Meanwhile on TERF Island: Government so small it can force you to build specific washrooms!

That part. Dig just a little and basically every anti-trans campaign is that.

This brings me back full circle to the line of reasoning I decided not to tangent onto re the sports thing.

Here's the history lesson followed by the math (Red Room be damned):

Minneapolis was the first city that enacted an ordinance which included gender identity (in different wording) under non-discrimination laws.
20 years later Minnesota became the first to enact a similar law statewide.
By 2004 more than half of Americans lived under such policies, to the point where Los Angeles Public School district adopted a trans-accepting policy across the board.

In all that time, as far as I've ever seen turned up by our critics, there is ONE charge of a trans person violating someone else in a restroom. There's one or two others that are complex (like the kid in VA who was invited in by the girl he eventually assaulted and had been dating her) but as a clear-cut "trans person straight up used their access to violate a cis woman" - just the one.

To argue that all trans women have to be segregated on that basis is insane. And no, it's not "yeah but cis-male perverts will disguise themselves..." - that too is statistically speaking basically non-existent.

FRC zealots published a white paper in...think it was 2019...in which they listed off 100 items that they claimed proved that point. Covering 11 years previous (and one item from 2004 for some reason) but the problem with it was that hardly any of them had to do with a cross-dressed (to whatever extent) cis male present in a women's multi-user restroom. In fact, less than 10. And most of them were sketchy. One dude was wearing girls panties over his kakis, another had been flashing on the sales floor and when confronted and chased he fled into the ladies room.
Everything else was stuff like "murder in prison claims to be trans" and so forth, not about segregated spaces at all.

Point is, our most committed enemy couldn't come up with even one case a year by the most generous definition.

Now consider: if every female in the U.S. uses a multi-occupancy, sex segregated restroom on average one time per week, that's over NINE BILLION visits annually and something <1 in nine billion are the sort of events the Christian right want to protect us from.

These are not stats which scream "Danger! Danger!"

Fear and morality were the EXACT same reasons segregationists offered to defend "colored" restrooms - but in reality, after they were abolished, it turned out the "dangerous" negros didn't hurt anything other than their cultural traditions. That's all that's going on here. Some proportion of the culture have been so conditioned to assume that the theoretical possible presence of a penis (however unable to function for anything other than pissing) constitutes such grave danger that such people must be excluded. But it's just tradition. There's been DECADES worth of accumulated data and...their predictions were wrong.

Oh, and also, zealots have fairly regularly been threatening, abusive, or even violent with CIS WOMEN who's physicality and presentation was sufficiently not-fem-enough marked them as potentially trans.

I've known, and now know, plenty of cis women who are atypical enough to be less obviously female than even me.

The only reason we're even talking about this is because they needed a fresh moral panic when the lost public opinion on gay marriage. 10 years ago on guy named Minery who had been with FotF before he moved to Alaska ginned up a campaign against an NDO in Anchorage Alaska and succeeded in defeating it, TPTB noted this and created out of whole cloth this "issue" that basically no one was talking about before.

For good reason. Because no one cared until the zealots started screaming that everyone should care.
(this is also true of the sports "issue" and the current wave of laws withholding medical support for trans minors)
Astroturf. Fake. Politically driven wedge issue.

I generally like the arguments you've made in this thread but trust me, you can go back to not worrying about it because it effectively never happens. Might as well be on guard against bigfoot attacks.

But of course, most of us never have the option to choose.

Saying "but penis" punishes everyone who can't afford, are medically prohibited, have no access to the surgery, or whatever. Also, it begs the distinction between a penis that remains capable of a sexual imposition and one that doesn't.

It's all WAY too complex and unnecessary when the "problem" being addressed as never been demonstrated to even BE a problem.

The point is that not every random woman in a restroom knows who Buck Angel is or the status of his genitals - and there are thousands upon thousand of other trans men that are not publicly known at all. If we all complied to bigoted bathroom laws, ALL those men would trigger the same sort of panic that very few transwomen do.

BTW, dude has gotten SERIOUSLY TERFy the last few years and I never cite him for this example ever anymore.

No idea what precipitated this question, but if I’m reading it correctly, someone is suggesting only men are rapists, molesters and perverts. The answer is a resounding yes. Women, regardless of whom chooses to believe it, are human too and subject to the same shortcomings as men.

I am assuming you have never listened to Liz Phair .

An excellent and well- thought out reply. It's a breath of fresh air.
I think this was a lot less of an issue before the trans movement became the "trendy" new toy for ideologues to play with. It's disappointing because you're right, the odds of a genuine trans person harassing someone in the bathroom is practically zero. It should have been treated the same way gaynpeople in locker rooms has been: not even worth worrying about.
But now the crazies start coming out of the woodwork. People like Jessica Yanev in Canada. Isla Bryson in Scotland. Ezra Miller. All those California prison inmates who suddenly decided they were trans and requested transfers to women's prisons.
These aren't the majority, of course. I wouldn't even say these people are "real" trans. But they've become lightning rods for the whole controversy, something for people to point to and scream about.
The great thing about having "family" restrooms is it works the other way as well. If you're scared of some chick with a dick, there's a private restroom right there for you as well.
Your average normal trans person just wants to live their life the way they feel comfortable. They should be allowed to. It sucks that some people were real creeps, and then others latched onto it for culture war purposes.
I don't think you need laws prohibiting anything, not really. You're right about that. I think just having that family option should be enough to get everyone to calm the hell down.

The disconnect is the insistence that your comfort is automatically anyone else's problem, and/or that your comfort merits a higher priority than theirs.

"I know you are but what am I? "

...... I'm not even sure what this is replying to?

The existence of public restrooms at all means establishment owners lost the "comfort" argument generations ago.
You libertarians keep defaulting to this weird reboot-world where the wheel has to be re-invented, fire-making re-discovered, and the arguments for civilization have to all be re-made.
Nope, we've moved on. Your side lost this one.
Get to page 300 with the rest of us.

He thinks he's a chessmaster who can predict our moves.
He's got Cartman level ego delusions.

The previous user of the word "comfort."

OR, you're a broken record with about 3 songs you bring to every goddamn occasion.

Jenee tells you that to keep you from killing yourself.
Her heart's in a sweet place, but I wish she'd knock that off.

The irony...

You considering yourself an expert on mental health makes as much sense as any of the other silly shit you say.

"The insistence that your comfort is automatically anyone else's problem" record appears to be broken.

Yeah, I really need to be Freud to crack open the mind of the guy who thinks Adira's pronouns piss on his cornflakes.

Well, you've got two 'comfort' levels on this issue at the same time. One is people worried about sexual predators in the restroom. And that's a real fear, if not necessarily one backed by data.

And the other is the comfort level of the people being forced into a restroom other than their preferred gender identity.

The first is definitely going to impact far more people. More people are going to be worried about that. But that doesn't mean that while their fear is real, that the threat is. Data shows that it isn't.

The second is more psychologically impacting, and unfortunately, more dangerous. The threat to trans people is far higher than the threat they cause.

Unfortunately, what the data says is generally overwhelmed by people's feelings on this issue.

Maybe read the post I was quoting. Crosis appears to be arguing that allowing trans women into women’s bathrooms effectively allows Bad men (defined here as people with penis) in as well, who might be rapists, molesters, or perverts. I’m pointing out that women’s rooms already allow in lesbian (or bisexual) women who might be rapists, molesters, or perverts. So unless there are none, or the Bad Ones in that category are not doing as Bad things, the same risk exists regardless of trans people, and it doesn’t make sense to regulate their bathroom use differently.

It is a good point. It also raises the question, though, of if there is even a purpose then to seperate restrooms.

Which was my question. Not sure why you felt the need to not only restate it, but to expound on it.

That’s a very good question. I would say no. Massachusetts in 1887 disagrees, arguing that “women are inherently weaker and need protection from the public sphere”. Personally I don’t think this is a good reason to keep them around. It smacks as hella sexist, and even if it were true, has to pretend gays and lesbians don’t exist to make sense.

You said you had no idea what precipitated the question. I’m telling you: Crosis’s post that I quoted.

Agree with the vast majority of that. One quibble, and IMO it goes to the heart of this matter. It's not enough to change my opinion, but it's the cornerstone of the argument I've heard multiple women make on this topic.

Men and women are not equally as dangerous. Anyone who has undergone puberty as a male is considerably larger, stronger, somewhat faster, and yes, more aggressive, then someone who has not. So women are very much more concerned about being vulnerable. A lesbian might seek to sexually assault them, but doesn't have any innate advantage. A male that seeks to sexually assault most often will. This is why even though women use violence at the same rate of men, men overwhelmingly are more likely to cause harm if they do use violence.

This is the cornerstone of why several of the world's bodies have temporarily banned transwomen athletes from competing as studies showed even after HRT and gender reassignment surgery someone who underwent puberty as a male was on average 10% faster and stronger. The speed advantage in particular stayed, whereas the strength advantage attenuated, as males were about 30% stronger if they hadn't undergone these procedures dropping down to 10%, again on average. There are outliers either way. But in athletic competition, a 10% advantage is enormous.

At this point there is no data that suggest sharing bathrooms with trans people increases the risk of women to be assaulted in those bathrooms.

And unless that data changes, IMO that while the fear is based on real concerns, the reality indicates now that it isn't an actual issue.

If that data changed, as a resonable person I'd reassess my thoughts on that matter. But at this point I don't expect it to.

Ok. Ididn’t read his question the way you did. But, you did notice I quoted his post as well. So, you knew damn well why i asked.

The hell are you talking about? You deleted my quote of Crosis when you quoted my post. If you’re asking what brought that up when it’s pretty obvious from context, how can I but conclude you did not, in fact, read the context? Why would I think i noticed you quoting his post when you didn’t?

Jenee deleted something she then responded to? How interesting...Think I'm getting a glimmer of how this poster operates.

Guess she better own that or be a hypocrite.