Some good news (for once)

by liberal japonicus

In New York
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/24/nyregion/nyc-democratic-primary-election-mayor

 

Anyone following closely and can discuss the role of Lander, WTF Clinton was doing endorsing Cuomo, and anything about the ranked choice system, feel free!

Comments

[wj]

The far right fanatics were already crazy on the topic of big (and mostly run by Democrats) cities. And New York City in particular.

But now New York has elected a mayor who not only says he's a socialist. He's also (cue major freakout) a Muslim!!!

[Donald]

My possibly ex- friend lives in Manhattan, is as Islamophobic as you can get and hates socialism, but unfortunately we aren’t speaking, so I can’t give reports. I know the kind of crap he reads online, so will be able to guess. Some guy named Craig Huey, who is your typical far right Christian fundamentalist whose posts are basically a checklist of Rapture theology, Islamophobia, hatred of lefties, paranoia etc… sixty years ago his type would be calling MLK a communist agitator.

I hope Mamdani knows how to deal with all the factions he is going to have to deal with, assuming he wins in No ember. Which isn’t at all certain.

[nous]

Clinton endorsing Cuomo isn't that much of a puzzler. They are still on the Sanders revenge tour along with all of the Hillary stalwarts in the party, and the neolib moderates are terrified that the progressives will scare all of the straights in the middle of the country. I'm always surprised how much resentment they harbor, and how absolutely rooted they are in trying to recreate the 90s.

But the neolib wing is dead in the water and not going to win anyone's confidence anytime soon. They have to find a young-ish, economically populist core to build into the new brand.

[liberal japonicus]

Was greeted by this headline

Zohran Mamdani’s victory in NYC mayoral primary leaves Wall Street ‘alarmed’ and ‘depressed’

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/25/mamdanis-nyc-victory-leaves-wall-street-alarmed-and-depressed.html

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing devision of the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes,”

[wj]

If they're alarmed, perhaps it isn't so much by a potential city mayor as by the possibility that it's a harbinger. The rest of the country, too, might be fed up, and ready for the same kind of Progressive Era that followed the 19th century's Gilded Age.

[CharlesWT]

Texas and Florida approve of this election.

[nous]

Obama was a harbinger. That hope and change that people voted for was a real wish.

Sanders' deep run in the primary vs. Clinton was a harbinger. The DNC reacted exactly like those finance bros with terror and a lack of comprehension that they might have to stop skimming all of the prosperity off the top.

AOC was a harbinger.

Mamdani should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to the actual people in their districts.

The situation on main street has been dire for a long time and there are no safety margins.

The anger and desperation has only just begun to build. DNC incumbents needs to wake up or they will find themselves in the same situation as the GOP come midterms.

[hairshirthedonist]

Hold on one minute, there, nous! That sounds like economic anxiety, the very thing that led to MAGA, at least according to many journalists. It really makes me wonder.

[BigBadBird]

Rut Teixeira disagrees. I hope this link lands: https://substack.com/@theliberalpatriot

[russell]

The situation on main street has been dire for a long time and there are no safety margins.

This ^^^

Wall Street contributes a lot to NYC's GDP. Which is fine, in an of itself. But NYC is not their personal playground. Other people live there, too, and they need places to live, and they need to eat. And they vote.

The fncking arrogance of the very wealthy in NYC and in the country in general is dragging this country down. Great wealth is not a sign of exceptional virtue or intelligence. It deserves no particular deference from the rest of us.

But the neolib wing is dead in the water

100% agree.

Clinton and Obama were both extraordinarily gifted politicians and public figures. But the programs and approaches they embraced don't address current conditions.

Time to turn the page.

[nous]

Rut Teixeira disagrees.

Of course he does. He's part of the pundit class. He's busy looking for a national strategy that can be converted into election wins in the next cycle.

They keep making the same mistake, though, of looking at these individual populist wins through the lens of policy positions and mapping them onto polling data so that they can do some prob stat magic and find a winning platform that fits the curve.

AOC and Mamdani won the support of their constituencies by getting out there and meeting with a lot of real people, listening to them, and addressing the real concerns that they have.

There are going to be differences between what Mamdani's constituents want and need, and what another constituency needs. Many times those wants and needs may be at odds. But the thing that the Dems need to come to terms with is that this is not something that can be top-downed, and the more the platform is at odds with the big needs of the constituents in the member district being represented, the more they are going to be causing anger and frustration - and anger and frustration feeds the amygdala hijack of the right wing noise machine, and the politics of grievance.

What should be taken away from the AOC and Mamdani wins is the importance of listening and responding to the people in your district. The policy and message things arise out of that representation. Policy is not the product that gets them buyers, representation is.

Work out your differences in coalition.

[liberal japonicus]

Here's the part of the analysis that I was struck by

In particular, it’s preposterous that economic populism, by itself, can solve Democrats’ cultural radicalism problem. In a post-election YouGov survey of working-class (non-college) voters for the Progressive Policy Institute, 68 percent of these voters said Democrats have moved too far left, compared to just 47 percent who thought Republicans have moved too far right. It’s a fair surmise that working-class sentiment about the Democrats’ leftism is heavily driven by the party’s embrace of cultural leftist positions across a wide range of issues (immigration, crime, race, gender, etc.) given how unpopular these positions are among those voters.

To call those things 'leftist' and 'radicalism' is an indication that the overton window has been shoved out of the house.

[Cheer Whiz]

Democrat's cultural radicalism problem

Our political discourse has collapsed into a suite of cricket chirps that only crickets with the right code book can decipher. I think I know what this means to centrist crickets, it's their violent rejection of any policy that might frighten the squishy centrist voters Democrats need to win. But they don't dare say that out loud, so they grab a handful of the most demonic political adjectives they can think of to register their disgust.

[wj]

Democrat's cultural radicalism problem

The Democrats have their cultural radicals. No real question. Some Republicans are radical, too -- albeit generally in the opposite direction (but no less radical). The principle difference being that, for the moment, the cultural radicals are in control of the Republican party. At least on the issues that they care about.

Both parties also have very large contingents who are nothing like radical. They generally vote for the party that they have been voting for for years (often decades). But without giving it a whole lot of thought, except in exceptional circumstances.

For both parties, the options are the same: 1) Turn out lots of their voters (including both their radicals, cultural and otherwise, and their reflexive voters) by whatever means necessary. Or 2) craft policies to appeal, not just not frighten but actually appeal, to the non-radical portion of the population which mostly doesn't bother to vote. Or even pay attention.

Republicans, for the past few decades, have focused on option 1. Democrats remain focused on fighting over which option to focus on. It does not seem to occur to most of them, especially their most active (and loudest) members, that they might do both at once. Of course, that would require some serious changes in the way the party runs. And also slapping down the loudest of the intolerant (and radical) ideological purists.

That will take a leader who hasn't emerged yet. Although there are some possible candidates on the horizon.

[liberal japonicus]

The Democrats have their cultural radicals.

having cultural radicals is not the same as 'having a cultural radicalism problem'.

Immigration
I think having people from different cultures joining your country is a good thing
oooooo, radical!

I think that in many cases, rehabilitation is better than incarceration.
oooooo, radical!

I think that race has played a factor in the way some Americans have been treated
oooooo, radical!

I think that gender is not a simple binary
oooooo, radical!

Teixeira reveals more about himself than he does about the Democrats.

[BigBadBird]

Liberal japonicus--are the issues you outlined open for debate and discussion? Do matters like this https://open.substack.com/pub/genevievegluck/p/exclusive-trans-identified-male-killer?r=2r6px&utm_medium=ios play a role in the discussion? Can one validly adhere to the gender binary?

[GftNC]

Can one validly adhere to the gender binary?

BBB, as you may or may not know, this is one subject on which there is passionate disagreement among lefties on ObWi (or perhaps it's just me with the others!). I'm in a rush to go to the North Country for the weekend, but I would just like to emphasise for the purposes of any discussion that follows, that lj has a tendency (as do others including Trump) to use "gender" interchangeably with "sex". Gender critical feminists like myself maintain that sex in humans is essentially binary (with a few very rare exceptions), but that gender is an entirely different matter. It is absurd to use (as WPATH does) the tendency among some children to play with e.g.toy trucks versus barbies as an indication of which gender they "belong" to. Humans are multi faceted and can and should choose whatever presentation they like, and live their lives free from persecution and other abuse. But, since most violent crime is committed by biological males, and 98% of sexual violence ditto, and data supports that trans women in the penal system have committed sexual violence at the same or greater rate as male prisoners, the safety of women necessitates that certain spaces should exclude biological males.

[liberal japonicus]

I don't think so, I don't want to describe what your argument looks like to me, but it looks like we would just waste each other's time, so not really interested. I don't speak for anyone else, but my point is that this doesn't look like 'radicalism', it just looks like assuming that one group can't speak for everyone.

[liberal japonicus]

I posted this and didn't see what GftNC posted, I'd just point out that gender was the word Teixeira used. I'm sure I've confused sex and gender on occasion, but given the amount I've written and my age, I'd be surprised if I didn't. And I'd be really surprised if anyone was 100% consistent on it.

[russell]

Prisoner in a male prison kills his cell mate. Trans-identifies as female, gets moved to a female prison, rapes his cell mate.

There is clearly a problem here, but I'm not sure it's this person's gender identification.

[JanieM]

Thank you, russell. I'm not in favor of punishment that is not only collective but pre-emptive. Or of punishing a whole group of people because (sometimes) other people pretend to be one of them.

As to sex...

And as to women-only spaces, I would much prefer asshole-excluding spaces, if energy is going to be spent trying to sort people into carelessly defined types.

[JanieM]

Judging from my anatomy and the fact that I’ve borne two children, “gender critical feminists” would surely put me in the box labeled “women.”

But I have never in my life wanted to be in “girl/women only” spaces. (I add “girl” explicitly because this preference goes back to the earliest childhood years I can remember.) Some of the biggest assholes I have ever known have been women, and some of the most wonderful people I know are men. Why I would want the former included and the latter excluded from spaces where I want to be, and by fiat of people with whom I profoundly disagree, is beyond my comprehension.

[wj]

And as to women-only spaces, I would much prefer asshole-excluding spaces, if energy is going to be spent trying to sort people into carelessly defined types.

Far, far easier to identify an individual's sex and/or gender than to reliably identify assholes. Extreme cases, yes. But there are, in my experience, a fair number of individuals who are, if you will, asshole-adjacent. Not to mention less than general agreement as to who exactly qualifies.

I definitely endorse the sentiment. But I'm dubious of the feasibility of implementation.

[JanieM]

wj.....it was not a serious proposal, with proposals for implementation coming next. It was a comparison to make a point. Part of the point is about exclusion/inclusion. Another part is "who gets to decide for everyone."

[Hartmut]

SCOTUS should rename itself as Supreme Shysters of the Bizzaro States after its newest ruling (last of the season). It in essence allows His Orangeness and his goons to ignore birthright citizenship by deciding that lower courts do not have the authority to pass 'universal injunctions' no matter how obviously unconstitutional the administrations' actions are (the majority deliberately refuses to rule on the constitutionality of the EO claiming the right to revoke birthright citizenship). So, specific individuals targeted have to individually get court injunctions for only themselves and up to that point the administration is allowed to to what it wants.
Sotomayor in her dissent (joined by the other two 'liberals') leaves no doubt about what she thinks about it and accuses her colleagues of deliberately and in bad faith following the obviously ridiculous arguments of the administration and deliberately ignoring the herd of elephants in the living room by NOT ruling on the constitutionality of the case itself.

[bobbyp]

Back to the initial topic....Krugman nailed it for me in his substack post today:

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/mamdani-and-the-moguls-of-madness

Thanks.

[JanieM]

wj again -- I was running out the door to do errands, but now I wil flesh out my reply. You seem to think that clarifying who's a "man" and who's a "woman" is easier than clarifying who's an "asshole." I disagree, using my own experiences of being called "sir" in public, and getting skeptical if not outright hostile looks in public restrooms. If someone challenges the appropriateness of my presence in a "women's" restroom, what then? First, who has standing to challeng? Second, if a challenge is allowed, how is my "right" to be there determined? I go in some back room with a cop and drop my trousers? (But a fully transitioned woman would pass that test.) Genetic testing? Everyone gets a tattoo at birth that stays with them for certain purposes for the rest of their lives?

...

[JanieM]

bobbyp -- thanks for the Krugman. Nice to see those things being said.

[hairshirthedonist]

A comment on the Krugman post:

London, a city which is a bit like New York, has re-elected its Democratic Socialist, Muslim, Mayor for the third time. He’s excellent.

I don't know that I would ever have made that connection on my own. But, yeah, how about that?

[JanieM]

wj -- one more clarification and I will stop.

*Defining* who's which sex may be easier than defining who's an asshole. Using the link about the genetics that I gave in my 10:29 would provide a starting point, but it would still be a cruel joke if all the variations had to be stuffed into just two bins.

But even if you solved the definition problem by just "plugging it"* in the end, there's still the implementation problem, which I've tried to lay out here more than once in describing my own experiences of not being everyone's idea of a stereotypically female female. Implementation is bound to be a nightmare for some people. Apparently that's the price some people have to pay so that other people can dictate who's who.

*I used to program state tax algorithms. Sometimes they have to be iterated, and sometimes the iteration never resolves. The tax lawyer I worked with would say, "Sometimes you just have to plug it."

[nous]

I'm not sure that the way that Teixeira (and the media in general) frame's the discussion is helpful or productive. They focus on the ideological positions that one holds as the representative measure of their radicalism, and then cherry pick which of those positions count or don't count in the current political context. It doesn't help that they all measure the success of their framing in terms of clicks and sustained engagement.

I'm fairly sure that I hold a lot of ideological positions that could be characterized as radical by many people's standards. I believe that my gay friends should be allowed to marry and should be afforded the same treatment under the law that I and my straight friends are given. I believe that my trans friends should be allowed the same right to personal dignity and to medical privacy that I enjoy. I believe that many standards of mainstream masculine identity are harmful, not just to society in general, but to the individuals that define themselves according to these standards.

And I believe that my personal politics should support these ideals.

Boom...radical.

Except not really. For all practical purposes, I am a moderate. I believe all of these things and want to make space for all of these things in public life, but the way that I think we should adjudicate these matters when there are disputes is not particularly radical. I'm progressive in my personal politics, but liberal in my governing philosophy. I think pluralism is a good thing even when people express that pluralism in ways that I find deeply problematic, I just want to make sure that that expression does not unduly
deprive another of equal right to expression.

Boom...pretty fucking moderate.

And that's pretty much my standard for these things. Are you committed to trying to maintain a wide and generous plurality, and to good faith in the adjudication of that plurality? Moderate.

Are you committed to trying to reduce plurality in public life and to try to create a more ideologically uniform society based around your own beliefs and values and do you want to privilege those with your own beliefs over others? Radical.

If you can look at the current US administration and their actions and look at AOC and decide that she's the one with a radicalism problem, then we are headed for a rough patch of road because the American Experiment has been hijacked and vandalized.

[russell]

As far as I can tell, there is no way to definitively identify an individual as male or female that is not either incredibly intrusive or otherwise undesirable. Either "show me your genitals" or "show me your birth certificate". Or worse.

As a practical matter, it just seems simpler to accept people as they wish to present themselves. And not just practical, it seems more respectful of an individual's right to live their lives as they see fit.

That will undoubtedly make some folks uncomfortable, but we are all obliged to make room in our lives and in the world for people who make us uncomfortable. Either that, or make your life small enough that you only have to deal with people you are comfortable with.

As far as (D) centrists go, I don't see it as a winning strategy. We don't need an opposition that spends its time seeking "middle ground" with bigots and fascists. We need an opposition that OPPOSES bigotry and fascism. Names it, opposes it, and is able to articulate values that are morally and practically better than bigotry and fascism.

If that seems like a losing proposition, I point you to AOC and Bernie's red state road show. People aren't responding to the carefully scripted and focus-grouped crap coming from the institutional (D) party right now. They are responding to folks who are willing to name and call out the obvious. And not just name and call out, but actually do something about it.

People respond to courage. Polite language carefully groomed and manicured so as not to cause offense to whoever, less so.

[russell]

Also, regarding Teixeira - he opens with this:

The idea was that Democrats may indeed be bleeding working-class voters but the solution does not lie in any way with moving to the center on culturally-inflected issues like crime, immigration, race, gender, and schooling. That would not be “inclusive.”

And then claims that the problem is that (D)'s are trying to embrace both economic populism and cultural inclusivity. And, are thus losing the working class that should be responding to their economic populism.

I think Teixeira has it wrong.

The problem is that (D)'s *are not looking out for working people*. They are not economic populists.

Clinton brought us NAFTA. Obama responded to the calamitous financial crisis of 2008 by shoveling trillions of dollars to the banks, who gleefully put it in their own pockets.

All of those policies and actions had their justifications, but they DO NOT amount to economic populism. They do not amount to helping working people.

Biden was much more of a champion for working people, but was somehow allergic to taking credit for it.

In my opinion, the whole "pick between economic populism and cultural progressivism" thing is a canard. If you promote policies that actually improve the lives of working people, by far the majority of them aren't gonna give a damn if gays get married or if some trans person uses the loo.

The reason the (D)'s have lost the working class is because they cut the working class loose. Starting with Clinton, and ever since.

[CharlesWT]

As a practical matter, it just seems simpler to accept people as they wish to present themselves.

Some people insist on presenting themselves as female when they are obviously male. How do you deal with bad actors? Insisting on being female when entering female spaces doesn't exempt someone from being a pervert who should be locked up.

[bobbyp]

Insisting on being female when entering female spaces doesn't exempt someone from being a pervert who should be locked up.

For fuck's sake. Show me just one person who asserts said exemption should hold. Just one.

Jesus fucking christ.

But back again to Mamdani. Below is a fairly sober assessment of the outlook for his stated policies.

https://cepr.net/publications/mamdani-for-nyc-mayor-big-news/

Enjoy your day.

[russell]

How do you deal with bad actors?

Short answer - you use your head, like you do in any other case of "bad actors".

Longer answer - "obviously male" is carrying a lot of water here. What makes maleness "obvious"? Beard and mustache? Trousers rather than a skirt?

Practical answer - how often is this really a problem? How much do we want to skew public policy to deal with extreme edge cases?

Sometimes people just need to pee.

[Tony P.]

I can picture it now: some muscle-bound incel, twirling his mustache, walks into a women's restroom declaring "I'm all woman, honey" and ... what?

Meanwhile, a flabby, orange pervert strolls through a beauty pageant dressing room and ... gets elected (twice!) by conjuring up images of "perverts" preying on delicate womanhood.

Also, of immigrants eating dogs and cats. So I bet most of those who get het up about the men-in-women's-bathrooms thing would be just fine with aggressively-male ICE agents barging into any women's bathroom whenever they like.

I grow more disgusted with half the human race every day. The sheeple half, not the trans half.

--TP

[nous]

Context-free questions of how to police gender and access don't seem productive. In the vast majority of cases and situations it should not matter. In the cases where it does matter the insistence on making it a matter of gender (or of sex) seems to create a lot of knock-on consequences for innocents that could be avoided by looking at other solutions to the actual problem that do not pathologize entire groups.

Contextual solutions for contextual problems.

[wj]

Are you committed to trying to maintain a wide and generous plurality, and to good faith in the adjudication of that plurality? Moderate.

Are you committed to trying to reduce plurality in public life and to try to create a more ideologically uniform society based around your own beliefs and values and do you want to privilege those with your own beliefs over others? Radical.

As clear and succinct a definition as I've seen.

[wj]

But back again to Mamdani. Below is a fairly sober assessment of the outlook for his stated policies.

I think that assessment has some serious holes. For example:

I have long felt that even at the national level tax and transfer policy has limits. Rich people are very creative at finding ways to avoid or evade taxes.

At the state and local level, they have even more options, since all they have to do is to move across a city or state line, or at least claim they have. Remember, the people we are most interested in taxing almost all have two or three or even more homes. Proving that their home in New York City is in fact their primary residence, and should be the basis for taxation, is not an easy task.

The author is apparently unaware of the detail that you do NOT have to prove that someone lives in New York. New York law already taxes any and all income earned in New York, regardless of whether you do, or ever have, lived in New York. I've never lived within 2,500 miles of any part of New York state. But I've paid New York taxes, simply because a customer was based in New York.

Taxing the rich may be far less difficult than the author expects. Possibly why the rich are in freakout mode; if they could just shift their legal residence to another of their homes, they would just do it and sneer at Mamdani.

[JanieM]

wj -- where does a person live for purposes of e.g. interest income, or capital gains?

I suspect there's a lot more leeway there...?

[wj]

JanieM, my impression is that the critical point is the location of the payer. If the company paying the interest or capital gains is based in New York, you owe tax, regardless of where in the world you are.

I'm not certain how they deal with companies located in New York, but incorporated in, for example, Delaware. Or headquartered in one state but having facilities in New York (or vis versa). My guess is that the answer is "either."

[JanieM]

wj -- I should have just looked it up in the first place.

From here:

States with No Capital Gains Taxes

If you have a large number of assets there might be a benefit to reside in one of the following states. These include Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

In these states you are only subject to Federal Capital Gains, which are typically lower than your ordinary income tax rate.

From here:

How to Reduce Capital Gains Taxes

Here are four strategies you may use to potentially lower your capital gains tax liability:

Relocate to a Lower Tax State

While lower taxes should not be your only reason for moving, relocating to a state with low or nonexistent capital gains tax could significantly reduce your tax liability. Of course, it's essential to consider various factors before making such a significant decision, including the cost of living, job opportunities, quality of life, and personal preferences.

[JanieM]

As for the location of the payer being critical, I worked for a company in Massachusetts for 33 years, working mostly remotely when my kids were little but spending increasing time in Cambridge in later years.

I worked as a self-employed contractor in the early years and an employee in the later years. Either way, my payer was my company, which was headquartered in Massachusetts, but my state income taxes (MA and ME) were calculated based on how many work days I was physically in each state. (I don't think the CPA who did my taxes got it wrong....)

[CharlesWT]

Convoluted.

Tax Avoidance Strategies for NY Residents

[bobbyp]

wj,
I think you need to read the link posted by Charles. The main point asserted by Baker is rich people are very good at finding (or paying others to find) "creative" ways to evade/avoid taxes.

I would argue this is unambiguously true.

So then the question becomes, what tax policy is most effective to ensure the rich pay taxes in full compliance with the intent of tax law? Baker repeatedly plumps for a transaction tax on stock sales as one policy that would ensure full compliance.

[wj]

bobbyp, my point wasn't that there were simple means to assure that the rich pay their fair share. It was merely that establishing someone's (legal) residence isn't necessary in order to tax them.

Per Charles' link, NYC (unlike New York state) does not currently tax the income that non-residents earn there. But there's no reason** it couldn't start doing so.

** Beyond the obvious political challenges to enacting it.

[wj]

See also this, on the reality of tax flight.

Briefly, while some do relocate, they are a small fraction of their own (wealthy) social class.

[JanieM]

It was merely that establishing someone's (legal) residence isn't necessary in order to tax them.

Per Charles' link, NYC (unlike New York state) does not currently tax the income that non-residents earn there.

These two statements contradict each other. You can't tax "non-residents" if you don't establish residency.

[JanieM]

Less fuzzily, you can't have a tax on residents vs non-residents without establishing the taxpayer's residency somewhere.

[JanieM]

wj -- re: Ocampo's article that you linked -- on a quick read, he doesn't mention offshoring of wealth. It's been on my mind since I listened to John Cole interview Brooke Harrington a while back -- this is her specialty. (One of three podcasts I've ever listened to. :-) And it mostly wasn't even about offshoring of wealth, it was about her time in Denmark.)

[GftNC]

Have just got back from the North Country, and am exhausted by 11 hours of motorway driving within 48 hours, nothing to Americans, I know, but a lot for the English and somewhat exhausting at my age. Have only had a brief moment to scan responses to my comment on sex v gender etc, and will respond at greater length tomorrow or after if it seems worth it, but would just like to say briefly:

1. lj I would in no way wish to imply that you are in any way like Trump by saying you both seem to use sex and gender interchangeably, and I apologise for using your names in the same context. I think this is more an American thing. Only pointing out that they are not interchangeable, and in fact I think I have always been 100% consistent in my usage, because it has always been completely obvious to me that they are completely different things.

2. I think it has been a tragic consequence of this particular culture war that among large parts of the e.g. US and Australian population, and only slightly less large parts of the UK population, gender critical feminists have so successfully been cast as transphobic. In fact, they (certainly ones like me) have been entirely motivated by the protection of women and their hard won rights, as opposed to bigotry or hatred towards trans people. Again speaking for myself and others like me, we wish only safety and wellbeing for trans people, and no diminution of their human rights. In terms of e.g. bathroom use, this may well involve the provision of gender neutral or trans spaces.

Luckily, I have never experienced sexual violence, but as an almost 70 year old woman I certainly experienced (as almost all young women do) that from the ages of approx 14 to 50 I was treated like prey by very large numbers of men who were nothing like those beloved male friends of mine, or presumably of Janie's, sometimes in places where I felt safe, and often in places where I did not. If there were not women only spaces in numerous places to retreat to, I and many other women would not have felt free to go out and live quite such a normal life. And, although (as I have said many times here) I myself do not now feel uncomfortable sharing public lavatories with trans women, many women have have had experiences which do make them feel uncomfortable, and they should not have to do so. Ditto the many women who have complained about trans women with obvious erections watching them get changed in changing rooms, or young girls at schools developing urinary tract conditions because they don't want to risk boys harassing them in lavatories to which they are now allowed access. These situations have only arisen since the transactivist push to normalise the concept that women's rights do not need to be protected, and that where there is a conflict trans rights take priority.

I don't think that various people on ObWi, or elsewhere in liberal, lefty or progressive America, have any concept how potent a weapon they handed (and are still handing) to the Republicans and the malevolent right when they tried to convince "normal", non-academic, non-progessive people that there is no such thing as sex, that even if there is it is non-binary (I do of course have various tweets, comments etc by eminent biologists giving a rather different view from the one proposed by the twitter stream that Janie posted), and that, for example, anyone unwilling to say wholeheartedly and for all purposes that "trans women are women" is a bigot or beyond the pale. And an interview I read recently with Sarah McBride indicated that she at least is well aware how damaging this attitude has been.

This comment has gone on longer than I intended, and I am totally exhausted. Clearly I could say much more (about gay rights for example: every GC feminist I know was a passionate supporter for gay rights, equal marriage etc, and in the now-closed Tavistock Centre, staff who were concerned about the treatment of gender-dysphoric youth used to say that the Tavvy was "transing away the gay"), but now is not the right time.

Over and out.

[JanieM]

I think it has been a tragic consequence of this particular culture war that among large parts of the e.g. US and Australian population, and only slightly less large parts of the UK population, gender critical feminists have so successfully been cast as transphobic.

[snip]

Again speaking for myself and others like me, we wish only safety and wellbeing for trans people, and no diminution of their human rights. In terms of e.g. bathroom use, this may well involve the provision of gender neutral or trans spaces.

Yeah, it’s really tragic when people aren’t taken at their own self-estimate, isn’t it?

*****

I would say that anyone who isn’t trans, and who proposes “trans spaces” as a solution to anything, is transphobic.

Creating “trans spaces” into which trans people are relegated against their will does not translate to “safety and wellbeing” or “[full] human rights”, it translates to ghettoization of a category of second-class citizens.

[GftNC]

I would say that anyone who isn’t trans, and who proposes “trans spaces” as a solution to anything, is transphobic.

You know Janie, your tendency to think the worst, and be so sure of your own righteousness, can be really tiresome. Your willingness to automatically assign bad motives to anyone who disagrees with you makes any kind of reasonable argument very difficult. Some might even say you are, in effect, taking yourself at your own self-estimate.

What is the alternative to women-only spaces and men-only spaces, except gender neutral (which I included, but that didn't suit your attempt to call me transphobic), or trans spaces? Since this is really always about trans women, what you are really suggesting is that they should have access to women's spaces, and that the wishes of biological males should (as always) triumph over the wishes and safety of biological females. As the cases of assault, and harassment, and pervy voyeurism mount, it is becoming and will become ever harder to maintain that it (allowing biological males into female only spaces) does not harm women's sense of security, and even actual safety.

Of course this is not to maintain (and as far as I know nobody does maintain) that all or even most trans women are dangerous. But there are disparate populations of trans women, with different motives, and some of them are dangerous, which means that trans women should not have automatic access to women's spaces. As someone said to me, just because not all that many people are burglars, it does not stop you locking your front door when you go out.

And, FWIW, I do not know of many (or even any? I can stand to be corrected) instances of trans men committing violent or sexual crimes, whereas it has been established that statistically trans women commit violent crime at the same rate as natal males. So, we come back to the fact that some trans women are dangerous to women, and there is no reason to allow men who are, or say they are, trans to access spaces that other men cannot, and where women deserve to feel safe.

But do, by all means continue to make these kinds of arguments. They played at least some part (and many people, including Sarah McBride, think it may have been a large part) in giving Trump his second term, and there's still lots of mileage in them. You might sometimes feel doubt about doing the Orange One's work for him, but certainty of your own impeccable righteousness and purity of intentions should continue to protect you from self-doubt.

[liberal japonicus]

I guess we are getting to the event horizon on this, but a few final thoughts.

As a linguist, I think meaning is negotiated. I'm sure I have my own ideas, but those ideas only get some sort of privilege when they are in my own head, when they go out, that privilege disappears. Communication requires that we have to meet people in the middle. So I have a hard time imagining anyone being 100% consistent if they are discussing these issues with others, especially if they are talking across cultures. I still remember when forms changed from asking for sex to asking for gender, but that was more to avoid confusions with sexual activity. There was a joke about a form listing sex and saying that the responses should be yes or no.

It's interesting that BBBB's first exchange with me potentially revolved around a similar issue, the question of the word 'standing'. I took him to mean some sort of legal meaning, GftNC suggested that he was using it in a informal way. It was an interesting observation that I let be, not because I wasn't interested in it, and absent any acknowledgement from him, it would have been me interrogating BBBB about just what he meant. Not a really useful use of time. If we had this issue with 'standing', imagine how fraught it would be to try and disentangle sex and gender with him.

[JanieM]

You might sometimes feel doubt about doing the Orange One's work for him, but certainty of your own impeccable righteousness and purity of intentions should continue to protect you from self-doubt.

Funny, I think this applies to you to perfection, you and your carefully picked statistics and anecdotes and the lawyerlike arguments based on them.

It goes beyond parody when you say that the way other people view you is "tragic."

That's all from me.

[JanieM]

Not quite all, because I had already started to draft a comment on one more aspect of this debate, as follows.

Years have gone by with this debate boiling up repeatedly on this blog, and I have yet to hear any thoughts from GftNC about how a system meant to keep trans people separate in some spaces is going to work in practice, other than by forcing the entire population to carry some proof of which pigeonhole they’ve been put in. How do we enforce who “goes” where, as it were.

Such a system can’t work “fairly” unless everyone is tagged with their proper category and given an ID to carry from birth onward. But that still doesn’t answer questions like: Who gets to challenge anyone’s right to be in any given space? Who has the right and authority to force someone to present their credentials?

And if anyone thinks a polity that would create and enforce such a system would give a fig for the perpetuation of “women’s spaces” as chosen by “women,” well, I think you're delusional.

[GftNC]

Funny, I think this applies to you to perfection

Why yes, you had made this abundantly clear, which is what makes it so funny. And, regarding statistics, to my astonishment you once (a long time ago, but I was so struck by it I kept it somewhere) said that you could see no reason to do any statistical analysis broken down by sex! I think perhaps the reason for this extraordinary opinion may be becoming clearer.

As for your "parody" comment, it is very revealing. I did not mean (and i think to an impartial observer this was quite clear) that I found it tragic personally, although I am GC, to be perceived as transphobic, I meant that the capture of the discourse around this issue which has decreed that any disagreement with the right-thinking "laws of trans" (e.g TWAW, sex is not binary, etc etc) is by definition transphobic, has rendered this whole issue so toxic that tragically it's almost impossible to have rational discussion about it. As indeed i would say you have demonstrated. And, since you have never made a secret of how much you detest "lawyerlike argument" wherever it comes from, that too no doubt plays into your kneejerk resort to implied or even open insult, rather than any attempt at calm discussion.

Now, since I have explained that I am exhausted, it is 2.28 a.m. and I have a somewhat difficult day ahead of me, to quote you, that's all from me.

[wj]

OK folks, slow deep breaths. Sloooow deep breaths.

I have the feeling (and I know I'm looking in from the outside) that this discussion is conflating two, maybe three, different issues. Overlapping, to some extent, but different. And as a result we are, to some extent, talking past each other. Feel free to unite in disabusing me of my ignorance.

First, we have the issue of women having a need for what they can regard as safe spaces. Which, regrettably but realistically, means men are excluded. Second is whether/when that exclusion should encompass trans women. Third is, and I'm groping for words here, what do we mean by trans.

I think the second is actually the core issue in the discussion. But the third is, as I see it, the root of the problem. Is someone trans at the point that they recognize that they feel like they were born in the wrong body? Or at the point that they start trying to redress the mistake that they perceive? Or at the point where transition surgery has been performed? Or at some other point?

I'm personally unsure where the appropriate line is. My suspicion is that the answer is properly "It depends".

Specifically, it depends on the immediate circumstances. For example, in situations where gender/sex** doesn't matter, say a business meeting, I would say that there's no good reason (that I can see) not to just accept everyone however they wish. Similarly, if we are talking about safe spaces, I don't see a major problem with accepting someone who has gone thru transition surgery. But, regrettably, there will be some men who will claim to be trans simply to get entre into those spaces. And the possibility probability of such behavior cannot be ignored.

No doubt there are nuances I'm missing. But I think it will help keep the discussion productive if we try to make very clear exactly which of the questions we are addressing.

** I write it that way because I have trouble keeping track of which word means what in current usage. Sorry.

[BigBadBird]

I'm not sure what the problem is with logical, evidence-based reasoning. No particular viewpoint is entitled to deference irrespective of reality. GFTNC isn't manufacturing evidence. Sexual predation under the guise of trans rights is real. Women have enough trouble navigating life, and it springs almost entirely from objective biology, which is then shaped and defined by male-dominated cultural values. Trans-women aren't the issue, nor are all trans-men.

The debate I see missing is whether female-attracted "trans women" are actually trans or are just male fetishists using others as an entree into women's places. This may well be the elephant in the room.

My impression is that there is a subset of "trans-women" who are quite vocal, in a negative way, about lesbians refusing to engage with them sexually. Curiously, I see no evidence of a trans-woman subset complaining that straight men will not date them. Quite frankly, I suspect a trans-woman movement complaining of rejection by straight men wouldn't get much traction.

ISTM, this is a matter of line-drawing: who has access to women's spaces and who doesn't. One line is chromosomes, another is whether the woman is actually a fully intact male. Self-ID has proven tragically inadequate and, in a fairer world, proponents of that should be called out.

As a matter of first principle, deference to women trumps (NPI), at a minimum, intact-male rights.

[russell]

FWIW, i think the most common complaint from trans women about straight men is that straight men want to kill them.

[Hartmut]

Get single stall toilets open to everyone (toilets for the bodily impaired have always been that way) and the problem can be reduced significantly.
Btw, small facilities often have only a single toilet and there are few complaints (except about waiting times).
Over here many public baths also have unisex changing cabins (between the large changing rooms) and sometimes the same for showers.
Absent ill will a "in case of doubt ask people to use the (single person) unisex option" should be feasible.
But, alas, we know that the main problem is with those who 'need' the problem for their own agenda.
Some want the restroom to be the new drinking fountain and trans to be the new black (at least until we can return to the old ways and maybe add cult separated sanitary facilities.).

[bobbyp]

Sexual predation under the guise of trans rights is real.

show us the data, please.

[liberal japonicus]

wj's breakdown is lacking some particular context. This broke out because of a commenter (whose first comment here was to accuse nous of being a white male giving "gender critical females their marching orders")

https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2024/12/-days-since-the-last-travesty.html

tries to start a conversation about gender. Hilarity ensues.

I'm thinking of how the Trump administration has used the accusation of antisemitism to attack universities. Where is Admiral Ackbar when you need him?

[BigBady]

Bobby, US academics, so far, don't seem interested in this topic. Google Evidence and Data on Trans Women's Offending Rates. GFTNC may have additional insight.

Yes, Nous was telling women to get in line on the trans issue. Clearly. And that is consistent with a viewpoint that admits no dissent.

[BigBadBird]

That was me.

[russell]

I'm not female, either biologically or by gender identity. So I am in many ways clueless about the issues women deal with in their daily lives, although my wife and other women in my life have given me some awareness, even if only second hand.

So I am not going to attempt to speak for anyone.

That said, for all the folks who find it unacceptable for trans women to use women-only facilities - what's the solution?

It's not always obvious if someone is trans or natal. Do folks have to carry some kind of medically-authenticated ID proving they are one or the other? How many ways will that go sideways?

Are all public toilets, showers, whatever, now going to have to have attendants verifying that anyone entering is of the correct biological gender? What will "verification" consist of? What makes someone of the "correct biological gender"? Is it the sex they were assigned at birth? The presence or absence of the correct gonads?

Are we going to require that trans men use the facilities appropriate to the sex they were assigned at birth? So, trans men - who look like men - are going to use women's facilties? Will that be helpful or comfortable for biological women concerned about their safety?

Are we going to require trans women to use men-only facilities? Because if you think it might be dangerous for biological women to have trans women sharing their space, it's pretty much guaranteed that it *will* be dangerous for trans women to use men's facilities.

What about women who are not trans, but who just present themselves as very masculine, for whatever reason? Will they make biological women uncomfortable? If so, what do we do about them?

I can absolutely understand women not wanting to shower with somebody sporting a visible erection. And I can also understand people - and not just trans people - not wanting to live under some weird regime where we all have to somehow prove we're of a "correct" gender. And I can absolutely understand trans people not wanting to be placed in a position where they are most surely going to be in physical danger.

So I personally don't see a solution here other than everybody chilling out and dealing with situations as they arise, in context. Which also seems unlikely, especially the "chilling out" part, because people's safety is involved.

But all the people calling for keeping trans out of gender-specific places need to explain how that's going to work, in a way that doesn't put trans people's lives in danger. Because they will be in danger.

I'm sure there are cases of biological women being harrassed and assaulted by rando dudes dressing up as women. I am going to hazard a guess and say that the number of those cases is dwarfed by the number of trans people who have been assaulted and killed, for being trans.

If there's a solution here, it needs to account for all of that.

I'll also say that the whole mantra of "the (D)'s lost because of trans people" pisses me the hell off. This is already long, so I'll leave that for another time.

[Donald]

That was BBB in his/ her/ their days of trollish one liners but BBB doesn’t do that anymore. So I still disagree with BBB most of the time, but it’s over substance,.

[Donald]

On the substance here, I don’t have much but are there a lot of attacks in women by trans women in or out of public restrooms? I haven’t tried tracking that down, so I won’t pontificate except to say you want to be really careful about punishing a bunch of innocent people and look for solutions that don’t do that.

If women are showering with men in public restrooms having an erection, um, gross. Definitely not something women should ever be subjected to. Not even something I would have liked at the YMCA when I was there but it never happened and if it did I was only facing a bit of discomfort, not fear of what might happen next. Do things like this happen? I am very ignorant on the subject.

But Russell is right about the dangers for transwomen too.

There is apparently a huge amount about this I don’t know.

[BigBadBird]

Before trans people got on the horizon, there were usually local ordinances that outlawed one sex from using the private facilities of another. This worked fine forever. Things have changed. A line either will or will not be drawn. It's a policy decision. I opt for either biology or surgery as the line.

Donald, trolling may be matter of perspective. Snarki snarks routinely without criticism, and I have no issue with that. Bobby has a sharp pen. No problem there. My take is that unrepresentative but pointed observations are deemed trolling by some whereas well-received but pointed observations are merely pithy, if not entertaining.

[russell]

Before trans people got on the horizon, there were usually local ordinances that outlawed one sex from using the private facilities of another.

A couple of things.

First, trans people have been around forever. They are not a new and novel phenomenon. What's newly "on the horizon" is trans people as a political football. Some of that is because they have begun making themselves more visible in an attempt to get a basic level of recognition. And some of that is because a lot of people think they're weird scary freaks and would like them all to just go away.

Second, those ordinances are still in place in many areas. And in fact, in some areas, the laws have been changed to specifically ban transgender people from using facilities for their gender identity.

And in all the places where laws have been or are in place restricting access based on biological sex, transgender people have been using the facilities that correspond to the gender they present as. Like, forever. Because nobody has been looking down their pants or at their birth certificates to see who they "really are".

I appreciate the concerns of women who find the idea of having to share spaces like showers and restrooms with people who have a penis disturbing. Those concerns are absolutely legitimate.

But I don't see a way to enforce the stuff you are calling for that won't be unbelievably intrusive. How do you plan to enforce the "biology or surgery" line?

If you make trans people use restrooms of the gender they do *not* present as, a lot of them are going to get the shit beat out of them. Because a lot of people hate them and are afraid of them. It happens now, all the time.

If you use public restrooms with any frequency, you have almost certainly shared a restroom with a trans person at some point. And you've lived to tell the tale. Most likely, you did not even know.

[BigBadBird]

Russell, feeling bad for women isn't enough. I referenced a study for Bobby. The law needs to speak to, not merely give a nod to, women's safety. You might want to give it a look.

Enforcement is never going to be perfect. Non-female attracted trans women will not stand out because they will simply go about their business. Female attracted trans women who exhibit predatory or inappropriate behaviors will hopefully see the authorities called. I want women to have a remedy.

As for violence to trans women in restrooms, I'd need to see objective, non-adversarial data.

[wonkie]

It annoys the hell out of me that the Dem leadership thinks policy wins or loses elections. Take a look at reality: Few people know what policies go with which party, even fewer have more than a minimal awareness of what the policies actually are, and many if not most vote based on brand or emotional reaction to what they see.
The right way for Dems to react to ANYTHING Republicans say or ANYTHING media hacks ask is to never apologize, never explain and always attack. People aren't looking for a shopping list of policy proposals. They are looking for someone who is assertive, the happy warrior type, the takes-no-shit type, the person who presents as strong.
The problem with old guard Dems is the waffling. When asked about Mamdani, they respond with mushy stuff about how maybe he should clarify this or that which makes them look weak and scared. They should say, "The mayor's race in NYC is the business of the voters of NYC and what we need to be discussion is the business of the nation. Right now in Congress the Republicans are looting the middle class to benefit billionaires."
That formula can be used on all Rethug hater cultural bullshit. "Trans kids are humans and should be treated with dignity--as we all should be. The Billionaire Bail out Bill is an attack on the dignity of every citizen..." Or "There never was an open border and immigrants are the backbone of the rural economy. The people being kidnapped and deported are not criminals. (Then tell a story). Etc. it's not hard.
Refuse to engage in discussion of Rethug false issues. Refuse to engage in discussion of their smears and slanders. Refuse to allow Democrats to be on the defensive. Always make every conversation about about REthugs.
It's not hard, for Chrissake. Why can't Dem leaders figure this out?

[russell]

Female attracted trans women who exhibit predatory or inappropriate behaviors will hopefully see the authorities called. I want women to have a remedy.

Yes, as do I.

Substitute "people" for "trans women" in the above and AFAICT that is (a) what exists now and (b) is a sufficient solution.

Right? Somebody assaults or harasses you, you call the authorities. What will a ban on transgender women in women's bathrooms add to that?

Information about violence toward transgender people, whether trans women, trans men, in bathrooms or wherever, is widely available. Trans people are subject to violence, because they are trans, on the regular.

Concerning the specific question of transgender people using restrooms of the sex they were assigned at birth, here is a place to start.

[wj]

First, trans people have been around forever. They are not a new and novel phenomenon. What's newly "on the horizon" is trans people as a political football.

russell, I don't think that's really what changed. I think what changed was the availability of surgery to reconstruct someone's visible genitalia. Make that, if not readily available, at least findable. Because without that, being trans was known to the individual (that's been around forever), and perhaps a few people in whom they dared confide.

But it's not really feasible to scare people for political purposes if there aren't visibly enough people in the threat class. You can try to demonize cross-dressing, and a few people may be upset. But scared? Not so much. After all, as soon as the clothing starts coming off....

[russell]

But it's not really feasible to scare people for political purposes if there aren't visibly enough people in the threat class.

Would that that were so. All the commies in Joseph McCarthy's imagination would like to have a word. All the pet-eating immigrants, likewise.

The wider availability of gender reassignment surgery is undoubtedly a factor, especially when the spectre of "sending your boy to school and he comes back a girl" is bruited about by, among other people, the freaking POTUS. But the animus toward transgender folks is hardly limited to those who have had surgery.

Conservatives used to be able to use "the gays" as the thing that was going to destroy the nation. Allowing gays to marry was going to undermine the family and the institution of marriage generally, and was going to destroy the nation.

Then, gay people gained the ability to marry and... none of that happened.

So conservatives needed a new chew toy. Transgender people had the temerity to try to expand the social and political legitimacy that had been extended to gays to themselves, so they are now the new evil menace.

They're going to groom your kids! Schools are gonna cut your sons' penis and your daughters' breasts off! Trans women are going to invade ladies' rooms and rape and harrass your wives and daughters!

Right?

I'm pretty sure most folks - including myself - would agree that women should be able to take a shower without sharing the space with somebody that has an erect penis.

But transgender people are just trying to live their freaking lives without hiding, and without getting beat up. And they'd like to pee when they aren't home.

That seems like it should be achievable.

In places where transgender people have been given the right to use restrooms corresponding to the gender they present, there has not been any kind of rise in trans woman on cis woman assaults. See the cite in my previous comment. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

[nous]

US academics, so far, don't seem interested in this topic. Google Evidence and Data on Trans Women's Offending Rates. GFTNC may have additional insight.

I'm a US academic. I've read a lot of these studies and arguments and position papers. My dear friends and colleagues, both feminist and trans-activists have engaged with these issues repeatedly.

I've seen a lot of data that seems to indicate that trans-people are more likely than cis-women to be arrested for sexual assault. This seems to be true both for trans-men and for trans-women. The fact that it seems to be true for both raises problems for the arguments that it's a born-woman vs. born-man thing (and I find the "born-..." framing problematic, and am using it only in acknowledgement that this is the GCF framing in these arguments).

Are we really arguing over criminality by demographic group? How is this considered unproblematic when discussing trans-people, when the very same argument could be used regarding young black males? Does anyone here want to step forward and argue for white-only spaces? Maybe we can have separate facilities for young black males? Oh, and what to do about the young black males who are light skinned enough to pass? How do we police who gets access? It's not animus against young black men, it's just public safety. The numbers support it.

I would hope that we can all accept that the offending rates data are fraught and that blackness should not be treated as if it is instrumental in driving criminality.

I do not see any reason to think that trans-criminality is any less fraught.

As for the "there are only two biological sexes" arguments - as I have said before, even if we were to take this as a scientific fact, I don't think that the issues we are dealing with are straightforward issues of gamete expression. It's not the difference that makes a difference (see the trans-men criminality figures referenced above).

What we are dealing with here are not simple scientific facts. We are dealing with questions of how to interpret data and how to make collective decisions about how best to support human rights. Good luck extracting that process from the human biases that affect our judgment.

I'm not saying all this as a cis-male who benefits from patriarchy. I'm saying it as a scholar whose trans- and intersectional feminist colleagues are not present to make these arguments on behalf of their own stakes in these matters.

[wj]

Russell, I'm not saying it has to be a big group. Certainly McCarthy's claims of large numbers of commies were nonsense. But there were, in fact, a significant number of communists (or, at least, claiming to be communists) in the world, and some tiny number of real believers in the US. So all it took was a one or two real cases for him to work from.

Similarly, there needed to be a number of surgically transitioned people, and a couple of high profile ones, to put the concept into the general perception. I'm definitely not faulting Caitlyn Jenner for being herself. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that she helped give the bigots (and especially the demonizers) a lever.

That was the point I was attempting to make. The demonizers don't do well inventing threat groups out of whole cloth. They can do it, and have done it. But it's far

[BigBadBird]

Russell, the evidence I found regarding trans assault in bathrooms is self reported and joins verbal harassment with assault and does not break the numbers down further. The percentage of respondents reporting harassment/assault was 10%. I could not determine the sample size. As for "no evidence" of assault by trans women, that is not true: chrome-extension://afaidnbmnnnibpcglclefindmkaj://le.utah.gov/interim/2024/pdf/00000577.pdf

I hope this link functions. You can google the charges against London County. There are fairly numerous anecdotal reports. But the larger flaw is confining the issue to assault. There is a large range of non-criminal or at least ambiguous behavior that sexual predators can and will engage in.

It is zero comfort that a woman is free to make a complaint after she has been raped or assaulted.

[nous]

Separate point I don't want to get buried at the end of the previous post...

I'm sure that the Dems have lost some votes over people getting upset when they hear some Democrats saying "trans-women are women." The same can be said about "toxic masculinity."

I'm not going to argue that we should throw feminists under the bus because feminism has been packaged in a way that has made young men feel threatened. That's a devil's bargain.

I think the same is true for how we show solidarity with trans-people over those who want us all silenced.

It's your conscience, though. I can't do the moral math for you.

[russell]

Russell, the evidence I found regarding trans assault in bathrooms is self reported ...

First, I agree, it is zero comfort to *anyone* if their only remedy to being assaulted is calling the authorities afterwards. Your proposed remedy is to not allow trans women to use women's bathrooms. Or, maybe, not allow trans women with a penis to use women's bathrooms.

I'm still waiting to hear how that gets enforced without (a) everyone carrying around their birth certificate and producing it when they use a public toilet, or (b) look down everyone's pants before they use a public toilet.

If you are depending on "well, this person looks like they are probably a woman" you are opening up a whole other can of worms. Like, who makes the call? Plus, it won't exclude a very large number of trans women, and may well make life a lot more complicated for a lot of cis women.

So explain how this is going to work, please.

In any case, here's the game you are playing.

You put some substack account up of a person who was in male prison, killed his roomate, then identifies as female, goes to a women's prison, assaults his female roomate, and that is evidence that letting trans women into a woman's bathroom will result in more assaults against cis-gender women by trans women.

Then I share a link to an... actual set of studies, with, you know, numbers. You don't like it - can't find the sample size, not enough people reporting assault, numbers aren't broken down enough. So you don't bother to address it.

So I'm kinda losing interest in discussing this with you further.

As an aside, do you all know there's an app that trans people use to find unisex bathrooms? It's called Refuge, if you know any trans people, you might want to hip them to it.

Because they don't want to deal with this shit, either. People's bigotry, people making comments to them when they're just trying to go to the bathroom, people threatening them and worse than threatening them.

They aren't trying to storm the cis bathrooms of the world, they are trying to stay the hell away from all of it.

It's like the Green Book used to be for black people. Don't to here, you'll get trouble. Go here instead, it's mostly safe. That's how they are obliged to live their lives. I'm glad it's available to them, nonetheless.

People should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit, whatever that looks like. Trust me when I say there are lots of folks I would rather not have to be around, but it's a big world so I just mind my own business and let it be.

Trans people are the new bogeyman, and the current administration and conservatives in general are doing their damnedest to make everybody hate and fear them. It's fucking evil, in my opinion, and it gets people beaten up and killed.

Over and out.

[BigBadBird]

Russell, no worries.

Nous, how do we protect women who want physical privacy from men?

[russell]

Sorry, not quite over and out.

BigBadBird invited me to google Loudon County transgender assault. I did so, and this popped up.

Tl;dr - the aggressor was a serial predator with previous incidents of sexual harrassment and assault. Loudon County school administrators transferred the kid to another high school without giving the new school a good heads up about all of it, and in general handled the situation poorly. Net/net, the kid assaulted a girl at the new high school.

The conservative claim is that the kid is transgender and the school's policy of allowing transgender girls access to the girl's room was a factor in the incident.

The grand jury report says the policy had nothing to do with it, the school admins handled a serial sexual predator very badly. The kid's alleged gender identity issues were irrelevant, says the grand jury.

I'm sure there are transgender people who behave very badly. They should be treated like every other kind of person who behaves very badly. And folks should not assume that being transgender predisposes anybody to behaving badly, and in particular to assaulting other people.

I can't think of a way to restrict transgender people's access to public accommodations without creating a very large host of other, worse problems. And I have yet to see anything remotely like evidence that making bathrooms accessible to transgender people has any effect on the degree to which they are responsible for assaults of any kind.

I can understand why some, maybe many, women might be uncomfortable with biological men using ladies' rooms. I can completely understand why pretty much all women would not want to take a shower with a person sporting an erect penis. Or even a non-erect penis.

And I can understand why transgender people feel they are being singled out for ostracism and attack. Because they *are* being singled out for ostracism and attack, often literal physical attack.

So, two competing concerns. And the way we handle cases where there are competing concerns in this country ought not to be to demonize an entire class of people. It quite often *is* the way we handle them, but it should not be.

A dose of reality would be helpful here. Along with a big dose of mind your own business.

[bobbyp]

how do we protect women who want physical privacy from men?

I would say, from the standpoint of public restrooms and gyms, that this tends to sell women short. They can and do "take care of themselves" in many circumstances.

You may find interesting that the communist hellhole of Seattle's SeaTac airport is in the process of constructing new unisex bathrooms throughout the terminal. Urinals are gone, and the stalls go floor to ceiling to provide privacy. Users share the lavatories. This undoubtedly increases the percentage of males washing their hands after doing their business. Most complaints I have heard are from males whining about now having to wait for a stall to open up. Poor dears.

Given the immense traffic 24/7, safety does not appear to be an issue.

[Donald]

I think the privacy issue is separate from the assault issue.

Separate shower stalls with privacy seems like the low hanging fruit answer here. I think most people would appreciate that. I would have liked it at the Y.

As for violence, I think we are back to the issue of not punishing the vast number of innocent people because of the bad actions of a few., and there isn’t a way to keep transwomen out anyway, supposing someone passes a law, unless we have guards checking Sexual identity ID’s. I would think a person of any gender who wants to commit a sexual assault usually tries to figure out how to do this when it is just the assailant and the intended victim present. Whether or not they are allowed in a bathroom doesn’t seem like it gives prospective criminals , though again, this is not exactly an area where I am well read.

[Hartmut]

Some of the instigators of the anti-trans demagoguery are also vehemently opposed to unisex restrooms. I believe I remember even attempts to have them made illegal.
Another reason to be for them (at least as an addition) for these guys clearly fear that this could be part of peaceful solution which would make their work much more difficult.

[nous]

BBB - bobbyp has my answer covered if we are talking about public restrooms.

Likewise, if we are talking about the safety of women's restrooms now, plenty of (unambiguous) men manage to find their way into them in order to assault women, and these bathroom bills do not change the physical safety of women's restrooms, they just make trans-women have to either go into (even more dangerous for them) men's rooms, hope to pass, or live with discomfort while trying to find a safe place to pee.

It's not about actual safety, it's performative safety theater that singles out trans-people for surveillance.

Public changing and showering spaces could do a lot to provide more privacy for their users. Again, it's not as if bills excluding trans-people from shower spaces makes women's shower rooms any more secure. There was a huge problem with sexual assault in military showers during the Iraq war such that men and women alike would end up taking neck knives with them into the showers. Physical safety measures will do more for safety than will an onerous policing scheme aimed at trans-people.

I'm more ambivalent about events like MichFest, or strict Dianic Wicca, or other such private sphere womyn's gatherings. I'm more concerned with public policy.

An instructive example for this: a few years back one of the national Christian organizations aimed at providing on-campus student fellowship ran into difficulty because it insisted that any member who held office on campus be a practicing Christian and adhere to the organization's doctrinal statement. I never objected to the organization being active on campus, but I did believe that if they wanted to make use of campus facilities, they needed to follow campus non-discrimination guidelines for sanctioned organizations or find a place off-campus but nearby for their religious services.

[BigBadBird]

Allowing men acces to women's spaces based on self id takes an already difficult situation and makes it worse. Plus, we haven't gotten to women's shelters, medical exams, bathhouses, etc. my vote is no men.

[nous]

What is my friend C. to do? These bathroom bills would have him and his full beard forced to walk into a women's room every time he had to pee - every time at great physical risk of being attacked.

"Hey buddy, what do you think you are doing?"

Do we revoke his ID and force him to carry one that says he is female, and to betray his own sense of self every single time nature calls? When asked about his presence there in the Women's room are you forcing him to continuously acquiesce to his public othering in order to live a public life?

That seems to be what the trans-suspicious solution here entails.

[BigBadBird]

I don't recall any discussion about limiting access to men's spaces based.

[novakant]

The disproportionality between the amount of public discussion of this issue and the number of actual documented cases of harassment and assault leads me to the conclusion that many of those debating it might have ulterior motives.

There are so many issues related to violence against women, misogyny and discrimination that the trans bathroom question seems rather marginal and comparatively easy to resolve, as far as that is possible.

[nous]

The so-called "bathroom bills" ban transgender people from using bathrooms or facilities consistent with their gender identity in government-owned buildings (courthouses, schools, correctional facilities, etc.)

Men's rooms, changing rooms, etc. are gendered spaces and fall under the ban. So, yes, men's rooms as well.

And if one thinks that the public will restrict their surveillance to government owned properties, one is not cognitively well aligned with reality.

All of these bills are, in effect, incitement to vigilantism as far as enforcement is concerned.

[wj]

But, as when gay rights we were first being thrashed out (as opposed to non-existent), the number of actual cases only matters if that number is large. So long as it is small, or even zero, it's irrelevant to the issue.

That may seem both unfair and exceptionally stupid. Because it is. But it is also reality. To get to where we need to be, we have to go with small steps. For example, as low an opinion as many of us have of Don't Ask Don't Tell, it was probably a necessary step on the way for gay rights.

I would far rather that it hadn't been, but I'm pretty sure it was. And I expect we will be faced with multiple similarly distasteful compromises and partial solutions along the way when it comes to trans rights.

[liberal japonicus]

That was BBB in his/ her/ their days of trollish one liners but BBB doesn’t do that anymore. So I still disagree with BBB most of the time, but it’s over substance,.

That first one liner was Dec 2024. Given the much longer history of opining here about this issue, the ability to dismiss what nous says as 'Yes, Nous was telling women to get in line on the trans issue,' either a deep knowledge of ObWi (along with an ax to grind) or a person who is confident about opining on people's opinions after only a brief glance at what they have written. People can decide for themselves, but failing to keep that context is probably a mistake.

For people who want to talk about this issue, you may want to listen to Ezra Klein's interview of Sarah McBride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlbNFsAGFRc

transcript here behind a paywall
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-sarah-mcbride.html

If you don't know who McBride is before you click on this link, you should stop talking about trans rights in America.

One point that Klein makes (that I have to restate from memory because I don't have access to the transcript) is that given how he himself has a powerful urge to not be disruptive or do things that make other people feel uncomfortable, he says that power of gender dysphoria, that it would make people want to place themselves in situations that are inevitably going to cause those situations, must be deep and profound and the discussion of banning trans people is deeply unempathic. And, I would add, given the lack of experience that most of us have with people who are transgender, should make us very very hesitant to be discussing it.

[Donald]

BBB now argues for positions. We might think the arguments are wrong , but that is what the blog was meant to be ages ago. People argue and we can see how good or bad the arguments are. That is all I am going to say on this meta subject.

On McBride, I read most of it ( only most because my iPad freezes up with long NYT articles but I will try to get through it.)

It was very very good. I also thought what she says isn’t in the spirit of your recommendation, which is ironic.
“ If you don't know who McBride is before you click on this link, you should stop talking about trans rights in America.”

But yes, people should read or listen to her.

Her point, from what I read, is that the left has made a mistake by getting too far ahead of people and trying to browbeat them rather than persuade them.

I think that is right on many issues, including the ones I rant about. I don’t have the best personality for this— I lack patience. And some people are a lot worse than I am. I am not saying we ranters should shut up, but we aren’t always the best at persuading people new to an issue. And if it is personal, only saintly people can be expected to be patient. Sarah McBride seemed pretty saintly to me, what you would wish to see in all politicians.

To be very very clear, she is talking about well- intentioned people who don’t know that much about a given issue,, which presumably describes all of us here on one issue or another. She isn’t talking about hard line opponents of ( insert issue here) who might be vile or racist or selfish or bigoted in one form or another. Those people you just try to outvote.

[liberal japonicus]

Hi Donald.

There is an element of clickbait in the title (is a politics of grace really something that just should happen on the left? Is it indicative of something that it is never held out as something the right should do?) Yes, you could argue that I'm going against her recommendation, but I feel like I am following what she did with Nancy Mace.

As novakant suggests, some people debating this may have ulterior motives and if you live in the US and are debating this _here in this space_ and you don't know who McBride is, that probability goes through the roof. Since we know virtually nothing of who bbb is, at least for me, it is up to him (I'm assuming male) to share some of his experiences and why he is making so many claims about what happens in bathrooms.

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry, one more from me. wj wrote:
But, as when gay rights we were first being thrashed out (as opposed to non-existent), the number of actual cases only matters if that number is large. So long as it is small, or even zero, it's irrelevant to the issue.

Not sure if I'm parsing this correctly, but for gay rights, the actual cases were gay people wanting to be granted the same rights as straight people and the number was small because there were any number of social factors at play, hence 'in the closet'. For the cases we are discussing here, it seems to be the majority claiming their rights and safety are being trampled on. So in this case, a small number of cases actually tells us the opposite. At least if I'm understanding wj correctly.

A few more things
Anyone discussing this should be familiar with the HRC report
https://reports.hrc.org/an-epidemic-of-violence-2024#epidemic-numbers

from my point of view as a linguist, I find the change from gender-nonconforming to gender expansive interesting.

This piece is about Peter Putnam, not about the trans issue, but for me, it tells about the loss we all face when can't accept people for what they are.
https://nautil.us/finding-peter-putnam-1218035/

I think it is worth a read.

[wj]

Her point, from what I read, is that the left has made a mistake by getting too far ahead of people and trying to browbeat them rather than persuade them.

I think you need both the ranters and the persuaders. The ranters are the ones who raise the issue, and keep it in view. But, as noted, they rarely persuade anyone. On their own, they are usually counterproductive.

BUT, ranters can be useful to the persuaders precisely because they are, for most people, so noxious. The persuaders can point at them and start a conversation with something like "Those people are nuts. But rational people like us [i.e. both the persuaders and those being addressed] can have a calm discussion of the issue."

In the long run, the persuaders are the ones who change the culture, which is what is needed. Not to condem those who are outraged and rant. Just to say that some are outraged, but force themselves to remain calm. And frequently are condemned by the ranters for their trouble.

[Donald]

I will say something for my fellow ranters, wj. I honestly thought you were going to be fair to us and say you need both but it turned out we only serve as bad examples for the nice centrist compromisers. Ah well, better than nothing. Or worse than nothing but not nothing at least.

You need ranters because they actually do persuade some people and because they generally are the first people to notice some injustice that the centrists ignore precisely because as centrists they stick to what sensible centrist people do. . I mean, that is just obvious, almost self evident. Most white people just accepted slavery as the way things were and then the abolitionists and escaped slaves came along. The same for men all content to have the vote and then there were those radical suffragettes with their crazed notions.

But not everyone is convinced by that Also, some may be fanatical and violent and turn people off ( though that can go either any— John Brown inspired some, turned off others). So you need some people a bit calmer, the Abraham Lincoln types. See wj,nhow nice I am being, I am giving you Lincoln as centrist. He actually wasn’t. The centrists just before the Civil War would be Stephen Douglas, maybe. Lincoln moved steadily left.

But centrists are needed when you finally want to put things into law and make this new idea a settled part of how we look at things. You need those pragmatic centrist politicians in the final stages.

[wj]

I honestly thought you were going to be fair to us and say you need both but it turned out we only serve as bad examples for the nice centrist compromisers. Ah well, better than nothing.

Donald, I draw your attention to this

The ranters are the ones who raise the issue, and keep it in view.

That's rather more than just serving as bad examples, I submit.

I have my doubts about how many are convinced by ranting. More than zero, certainly. But, I think, only a tiny fraction of the number needed to accomplish the ends that the ranters desire. I'm open to counterexamples, but nothing leaps to my mind. Perhaps you can help me out.