How many of those crimes could have been prevented if there had been laws to require every person to use the public restroom based on their sex at birth?
As I recall the rape in the Virginia high school that was big in the news a few year back was a “gender-fluid” dress-boy assaulting a girl in the girls bathroom, for one.
But he never claimed to be transgender. He was a cross-dresser. And he also asaulted a girl in an empty classroom. So I don't know how the bathroom policy was relevant in his case.
As I recall the rape in the Virginia high school that was big in the news a few year back was a “gender-fluid” dress-boy assaulting a girl in the girls bathroom, for one.
Let me repeat my request: please write down a (possibly multivariate) strictly binary classification policy that allows anyone to categorize every human as either one or the other.
Some of us have made it plentifully clear that our policy preference is to do nothing to change the status quo: people informally choose the bathroom with which they are most comfortable, like they have been for centuries. What’s yours? If you can’t even state it, what are you even arguing so much for?
You are deliberately obfuscating and changing the subject.
How about you write down for me the (possibly multivariate) strictly binary classification policy that differentiates between orangutans and homo sapiens, between a pistil and stamen, a hand and a foot.
The available data support the conclusion that human sexuality is a dichotomy, not a continuum. More than 99.98% of humans are either male or female. If the term intersex is to retain any clinical meaning, the use of this term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female.
The birth of an intersex child, far from being “a fairly common phenomenon,” is actually a rare event, occurring in fewer than 2 out of every 10,000 births.
Leonard Sax (2002) How common is lntersex? A response to Anne Fausto‐Sterling, The Journal of Sex Research, 39:3, 174-178, DOI: 10.1080/00224490209552139
You are deliberately obfuscating and changing the subject.
How about you write down for me the (possibly multivariate) strictly binary classification policy that differentiates between orangutans and homo sapiens, between a pistil and stamen, a hand and a foot.
The available data support the conclusion that human sexuality is a dichotomy, not a continuum. More than 99.98% of humans are either male or female. If the term intersex is to retain any clinical meaning, the use of this term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female.
The birth of an intersex child, far from being “a fairly common phenomenon,” is actually a rare event, occurring in fewer than 2 out of every 10,000 births.
Leonard Sax (2002) How common is lntersex? A response to Anne Fausto‐Sterling, The Journal of Sex Research, 39:3, 174-178, DOI: 10.1080/00224490209552139
The paper doesn’t answer either of the two questions I posed to GD and to which you replied, and that are important for those advocating bathroom use policies (or sport for that matter) based on sex. The paper uses the word dichotomy to mean binary while acknowledging that intersex even as defined in the paper refutes the binary, so it’s a debatable position, not indisputable fact. Nobody here is claiming that the percentage of intersex is large, even with Fausto-Sterling’s definition, so we can agree it’s small. I could say “yes, sex is a trait that mostly allows for a binary classification”, and at the same time say “no, sex isn’t strictly binary”. The distinction only matters when used for policy making, hence my second question.
—
kuku wrote: Let me repeat my request: please write down a (possibly multivariate) strictly binary classification policy that allows anyone to categorize every human as either one or the other.
Some of us have made it plentifully clear that our policy preference is to do nothing to change the status quo: people informally choose the bathroom with which they are most comfortable, like they have been for centuries. What’s yours? If you can’t even state it, what are you even arguing so much for?
As I recall the rape in the Virginia high school that was big in the news a few year back was a “gender-fluid” dress-boy assaulting a girl in the girls bathroom, for one.
But he never claimed to be transgender. He was a cross-dresser. And he also asaulted a girl in an empty classroom. So I don't know how the bathroom policy was relevant in his case.
You are deliberately obfuscating and changing the subject.
How about you write down for me the (possibly multivariate) strictly binary classification policy that differentiates between orangutans and homo sapiens, between a pistil and stamen, a hand and a foot.
The available data support the conclusion that human sexuality is a dichotomy, not a continuum. More than 99.98% of humans are either male or female. If the term intersex is to retain any clinical meaning, the use of this term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female.
The birth of an intersex child, far from being “a fairly common phenomenon,” is actually a rare event, occurring in fewer than 2 out of every 10,000 births.
Leonard Sax (2002) How common is lntersex? A response to Anne Fausto‐Sterling, The Journal of Sex Research, 39:3, 174-178, DOI: 10.1080/00224490209552139
Fausto-Sterling’s argument that human sexuality is a continuum, not a dichotomy, rests in large measure on her claim that intersex births are a fairly common phenomenon.
No, it does not. Whether the "true" intersex people are 1.7% or 0.02%, they do exist, and they are real people. 0.02% of global population is about 1.6 million people. You cannot possibly pretend 1.6 million people did not exist.
But he never claimed to be transgender. He was a cross-dresser. And he also asaulted a girl in an empty classroom. So I don't know how the bathroom policy was relevant in his case.
You are deliberately obfuscating and changing the subject.
How about you write down for me the (possibly multivariate) strictly binary classification policy that differentiates between orangutans and homo sapiens, between a pistil and stamen, a hand and a foot.
Ha ha ha, the subject is bathroom use policy, and only because of your insistence, also whether sex is binary. What do you think the subject is?
I thought the main subject of this thread was the objections many women and girls have to being forced and/or expected to share women's locker rooms and restrooms outside the home with the likes of Lia Thomas and other adult, teeneage and middle-school age males who want in on those spaces for all sorts of reasons.
Some males today are demanding the right to use women's locker rooms and communal loos outside the home because they say that fits with the gender identities many today claim they have.
Other males want to be in with girls and women in communal locker rooms and loos because they've been bullied by blokes in the past and they say it makes them feel more comfortable and safer to undress, use toilets and shower in the company of the opposite sex rather than amongst those of their own sex.
Still other males say they want to use the girls' and women's facilities because they think they're cleaner, smell better and generally more pleasant.
But many, many other adult, teenage and middle-school-age males want to gain access to women's locker rooms and loos for nefarious reasons. These include invading spaces where they know they're not wanted in hopes it will make girls' and women feel uncomfortable and intimidated; sneering at us and ridiculing us for our specifically female bodily functions the way you appear to like to do; hoping to "sneak a peek" just for shxts and giggles; and/or commiting acts of vandalism they know will make those facilities either totally unusable or very inhospitable until custodians perform cleanups and repairs.
Other males want to gain access to women's locker rooms and restrooms so they can commit sex crimes us such as voyeurism, exhibitionism (dick flashing), stalking, menacing, sexual assault and rape.
This fella, for example, recently committed a string of rapes of different women in ladies' locker rooms in gyms in Maryland:
Ha ha ha, the subject is bathroom use policy, and only because of your insistence, also whether sex is binary. What do you think the subject is?
I thought the main subject of this thread was the objections many women and girls have to being forced and/or expected to share women's locker rooms and restrooms outside the home with the likes of Lia Thomas and other adult, teeneage and middle-school age males who want in on those spaces for all sorts of reasons.
Some males today are demanding the right to use women's locker rooms and communal loos outside the home because they say that fits with the gender identities many today claim they have.
Other males want to be in with girls and women in communal locker rooms and loos because they've been bullied by blokes in the past and they say it makes them feel more comfortable and safer to undress, use toilets and shower in the company of the opposite sex rather than amongst those of their own sex.
Still other males say they want to use the girls' and women's facilities because they think they're cleaner, smell better and generally more pleasant.
But many, many other adult, teenage and middle-school-age males want to gain access to women's locker rooms and loos for nefarious reasons. These include invading spaces where they know they're not wanted in hopes it will make girls' and women feel uncomfortable and intimidated; sneering at us and ridiculing us for our specifically female bodily functions the way you appear to like to do; hoping to "sneak a peek" just for shxts and giggles; and/or commiting acts of vandalism they know will make those facilities either totally unusable or very inhospitable until custodians perform cleanups and repairs.
Other males want to gain access to women's locker rooms and restrooms so they can commit sex crimes us such as voyeurism, exhibitionism (dick flashing), stalking, menacing, sexual assault and rape.
This fella, for example, recently committed a string of rapes of different women in ladies' locker rooms in gyms in Maryland:
I thought the main subject of this thread was the objections many women and girls have to being forced and/or expected to share women's locker rooms and restrooms outside the home with the likes of Lia Thomas and other adult, teeneage and middle-school age males who want in on those spaces for all sorts of reasons.
Some males today are demanding the right to use women's locker rooms and communal loos outside the home because they say that fits with the gender identities many today claim they have.
Other males want to be in with girls and women in communal locker rooms and loos because they've been bullied by blokes in the past and they say it makes them feel more comfortable and safer to undress, use toilets and shower in the company of the opposite sex rather than amongst those of their own sex.
Still other males say they want to use the girls' and women's facilities because they think they're cleaner, smell better and generally more pleasant.
But many, many other adult, teenage and middle-school-age males want to gain access to women's locker rooms and loos for nefarious reasons. These include invading spaces where they know they're not wanted in hopes it will make girls' and women feel uncomfortable and intimidated; sneering at us and ridiculing us for our specifically female bodily functions the way you appear to like to do; hoping to "sneak a peek" just for shxts and giggles; and/or commiting acts of vandalism they know will make those facilities either totally unusable or very inhospitable until custodians perform cleanups and repairs.
Other males want to gain access to women's locker rooms and restrooms so they can commit sex crimes us such as voyeurism, exhibitionism (dick flashing), stalking, menacing, sexual assault and rape.
This fella, for example, recently committed a string of rapes of different women in ladies' locker rooms in gyms in Maryland:
It doesn't matter. The point is that there is danger in normalizing males in women's bathroons and locker rooms. The ideology you're promoting argues that any male who identifies as a woman is a woman and that there is no reason for women or girls to be concerned--that "Lia Thomas" exposing his penis and testicles in a room full of women who are undressing is no longer a crime because of Thomas' sense of self. You're so convinced that this is a right wing position that you can no longer see that you're promoting a logic that rubber stamps some of the most common sex crimes committed against women (peeping & exhibitionism).
Your claim is wrong. There are laws prohibiting voyeurism and exhibitionism, but none prohibiting anyone’s use of a women’s bathroom for going to the bathroom. Lia Thomas used a locker room for the purpose for which a locker room is meant, not for exhibitionism or voyeurism, nor did Gaines accuse her of such a crime.
No, your claim is wrong. The laws in the US vary from state to state, and from one municipality to another within each state.
Many US school districts and colleges/unis mandate that girls and women who are students have their own sex-specific locker rooms and toilets separate from males, and that separate male-only facilities are provided for boys and men who are students.
The laws in many other countries prohibit males from entering and using women's toilets, locker rooms, changing rooms and such.
The central question here is: who gets to decide if males should be able to use locker room and rest room facilities designed and originally established for female users?
You and HobbyJogger have made it clear you think the decision should be left up to the males who want in on women's locker rooms and restrooms - and up to blokes in general.
Whereas Riley Gaines, GD and I disagree. We think women and girls should be the ones who decide about who gets to see us when we are naked and partially undressed in places like communal locker rooms. We also think that when outside our homes, girls and women should be able to attend to our bodily needs in settings that provide us privacy and safety from adult, teenage and older middle-school-age boys.
You can keep calling women and girls like me transphobes and bigots all you want. You and HobbyJogger can keep telling us we are ninnies who know nothing at all about sex and sex differences in our species as well. But it still won't change the fact that there are conflicts of rights, or claimed rights, here that need to be raised, discussed, hashed out and setttled fairly.
You seem totally assured that you and those who share your views have the upper hand and rule the roost when it comes to deciding who gets to use which facilities. But I think you are being over-confident.
Women and girls - and many men and boys too - are gonna fight tooth and nail for female people to retain our basic human rights to privacy, dignity and safety with the same tenacity and ferocity that blokes like you are trying to have our rights removed.
You and HobbyJogger have made it clear you think the decision should be left up to the males who want in on women's locker rooms and restrooms - and up to blokes in general.
No, I didn't. I know reading comprehension is not your forte. But please learn to read. If English happens to be your third language, my apology in advance.
In Transphobia Verbosa speak, it takes several paragraphs to agree that the subject is bathroom use policy after all.
Followed by two stories that have absolutely nothing to do with transgender people.
But there's no criteria for defining or telling which males are "transgender people" nowadays. According to the rule of self-ID that trans activists advocated for, a person is transgender simply because of his/her personal say-so. All it takes is the three magic words: "I am trans."
Since you took issue with the stories I posted, here's one about a male convicted sex criminal who's supposedly a "transgender person" that's now going through the courts.
February 12, 2023-
A teenage girl was one of the multiple witnesses to testify at a pre-trial hearing in the case involving Darren Merager, the transgender Angeleno at the center of an indecent exposure row that began at a Koreatown spa in 2021 and soon exploded into a national scandal.
At the hearing, held atthe Los Angeles County Superior Court – West District – Airport location, witnesses who were present at the spa on June 23, 2021, testified that Merager roamed the facility, penis exposed, with a nonchalance that they found unnerving.
“He was relaxed—like it was normal,” said Claudia (her last name was withheld), referring to Merager, who previously told LAMag that either male or female pronouns are fine as a descriptor. Claudia was bathing in the Wi Spa’s women-only section with her two daughters when Merager entered. “He was walking, like in a beauty contest, completely naked, like it was normal for a guy to walk around naked there.”
Claudia and her daughters recalled seeing Merager sitting on the edge of a Jacuzzi bath with feet dangling in the water, legs opened 45 degrees. While they acknowledged in court that Merager did not solicit their attention or take any action that day, presiding Judge Lana S. Kim held that Merager’s presence in the women’s section met the standard for the case to go forward by unlawfully causing offense to others in the indoor public space. The judge noted that the spa’s policy to not discriminate based on gender identity “was not an affirmative defense.”
Merager claims complete innocence in the case and said that California’s laws should protect transgender identity for public facility use.
“It’s not for me to adapt to society, at this point,” Merager told Los Angeles in a 2022 interview. “If nobody else is using a shower curtain or nobody else is using a swimsuit, it’s illegal to try and make me do it. Technically, and from all perspectives, I am female, and everybody agrees with that. We’re all on equal grounds under the law.
How were the women and girls to whom Merager exposed himself to that day in the female-only sections of the Wi Spa supposed to know that he's what you would call a "transgender person"?
What exactly are the signs that you think they should have looked for that would have told them that Merager isn't really a bloke any more, he just looks and acts like a bloke?
BTW, this convicted male sex offender is charged with similar cimes that have yet to to be adjudicated in court stemming from a totally separate incidident when he allegedly exposed his genitals to a different group female people - this time all minor-age girls - in the girls' and women's changing room at a LA-area public pool.
This post was edited 56 seconds after it was posted.
Your claim is wrong. There are laws prohibiting voyeurism and exhibitionism, but none prohibiting anyone’s use of a women’s bathroom for going to the bathroom. Lia Thomas used a locker room for the purpose for which a locker room is meant, not for exhibitionism or voyeurism, nor did Gaines accuse her of such a crime.
No, your claim is wrong. The laws in the US vary from state to state, and from one municipality to another within each state.
Many US school districts and colleges/unis mandate that girls and women who are students have their own sex-specific locker rooms and toilets separate from males, and that separate male-only facilities are provided for boys and men who are students.
The laws in many other countries prohibit males from entering and using women's toilets, locker rooms, changing rooms and such.
Law means state of federal law, not school policies. Please point me to a single US federal law ever or currently active state law making it illegal for a man to use women’s public bathroom just for “going”, and please note the punishment mandated by that law just to make sure we are not BS’ing our way as usual. There are state laws requiring to post signage at best; the rest is delegated to the business or building.
Please note pointers to a long list of “many countries” or even a short list of western country laws prohibiting the same. It’s strange to compare civil laws in countries with, say, Sharia law to those in the US.
The central question here is: who gets to decide if males should be able to use locker room and rest room facilities designed and originally established for female users?
You and HobbyJogger have made it clear you think the decision should be left up to the males who want in on women's locker rooms and restrooms - and up to blokes in general.
Whereas Riley Gaines, GD and I disagree.
Misleading misandrist phrasing of question. Central question is who can or can not use which bathrooms.
I did not say what you are attributing to me.
Neither of you or GD (or Gaines for that matter) have stated a precise policy position on the Central Question nor how the policy would be implemented. I have in this thread.
Leonard Sax (2002) How common is lntersex? A response to Anne Fausto‐Sterling, The Journal of Sex Research, 39:3, 174-178, DOI: 10.1080/00224490209552139
Fausto-Sterling’s argument that human sexuality is a continuum, not a dichotomy, rests in large measure on her claim that intersex births are a fairly common phenomenon.
No, it does not. Whether the "true" intersex people are 1.7% or 0.02%, they do exist, and they are real people. 0.02% of global population is about 1.6 million people. You cannot possibly pretend 1.6 million people did not exist.
Yes, but they do not represent an additional sex category. To say that they do reveals a lack of understanding about what sex is.
Fausto-Sterling’s argument that human sexuality is a continuum, not a dichotomy, rests in large measure on her claim that intersex births are a fairly common phenomenon.
No, it does not. Whether the "true" intersex people are 1.7% or 0.02%, they do exist, and they are real people. 0.02% of global population is about 1.6 million people. You cannot possibly pretend 1.6 million people did not exist.
Yes, but they do not represent an additional sex category. To say that they do reveals a lack of understanding about what sex is.
Leonard Sax who wrote the paper cited above seems to think they do, but maybe it only reveals his lack of understanding about what sex is. You seem rather drunk on this koolaid of a strict binary without ever specifying how to categorize the exceptions, without ever saying anything technically deep about intersex conditions yourself, all while being condescending of everyone else’s ability to understand basic biology. Maybe you are the one batting out of your league.
Fausto-Sterling’s argument that human sexuality is a continuum, not a dichotomy, rests in large measure on her claim that intersex births are a fairly common phenomenon.
No, it does not. Whether the "true" intersex people are 1.7% or 0.02%, they do exist, and they are real people. 0.02% of global population is about 1.6 million people. You cannot possibly pretend 1.6 million people did not exist.
Just to be clear: most of the < 0.02% of the human population who have DSDs do not have DSD conditions that caused them to be born with genitals that looked so ambiguous that there was any question about their sex - or so much like the gentials of the opposite sex that they grew up mis-sexed and never had any idea that they have a DSD.
As to your contention that some of us are trying to "pretend that 1.6 million people [with DSDs] do not exist" - no one is saying that persons with DSDs don't exist. Nor is anyone saying that people with DSDs don't deserve full human rights, fair treatment, compassion and respect.
We are saying, however, that we don't believe the existence of people with DSDs means that human sex is not binary the way you keep claiming.
We also don't believe that the existence of the few particular DSD conditions which you constantly bring up - all of which, tellingly, occur only in people who are chromosmally and genetically male, and with the exception of Swyer syndrome, all of which cause affected persons to have well-developed, functioning testes - means what you say it does. Which is that female human beings do not constitute a distinct, easily definable biological sex class with phsyical characteristics that make us clearly distinguishable from the human male sex class - including members of the male sex class with the particular differences or disorders of male sex development you keep posting about.
Because you insist on seeing people with CAIS, PAIS and XY 5-ARD as women whose female sex development is atypical, of course in your eyes there is no coherent, consisitent way to define biolocial women. How could there be if some biological women have testes that pump out testosterone in or exceeeding the normal male range, need prostate checks, and can father children?
But if you were to take the view that I hold - which is that no matter how they are regarded socially, persons with those DSDs are biologically male with rare medical conditions that caused their male sex development to be atypical - then it is possible to hold on to and to articulate a coherent, consistent definition of biological women. (And it's possible to do this whilst stilll leaving room for persons with these extremely rare DSDs to socially define themselves and live and do as they wish in nearly all ways and areas of life.)
Another view that I and others disgree with is the one which says that because some male people today claim to have trans, non-binary, gender-fluid and other newfangled gender identities, this means that female human beings no longer can or should be viewed as distinct from trans-identified males in law, sports, healthcare and medical research, locker rooms, toilet provisions, workplace rules, prisons and life in general - and that to accommodate males who "identify as" girls and women, people who really are girls and women must forfeit many of the hard-won rights and protections that women over many generations had to fight tooth and nail to obtain.
In addition, I and others reject the view that because a bunch of selfish, pushy, grabby males with porn addiction, autogynephilia, narcissistic personalities and a colonialist mindset now like to think of themselves as female - and they've gone ahead and arrogantly appropriated the words "woman," "girl" and "female" for themselves - people like me must now redefined as and demoted to a subcategory of our sex and put up with being called "cisgender women" and "cis females."
Why would any male not be cool enought to realize he has no business in a females bathroom where is that common sense? I gotta be honest all the guys I know all my buddies won't be cool with guys hanging around their daughters bathrooms.
Once others are involved in when we are going to have problems with the trans thing. Some guy in a bathroom with my wife wlll not work.
Exactly what kind of problems are you talking about?
Trans people have been using bathrooms for a long time. It's not going to suddenly stop. Nothing you can do about so might as well stop the whining.
