Michigan court concludes trans women aren’t women

Nah that's metwo, which is obviously reserved for bisexuals. Meto is just people bragging about where they are traveling to.

Somewhere out there, a high school English teacher just shed a single tear of joy because of this post, and they're not exactly sure why.
 
Does this even need to be discussed? Seriously.
 
Just give every one individual stalls for dressing, showers, and toilets. Then have an open common area. I'll use the women restroom when I gotta take a dump and the men's is full cause it is open, without pause.

Womens washrooms are the ones with long lineups.
 
Simple fix.

Stop then defining things by gender if that specious argument is going to continue and instead start identifying things by Biological Sex.

A Bathroom or Change Room should be marked BM or BF for Biological Male or Biological Female.

that way there is no denial of the person's gender identification and bathrooms and washrooms will be properly aligned to a persons biology instead of identity.

I honestly do not see how any one (left or right) could have reasonable disagreement with that.
 
Bit of a misrepresentation in the OP (which is becoming a trend from you @alanb).

The ruling was about the duty to disclose. First, they didn't say that trans-women aren't women. They were reusing the specific definition from a lower level hearing.

This was an appeal from summary judgment. For the non-lawyers, it basically means that the plaintiff didn't state anything in their complaint for which there is a violation and the defendant wins without having to try the case.

Here, the woman is saying that she did state something that violates the law - specifically that Planet Fitness misrepresented who has access to the bathrooms. And that she might not have purchased the gym membership if she had known.

The court ruled that Planet Fitness has a responsibility to tell people that they (PF) use self-identification for access to their locker rooms. PF says it is their policy but it's not written in the contract. The case was sent back to the lower court for trial consistent with the position that PF has a responsibility to disclose this information. So judgment without the trial was inappropriate.

They made no ruling whatsoever on if trans women are women, if trans people should have access to the bathrooms they self-identify with, etc. I'm kinda disappointed that @alanb who seems like a good lawyer would post this misrepresentation of the ruling.
 
Bit of a misrepresentation in the OP (which is becoming a trend from you @alanb).

The ruling was about the duty to disclose. First, they didn't say that trans-women aren't women. They were reusing the specific definition from a lower level hearing.

This was an appeal from summary judgment. For the non-lawyers, it basically means that the plaintiff didn't state anything in their complaint for which there is a violation and the defendant wins without having to try the case.

Here, the woman is saying that she did state something that violates the law - specifically that Planet Fitness misrepresented who has access to the bathrooms. And that she might not have purchased the gym membership if she had known.

The court ruled that Planet Fitness has a responsibility to tell people that they (PF) use self-identification for access to their locker rooms. PF says it is their policy but it's not written in the contract. The case was sent back to the lower court for trial consistent with the position that PF has a responsibility to disclose this information. So judgment without the trial was inappropriate.

They made no ruling whatsoever on if trans women are women, if trans people should have access to the bathrooms they self-identify with, etc. I'm kinda disappointed that @alanb who seems like a good lawyer would post this misrepresentation of the ruling.

<{danawhoah}>

@Quipling get in here and weigh in on this issue. We’re about to have ourselves a good old fashioned lawyer-off!
 
Bit of a misrepresentation in the OP (which is becoming a trend from you @alanb).

The ruling was about the duty to disclose. First, they didn't say that trans-women aren't women. They were reusing the specific definition from a lower level hearing.

This was an appeal from summary judgment. For the non-lawyers, it basically means that the plaintiff didn't state anything in their complaint for which there is a violation and the defendant wins without having to try the case.

Here, the woman is saying that she did state something that violates the law - specifically that Planet Fitness misrepresented who has access to the bathrooms. And that she might not have purchased the gym membership if she had known.

The court ruled that Planet Fitness has a responsibility to tell people that they (PF) use self-identification for access to their locker rooms. PF says it is their policy but it's not written in the contract. The case was sent back to the lower court for trial consistent with the position that PF has a responsibility to disclose this information. So judgment without the trial was inappropriate.

They made no ruling whatsoever on if trans women are women, if trans people should have access to the bathrooms they self-identify with, etc. I'm kinda disappointed that @alanb who seems like a good lawyer would post this misrepresentation of the ruling.

What distinction do you draw between a trans woman, and a male that identifies as a woman?

That's a distinction without a difference.

Why do you think the lack of disclosure would be an issue?
 
Simple fix.

Stop then defining things by gender if that specious argument is going to continue and instead start identifying things by Biological Sex.

A Bathroom or Change Room should be marked BM or BF for Biological Male or Biological Female.

that way there is no denial of the person's gender identification and bathrooms and washrooms will be properly aligned to a persons biology instead of identity.

I honestly do not see how any one (left or right) could have reasonable disagreement with that.

As a centrist, I would be confused why there's a bathroom for BM, but not one for urine.

Also, there are very real cases, I think more in ftm than mtf, of transgender people whose appearances much more closely align with expectations of the opposite sex. If your grandmother goes to the bathroom at sizzler and sees someone at the mirror who looks like Guy Fieri, beard and all, washing her hands, is that going to be better than having her see someone who looks like a dime store rupaul? If she calls the cops, are they going to do a strip search on an innocent person just for using the "correct" bathroom?

I think the best solution is to make every bathroom unisex, but acknowledging the impracticality there, your suggestion, except for the choice of labels, is probably the path of least resistance.
 
It is generally a good sign when the law rules in favour of reality.
 
The wants of a mentally unstable minority do not outweigh those of the stable majority.
 
Bit of a misrepresentation in the OP (which is becoming a trend from you @alanb).

The ruling was about the duty to disclose. First, they didn't say that trans-women aren't women. They were reusing the specific definition from a lower level hearing.

This was an appeal from summary judgment. For the non-lawyers, it basically means that the plaintiff didn't state anything in their complaint for which there is a violation and the defendant wins without having to try the case.

Here, the woman is saying that she did state something that violates the law - specifically that Planet Fitness misrepresented who has access to the bathrooms. And that she might not have purchased the gym membership if she had known.

The court ruled that Planet Fitness has a responsibility to tell people that they (PF) use self-identification for access to their locker rooms. PF says it is their policy but it's not written in the contract. The case was sent back to the lower court for trial consistent with the position that PF has a responsibility to disclose this information. So judgment without the trial was inappropriate.

They made no ruling whatsoever on if trans women are women, if trans people should have access to the bathrooms they self-identify with, etc. I'm kinda disappointed that @alanb who seems like a good lawyer would post this misrepresentation of the ruling.

If you need a seperate addendum to indicate something besides women can use that bathroom, then by "inference" you are obviously saying that the trans man to women are not simply "women."

You would not need to be informed that women can use the women's bathroom, right?

Also, do you think men that say they are women, are actually women?
 
The overarching issue is men making women feel uncomfortable.
How is it reasonable to think Morgan Freeman visually checking a women out is harassment but a exposing yourself to a women must by allowed if a man identifies with as a woman?

I must see the rationale on this.
...
 
<{danawhoah}>

@Quipling get in here and weigh in on this issue. We’re about to have ourselves a good old fashioned lawyer-off!
@panamaican 's interpretation looks right. @alanb is spiking the football over thinkprogress's interpretation of the case and their language (note that it comes from the "in other words"), not the actual court's ruling. Also, "are transwomen women?" wasn't the question posed to the court.
Here's the language of the court (2018 wl 3594443- note they actually dispose of most of plaintiff's claims):
Plaintiff’s actions indicate that she strongly preferred a locker room and a restroom in which individuals who are assigned biologically male are not present, . . . and it is thus reasonable to infer that defendants’ failure to inform plaintiff of the unwritten policy affected her decision to join the gym.
Here's what thinkprogress's thinks that meant:
In other words, the court agreed with Cormier’s perspective that transgender women are not women and that she never should have been expected to understand that a locker room for women would include transgender women.

They're wrong.
 
Last edited:
What distinction do you draw between a trans woman, and a male that identifies as a woman?

That's a distinction without a difference.

Why do you think the lack of disclosure would be an issue?

I don't think the lack of disclosure would be an issue. This customer thinks it's an issue. We have dozens of warnings built into contracts in this country because of the possibility that one or a few customers will sue a corporation for not telling them something. It's basic CYA contract writing.

The company defines women's bathrooms to include transgender women. They're free to do so. The customer felt that they should have been told the company's definition. The court said "yeah, your customer should know how you are defining access to the bathroom." That's it. The court isn't defining women or transwomen, it's defining disclosure.

Just like how restaurants have to disclose that they share a cooking space near shellfish. Or that something is manufactured in the same factory as other products that use peanuts.
 
If you need a seperate addendum to indicate something besides women can use that bathroom, then by "inference" you are obviously saying that the trans man to women are not simply "women."

You would not need to be informed that women can use the women's bathroom, right?

Also, do you think men that say they are women, are actually women?

That's actually not what the ruling says. Which is the distinction I'm making. The woman should be informed how the company defines women's bathrooms. Just like if the company said private bathrooms but didn't disclose that they were unisex. That's something that the customer might care about. So the customer might care about trans gender people using the same bathroom - that's not a definition that transwomen are not women, only that the customer should be informed about how the definition is being applied. For a parallel - many restaurants disclose that they prepare shellfish in the same kitchen as non-shellfish. They do it to avoid litigation because one person out there is going to claim that boiling lobsters near the salad is a dangerous practice. So, people disclose this stuff to avoid liability. This is just going to be another area where contracts will evolve to protect corporations from litigation.
 
Back
Top