That’s a copout. Who is making the argument is separate from the validity of the argument. I don’t subscribe to this identity politics Bull ◊◊◊◊. And I don’t know why you expect me to.
Not equivalent, because the bathrooms don’t only belong to the women who are happy to let the men in. Hell, legally speaking they don’t belong to women at all, they belong to the property owner. Who may very well be a man.
That's weird, because you quoted it; check inside the parentheses.
Legally speaking Congress is entitled to say which Capitol Building spaces belong to whom; I do not believe that make their decisions either rational or ethical.
The parentheses are just an appeal to bull ◊◊◊◊ identity politics. Again, why do you expect me to subscribe to that?
No, of course not. What a strange question.
What if some women invite him in, while others say he's not welcome? Which ones should we defer to?
Well if you defer to the ones who do mind giving him entry then he'll be upset; if you defer to the ones who don't mind giving him entry the women who do mind will be upset. So I guess it depends on whether you think the feelings of any male should always take priority over the feelings of any number of females.
That did cross my mind, but then you have to get into quantifying those feelings - I don't think the feelings of a woman who just doesn't have a problem with him coming in are likely to be as strong as those of a woman who does.
The ones who win the vote, obviously.
You really should go back and read what I was replying to before you went off on this tangent about self-declaration.
Are there every any cases where a majority should not be able to impose its will on a minority?
Way to load the dice. Why on Earth would anyone assume this is one of those exceptional cases? Is some fundamental civil right in play here, one deeply rooted in American history and tradition?
American history and tradition? Try human history and tradition. Sex segregation when it comes to things that involve states of undress go way, way back. And yeah, I'd say there's a fundamental right to dignity and safety. You even conceded as much when you said that these were women's spaces in the first place. If women have a right to their own spaces, then one group of women cannot give away other women's rights to those spaces.
Rights are granted by laws or by rulings, they are not granted by gods and do not exist in a Platonic realm of ideas.
You are completely inconsistent. If this is just about the law, then men absolutely have the right to weigh in on this question, because that's how the law works. You have argued that men shouldn't because of... well, you were kind of vague on that front. But it was an appeal to some sort of morality, which you're now dismissing. Your position has no logical coherence.
I'm not sure I get why this is supposed to be obvious. How is this vote supposed to be conducted, and counted?
See post #1780.