Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[Politesse]

And must be. Because that's the law. It's not actually legal to do what they're trying to do.

You claim it's not Constitutional to enforce it in America, but that is a failure of your imagination to understand how something might be enforced other than strip searches.

The case history that does exist up to this point has not generally confirmed your view.

The link the the full ruling is missing in the first case - I cannot tell if it was ruled unConstitutional based on the American Constitution, or something particular in Colorado.

Neither, directly, that was a Title IX case. Federal law, created to close gaps that were being used to violate the 14th.

I am uninterested in using my "imagination" to think of better ways to discriminate against people, but if you have a solution tht doesn't involve gross invasion of privacy for the purpose of discriminating on the basis of sex, feel free to suggest it.

 

[Metaphor]

And must be. Because that's the law. It's not actually legal to do what they're trying to do.

You claim it's not Constitutional to enforce it in America, but that is a failure of your imagination to understand how something might be enforced other than strip searches.

The case history that does exist up to this point has not generally confirmed your view.

The link the the full ruling is missing in the first case - I cannot tell if it was ruled unConstitutional based on the American Constitution, or something particular in Colorado.

Neither, directly, that was a Title IX case. Federal law, created to close gaps that were being used to violate the 14th.

I am uninterested in using my "imagination" to think of better ways to discriminate against people, but if you have a solution tht doesn't involve gross invasion of privacy for the purpose of discriminating on the basis of sex, feel free to suggest it.

There is nothing inherently wrong with discriminating by sex. Most every nation in human history has done it and it continues to happen right now in every nation in the world.

I am not bothered by the fact that my workplace has sex-segregated toilets and I don't believe it to be an ethical problem to have sex-segregated toilets. If you do believe it is wrong, it is you who has to make the case for change.

 

[Jarhyn]

And must be. Because that's the law. It's not actually legal to do what they're trying to do.

You claim it's not Constitutional to enforce it in America, but that is a failure of your imagination to understand how something might be enforced other than strip searches.

The case history that does exist up to this point has not generally confirmed your view.

The link the the full ruling is missing in the first case - I cannot tell if it was ruled unConstitutional based on the American Constitution, or something particular in Colorado.

Neither, directly, that was a Title IX case. Federal law, created to close gaps that were being used to violate the 14th.

I am uninterested in using my "imagination" to think of better ways to discriminate against people, but if you have a solution tht doesn't involve gross invasion of privacy for the purpose of discriminating on the basis of sex, feel free to suggest it.

Personally, I would rather discriminate exactly on the basis of exactly the thing that a really matters to my situation.

I don't care whether I am housed
with men, women, people who are both, or people who are neither.

I want to be housed with people who will not rape me, on the continuing condition that I am not going to attempt to rape them either, and similarly with regards to violent conduct.

Ideally I'd be housed with people I were also not liable to have social consternation of being "around", but I am not guaranteed that at work so why would I expect it of prison?

I could care less about any other thing.

 

[Enigma]

@Enigma I am coming into your part of the exchange a little bit late, but what exactly are you on about, mate?

Ah, no doubt this is an interesting point to start following an exchange. Let's review:

You make it sound like boys in middle or high school can just up and say they are trans, the school will open up the girls locker room to them gleefully, and then erects boys will be taking showers with the girls, none the wiser.

What exactly do you think is preventing this from happening?

You mean other than reasonable judgment? This isn't some sort hack that must be obliged.

"Reasonable Judgment"? You know of some way to reliably determine the gender identity of someone that doesn't require self-identification?

I can't help but presume you must mean that, otherwise Jarhyn would be criticizing you for supporting a system that makes imperfect assumptions about gender identity and sex instead of thumbs-uping your post.

Please, do share with the rest of the class.

I am honestly curious what foolproof method exists to distinguish between transwomen who want access to their gender-appropriate facilities and boys who can claim to be transwomen for access to their "gender-appropriate" facilities.

Jebus! We are talking about a school. A school where there are lots of students, that have been attending these schools for years! The teachers know the kids, the staff knows the kids. There is a sense of humanity that exists in the real world that involves the real world history of the students at these schools, instead of these scary hypotheticals where some random person magically appears before a principle (with a beard while wearing a skirt) and demands access to the girls' locker room because they are trans... and the staff is shaking in their boots over potential lawsuits if they don't abide this person they've never before seen in their life.

Why do you believe that some random new person needs to show up for this to be an issue?

A male student has been in the school for years. That student is starting to go through puberty and now claims to be trans.
What knowledge known by the teachers and staff is both necessary and sufficient to be able to 99.9%+ reliably determine whether or not the student in question is a transgirl or a naughty, naughty boy?

You mean other than, excluding the parents, having teachers, who have been around the child more than anyone else and that experience to draw from? Other than that?

At this point, I believed it was time to precisely clarify exactly what knowledge that the teachers and staff had to make a "reasonable judgment" since the notion that such judgments can be reasonably went in the face of literally everything Jarhyn and friends has been saying throughout this whole thread and yet somehow managed to get a thumbs-up from them.

I have a bit of a flair for the dramatic when I think I'm being strung along, hence the post you jumped in on.

Hope that clarifies things!

 

[Enigma]

Let me clarify my inquiry in another way, using a "scary hypothetical":

One night, while you are sleeping, you get kidnapped and taken out to some random bunker in the middle of nowhere.
You wake up, tied up to a chair while a masked man holds a gun to your head.
They tell you about the student I previously mentioned and want you to answer the question about whether or not they are really a transgirl.
They say that they know whether or not the student is trans and will kill you if you get it wrong and take you back home, safe and sound, if you get it right. You believe them.
They are allowing you to phone-a-friend or zoom call literally any number of teachers and/or staff members of the school and ask them anything you want, with the understanding that if you try any shenanigans to get yourself free without answering the question that you will be dead long before any help arrives.

With that setup in mind: What do you need to ask the teachers and/or staff in order for you to be able to be confident that you can answer correctly?

If your answer amounts to "just ask the teachers if they think the student is trans", then I hate to break it to you, but rural counties in red states have teachers too.
Such teachers aren't guaranteed to believe that being trans is a real thing, much less be able to confidently tell whether or not a student is trans.

Well, I would be dead. I would say "you are a murderer, and you will murder someone for such a petty reason as they will not violate the privacy of another person for your sick amusement. You will make that choice and nobody else. I don't care whether she is trans. You are evil."

Perhaps you would be dead, assuming your moral convictions are as you say that they are. The real question is whether Jimmy would be dead.

He claimed to have some means of "reasonable judgment" to determine whether or not a male student claiming to identify as a transgirl trying to get access to the girl's locker room was actually trans. I called BS on this.

The odd thing is, given your stated position in this thread and that I have seen throughout the forums throughout the long time that I have lurked here is that you should have called BS on this.

Instead, I discovered that, thanks to a fun new forum feature that lets me see what posts are thumbs-upped by whom on a post-by-post basis, you gave a thumbs-up to the post where he made such a claim.

Please explain.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Enigma

The caricature is somewhere between disturbing and amusing.

 

[Enigma]

@Enigma

The caricature is somewhere between disturbing and amusing.

That's the sort of balance I aim for in life, so it checks out.

 

[Politesse]

And must be. Because that's the law. It's not actually legal to do what they're trying to do.

You claim it's not Constitutional to enforce it in America, but that is a failure of your imagination to understand how something might be enforced other than strip searches.

The case history that does exist up to this point has not generally confirmed your view.

The link the the full ruling is missing in the first case - I cannot tell if it was ruled unConstitutional based on the American Constitution, or something particular in Colorado.

Neither, directly, that was a Title IX case. Federal law, created to close gaps that were being used to violate the 14th.

I am uninterested in using my "imagination" to think of better ways to discriminate against people, but if you have a solution tht doesn't involve gross invasion of privacy for the purpose of discriminating on the basis of sex, feel free to suggest it.

There is nothing inherently wrong with discriminating by sex. Most every nation in human history has done it and it continues to happen right now in every nation in the world.

I am not bothered by the fact that my workplace has sex-segregated toilets and I don't believe it to be an ethical problem to have sex-segregated toilets. If you do believe it is wrong, it is you who has to make the case for change.

I have done. Law is inconsistent if it is applied differently to different classes of people, and ultimately systems of law cease to exist when the inequities created by their unequal treatment of different castes become instabilities that rip their host nations apart. The legislative stewards of the U.S. Constitution, having observed the near fatal fracturing of their nation in a catastrophic civil war, prudently resolved to guarantee equal protection of the law to all citizens regardless of class, sex, or race. I don't need to make a case for change; the law already guarantees the equal rights of all citizens, and we will eventually claim what is ours by one means or the next. Successfully, I think, because while people like you enjoy raising a stink about every passing "culture war" you oblige us to fight, I don't think trying to keep kids out of bathrooms is really, truly, the hill you're willing to die on.

You are welcome to have toilets separated by sex, if that floats your boat, and you're willing to lose more and more customers over it as the Zoomers come of age. What you cannot do is force someone to follow your idea of social convention, based on your estimation of their sexual, racial, or class background, nor to try to oblige anyone to prove they have a "right" to do as their fellow-citizens to do by unlawful invasion of their privacy concerning that background.

 

[Toni]

It is rare for a trans woman to be housed in a women’s prison compared to the number of guards in women’s prisons who are male.

How do you know? The ACLU blocks freedom of information requests to get statistics of the number of transwomen in the female estate.

Also, are you implicitly agreeing that transwomen are in fact male and that maleness is a threat to the women in the female estate?

I’m aware of the small portion of the population in general who identify as transgender.

 

[Arctish]

Man, these folks turning "you can't tell hard cases, and you shouldn't even be assuming which ones are easy cases; the correct action is to ask and then accept the pronouns you get" to a straw-man of "you can't tell, nobody can tell, for anyone".

It's not "you can't" it's that "you cannot, reliably, particularly for the population in question and playing that game is shitty to you and everyone around you."

Some folks will writhe in agony if they cannot label and categorized all others.

Nature hardwired our ability to discern male and women. A biological female doesn’t have to do anything to appear a woman. A trans must do a lot of work for passable mimicry. Nothing to do with labels just Nature’s cues.

Sure, Jan.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

It is rare for a trans woman to be housed in a women’s prison compared to the number of guards in women’s prisons who are male.

How do you know? The ACLU blocks freedom of information requests to get statistics of the number of transwomen in the female estate.

Also, are you implicitly agreeing that transwomen are in fact male and that maleness is a threat to the women in the female estate?

I’m aware of the small portion of the population in general who identify as transgender.

0.58%, actually. It puts us in a bit of an awkward and precarious position.

 

[Metaphor]

And must be. Because that's the law. It's not actually legal to do what they're trying to do.

You claim it's not Constitutional to enforce it in America, but that is a failure of your imagination to understand how something might be enforced other than strip searches.

The case history that does exist up to this point has not generally confirmed your view.

The link the the full ruling is missing in the first case - I cannot tell if it was ruled unConstitutional based on the American Constitution, or something particular in Colorado.

Neither, directly, that was a Title IX case. Federal law, created to close gaps that were being used to violate the 14th.

I am uninterested in using my "imagination" to think of better ways to discriminate against people, but if you have a solution tht doesn't involve gross invasion of privacy for the purpose of discriminating on the basis of sex, feel free to suggest it.

There is nothing inherently wrong with discriminating by sex. Most every nation in human history has done it and it continues to happen right now in every nation in the world.

I am not bothered by the fact that my workplace has sex-segregated toilets and I don't believe it to be an ethical problem to have sex-segregated toilets. If you do believe it is wrong, it is you who has to make the case for change.

Successfully, I think, because while people like you enjoy raising a stink about every passing "culture war" you oblige us to fight, I don't think trying to keep kids out of bathrooms is really, truly, the hill you're willing to die on.

I don't want to keep kids out of bathrooms, nor trans people out of sports. This is the kind of dishonest language I see from gender ideologists all the time, and they will not desist.

You are welcome to have toilets separated by sex, if that floats your boat,

It isn't about me.

and you're willing to lose more and more customers over it as the Zoomers come of age. What you cannot do is force someone to follow your idea of social convention, based on your estimation of their sexual, racial, or class background,

What on earth? Where did questions of race and class come into it? Also, what is 'sexual background'? Do you mean sex?

nor to try to oblige anyone to prove they have a "right" to do as their fellow-citizens to do by unlawful invasion of their privacy concerning that background.

I have not proposed an 'unlawful' invasion of privacy or anything else.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Metaphor Well, at bars, which I do occasionally go to, it's actually the men's bathroom that is always full at peak hours, so I don't even bother knocking on the men's room anymore. The ladies' room is usually vacant. I am very impatient with bullshit.

However, if they don't have all-gender bathrooms, I don't usually go back because I kind of find segregated bathrooms to be creepy.

 

[Jarhyn]

Let me clarify my inquiry in another way, using a "scary hypothetical":

One night, while you are sleeping, you get kidnapped and taken out to some random bunker in the middle of nowhere.
You wake up, tied up to a chair while a masked man holds a gun to your head.
They tell you about the student I previously mentioned and want you to answer the question about whether or not they are really a transgirl.
They say that they know whether or not the student is trans and will kill you if you get it wrong and take you back home, safe and sound, if you get it right. You believe them.
They are allowing you to phone-a-friend or zoom call literally any number of teachers and/or staff members of the school and ask them anything you want, with the understanding that if you try any shenanigans to get yourself free without answering the question that you will be dead long before any help arrives.

With that setup in mind: What do you need to ask the teachers and/or staff in order for you to be able to be confident that you can answer correctly?

If your answer amounts to "just ask the teachers if they think the student is trans", then I hate to break it to you, but rural counties in red states have teachers too.
Such teachers aren't guaranteed to believe that being trans is a real thing, much less be able to confidently tell whether or not a student is trans.

Well, I would be dead. I would say "you are a murderer, and you will murder someone for such a petty reason as they will not violate the privacy of another person for your sick amusement. You will make that choice and nobody else. I don't care whether she is trans. You are evil."

Perhaps you would be dead, assuming your moral convictions are as you say that they are. The real question is whether Jimmy would be dead.

He claimed to have some means of "reasonable judgment" to determine whether or not a male student claiming to identify as a transgirl trying to get access to the girl's locker room was actually trans. I called BS on this.

The odd thing is, given your stated position in this thread and that I have seen throughout the forums throughout the long time that I have lurked here is that you should have called BS on this.

Instead, I discovered that, thanks to a fun new forum feature that lets me see what posts are thumbs-upped by whom on a post-by-post basis, you gave a thumbs-up to the post where he made such a claim.

Please explain.

My explanation is that you yourself are making an assumption of bad faith here. Your whole line of thought is "how do the teachers know for certain the trans person 'is'?"

I'm pretty sure the term "suspect population" is explicitly coined around that concept.

You frame that anyone needs to do finding at all.

The result is that someone will be revealed as a sex offender IFF they are a sex offender; a pall will be cast upon any future attempts to transition if they ever had any dissonance/dysphoria at all, and they will probably be expelled. They will forever go down as "the boy who did that."

They won't be able to live it down and consequences can be "legal".

Reality will "find" and it's up to us to impart on anyone who starts this journey that this is the case and consequences are dire for bad faith.

That's all the finding needs be done. From there, you follow their transition, their behavior, evaluate it honestly, and IFF they violate women, send them to be housed with people who violate women but in such a manner as they are not exposed to people who may violate them.

 

[Politesse]

And must be. Because that's the law. It's not actually legal to do what they're trying to do.

You claim it's not Constitutional to enforce it in America, but that is a failure of your imagination to understand how something might be enforced other than strip searches.

The case history that does exist up to this point has not generally confirmed your view.

The link the the full ruling is missing in the first case - I cannot tell if it was ruled unConstitutional based on the American Constitution, or something particular in Colorado.

Neither, directly, that was a Title IX case. Federal law, created to close gaps that were being used to violate the 14th.

I am uninterested in using my "imagination" to think of better ways to discriminate against people, but if you have a solution tht doesn't involve gross invasion of privacy for the purpose of discriminating on the basis of sex, feel free to suggest it.

There is nothing inherently wrong with discriminating by sex. Most every nation in human history has done it and it continues to happen right now in every nation in the world.

I am not bothered by the fact that my workplace has sex-segregated toilets and I don't believe it to be an ethical problem to have sex-segregated toilets. If you do believe it is wrong, it is you who has to make the case for change.

Successfully, I think, because while people like you enjoy raising a stink about every passing "culture war" you oblige us to fight, I don't think trying to keep kids out of bathrooms is really, truly, the hill you're willing to die on.

I don't want to keep kids out of bathrooms, nor trans people out of sports. This is the kind of dishonest language I see from gender ideologists all the time, and they will not desist.

You are welcome to have toilets separated by sex, if that floats your boat,

It isn't about me.

and you're willing to lose more and more customers over it as the Zoomers come of age. What you cannot do is force someone to follow your idea of social convention, based on your estimation of their sexual, racial, or class background,

What on earth? Where did questions of race and class come into it? Also, what is 'sexual background'? Do you mean sex?

nor to try to oblige anyone to prove they have a "right" to do as their fellow-citizens to do by unlawful invasion of their privacy concerning that background.

I have not proposed an 'unlawful' invasion of privacy or anything else.

What policy or social changes are you advocating for, then? You seem to be objecting to my advocacy for the protections of the fourteenth amendment, but you aren't willing to commit to any particular violations of its principles. What's the point of arguing with me at all, here?

 

[Toni]

@Metaphor Well, at bars, which I do occasionally go to, it's actually the men's bathroom that is always full at peak hours, so I don't even bother knocking on the men's room anymore. The ladies' room is usually vacant. I am very impatient with bullshit.

However, if they don't have all-gender bathrooms, I don't usually go back because I kind of find segregated bathrooms to be creepy.

Ah. We’re different in that respect. I don’t mind single toilet unisex bathrooms at all. But I’d prefer not to share a bathroom with a man who is not an intimate partner, especially at a bar. But it’s rarely an issue as I am rarely at bars….

 

[Metaphor]

What policy or social changes are you advocating for, then? You seem to be objecting to my advocacy for the protections of the fourteenth amendment, but you aren't willing to commit to any particular violations of its principles. What's the point of arguing with me at all, here?

I am arguing that if you are going to have sex-segregated spaces, they should be sex-segregated. Sex-segregated spaces have functioned in the past without 'unlawful' violation of anybody. And I do not believe sex-segregated spaces, per se, violates the American 14th amendment or any other amendment.

If sex is not relevant in sex-segregated spaces, according to the cloud cuckoo land gender ideologists, then how much the less could gender be relevant? Males have urinals in their toilets (and more efficient toilets overall) because males can piss standing up (and without the aid of, mind you, a plastic appliance that is used by some females to ape this action).

 

[Metaphor]

@Metaphor Well, at bars, which I do occasionally go to, it's actually the men's bathroom that is always full at peak hours, so I don't even bother knocking on the men's room anymore. The ladies' room is usually vacant. I am very impatient with bullshit.

However, if they don't have all-gender bathrooms, I don't usually go back because I kind of find segregated bathrooms to be creepy.

Bathrooms everywhere are already all-gender. What they are not is all-sex.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Metaphor Well, at bars, which I do occasionally go to, it's actually the men's bathroom that is always full at peak hours, so I don't even bother knocking on the men's room anymore. The ladies' room is usually vacant. I am very impatient with bullshit.

However, if they don't have all-gender bathrooms, I don't usually go back because I kind of find segregated bathrooms to be creepy.

Ah. We’re different in that respect. I don’t mind single toilet unisex bathrooms at all. But I’d prefer not to share a bathroom with a man who is not an intimate partner, especially at a bar. But it’s rarely an issue as I am rarely at bars….

I am talking when they are single-occupancy bathrooms, and they are unnecessarily segregated. I find that shit creepy.

I don't usually go to places that would have multiple occupancy bathrooms, though, and I haven't been in one in a while.

 

[ZiprHead]

@Metaphor Well, at bars, which I do occasionally go to, it's actually the men's bathroom that is always full at peak hours, so I don't even bother knocking on the men's room anymore. The ladies' room is usually vacant. I am very impatient with bullshit.

However, if they don't have all-gender bathrooms, I don't usually go back because I kind of find segregated bathrooms to be creepy.

Ah. We’re different in that respect. I don’t mind single toilet unisex bathrooms at all. But I’d prefer not to share a bathroom with a man who is not an intimate partner, especially at a bar. But it’s rarely an issue as I am rarely at bars….

I've never seen anyone else's genitalia in a public bathroom. I couldn't care less if there was a female in the stall next to me.