Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Why not save yourself and others time and effort by simply ignoring him and not responding if you feel this way about a post of his.  It is not like you are currently choosing to respond to every post that gets made, even if you respond to what I believe is a majority of them (I am not here implying you should respond to every post responding to you, that is most definitely not a precedent that should be set imo).  Just add a few more to the “not responding” category.  You have stated your opinion often enough of Seekimg’s comments I don’t believe he will have a misguided belief you see his posts as respectful suddenly if you stop responding.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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.

You are making it unnecessarily hard.

I know that is your position, but it does not explain your proposed solution.  What does "present{ing} themselves as a man" mean?  How would a police officer differentiate a biological woman who "identifies" as a man from a biological woman who does not?  Is it just the say-so of the individual?

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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?

I think state-issued IDs should include the individual's biological sex, and that the individual would then be limited to bathrooms intended for that sex (with some few exceptions previously noted).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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.

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

I met several.

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?

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?

Understand what?

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

I can see this is going no where fast. I will bow out with discussing because if you don't understand the LGBTQ then I can't explain well enough. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why not save yourself and others time and effort by simply ignoring him and not responding if you feel this way about a post of his.  

I have my reasons.  And you are free to disregard or gloss over posts of me responding to SU.

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is not like you are currently choosing to respond to every post that gets made, even if you respond to what I believe is a majority of them (I am not here implying you should respond to every post responding to you, that is most definitely not a precedent that should be set imo).  Just add a few more to the “not responding” category.  You have stated your opinion often enough of Seekimg’s comments I don’t believe he will have a misguided belief you see his posts as respectful suddenly if you stop responding.

Feedback noted.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I can see this is going no where fast. I will bow out with discussing because if you don't understand the LGBTQ then I can't explain well enough. 

I don't think I've said anything to indicate that I don't "understand the LGBTQ" (though I'm not sure what that means).

I've talked with many, many people, including people in that community, about LGBT issues.  I have asked them questions and answered theirs.  I have listened to what they have to say.  I have read many of the references and resourced they have provided.

When a person such as yourself says something like "you don't understand the LGBTQ," I typically construe that as "you are not agreeing with me and my perspective on matters affecting LGBTQ."  It is often not that I don't understand issues under discussion (though I, like all of us, have plenty of room to grow), but that I don't agree with this or that person or this or that ideology or platform.

This is an interesting phenomenon that seems to arise a lot in discussions such as this. 

To disagree with this or that LGBT-related issue/perspective/opinion is to "not understand" it.

To disagree with this or that LGBT ideology/presupposition/preference, etc. is to be bigoted/hateful towards LGBT people (hat tip to our ironically-named @SeekingUnderstanding).

I think reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 6, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

I figured out a long time ago you don’t track such things.  I am not the least critical of that.  There are several others who do not track people’s positions across multiple threads as well.  Posters I want to hear from, posters I give a lot of rep points to.  I certainly don’t track positions with the less frequent posters, though I may check through their profile for previous posts on the subject if I want to make a judgment (privately or publicly).  But that can take significant time and most posters don’t have that time to spare.  So please don’t assume I am critiquing your choice or inability not to track posters as that is not my issue at all.

It is when you draw conclusions or make judgments based solely on the one post or the few posts you have in your mind if we are having an ongoing discussion about my unstated motivation, my unstated  personal positions or anything else I haven’t stated and you criticize me based on these unfounded assumptions that is my issue.  

How are you not assuming you are tracking my handle sufficiently enough to predict my motivation in these cases?  If you know you can’t keep track of people’s handles and positions enough to accurately predict such, why do you assume it’s okay to make these assumptions?  It seems contradictory to me.  I should accept your apology as sincere because you are open about not being able to easily track my positions etc across multiple posts and yet it is still okay apparently somehow in your mind for you to make such negative judgments against me in public.  I just don’t get it.

If you want to think negative things about me privately I don’t care, I expect people to do so.  I certainly think posters act like jerks at time without saying it.  But if you are going to publicly call my character into question as you have multiple times since telling me and others I am making a caricature (intentional misrepresentation, therefore lying) when I am not or am rigidly close minded and not engaging in a good faith discussion (deception since I present myself as sincerely interested and willing to consider others’ POV) as you have also done in threads before this one, I am going to respond and if it keeps happening when I have already suggested a simple remedy for myself and anyone else—ask for clarification before issuing a negative judgment to be sure you are interpreting someone correctly—I am not going to pretend I don’t see something wrong with this behaviour just because you apologize most times I call you out on it…which isn’t every time you have done it btw.

Giving people the benefit of the doubt or asking for clarification before issuing judgment or simply mindreading solves the problem of not being able to track while avoiding the appearance of being insincere in your apologies because you continue to make the same mistakes when they can be easily corrected.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[SteveO]

11 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?

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.

Who’s bothered by having that person standing at the urinal next to them?

You guys have all been posting pictures going, “see, they’re just like you, why do you care”?  And nobody does.  They present as their preferred gender.  Nobody is demanding the cops come and check under people’s skirts to verify their genitalia is correct.  
 

How about this though?

This bother you?  This bothers me.  It bothers most people.  Probably doesn’t happen much.  But it’s bothersome.  But not so much apparently, that this one off weirdo doesn’t have defenders jumping on the grenade for him.

Now, how representable is the stuff that right wing grifters share from tic toc featuring unhealthy, overweight men with nail polish and bad wigs threatening to smash in the face of anyone who denies them access to the women’s bathroom?  I dunno.  They’re probably mentally ill losers who talk a lot, but don’t want to risk confrontation. 

Then again, I’ve seen video of topless men with breast implants at rallies screaming they want to cut people’s throats. Might have some autogynephillia going there.  I can’t say for certain.  I can only see them screaming and molesting themselves in public with children walking around.  So I think I would have a problem with them sharing women’s bathrooms.

Again, I dunno how prevalent any of this is.  There’s probably fear porn coming from the right about this.  But they said the single most effective political ad this past November was Kamala Harris’ interview segment regarding trans surgery for federal inmates.  Most important issue?  No.  Top 10?  Most likely not.  So why didn’t she put the matter to bed and wave it off as not something she’s focused on?  And that’s kind of the whole problem with everything discussed in this thread.

The left’s inability to distance itself from Reddit “thinkers.”

They can’t suss out material differences between situations. Everything looks alike to them, because they are glib, shallow, and can’t go into deep waters.  So when people say, “hey, what about this weird thing over here?”  You guys dismiss.  You ignore.  You say it doesn’t happen.  Or it lacks context.  Or we’re being bigots.  Or Karen’s. Or whatever.  And it makes people, rightfully, concerned that you guys either can’t, or won’t see the difference between the weird stuff, and the stuff that most people have no issue with.

Thats the problem.

[Analytics]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I know that is your position, but it does not explain your proposed solution.  What does "present{ing} themselves as a man" mean?  How would a police officer differentiate a biological woman who "identifies" as a man from a biological woman who does not?  Is it just the say-so of the individual?

My proposed solution is that Massachusetts' actual solution be implemented nationwide. Here is Massachusetts Gender Identity Guidance for Public Accommodations fact sheet, which explains laws that have been in effect for 8 years. It defines gender, explains how Massachusetts determines who may use which restrooms, etc. Real lawyers and real legislatures came up with these solutions, and they have been in effect for nearly a decade.

Since this has been in effect for over eight years now, it suggests that we can evaluate the real-world effects of this law by seeing what the results have been in Massachusetts. I googled that, and this is what came up. 

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/trans-pub-acc-laws-press-release/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Do you have any evidence that the Massachusetts law doesn't work in the real world because of the concerns you repeat here?

Likewise, several states have enacted laws that are more to your liking. What have been the real-world results in those states?

I'll spare you a dump of links to research papers I've found. Suffice it to say the evidence on anti-transgender laws is pretty one-sided. On the negative side, studies show they lead to big problems for transgender youth—higher rates of suicide attempts, more anxiety, and less access to care that’s proven to improve mental health. I looked for evidence of anything positive, like better public safety or some other benefit that supporters claim, but there’s no solid research backing those up. So far, the data shows these laws do a lot of harm and don’t deliver on the supposed benefits.

Am I wrong? Rather than talk about hypotheticals, I'd be interested in whether you have any evidence that the laws in Massachusetts have caused actual harm to women and that the laws in, say, Tennessee have actually made women safer.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think state-issued IDs should include the individual's biological sex, and that the individual would then be limited to bathrooms intended for that sex (with some few exceptions previously noted).

Just to close the loop on this, earlier you 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.

My response was this question, which I don't believe you've answered yet: 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

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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?

I don’t believe you have actually described the criteria, but you seemed to have something definite in mind when you say things similar to this: 

Quote

The sexual binary is not an assumption.  It is a biological and scientific fact.

And then make the claim this hasn’t been challenged until recently and iirc you have claimed the challenge is based on ideology, not reality, implying it is simple common sense.  Do you disagree with anything I have said here?  I will attempt to find a post where you discuss this, but wanted to put my thoughts down before I forgot as to frequently happens if I don’t do it right away.

If the sexual binary is a fact and was a fact long before there were DNA tests, then surely there must have been criteria to determine easily determine whether someone was male or female.   Errors due to biological anomalies would have been quite rare in your opinion iirc.  Do you agree or disagree with this?

So in your scenario of a sexual binary, logically in the past there must have been a set of easily accessible (since we are talking about clear cut decisions without medical tests, so by sight or sound I am thinking) criteria for judging whether someone was male or female.  Correct?

>>>>>My point:  Because of modern medical interventions such criteria may no longer be used to easily determine biological sex, but they can still be used (if they actually ever existed) to determine whether or not someone presents as male or female.  

Do you agree or disagree with my point?  
 

If you agree, then I don’t see why I need itemize what these criteria are because you are the one positing they exist, not me.  I am simply saying if these standards of determine binary sex existed prior to medical tests of biological tests, then people today can use these same standards to determine if someone presents as male or female.

Iow, I am taking your solution in good faith and attempting to see how it would work in the real world assuming your assumptions about binary sexes are correct.

I hope this clarifies enough what I am doing and I really hope I have not misinterpreted your ongoing position about binary sexes.  If I am, I sincerely look forward to clarification so I can correct my opinions as I do attempt to track positions of frequent posters across threads and even years in order to save time…plus I find it more interesting to place people’s comments in context with their other ideas as it helps me imagine possible thought processes different people have, which is one of my fascinations with the board.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Nobody is demanding the cops come and check under people’s skirts to verify their genitalia is correct.  

But isn’t smac requiring police to check ID when appearance does not match the sex of the single sex space and if they lack ID, police are to detain them and take them down to the station to get fingerprinted or cheek swabbed.  Or am I misunderstanding him?

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, SteveO said:

This bother you?  This bothers me.  It bothers most people.  Probably doesn’t happen much.  But it’s bothersome.  But not so much apparently, that this one off weirdo doesn’t have defenders jumping on the grenade for him.

Is this person in a male or female only space?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

Then again, I’ve seen video of topless men with breast implants at rallies screaming they want to cut people’s throats. Might have some autogynephillia going there.  I can’t say for certain.  I can only see them screaming and molesting themselves in public with children walking around.  So I think I would have a problem with them sharing women’s bathrooms.

But it’s their behaviour that is the issue, correct?

There are older women who poorly use makeup that bother me.  Drawing on eyebrows while still having obvious eyebrows below, for example.  It is artistically unpleasant.  There are even quite a few older women I have to use clothing to identify whether or not they are women due to the facial changes menopause and old age brings for many women.  I am personally very embarrassed by the fact I have an excessive number of hairs growing along my chin line and due to fibromyalgia lowering my pain tolerance, I can no longer pluck them out.  I also scar very easily so I am not certain electrolysis is a good solution for me.  If I did not control them by shaving (how humiliating is that, having to shave my beard…in some things I identify very, very strongly as a woman and women do not shave beards in my primitive brain), I would likely look like Shaggy from Scooby doo.   Such an attractive look, don’t you think?

I have a problem with faces too, I even spaced once on my son’s face until he talked when I met him unexpectedly (seriously, my mind was thinking “who is this strange guy who has the nerve to ring my doorbell at almost midnight?”). I am discovering I pay more attention to clothing, behaviour, and sound than sight these days (not going to do an epic on the minor visual impairment that has me thinking I can’t see anything straight anymore).  I am not sure if this is contributing to me seeing more older women as looking more masculine or not.  Perhaps faces in general read more generic in general now to me.  Maybe they always did and I am just paying attention to it more now because my memory isn’t as good and I don’t track hair color and styles and clothing choices as much as I used to be able to.

I feel sad for people who look rotten in their makeup for whatever reason.  I am not fearful of them though.  Someone can have the most beautiful face and if they are screaming at me I am likely rigid in shock, if not fear (I have only been screamed at that way by a family member, so I am guessing what my reaction would be with a stranger).  A well made up mother who is verbally abusing their child even mildly has me livid. I know that if I interfere it is likely to make things worse for the child, so these days if it’s not something cops can act on, I keep my mouth shut.  So far I have never been present for physical abuse, but I hope I would act immediately in those cases.

But again it’s behaviour that triggers my belief action should be taken, not simple appearance (I mean basic appearance, simple hair, clothing, makeup if using it…not appearing to be drunk or exposing themselves as that counts as behaviour to me even if they are unconscious, as I unfortunately know based on experience walking in the  Moscow metro).  

Toplessness is a behaviour in our society.  Just having breast implants is appearance to me assuming they are covered.  Screaming about cutting throats…obviously behaviour and the most worrying one to me.  I doubt that most left leaning in ideology would feel comfortable with anyone screaming about cutting someone’s throat.  Toplessness….when guys can’t go topless in our culture, talk to me about that being an issue on its own I should be fearful about….though I would definitely be terrified if a topless man was approaching me in the bathroom.  

Edited December 6, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My proposed solution is that Massachusetts' actual solution be implemented nationwide. Here is Massachusetts Gender Identity Guidance for Public Accommodations fact sheet, which explains laws that have been in effect for 8 years. It defines gender, explains how Massachusetts determines who may use which restrooms, etc. Real lawyers and real legislatures came up with these solutions, and they have been in effect for nearly a decade.

Noted.  I'll give this a read.

The law's starting point is "gender identity."  Women's bathrooms are open to anyone who claims an "internal sense" of being a woman.  IOW, any biological male can go into women's bathrooms by claiming this "internal sense."

The guidance states that "{m}isuse of sex-segregated facilities is exceedingly rare," but it provides no reference or substantiation for that.  The law also states that "a person may not assert gender identity for an 'improper purpose.'"

This is helpful, and persuasive, stuff.  I'll give it some study and thought.

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Since this has been in effect for over eight years now, it suggests that we can evaluate the real-world effects of this law by seeing what the results have been in Massachusetts. I googled that, and this is what came up. 

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/trans-pub-acc-laws-press-release/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Do you have any evidence that the Massachusetts law doesn't work in the real world because of the concerns you repeat here?

At the moment, I'm just now encountering this.

Offhand, the study appears to focus solely on safety concerns.

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Likewise, several states have enacted laws that are more to your liking. What have been the real-world results in those states?

I'm not sure there has been an assessment of such things.  From this article:

Quote

We found little available information on how the laws are being enforced and no instances in which people were criminally charged for violating the Utah or Florida laws. 

 

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'll spare you a dump of links to research papers I've found. Suffice it to say the evidence on anti-transgender laws is pretty one-sided. On the negative side, studies show they lead to big problems for transgender youth—higher rates of suicide attempts, more anxiety, and less access to care that’s proven to improve mental health. I looked for evidence of anything positive, like better public safety or some other benefit that supporters claim, but there’s no solid research backing those up. So far, the data shows these laws do a lot of harm and don’t deliver on the supposed benefits.

Am I wrong? Rather than talk about hypotheticals, I'd be interested in whether you have any evidence that the laws in Massachusetts have caused actual harm to women and that the laws in, say, Tennessee have actually made women safer.

Just to close the loop on this, earlier you 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.

My response was this question, which I don't believe you've answered yet: 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?

 

Here's another interesting article: The Science of Trans-Inclusive Bathroom Bills

Some excerpts:

Quote

High profile figures, including children's book author J. K. Rowling, have claimed that such policies would promote public safety. They imply that trans-inclusive bathroom policies will result in more sexual assaults. In my new book, Free to Be: Understanding Kids & Gender Identity, I try to move away from charged political rhetoric and towards science. After all, the best public policies are evidence-based, not rhetoric-based. Let's take a look at what the peer-reviewed research suggests when it comes to policies that allow trans people to use the facilities that match their gender identities.

In 2019, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health analyzed data from a sample of 3,673 transgender students in grades seven through twelve. Their study, published in the journal Pediatrics (the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics), found that policies that force trans youth to use the bathrooms of their sex assigned at birth were associated with elevated rates of sexual assault against transgender kids.
...
 

Ironically, proponents of bathroom bills to force kids to use the bathrooms associated with their sex assigned at birth argue that they are working to prevent trauma, when in reality they seem to be generating trauma for vulnerable transgender students.

While the Harvard study showed that trans-inclusive facility policies are linked to better safety for trans youth, the study didn't look at the impact of such policies for cisgender people or the general population.

However, another study, from researchers at UCLA, looked at just this. They examined different localities within Massachusetts—some of which had trans-inclusive facility policies—and others that did not. They then submitted public record requests to analyze the sexual assault rates in each locality. They found that trans-inclusive facility policies were not associated with any increased risk of sexual assault against the general (primarily cisgender) population.

If we look at these two studies together, we see that trans-inclusive public accommodations do not appear to be linked to any increase in assault risk for cisgender people, while they are linked to dramatically lower risk against trans young people. 

This is persuasive stuff, at least as to access to bathrooms.

Here's an article negatively critiquing gender-neutral bathrooms: Against Gender-Neutral Bathrooms

And this: Americans’ Complex Views on Gender Identity and Transgender Issues

Quote

Even though there is not a majority consensus on most of these laws or policies, there are gaps of at least 10 percentage points on three items. ... 41% would favor requiring transgender individuals to use public bathrooms that match the sex they were assigned at birth rather than the gender they identify with; 31% say they would oppose each of these.
...
Views differ even more widely along party lines. For example, ... require transgender individuals to use public bathrooms that match the sex they were assigned at birth (67% vs. 20%)...

Troubling: Transgender teens with restricted bathroom access at higher risk of sexual assault

Thanks,

-Smac

[SteveO]

Calm, know that I love ya

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But isn’t smac requiring police to check ID when appearance does not match the sex of the single sex space and if they lack ID, police are to detain them and take them down to the station to get fingerprinted or cheek swabbed.  Or am I misunderstanding him?

Im not speaking for smac, and I haven’t read the whole thread, but if this is his position, I think he’s on the fringe.  Most people aren’t advocating this. I listen to Tool while weightlifting. I take sups. House, smoking hot wife, kid, good job.  I’m pretty alpha.  I voted Trump. 3x.  I don’t advocate for this.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Is this person in a male or female only space?

Women’s locker room at Planet Fitness.  When he was approached, he said “I’m queer”.

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

But it’s their behaviour that is the issue, correct?

There are older women who poorly use makeup that bother me.  Drawing on eyebrows while still having obvious eyebrows below, for example.  It is artistically unpleasant.  There are even quite a few older women I have to use clothing to identify whether or not they are women due to the facial changes menopause and old age brings for many women.  I am personally very embarrassed by the fact I have an excessive number of hairs growing along my chin line and due to fibromyalgia lowering my pain tolerance, I can no longer pluck them out.  I also scar very easily so I am not certain electrolysis is a good solution for me.  If I did not control them by shaving (how humiliating is that, having to shave my beard…in some things I identify very, very strongly as a woman and women do not shave beards in my primitive brain), I would likely look like Shaggy from Scooby doo.   Such an attractive look, don’t you think?

I have a problem with faces too, I even spaced once on my son’s face until he talked when I met him unexpectedly (seriously, my mind was thinking “who is this strange guy who has the nerve to ring my doorbell at almost midnight?”). I am discovering I pay more attention to clothing, behaviour, and sound than sight these days (not going to do an epic on the minor visual impairment that has me thinking I can’t see anything straight anymore).  

I feel sad for people who look rotten in their makeup for whatever reason.  I am not fearful of them though.  Someone can have the most beautiful face and if they are screaming at me I am likely rigid in shock, if not fear (I have only been screamed at that way by a family member, so I am guessing what my reaction would be with a stranger).  A well made up mother who is verbally abusing their child even mildly has me livid. I know that if I interfere it is likely to make things worse for the child, so these days if it’s not something cops can act on, I keep my mouth shut.  So far I have never been present for physical abuse, but I hope I would act immediately in those cases.

But again it’s behaviour that triggers my belief action should be taken, not simple appearance (I am mean basic appearance, simple hair, clothing, makeup if using it…not appearing to be drunk or exposing themselves as that counts as behaviour to me even if they are unconscious, as I unfortunately know based on experience walking in the  Moscow metro).  

Toplessness is a behaviour in our society.  Just having breast implants is appearance to me assuming they are covered.  Screaming about cutting throats…obviously behaviour and the most worrying one to me.  I doubt that most left leaning in ideology would feel comfortable with anyone screaming about cutting someone’s throat.  Toplessness….when guys can’t go topless in our culture, talk to me about that being an issue on its own I should be fearful about….though I would definitely be terrified if a topless man was approaching me in the bathroom.  

I don’t have too much to say to this.  I’m pointing out that there is an inability to differentiate between members of a community by some on this board. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Calm, know that I love ya

Back at you.  

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Noted.  I'll give this a read.

The law's starting point is "gender identity."  Women's bathrooms are open to anyone who claims an "internal sense" of being a woman.  IOW, any biological male can go into women's bathrooms by claiming this "internal sense."

Not exactly. It says it is about protecting the right of people to use "sex-segregated facilities that are most consistent with their sincerely held gender identity." People who don't sincerely hold a female gender identity may not use the women's room. 

Quoting from pages 4-5:

Quote

 

What does it mean to assert gender identity for an improper purpose?

This law explicitly provides that a person may not assert gender identity for an “improper purpose.” This means that a person may not fraudulently assert gender identity to gain access to a sex-segregated facility in which they would otherwise not be permitted. It also means that a person may not assert gender identity for the purpose of engaging in improper or unlawful conduct. Examples of improper or unlawful conduct may include, but are not limited to:

• Loitering in a facility for the purpose of observing other patrons; 
• Harassment of an employee or patron; 
• Threats or violence towards another person;
• Photographing or videotaping other patrons without permission; or 
• Other violations of existing law, including criminal law. 

This new law does not provide any protections for someone who engages in improper or unlawful conduct, whether in a sex-segregated facility or elsewhere. Nor does it provide a defense to criminal charges brought against someone engaged in unlawful conduct. Anyone who engages in unlawful conduct in a sex-segregated facility or elsewhere may properly be questioned, detained, and reported to law enforcement (see below). This new law does not affect any existing criminal laws or their applicability to any particular conduct.

Does this law allow a person to access a sex-segregated facility that is not consistent with their gender identity?

No. This law protects the right of individuals to use sex-segregated facilities that are most consistent with their gender identity. It does not allow an individual to fraudulently assert gender identity in order to gain access to sex-segregated facilities in which they would otherwise not be permitted. In such circumstances, it may be appropriate for a place of public accommodation to take action consistent with its usual policies regarding the removal or suspension of patrons who engage in improper conduct.

What should a business or place of public accommodation do if it believes a person is engaging in improper or unlawful conduct, either in a sex-segregated space or elsewhere?

If an employee of a public accommodation has reasonable grounds to believe that a person, regardless of gender identity, is engaged in improper or unlawful conduct (as discussed above), the employee may address the situation through whatever means the business typically addresses misconduct by a patron, including asking the patron to leave, or calling security or law enforcement. If a person asserts gender identity to access a sex-segregated facility for the sole purpose of engaging in unlawful conduct, that person may properly be referred to law enforcement. In such circumstances, a place of public accommodation may take action consistent with its usual policies regarding contacting law enforcement to address the unlawful conduct of a patron. However, any referral to law enforcement must be based on an individual’s unlawful conduct, and not on the individual’s gender-related identity or appearance. In no event may a place of public accommodation seek to use law enforcement or security to harass or embarrass a person based on gender identity.

 

This is generally consistent with what I've suggested--if somebody is loitering in the women's restroom, then by all means call the cops and prosecute. But if they go in, use the toilet, wash their hands, and then leave, it is appropriate to presume they are being sincere about what they claim about their gender identity.

[smac97]

Just now, Analytics said:

Quote

The law's starting point is "gender identity."  Women's bathrooms are open to anyone who claims an "internal sense" of being a woman.  IOW, any biological male can go into women's bathrooms by claiming this "internal sense."

Not exactly. It says it is about protecting the right of people to use "sex-segregated facilities that are most consistent with their sincerely held gender identity." People who don't sincerely hold a female gender identity may not use the women's room. 

"Sincerity."  Got it.

Just now, Analytics said:

Quoting from pages 4-5:

This is generally consistent with what I've suggested--if somebody is loitering in the women's restroom, then by all means call the cops and prosecute. But if they go in, use the toilet, wash their hands, and then leave, it is appropriate to presume they are being sincere about what they claim about their gender identity.

Understood.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Quote

Third, women — partly for safety and partly in honoring an age-old ritual — often go to the bathroom in numbers. Some will touch on make-up. Others will, if the line isn’t too long, have a chinwag while there. This is important to women. Don’t ask me why. But it is.

This is from Against Gender Neutral Bathrooms link.

I would really love to know how important is the above to most women. On the scale of 1 to 10, for me it would be about a -5.  I don’t want to hang out in bathrooms or locker rooms with anyone, I dislike it when women do this…and I haven’t seen it happen much in bathrooms for anyone older than 15 (estimate).  But since I don’t spend hours in bathrooms, I may not be typical in my experience.

I have seen it for older women in locker rooms because it naturally happens when women are in the same class at the gym, but they are getting dressed while talking, I am not seeing that as one of the purposes, but instead a side effect of having to use the locker room at the same time as someone one knows.

I would like to see an actual study on this to see the percentage of women who use bathrooms this way rather than just a claim this is typical of women.

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Not on people intent on going into a public restroom for nefarious purposes. I wouldn’t compare speeding to this kind of situation.

I’m only scared of bad men and no law will keep a bad man intent on doing evil out of an easily accessible public restroom. 

 

Edited December 7, 2024 by Peacefully

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

 

Serious questions I am asking so as to understand what your solution is since you are saying I am wrong in my description of a biological woman having to wait to use the restroom until someone checks their ID if someone suspects they are a man….

Does your solution require biological females presenting as males to leave the restroom and wait for cops to give approval to use a restroom if a woman requests them to do so?  
 

Does your solution allow any biological woman to walk into a female only restroom, use the facilities and walk out without having to wait for cops even if there is any incident?  They can just ignore another woman screaming “help, there’s a man in the bathroom” or whatever and there will be no legal or other consequences for them in your view?

Will others who take pictures of any biological woman in a restroom because they believe that person is a man be considered as breaking the law (I assume it’s illegal to film women in restrooms if they don’t want to be)?

If a woman uses pepper spray on any biological woman because they are fearful when they are apparently approached by the biological woman (say they have to walk around the woman to gain access to a stall), will the woman be charged with assault if the person turns out to be a biological female and not a biological male, even if visibly in appearance they would typically be judged as  man?

Will a woman who calls the cops because they believe the person entering the bathroom is a man be considered wasting cops’ time if it turns out to be a biological woman?  
 

If cops turn up and see a person who was reported as a man invading a woman’s only bathroom and they ask what were you doing and the person says “I am a woman using a woman’s only restroom”, in your solution will they ask for ID to determine whether they are telling the truth or accept tue answer as truth as default unless there is other suspicious behavior (taking pictures for example)?

Edited December 7, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Quote

 

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.

 

 

 

You said same rules for biological females.

Since a biological female will never be breaking the law to use the female only bathroom even if a bystander thinks they are, does this mean for your solution police cannot ask for ID from a biological female using a public restroom?  Nor can they if the self claimed biological woman lacks ID, detain the person and bring them to the station to determine if they are biologically female or not?

Edited December 7, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 12/4/2024 at 3:54 PM, smac97 said:

I often have a hard time understanding your posts, hence my requests for clarification.

We'll have to agree to disagree about that, I suppose.  John Q. Public is reacting and responding to what ideologues and extremists have brought to their door, their children's schools, their computer screens, and so on.

We don’t disagree. You’re wrong. Transgender people have been around for many decades. They only recently got thrust into the public eye by people opposed to them. They don’t really want the spotlight. They got it anyways.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Troubling: Transgender teens with restricted bathroom access at higher risk of sexual assault

Very. What is your solution to this?

Quote

Researchers looked at data from a survey of nearly 3,700 U.S. teens aged 13-17. The study found that 36% of transgender or gender-nonbinary students with restricted bathroom or locker room access reported being sexually assaulted in the last 12 months, according to a May 6, 2019 CNN article. Of all students surveyed, 1 out of every 4, or 25.9%, reported being a victim of sexual assault in the past year.

Bold means restricted to using a particular bathroom rather than one they choose, which in the majority of cases would be restricted to using the restroom of their biological sex.

Which would be required by law with your solution you mentioned previously in this thread unless I misunderstand you.  Correct?

Those who were not restricted and therefore could use the bathroom of their chosen gender are much less likely to be assaulted, etc.  This may be due to assaults occurring in the restroom or due to the environment that drove a law to require everyone to use the bathroom matching their biology or something else that is tied to both restriction of bathrooms and being transgender.

Edited December 7, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, Peacefully said:

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. 

Doesn’t actually believe themself to be six. It is a roleplay thing. Probably a kink. An interviewer assumed the absolute worst and ran with it. It is now gospel of course. 

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

This is from Against Gender Neutral Bathrooms link.

I would really love to know how important is the above to most women. On the scale of 1 to 10, for me it would be about a -5.  I don’t want to hang out in bathrooms or locker rooms with anyone, I dislike it when women do this…and I haven’t seen it happen much in bathrooms for anyone older than 15 (estimate).  But since I don’t spend hours in bathrooms, I may not be typical in my experience.

I have seen it for older women in locker rooms because it naturally happens when women are in the same class at the gym, but they are getting dressed while talking, I am not seeing that as one of the purposes, but instead a side effect of having to use the locker room at the same time as someone one knows.

I would like to see an actual study on this to see the percentage of women who use bathrooms this way rather than just a claim this is typical of women.

I have gone to the bathroom in situations like you are talking about with the gym - like if I'm shopping with my mom or daughter and we both end up needing to go, but I have never gone for social reasons and have never been with other women who have.  I think it's just a plot device for movies. Since women tend to need to go more perhaps men think women are going for social reasons?

Edited December 7, 2024 by Rain