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

[mumblethrax]

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 declaring that to be the case. It's just how this works. How can you provide a unitary justification for a consequence that follows from distinct actions by non-coordinating parties? It's nonsensical.

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.

Well then you'll have to find such posters.

 

[mumblethrax]

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?

In New York, they cannot segregate solely on the basis of sex when it comes to bathrooms. I thought I already said this.

 

[Ziggurat]

In New York, they cannot segregate solely on the basis of sex when it comes to bathrooms. I thought I already said this.

I asked "should".

If you have an opinion, give it, and explain why. If you have no opinion, then what are you even doing here?

 

[JoeMorgue]

The whole "Tee hee I didn't say it was MY opinion" routine is getting a bit old.

What is YOUR opinion is clearly being asked. We're not asking for a civics lesson.

 

[mumblethrax]

I asked "should".

If you have an opinion, give it, and explain why. If you have no opinion, then what are you even doing here?

I thought the answer would be obvious here, too. I think things should work the way they work now. Nothing bad has happened as a result.

 

[The Atheist]

I remain astonished at how fast this thread grows - every day seems to add 2 - 5 more pages.

The amount of investment some people are making is quite telling.

 

[theprestige]

NM

 

[Ziggurat]

I thought the answer would be obvious here, too. I think things should work the way they work now.

Why?

Nothing bad has happened as a result.

That's not true.

 

[mumblethrax]

Why?

Because nothing bad has happened as a result, and the good it serves is an important one, in my view.

That's not true.

Yes, it is.

 

[theprestige]

There is no bouncer in front of the McDonald's bathroom. There is no need for words, magic or otherwise.

Fiat self-ID as public policy doesn't solve this problem. Indeed, it makes this problem worse. In some cases, it ends up criminalizing people's attempts to police these spaces by social pressure, which has been the customary first line of defense for generations.

In the case of Jessica Yaniv and others like him, we've seen this harassment of women, and the chilling effect on social recourse, even in venues that do have some sort of official gatekeeper. Because, by law, fiat self-ID must trump the "bouncer's" own judgement. If the bouncer acts otherwise, it is the bouncer that is committing the crime, not the predator.

The good news is, the law does not necessarily have to come down on the side of gender segregation and fiat self-ID. It can just as easily come down on the side of sex segregation and social pressure. The bad news is, there's a lot of people who want you to believe that the law must side with gender, and to accept their policy proposals for such laws.

It would be interesting to see your complete argument* about what you believe the law should say, and why you believe that.

---
* For me a complete argument consists of three things, presented together as a unitary whole: Your premises, your conclusions, and your reasoning connecting the former with the latter.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Because nothing bad has happened as a result, and the good it serves is an important one, in my view.


Yes, it is.

Well, gosh! I wish you were here for page one, this thread would be long ignored!

Don't worry, everyone, be assured that everything is fine! Move along!

 

[mumblethrax]

Fiat self-ID as public policy doesn't solve this problem.

Since it's not meant to, I fail to see the relevance.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because nothing bad has happened as a result

That is manifestly false. We have covered multiple cases in this thread demonstrating bad things have happened as a result of trans-inclusive policies in nominally segregated spaces.

and the good it serves is an important one, in my view.

What good does it serve?

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, gosh! I wish you were here for page one, this thread would be long ignored!

Don't worry, everyone, be assured that everything is fine! Move along!

 

[mumblethrax]

That is manifestly false. We have covered multiple cases in this thread demonstrating bad things have happened as a result of trans-inclusive policies in nominally segregated spaces.

Then give me some examples where this has happened in NYC.

What good does it serve?

The good of fostering a society where people can live together peaceably, the general goal of all anti-discrimination law.

Probably has some beneficial ancillary effects, too, like not subjecting people who don't happen to look like the typical member of their sex to harassment.

 

[theprestige]

Since it's not meant to, I fail to see the relevance.

It makes the problem worse, without any commensurate benefit to justify implementing it. But here we are. It's been implemented, it makes the problem worse, and somehow you don't see the relevance.

 

[Paul2]

Nothing follows at all. They are distinct fields.


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.

There's nothing stopping the law from defining sex as biological, as you said upthread.

Yes, that also doesn't follow.

It doesn't favor gender. It is gender.

Wha? The law is gender? What does "it" refer to?

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

And it can use scientific and biological definitions to do so.

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.

This just states your position (the razor places the law and gender on one side).

 

[mumblethrax]

It makes the problem worse, without any commensurate benefit to justify implementing it. But here we are. It's been implemented, it makes the problem worse, and somehow you don't see the relevance.

I don't see any reason to believe that it makes the problem worse.

 

[TomB]

Since it's not meant to, I fail to see the relevance.

That is what is being proposed and, in some places implemented.
Therefore, that is what people are presenting arguments either for or against.

Under fiat self-id I could, in theory, decide to use the women's locker room at Planet Fitness and, as long as I wasn't too obvious, watch the women change clothes. There would be nothing staff could do about it, because if they challenge me, I can just say I identify as a woman. I wouldn't need any documentation to support that. (It may even be illegal to ask for such in some places.)

It may be that for at least some on the pro-sex segregation side some sort of official certification may be an acceptable compromise because it would prevent someone from casually doing what I describe. It would require commitment and speaking to a clerk or some sort of official.

But...

...as I recall, when a trans woman was involved in this discussion, she felt that getting any kind of documentation was an undue hardship. (I understand that point from her perspective, but the lack of such makes enforcement of any sort of segregation dicey.)

There are several in this thread who, it seems to me, want to support transgender people, but also do not want to compromise the protections we have put in place over the years for biological women.

 

[Ziggurat]

The good of fostering a society where people can live together peaceably

I see no evidence that these laws have done so.

the general goal of all anti-discrimination law.

That is not the general goal of all anti-discrimination laws. The general goal is to end discrimination that is considered harmful in and of itself.

And these aren't anti-discrimination laws that we're discussing. There are anti-discrimination laws in regards to trans people, such as prohibiting discrimination in employment or housing. And those aren't controversial. But laws which require nominally sex-segregated facilities to allow access to trans people according to their gender are not anti-discrimination laws. The discrimination is left in place, only tweaked.

Probably has some beneficial ancillary effects, too, like not subjecting people who don't happen to look like the typical member of their sex to harassment.

I see no evidence of that benefit either.