Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

theprestige said:
I prefer the status quo ante, where you could be ejected if you were a dude. What's your argument for changing that policy?
Click to expand...
That isn't the status quo where I live, and wasn't before, so I don't particularly need one.

The radical departure from how we've done things in the past would be criminalizing maleness in women's bathrooms (and vice versa), with only apparent maleness or femaleness to go on. Usually with no clear means of enforcement.

If you want to know the problems I see with that, you can read the post I already made about it.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Not 'legal', as the foreman said, but not sufficiently proven. So found the jury of Californians and not the State, yes.
Click to expand...
You're dancing around the fact that males can still legally expose themselves to females in California. They have to do it without sexually arousing themselves, but as long as they pull that off (which isn't impossible), yes, it very much is legal in California. So even if you conclude that Merager committed a crime that he got away with, other people could do basically the same thing legally.
Thermal said:
{eta: the difference between 'innocent, what you did was legal' and 'guilt was not sufficiently proven' is rather large. OJ Simpson (in the same State) was found not guilty (not sufficiently proven by the State), not found innocent and 'what he did was legal"}
Click to expand...
Not at all equivalent. OJ's claim to innocence is that he didn't do the act at all. Motive could only shift which exact crime he was convicted of. No possible motive could make those killings legal, and his defense did not rest upon a disputed motive. Whereas for Merager, motive was an intrinsic part of the crime itself, without which there is no crime at all.
 
mumblethrax said:
The radical departure from how we've done things in the past would be criminalizing maleness in women's bathrooms (and vice versa),
Click to expand...
You don't have to criminalize their mere presence, and I don't think anyone here has even advocated that. All you have to do is allow the relevant authorities to kick people out when their sex doesn't match the space they're in. And they don't even need to actually do that unless there's a complaint.
 
Ziggurat said:
You don't have to criminalize their mere presence, and I don't think anyone here has even advocated that. All you have to do is allow the relevant authorities to kick people out when their sex doesn't match the space they're in.
Click to expand...
I'd hope so, but that is in fact what many of the anti-trans bathroom bills have done.

And they don't even need to actually do that unless there's a complaint.
Click to expand...
And they didn't have to do that even if there is a complaint. But in many states, this decision has been taken out of the hands of owners/administrators/property managers.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
I'd hope so, but that is in fact what many of the anti-trans bathroom bills have done.
Click to expand...
Have they? Which ones? I just read through the Arkansas bathroom bill, and there's no mention of any criminal penalties to anyone. Even the civil penalties mentioned don't apply to a person who enters the wrong bathroom. Can you identify one which actually makes mere presence a crime?
 
Ziggurat said:
Have they? Which ones? I just read through the Arkansas bathroom bill, and there's no mention of any criminal penalties to anyone. Even the civil penalties mentioned don't apply to a person who enters the wrong bathroom. Can you identify one which actually makes mere presence a crime?
Click to expand...
Utah's and Florida's are the two I know of. The crime will be the same as always--trespassing. The difference is that they empower agents of the state to arrest without the request of owners/administrators/property owners.

Many of these bills are effectively toothless, a mess of unenforceable demands, or are just redundant with existing law.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
But it was a real question. If I see a guy who's a foot taller than me and built like a linebacker doing something that suggests criminal intent, I'm not going to confront him directly. I'd look for somebody who deals with that on a professional basis, like a security guard or a property manager, and if I can't find them I'd call the cops.
Click to expand...
What to you suggests criminal intent?

Trespassing, or does it need something further?
 
mumblethrax said:
There is a subset of males not expressly permitted to use the ladies' room.
Click to expand...
d4m10n said:
How would you characterize this subset?
Click to expand...
mumblethrax said:
"Trans" will do.
Click to expand...
Trans people who were observed to be male at birth are expressly permitted to use the ladies' room, per relevant antidiscrimination laws.
mumblethrax said:
You will still need to opt out.
Click to expand...
All it takes to opt out is a statement to the effect that the bathroom or locker room in which you found yourself was the one which comported with your gender identity as you were experiencing it at the time. Under self-i.d. there is no mechanism to call any such declaration insincere, even known sex criminals (such as Merager) are given full faith and credit in reporting their identity.
mumblethrax said:
noticing a historical trend of hostility against difference for a given characteristic
Click to expand...
The historical characteristic which formerly kept some people out of the women's spaces was being male rather than being transgender.

Had Merager been a female who identified as non-binary, no one would have complained about their presence in the women's area on grounds of transgender identity, even if they'd announced it continuously with "THEY" tattooed on one breast and "THEM" on the next.
 
Last edited:
Aber said:
What to you suggests criminal intent?
Click to expand...
The usual things. A man who buys a sackful of spy cameras and removes identifying information and then enters the ladies' room with them probably isn't up to any good.

Trespassing, or does it need something further?
Click to expand...
If they were trespassing, there would be no need to show criminal intent.
 
mumblethrax said:
The usual things. A man who buys a sackful of spy cameras and removes identifying information and then enters the ladies' room with them probably isn't up to any good.
Click to expand...
The question was about who would you challenge.

And, of course, you don't know what is in the backpack before you decide to challenge.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Trans people who were observed to be male at birth are expressly permitted to use the ladies' room, per relevant antidiscrimination laws.
Click to expand...
I suppose I was confused about which subset you were asking me about. Cis, then.

All it takes to opt out is a statement to the effect that the bathroom or locker room in which you found yourself was the one which comported with your gender identity as you were experiencing it at the time. Under self-i.d. there is no mechanism to call any such declaration insincere, even known sex criminals (such as Merager) are given full faith and credit in reporting their identity.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of the complaint. If you have a problem with self-id, just say you have a problem with self-id. There's no need for this tortured argument at all. "Gender-segregated restrooms are technically unisex restrooms, even though they obvious aren't, and also they technically aren't" is what this boils down to.

And "full faith and credit"? Why do Americans always end up trying to sound like the Founding Fathers when they're trying to punch above their weight?

The historical characteristic which formerly kept some people out of the women's spaces was being male rather than being transgender.
Click to expand...
You've just totally misunderstood the point here. It's the history of discrimination against trans people that makes gender identity a protected class. That's what motivates anti-discrimination law. It follow from that that discrimination on the basis of gender identity constitutes impermissible discrimination.

There is no need at all to show that there is a history of discrimination in bathroom access.
 
Thermal said:
You keep saying this, and it's simply not true. A cop, for instance, can at any time refuse to accept what he considers a deceptive excuse , for literally anything. For his reasoning, a NJ driver's license indicates gender, as does their other available public records the officer might have access to (arrest records, Firearm card, etc). From this alone, the cop can easily say that the has probable cause to believe the suspect is giving him false information. The prison system does this quite openly; they can say they don't believe (or don't even care) that a prisoner is trans.

The 'magic words' you guys rely on are imaginary. Police (and anyone else) can respond with the customary NJ response of '◊◊◊◊ off' , and treat you like exactly what they perceive you as, by the reasonable person standard.
Click to expand...
Wrong!

Downloads a 217KB PDF

If gender expression (actual or perceived) does not clearly indicate a transgender person's identity, officers may politely and respectfully ask how the person wishes to be addressed. For example, officers may ask a transgender person which name and pronoun the person prefers.​
​
1. When a person self-identifies as a transgender person, officers should not question this identity or ask about the person's transition status. Officers shall not engage in any argument, disagreement, or debate regarding a person's self-identification as a transgender person.​

So, if a biological male self-ID's as a women, the cop is NOT allowed to argue about it

2. If officers do question such self-identification or ask about a person's transgender status, officers should have compelling, professional, articulable reason for having done so. These reason(s) shall be thoroughly documented in the corresponding CAD/RMS record or law incident report.​

What cop is going to question self-ID, knowing that it involves doing a crap load of extra paperwork, and a ticking-off if they get anything, even slightly, wrong

3. Officers shall not ask questions or make statements about a transgender person's genitalia, anatomy, breasts, sexual practices, or transition status. If an officer does ask such questions or make such statements, it shall be necessary to do so because of the ongoing criminal investigation or if the individual raises the issue, without prompting by the officer and the officer’s inquiries are tailored to ensure the individual’s safety and dignity. That officer shall have a compelling, professional, and articulable reason for having done so. The reason(s) shall be thoroughly documented in the corresponding report.​
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
If you have a problem with self-id, just say you have a problem with self-id.
Click to expand...
I think it's much better to painfully tease out the problem bit by bit.
mumblethrax said:
"Gender-segregated restrooms are technically unisex restrooms, even though they obvious aren't, and also they technically aren't"
Click to expand...
I've no idea why you would say that a space which is legally required to be inclusive of both sexes is not technically unisex.

What aspect of "unisex" is technically missing in such cases?
mumblethrax said:
It's the history of discrimination against trans people that makes gender identity a protected class.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that you—among many others—may well have mistaken a history of sex segregation for a history of discrimination against trans people. When women and girls complain about seeing a penis at the spa, they aren't complaining about the bepenised individual's subjective sense of self.
 
Aber said:
The question was about who would you challenge.
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not going to challenge anyone directly.

If I saw someone who looked very much like a man waiting around outside a women's restroom, watching the door, and entering only after another woman does, that's more than enough for me to let someone know my suspicions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom