmen falls under that category.  And humiliating them by requiring them to frequently, perhaps always even, get permission from police or security to use public female only restrooms and locker rooms is not helping them feel or be safe.

I can easily see emergency situations where they are in dire need and therefore risk getting attacked even by those thinking they are defending women from a biological man because they have no option but to insist on using the facilities without waiting to get carded by police.  And I wouldn’t trust my ability to tell a decent fake ID from a real one, I imagine most people likely can’t. It is not an expertise we have needed to develop in the past.  Plus I can’t see myself or other women taking the risk of asking what appears to be someone who is stronger and likely bigger in muscle mass at least than we are for their ID when we are alone.  All that does is create a better chance to be grabbed as far as I can see.  After all, I wouldn’t give my ID to a total stranger to hold or put it down on  counter and step away.  Too much of a risk of getting ripped off.  So it is logical the only way to view an ID is to get up close and personal, which means it has to be left to cops…which is a poor option if the need is immediate.

I just don’t think people who see requiring transmen to show ID in order to avoid being thought a predator intent on finding victims have thought out what is likely to happen.

How long are they suppose to wait if police are tied up with other issues?  Will the person who called the police be required to wait as well?  If the alleged transman is actually a predator, requiring the woman to wait for the police is putting her at greater risk.  A predator who plans this stuff out and doesn’t just act on impulse could be aware of the average time it takes for police to get there and even go to the extent of having a police scanner so he would know if the police were maxed out at that time.  The woman secure in the idea the person was patiently waiting for police to appear and therefore was likely harmless could be caught off guard.   It doesn’t make sense for the woman to stay anywhere near a man who is willing to break social rules to invade what is usually off limits to him for good reason.

So then you have the situation where the police are called and responding only to show up and find there is no need for them…since as soon as the woman has left, the transman can use the facilities and take off as well.

So will the law need to be written to require the two to stay like at the scene of an accident so police know nothing untoward has happened, no woman’s been abducted?  One can assume that is easily solved by the woman calling the police after she is done with her business and and exits the room…like police lines aren’t busy enough in many places.  

Plus what woman is going to assume she is safe enough to use the facilities while a potential predator who already demonstrated the willingness to come into the restroom or locker is hanging around the entrance?  Which means not only does the transman have to wait for the cops to relieve themselves, but so will the woman who has called the cops most likely.

I hate using public restrooms, so if I am using them it’s for an immediate need that won’t wait till I get home.  I can well imagine given the hassle of having to wait 10, 20 minutes or longer to even enter the restroom, transmen will also only be using such places if the need is dire.  They won’t be having the option in those cases of not making a fuss and pushing their way in…at which point I would expect people to start recording them as a way to shame the apparent biological man for invading a woman’s space…as smac provided an example of.

It also seems absurd to me that someone is going to be required by law to carry their ID at all times to ensure they won’t end up in a very embarrassing situation.  When I go for walks or bike rides, I leave my ID at home.  It’s a hassle to carry such around with me, especially since I worry I will lose it since it’s small and could slip out of a pocket, etc.  Not everyone makes the same choice, but it seems to me they should have the same right I do to be able to not have that concern.

Public restrooms are for the public. Requiring one part of the population to show ID in order to use them solely because of their physical appearance while others breeze in and out without being challenged seems to veer close to certain segregated practices.

Add Calm to the mix as wrapping up this problem. I think Smac has a lot to chew on here.

[Analytics]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

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. 

With all due respect, you aren’t the judge here who is tasked with fairly discerning the facts and upholding the law. You are and should be treated as a litigator, not as a judge. When you make longwinded posts that are unpersuasive, uninteresting, and irrelevant to what I’m saying, I have no reason to follow you down your rabbit holes and answer your irrelevant questions (and in case you were wondering, I don’t have any obligation to call you “your honor,” either).

If you and I were facing off in court on this issue and you spent 3 days painstakingly trying to prove that my position was flawed because I was “arguing from the margins,” I wouldn’t be under some legal or logical obligation to spend another 5 days of the court’s time painstakingly rebutting every one of your points and sub points and sub-sub points. I could if I wanted to, I suppose, but I’d be more inclined to restate my point in a way that illustrates its validity, and let your longwinded arguments to the contrary stand or fall on their own merits. I’ve never been in court, but I doubt a judge would be upset at me for keeping my case concise and to the point.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Neither you nor SU can be trusted...

Again, you do not understand the concept of "legislating from the margins."  Try ditching the histrionic emotionalisms...

This is where your lack of training and experience in the law comes into play...  

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....  So you resort to distortions, personal taunts and ad hominem, logical fallacies, and other distractions ...

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

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 are pretty terrible when it comes to discussing legal or legislative issues (and also issues pertaining to the Latter-day Saints, but I digress...).

These are fascinating topics, but I’m afraid they might be off topic. Should we start a new thread that is dedicated to what you really think about me?

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

I'm sure you are familiar with the psychological concept of projecting, and I’m fairly confident that you don’t think you are doing so, but rather are accurately describing me. It’s fascinating. Could you tell me more about how it's me, not you, who reflexively goes emotional, goes personal, and goes ad hominen? What does my suggestion that you might be projecting do to you? Tell me. And remember, this is for posterity, so be honest. How do you feel?

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

 

I get it that the idea of a cisgender man walking into a woman’s restroom could be uncomfortable. But if all they do is walk in, use the toilet, wash their hands, and promptly leave, and if they don’t make a mess, then objectively, it shouldn’t be that big of a deal. The problem is if the individual is loitering or acting in a way that is unlawful, voyeuristic, invasive, predatory, harassing, exploitative, illicit, or otherwise creepy.  But those things are what’s wrong--not whether or not they are entering a sacred toilet room with the correct genitals. 

I mentioned in another post that on two different occasions, I’ve seen women brazenly use crowded men’s rooms because the line was shorter. In the end, it really wasn’t that big of a deal. I sensed that the guys in the restroom felt uncomfortable when these women marched in, but here’s the fact of the matter: being in a public restroom isn’t a comfortable thing in the best of scenarios. The guys treated these women who invaded their space as if they were guys--they kept on pissing, kept on washing and drying their hands, and walked out without making eye contact.

I agree with pretty much everything that you've said in this post, but I want to comment on the idea that a man in a place designated for women shouldn't be a big deal to any woman (unless he's acting dangerous) because a woman in a man's space is no big deal to you or other men.

That's kind of like saying that since men don't think it's a big deal walking alone late at night and seeing a woman walking towards them, it shouldn't be a big deal to women to be walking alone and seeing a man walking towards them late at night either.

Men are a danger to women in ways that women are not a danger to men, and that needs to be acknowledged in these kinds of discussions. 

As you stated, there is a social norm in our country that says that men and women use separate bathrooms.  Because of that social norm (and because every woman has experienced sexual harassment and abuse and 1 in 4 have been raped by men), no man should ever tell a woman that seeing a man in a place socially deemed to be a woman's space shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Many women would agree with you up to a point, but many have personal experiences and good reasons to view it as a big deal and their feelings, in a place that is specifically designated for them, shouldn't be dismissed.  For women, it's not only an issue of being uncomfortable.  It's a safety issue, and you can't remove that from the equation in these discussions.  Ignoring those real concerns is how we end up with people trying to force others to produce ID whenever they want to use the bathroom.

When people feel like their concerns are acknowledged and considered, they don't have to go to extremes (like smac's law) to feel protected.  But when they feel ignored they will turn to extremes because that's the only option left to them.

 

 

[MustardSeed]

The only solution is single use or full length locking stalls in mixed bathrooms with no doors.  Full stop. 

Edited December 6, 2024 by MustardSeed

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with pretty much everything that you've said in this post, but I want to comment on the idea that a man in a place designated for women shouldn't be a big deal to any woman (unless he's acting dangerous) because a woman in a man's space is no big deal to you or other men.

That's kind of like saying that since men don't think it's a big deal walking alone late at night and seeing a woman walking towards them, it shouldn't be a big deal to women to be walking alone and seeing a man walking towards them late at night either.

Men are a danger to women in ways that women are not a danger to men, and that needs to be acknowledged in these kinds of discussions. 

As you stated, there is a social norm in our country that says that men and women use separate bathrooms.  Because of that social norm (and because every woman has experienced sexual harassment and abuse and 1 in 4 have been raped by men), no man should ever tell a woman that seeing a man in a place socially deemed to be a woman's space shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Many women would agree with you up to a point, but many have personal experiences and good reasons to view it as a big deal and their feelings, in a place that is specifically designated for them, shouldn't be dismissed.  For women, it's not only an issue of being uncomfortable.  It's a safety issue, and you can't remove that from the equation in these discussions.  Ignoring those real concerns is how we end up with people trying to force others to produce ID whenever they want to use the bathroom.

When people feel like their concerns are acknowledged and considered, they don't have to go to extremes (like smac's law) to feel protected.  But when they feel ignored they will turn to extremes because that's the only option left to them.

 

 

I agree, and I feel I have as a woman anyway, an intuition to something being not right. Hopefully anyway. I probably mentioned this on another thread through the years, but I used a restroom at a park while on a jog and about five men were coming to the restroom as I was leaving and it was sunset and no one but me. This was while single and decided to go jog in between work and a class I was taking. Well, I sensed something was off and I decided to act like a crazy woman and run off. I just remember feeling like something was up. In a bathroom at a department store/grocery (?) I think I'd feel much safer than at a park. So the place is a big one as well.

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with pretty much everything that you've said in this post, but I want to comment on the idea that a man in a place designated for women shouldn't be a big deal to any woman (unless he's acting dangerous) because a woman in a man's space is no big deal to you or other men.

That's kind of like saying that since men don't think it's a big deal walking alone late at night and seeing a woman walking towards them, it shouldn't be a big deal to women to be walking alone and seeing a man walking towards them late at night either.

Men are a danger to women in ways that women are not a danger to men, and that needs to be acknowledged in these kinds of discussions. 

As you stated, there is a social norm in our country that says that men and women use separate bathrooms.  Because of that social norm (and because every woman has experienced sexual harassment and abuse and 1 in 4 have been raped by men), no man should ever tell a woman that seeing a man in a place socially deemed to be a woman's space shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Many women would agree with you up to a point, but many have personal experiences and good reasons to view it as a big deal and their feelings, in a place that is specifically designated for them, shouldn't be dismissed.  For women, it's not only an issue of being uncomfortable.  It's a safety issue, and you can't remove that from the equation in these discussions.  Ignoring those real concerns is how we end up with people trying to force others to produce ID whenever they want to use the bathroom.

When people feel like their concerns are acknowledged and considered, they don't have to go to extremes (like smac's law) to feel protected.  But when they feel ignored they will turn to extremes because that's the only option left to them.

 

All fair points. Just to be clear, by no means was my point to tell anybody how they should feel or deny the fact that my hypothetical scenario was a violation of a significant social taboo. Rather, I was talking about a hypothetical world free from biases or preconceived notions that was populated by logical androids. I wasn’t trying to invalidate or deny or lecture about the feelings of real people in a real culture who have real experiences and real emotions. 

I brought up the image of a cisgender men strutting into the lady’s room not to say I condone such a thing, but rather to stress test the very outer limits of my argument. People in public have the right to use a public toilet, but they ought to choose which one they used based upon what would minimize the stress of everyone involved, and as far as I know, 99.999999% of the time that is exactly what happens. If somebody walks into a restroom where they don’t belong, I think you should give them a dirty look, tell them they need to go, and if you feel the least bit threatened you should blow your rape whistle and take out your mace. Believe it or not, the thought of going into the lady’s room is terrifying for almost all men.

As one more anecdote, my home airport is Kansas City International, which got a brand new terminal a couple of years ago. Inside of security, there are four large restroom areas: two sets of sex-distinct restrooms, and two large unisex restrooms. I have mixed feelings about the unisex restrooms. In the unisex restrooms, everybody has their own secure private stall that even has a light that indicates whether or not it is occupied. When you walk out of your stall there is a long row of sinks, where everybody washes their hands. Logically, it solves all of the problems.

While I haven’t seen a study, I strongly suspect that perhaps 50% of the time, both men and women who need to use the toilet will choose to walk five minutes past the unisex restrooms in order to use the sex-distinct ones. There is no logical reason why we should feel this way, but speaking for myself, when I walked out of a stall in the unisex restroom and saw a woman washing her hands, and I walked up and started washing my hands a few sinks over, in front of toilet stalls, it felt uncomfortable--it felt wrong. Logically I think unisex restrooms are a great idea and I applaud KCI for being progressive that way. But if real world people end up preferring sex distinct restrooms, despite the problems binary restrooms pose in a world where gender is on a spectrum, then that’s the better solution.

 

[Rain]

43 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The only solution is single use or full length locking stalls in mixed bathrooms with no doors.  Full stop. 

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

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

The air circluation issue will require ventalation changes. 

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

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

 

 

 

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

2. So far I have not seen anyone articulate a mechanism for allowing "trans women" (that is, biological-males-who-"identify"-as-women) into women's spaces, but excluding other biological males.  If someone could articulate that, I would appreciate it.

I'll address this issue.

But first of all, I reject the premise of the question; I reject the idea that there are and should be public “women spaces” that are legally only for a well-defined subset of human beings who are “real” women (however you define that).

I understand that.  Many (most?) women and girls, however, seem to disagree with you and do want women-only spaces.

Hence my question about a legal mechanism to differentiate some biological males (those who "identify" as "women") from other biological males (those who do not) for the purposes of allowing (for the former) and disallowing (for the latter) access to women-only spaces.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Public women’s rooms are not “women spaces” where women can go to be completely comfortable and relaxed because everyone who might make them feel uncomfortable is strictly forbidden from entering that space. Rather, they are places women go to pee, poop, wash your hands, perhaps adjust makeup and then leave. Even if restrooms were places you go to feel totally relaxed, strictly forbidding men from entering isn’t going to accomplish the objective--from what I’ve heard and seen in movies, there are plenty of women who are bullies in their own right, and a rule to keep out guys won’t keep out female bullies. In all cases, you only use public restrooms in situations where going home to do these things is too inconvenient. A law that punishes somebody for pissing in the wrong toilet just seems facile. 

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

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

People almost always use the restroom that is deemed socially acceptable not because of the law, but because it’s the socially correct thing to do. And the fact of the matter is that in almost all restrooms, there aren’t cops guarding the doors. If a guy wants to hide in the women’s room and rape the next woman who comes in, a rule against “no men in the lady’s room” isn’t going to prevent them. So shouldn’t we just rely on sociological norms to define and enforce who uses which restroom?

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

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

I get it that the idea of a cisgender man walking into a woman’s restroom could be uncomfortable. But if all they do is walk in, use the toilet, wash their hands, and promptly leave, and if they don’t make a mess, then objectively, it shouldn’t be that big of a deal.

I've previously disliked the term "mansplaining," but you've managed to convince me that it has some utility after all.

Also, this does not address my question about an articulable legal mechanism for differentiation.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

The problem is if the individual is loitering or acting in a way that is unlawful, voyeuristic, invasive, predatory, harassing, exploitative, illicit, or otherwise creepy.  But those things are what’s wrong--not whether or not they are entering a sacred toilet room with the correct genitals. 

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

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

My position is that if somebody does anything that makes it generally plausible that they sincerely identify as a woman or as non-binary, they should be given the benefit of the doubt and if they want to, be allowed to walk in, use the toilet, wash their hands, quickly touch up their makeup, and then leave.  But the moment they start loitering or acting in a way that is voyeuristic, invasive, predatory, etc., that is when they are breaking the law and should be arrested. What is wrong is doing those predatory things, not being somebody of the wrong gender who is peeing in the wrong toilet.

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

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

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

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

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

I mentioned in another post that on two different occasions, I’ve seen women brazenly use crowded men’s rooms because the line was shorter. In the end, it really wasn’t that big of a deal.

I am not sure you can authoritatively speak for women as to whether having men in women's bathrooms is a big deal or not.  I get that it's not a big deal to you, but I think some (many? most?) women feel quite differently.

And again, this does not address my question about an articulable legal mechanism for differentiation.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Even if you think that women’s restrooms are bona fide women-only spaces and that it is immoral for a man to enter such spaces, is men using the women’s restroom really that big of a problem in terms of how frequently it happens?

Again, this does not address my question about an articulable legal mechanism for differentiation.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

You have posted and reposted a video of a guy walking into a women’s restroom at a park, videotaping another guy who appears to be walking out of the same women’s restroom right after he washed his hands.  If either of these guys were in the restroom to hurt somebody or otherwise get some illicit kicks, then that is incredibly wrong.

I agree.  Hence my question about a legal mechanism to differentiate some biological males (those who "identify" as "women") from other biological males (those who do not) for the purposes of allowing (for the former) and disallowing (for the latter) access to women-only spaces.

You said you would "address this issue," but I don't think you have.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

But hanging out in a women’s room in a park to hurt a child should be exactly as illegal as hanging out in a men's room in a park to hurt a child. A law about “no men in the lady’s room” doesn’t actually fix anything. 

Again, this does not address my question about an articulable legal mechanism for differentiation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

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

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

The air circluation issue will require ventalation changes. 

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

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

Here is a 90-second video of how we do it in KC:

 

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Quote

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.

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.

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

I don’t see Stefoknee as being trans.

Okay.  A few questions:

1. Do you agree that Stefonknee "identifies" as "trans"?

2. When you say "don't see Stefonknee as being trans," you are saying that you are saying that you "don't see" him as a trans woman, is that correct?

3. Could you articulate the basis for your denial of Stefonknee's "trans" identity?

4. Do you feel that your denial of Stefonknee's "trans" identity renders you a bigot, a hateful and terrible person, etc.?

13 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I see him as mentally ill if he really thinks he is a six year old girl.

Do you also think he is mentally ill if he really thinks he is female?  Or is it only the "six years old" and "permanently six years old" parts that you find to be indicative of mental illness?

13 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I don’t see a parallel between the two.

"{B}etween the two" what?  What two things are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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

Yes.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Yes.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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

For example, if somebody has an Adam’s apple and a 5-o’clock shadow but is otherwise dressed up as a woman, and if this person walks into the lady’s room, uses the toilet, washes their hands, and then leaves, then the behavior should be deemed legal. If a cop is suspicious he could ask, “Are you a woman?” And if the person says, “Yes,” then give the person the benefit of the doubt. 

But if that same person is loitering, taking photographs, peeking under stalls, intimidating others, etc., then those behaviors are all illegal--throw the book at them.

As another example, if a man walks into a woman’s restroom while recording a video and says “no need to worry ladies! I’m here recording this video of the women’s room so that I can capture on tape whether any men are invading this space!” Then sure, throw the book at him.

I realize that it’s possible to create a hypothetical scenario where somebody is in the gray zone. But given how incredibly infrequently this hypothetical behavior happens, we have to keep in mind whether creating a bright line does more harm than good. 

Edited December 6, 2024 by Analytics

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

This is one of the things I see as contributing to the complications of this issue, leading it to being in my view like bluebell expressed a difficult problem that has no solutions.

I agree that this is a difficult problem, but I think it is an overstatement to say that there are no solutions.  Perhaps there are no easy and/or universally acceptable solutions, but that's often the case as regarding controversial issues.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t see a possibility of a compromise that will leave all biological women feeling safe in female spaces and trans women able to trust that biological men will not attack them because they look like females.

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

Again, if someone could articulate such a mechanism, I would appreciate it.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

If biological women have to right to be protected from potential predators who choose them as victims because of what they look like—women, then why don’t trans women also have the right to the same protection?  

This is a fair question.  I'll think on it.

That said, there are a lot more factors in play.  We are not talking about just bathrooms, but also changing rooms, and sports, and prisons.  And safety from potential predators is not the sole basis for women-only spaces.  

4 hours ago, Calm said:

There is no way I will ever feel safe with someone who looks male to me in a bathroom or locker room.  

Hence my question about a legal mechanism to differentiate.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Too many decades of self defense programming, let alone all those lessons on modesty and not exposing too much of myself to any male, but my husband in the privacy of my home and an occasional doctor in the privacy of his office (and thankfully now in the presence of another woman).  I imagine there are many women in my situation, including women who have actually been attacked by men when they were alone with them.

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

4 hours ago, Calm said:

But if one insists that the laws are for the purpose of  protecting biological women, 

It's not just a matter of protection.  I think many (most?) women and girls don't want males in women's bathrooms for any reason, not just because of "potential predator" concerns.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

then objectively speaking protecting transmen falls under that category.   And humiliating them by requiring them to frequently, perhaps always even, get permission from police or security to use public female only restrooms and locker rooms is not helping them feel or be safe.

My question about a legal mechanism for differentiation applies to women as well as to men.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

As another example, if a man walks into a woman’s restroom while recording a video and says “no need to worry ladies! I’m here recording this video of the women’s room so that I can capture on tape whether any men are invading this space!” Then sure, throw the book at him.

Personally I feel if a woman is doing this, the same thing should happen.  No recording in the bathroom please.  The woman recording people in the KC bathroom assumed consent as far as I see (even if she had gone in first to ask, at the very least the one guy looked like he hadn’t been warned…they were all nice about it, but that doesn’t mean they liked it.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

 

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

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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

And addressing it first simplifies discussing the issue.  

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm