Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[Rain]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

The ones I’ve been to have the red/ green indicator outside when it’s locked from the inside. 
 

Same for me.  I was just lazy and figured everyone would assume that, but I shouldn't have assumed that.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Cleaning is the cost of progress I suppose. 

It is, and I'm not really worried about that.  My bigger concern was just the cost of everything that goes into it, especially if you have to look into changing your ventilation system, and for smaller businesses that are already running.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the fuller enclosed stall at all.  I just think it's important to look at all the issues when making changes.

[Analytics]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

My thoughts are if there really needs to be a law about it, it should be based on gender rather than sex.

If the law is based on gender, then we know the man in the gray shirt is a man because we know from his outward appearance that his gender is male.

In contrast, if the law were based on biological sex, then we might have a reasonable suspicion he was a man, but we couldn’t know for sure without a DNA test or genital exam. And if it was determined that he really is a biological woman, then nobody would want him in the women’s restroom anyway.

Your preferred solution is this:

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

As a representative example of the 500,000 or so Americans who are transgender males, Patricio Manuel doesn’t have a Difference of Sexual Development (DSD). He is a biological woman who is a transgender man. As a good-faith compromise, would you be willing to amend your solution so that people situated such as Patricio Manuel could petition the court, have a hearing, and perhaps be granted a card that authorizes them to use the men’s room?

Edited December 6, 2024 by Analytics

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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 am confused.  About 30 minutes ago, you (in response to my comment ("Calm, what are your thoughts about @Analytics's proposal to let all men into women's bathrooms?"), said: "For the record, I never said nor proposed any such thing."

Now, thirty minutes later, when I said that you are proposing to "{l}egally authorize all biological males to access women's bathrooms," you are saying: "Sort of.  Maybe?"

So which is it?

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

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. 

Got it.

This does not explain your approach, which I have previously formulated as:

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).

Well?  Is this your solution or not?  If not, what about the third one?

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 this more accurately state your proposal?

Or is there a fourth proposal you have in mind?  If so, what is it?

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

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.

Ah.  So is your proposed solution to . . . do nothing?

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

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.

This does not address access, only actual or anticipated misconduct after access has happened.

My question is about legal access in the first instance.  You seem to be waffling between 

• Solution #1 (giving all men access to women's bathrooms), and/or
• possibly Solution #3 (some sort of differentiation whereby some biological males have legal access and others do not), and/or
• doing nothing legislatively, and/or
• some as-yet-to-be-articulated solution (involving biological males having legal access if they sufficiently "present" themselves as women).

Am I wrong?  I really want to understand your position here.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

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.  

So . . . do nothing legislatively.  Is that your preferred solution?  I'm looking for clarity, that's all.  That's a position that merits discussion, but I want to first know if you are present it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

Respectfully, this does not seem to address my inquiry.

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.

Understood.  Are there any biological males whom you think do not belong in women's spaces?  If so, who are they?  By what mechanism or criteria would you propose society differentiate between the biological males who "deserve to be in the women's bathrooms" and the other biological males who do not?

Or do you think all males should have access to women's bathrooms (except, I think, for those convicted of particular crimes)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2024 by smac97

[Analytics]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So . . . do nothing legislatively.  Is that your preferred solution? 

Part of the issue here is that as far as I know, the actual problem we’re trying to fix hasn’t been articulated. We live in a society where there are generally men’s rooms, women’s rooms, often a third handicapped accessible single user that may be sex distinct or unisex. And in a few places such as my local airport, there are gender neutral restrooms. Everybody has been highly socialized to use the most appropriate restroom. And presumably, there are laws on the books against loitering, voyeurism, harassing, exploiting, threatening, etc. 

So what’s the problem? Is it a big enough problem in terms of frequency and severity that it needs a legislative solution?

 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

My thoughts are if there really needs to be a law about it, it should be based on gender rather than sex.

Okay.  To clarify: A statute could authorize a biological male whose "gender identity" is a "woman" to have legal access to women's bathrooms, but would otherwise exclude all other males.  Is that a fair statement of your position?

If so, what counts as a biological male having a "gender identity" that triggers the right to legal access to women's bathrooms?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If the law is based on gender, then we know the man in the gray shirt is a man because we know from his outward appearance that his gender is male.

We do?  What if he says "I identify as a woman"?  Hasn't that been the drumbeat for some years now?  That a woman is "anyone who 'identifies' as a woman"?

I have been asking, for several pages now, for how you propose to differentiate between some biological males (who, in your view, should have legal access to women's bathrooms) and other biological males (who, in your view, should not have such access).

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

In contrast, if the law were based on biological sex, then we might have a reasonable suspicion he was a man, but we couldn’t know for sure with a DNA test, genital exam.

A state-issued ID typically includes biological sex.  Further testing/confirmation would likely not be necessary in pretty much all instances.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2024 by smac97

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Understood.  Are there any biological males whom you think do not belong in women's spaces?  If so, who are they?  By what mechanism or criteria would you propose society differentiate between the biological males who "deserve to be in the women's bathrooms" and the other biological males who do not?

Or do you think all males should have access to women's bathrooms (except, I think, for those convicted of particular crimes)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, you seem to not understand my post. I'm showing a difference in a male and a trans here. Maybe it will take you knowing a trans person in your life personally. I know you said you met one at Encircle I believe? 

I def do not want a non trans male in the bathroom unless it's an emergency and then the women can leave immediately. And if it's a male that wants to pretend and dress up to do that to assault a woman. I wouldn't want that either, but don't think that would happen really or women have the smell ability and can smell a rat. And I'm sure a male could easily slip into a women's bathroom without going to the trouble of dressing up that way and assault a woman from the stall next to them. This is the case with any situation I guess. And now after this conversation, I think we all might need to be aware of our circumstances. 

Did you watch the YouTube I posted with Shaye? I think you should, and maybe you'd understand. And the other post with the LDS architect for temples? I think this would open your heart to it being real. Just as homosexuality. 

Edited December 6, 2024 by Tacenda

[Peacefully]

How is any law going to keep a person who wants to do bad things out of a public restroom? 

[Calm]

2 hours 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

You have not addressed how a biological female who presents as male can avoid having to wait for cops or security to give the all clear or even being detained if lacking ID before being able to access a female only space….biological females presenting as male were the persons I was referring to with my “carding” reference and who are only ones I am challenging your “solution” on currently.

I am using “carding” in the sense of checking someone’s ID before allowing them access, such as in purchase of alcohol or cigarettes.  I assume this phrase is still in use this way, but perhaps I am out of date.  My grandkids have not discussed with me any episodes they were required to show ID, so I don’t know the current language if it is different than it was in my youth.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Part of the issue here is that as far as I know, the actual problem we’re trying to fix hasn’t been articulated.

Here:

Quote

Congress has a long list of pressing priorities — including funding the federal government to prevent   a shutdown — that it is likely to put off until 2025. One new item packed on that to-do list: legislation introduced by GOP Rep. Nancy Mace   to ban transgender women from women’s restrooms, and transgender men from men’s restrooms, on any federal property. 

Here: Bans on Transgender People Using Public Bathrooms and Facilities According to their Gender Identity

Quote

• State bans transgender people from using bathrooms and facilities consistent with their gender identity in all government-owned buildings and spaces, including K-12 schools, colleges, and more (2 states)
• State bans transgender people from using bathrooms and facilities consistent with their gender identity in K-12 schools and at least some government-owned buildings (5 states)
• State bans transgender people from using bathrooms and facilities consistent with their gender identity in K-12 schools (7 states)
• No state ban on transgender people’s use of bathrooms or facilities (36 states , 5 territories + D.C.)
• State law makes it a criminal offense, in certain circumstances, for transgender people to use bathrooms or facilities consistent with their gender identity (2 states)
• State has law or policy defining “sex” in ways that may impact transgender people’s access to bathrooms or facilities according to their gender identity (10 states)

Discussions have been under way for quite a while on issues affecting use of bathroom facilities.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

Differentiating biological males from other biological males, yes.

By what mechanism?  Using what criteria?

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Got it.  So what counts as "biological males who present as females"?

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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

That's how laws work.  They have parameters for their enforcement.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

What "criteria" are you referencing here?  Biological sex?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

I was talking about biological females who present as male.

The law would apply in the same way.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

Nothing in either of these posts imputes evil motives.

Yes they do.  

No, they don't.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Evil includes lying about others which caricaturing someone is in my book because it is intentional misrepresentation.  

I work pretty hard to avoid that.  And I apologize when I succumb to it here and there.  But apologies don't seem acceptable to you.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.  

Candidly, I have a hard time keeping track of online handles, who believes what, etc.  I'd apologize again, but you don't seem to be in the market.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It is beginning to ring hollow through it’s not 70x7 yet, so I am still working at accepting them.

Understood. 

Online communications care susceptible to misunderstanding. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

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

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

The same way.

I get that you disagree with that, and I would inquire as to how you would propose to craft a carve-out or exemption that would differentiate biological women who "identify" as men (and would thus have legal access to men's bathrooms) from other biological women, but you are too intractably hostile, mean-spirited, and essentially incapable of addressing difficult topics such as this in a clinical way, such that you reflexively go emotional, go personal, go ad hominem, etc.  So I won't bother.  

You have nothing substantive to contribute.  Just emotionalisms and personal invective.  I'll leave you to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

You have not addressed how a biological female who presents as male can avoid having to wait for cops to give the all clear or even being detained if lacking ID before being able to access a female only space….biological females presenting as male were the persons I was referring to with my “carding” reference and who are only ones I am challenging your “solution” on currently.

They would use the women's bathroom.  

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am using “carding” in the sense of checking someone’s ID before allowing them access, such as in purchase of alcohol or cigarettes.  

Right.  I, however, have said nothing about this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

Understood.  Are there any biological males whom you think do not belong in women's spaces?  If so, who are they?  By what mechanism or criteria would you propose society differentiate between the biological males who "deserve to be in the women's bathrooms" and the other biological males who do not?

Or do you think all males should have access to women's bathrooms (except, I think, for those convicted of particular crimes)?

Smac, you seem to not understand my post.

I'm pretty sure I do.  I don't necessarily agree with what you are saying, but I think i understand it. 

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm showing a difference in a male and a trans here.

Respectfully, you have not "shown" this.  

If someone can coherently articulate a mechanism or set of criterial wherein society (and, in particular, legislatures and law enforcement folks) can differentiate between A) biological males who should have legal access to women's bathrooms, and B) biological males who should not have such access, i would like to see it.

@Analytics has made some effort along these lines, and I appreciate it.  But he's still pretty wobbly and vague as to what he has in mind.

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe it will take you knowing a trans person in your life personally.

I have met quite a few.  I've even had a few as clients.

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I know you said you met one at Encircle I believe? 

I met several.

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I def do not want a non trans male in the bathroom unless it's an emergency and then the women can leave immediately.

Okay.  That helps clarify your position.  Thank you.

By what mechanism or criteria would you propose society differentiate between

(A) the biological males who "{do not} deserve to be in the women's bathrooms" (who are, as you now put it, "non trans male," or in the innovative vernacular, "cisgender"), and

(B) the other biological males ("trans women") who do deserve such access?

The "trans men" I met at Encircle House did not look anything like men.  But for their declarations in the meeting that they "identify" as men, I would not have had the remotest idea that they consider themselves in that category.  They all had longer hair, feminine facial features, breasts, feminine body proportions (hips wider than waist, etc.), they were all dressed casually (jeans and t-shirts, etc.).  In your view, would these folks "deserve" access to men's bathrooms?

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And if it's a male that wants to pretend and dress up to do that to assault a woman.  I wouldn't want that either, but don't think that would happen really or women have the smell ability and can smell a rat.

So would you be in favor of legislation that would legally exclude such a male from women's bathrooms?  If so, by what criteria would you exclude him?

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did you watch the YouTube I posted with Shaye? I think you should, and maybe you'd understand.

Understand what?

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And the other post with the LDS architect for temples? I think this would open your heart to it being real. Just as homosexuality. 

If "it being real" is a reference to some people truly and honestly feeling like they are a woman trapped in man's body (or vice versa), or a biological male who "identifies" as a woman (or vice versa), I fully acknowledge that such people exist, and that they deserve respect and compassion and kindness.

But do I believe that a biological male who "identifies" as a woman actually is a woman?  No.  That would be incongruent with biological fact and reality.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

How is any law going to keep a person who wants to do bad things out of a public restroom? 

Laws often have substantial deterrent effect, particularly when they are enforced.

Do speed limits have any effect on behavior?  Any deterrent effect?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Here: Bans on Transgender People Using Public Bathrooms and Facilities According to their Gender Identity

Discussions have been under way for quite a while on issues affecting use of bathroom facilities.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is completely non-responsive to my question. You have provided four "solutions" to a presumed problem. What is that problem?

Is the problem that people like this are allowed to use the men's restroom?

If that isn't the problem, what is it? If you can articulate four solutions to the problem, then surely you can articulate what the problem is.

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

what counts as "biological males who present as females"?

I am pretty sure I have already stated this, but in case not as precisely…what counts in this discussion with you is what you have described historically counted as presenting as female without the use of IDs or DNA in the past (if not in those exact terms) which you have stated in your arguments has been sufficient for differentiating between two sexes and in fact for you is seen as significant evidence against a spectrum of sexes if I understand your position correctly.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They would use the women's bathroom.  

Of course.  But only after*** having to wait up to 20 minutes on average (in Utah) for cops to respond and then only after the additional time it takes for ID to be established, which includes according to your criteria being detained and brought to the station for fingerprinting and a cheek swab if they lack ID.

You are protesting my use of “carded” to describe this process.  I am not seeing how you have refuted my use.

***of course these waits would only occur if they were challenged, but given the location of most public bathrooms, these challenges would imo and experience based on how often I have encountered other women when I am in or entering a public restroom be a high percentage of their attempts to use public bathrooms.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Quote

what counts as "biological males who present as females"?

I am pretty sure I have already stated this, but in case not as precisely…what counts in this discussion with you is what you have described historically counted as presenting as female without the use of IDs or DNA in the past (if not in those exact terms) which you have stated in your arguments has been sufficient for differentiating between two sexes and in fact for you is seen as significant evidence against a spectrum of sexes.  

Merely referencing "described historically counted as presenting as female without the use of IDs or DNA" does not illuminate or clarify.  I honestly don't know what you are talking about here.  Where did I describe criteria for "presenting as female"?  Could you provide a link?

What are the criteria that you would use to differentiate some biological males (those who "identify" or "present" as women, and hence should have access to women's bathrooms) and other biological males?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Quote

They would use the women's bathroom.  

Of course.  But only after having to wait up to 20 minutes on average (in Utah) for cops to respond and then only after the additional time it takes for ID to be established, which includes according to your criteria being detained and brought to the station for fingerprinting and a cheek swab if they lack ID.

Nope.  Once again, I have not posited "carding" as a precondition to access.

Just now, Calm said:

You are protesting my use of “carded” to describe this process.  I am not seeing how you have refuted my use.

You are not accurately stating my position.  I have not posited "carding" as a precondition to access.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

This is completely non-responsive to my question. You have provided four "solutions" to a presumed problem. What is that problem?

There is presently a dispute in society about whether biological males should have legal access to women's bathrooms (and changing rooms, and sports, and prisons).

The dispute is the "problem."  Some people don't want any biological males in women's spaces, some are okay with some biological males in women's spaces, and perhaps some others are okay with all males having legal access to women's spaces.

Legislatures have been looking at, and legislatively addressing, this issue/problem/concern for quite a while now (see my previous post with links re: laws affecting access to bathrooms).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  To clarify: A statute could authorize a biological male whose "gender identity" is a "woman" to have legal access to women's bathrooms, but would otherwise exclude all other males.  Is that a fair statement of your position?

If so, what counts as a biological male having a "gender identity" that triggers the legal access?

We do?  What if he says "I identify as a woman"?  Hasn't that been the drumbeat for some years now?  That a woman is "anyone who 'identifies' as a woman"?

I have been asking, for several pages now, for how you propose to differentiate between some biological males (who, in your view, should have legal access to women's bathrooms) and other biological males (who, in your view, should not have such access).

I've provided an explanation to you over and over. Asked and answered. People who present themselves as a man should use the men's room. People who present themselves as women should use the women's room. It isn't that hard.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A state-issued ID typically includes biological sex.  Further testing/confirmation would likely not be necessary in pretty much all instances.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. If somebody has a government ID from California, Oregon, Colorado, New York, Minnesota, Washington, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Maine, Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Kentucky, or if they have a U.S. Passport, you think they should be able to legally use the public restrooms that correspond to the gender indicated on the government-issued ID?

 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

They would use the women's bathroom.  

Of course.  But only after*** having to wait up to 20 minutes

You keep saying this, apparently with the intention of attributing it to me.  And I keep denying it.

I am not positing "carding" as a precondition to access to a bathroom.  How many times do I need to say this before you accept it?

A biological woman can use the woman's bathroom legally.  She has no need to present ID to anyone to do so, or to summon the police.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are protesting my use of “carded” to describe this process.  I am not seeing how you have refuted my use.

You keep attributing it to me, and I keep denying it.

There is a law on the books in Utah that only allows licensed attorneys to practice law.  I have been lawyering for 20 years.  I have appeared in court many hundreds of times.  I have a bar card, but I have never once had to use it to show to a judge to prove who I am.  Instead, I just walk into the courtroom, pass the bar (the partition between the gallery and the rest of the courtroom (containing that tables for the parties, the judge's bench, the clerk's desk, the jury box, etc.), and give my name when my case is called.

Similarly, there is a law on the books that requires automotive drivers to carry their driver's license with them.  Again, I have never once called the police and waited for them to arrive and shown them my DL before getting into my car and driving away.

And so on.  I am not positing "carding" as a precondition to accessing a public  bathroom.

Thanks,

-Smac