Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

Yes, the law has intent towards Hill because Hill is a member of a group. I never claimed that it had singled Hill out individually. That would be a stupid interpretation of what I wrote.

Correct.

Fred has a valid driver's license (which be obtained himself). The fact that he has a driver's license makes him a member of the subset of the community group that has driver's licenses, therefore, the law that allows people with valid driver's licenses to legally drive cars on gazetted roadways is intended for Fred and people like him - the remaining members of his group.

This is a concept so simple it defies belief that anyone would be unable to understand it, and I don't believe that any trans-allies fail to understand it either. They are just engaging in performance art and pretending they don't understand because they know it yanks the rug out from under their dearly held belief systems.

 

[Thermal]

Correct.

Fred has a valid driver's license (which be obtained himself). The fact that he has a driver's license makes him a member of the subset of the community group that has driver's licenses, therefore, the law that allows people with valid driver's licenses to legally drive cars on gazetted roadways is intended for Fred and people like him - the remaining members of his group.

This is a concept so simple it defies belief that anyone would be unable to understand it, and I don't believe that any trans-allies fail to understand it either. They are just engaging in performance art and pretending they don't understand because they know it yanks the rug out from under their dearly held belief systems.

So saith self-proclaimed Dr Smartcooky, in between wrestling with grade school level math errors and defining 'predominant'

 

[smartcooky]

So saith self-proclaimed Dr Smartcooky, in between wrestling with grade school level math errors and defining 'predominant'

Translation: Ya got nothin' "Scooter". You have no valid reply because you know I'm right

 

[Ziggurat]

You yet again snipped out the relevant part. Why bring up Hill specifically when we don't know anything about them in the here and now?

To work with a specific example of a trans identifying male who does not pass.

Bathrooms in places of public accommodation are in fact required to be specifically labeled, and seperate sexed facilities are required by all employers who have multi stall restrooms.

They are NOT sexed facilities. That's the whole point. New Jersey law prohibits them from being sexed facilities.

They are both de jure and de facto segregated,

Not by sex. Anyone of any sex can use them. All they need do is claim a gender identity, which anyone can do at any time, and they can use whatever facility they like.

"You are confused".

Yes. You are.

Ok. Say we go all Ziggaraut and sex segregated this afternoon (we already are but let's humor you). How would that stop your pen pal Misty Hill from asserting gender discrimination if denied access to the ladies loo?

Under what law? Federal law only prohibits sex discrimination directly, and only in certain contexts, of which bathrooms isn't one. He can claim whatever he likes, it won't matter, because he wouldn't have a case.

If state law prohibits gender discrimination, change the law.

The problem is, and remains, lack of definitional clarity on the reach of gender affirmation. We don't need sex segregation; we have it.

Not in New Jersey.

 

[Thermal]

Translation: Ya got nothing "Scooter".

The point made, as you say, is simple. But it overlooks the whole issue that gender can be different from or equal to sex. Fred's
drivers license has no comparable elements that keep changing the parameters, so it's not a helpful analogy.

 

[Thermal]

To work with a specific example of a trans identifying male who does not pass.

Than say so, instead of invoking someone we no longer know anything about, down to which side of the dirt they are on.

They are NOT sexed facilities. That's the whole point. New Jersey law prohibits them from being sexed facilities.

They are. And then they get weird.

Prisons use the same sexed segregation, using the same language and definitions. Yet they can make exceptions at their discretion. The segregation is real, no matter how theoretically easy it is to bypass.

It is taken so seriously that if you have only one restroom (for a small place of public accommodation), it has to be labeled unisex, because to gender/sex it is legally considered discrimination. That could not be so if it was unisex in the eyes of the law already.

Not by sex. Anyone of any sex can use them.

Not anyone.

All they need do is claim a gender identity, which anyone can do at any time, and they can use whatever facility they like.

In short, abuse the system via deliberate deception.

Yes. You are.

Under what law? Federal law only prohibits sex discrimination directly, and only in certain contexts, of which bathrooms isn't one. He can claim whatever he likes, it won't matter, because he wouldn't have a case.

Under the NJLAD being discussed? Or how about OSHA, who also requires labeled seperate sexed facilities for any multi occupant restroom?

If state law prohibits gender discrimination, change the law.

Ya that's what we are talking about. But which to change, and to what? We are not likely going to pull the plug globally on gender discrimination law.

Not in New Jersey.

Yet here we are, not seeing anything you insist must be. Boys in the boys room, girls in the girls, and the day goes on uneventfully.

I'm getting more confident that the reason we don't have issues with this is that we in Jersey never hated on transpeople in the first place.

 

[smartcooky]

The point made, as you say, is simple. But it overlooks the whole issue that gender can be different from or equal to sex. Fred's
drivers license has no comparable elements that keep changing the parameters, so it's not a helpful analogy.

1. Regardless of gender, or claimed gender, claimed lack of gender, the biological sex of an individual ALWAYS remains unchanged. This is an irrefutable scientific fact.

2. The term "sex-segregated" ALWAYS refers to biological sex.

Ergo

3. When a law allows ANY biological males, regardless of their claimed gender or claimed lack of gender, to use sex-segregated bathrooms that have been assigned for use by members of the sex opposite to that of their own, then those bathrooms are no longer sex-segregated. They have become de jure unisex bathrooms.

 

[Thermal]

1. Regardless of gender, or claimed gender, claimed lack of gender, the biological sex of an individual ALWAYS remains unchanged. This is an irrefutable scientific fact.

Yes, and everyone understood that the first hundred times it was said.

2. The term "sex-segregated" ALWAYS refers to biological sex.

No it doesn't.

Ergo

3. When a law allows ANY biological males, regardless of their claimed gender or claimed lack of gender, to use sex-segregated bathrooms that have been assigned for use by members of the sex opposite to that of their own, then those bathrooms are no longer sex-segregated. They have become de jure unisex bathrooms.

Flawed premise, flawed conclusion.

 

[mumblethrax]

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.

At which point police are called, witness statements are taken, etc. But exactly the same thing could happen in the good old days. In most US states no crime was committed when a man walked into the ladies' room. The crime was committed when he was trespassed and refused to comply. Exactly the same scenario was possible. The good ol' days weren't as good as they seem.

Do you really think females are still going to be just as willing to raise the alarm when they know there's a real possibility they are going to be the ones who are judged to be in the wrong? Women usually avoid confrontations with stroppy, entitled males who are bigger and stronger than they are. Women like Sandie Peggie are very much the exception.

Why would you need to confront the stroppy male who is bigger and stronger than you?

The most obvious problem is that the demands of a tiny percentage of males are suddenly being giving priority over the privacy and dignity of all females.

This is not a response to the negative consequences of enforcement. It's just a return to grandstanding on the same misattribution as earlier.

 

[mumblethrax]

On the other hand, if an exhibitionist male walks into a gender-segregated women's restroom and begins to disrobe, all he has to do is say he identifies as a woman, and there's nothing the women in the restroom can do about it. In fact, if they even try, then law and custom is on the side of the exhibitionist.

Exposing yourself in view of other people in any multi-occupancy bathroom is criminal. You think if I go down to Penn Station, walk into the men's room, whip out my dick and start strutting around by the sinks I'm not catching a public lewdness charge?

 

[mumblethrax]

I've got to disagree, there 8 billion people on Earth. If someone can do something, then someone will do it.

Someone will do it. In order for this argument (that gender-segregated toilets are unisex where only a declaration of transness is necessary) to hold, everyone needs to do it.

Rewriting the relevant sentence for clarity: "That some person can do something does not imply that that same person will."

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, and everyone understood that the first hundred times it was said

Except you.

No it doesn't.

What do you think the prefix "sex" in "sex-segregated" refers to then?

Flawed premise, flawed conclusion.

Nope. You're dead wrong on that!

 

[mumblethrax]

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.

They are not de facto unisex, because people do not, in practice, treat them that way.

They are not de jure unisex, because there is a subset of males not permitted to use them, by law.

You're still just bemoaning the lack of an enforcement mechanism. But here in NYC, at least, you don't really seem to need one. People overwhelmingly stay in their lane. It would be impossible to mistake these for unisex bathrooms for anyone not striving to misunderstand.

 

[smartcooky]

The point made, as you say, is simple. But it overlooks the whole issue that gender can be different from or equal to sex. Fred's
drivers license has no comparable elements that keep changing the parameters, so it's not a helpful analogy.

If course it does. Cars, trucks busses etc all require different endorsements.

 

[lionking]

At which point police are called, witness statements are taken, etc.

Has it occurred to you that police are not going to attend in states and countries where men are allowed into women’s safe places by saying the right words?

 

[mumblethrax]

Has it occurred to you that police are not going to attend in states and countries where men are allowed into women’s safe places by saying the right words?

If someone is exposing themselves? Of course they ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ will.

State Police arrest Monroe man for Public Lewdness

On July 11, 2025, Troopers from SP Monroe arrested Jerry Hollender, 71, of Monroe, for Public Lewdness.

troopers.ny.gov

 

[Thermal]

If course it does. Cars, trucks busses etc all require different endorsements.

No no no, do the one again where you say you know more than those so-called 'well respected doctors' with their fancy 'degrees' and 'peer reviewed research'. My wife was in hysterics.

 

[lionking]

If someone is exposing themselves? Of course they ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ will.

State Police arrest Monroe man for Public Lewdness

On July 11, 2025, Troopers from SP Monroe arrested Jerry Hollender, 71, of Monroe, for Public Lewdness.

troopers.ny.gov

I was talking about transwomen exposing themselves in women’s safe spaces. This is no such case.

“was intentionally exposing himself to customers in the men’s restroom.”

 

[mumblethrax]

I was talking about transwomen exposing themselves in women’s safe spaces. This is no such case.

“was intentionally exposing himself to customers in the men’s restroom.”

And I was pointing out that someone who was perfectly entitled to be in the men's bathroom got arrested for exposing himself.

So the police will attend, unless you're advancing a conspiratorial argument.

 

[Thermal]

I was talking about transwomen exposing themselves in women’s safe spaces. This is no such case.

The Wi Spa guy got mentioned here once or twice.

But you're right, you don't see much of it at all. Almost like... it doesn't really happen in the real world?