Texas mom wins right to make her son her daughter

ThatRobGuy said:

Where? I said the police would be if someone was acting improperly and the authorities were called.

Click to expand...

Post 456...

"Has this "guy" officially put in all of the aforementioned state & medical paperwork to get an official change of gender designation?"

Where did I say I wanted to normalize men in women's restrooms?"

Click to expand...

You said that you would allow men into women's restrooms and only call the police once they committed a crime.

Any other way you want to describe it....that's normalizing men in women's restrooms.

Here's a good example...

Man arrested after allegedly raping four-year-old in McDonald's toilet

Now....you're saying that in this case, you'd prefer no one jump to any conclusions about why this rapist followed a 4yo girl into the restroom.

I'm saying that as soon as we see him walking towards the door, we physically stop him, and call the police if necessary. I don't want people sitting outside wondering if "he's really a woman in his mind" and waiting to see what happens. I don't want people afraid of saying something because people might shame them for being transphobic. I want that girl to scream for help the instant she sees a guy walk into the restroom.

You apparently want something different.

ThatRobGuy said:

Sounds like your argument here is a preemptive removal of rights/privileges based on what someone "might do" (which per the study, hasn't been an issue in this case so it's a non-starter, but still...).

By that logic, we shouldn't allow people to buy beer..."what do you want to do, wait until they drive drunk and kill someone before we take action?"

Click to expand...

Also...this is garbage. What rights/privileges am I denying anyone? I'm not saying that trans people can't use the restroom....I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which one based on how they feel.

You know, just like everyone else. A more accurate analogy would be that you're saying that anyone should be allowed to drive drunk....so long as they don't crash into anyone and kill them.

Ana the Ist said:

Also...this is garbage. What rights/privileges am I denying anyone? I'm not saying that trans people can't use the restroom....I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which one based on how they feel.

Click to expand...

...but it's not as if I'm taking the position of "they can use the women's now, and go back to using the men's an hour from now". None of what I posted has anything to do with folks claiming to be "non-binary"/the ones who claim to change back & forth daily/etc...

I'm saying they should be able to use the one that matches their state recognized gender designation.


If you want to take the position of "trans people should just have to use the restroom that matches their gender assignment at birth"

That means shawn stinson (left) is going in the women's room, and shawn's fiance (right) is going in the mens room:



I suspect that's going to draw more negative attention from folks then them simply using the restroom that matches their new state gender designation.

No matter which way you slice it, there's always going to be someone who's "uncomfortable" with it.

Given that none of the "public safety" arguments hold water in terms of data & studies, that only leave the religious objection, and per the first amendment, the state isn't allowed to make their rules based on that.

It's no different than the fact that I can legally carry my concealed handgun into public establishments (I have the state designation that grants me the right to do so) makes people uncomfortable. If they don't like it, and it worries them for some reason, they don't have to go in if they don't want to.

That's why its simply easier and more consistent to say "If the state recognizes you as a woman (via a legal procedure that a licensed doctor has signed off), you can use the womens room"

Ana the Ist said:

You know, just like everyone else. A more accurate analogy would be that you're saying that anyone should be allowed to drive drunk....so long as they don't crash into anyone and kill them.

Click to expand...

That's not an accurate analogy...because the A) act of driving drunk is the public safety concern (which is why there are laws against it), not simply B) purchasing alcohol.

Much like the act of A) a person sexually assaulting someone in a bathroom is the public safety concern, not simply B) a state-designated woman being in the women's room.

Your position appeared to be that of "if A is in anyway a precursor to B, we should restrict A in the name of public safety"

ThatRobGuy said:

...but it's not as if I'm taking the position of "they can use the women's now, and go back to using the men's an hour from now". None of what I posted has anything to do with folks claiming to be "non-binary"/the ones who claim to change back & forth daily/etc...

Click to expand...

Why not? If you're not checking IDs at the door....what's the difference?

ThatRobGuy said:

That's not an accurate analogy...because the A) act of driving drunk is the public safety concern (which is why there are laws against it), not simply B) purchasing alcohol.

Click to expand...

This is a public safety concern. I don't know how you can't see that. You want to normalize men in women's restrooms. I think it's fair to say that out of all the times women and girls are sexually assaulted in restrooms...it's probably by men 99 out of 100 times.

Bathrooms are confined spaces with typically one entrance and exit...making it difficult to flee or fight back. They already have a disadvantage against men just because of physical size and strength....and now you want to add an extra layer of difficulty in fighting back by normalizing men in women's restrooms.

That's the drinking and driving part. I'm saying men shouldn't get in the car drunk (be allowed in women's restrooms)....you're saying it's fine, so long as they don't crash into anyone (assault women).

Ana the Ist said:

This is a public safety concern. I don't know how you can't see that. You want to normalize men in women's restrooms. I think it's fair to say that out of all the times women and girls are sexually assaulted in restrooms...it's probably by men 99 out of 100 times.

Click to expand...

I "can't see that", because there's nothing to see... there's no data suggesting that it's been an issue in the localities where trans-women have been allowed to use the women's restroom. This is coming from published studies, as well as official statements by leaders in law enforcement.

Spokespeople from the Des Moines, Albuquerque, Baltimore San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York city police departments said they knew of no problems in facilities relating to California and New York City’s non-discrimination laws – which have all been in place for over a decade.

The Des Moines (Iowa) Police Department said “We have not seen that.” when asked if they there were any cases of sexual assault related to the state’s non-discrimination statute, passed in 2007.

The Cambridge (Massachusetts) Police Superintendent said “there have been no incidents of men dressing up as women to commit crimes in female bathrooms and using the city ordinance as a defense.”

Rehoboth, Delaware Police Chief Keith Banks said, “We’ve had no concerns on this and no complaints have been made, and we have observed none,”concerning Delaware’s non-discrimination law.

The Minneapolis Police Department said that fears about sexual assault are “not even remotely” a problem, and the notion of men posing as transgender women to enter women’s restrooms to commit sex crimes “sounds a little silly.” Minneapolis was the first city to pass a transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination law over 40 years ago, in 1975.

The Las Vegas Police Department was asked if they had seen any cases of sexual assault related to the state’s non-discrimination statutes. Their response? “The answer would be no.”

The Albuquerque Police Department said, “We are unaware of any cases of assault” due to New Mexico’s non-discrimination law, which passed in 2003.

A Portland, Oregon Police Department representative said, “I have never heard of any issues” of assault relating to the state’s non-discrimination statute, which passed in 2007.

Detective Nicole Monroe, a public information officer with the Baltimore Police Department, said worries about transgender-inclusive policies are “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.” Baltimore passed its law in 2002 and Maryland passed a state law in 2014.

Ana the Ist said:

That's the drinking and driving part. I'm saying men shouldn't get in the car drunk (be allowed in women's restrooms)....you're saying it's fine, so long as they don't crash into anyone (assault women).

Click to expand...

Again, you're not comparing apples to apples here (and I explained above, accurately, why your analogy was flawed). Driving drunk presents a public safety concern...they know this because of published studies as well as feedback from law enforcement (the same two sources that say that they've seen no evidence to of increased rates of assault or any sort of public safety risk by allowing trans women to use women's facilities).

Consuming a beer is fine, consuming one and getting behind the wheel is a problem.
A trans woman using women's facilities is fine, a man trying going in and assaulting someone (then trying to use non-discrimination policies as a defense) is a problem.

Based on the data, and statements from numerous leaders in law enforcement, the latter hasn't been an issue, and some of these localities have had the policies in place for decades now.

Experts from 12 states that protect trans rights have thoroughly refuted this talking point. In the US, there’s not a single reported instance of this kind of voyeurism occurring in states with legal protections for trans people.

The few instances of right-leaning publications that tried to run stories claiming it was an issue were 100% fabrications that were circulated, initially, by an anti-gay group called "Pacific Justice Institute" that knowingly circulated false stories that never happened, and news sources that linked it ended up publishing apologies and retractions less than a week later once it was discovered that the stories were a complete lie.

ThatRobGuy said:

I "can't see that", because there's nothing to see... there's no data suggesting that it's been an issue in the localities where trans-women have been allowed to use the women's restroom.

Click to expand...

In all of those "localities" I would think that it's still unusual for men to walk into a women's restroom. That's because you can't change hundreds of years of cultural norms in a decade.

Nor should you try to just to appease 0.001% of people who already have the same rights as everyone else.

Edit-I eliminated the rest of your post since it's all strawmen. I said nothing about men dressing up as women.

ThatRobGuy said:

I "can't see that", because there's nothing to see... there's no data suggesting that it's been an issue in the localities where trans-women have been allowed to use the women's restroom. This is coming from published studies, as well as official statements by leaders in law enforcement.

Spokespeople from the Des Moines, Albuquerque, Baltimore San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York city police departments said they knew of no problems in facilities relating to California and New York City’s non-discrimination laws – which have all been in place for over a decade.

The Des Moines (Iowa) Police Department said “We have not seen that.” when asked if they there were any cases of sexual assault related to the state’s non-discrimination statute, passed in 2007.

The Cambridge (Massachusetts) Police Superintendent said “there have been no incidents of men dressing up as women to commit crimes in female bathrooms and using the city ordinance as a defense.”

Rehoboth, Delaware Police Chief Keith Banks said, “We’ve had no concerns on this and no complaints have been made, and we have observed none,”concerning Delaware’s non-discrimination law.

The Minneapolis Police Department said that fears about sexual assault are “not even remotely” a problem, and the notion of men posing as transgender women to enter women’s restrooms to commit sex crimes “sounds a little silly.” Minneapolis was the first city to pass a transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination law over 40 years ago, in 1975.

The Las Vegas Police Department was asked if they had seen any cases of sexual assault related to the state’s non-discrimination statutes. Their response? “The answer would be no.”

The Albuquerque Police Department said, “We are unaware of any cases of assault” due to New Mexico’s non-discrimination law, which passed in 2003.

A Portland, Oregon Police Department representative said, “I have never heard of any issues” of assault relating to the state’s non-discrimination statute, which passed in 2007.

Detective Nicole Monroe, a public information officer with the Baltimore Police Department, said worries about transgender-inclusive policies are “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.” Baltimore passed its law in 2002 and Maryland passed a state law in 2014.



Again, you're not comparing apples to apples here (and I explained above, accurately, why your analogy was flawed). Driving drunk presents a public safety concern...they know this because of published studies as well as feedback from law enforcement (the same two sources that say that they've seen no evidence to of increased rates of assault or any sort of public safety risk by allowing trans women to use women's facilities).

Consuming a beer is fine, consuming one and getting behind the wheel is a problem.
A trans woman using women's facilities is fine, a man trying going in and assaulting someone (then trying to use non-discrimination policies as a defense) is a problem.

Based on the data, and statements from numerous leaders in law enforcement, the latter hasn't been an issue, and some of these localities have had the policies in place for decades now.

Experts from 12 states that protect trans rights have thoroughly refuted this talking point. In the US, there’s not a single reported instance of this kind of voyeurism occurring in states with legal protections for trans people.

The few instances of right-leaning publications that tried to run stories claiming it was an issue were 100% fabrications that were circulated, initially, by an anti-gay group called "Pacific Justice Institute" that knowingly circulated false stories that never happened, and news sources that linked it ended up publishing apologies and retractions less than a week later once it was discovered that the stories were a complete lie.

Click to expand...

As for data....here's some that's a little less biased.

Unisex changing rooms put women at danger of sexual assault, data reveals

Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities.

There you have it, mix men and women together in situations like restrooms and locker rooms and shockingly....you're putting women in danger.

Some would think this is common sense.

Ana the Ist said:

Edit-I eliminated the rest of your post since it's all strawmen. I said nothing about men dressing up as women.

Click to expand...

Ana the Ist said:

As for data....here's some that's a little less biased.

Unisex changing rooms put women at danger of sexual assault, data reveals

Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities.

There you have it, mix men and women together in situations like restrooms and locker rooms and shockingly....you're putting women in danger.

Some would think this is common sense.

Click to expand...

For starters, your "less biased" data isn't even discussing the same subject, and law enforcement leaders saying "we've had these policies in place for years, and haven't gotten a single complaint" isn't biased, it's just presenting facts that don't conform to your narrative. We don't get to cry "bias" every time information doesn't fit our own narratives.

Now that we've gotten that bit out of the way...

You're kind of speaking out of both sides of your mouth here...

In some instances, you're claiming that trans-women are basically just men dressed as women (since you've been equating the concept of trans women in the women's restroom with "normalizing men in the women's restroom" - you've said it 2 times alone just on this page, I bet I'd find several others if I searched back through the other 23 pages), but then in the next post, you're claiming that you've said nothing about men dressing up as women.

If trans women in the women's restroom are "normalizing men in the women's restroom", and you're also claiming that you've said nothing about men dressing up as women and going into their restroom, then you're going to need to clarify your position.

You're also moving the goalposts here. You've now expanded the scope to include "unisex changing rooms". I don't recall discussing those. I recall discussing allowing trans-women to use women's facilities. If this were a conversation about unisex changing rooms, then I would also be raising concerns about that.

So, just to make sure everyone's on the same page here, and we don't get lost in semantics and word play, let's get a few questions answered, and we'll move on from there.

1) In your opinion, are trans-women, who have had a legal gender designation change, women, or are they simply men dressing up as women?

2) Given that unisex changing facilities allow people of both genders (biological or identified) to all use the same changing room, where do you see the connection to trans-women using a women's specific restroom?

People should look up the court transcripts as it was clear that the father isn't shown to be honest about this.

super animator said:

People should look up the court transcripts as it was clear that the father isn't shown to be honest about this.

Click to expand...

Please link to the transcript.

tall73 said:

Please link to the transcript.

Click to expand...

It not something that you can link right now, it something that you have to pay a fee for it per page.

ThatRobGuy said:

For starters, your "less biased" data isn't even discussing the same subject,

Click to expand...

Of course it's the same...we're talking about letting people who are physically men (regardless of whatever they imagine they are) into women's restrooms.

and law enforcement leaders saying "we've had these policies in place for years, and haven't gotten a single complaint" isn't biased

Click to expand...

Are those law enforcement leaders talking about men in women's restrooms? No. You're supposed research could be dismissing dozens of attacks on women in restrooms just because they decided the men perpetrating them aren't really trans.

If attacks on women in restrooms doubled but they weren't perpetrated by someone genuinely trans....we could say that trans people aren't a danger to women, but that doesn't mean danger to women hasn't increased because of policy changes.

Ana the Ist said:

Of course it's the same...we're talking about letting people who are physically men (regardless of whatever they imagine they are) into women's restrooms.

Click to expand...

No, you brought up unisex changing facilities. That's not the same as trans-women in the women's restroom. One is a facility were everyone goes in and gets undressed in front of each other at the gym, the other is a room where people go into closed stalls and go to the bathroom.

Ana the Ist said:

Are those law enforcement leaders talking about men in women's restrooms? No. You're supposed research could be dismissing dozens of attacks on women in restrooms just because they decided the men perpetrating them aren't really trans.

Click to expand...

First off, yes, some of them did discuss the fact that they've not heard of any increased incidents of men assaulting women in the restroom, and trying to use inclusion laws as a defense or justification for being in there.

If you're just discussing men (who identify as men) going in and assaulting women in a bathroom, then that's been happening at the same rate both before and after the adoption of these laws. (per the data and links I provided before, the assault rates haven't gone up or down after these laws have been put into place). Which means that biological men, who still identify as men (not trans women) are the problem. Trying to restrict the actions of trans-women based on the actions of biological men (who still identify as men) is illogical and has no basis in fact or data.

Given that, the onus is still on you to prove that trans-inclusive bathroom policies create an increased risk. Saying "it's just common sense" or "how can you not see that" isn't providing support for your claim, it's just expressing your own personal feelings on the matter. Nor does expanding the scope of the conversation to include something vastly different, like unisex changing rooms at the gym.

If you want to move the goal posts by lumping in any building where someone's pants may come down, why not take it even a step further and include brothels and swingers clubs in the conversation lol.

super animator said:

It not something that you can link right now, it something that you have to pay a fee for it per page.

Click to expand...

I guess I won't be looking at that then.

What do you think the father is lying about?

tall73 said:

I guess I won't be looking at that then.

What do you think the father is lying about?

Click to expand...

The wife trying the make a child a daughter when actually it is the husband trying to make the child a son, while ignore 3 medical professionals diagnostics of the child suffering from gender dysphoria. When the child is alone without either parents the child identify as a girl/desired to be a girl.

super animator said:

The wife trying the make a child a daughter when actually it is the husband trying to make the child a son, while ignore 3 medical professionals diagnostics of the child suffering from gender dysphoria. When the child is alone without either parents the child identify as a girl/desired to be a girl.

Click to expand...

My 6 year old doesn’t want to eat vegetables and wants to eat candy all the time. Part of growing up is learning you can’t always have what you want.

BNR32FAN said:

My 6 year old doesn’t want to eat vegetables and wants to eat candy all the time. Part of growing up is learning you can’t always have what you want.

Click to expand...

That is a false equivalence.

BNR32FAN said:

My 6 year old doesn’t want to eat vegetables and wants to eat candy all the time. Part of growing up is learning you can’t always have what you want.

Click to expand...

Food preference compared to a diagnosable condition isn't an accurate comparison.

...that'd be like comparing a normal 6 year old's belief in Santa, with a schizophrenic 6 year old hearing voices that aren't there. While both technically involve "believing in something that isn't there", the former can be addressed by the parents explaining that they're the ones putting the present under the tree and that it's not a random hefty guy in a red suit. A parent can tell a schizophrenic child that "the voices you're hearing aren't really there, it's just in your head" till they're blue in the face, it's not going to make those voices any less real/scary for the child.