Thanks. You have posted this before. It will not be commented on, despite being so clear.Here is a handy little gif comparing this survey from 2019/2020 and 2024/2025. It shows just how much the tide has turned in those five years...
- The pluralities have ALL turned into majority disagree
- The equal split has turned into majority disagree
- One majority agree has flipped to majority disagree
- Nine majority agrees have turned into pluralities
and importantly, none of the points have trended the other way
I have, but I thought to could do with being reposted
Of course. They never comment on the stuff that confronts their Sacred Dogma.
Here is what it says:
Do you have a preferred definition in mind? Perhaps our confusion is that we are using different meanings.
Care to define gender identity without invoking sex?
Not under self ID, you can't. Not in any way that matters. Your identity is whatever you say it is. No one can second guess you.
Under self ID, that's only because you choose not to.
According to who? You're the only one who can say that your own declared identity is false.
Under self ID, if you say you are the appropriate gender, then you can enter. And anyone can say they are any gender they want to. Ergo, anyone can enter any bathroom they want to. You might choose not to, but that's a choice on your part. This absolutely is about who is permitted, and not how can you tell, because the way to tell a person's gender under self ID is whatever a person says. So it's actually quite easy to tell someone's gender, according to the self ID rules.
Not relevant to the claim.
I'm not being pedantic, I'm pointing out that there have to be some common sense exceptions/considerations, which will include answering questions about how the female-only policy is enforced.
You think incompetently using formal notation makes your bad arguments more understandable? No, it's just kind of clownish.
No. The problem was with the inference, not the propositions.
Because it's an assertion about potential. You need to deal with the actual.
Which is all I need.
Any comments about #12301?
I can, and it does matter, because it drives behavior.
No. I don't, in fact, have a female gender identity. That's something that's true about the world. I cannot choose to feel like a woman (at least, not in the ordinary sense). I can only choose to lie about it.
According to me, and that's just the nature of subjective truths.
Yes. They can, if they want to.. At least some don't want to. Therefore, they can't (at least, not for this reason).
Immediately self-contradictory.
It is relevant. Because it's relevant to who will identify themselves as women--not me.
Since I already said there has been an erosion in support, I see no reason to comment on the claim that there has been an erosion in support.
Not sure how you made the jump from gender identity and expression to sex? NJ law certainly makes the distinction without ambiguity. From NJLAD, p8,rr (da Big Kahuna of discrimination law):
I'd say something more along the lines of 'intended for use by both sexes'.
Yes, but it could be argued that a typical women's rest room is suitable for both sexes, hence unisex by your interpretation? I can't see anything that makes it unsuitable for males. Urinals are hardly necessary for suitability. Sooooo... by your own preferred definition...?
No need. They are related ideas and definitionally intertwined.
Seems to me the defining feature is that both sexes should be expected to using the amenity.
I might have mentioned that what was disclosed in advance to patrons of the Wi Spa is still unknown at this point, years later, and what they thought could very well be nothing more than their not paying attention. 'Cubana Angel' and her posse could very well be nothing more than entitled Karens that expect the stated policy to not apply to their expectations.
If you're talking about a flasher in a bathroom, that's a criminal act independent of who is permitted. There's no need for a female-only policy to deal with that.
Lots of things drive behavior. That's not the issue. The issue is whether you can actually keep anyone out once you accept self ID. And you cannot. Which makes bathrooms de facto unisex under self ID. Some males may choose not to enter, but all of them may.
There wasn't when female only spaces actually were female only spaces, so any male present was automatically in the wrong. If certain males are permitted, i.e. it's now a mixed sex space, and all the flasher has to do is put it away before the assistance arrives, that's a very different situation.
If an exhibitionist male walks into a sex-segregated women's restroom and removes his trousers, that's indecent exposure, and both law and custom are on the side of any woman who tells him to get out before she calls the police. Indeed, she doesn't even have to wait for him to begin to disrobe. The moment he shows his face, he can be kicked out.
I’m not surprised since the erosion has been enormous.
I've got to disagree, there 8 billion people on Earth. If someone can do something, then someone will do it.
