Judge Dismisses Case Against Trans Woman Who Tried To Challenge Florida's Bathroom Law 

Marcy Rheintgen was the first person to be arrested for trying to challenge Florida's bathroom bill. The case against her has been tossed out.

The first case of a person being arrested for attempting to challenge Florida's antitrans bathroom law has been tossed out of court after state prosecutors missed filing deadlines.

Marcy Rheintgen, a 20-year-old transgender college student, was arrested in March for washing her hands in the women's restroom of the Florida Statehouse in Tallahassee. She was protesting the state's law banning transgender people from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity. However, Leon County court records show that a judge granted her defense attorney's motion to dismiss the misdemeanor trespassing charge against her on June 20 after state prosecutors failed to file charging documents and other information in her case within a 90-day timeline.

Florida passed the Safety in Private Spaces Act in 2023. The law makes it a crime for an individual to refuse to leave a restroom or changing area assigned to the opposite sex when asked to by a government employee. It applies in government buildings.

While more than a dozen states have passed laws restricting transgender access to restrooms, only Florida and Utah have enacted criminal statutes. Rheintgen was not only the first person to be arrested for attempting to challenge Florida's law, but, as far as civil liberties groups can tell, the first person in the country to face criminal prosecution because of one of these new laws.

"I wanted people to see the absurdity of this law in practice," Rheintgen told the Associated Press following her arrest. "If I'm a criminal, it's going to be so hard for me to live a normal life, all because I washed my hands. Like, that's so insane."

Rheintgen was ultimately prosecuted under a misdemeanor trespassing charge, rather than for the law she was protesting.

As Reason's Autumn Billings writes, the poorly written statute is a threat to far more than just transgender people: "Because of its breadth and vagueness, the law's impact goes beyond transgendered individuals and puts everyone on notice that their mundane use of facilities could invite action from law enforcement."

Comments

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

Rheintgen was ultimately prosecuted under a misdemeanor trespassing charge,

Not shot in the face?

[Longtobefree]

"She" wasn't a dog.

[Sailor1989]

Clearly a reference to Ashli Babbit

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

Wasn't a san Francisco glory hole.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

JeffSarc would totally support shooting him in the face for that.

[Sailor1989]

The law is much less "anti-trans" as it is pro common sense and privacy.

[Sailor1989]

Not being able to whip your dick out in the women's bathroom while cosplaying is now, apparently, a threat to trans people.

[mad.casual]

It's like wearing shoes at an airport is a threat to America and children and not wearing a mask is a threat to grandma, except the people making people take their shoes off at airports don't exactly or generally care whether you wear shoes in your own house or out in public or in Churches, bars, and restaurants even if they think it's a good idea. Further, they want you to take your shoes off not *for* their own moral crusade, but against people who openly vow to kill them, you, and the people around them and you. If the threats didn't exist, shoes wouldn't be a problem.

Whereas the mask wearers and gender retards have to force female athletes to play against their boys and private businesses to serve people who would nominally kill themselves otherwise. They are themselves the 'threat'.

Within the "for the good of the victims" spectrum, *still* Robber Barons vs. Omnipotent Moral busybodies.

[I, Woodchipper]

He's not a "trans woman". That not a real thing.

He's a dude in a dress, nothing more.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

If you have to say ‘trans woman’ that means it’s not woman at all. As there are no chicks with dicks, just guys with tits.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

it's going to be so hard for me to live a normal life, all because I washed my hands. Like, that's so insane.

He is so close to understanding, but I think he has the script upside-down.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

"it's going to be so hard for me to live a normal life, all because I whipped out my dick and jacked off in the girls locker room. Like, that's so insane."

[Think It Through]

Marcy Rheintgen, a 20-year-old transgender college student, was arrested in March for washing her hands in the women's restroom

I'm confused. If Marcy has "her" hands, how is it a problem that Marcy was in the women's restroom?

If Marcy does not have "her" hands, why did Reason say "her hands" instead of "his hands"?

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Because Reason is so woke they're willing to suspend reality. Read an article about a "transgender" career criminal who's early crimes were prosecuted when he was still a he. Half way through the article he is suddenly identified as a she. No amount of head scratching allowed me to figure out the rest of the story. When I read that here I was thinking, English motherfuckers. Do you speak it?

[damikesc]

Not a her. At all.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

As Reason's Autumn Billings writes, the poorly written statute is a threat to far more than just transgender people: "Because of its breadth and vagueness, the law's impact goes beyond transgendered individuals and puts everyone on notice that their mundane use of facilities could invite action from law enforcement."
Oddly I don't feel even slightly threatened.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Somehow I don’t think ‘everyone’ is threatened.

[Paul256]

No, just women who don't fit the Standard Model that some people insist on imposing on them. Like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/06/boston-hotel-bathroom-same-sex-couple

So what was she supposed to do? Drop her pants for the male security guard so she would be allowed to use the lavatory?

Up-thread, Sailor1989 mentioned "privacy". Yeah, only people who conform the the Officially Sanctioned Reality are entitled to that.

[damikesc]

Seems like your beef is with trannies who made this a concern.

[Paul256]

Trans women didn't make this a concern. Moral warriors with a covert religious agenda made this a concern.

When a trans woman enters a restroom with a cis woman, the most likely victim of an assault is the trans woman.

[Azathoth!!]

A lesbian activist councilwoman made this a concern.

The restroom/changing room issue was quietly working itself out --in private-- when the Charlotte (Charlottesville?) bathroom bill was passed making it illegal to deny access to the bathroom associated with a person's gender identity.

An issue that was on no one's radar --because it was being handled. Bars and restaurants didn't have bathroom police, and transpeople didn't push the envelope, using the bathroom they could pass as rather than trying to make a statement.

Beyond everything else it was intrusion on private property law

[mad.casual]

No, just women who don't fit the Standard Model that some people insist on imposing on them.

Actually, the standard model for much, much longer than humans have been around has been collectively, overwhelmingly beating them to death and/or leaving them to die, starving and broken.

They only exist because the model they oppose allows them to live. Cancerous parasites that cannot be excised because of retards like you who thrive on MBP.

[DRM]

If you're actually trying to challenge a law, you don't then try to get the charge procedurally dismissed.

Plessy's organization, for example, explicitly arranged to make sure Plessy was arrested for violating Louisiana's railroad segregation law, by hiring a private investigator deputized with arrest powers to do so, so that there would be a case to support a legal challenge.

Similarly, when discussing challenging laws before public opinion, Martin Luther King, Jr. said "Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law." (Emphasis added.)

Mr. Rheintgen is playacting a bad parody of challenging the law, just as he's playacting a bad parody of being a woman. He apparently fails to understand the necessary essential characteristics in either case.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

His Letter From a Birmingham Jail should be read by everyone who thinks of protesting. If they aren't willing to go to jail, they are just cosplaying.

[mad.casual]

Theater kids all the way down. Human LLMs who don't have the slightest understanding of what the script they're reading means, fits into any larger narrative, or any of the implications of any of it. They who just need people to watch them perform on their own little, retarded stage. Sociopathic narcissist who, in a more civilized era, would be tossed out on their ear if not chased out of town by a mob or run out on a rail.

[Paul256]

You really should stop talking about yourself. Its not a good look.

[mad.casual]

I may've been too generous below at setting the bar for awareness of your stupidity as high as grade school level.

[Garth Vader]

Reason has lost all credibility. An honest mistake is one thing, but intentionally lying to your readers is unacceptable, and that's exactly what Reason is doing.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

And it’s a regular occurrence anymore.

[Uncle Jay]

Marcy Rheintgen is still a male.
He can cut up his body all he wants, he can take as many hormones as he wans, but he still has the XY chromosomes in him and does not have a menstrual cycle.
Ergo, "Marcy" does not belong in a woman's bathroom.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

I’m a little more forgiving.
Cut off your twig and berries, then you can use the ladies room.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I'd like to see bathroom doors with pictures of genitalia to make it really really clear.

[MasterThief]

Flaccid or hard? Meaty clam or furry taco?

[Stuck in California]

Furry Taco? So, like, a dude dressed up as a chihuahua or...

oh, sorry. Wrong kind of furry.

[Davy C]

That does, at least, ensure sincerity.

[mad.casual]

Are we talking about just bathrooms? Because, IME, we are never talking about *just* bathrooms when people look you in the face and lie saying, "This is just about bathrooms!"

That's why I'm inclined to say, "Fuck you, cut spending." whenever someone obliquely implies, "The Constitution guarantees and the FF intended to have equality for people who've opted to cut their dick/tits off."

Because, penisectomy or not, generally what they're really saying is "I want people to bow down and surrender their pronoun usage to my narcissistic, authoritarian moralism."

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

“As Reason's Autumn Billings writes,…..”

Referencing one of the least credible (which is really saying something here) Reason writers doesn’t make your article any more credible CJ.

[AT]

after state prosecutors missed filing deadlines.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

"I wanted people to see the absurdity of this law in practice," Rheintgen told the Associated Press following her arrest.

Awww gee how disappointing it must be for Rheintgen not to have the State fall the antics of a would-be LGBT Pedo shahid. I can just imagine him banging his limp wrists against his bathroom mirror, lisping "I wath thupposed tha be a victim!"

[Paul256]

On the "reality" and "no women with dicks" stuff.

Reality is more complicated than the simple-minded model you got during sex-ed. That model wasn't reality, it was an over-simplified version of reality that could be shoe-horned into a couple of hours of tuition and a few pages in a textbook aimed at 11 year old children. In fact "its more complicated than that" is pretty much a law of nature in biology. You can get a PhD in biology, and you will still find that its more complicated than that. This is thanks to evolution and a billion years of ad-hoc one-line patches to our DNA.

So forget what you were taught in sex-ed. Let me unpack the next layer of complexity for you.

Compare a standard-issue median man with a standard-issue median woman. There are a whole bunch of differences. External genitalia are the most obvious, along with breasts. There are also more subtle differences in muscle development, body hair and skeletal structure. The man is taller too.

Now look inside. Again, lots of obvious differences in anatomy, plus a bunch of more subtle ones.

Take a blood sample. There's a bunch of androgen differences. Again, some very obvious (assuming you are a biochemist), others more subtle.

Take a look at their genes. Of the 23 pairs of chromosomes, the 23rd shows a clear difference: the woman has two normal looking chromosomes, but in the man one of them is truncated. Its called the "Y" chomosome for that reason. If you dig in further you find that the Y chromosome has a section called "SRY" that kicks off most of the differences between male and female during embryonic development. But only most of them. As always, its more complicated than that. Also, a "broken" SRY probably means that some differences happen and others don't.

Now take a look at the brain. Unfortunately the brain is a black box to us: our scanning tech is getting better, but its still nowhere near good enough to see the neurology. The only way we can infer anything about neurological differences between male and female is by observation: see how they behave, and record what they say they are feeling. As a result our conclusions about this are never as solid as those for physical observation, but there are some things we can say with a high degree of confidence:

1. There are neurological differences between men and women. The most obvious one is that the our median man is sexually attracted to women, and our median woman is sexually attracted to men.

2. There are parts of the brain that deal with different parts of the body. Some of those "device drivers" (my term) are for the sex organs. Its a pretty good bet that they are specialized for the male or female genitalia that they evolved to manage.

There are a bunch of more subtle differences too. The median man is much less discriminating about sexual partners than the median woman, for instance.

Question: which part of you defines who you are as a person? For me, its the brain. If, in some SF future, my brain were transplanted into another body, I'm quite sure it would be me that woke up in that body. But if my penis were transplanted into another body I'm equally sure that I would still be in my current body, saying "that's my penis you have there". Possibly you are different: maybe your sense of identity is embodied in your penis or vagina. If so, please say so in a reply.

The development of all these different sexual characteristics is *extremely* complex. There are lots of moving parts, lots of genes getting turned on and off at different times, both before and after birth, including during puberty. And that means there are lots of opportunities for things to vary.

At this point I could go into a long diversion about some of these variations and the underlying mechanisms, like broken SRY genes, XXY, and all the rest of it. But I'm not going to. Google if you are interested. Warning: it's a VERY deep rabbit hole. And remember, no matter how much you read, its ALWAYS more complicated than that.

Side note: beware the mistake of automatically labeling any such variation as "wrong", "illness", "deformity" or otherwise pathologising it. That's a category error. It violates Hume's Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem.

So given the complexity of the problem, and the huge range of resulting variation, its not surprising that there are many individuals who don't fit our neat binary model of "male" and "female". Yes, the vast majority of people do, but that doesn't mean that the rest don't exist.

In our culture we've always assigned the labels "male" and "female" based on the external genitalia visible when the baby was born. Sometimes the answer to "is it a boy or a girl?" is "ummm", and there is a long and sad history of surgery aimed at fitting the unfortunate baby in to one of the two Procrustean beds labelled "boy" and "girl" (literally: bits that didn't fit got cut off).

But then puberty hits, and sometimes the "boy" or "girl" doesn't develop according to the standard model. Sometimes these differences are physical, others neurological. But these individuals are still forced to stay in the Procrustean bed they were assigned at birth. "You are an ugly woman: you look like a man", or "You are a man. Stop behaving like a girl". Or even "Yes, we thought you were a girl when you were born, but now some people have decided that you are a man, even though you have female genitalia". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imane_Khelif

By now it should be obvious that a brief examination of the external genitalia of a baby is not a perfect determination of "male" or "female". We use that test because its easy and it's strongly correlated with all the other differences, not because its the whole of the reality.

So lets talk about neurology.

Like I said above, there are neurological differences between the median male and the median female. Some are big and obvious, like sexual attraction. Others more subtle. For instance, the preference for boys toys and girls toys shows up very early (basically, as soon as a baby can sit up and reach for a toy), and is also shared with monkeys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm9xXyw2f7g

So what should we think about a "boy" (assignment based on the penis seen in the birthing room) who insists on playing with dolls instead of toy fire trucks, and wants to wear dresses instead of pants? Or a "girl" who ignores her dolls in favor of construction sets and toy trains?

And what about a "man" who says "I've always known I'm a woman, I was just born in a male body"? Why should we disbelieve them? Do you think they are lying? Do you have any evidence of that?

Once you admit that "I am a woman born in a male body", or vice versa, is a reality, you face the problem of what to do about it. Some want to continue with the Procrustean Bed policy: anything that doesn't fit gets cut off, and if that means cutting off a part of your sense of self and who you are, well, sucks to be you.

Or do we take the libertarian view: you get to decide who you are, because only you really know. And the right of society to swing its fist stops at your nose, whichever restroom you feel you belong in.

[Think It Through]

You wrote a whole hell of a lot.

XY/male genitalia
XX/female genitalia
Treat the one in a zillion outliers on a case by case basis.

A lot shorter.

lol the "libertarian view" is never that you get to decide who you are when there are objective criteria. Or else next year I am going to DOMINATE the 12 year old basketball league.

[Paul256]

1. Its a lot more than "1 in a zillion".

2. Being treated on a case-by-case basis is exactly what they are asking for.

[mad.casual]

You're a retard. Even children with a grade school-level understanding of biology understand that you're a shameless sack of shit and just haven't yet learned that people like you are best dealt with ignored, chased off with violence, and, if those failed, publicly shamed and/or beaten to death.

[Paul256]

And so the facade of logic and reason slips, and we see the unreasoning hatred underneath.

You're on the wrong website. The clue is in the name.

[mad.casual]

And so the facade of logic and reason slips, and we see the unreasoning hatred underneath.

It's not a facade, it hasn't slipped, and the hatred is not unreasoning.

You're making up fake medicine to castrate children the way the COVID lockdowns were perpetrated and lobotomies and electroshock therapy were forced on people in the early 20th Century. The way early civilizations sacrificed virgins to Sun and weather Gods. You are objectively destroying peoples' lives to no guaranteed or provable benefit and pretending I'm the one who is evil for objectively recognizing your support for ineffective, and destructive, witchcraft.

You can't advocate your own, stupid, "It's all just meaningless social constructs." nihilism and then criticize me for lacking reason. It, transparently, evinces your own disdain for *any* objectivity in support of your authoritarian aims.

[BYODB]

And what about a "man" who says "I've always known I'm a woman, I was just born in a male body"? Why should we disbelieve them? Do you think they are lying? Do you have any evidence of that?

It might not be a 'lie' but it is a delusion, which amounts to the same thing. The only reason it might not be considered a 'lie' is because they happen to believe a thing that is observably not true. How is it even possible for a man to have any idea what it's like to be a woman? They observably are not one, so they are using their own opinion of what a woman should be and assuming that is reality. Here in the real world we call that misogyny.

What other delusions do you take at face value? If I claim, for example, to be Napoleon is France obligated to allow me to invade Russia with their military?

Also, ever notice how it's almost always a dude forcing their way into women's only spaces that we hear about in the news? Do you think that's a coincidence?

[Paul256]

Why are you so sure its a delusion? These people show no other symptoms of psychosis, and their belief in having been born in the wrong body is a long term thing, unlike psychotic delusions which come and go and change over the short term. Calling it a delusion is like calling autism or ADHD delusions. Somebody with a psychosis might believe themseves to be a newt at one point, but the following month they'll believe they are an angel, or a devil, or James Bond. Trans people simply don't do that.

You ask how can a man know what its like to be a woman. Well, how do you know what its like to be a woman trapped in a man's body? You seem very sure about it.

As for your last question, you don't hear about trans men in the wrong restroom for two reasons.

1. Trans men generally take testosterone and have top surgery. So they have beards, muscles and deep voices. You wouldn't know someone was a trans man unless they told you. In contrast trans women are often noticably taller than other women and have deep voices. So they are much more noticeable.

2. A trans man in the mens rest room doesn't have the moral panic factor, so even when it gets noticed it doesn't make a media story. In the UK they recently introduced rules about this, and when someone pointed out that this would require trans men to use the womens rest rooms the rules suddenly got changed so they didn't have to. So much for sexual equality.

[BYODB]

Why are you so sure its a delusion?

The short answer is because it meets the clinical definition of a delusion disorder. Sure, the APA is trying to carve a niche out for this delusion in particular but notably they have never bothered to change the definition of what a clinical delusion is.

In clinical terms, a delusion is a strongly held, false belief that is not amenable to change even when presented with contradictory evidence. It is a core feature of psychotic disorders like schizophrenia and delusional disorder, but can also occur in other mental health conditions. Delusions are essentially a misinterpretation of reality, where an individual believes something to be true despite it not being based on objective facts or evidence.

So, now that you have a rough idea of what a delusion disorder is how exactly is trans NOT one.

You ask how can a man know what its like to be a woman. Well, how do you know what its like to be a woman trapped in a man's body? You seem very sure about it.

I'm not suffering from any delusion disorder, so I wouldn't claim that I do know what it's like. In fact, I'm incapable of it just like they are incapable of knowing what it's actually like to be a woman. That isn't the argument you think it is, since it further illustrates that these people are mentally ill.

[Paul256]

OK, lets talk clinical, since you talk abouit clinical definitions. Lets compare and contrast gender dysphoria with a real psychotic delusion about the body: Cotard's syndrome. This is where the sufferer believes they are dead. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.17010018

* Cotard's is rare. Gender dysphoria is much more common.

* Cotard's typically appears later in life. Gender dysphoria typically appears in early childhood or adolescence.

* Cotard's is associated with other symptoms of schizophrenia. Gender dysphoria is generally not. When it does appear with schizophrenia the response is to treat the schizophrenia first and see if the GD goes away.

* Cotard's is associated with other delusions, notably Capgras syndrome (where the sufferer believes someone close to them has been replaced by an imposter). GD is not.

* Cotard's is associated with other neural pathologies. GD is not.

* Cotard's sufferers frequently believe things that they can see are not true. For instance they may claim that a limb is rotting away when it is perfectly healthy. People with GD, on the other hand, are perfectly clear about what anatomy they actually have.

So the idea that GD is just another delusion fails to stand up to scrutiny.

So lets look at the actual science being done on this subject. Like I said, its complicated. But you can get a quick overview from this Wikipedia page, which also links to many of the original studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_gender_incongruence

TL;DR: this is an active area of research, and we don't have all the answers yet. But it seems to be down to differing sensitivities to androgens in the developing brain, and/or exposure to androgens during pregnancy. This leads to bits of the brain developing according to the female blueprint rather than the male blueprint (or vice versa). This is strongly congruent with the reported experiences of trans people, who feel that they are trapped in the body of the wrong sex.

So like I said, this isn't a delusion, its a neurological difference. Trans people have a body of one sex, but a brain at least partially wired for the other sex.

You might also look at the sad story of David Reimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer. He was a boy, but after a botched circumcision the decision was made to "turn him into" a girl by sex change surgery. He was raised as a girl, given dolls to play with, made to wear dresses. None of it worked. He insisted that he was a boy trapped in a girls body. This is because he had a male brain, regardless of what had happened to his body.

Now consider the plight of someone with a male brain who was *born* with a female body. In every respect their plight is the same as David Reimer's. They still have a male brain. They know that they don't match the body they are in. This is reality, not a delusion.

[BYODB]

Nowhere in your meandering reply do you even come close to answering the question of how trans does not reflect a delusion disorder. You have, however, made up a whole lot of nonsense out of whole cloth.

You spent half your reply talking about some other delusion disorder that has no applicability to the discussion. You also make some bizarre distinction of 'male brain' or 'female brain' which has no basis in medical science. There are minor differences between male and female brains, and to date no one has proved that trans people have a brain structurally the same as one of the opposite sex. You have literally made that up.

Your example of a boy who was forced to undergo a sex change doesn't prove anything either since you immediately follow it up with a hypothetical with no basis in his story. It's a literal non-sequitur.

[Paul256]

This is the moving goalpost fallacy. Any evidence contrary to your position is dismissed as insufficient, and yet more is demanded. Meanwhile you provide no evidence at all to support your own view.

You have decided, a priori, that trans people are deluded, and therefore refuse to accept any evidence that runs counter to your preconceptions. But you can only do this by adopting a definition of delusion so broad that it encompasses every major religion ("I feel certain that I am being watched 24x7 by an invisible friend who also controls the weather and world events...")

There are measurable anatomical differences between male and female brains, but they are "minor". You say "no one has proved...".

Yet there are clear differences between male and female behaviors, as I pointed out. These can only be based in neuronal wiring. But when we see someone with a male body exhibiting clear female behavior and insisting that they feel female, you refuse to admit the possibility that they might actually have a female brain. In fact you refuse to admit that there is a difference in the face of massive evidence to the contrary. Or do you *really* believe that sexual attraction is just a matter of learned culture?

[AT]

I'm not suffering from any delusion disorder

Pretty sure you've admitted to being a homosexual. So, yea, you are.

But by all means, continue explaining how the LG is "different" from the BT Pedo. Especially as you frame your lifestyle exclusively around your sexual orientation.

[BYODB]

The amount of things you're 'pretty sure' about but entirely wrong on is legion AT, this included. I suppose you must have missed all the posts where I talk about my wife and kid.

[AT]

I must have. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

For the record, I've never actually seen you talk about a wife and kid. That said, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that you "married" a femboy who considers himself the "wife" in your relationship. (If that's the case, and you're two men that got your grubby mitts on a kid, then it's almost certainly for purposes of pedophilia.)

If you're a straight dude in a normal relationship, then so be it. Doesn't change the fact that homosexuals are just as delusional as transgenders. They are not operating in reality. When one gloms onto one specific trait or lifestyle choice about themselves and crafts their entire identity around it, that's a serious mental health problem.

[Davy C]

You wouldn't know someone was a trans man unless they told you.

Objection. I've met one in person. Despite the mustache, I was questioning in my mind immediately.

[Paul256]

And how many others did you meet where it wasn't so obvious?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/worklife/article/20200827-how-survivorship-bias-can-cause-you-to-make-mistakes

[Davy C]

Likely zero, but I can't know for sure, and neither can you. But, "You wouldn't know someone was a trans man unless they told you" is at least not *universally* true. All I know is that I'm 1 for 1 on initial impressions in the people who later told me they were a trans man. Maybe the ones who "pass" better don't bother to tell people.

[Brett Bellmore]

" These people show no other symptoms of psychosis,"

So, we're just pretending to discuss the real world, then? Because back in the real world, people who claim to be 'trans' have symptoms up the wahoo, like sky high suicide rates.

[BYODB]

Question: which part of you defines who you are as a person?

Well that depends, wouldn't you say? Certainly the brain is at least part of what determines our view of self, but is it even credible to take a persons own view of themselves at face value as true when the brain is an unreliable observer, and most especially when it comes to self evaluation?

For example, if my brain is telling me I'm a newt that does not make me a newt. It makes me a human with a faulty brain. Weirdly, you assume that if a brain tells a dude he's a chick that's totally valid but I assume you might have some issues if someone identifies as a black person when they are white or legally identify themselves a chicken or waterfowl.

At it's most basic, you are saying that some delusions are truth but other delusions are not truth. In fact, they are all delusion and none of them are truth.

Now I suppose you'll fire up the 'it's their truth' canard but it just so happens to be the least believable example of that particular argument. It can be 'my truth' that the sky is a different color because I'm color blind, but that doesn't make it true. It's simply illustrating a genetic condition that makes me see the wrong color, and it is the wrong color because the light spectrum does in fact exist independently of your opinion on it.

[AT]

For example, if my brain is telling me I'm a newt that does not make me a newt. It makes me a human with a faulty brain.

Kinda like if your brain is telling you to seek out intercourse with a member of the same sex. There's zero biological imperative for that. It's just the kink taking over the rationality.

[BYODB]

Do you normally just assume people are gay with zero evidence AT, or is this one more scenario where you can't keep people's usernames straight?

[AT]

Yea yea, addressed.

But point skirted again just the same. If your brain is telling you (read: anyone) you're a homosexual, it does not make you a homosexual. It makes you a human with a faulty brain.

[BYODB]

Gay people like to have sex with members of their own sex, they don't pretend the guy they're buggering is a chick. It's not a delusion, it's a kink, and while gay people might not love having their 'life style' called a kink that is what it is.

One can have a problem with that for all kinds of reasons, but not because the people with those kinks are delusional about their sex lives.

Contrast that with men who literally believe they are women despite all evidence pointing to that being untrue, and the differences are stark.

[AT]

It's not a delusion, it's a kink

So are you saying that homosexuals aren't actually homosexuals? Just kinky weirdos?

[Rick James]

In fact "its more complicated than that" is pretty much a law of nature in biology. You can get a PhD in biology, and you will still find that its more complicated than that.

I can introduce you to a couple of PhDs in evolutionary biology that will explain to you, in simple words that even you can understand that sex is 100% binary, and is fairly easy to identify, even millions of years after death when you dig up the bones.

Question: which part of you defines who you are as a person? For me, its the brain. If, in some SF future, my brain were transplanted into another body, I'm quite sure it would be me that woke up in that body. But if my penis were transplanted into another body I'm equally sure that I would still be in my current body, saying "that's my penis you have there". Possibly you are different: maybe your sense of identity is embodied in your penis or vagina. If so, please say so in a reply.

You just neatly summed up why the transgender ideology is horseshit in a microwave. A touch of cosmetic surgery, some hormone treatments, a dress and some nail polish will never make a man a woman.

[Paul256]

Golly gee. Have they published on this? All the writing on the topic by such experts that I've seen disagrees with you. Here is a sample: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/03/19/what-role-do-sex-chromosomes-play-in-transgender-peoples-identities/ and here is another https://scholar.harvard.edu/jtennessen/emojiguide/chapter4

[BYODB]

Human sex is dimorphic once you exclude extremely rare genetic diseases. There is no question about that.

Just like a guy getting breast implants and cutting off their penis will never menstruate. There is no question about that.

[Bananas]

You're arguing with Jeff. It would make more sense to try to reason with a chair.

[mad.casual]

Human sex is dimorphic once you exclude extremely rare genetic diseases.

Even with rare and not-so-rare genetic diseases, human sex, like all mammalian sex, is defined by egg and sperm. Mules and their rare offspring don't void the genetics of horses and donkeys, much less the sexual biology of all equine species or ungulates.

People who say human sex isn't dimorphic and point to rare genetic conditions, in earnest, should be tossed out and/or beaten to death the same way people handle poker cheats and people too stupid to realize that you don't draw your gun and point it at people at the bank or a school.

[mad.casual]

Golly gee. Have they published on this?

Yes. For hundreds of years on hundreds of thousands of species and counting. That doesn't stop people from being so dishonest, stupid, and mendaciously sociopathic that normal people are forced to purge them the way they would need to purge vermin and other destructively disobedient herd and companion animals.

[John Rohan]

In fact "its more complicated than that" is pretty much a law of nature in biology.

This is what transgender activists try to do every time. They can't defend transgenderism on the merits, so they try to confuse the issue by claiming that on the medical side we can't define sex anyway, so it doesn't mean anything. Well, the first problem with that is that the trans issue is entirely separate from any outlier medical conditions. Rheintgen isn't claiming to have an intersex condition.

And more importantly, sex is binary and very much defineable. The purpose of biological sex is reproduction, and sexual reproduction, at least in humans, is 100% binary. It takes exactly one male and one female to reproduce. There has never been an exception to this. There has never been a third sex involved. Nor has there ever been a single human in all history that changed their reproductive sex, or were both sexes at the same time. It really is a binary system.

You can define male and female this way - if you have a functional SRY gene, you are male. Otherwise, you are female. That covers any intersex condition.

Once you admit that "I am a woman born in a male body", or vice versa, is a reality

It's simply NOT a reality. There is no diagnostic criteria using MRI or anything else where we can state "this is a woman's brain, this is a man's brain". And in fact, many transgender activist oppose the brain studies because they are worried it will lead to gatekeeping over who is trans.

Second of all, if you accept that you can be a woman born in a male body, then you could be a black man born in a white body, a 5 year old girl in an adult body. There are people who claim to be transracial and transage. That is a thing. Should white transracials have access to black scholarships? Should an adult transage person be allowed to play little league sports?

How you personally identify is entirely subjective and has little bearing on the reasons why we sometimes segregate people based on sex, or age.

Or do we take the libertarian view: you get to decide who you are, because only you really know. And the right of society to swing its fist stops at your nose, whichever restroom you feel you belong in.

Under that view, then you should oppose what Rheintgen is doing. No one cares what bathroom Rheintgen uses in the privacy of his own home. But people do care when that fist hits them, when females are forced to share intimate spaces with a male.

[diver64]

Good. I don't want a mentally ill man to put on a dress and go into a woman's room with little girls. Screw him and his "rights". Where are our rights not to be subjected to this deviance.
I'm with that guy out in Phoenix where he was outside a 7/11 waiting for his daughter to come out of the bathroom and when she did she told him a guy came in and started his act. Dad waited for the guy and beat him to death in the parking lot. Fuck that pervert.

[Paul256]

I'm guessing you mean this case: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45199502

Whereas if he'd gone into a mens room with little boys you'd have no problem? How about focusing on the real problem instead of an irrelevance?

[BYODB]

It's because biological women lack the means to do much to little boys, and also because there are just about no cases of that happening. If there were, we can be outraged about those too.

This appears to be dominantly a male delusion. There are far fewer women who suffer from this particular disability.

[Paul256]

You missed the point by a mile.

The perp in that case wasn't a trans woman, it was a man. He went into the womens' restrooms because he was following his target, not because he needed a pee.

He might just as easily been interested in boys, in which case he'd have gone into the mens' restrooms and committed the same crime. Trans women aren't the problem here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you're missing the point: ALL 'trans women' are men, every last one.

[diver64]

He didn't need to pee. His target of opportunity was there and he used the law to put on a dress and roll on in. Unfortunately for him he didn't encounter a beta male that wanted to virtue signal at the cost of his daughter. He met an Alpha not interested in the wacko crap.

[Paul256]

[Flaco]

Reason has commendably resisted capitalizing the word "black". They really ought to also resist using the silly "preferred" pronouns in cases such as these. "Male to Female Trans Person" would be much much more accurate.

[Lester75]

Can’t we make this simple? If you have a dick use the men’s room. If you don’t have a dick use the women’s. There are some folks where it’s difficult to tell whether it’s a butch woman or a fat femme man if one is somewhat flat chested wearing a t-shirt and jeans. Remember ‘Pat’ on SNL?

[Paul256]

Sure. All public restrooms will have a genitals inspector to verify this. Happy?

[Rick James]

Marcy Rheintgen, a 20-year-old transgender college student, was arrested in March for washing her hands in the women's restroom

Not a 'her'.. a 'he' who cosplays as a 'her'.

[Rick James]

As Reason's Autumn Billings writes, the poorly written statute is a threat to far more than just transgender people:

I like how Reason dances around this horseshit. It takes on the issue tangentially by not addressing the issue the law was taking on, but complaining that the law is too vague and will catch up some nebulous edge cases.

Also, 'transgender' is not a stable category that can be defined. So it can't be a threat to something that isn't definable.

And this:

"I wanted people to see the absurdity of this law in practice," Rheintgen told the Associated Press following her arrest. "If I'm a criminal, it's going to be so hard for me to live a normal life, all because I washed my hands. Like, that's so insane."

If I go into the girls' changing room to wash my hands and gawk at 9 yr olds changing into their bathing suits, why am I being arrested for just washing my hands?!! WHY CAN'T I LIVE A NORMAL LIFE!

Fuck you.

[BYODB]

WHY CAN'T I LIVE A NORMAL LIFE!

Well, they kind of gave up on living a normal life already now haven't they?

I suppose if they are one of the lucky(?) few who can actually pass as a member of the opposite sex they might live a 'normalish' life, but for the vast majority of these people 'normal' is so far in the rear view mirror they wouldn't recognize it if it punched them in the face.

Furthermore, telling ugly dudes to put on dresses and claim to be biological women is crazy. In no universe is that going to do anything other than stigmatize them since delusions that people wear on their sleeves tend to have that effect.

How many people do you hang out with on regular basis that think that the world is flat, for example, and they simply won't shut up about how flat the planet is. It's not only insufferable, it outs them as a crazy idiot. Most of us don't want crazy insufferable idiots in our lives. In fact, most 'normal' people go out of their way not to deal with people like that.

[mad.casual]

I like how Reason dances around this horseshit.

Yeah. This is FUD below Bush-era anti-terror, anti-gay, and other 'for the children' FUD that Reason would've previously criticized.

Twenty years ago the people perpetrating this FUD would've had the scruples to at least acknowledge that some fact were nebulous or statistics were miniscule and were only leveraging them narrowly. We got TSA at airports. This retardation started with private bathrooms and expanded to school locker rooms, public libraries, passports, etc.

[bye]

Tell me this guy isn't a sick dude

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTfpVsqKie_pxZ4FcCcP6lT2es9jzUQQdHOw&s

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

Trans people who have not had the surgery to change their gender, should absolutely not be allowed in a multiple usage restroom. Particularly a trans person who is genetically a man, but fancies himself to be a woman. Less so for the opposite

[bye]

But the whole point is IT DOESN"T CHANGE YOUR GENDER

[mad.casual]

And, once again, the whole "This is just about personal privacy in restrooms." was a dishonest Trojan or stalking horse that even Reason bought into and trumpeted over private property/ownership rights from day 1.

They've shown their hand every bit as much as the environmentalist watermelons who want to blow up oil pipelines, tax products and call it a subsidy, "return ranch land to nature", and cast humanity back to the stone age. They want to control it all down to the language, not even just English, to impose their backwards tampon-using, non-birthing-person shaman mystic stupidity on all of humanity.