Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules

[Bomb#20]

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘my approach.’ I haven’t actually proposed an approach.

Realistically, there are only three possible answers:
1) Use the bathroom of your presentation.
2) Use the bathroom of your anatomy.
3) All ambiguous cases go to an all-gender, or a men's if there is no all-gender. (And there won't be in many cases--retrofitting is hard.)

I consider #3 unfair, thus leaving #1 and #2.

I don't think you've thought that through. Since when is considering something unfair a reason to rule it out? A world containing bad people is a world where it's impossible to be fair to everyone -- trying to govern in such a world is always an exercise in robbing Peter to pay Paul. You think it's fair to force innocent people to pay lawyers to try to fool juries into acquitting guilty people? That's victimizing the innocent people a second time. We do it anyway even though it's unfair, because not doing it is even more unfair.

I consider #1 and #2 unfair -- more unfair than #3. You're claiming #1 and #2 are fair. Why are they fair?

You appear to be going with #2, and that leaves male-presenting people in the women's.

You appear to be going with #1, and that leaves all people at the mercy of the subjective feelings of whomever the authorities empower to decide which sex someone presents as. You really want your SIL ordered to use the men's room because the Lord High Presentation Evaluator says she's too mannish for the women's room, or worse, arrested for obeying the LHPE because some johnny-on-the-spot cop has a different opinion of how she looks?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seriously, men in this thread are absolutely discounting fears and concerns of women.

And they are right to do so.

People should discount fears and concerns, in the absence of evidence that those fears are based on actual threats.

$*&(^#@*(*&(^*^%#*&

1 in 5 women in the US has been subjected to an attempted or completed rape - including both me and Toni.
80% of women in the US have been sexually assaulted - and that doesn't include the ones who don't count having their boob grabbed by a total stranger as a sexual assault, and see it as just the cost of being a woman.
90% of the victims of sexual assault are female, and 98% of the perpetrators are male.

But sure. Go ahead and mansplain to us silly old hens that our concerns and fears are irrational.

*)%^$&^^%@!$

You keep referring to rape in general without distinguishing the circumstances.

Oh boy...

Yes, your fear is real--but you haven't established that trans are an actual threat. We are taking the position that fears should be evaluated, society should only enforce protection from realistic fears.

How can you say Emily Lake's "fear is real" but then discard it as not a "realistic fear"?

 

[Toni]

Seriously, men in this thread are absolutely discounting fears and concerns of women.

And they are right to do so.

People should discount fears and concerns, in the absence of evidence that those fears are based on actual threats.

$*&(^#@*(*&(^*^%#*&

1 in 5 women in the US has been subjected to an attempted or completed rape - including both me and Toni.
80% of women in the US have been sexually assaulted - and that doesn't include the ones who don't count having their boob grabbed by a total stranger as a sexual assault, and see it as just the cost of being a woman.
90% of the victims of sexual assault are female, and 98% of the perpetrators are male.

But sure. Go ahead and mansplain to us silly old hens that our concerns and fears are irrational.

*)%^$&^^%@!$

You keep referring to rape in general without distinguishing the circumstances.

Oh boy...

Yes, your fear is real--but you haven't established that trans are an actual threat. We are taking the position that fears should be evaluated, society should only enforce protection from realistic fears.

How can you say Emily Lake's "fear is real" but then discard it as not a "realistic fear"?

Loren just plain does not read or understand that trans people are not what is being feared here.

Loren does not understand that having a naked male body unexpectedly in a female only space can very reasonably trigger fear, trauma, PTSD in vulnerable girls and women. It doesn’t scare him, and he hasn’t dealt with trauma nor has he been conditioned to fear naked strange makes in private female only spaces where you might be more vulnerable because you are not expecting this and are perhaps not fully clothed, so he thinks it’s just no big deal.

Loren does not accept that on rare occasions, make individuals have cosplayed being trans in order to have access to victims. Because the cosplay to him is not believable, he refuses to accept that school officials have allowed individuals who put on dresses to access girl’s bathrooms and at least two girls have been raped. By this individual. He thinks there is some other explanation and therefore there is no reason to be concerned. What that explanation is, he has not offered up but I’m fairly confident that it would fall along the lines of it wasn’t really rape anyway.

Personally I do not give a fuck what Loren thinks, which seems to be only about himself.

 

[Toni]

I haven’t been clear: I do not think trans women are actually a threat to people in female only spaces.

Which is what we have been saying.

I DO think there is potential for trauma/triggering of PTSD for victims of sexual assault and also for trans women/girls who are screamed at or otherwise have individuals react in fear.

Lots of things can trigger PTSD. I don't think society is obligated to hide them.

My initial reaction to a naked male appearing body if I were showering in the women’s locker room at the gym would be to assume a threat. Most women would assume a threat. Most girls would assume a threat.

This is an instinctive reaction in part but also a conditioned reaction. In most places in the US, showers facilities are separated by gender and sex and for most people gender and sex are congruent.

Yes, a conditioned reaction. That doesn't justify maintaining it's legal status.

Very few rattle snakes will bite anyone unless disturbed or startled. That does not reduce the fear of rattle snakes if one should happen to encounter one in the shower. Not to be overly Freudian here. I’m guessing most males would experience fear if they encountered a rattle snake in the shower, much more so than if they encountered one in a zoo exhibit or say, at some distance on a hiking trail.

Every encounter I've had has been under 10'. And I would experience a lot more surprise if I found one in the shower but fear is purely a matter of range.

In other words, you are totally unwilling to acknowledge that women have any legitimate fear of rape. Certainly nothing that would require any adjustment of behavior in the part of makes or society as a whole.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Biology isn't all neat and tidy. Ongoing evolution produces variations, mutations, sports, and quirks all the time. Even when DNA is identical, conditions under which a child developed can lead to different end results.

"Intersex" is a term that describes people who don't meet all the criteria for one of the two sex categories, or who have physical characteristics of both. It is the catch-all term for the end result of a lot of different developmental pathways that lead to one having ambiguous genitalia or sex organs of more than one sex. It doesn't have to be precisely defined for it to be an accurate, useful, and valid designation.

Exactly. Reality is male, mixed, female. Very strong peaks on the male and female points but it is a spectrum.

Even if we only recognize two sexes and sort everyone into one or the other, that does not mean there are only two genders, or that gender is immutable.

Do we have any evidence of gender changing? We've tried that with homosexuality, conversion therapy goes very badly. I don't think gender fluid truly exists, I think it's someone with about equal male and female that is trying to fit into a binary classification. We used to have a guy on here that had served on boomers, one of the stories he told was about a problem from updating the weather (yes, boomers care about weather--over their target(s)) from -0 to +0 (or perhaps the reverse)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem was she didn't want to be visible in the men's room with a vagina. I don't blame her.

So why do you think that vagina-havers should be required to be visible to penis-havers in the women's room?

The problem was fear of personal danger.

(Although the other way around we actually do see the same thing--there's one unquestionable trans rape in the women's room. Of the trans individual, not by them.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seriously, men in this thread are absolutely discounting fears and concerns of women.

And they are right to do so.

People should discount fears and concerns, in the absence of evidence that those fears are based on actual threats.

$*&(^#@*(*&(^*^%#*&

1 in 5 women in the US has been subjected to an attempted or completed rape - including both me and Toni.
80% of women in the US have been sexually assaulted - and that doesn't include the ones who don't count having their boob grabbed by a total stranger as a sexual assault, and see it as just the cost of being a woman.
90% of the victims of sexual assault are female, and 98% of the perpetrators are male.

But sure. Go ahead and mansplain to us silly old hens that our concerns and fears are irrational.

*)%^$&^^%@!$

You keep referring to rape in general without distinguishing the circumstances.

Oh boy...

Yes, your fear is real--but you haven't established that trans are an actual threat. We are taking the position that fears should be evaluated, society should only enforce protection from realistic fears.

How can you say Emily Lake's "fear is real" but then discard it as not a "realistic fear"?

Loren just plain does not read or understand that trans people are not what is being feared here.

Loren does not understand that having a naked male body unexpectedly in a female only space can very reasonably trigger fear, trauma, PTSD in vulnerable girls and women. It doesn’t scare him, and he hasn’t dealt with trauma nor has he been conditioned to fear naked strange makes in private female only spaces where you might be more vulnerable because you are not expecting this and are perhaps not fully clothed, so he thinks it’s just no big deal.

Loren does not accept that on rare occasions, make individuals have cosplayed being trans in order to have access to victims. Because the cosplay to him is not believable, he refuses to accept that school officials have allowed individuals who put on dresses to access girl’s bathrooms and at least two girls have been raped. By this individual. He thinks there is some other explanation and therefore there is no reason to be concerned. What that explanation is, he has not offered up but I’m fairly confident that it would fall along the lines of it wasn’t really rape anyway.

Loren is viewing this purely from an anti-septic POV, straight up statistics. If the likelihood of an attack is unlikely, then it isn't a 'realistic' threat, period, end of statement. IE, the final outcome of crime or no crime is how he envisions this.

I think he is asking the wrong the question in his analysis. This isn't about a 'realistic' threat, but a 'realistic' perception.

I agree, the perception is muddled in an ugly amount of unfairness to a transgender woman as some the presumptions are based on intolerance of transgender women (mainly by men, but certainly some women). However, there is a lot rooted in personal trauma as well as a natural (and should be expected) innate reaction due to what would have otherwise been lewd behavior at the very best. A reaction / perception that is precipitated by an aggregate of well documented sex crimes (and undocumented sex crimes) against women by men.

 

[Toni]

Yes, Loren does not seem to see human emotions as being valid. Full stop.

 

[Bomb#20]

Setting aside the language abuse involved in calling opinions "imposing", what makes her saying 'he" any more an imposition on everybody else than you saying "she"? Quite the reverse -- Emily didn't call you an uncool dick for saying "she". Looks to me like Emily's the one exhibiting the live-and-let-live attitude here. She uses the pronouns she wants to use; you use the pronouns you want to use; what's the problem? It's a free country.

Yes, it is a free country. Is that the bar for decency though? For what is considered proper decorum?

Nope. Why do you ask? Are decency and proper decorum the bar for truth? This is an infidel forum, for crying out loud. If we gave a toss about other people's criteria for decency and proper decorum don't you think we'd all be pretending to be theists?

When you saw Roots, and Kunte is being whipped because he refuses to accept a third-party identity, were you thinking "it is a free country"?

It wasn't a free country. When you saw it were you thinking what made the country unfree was the kidnapper calling Kunte "Toby", not the kidnapper whipping him and, you know, kidnapping him?

I doubt it. Is it okay, just as long as we don't torture the person?

Is what okay? Calling a guy named Kunte "Toby" and kidnapping him? Calling a guy named Kunte "Toby"? Calling a guy named Kunte "him"? First one's evil, second one's not proper decorum, third one, yeah, that one kind of seems okay to me.

Calling someone that truthfully feels like they are the alternate gender, their birth gender is presumptuous and really... nothing short of rude.

Tenzin Gyatso, I presume, truthfully feels like he's the reincarnation of Thupten Gyatso. After all, he grew up surrounded by people who told him he was. Do you think it's therefore presumptuous and nothing short of rude for us infidels here to call Tenzin "not the reincarnation of Thupten"? Sure, it might be rude to say it to his face, but that's not what's going on here, is it?

Sure, it is a "free country", but unless someone has a particular insight into how someone else thinks, going with the original birth gender is nothing short of judgmental.

What the heck has "how someone else thinks" got to do with it? I don't need to know how Tenzin Gyatso thinks to judge that he's not anyone's reincarnation, and if you find that judgmental of me, that's nothing short of judgmental of you. It's a discussion forum -- judging stuff is the whole point.

Gender is a social construct. If you have evidence that "how someone else thinks" is part of the social criteria for gender, share.

Yeah, and the Christians of my childhood figured it was pretty fracking arrogant to declare Jesus was mistaken about being the Son of God. I think it's pretty fracking arrogant to declare people are dicks because they won't accept an argument from authority. Do you have any substantive reason to think a person cannot be mistaken about his or her own gender?

I think that person is most likely in the best position to judge on that, not an independent third person. They can be mistaken or wrong or confused, but they'll know a lot more about how they reached this point than some third party who refuses to take how they identify with any sense of seriousness.

You think I'm one "who refuses to take how they identify with any sense of seriousness"? But I've given you no reason to think that of me. The reason you think that of me is apparently that you are in the grip of the same equivocation fallacy that underlies about 99% of gender ideology, equivocation between "gender identity" and "gender". That fallacy would also account for you thinking "that person is most likely in the best position to judge on that, not an independent third person".

Of course I take how Semenya identifies seriously. Why on earth wouldn't Semenya think yena*'s a girl? Yena grew up surrounded by people who thought yena was a girl and told yena so. That's life as a guevedoce. What I don't take seriously is the religious belief of gender ideologues that an individual's inner feelings trump reality. Gender is a social construct. What the criteria for the genders are are up to society collectively.

(* "Yena" is the third-person singular pronoun in Sepedi, so it's presumably what Semenya grew up accustomed to being called. Sepedi doesn't do grammatical gender.)

 

[Toni]

Seriously, men in this thread are absolutely discounting fears and concerns of women.

And they are right to do so.

People should discount fears and concerns, in the absence of evidence that those fears are based on actual threats.

$*&(^#@*(*&(^*^%#*&

1 in 5 women in the US has been subjected to an attempted or completed rape - including both me and Toni.
80% of women in the US have been sexually assaulted - and that doesn't include the ones who don't count having their boob grabbed by a total stranger as a sexual assault, and see it as just the cost of being a woman.
90% of the victims of sexual assault are female, and 98% of the perpetrators are male.

But sure. Go ahead and mansplain to us silly old hens that our concerns and fears are irrational.

*)%^$&^^%@!$

You keep referring to rape in general without distinguishing the circumstances.

Oh boy...

Yes, your fear is real--but you haven't established that trans are an actual threat. We are taking the position that fears should be evaluated, society should only enforce protection from realistic fears.

How can you say Emily Lake's "fear is real" but then discard it as not a "realistic fear"?

Loren just plain does not read or understand that trans people are not what is being feared here.

Loren does not understand that having a naked male body unexpectedly in a female only space can very reasonably trigger fear, trauma, PTSD in vulnerable girls and women. It doesn’t scare him, and he hasn’t dealt with trauma nor has he been conditioned to fear naked strange makes in private female only spaces where you might be more vulnerable because you are not expecting this and are perhaps not fully clothed, so he thinks it’s just no big deal.

Loren does not accept that on rare occasions, make individuals have cosplayed being trans in order to have access to victims. Because the cosplay to him is not believable, he refuses to accept that school officials have allowed individuals who put on dresses to access girl’s bathrooms and at least two girls have been raped. By this individual. He thinks there is some other explanation and therefore there is no reason to be concerned. What that explanation is, he has not offered up but I’m fairly confident that it would fall along the lines of it wasn’t really rape anyway.

Loren is viewing this purely from an anti-septic POV, straight up statistics. If the likelihood of an attack is unlikely, then it isn't a 'realistic' threat, period, end of statement. IE, the final outcome of crime or no crime is how he envisions this.

I think he is asking the wrong the question in his analysis. This isn't about a 'realistic' threat, but a 'realistic' perception.

I agree, the perception is muddled in an ugly amount of unfairness to a transgender woman as some the presumptions are based on intolerance of transgender women (mainly by men, but certainly some women). However, there is a lot rooted in personal trauma as well as a natural (and should be expected) innate reaction due to what would have otherwise been lewd behavior at the very best. A reaction / perception that is precipitated by an aggregate of well documented sex crimes (and undocumented sex crimes) against women by men.

It’s unfair to women, period. Not just cis or just trans women. It’s unfair to expect women to accept something that is potentially a threat to their physical safety because it doesn’t bother Loren. It’s unfair that trans women or cis women must deal with increased trauma because it’s just not a big deal to men. Or, for some small ( but not small enough) number of men, the trauma is the point.

Some men get off on causing fear and pain to women. Some men don’t cared much because it’s not their problem.

Some men blame women.

Some men wring their hands and claim helplessness.

There is overlap between groups.

Most men absolutely do not want to give up male control over society and also do not want to acknowledge the responsibility for violence.

Many/most men prefer that things remain a boys club.

 

[seanie]

And there are women and girls with experiences, and reactions , and feelings, and thoughts , and needs, and wishes, and hopes, and dreams, who want spaces free from males in some circumstances, regardless of how those males identify.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm all for science, and I'm all for the college system. And I don't despise academia... although I frequently dislike academics. I particularly dislike those academics who insist that their liberal arts studies full of untestable speculations are synonymous with hard sciences.

You sound very much like I used to be: assuming that social sciences had no real science to them, which, as it turns out, is quite false. Which I learned in college and after. Sure intro classes were very easy but so were intro science and math courses.

You didn't understand her point.

Yes, there is merit to the social sciences. But they are full of untestable stuff that has no business being called science. Real science needs either high precision observations or a whole lot of observations, and the social sciences have a very hard time actually doing this.

Hard sciences need to be quantifiable, testable, and falsifiable.

There are a whole lot of fields of study that have managed to get the label "science" slapped on them, even though they aren't science at all. There are lots of things, like the social sciences, that have somehow acquired a label of science but are almost entirely qualitative, with some occasional categorical statistics involved. Which is great - often quite worthwhile - but not actually science.

There's also a bit of a gray area, in applied sciences. Those are studies that are built on actual real science, but the majority of people who work in those fields don't do any actual science. I'd put myself in that category, as an actuary. Schools that offer degree in my field usually call it "actuarial science" but there's no actual science going on, it's all application of stuff that someone else did the real science for. I'd put computer science in the same category, along with most of medicine.

Really? You don’t think economists or sociologists or psychologists conduct research or collect and analyze data?

Quantifiable AND testable AND falsifiable, Toni.

Yes, they collect and analyze data. But the vast majority of what they do is descriptive, not predictive.

The hard sciences are predictive - you can take the formula, the relationship, the observed dynamics of whatever it is you're looking at, and you can input your observations, and it will tell you what the outcome will be to within a narrow margin of error - enough that it's a statistically insignificant difference.

I don't demand a narrow margin of error for something to be a science. But it should be at least somewhat predictive. Both psychology and economics can make decent predictions in some cases, I'll grant them the label of "science".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's a great deal of actual science in computer science. Sure, it's aptly called "The Art of Computer Programming"; and sure, the design of algorithms and data structures and interfaces is just engineering, not science. But all that stuff is a minority of what working computer scientists do. All that stuff is only what's going on when the computer does what you want it to do. Computers don't do what you want them to do; they do what you tell them to do. Any time those don't match, which is usually, you have to find out why. And the way you find out is a straight-up hard science -- gather data, form a hypothesis, calculate expected behavior if the hypothesis is true, likewise if it's false, settle the question by repeatable experiment, if the facts don't match the theory it must be discarded, form a new hypothesis, rinse and repeat. Rutherford said there are only two sciences, physics and stamp-collecting. If that's true computer science is about the least physicsy and most stamp-collectingy science in the world, but it's still a science for all that.

We apply the techniques of the scientist to figuring out a problem. However, I think that for the most part it's a skilled art, the science part is mostly beyond the BS degree.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It was presented in this thread. Exactly as we expected--male-presenting individuals using the women's causes arrests and violence.

Sounds like you're talking about Strobel. And you're the guy who wrote:

"Except I see repeated references to very low quality evidence, no unquestionable cases.​

And reality has taught me that a sea of low quality data almost always means false."​

Strobel is low quality evidence if ever there was any. She isn't even what you're claiming her as an example of, "having to use the bathroom that doesn't match your presentation". She didn't have to use the women's room; that was her choice. What's worse, there's no indication that what happened to her was because of her male presentation. Before she went into the women's room she went into the men's room, and then she identified herself to the bar staff as a man. It's entirely likely that if she hadn't done those things and had just gone into the women's room in the first place, nothing bad would have happened to her. Strobel gave the bar owner every reason to think the "F" on her license was a lie; that's on her.

The problem was she didn't want to be visible in the men's room with a vagina. I don't blame her.

And the fact that the ID said "F" should have settled it. It went way too far.

Certainly. The cop and bar owner and waitress all acted badly; that isn't the point. You're ignoring Strobel's part in setting the stage. When somebody tells an inconsistent story it's human nature for others to assume he's lying to try to get away with something, so they discount input from him and form their own judgment -- all too often just falling back on their own biases. That makes this case low quality evidence for your conclusion. You dismiss other people's examples as low quality evidence for less.

It doesn't seem that inconsistent. It's the expected result of a vagina bearer living as a male.

And the cop has the ability to check the license. Not dropping it at that point is inexcusable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don’t think any thinks Isaac Newton didn’t do physics, but neither did he have high precision nor lots of observations.

He didn't make them, doesn't mean he didn't have them. Namely, the observations of the positions of the planets in the sky. Centuries of data.

Then social scientists are a science because there are centuries of observations of humans in societies.

No. I'm stating that science requires either a lot of data or precise data. I am not saying that lots of data proves it's a science! If p then q. Q. Doesn't prove p.

 

[TSwizzle]

After 18 months, this case has come to a conclusion

A nurse who complained about sharing a changing room with a transgender doctor has been cleared of gross misconduct following disciplinary proceedings by NHS Fife. Sandie Peggie was suspended from her role last year after she objected to Dr Beth Upton, who is a transgender woman, using female facilities. The nurse had faced allegations of misconduct, failures of patient care and misgendering Dr Upton. NHS Fife said an internal hearing found there was "insufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct". Ms Peggie, who has worked at NHS Fife for more than 30 years, told the tribunal she had felt uncomfortable around Dr Upton in a changing room at Kirkcaldy's Victoria Hospital on three occasions between August and December 2023. She said the issue came to a head on Christmas Eve when Dr Upton started to undress in front of her. Ms Peggie told the tribunal she had felt "embarrassed and intimidated". The pair then exchanged words - although the details of their conversation are disputed.

BBC

It is interesting to note that the equalities officer that was giving out guidance said she couldn't be sure of her own biological sex.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The objective is to remove them from society.

That is an untestable sociological claim. You keep saying stuff like that, and it appears that your purpose is to tar reasonable arguments with guilt-by-association, as if it were up to you to pick among all the objectives of all the widely varying people you disagree with and issue a ruling on which of those objectives is "the" objective. You are effectively making an ad hominem argument. Ad hominem arguments are fallacies.

I won't claim it's a scientific conclusion.

But look at Project 2025. Presenting as trans = pornography. If a minor sees you that's showing pornography to a minor, which is already illegal.

Why in the world should I think they don't intend to implement Project 2025?

Dude! You think you can make an ad hominem argument not be a fallacy by name-dropping? What the hell do the Project 2025 people have to do with us on iidb? Do you sincerely believe "We should take women's single-sex spaces away from them because I can find somebody really bad who doesn't want us to." is a sound argument? What, do all the women in America who're creeped out by co-ed bathrooms deserve to be punished for Project 2025's sins?!?

It's the P2025 people that are stirring up the crusade against the trans. So far they have shown they mean it with what they said in P2025, why should I think they don't mean the rest of it? Just because it's horrendous doesn't make the threat not real.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seriously, men in this thread are absolutely discounting fears and concerns of women.

And they are right to do so.

People should discount fears and concerns, in the absence of evidence that those fears are based on actual threats.

$*&(^#@*(*&(^*^%#*&

1 in 5 women in the US has been subjected to an attempted or completed rape - including both me and Toni.
80% of women in the US have been sexually assaulted - and that doesn't include the ones who don't count having their boob grabbed by a total stranger as a sexual assault, and see it as just the cost of being a woman.
90% of the victims of sexual assault are female, and 98% of the perpetrators are male.

But sure. Go ahead and mansplain to us silly old hens that our concerns and fears are irrational.

*)%^$&^^%@!$

You keep referring to rape in general without distinguishing the circumstances.

Oh boy...

Yes, your fear is real--but you haven't established that trans are an actual threat. We are taking the position that fears should be evaluated, society should only enforce protection from realistic fears.

How can you say Emily Lake's "fear is real" but then discard it as not a "realistic fear"?

Fear of rape: real.
Fear of rape by fake trans in the bathroom: not realistic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, you are totally unwilling to acknowledge that women have any legitimate fear of rape. Certainly nothing that would require any adjustment of behavior in the part of makes or society as a whole.

Of course you have a real fear of rape.

The question is whether any given situation is a threat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren is viewing this purely from an anti-septic POV, straight up statistics. If the likelihood of an attack is unlikely, then it isn't a 'realistic' threat, period, end of statement. IE, the final outcome of crime or no crime is how he envisions this.

"Unlikely" is far too fuzzy a word. Standard risk analysis is probability * consequences. Low probability events can be bad enough that they warrant addressing. And you don't compare the risk to zero, but to the alternatives. Note the flip side to this--focusing on the unlikely events drives people to choose the common but dangerous path. And it diverts protective effort away from more beneficial things.

I think he is asking the wrong the question in his analysis. This isn't about a 'realistic' threat, but a 'realistic' perception.

I don't think it's the wrong question. Yes, there is a perception of risk--but I don't believe that a false perception of risk justifies a law.

I agree, the perception is muddled in an ugly amount of unfairness to a transgender woman as some the presumptions are based on intolerance of transgender women (mainly by men, but certainly some women). However, there is a lot rooted in personal trauma as well as a natural (and should be expected) innate reaction due to what would have otherwise been lewd behavior at the very best. A reaction / perception that is precipitated by an aggregate of well documented sex crimes (and undocumented sex crimes) against women by men.

Emily has even admitted the situation existed for a long time without a problem.

What's changed is the reich wing stirring up hatred. They can't ship them off to the camps until they've sufficiently demonized them.