Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[Paul2]

Yes. It means that nothing follows from scientific definitions or scientific understanding of sex. The law is a separate domain, designed for different purposes. The people who are saying "Sex in humans is immutable, therefore legal sex should be immutable" are simply making a category error.

"nothing follows" necessarily "from scientific definitions", right? Because the law about trans folk could be based on a scientific definition of sex, or it could be based on gender as currently socially constructed.

And doesn't it follow that you can't also necessarily say, "Gender in humans is mutable, therefore legal gender is mutable." The law could make legal gender immutable if it wanted to, so it doesn't necessarily follow, in the same way that the law could make legal sex mutable, even though sex is actually immutable (as defined by gametes).

So I don't get how the razor somehow favors gender. The law can do what it wants regardless of whether sex, gender, or the law is a social construction or not.

 

[mumblethrax]

They are foreseeable to those who take the trouble to think about what they are proposing, particularly when representations are made that point out the consequences. I'm afraid claiming unintended consequences doesn't cut it.

No, they aren't. And you might want to reread that. I'm talking about legislation that bans discrimination on the grounds of sex. I mean, the idea that we need sex-segregated bathrooms is itself advanced on shaky grounds.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No, they aren't. And you might want to reread that. I'm talking about legislation that bans discrimination on the grounds of sex. I mean, the idea that we need sex-segregated bathrooms is itself advanced on shaky grounds.

The vagina owners need a safe space from the penis owners is part of the impossible triad. They've made it 100% clear the penis owners in their space is not acceptable. This has been made clear. This has been made 100% clear repeatedly. Multiple times. Over and over.

Grounds aren't shaky just because you (and I) disagree with them.

 

[Ziggurat]

I mean, the idea that we need sex-segregated bathrooms is itself advanced on shaky grounds.

No, it's really not. Hard data has been presented up thread about mixed-sex facilities and assault rates. Even a basic comprehension of human sexuality will make that outcome entirely predictable. The sexes aren't symmetric. The differences aren't superficial.

And the TRA's don't even want to get rid of segregation. They just want it done on the basis of self-declared gender rather than sex, even though that makes no sense and effectively ends any enforcement of segregation. But they still want that segregation. It's the ultimate have your cake and eat it too.

 

[mumblethrax]

"nothing follows" necessarily "from scientific definitions", right?

Nothing follows at all. They are distinct fields.

Because the law about trans folk could be based on a scientific definition of sex, or it could be based on gender as currently socially constructed.

I don't think the law generally gives two ***** about the scientific definition. It's down to the common law definition or the statutory definition.

And doesn't it follow that you can't also necessarily say, "Gender in humans is mutable, therefore legal gender is mutable."

Yes, that also doesn't follow.

So I don't get how the razor somehow favors gender. The law can do what it wants regardless of whether sex, gender, or the law is a social construction or not.

It doesn't favor gender. It is gender. The law can do nothing but dictate how social arrangements should be made. That, as a purely descriptive matter, is on the gender side of the razor, just as who is allowed to see or play the sacred flute is.

 

[mumblethrax]

They've made it 100% clear the penis owners in their space is not acceptable.

No, they haven't.

Grounds aren't shaky just because you (and I) disagree with them.

Who said they were? I'm saying it's a difficult legal case to make.

 

[Ziggurat]

It doesn't favor gender. It is gender.

It absolutely isn't.

The law can do nothing but dictate how social arrangements should be made.

The law is silent on most topics of gender. Hair, clothing style, comportment, MOST aspects of gender are not dictated by law and the law doesn't concern itself with. So no, the law absolutely isn't gender.

 

[mumblethrax]

No, it's really not. Hard data has been presented up thread about mixed-sex facilities and assault rates.

The relevant question is whether unisex facilities can be designed such that assault rates do not increase. If they can, then this would not serve as a justification for sex segregation.

And the TRA's don't even want to get rid of segregation.

This is irrelevant to the question of whether such segregation is justified.

 

[mumblethrax]

It absolutely isn't.

It is.

The law is silent on [...]

The. Law. Itself.

 

[d4m10n]

Then questions like "What is the justification for writing a law denying single-sex accommodations and services?" should be irrelevant to you. That's not what lawmakers are doing.

No, it is what they have already done. Legislators wrote the law, the governor signed it, the courts interpreted it, and it denies single-sex accommodations and services. For the sake of clarity, though, let me rephrase and ask again:

What is the justification for implementing—via the actions of all three branches of state government—a law denying single-sex accommodations and services?

 

[mumblethrax]

No, it is what they have already done. Legislators wrote the law [...]

This is where it ends for the purposes of determining why someone wrote a law.

You're imagining that the state acts monolithically. It doesn't.

 

[Ziggurat]

The relevant question is whether unisex facilities can be designed such that assault rates do not increase. If they can, then this would not serve as a justification for sex segregation.

Well, no, because whether or not you can design such spaces, we can't build enough of them everywhere to replace all the existing facilities. And that's still conceding the "if" which hasn't been demonstrated. In some cases (such as prisons) it's almost guaranteed that we can't. And lastly, it doesn't even touch on some issues such as shared nude spaces (where the concern isn't simply assault) or sports.

 

[mumblethrax]

Well, no, because whether or not you can design such spaces, we can't build enough of them everywhere to replace all the existing facilities.

So grandfather in older facilities and require newer ones (or significant remodels) to be built according to the new code.

 

[d4m10n]

You're imagining that the state acts monolithically. It doesn't.

What is the justification for implementing—via the actions of all three branches of state government—a law denying single-sex accommodations and services?

Sent from my Nitpicker 5000 using Tapatalk

 

[mumblethrax]

What is the justification for implementing—via the actions of all three branches of state government—a law denying single-sex accommodations and services?

This is a nonsensical question. There will be a policy justification for writing the law, and a legal justification for interpreting it. There is no unifying justification.

 

[TomB]

There is no bouncer in front of the McDonald's bathroom. There is no need for words, magic or otherwise. People seriously overestimate the difficulty predatory men have in accessing these spaces.

Let me stop you right here, because this is not entirely correct.

Currently, there are means to enforce segregation of bathrooms. Even in McDonalds. It has nothing to do with checking IDs or inspecting genitals.

When a male, such as myself, accidentally enters the wrong room, the occupants of that room make point out their mistake to them. If that male were to shrug it off and persist, the occupants of that room has some options. They can voice their objection more loudly or they can exit the room and make the issue known to the employees. Both of these have the effect of drawing attention, which is undesirable for predators.

Prior to a back injury, my wife worked in security, including at a mall and at a library. She has been called to address such an issue at both places.

Of course, these options don't exist for facilities in isolated areas where there is no one whose attention can be drawn, but still, it exists. And yes, there are cases where this can misfire leading to embarrassment for all.

These options are threatened by the current tide around these issues. It becomes possible to label anyone who questions or objects to someone's presence in the women's bathroom a "transphobe" and turn them into the villain. (Something which, these days, can have real and lasting negative effects.) Even if the person they object to looks and dresses like Tom Selleck in Magnum P.I. (Facial hair, displayed chest hair, masculine clothes and haircut.)

Basically, self-ID moves from "weak enforcement" to "no enforcement."

I live in a city of 8 million people, with no shortage of sex predators. It's been illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity for something like 20 years.

And yet there are still segregated changing rooms and bathrooms in your city.

I have yet to succeed in finding a single instance where a sexual predator gained access to a bathroom by pretending to be trans.

Note the highlighted.

There have been several incidents of inappropriate behavior posted on these threads by people who claimed to be trans. this is where the highlighted word comes in. Unless these people back down from their claim (which might not be good legal advice), how do we tell if this behavior (including some assaults) were done by trans women or men pretending to be trans?

By what criteria can we sort them into the "pretending" bin?

This also relates to another complaint EC has made where crimes committed by a trans woman are counted as crimes by women. How we classify data when it is collected affects what we can discern from that data.

There is no evidence that this has led to an increase in assaults on women.

Seems like the skeptic should conclude that this isn't the danger people think it is.

I'd think a skeptic would first look at what data is collected and how it is collected before deciding if it was even possible to make a conclusion.

 

[Ziggurat]

So grandfather in older facilities and require newer ones (or significant remodels) to be built according to the new code.

That's nice. Now, what rules should those older facilities operate under? Can they segregate on the basis of sex? Or only on the basis of self-declared gender?

 

[d4m10n]

This is a nonsensical question. There will be a policy justification for writing the law, and a legal justification for interpreting it. There is no unifying justification.

You have not shown that there is zero overlap between the policy justification for writing the law and the legal justification for implementing it in a certain way, you simply declared that to be the case.

I'm not going to ask you a third time (fool me thrice, shame on me) but I'd be interested in hearing what the best argument is for banning single sex spaces from any other posters who happen to consider that a desirable end goal.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is a nonsensical question. There will be a policy justification for writing the law, and a legal justification for interpreting it. There is no unifying justification.

Then give us any of those justifications.

You seem quite intent on finding excuses to not answer questions.

 

[mumblethrax]

These options are threatened by the current tide around these issues. It becomes possible to label anyone who questions or objects to someone's presence in the women's bathroom a "transphobe" and turn them into the villain. (Something which, these days, can have real and lasting negative effects.) Even if the person they object to looks and dresses like Tom Selleck in Magnum P.I. (Facial hair, displayed chest hair, masculine clothes and haircut.)

This is possible irrespective of the state of law.

Basically, self-ID moves from "weak enforcement" to "no enforcement."

No, it doesn't. Your options for dealing with someone you suspect of being male are identical to the options you just described.

And yet there are still segregated changing rooms and bathrooms in your city.

And?

By what criteria can we sort them into the "pretending" bin?

After security has been summoned, security checks their ID.

This also relates to another complaint EC has made where crimes committed by a trans woman are counted as crimes by women. How we classify data when it is collected affects what we can discern from that data.

I'm not even asking for data. I'm asking for a single instance, anywhere in the city. A media report will do.