I'll need a link.

My feeling is that it is a species of homo-erotic fear. If — unenlightened

Isn't the basis for having separate gym lockers right now in part hetero-erotic fear?

What do humans do? — universeness

The link. You missed the link.

Let's start with where we might find men. https://careersmart.org.uk/occupations/equality/which-jobs-do-men-and-women-do-occupational-breakdown-gender

What do men do? They build, they toil, they manipulate their environment, they brave the elements, and they protect. The vehicle that got you to work was likely designed by a man, built by a man, driven on a road laid down by a man. The building you walked into was likely designed and built by a man, the sink you used, the toilet you flushed, all built and maintained by a man. The HVAC, the elevator, the electrical system, all installed by a man with dirt on his hands and his name on his shirt. The desk you sit in front of, also built by a man. And most, real men I propose, do this less so because of the great rewards that might or might not follow, but it's because what real men do.

This is meant as a celebration of the man. The celebration of the woman is just as real, but looks much different. Their hand rocks the cradle and therefore rules the world.

Such outdated thinking I know. But I also know that someone here reads this and says "Thank God there are still people who say this." I wrote this for you.

Therefore, as Banno suggested, maybe more partitions or something. — Baden

So you represent 100,000 in your district, and you're going to vote to build partitions for the 0.05% (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-study-estimates-16-million-us-identify-transgender-2022-06-10/) who are asking for them, which is 50 people. Good call.

In sports, hormone testing is the way to go, I guess. — Baden

I guess. Or maybe not. "For instance, most studies have shown that men have a greater proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers, a difference traditionally attributed to genetics." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/4-myths-about-testosterone/

If you rebuke me for trying to claim XY is the essence of maleness, I rebuke you for trying to claim testosterone is the essence of maleness. At least XY is more fundamental.

. As for medical treatment of kids, there has to be major safeguards in place. There's a high suicide risk for trans kids so it's about trying to mitigate potential mental health problems in the least invasive way possible. — Baden

The UK, Finland, Sweden, and Norway have illegalized the use of puberty blockers on children. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/?sh=7d68e9e27efb I point this out because in the article @Banno cited, the author lamented Arkansas' same limitation, which goes to show the rampant bias in favor of supporting the trans community without regard to consequence.

I think the opposite of you, which is that we're all slowly going to jump on this bandwagon. What I think actually is going on is that people jumped on too fast and they're starting to jump off. The true beleivers think this is just backlash. I don't. I think people are starting to slow down and think this one through. That's my position at least.

As to sports, I find I am discriminated against because I am a wimpy spastic weakling. Why isn't there a category for me? — unenlightened

There is. You are left without a team, which is where women will be left if forced to compete with men.

haven't made any arguments about any of those things. I've only done what you directed us to do in the OP. — Baden

Alright then, what's your position on those things?

The reason I claim this is there is no evidence-based justification for taking such a position, the main argument for which is the transphobic, sexist, and patriarchal (thank you, unenlightened) lie that trans women are a threat to cis women in women's bathrooms, whereas the truth is that trans women are the ones under threat from stigmatization and verbal and physical abuse, not just in bathrooms, but everywhere. — Baden

The problem with your argument is that you're not making an argument about trans' folks and bathrooms, you're making an argument just about bathrooms. That is, nothing you've said suggests that all bathrooms shouldn't be unisex and that I shouldn't be allowed to enter a woman's bathroom if I wanted to. It's not like I wouldn't shut the stall door, and what difference does it make if I'm just washing my hands next to a woman? And even if we still have a urinal, it's not like a woman is going to look around the corner to see me, right?

So why don't you just eliminate male/female bathrooms?

But enough of this easier issue. What about gym lockers and sports teams? That's a problem, right?

Of course I don't think you should have a national or local referendum on every issue of social policy, large and small, as sometimes moral leadership is necessary. — Baden

I'm not suggested direct democratic voting, but I can allow for a representative democracy. My point in asking was only to see if you thought it was a matter for people to decide or if you thought it was a matter of civil rights, that it violated some inherent principle of fairness not to afford trans people the exact rights of CIS people in all instances.

To sum this up, yes, lies, ignorance, and irrational fears should not lead social policy, regardless of their popularity. Compassion, intelligence, and understanding should. — Baden

I have compassion for those women who don't want a pre-op transsexual (and post-op as well probably) in the gym locker with them and I have compassion for those women who can't compete in sports against transsexuals. I also have compassion for children who might be being subjected to questionable medical treatment. This is not fear mongering, but areas of legitimate concern.

I'm just wondering where we're drawing the line, if at all. We can quibble about which doors we'll open to transsexuals, but I'm trying to figure out if you're opening them all or leaving some closed. The problem with closing some is that you slip into my camp because at that point, you're going to have to explain why some women are not women like other women in the very way I've pointed out.

Anyhow, I don't hold animus to those of you who disagree. — Baden

No, you just think I've not caught up with the times, sort of like in the 40s and 50s when everyone was openly racist, but now they've realized that was wrong.

When we're both 100, still pissing around in the Shoutbox, we'll be able to look back and one of us will be able to tell the other "I told you so."

I'm not in your 99.5% and neither are a huge number of others who find the idea that a simple thing like a trans woman using the woman's lavatory should not be an issue in any reasonable society. — Baden

This disputes what the outcome of what the vote would be, but do you dispute that it should be a matter decided by vote?

It said it was a 21 minute read and I beat that substantially, so if I muddle something, I'm sure you'll correct me.

I don't dispute the claims against essentialism, meaning I don't suggest to be a "woman" there is one particular criterion that must exist else you cease being a woman. My position has not been XX is necessary for all womanhood. In particular, I do consider an XY female gender identified person to be a "woman."

As to the family resemblence argument, that is obviously well known and it's not entirely clear to me what that specifically means other than to say that if things look sort of enough alike then they are sufficiently similar for naming purposes. Obviously it is not limited to how things look, but as to all the things about them, including what they do, how they behave and so on.

Nothing I have read in the article has given me pause to think I've violated any of the principles she's identified, and everything I've said can be described in ways that would be consistent with her primer on lingusitic philosophy. That is, we have a good number of folks who identify as "woman" and we have some dispute among those in the language community as to how the term "woman" is to be used. The author asserts this dispute is contrived by those with a political agenda because it should be clear within the whole language community as to what the resemblance of all the folks claiming themselves "women" to be and that the reference to XX and XY are diversions designed to trounce upon the rights of transsexuals.

I don't agree with this, largely because XY chromosomes, as well as the testosterone that comes from it, the musculature that comes from it, and all the primary and sexual characteristics that come from it, result in a being with a certain resemblance that is of critical enough variance that it does not fall within the resemblance of those with XX composition. It is also obvious that the genetic differences lead to different behaviors, both in physical strength and in emotional reaction. We can debate the extent to which societal factors affect the emotional responses of individuals, but we cannot as to the physical strength issues. I do not believe it ought be controversial that men and women respond differently emotionally due to genetic differences as well, but I expect more dispute in this area than with physicality.

When we wish to use the term "woman" we therefore must do so within the context we're in. To the extent there are irrelevant differences in family resemblance, we can disregard them and refer to them all as women. Such is the case if a female gender identifying XY were working at my office. It makes no difference that she might look or act slightly different from a CIS female because the resemblance would be sufficient enough to refer to her as a woman and afford her whatever rights we typically afford a woman in her situation, including how to dress, how to speak, and so on.

On the other hand, if we're having tryouts for the women's soccer league or allowing certain members into bathrooms or locker rooms, the actual physical appearance and functionality of the person is relevant. At that point, the transsexual "woman" and the CIS "woman" no longer share a family resemblance in the manners relevant to this context. If we do choose, however, to call them both women for politically demanded reasons, we may, but we need not then confuse ourselves that the two are the same for the purposes of affording them the same rights of entry into the same previously separated spaces.

If there were a magic pill that a man could take to transform himself into a perfectly appearing woman with all behavorial aspects of a CIS woman yet the XY were maintained, then I would allow that person full access to the CIS women spaces. This extreme hypothetical is offered to acknowledge that it is not the XX/XY designation that is essential for the CIS definition, but it is the manifestation of that genetic composition that we're looking at. I think it's just a scientific fact that genes are determining these things, and so it's easy enough to refer to the genes as a representation of expected behavioral characteristics, and thus how they will look and act (and what they will therefore resemble).

All of this is to say that XX female gender identifying folks are different from XY female gender identifying folks in certain contexts, enough so that offering them differing labels in is order. Calling them both "woman" results in an imprecise language in certain limited but important contexts, resulting in offering them priviledges not properly due them, and then leading me to ask for a more proper A, B, C, D designation system be used when needed.

And I do realize we can eliminate some of these concerns by building more walls in the bathrooms and gym lockers and perhaps doing away with contests of strength and maybe even stigmatizing those men who insist upon only dating CIS women so we can avoid this dispute. I have misgivings about such a solution, which is a different conversation dealing with pragmatics and the how the rights of the entire community ought be respected, not just a particular minority. I leave that as an aside for the moment, though, and focus just upon the language issues you've brought up.

The thread's title is 'What is a "Woman"', but it's not about definitions — Banno

It is about definitions. The word hammer is meant to indicate i'm not forcing definitions, but looking to usages and noting varying uses and the confusions created by different users using terms differently and then imposing their norms on those meanings in inconsistent ways.

No comment as yet on the article. I look forward to your response. — Banno

I appreciate that reference and read through some of it and intend to respond. I debated whether to place this thread under the language or current events category, opting for the latter, but thinking this has more to do with language to me in the emotionally divorced way I'm trying to analyze it.

Really, it's entirely their fault. — BC

It's either the fault of the individual for his situation or the fault of another. If only the individual hadn't been so lazy, expecting others to assist versus if only the other individuals hadn't been so heartless, refusing to share.

It's all how you wish to cast the characters in your narrative.

the failure to account for real discrepancies in how we categorise stuff, on understanding necessity and kinds and how sometimes it's a family resemblance. — Banno

I don't think it misses that point at all. The issue I've described doesn't attempt to hammer a preferred definition onto a word. We have a real world equivocation problem here, with different communities using the same designator for different referents. The battle is over who gets the word and all privileges attached to it.

My point is that just because you get the word doesn't mean you get the privileges attached to it unless there is a reason for it. Like in sport's, for example.

The relationship between biological description and man/woman designations is not so easy as I once thought — Moliere

Yes, I very much agree with you here. As I've framed it, I don't deny female gender identifying XYs are women. It's not as simple as it would have been framed 20 years ago.

But, where I push back is in deleting prior designations when they continue to have application in particular contexts.

This is not about chromosomes or genitalia or societal expectations; but it is about urinals and stalls and keeping people safe. — Banno

It's about all sorts of things, which include comfort levels of women and men, sports programs, and treatment of children. You may have concluded what you think the solution is, but it is about all those things and it is for that reason it is hotly debated.

It is not, as you would frame it, about sympathetic, kiind hearted, forward thinking intellectual folks and prejudiced, hateful, backwoods rednecks. In fact, half the battle is just responding to the ad homs and the refusals to accept I have no problem with people transitioning and doing as they wish. This isn't a moral issue for me at all, and I'm fully supportive of safety and protecting everyone, especially our most vulnerable. I don't throw those words out there just to say the right thing. I sincerely believe it. Justice is blind.

None of this requires me to turn off my brain and declare something is something that it is not though.

What I'd say is recent is that people who thought biology mattered have found out that it doesn't. — Moliere

It matters sometimes, not others. Is that not obvious?

There's even a paragraph for you, Hanover, explaining who your simplistic xx and xy "solution" ignores. — Banno

It ignores no one. I've not suggested transsexuals are not full fledged women. I've only pointed out that the term "woman" is used differently in different contexts, which is screamingly obvious. I also don't believe anyone can dictate the proper usage of the term, as if to suggest an XX person cannot be referred to as a woman in polite company if they gender identify as a man.

To neutralize the language, I'll call female gender identifying XYs "A," male gender identifying XYs "B," female gender identifying XXs "C," and female gender identifying XXs "D."

As aren't Bs aren't Cs aren't Ds.

We have historically treated Bs and Ds distinctly. It's not shocking that we treat As and Cs distinctly as well. It's also not correct to say A = C simply because they share one trait and not another. The same holds true for trying to say A=B or C=D simply because they share one trait.

My position is not binary.

Sometimes it matters what your sex is and sometimes not. That shouldn't be controversial.

Yes. It's an unfortunate fact that few transwomen go undetected. It's usually pretty obvious. — frank

Removing commentary from your post, I'd replace "unfortunate" with "evolutionary."

It's the biological definition being strictly applied which is novel. — Moliere

That's just not true. What's recent is the general acceptance of socially recognized female traits to biological males in Western society. That's what this change is about.

On the issue of slavery, American democracy failed. — frank

I think the rejection of slavery was evidence of a great democratic uprising and the existence of it was through great democratic suppression

For many transgender people their appear is who they are. — Tom Storm

I'd submit that gender dysphoria is exactly the opposite of the way you characterize it here. The person believes their appearance is not who they are and they try to alter their appearance to match their internal view of who they are. They did start being transsexual when they began altering their appearance anymore than did I start being heterosexual when I had my first romantic moment with a person of the opposite sex.

You can be a practicing heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual or not. The act is a manifestation of the internal state. If you want to say the act is the transsexualism, then we can wipe out a good amount of transsexualism with some makeup remover.

Slavery was made in illegal in the US by a presidential proclamation — frank

No, actually it wasn't. The Proclamation states:

"Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons."

Only the areas of the South that were in rebellion had their slaves freed, which means that in the Union states where there were slaves and in the captured areas of the South, the slaves remained slaves. So, the slaves were freed in the areas where Lincoln did not control and in the areas he did contol they were left enslaved.

Curious.

One should read this history. The basis for the Proclamation was to recast the Civil War as one over slavery as opposed to simply keeping the Union intact, so as to remove any willingness of England or France to diplomatically intervene and give credence to the Confederacy as a sovereign nation.

So obvious was Lincoln's intent that he withheld the Proclamation for some time until he he could show he was not losing the war and trying to use it just to derail the South's best strategy. He waited until he defended the southern attack directly against the Army of the Potomac just outside the nation's capital in the battle of Antietam before he issued the Proclamation, presenting it on the heels of a victory, although it wasn't quite as decisive as he had wanted.

This is to say the Proclamation was a strategic manuever.

The 13th Amendment illegalized slavery, not the declaration of a single man over a territory in rebellion that he did not control.

A transgender female will likely dress as a woman because that helps to make the transition psychologically effective for them. Should they 'choose' to dress as a male instead? It seems we're back to the word choice being used here in a slightly shady way. — Tom Storm

What I said was:

The correlation between appearance and gender identity is a choice, not a requirement. — Hanover

There's nothing shady at all going on here. A heterosexual will likely choose a member of the opposite sex to have sex with, a dog lover will likely choose a dog over a cat, and a baseball player will likely play baseball than football. By the same token, a MtF will likely choose to present as a woman. If he doesn't, he's still a MtF, just lilke I didn't become straight suddenly when I stole that first kiss.

All I've said is that actions are choices and preferences are not. What you want can't be controlled. What you do can be. If you can't understand that to be an innocuous statement, there's nothing more that I can do.

Somewhere you've read into this that because presenting as a woman is a choice that I think it's subject to moral criticism and that I'm somehow condemning it. My personal view is that I do not think the choice to present one's self as the opposite sex is immoral. I couldn't care any less about that. But, if you're sure I all I say is a ruse and that I really do care what people do with their intimate body parts, then think that and be wrong.

Don't think for one second your reputation for depravity can be restored that easily. — Srap Tasmaner

Thank you for this. @unenlightened's comments sort of rattled me a bit, having in a single sentence dismantled my life's work.

The women in Thailand don't seem to be bothered and certainly not all women are bothered. — Baden

I do think Thai culture is very different in this regard, or at least that's how it's portrayed to me from 1000s of miles away.

I'm talking primarily about MtF access to bathrooms here. I might move on to locker rooms later but the fact that in the latter case or in a case where a woman walks into a male bathroom, opposite genitalia may be exposed creates an issue of modesty and embarrassment that isn't relevant to just washing your hands next to someone in front of a mirror or having them in the next cubicle. — Baden

I had a conversation with a woman at work once regarding the use of urinals by women, and she told me that she would likely back up to the urinal as opposed to straddling it, which is something I never thought of, but maybe that makes more sense. She also asked me if guys pissed in the shower because she thought we were sort of like wild animals. I told her I didn't, but I really didn't know what others did. My guess is that there is a healthy mix of behavior in that regard.

The point here is that this separation of genders into separate facilities has left us ignorant as to what the others are doing. If we do finally shed the remnants of sexual separation, think of all that we'll learn about one another. Based upon many of the five minute documentaries I have seen on this subject, there is a tremendous amount of woman on woman sex in the showers.

But I digress.

I think this is the crux of the matter. If I claim that transwomen aren't women, you'd think I'm transphobic? — frank

I think this goes directly to my OP, which is the attempt at the disambiguation of the term "woman." There are XX women and XY women, both rightfully called "women," but two different groups. Claiming that XX individuals are not women because they don't gender identify as women seems as dogmatic as claiming that XY individuals who gender identify as women are not women.

An entire political debate centers around an equivocation fallacy where we then impose ontological status to all women regardless of whether they're XX or XY because we assume "woman" always has the same referent. From there all women play sports together because they are, afterall, all "women." Except they aren't the same type of women.

Should someone who has physically transitioned use the bathroom associated with their sex chromosomes? — Michael

Not if it's unsafe, nor should they use the opposite bathroom if it's unsafe or causes discomfort among the others in that bathroom. If there were someone who transitioned so completely that it was unknown by the others that the person was of the opposite sex, then it wouldn't matter because no one would know.

That XY who looked XX got away with the crime of using the XX bathroom I guess. It's sort of like when the kid eats at the 12 and under price but he's 13 even though he eats like a 12 year old anyway.

Not a great example, but an example nonetheless.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. — Tom Storm

You indicated that I took the position that transsexualism was a matter of personal choice. I denied that. You then provided a quote you felt contradicted my denial. I pointed out that the quote you provided didn't indicate a prior statement by me that transsexualism was a matter of choice, but that behavior was a matter of choice.

I then offered an explanation for that, describing how my heterosexuality, for instance, was not a matter of choice, but my decision who to have sex with, if anyone, was a matter of choice. That logic applies to homosexuals as well in terms of who they choose to have sex with and transsexuals in terms of how they wish to present themselves to the general public.

What we each prefer is not a matter of choice. What we each do is a matter of choice.

The threat of sexual deviance is a threat to the deepest fabric of society, the basis of property and privilege, and heritage itself, including nationality ethnicity etc. The male fear is that another man might have sex with my woman and my child not be mine. Even the women's toilets are not safe, and we must patrol them! — unenlightened

How would sexual deviance threaten to cause my wife to be impregnated by another? She'd be just as likely to get preggers whether the sex was vanilla or a total freak show.

And why am I now being accused of not being a sexual deviant? Have you not read the shit I've posted in the Shoutbox? Ten years of trying to establish a reputation down the drain with this thread I guess.

Let's take it step by step. We presumably agree that if there is no evidence trans women are more of a danger then cis women in bathrooms then excluding them on that basis is irrational. What is the next consideration for excluding them then and we can discuss that. — Baden

Assuming the only basis for gender seperation is safety and that it has nothing to do with discomfort related to sexual tension, attraction, or just a desire not to unclothe in the presence of the opposite sex (which is why I'd prefer not to use the women's locker room even if invited, despite me being in no fear of assault)

I recognize that MtF transsexuals are at higher risk in male restrooms than they'd be in female restrooms, but I've not suggested (and have stated my opposition to this) that MtFs be forced into mens locker rooms. Allowing them access to a seperate facility seems fine by me, but I don't think that equates to permitting them into the women's restroom. That is, we can protect their safety without subjecting them onto the unwilling woman population simply because women aren't as violent as men and will tolerate the transsexuals without presenting safety issues, although I would expect many to speak out.

I would assume that if I walked into the women's gym locker and began disrobing, I would face hostility from the women, even those not in fear of assualt, but just pissed off that I invaded their space and exposed myself to them.

This seems like a non-sequitur. The purpose of the comparison was simply to make the point that both in a transphobic and racist society, false justifications relating to public health and safely will be used to maintain the status quo. — Baden

I was actually reciting the way American jurisprudence treats this topic.

For example, and this references @Michael's comments:

If I pass a law that regulates the speed limit on Hwy 10 at 60 mph, but it can be shown that certain stretches are safe at 70 mph, that certain cars are safe at 75 mph, that older drivers are safe only at 50 mph, that on certain curves it is safe only at 55 mph, that at night it's safe at 57 mph, at low traffic times it's safe at 80 mph, etc, then you might have an argument that my general safety justification isn't valid in every instance. The reason this law would pass muster is that all I need to do is provide any rational justification for it and I wouldn't need to strictly scrutinize the rule because the class affected (i.e. motorists) isn't one that is particularly worrisome in terms of being discriminated against.

On the other hand, if I pass a law that seems to disproportionately affect blacks, then that law will face an entirely different type of analysis, where it will be subjected to very strict scrutiny, looking at whether there is any better way to acheive my objectives instead of attacking this historically discriminated against class.

That is why I asked whether we should treat transsexuals as more akin to blacks or to motorists. If the latter, then we are well within our rights to do what we want without paying special attention not to impact that group. I do think we've taken an overly expansive view of affording rights to more and more classes of individuals, and I'm not sure I'm prepared to add transsexuals to that mix. I can see why some might take a different stance though or to at least offer a heightened level of scrutiny to laws affecting transsexuals even if not as heightened as to other minorities.

Women are not permitted in men's restrooms even should they feel safe being there. The regulation isn't entirely safety related.

The comparison to African Americans would elevate the scrutiny under which a law is evaluated, but by making that turn, you now have to explain why you've elevated that class of people over others.

African Americans are afforded special status (as are others) due to specific laws and court decisions based upon historical discrimination. You must now explain how the transsexual experience is sufficiently similar to blacks should you want both to be subject to the same sorts of protection.

Those arguments have been made, with some positive and negative responses, some of the negative coming from the African American community, but it certainly was not a unified position.

not sure why this point was made then. Whatbehaviour are you referring to in relation to trans? — Tom Storm

A transexual and CIS woman both choose daily whether to wear male or female clothing for example.

A heterosexual and homosexual both choose who to have sex with.

The word "prefer" doesn't appear in these statements, meaning what they prefer is set, what they do is a choice.

What about those who’ve physically transitioned? Should an XX person with an artificial penis and testicles use the XX locker room? Should an XY person with artificial breasts and vulva use the XY locker room? How would a third party using the locker room even know that they’re artificial? — Michael

To abstract it:

You have an X and you want to know how it might be used. You establish that it can be used only if A, B, and C occur. An objection is raised that B is not rationally related to the objective of the rule. What then follows is whether it's rationally related.

There will obviously be disagreement, but we can only make rules as best we can.

More concretely:

We distinguish on the basis of "men" and "women" In a variety of contexts: locker rooms, bathrooms, sports teams, individual dating decisions, social presentations, and I'm sure others could be identified.

Some of those distinctions are arguably worth preserving, like perhaps the locker room or sports teams examples. Assuming that, which @Banno challenges, and which I disagree, we have to now define the signs above the door, meaning what are "men" and "women."

I do believe that in many of these instances XX and XY accurately describe what the speaker meant when he hung the sign, not what the word eventually evolved into and what it was meant to protect.

If the rational basis for maintaining the historic distinction is comfort or perceived safety of the vast majority of users, that seems sufficient to me unless you wish to override the majority with a declaration of special minority rights that hasn't previously been declared. That is, unless the regulation of a transsexual from certain restrooms is a violation of human civil rights guaranteed under some special rule, the majority has the right to enforce their rule, even if it does not precisely and exactly achieve its every goal under every hypothetical.

Sounds like a pretty weak argument - the church used to say to gay people (and still does), 'It's ok to be gay, just choose not to love another man or have sex with one." — Tom Storm

That may be a weak argument, but it's not one I made. I never suggested transsexuals shouldn't express themselves. I'm not real sure what you're responding to.

What I said is that sexual expression is a choice. That one chooses to have sex with men, women, as a man, as a woman, or however is not of concern to me as long as it's consensual, meaning by choice.

You're reading things in my posts that aren't there and then telling me you disagree with what I didn't say.

I wish Christie had a chance, but I don't expect him to last. He's a solid opposition voice, although that seems to be more the result of Trump shunning him by not rewarding him for his support following Trump's (actual) presidential win. Who knows. If Trump had embraced him early on, maybe he'd be another Rudy Giuliani clown show by now.

Trump's father Fred lived to 93, so it looks like maybe Donald will actually live through all these trials.

But then one might ask, are F to M transsexuals at risk of attack while using men's toilets? I suppose it would depend on the toilet. A F to M could safely urinate in the toilets of the Campaign of Human Rights, but maybe the toilet at Tea Party HQ, or a really rough biker bar would not be a good place to test things out. Is anyone safe in a Tea Party toilet — BC

Since you point to this, I'll better respond.

I didn't focus on the safety issue as the basis for my bathroom signs, although I can see that as being an issue more a concern for CIS women than CIS men because CIS women are genetically physically weaker than CIS men and are statistically far greater at risk of assault than a CIS man is, so the FtM issue would be less an area of safety to consider.

But in any event, our dearth of women in this thread deprives us of the first hand account of whether they would feel threatened by a FtM in their gym locker.

One of the criticisms we can make of the Cis understanding of the issue is that we often seem to think trans, or being gay for that matter, is a lifestyle choice and people can stop 'doing it' just like they should say 'no' to drugs, etc, etc. — Tom Storm

I've not suggested one can choose not to be gay, straight, CIS, or trans. I said one can choose one's behavior, which is true.

I can choose to not have sex with women despite being straight. Such is a prerequisite for consent, without which one can't legally have any sex.

As Judith Butler said in that video, the important thing now is to nurture a climate where trans people aren't subject to violence. Over zealousness doesn't deescalate tension.

What do you think? — frank

Safety first, yes. Should violence occur, I would blame the actor, to a much less extent someone specifically inciting it, to no extent someone who just has a different point of view, even if they hold it passionately.

Hmmm. A choice for whom? — Tom Storm

Whether to present as a man or woman is a choice to the person doing it. Do you suggest otherwise?

Or is "modesty" a proxy for some other problem, unaddressed? — Banno

You have no idea about the darkness that lies within.