Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?

This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?

As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

This suit is a great illustration of the male supremacy which is not obvious but inherent in gender ideology. Women are not permitted to define ourselves as a sex-based class. We are forced to have biological males in women's spaces.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Well, in that case, could you please quote the part that makes the claim to which you are referring? I see one section discussing class membership which might be what you mean. If so, I think you are misunderstanding it.

Below is a reference with a screenshot to the original claim which I am referencing. I am not an attorney and do not have the ability to search legal documents; or examine of the document has been changed if the author realizes their claim is ridiculous.

https://reduxx.info/aclu-claims-males-females-do-not-exist-court-docs/

The excerpt says:

Proposed Intervenors also deny the allegation that “human beings” are “sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]”

I suspect that the Intervenors deny this is because there are intersex people who don't fit into the dimorphic paradigm. Admittedly such people are rare, but their existence means that the the claim about men and women being dimorphic is wrong.

What does gender identity/gender roles have to do with sexual dimorphism? I thought gender identity is separate from biology. Can you elaborate on this reference? What is the connection?

It's a legal filing and therefore the lawyers have identified any nit they can legally pick. That's what lawyers are paid to do. I don't think that it is part of a unified theory of gender but rather one more argument from the complaint to which they can object. The goal is to invalidate the complaint and the more parts of it they can discredit, the better.

You're inconsistent and careless with your language in a discussion where it's necessary to be precise. You conflate the terms men and women, male and female, essentially conflating the concepts of gender and sex/biology. In a discussion about trans, this is everything. You can try to deflect, but it's not nit picking to point out the logical inconsistencies. If it's only an important distinction when you want it to be, then it's not really an important distinction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

Here is another article which confidently asserts that transwomen (biological males) have no advantages over biological women (females) in sports based on biological sex diffrences. Precisely that "there is no inherent reason why her physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.” I am quite tired of being gaslit that no one is "denying the science" that there are real biological sexual differences between males and females.
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked

That article literally says that the statement “sex is binary, apparent at birth and identifiable through singular biological characters” IS A MYTH.

I did not mistype. They did not say gender. They said SEX.

They then go on to say that there are no physical attributes of males vs females which require distinction in athletic competitions. Do you believe that male sexual biological characteristics are irrelevant in athletic competition?

Having a penis and testes is irrelevant. Having increased muscle mass, arterial oxygen levels and lung capacity is not.

I'm not understanding your point. Are you trying to make the case that a males increased muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, and different skeletal structure is unrelated to his penis and testes and chromosomes? Or are you trying to make the case that muscle mass, oxygen levels, and lung capacity are the only biological sex characteristics which influence male ability to dominate sports.

The second. Sorry I wasn’t clear.

At least we can agree that there are biological sexual characteristics unique to males and females! So your point is that the muscle mass, oxygen levels, and lung capacity are the only biological sex characteristics which influence male ability to dominate sports and dominate women physically. Is that right?

I’m in your side! I am flabbergasted that that site said “sex is binary” is a myth.

Hah. I thought that you were about to make the point that some combination of drugs/hormones/surgery can make sports competition and even playing field among males/females.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

Here is another article which confidently asserts that transwomen (biological males) have no advantages over biological women (females) in sports based on biological sex diffrences. Precisely that "there is no inherent reason why her physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.” I am quite tired of being gaslit that no one is "denying the science" that there are real biological sexual differences between males and females.
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked

That article literally says that the statement “sex is binary, apparent at birth and identifiable through singular biological characters” IS A MYTH.

I did not mistype. They did not say gender. They said SEX.

They then go on to say that there are no physical attributes of males vs females which require distinction in athletic competitions. Do you believe that male sexual biological characteristics are irrelevant in athletic competition?

Having a penis and testes is irrelevant. Having increased muscle mass, arterial oxygen levels and lung capacity is not.

I'm not understanding your point. Are you trying to make the case that a males increased muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, and different skeletal structure is unrelated to his penis and testes and chromosomes? Or are you trying to make the case that muscle mass, oxygen levels, and lung capacity are the only biological sex characteristics which influence male ability to dominate sports.

The second. Sorry I wasn’t clear.

At least we can agree that there are biological sexual characteristics unique to males and females! So your point is that the muscle mass, oxygen levels, and lung capacity are the only biological sex characteristics which influence male ability to dominate sports and dominate women physically. Is that right?

I’m in your side! I am flabbergasted that that site said “sex is binary” is a myth.

Hah. I thought that you were about to make the point that some combination of drugs/hormones/surgery can make sports competition and even playing field among males/females.

Oh gosh no. But I am willing to admit that the penis itself doesn’t give males an advantage 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like how these threads always bounce around between protecting the kids, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, self ID, prison, and back to sports without any apparent reason for the changes.

My favorite part was a couple pages back where someone was talking about their trans kid needing to go to a therapist to get hormones and someone else said they were wrong because adults can get HRT without a therapist and implies that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy.

I’m the mom in that post. It’s highly frustrating.

What we hear: it’s about protecting children, so no gender affirming care, no books about trans people. Also, we need someone to fill in at the school board meeting because one of our book banning guys was arrested for being a sexual predator. And hey, let’s arm the groomer teachers, because I guess somehow they’re not groomers anymore if they’ve got guns in the classrooms.

We also hear: we’ve made so many strides toward equal rights for women, we can’t let men in dresses take away our gains. Also, no way, women shouldn’t be able to have the final say on their own reproductive healthcare. Also, no way can we pass equal pay legislation or paid maternity leave.

Another fun one: f* your feelings. It’s about science. But not climate science. Oh and not evolution. Or statistics to show how few kids medically transition or how late term abortions are only for medical emergencies.

I could go on but it’s exhausted and disheartening. I wish they’d stay out of exam rooms. I wish people who cared about women and children actually protected women and children from real problems facing many, not from my kid, who has been bullied and threatened by so many caring people. I’m sure all the misgendering and telling him he’s being brainwashed and we’re abusive for allowing top surgery when we could care for him instead of making him wait until he went away for college, all that came from a place of love and wanting to protect him. I bet when they want to force him to out himself by going into the women’s bathroom (he definitely looks like a man and would look out of place among their daughters), they’ll thank him for using the ladies room not call him a pervert for trying to be near little girls peeing. It’s about spreading compassion and protecting him and the little girls they want him to pee and change into his swimsuit next to. (I honestly think sometimes they get so caught up in shaming trans women for not being manly men that they forget that they’re trying to force male presenting people into the spaces with their daughters. I know they’re not going to be happy about that either. I’ve witnessed it.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how these threads always bounce around between protecting the kids, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, self ID, prison, and back to sports without any apparent reason for the changes.

My favorite part was a couple pages back where someone was talking about their trans kid needing to go to a therapist to get hormones and someone else said they were wrong because adults can get HRT without a therapist and implies that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy.

I’m the mom in that post. It’s highly frustrating.

What we hear: it’s about protecting children, so no gender affirming care, no books about trans people. Also, we need someone to fill in at the school board meeting because one of our book banning guys was arrested for being a sexual predator. And hey, let’s arm the groomer teachers, because I guess somehow they’re not groomers anymore if they’ve got guns in the classrooms.

We also hear: we’ve made so many strides toward equal rights for women, we can’t let men in dresses take away our gains. Also, no way, women shouldn’t be able to have the final say on their own reproductive healthcare. Also, no way can we pass equal pay legislation or paid maternity leave.

Another fun one: f* your feelings. It’s about science. But not climate science. Oh and not evolution. Or statistics to show how few kids medically transition or how late term abortions are only for medical emergencies.

I could go on but it’s exhausted and disheartening. I wish they’d stay out of exam rooms. I wish people who cared about women and children actually protected women and children from real problems facing many, not from my kid, who has been bullied and threatened by so many caring people. I’m sure all the misgendering and telling him he’s being brainwashed and we’re abusive for allowing top surgery when we could care for him instead of making him wait until he went away for college, all that came from a place of love and wanting to protect him. I bet when they want to force him to out himself by going into the women’s bathroom (he definitely looks like a man and would look out of place among their daughters), they’ll thank him for using the ladies room not call him a pervert for trying to be near little girls peeing. It’s about spreading compassion and protecting him and the little girls they want him to pee and change into his swimsuit next to. (I honestly think sometimes they get so caught up in shaming trans women for not being manly men that they forget that they’re trying to force male presenting people into the spaces with their daughters. I know they’re not going to be happy about that either. I’ve witnessed it.)

So I take it you think the Washington case was correctly decided and you think vulnerable immigrant women should be forced to provide spa services to naked people with penises, and their safety is not an issue for you. Do I have your position correct?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Well, in that case, could you please quote the part that makes the claim to which you are referring? I see one section discussing class membership which might be what you mean. If so, I think you are misunderstanding it.

Below is a reference with a screenshot to the original claim which I am referencing. I am not an attorney and do not have the ability to search legal documents; or examine of the document has been changed if the author realizes their claim is ridiculous.

https://reduxx.info/aclu-claims-males-females-do-not-exist-court-docs/

The excerpt says:

Proposed Intervenors also deny the allegation that “human beings” are “sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]”

I suspect that the Intervenors deny this is because there are intersex people who don't fit into the dimorphic paradigm. Admittedly such people are rare, but their existence means that the the claim about men and women being dimorphic is wrong.

What does gender identity/gender roles have to do with sexual dimorphism? I thought gender identity is separate from biology. Can you elaborate on this reference? What is the connection?

It's a legal filing and therefore the lawyers have identified any nit they can legally pick. That's what lawyers are paid to do. I don't think that it is part of a unified theory of gender but rather one more argument from the complaint to which they can object. The goal is to invalidate the complaint and the more parts of it they can discredit, the better.

You're inconsistent and careless with your language in a discussion where it's necessary to be precise. You conflate the terms men and women, male and female, essentially conflating the concepts of gender and sex/biology. In a discussion about trans, this is everything. You can try to deflect, but it's not nit picking to point out the logical inconsistencies. If it's only an important distinction when you want it to be, then it's not really an important distinction.

While I certainly get things wrong from time to time, I believe I was accurate in this instance. Perhaps you are not actually as bright as you seem to believe and you simply missed the nuances? The specific legal issue being disputed involved sex. Precisely whether there are only two sexes which are distinguished by physical traits. The reasoning of that argument was not explained so I was speculating that the existence of intersex individuals means that the claim about dimorphic sexes was invalid and that is why the lawyers objected to the allegation. This has nothing to do with gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?

This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?

As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?

I'm confused by the safety argument, because spa workers are already often alone with people with penises in other spas. The only difference here is that all the patrons are naked. Is there something about having your penis out that makes someone more likely to rape?

Also, as I read the article (and as I understand Korean spas), you don't get your services in a solo room -- you get it in communal rooms. So a spa worker wouldn't find themselves alone with someone who has a penis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how these threads always bounce around between protecting the kids, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, self ID, prison, and back to sports without any apparent reason for the changes.

My favorite part was a couple pages back where someone was talking about their trans kid needing to go to a therapist to get hormones and someone else said they were wrong because adults can get HRT without a therapist and implies that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy.

I’m the mom in that post. It’s highly frustrating.

What we hear: it’s about protecting children, so no gender affirming care, no books about trans people. Also, we need someone to fill in at the school board meeting because one of our book banning guys was arrested for being a sexual predator. And hey, let’s arm the groomer teachers, because I guess somehow they’re not groomers anymore if they’ve got guns in the classrooms.

We also hear: we’ve made so many strides toward equal rights for women, we can’t let men in dresses take away our gains. Also, no way, women shouldn’t be able to have the final say on their own reproductive healthcare. Also, no way can we pass equal pay legislation or paid maternity leave.

Another fun one: f* your feelings. It’s about science. But not climate science. Oh and not evolution. Or statistics to show how few kids medically transition or how late term abortions are only for medical emergencies.

I could go on but it’s exhausted and disheartening. I wish they’d stay out of exam rooms. I wish people who cared about women and children actually protected women and children from real problems facing many, not from my kid, who has been bullied and threatened by so many caring people. I’m sure all the misgendering and telling him he’s being brainwashed and we’re abusive for allowing top surgery when we could care for him instead of making him wait until he went away for college, all that came from a place of love and wanting to protect him. I bet when they want to force him to out himself by going into the women’s bathroom (he definitely looks like a man and would look out of place among their daughters), they’ll thank him for using the ladies room not call him a pervert for trying to be near little girls peeing. It’s about spreading compassion and protecting him and the little girls they want him to pee and change into his swimsuit next to. (I honestly think sometimes they get so caught up in shaming trans women for not being manly men that they forget that they’re trying to force male presenting people into the spaces with their daughters. I know they’re not going to be happy about that either. I’ve witnessed it.)

Sorry mom. It must be really hard to have a gender dysphoric kid. I know that everything you did for them was based on the best intentions for their health and happiness. No one can fault you for any decision that you made when you very reasonably are relying on the judgements and expertise of medical professionals. I hope that your child is OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?

This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?

As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?

Okay, but, this happens to all women, all the time, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how these threads always bounce around between protecting the kids, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, self ID, prison, and back to sports without any apparent reason for the changes.

My favorite part was a couple pages back where someone was talking about their trans kid needing to go to a therapist to get hormones and someone else said they were wrong because adults can get HRT without a therapist and implies that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy.

I’m the mom in that post. It’s highly frustrating.

What we hear: it’s about protecting children, so no gender affirming care, no books about trans people. Also, we need someone to fill in at the school board meeting because one of our book banning guys was arrested for being a sexual predator. And hey, let’s arm the groomer teachers, because I guess somehow they’re not groomers anymore if they’ve got guns in the classrooms.

We also hear: we’ve made so many strides toward equal rights for women, we can’t let men in dresses take away our gains. Also, no way, women shouldn’t be able to have the final say on their own reproductive healthcare. Also, no way can we pass equal pay legislation or paid maternity leave.

Another fun one: f* your feelings. It’s about science. But not climate science. Oh and not evolution. Or statistics to show how few kids medically transition or how late term abortions are only for medical emergencies.

I could go on but it’s exhausted and disheartening. I wish they’d stay out of exam rooms. I wish people who cared about women and children actually protected women and children from real problems facing many, not from my kid, who has been bullied and threatened by so many caring people. I’m sure all the misgendering and telling him he’s being brainwashed and we’re abusive for allowing top surgery when we could care for him instead of making him wait until he went away for college, all that came from a place of love and wanting to protect him. I bet when they want to force him to out himself by going into the women’s bathroom (he definitely looks like a man and would look out of place among their daughters), they’ll thank him for using the ladies room not call him a pervert for trying to be near little girls peeing. It’s about spreading compassion and protecting him and the little girls they want him to pee and change into his swimsuit next to. (I honestly think sometimes they get so caught up in shaming trans women for not being manly men that they forget that they’re trying to force male presenting people into the spaces with their daughters. I know they’re not going to be happy about that either. I’ve witnessed it.)

So I take it you think the Washington case was correctly decided and you think vulnerable immigrant women should be forced to provide spa services to naked people with penises, and their safety is not an issue for you. Do I have your position correct?

NP here, but no one is forcing the vulnerable immigrant women to do anything. It's a job. If they don't like the parameters of that job, they can always get a different job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?

This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?

As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?

I'm confused by the safety argument, because spa workers are already often alone with people with penises in other spas. The only difference here is that all the patrons are naked. Is there something about having your penis out that makes someone more likely to rape?

Also, as I read the article (and as I understand Korean spas), you don't get your services in a solo room -- you get it in communal rooms. So a spa worker wouldn't find themselves alone with someone who has a penis.

Korean spas are different and the level of nakedness is quite different. It is not like a western spa.

It is more similar to Morrocan hammam than western spa practices, if you are familiar with that. And yes, workers would be alone at times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?

This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?

As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?

I'm confused by the safety argument, because spa workers are already often alone with people with penises in other spas. The only difference here is that all the patrons are naked. Is there something about having your penis out that makes someone more likely to rape?

Also, as I read the article (and as I understand Korean spas), you don't get your services in a solo room -- you get it in communal rooms. So a spa worker wouldn't find themselves alone with someone who has a penis.

Korean spas are different and the level of nakedness is quite different. It is not like a western spa.

It is more similar to Morrocan hammam than western spa practices, if you are familiar with that. And yes, workers would be alone at times.

So penis inside a towel = no rapist, but penis outside a towel = rapist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?

This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?

As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?

I'm confused by the safety argument, because spa workers are already often alone with people with penises in other spas. The only difference here is that all the patrons are naked. Is there something about having your penis out that makes someone more likely to rape?

Also, as I read the article (and as I understand Korean spas), you don't get your services in a solo room -- you get it in communal rooms. So a spa worker wouldn't find themselves alone with someone who has a penis.

Nope. Many women elect to visit spas where they will only be naked in the vicinity of other females. You have removed the ability for a woman to visit a communal spa and be separate from males.

Korean spas typically have both communal and solo rooms.