Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[Analytics]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Calm, what are your thoughts about @Analytics's proposal to let all men into women's bathrooms?

For the record, I never said nor proposed any such thing.

[smac97]

This has been an interesting thread.  Despite some of the unfortunate ad homimen forays, I appreciate the willingness of most of you to share thoughts, opinions, arguments, reasoning, etc. regarding the issue of biological men in women's spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms/areas, sports, prison), and also regarding potential solutions to address disputed aspects of these matters.

As regarding whether or not biological males should be allowed access into women's bathrooms, it seems to me there are only three potential legal solutions (apart from doing nothing) :

Solution #1: Legally authorize all biological males to access women's bathrooms (likely with some exceptions for those with certain criminal convictions).  This seems to be what @Analytics is proposing (if I am in error, I am open to correction).

Solution #2: Legally limit access to women's bathrooms to biological women, (with some accommodations for male infants/toddlers, and perhaps some particularized accommodations for some people with DSDs).  This is my proposal.

Solution #3: Legally differentiate biological males, so as to legally authorize some biological males to access women's bathrooms, while excluding other biological males from having such access.

Does anyone see any other options?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Calm, what are your thoughts about @Analytics's proposal to let all men into women's bathrooms?

For the record, I never said nor proposed any such thing.

Ah.  So what is your proposal?  Which biological males do you think should have access to women's bathrooms, and which should not?  And by what mechanism would you propose the law differentiate between these two groups?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 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.

Evil, ignorant or bigoted. You choose. 

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]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You've been imputing evil motives onto people with whom you disagree for quite a while.

As you have…you just did it yesterday to me again whether you see it or not.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/76177-trib-opinion-piece-re-churchs-trans-policies/page/13/#findComment-1210203746

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/76177-trib-opinion-piece-re-churchs-trans-policies/page/11/#findComment-1210203691

 

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not really for me.  At this point I am not seeing a solution that I want except perhaps turn all vulnerable spaces into single user ones (though I realize that doesn’t solve all the issues of safety)....

Thanks for the clarification; I stand corrected.

Personally, I don’t want to live in a world where men who do drugs, cary guns, have gang tattoos, and piss on the toilet seats are allowed to use the same restroom as those of us who don’t. Wouldn’t it be great if there was one restroom for clean guys and another one for gross guys? But alas, we don’t always get what we want.

My most fundamental point here is that the purpose of public restrooms is to provide a place to pee and poop when it is too inconvenient to take care of these biological needs at home. As a society, we should all be respectful and try to take care of these needs in a way that is most considerate to others. If somebody needs to use the restroom, he or she or they should use the restroom that is most appropriate. If somebody using the women’s restroom would likely freak out the people there, use the men’s room. But if you have good reason to fear you’d get beat up if you use the restroom, then find a unisex restroom. If one isn’t available then go piss on a tree outside. If doing that would likely get you arrested as a sex offender, then go inside and take your chances. 

At the end of the day, the purpose of restrooms is to have a place to take care of some biological necessities. Giving people the right to take care of their biological needs is fundamentally more important than giving other people the right to be in a space without undesirable people present. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you are referencing by "wait to be carded."  I have said nothing about this.  

This solution you suggest is what I mean by “wait to be carded” or in the case of not having an ID, perhaps even “taking the individual to the police station for further efforts at both identification (name, address, etc.) via fingerprints or interview, and also evaluating biological sex via a cheek swab” where I hope they let the individual use the restroom before taking fingerprints etc because they are probably bursting by then, if not already busted.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/76177-trib-opinion-piece-re-churchs-trans-policies/page/12/#findComment-1210203722

 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Giving people the right to take care of their biological needs is fundamentally more important than giving other people the right to be in a space without undesirable people present. 

I completely agree.  Where we might differ is I see taking care of biological needs including avoiding being assaulted.  Or we may differ on how this gets done, but I am pretty sure we agree in principle that the public has a right to have access to places to pee or poop hygienically.   

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

None of this addresses my inquiry about a differentiating mechanism.

Rather, under your proposal, the gray-shirted man in the video did nothing wrong.  He was legally authorized to be in the women's bathroom.  Right?

Absolutely not. I have no idea how you came up with this.

Well, you have both A) objected to legislation which excludes all biological males, and B) failed or refused to articulate any mechanism to differentiate biological males so as to allow some to have access to women's bathrooms while denying access to others.

So that leaves . . . letting all men have legal access to women's bathrooms (except, I suppose, for some with certain types of criminal convictions).

It seemed like a reasonable deduction.  If I was in error, I apologize.  So what is your proposal?  You have now

• A) objected to legislation which excludes all biological males, AND
• B) failed or refused to articulate any mechanism to differentiate biological males so as to allow some to have access to women's bathrooms while denying access to others, AND
• C) emphatically rejected ("Absolutely not") the notion of allowing all men have legal access to women's bathrooms (except, I suppose, for some with certain types of criminal convictions).

So what is it that you propose?  

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Under my proposal, if a cop saw him walk out of the women’s restroom then the cop would say, “you are under arrest for being a man in a woman’s space; based on your physique, dress, body hair, facial hair, etc., your gender is that of a man, and as such it is illegal for you to be in a woman’s space;

Could you explain this?  How would such a law be written?

It sounds like your proposal would be to give biological males access to women's bathrooms based on "gender identity" and/or physical appearance.  Is that correct?

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

you aren’t doing anything that makes it plausible in any way that you identify as a woman.

What if the suspect says "I identify as a woman"?

What if the suspect says "I identify as a woman, and here is a picture of me in women's clothing last week"?

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Even if you were to claim you ‘feel like a woman on the inside,' based on how you present yourself to the world you are a man, and therefore are required to use the men’s restroom."

Wow.  Very illuminating.

So your solution is to limit access, or allow access, to women's bathrooms by biological males based on how they "present" themselves to the world?  What counts as "presenting" as a "woman"? 

Is a verbal declaration ("I identify as a woman!") sufficient for a biological male to have legal access to women's bathrooms?  If not, why not?

Is wearing lipstick or painted nails sufficient?  If not, why not?

Is wearing a pink shirt sufficient?  If not, why not?

Is wearing a bra sufficient?  If not, why not?

How would a law enforcement officer ascertain whether a biological male sufficiently "presents" as a woman, and thus has the lawful right to access women's bathrooms?  Is there a checklist?  If so, what criteria would be on it?  How many criteria would the individual  need to meet?  One?  Some?  Most?  All?

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Under my proposal, this is an open-and-shut case. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

Respectfully, your proposal is profoundly ambiguous, likely even unconstitutionally vague.

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In contrast, under your proposal, looking like a man and presenting himself as a man isn’t enough--he actually has to biologically be a man.

Yes.  Biological males would not have access to women's spaces.

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If it turns out that his birth certificate says “F” on it, then he was using the only restroom at the park he was legally authorized to use.

If a birth certificate contains an error, it can be corrected.  It's not etched in stone.

I have a daughter whose birth certificate misspelled her name.  We got it fixed.  It took fifteen minutes.

The vast majority of the time, birth certificates accurately state the individual's biological sex.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I don't know what you are referencing by "wait to be carded."  I have said nothing about this.  

This solution you suggest is what I mean by “wait to be carded” or in the case of not having an ID, perhaps even “taking the individual to the police station for further efforts at both identification (name, address, etc.) via fingerprints or interview, and also evaluating biological sex via a cheek swab” where I hope they let the individual use the restroom before taking fingerprints etc because they are probably bursting by then, if not already busted.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/76177-trib-opinion-piece-re-churchs-trans-policies/page/12/#findComment-1210203722

A biological male can avoid this by using the men's bathroom.

I have not said anything about "carding" as a precondition to access.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, this does not seem to address my inquiry.

Thanks,

-Smac

Probably right Smac, I guess I should have just highlighted you in my comment. I was just thinking...when I see a transitioned male to female I think they have done a pretty good job. They've sacrificed their bodies and they spent a big chunk of change. When I think of these people I believe I should give them the respect they deserve to be in the women's bathrooms because I think they do belong there. I watched this couple on a YouTube recently and they are a married couple with children. He now she, recently got her voice changed on top of a few other things. They are LDS or were, and it's quite the story of how Shaye evolved. And how this is who she feels she's meant to be. I know that it seems quite outlandish, but I think God/Jesus/Divinity understands.

 

Also, this is a former member or maybe still, that was an architect for the LDS church that is transgender.

https://www.firesidepod.org/episodes/hall#:~:text=Laurie Lee Hall was a,she was assigned at birth.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

A biological male can avoid this by using the men's bathroom.

I have not said anything about "carding" as a precondition to access.

Thanks,

-Smac

Does your proposal not require them to show ID if asked for it?

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

You've been imputing evil motives onto people with whom you disagree for quite a while.

As you have…you just did it yesterday to me again whether you see it or not.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/76177-trib-opinion-piece-re-churchs-trans-policies/page/13/#findComment-1210203746

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/76177-trib-opinion-piece-re-churchs-trans-policies/page/11/#findComment-1210203691

Nothing in either of these posts imputes evil motives.

And I apologized for the second one.  And in response you said my apology was insincere.

It was sincere, but I'll leave you to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How would a law enforcement officer ascertain whether a biological male sufficiently "presents" as a woman, and thus has the lawful right to access women's bathrooms? 

Aren’t you the one who believes sex has been easily differentiated historically?  Which means long before there were DNA tests and ID cards, correct?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A biological male can avoid this by using the men's bathroom.

How do biological females avoid it???? The ones that present as men?

Edited December 6, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nothing in either of these posts imputes evil motives.

Yes they do.  Evil includes lying about others which caricaturing someone is in my book because it is intentional misrepresentation.  Insincerity is not exactly pure and you are accusing me of that when saying I will not accept anything that doesn’t match my position, etc when I present myself as open to ideas.

Yes, you keep apologizing when you do this.  It is beginning to ring hollow through it’s not 70x7 yet, so I am still working at accepting them.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Quote

A biological male can avoid this by using the men's bathroom.

I have not said anything about "carding" as a precondition to access.

Does your proposal not require them to show ID if asked for it?

Not as a precondition for access, no.  See here:

Quote

• 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.

So

if the law is enacted, and

if the biological male breaks the law by going into the women's bathroom, and

if the biological male is caught breaking the law by some bystander, and

if the bystander reports this apparent violation of the law to the police, and

if the police arrive, and

if the biological male is still present, and

if the police officer interviews the complainant and the detained person, and

if the police officer thereafter decides that there exists 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,"

then the police officer can ask for ID.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Solution #1: Legally authorize all biological males to access women's bathrooms (likely with some exceptions for those with certain criminal convictions).  This seems to be what @Analytics is proposing (if I am in error, I am open to correction).

Sort of. Maybe? I think people who “are women” (meaning people who present themselves to the world as women) should be welcome to use the women’s restroom, people who present themselves as men should be welcome to use the men’s, and people who are something else should be graciously allowed to pee where they think is best. I think that using the toilet should be the purpose of restrooms. If somebody is doing anything else in a restroom that is unlawful, voyeuristic, invasive, predatory, harassing, exploitative, illicit, or otherwise creepy, those things should be crimes and dealt with especially harshly due to how vulnerable people are in restrooms. 

My belief is that there are strong sociological pressures to use the most appropriate restroom, and that 99.9999% of the time, men don’t use the women’s restroom. I suspect that creating a law so that there is a legal basis to penalize the remaining 0.00001% would probably do much more harm than good.

But just because I’m hesitant to support laws that criminalize a socially unacceptable behavior doesn’t mean I think those behaviors should be legally “authorized.” If a dude walks into the lady’s room, rather than calling the cops tell him he is in the wrong room and shame him. If he seems the least bit dangerous, take out your mace and your cell phone call 911. That seems like a much more effective way of dealing with this.

But in any case, is this issue big enough that it needs a legal solution where there are government-issued ID cards that indicate which restrooms we are authorized to use? That seems like a disproportionate overreaction to a mostly hypothetical problem.  

 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

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

 

I'm familar with them. I talked about using them in Europe further up and am comfortable using them now.  There was quite a bit of discussion about the doors having a gap about 4 inches off the floor in many European unisex bathrooms. I did use a couple where the gap went all of the way down, but the gap was more common. That gap concerned a few board members. This one looks like there is still a gap of about 1 inch.  Is that true?

I looked up that info to see why they might need a gap instead of the door going all the way to the floor.

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

How would a law enforcement officer ascertain whether a biological male sufficiently "presents" as a woman, and thus has the lawful right to access women's bathrooms? 

Aren’t you the one who believes sex has been easily differentiated historically?  

Yes.  But here we are speaking of "differentiating" biological males from other biological males.  I am unclear on how that works, what the criteria are, how police officers would do it, etc.

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which means long before there were DNA tests and ID cards, correct?

Yes.

I'm not sure I understand your point.  I am not the one proposing differentiating biological males from other biological males by using a heretofore undescribed set of criteria.  @Analytics is, it seems, making that proposal, and I am asking him how that differentiation would work.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I completely agree.  Where we might differ is I see taking care of biological needs including avoiding being assaulted.  Or we may differ on how this gets done, but I am pretty sure we agree in principle that the public has a right to have access to places to pee or poop hygienically.   

Believe it or not, I’m strongly against people getting assaulted, too.😉

[Calm]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Not as a precondition for access, no.  See here:

So

if the law is enacted, and

if the biological male breaks the law by going into the women's bathroom, and

if the biological male is caught breaking the law by some bystander, and

if the bystander reports this apparent violation of the law to the police, and

if the police arrive, and

if the biological male is still present, and

if the police officer interviews the complainant and the detained person, and

if the police officer thereafter decides that there exists 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,"

then the police officer can ask for ID.

Thanks,

-Smac

All good for the biological males…who I was not talking about.

I was talking about biological females who present as male.

While there may be times no women are using the bathroom and no one sees or cares that what looks like a biological male is going into a female only bathroom, what is likely to happen in your view for the majority of times a biological female that presents as male enters a bathroom where there is already a woman present or someone is observing who is concerned that there may be women inside the bathroom about to be assaulted?

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

Yes, that bothered me a lot.  First I don't want my video taken period, but recognize we are so far past that point now, but seriously, we can't keep videos out of the bathroom?

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  But here we are speaking of "differentiating" biological males from other biological males.  I am unclear on how that works, what the criteria are, how police officers would do it, etc.

No, you were speaking of differentiating biological males.

The rest of us if I am understanding correctly are okay with biological males who present as females using female only restrooms, etc.

At which point you start questioning how one determines a person presents as fully female.

My answer to that is by using the criteria you insist has been available for eons without ID cards or DNA tests to tell the differences between sexes.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Believe it or not, I’m strongly against people getting assaulted, too.😉

That shocks me!