Michigan court concludes trans women aren’t 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.

I think either interpretation can be made, but I think mine is more accurate. Indicating that there was an addendum that may have been appropriate to indicate who is using the bathroom, indicates that a man identifying as a woman is not a woman, by the common definition.

No, this ruling does not state in no uncertain terms "men dressed like women, who act like woman, are still not women," but it definitely infers that calling these men "women" is something that needs to be examined, because at this point that simply isn't the case.
 
I think either interpretation can be made, but I think mine is more accurate. Indicating that there was an addendum that may have been appropriate to indicate who is using the bathroom, indicates that a man identifying as a woman is not a woman, by the common definition.

No, this ruling does not state in no uncertain terms "men dressed like women, who act like woman, are still not women," but it definitely infers that calling these men "women" is something that needs to be examined, because at this point that simply isn't the case.
Again, that's not what it's saying.

The application of such addendums are usually based on the fact that the common definition is very broad and so it must be defined in every case. Like rides that have child, age or height limits. In one park the age might be 4, in another place the age will be 5. The distinction exists because kids is a very broad term and unless you apply a specific definition, any number of definitions are equally valid. The same with age.

Many places spell out the age where children or senior citizen discounts kick in or phase out because the terms can be very broad - a 15 year old is a kid as much as a 3 year old so if you only want to give young kids free entry you have to tell people that your definition is the only one in effect. The same with seniors. Places will say "55 and older" or "65 and older" because "senior citizen discount " could be validly interpreted many different ways.

So, when the court says that Planet Fitness has to disclose how they are defining "women", they are in essence saying that term "woman" is broad enough that both definitions are valid and it's the company's responsibility to lay out which definition it is using.
 
Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina.

We all learned this in elementary school. Most of us went on to greater things.

All of us apparently stayed on sherdog to argue the nuances of it though. Lol.
 
giphy.gif
 
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.

Very solid post and gave it a like, but to counter argue PF has in the contract they have private separate changing rooms for men and women.

It says nothing about trans women or self identify as women in there. By the courts saying they need to include that wording, they are defacto stating trans women are not in fact in the same category as simply “women” else that wouldn’t have to be covered, which is what AlanB’s title states
 
Again, that's not what it's saying.

The application of such addendums are usually based on the fact that the common definition is very broad and so it must be defined in every case. Like rides that have child, age or height limits. In one park the age might be 4, in another place the age will be 5. The distinction exists because kids is a very broad term and unless you apply a specific definition, any number of definitions are equally valid. The same with age.

Many places spell out the age where children or senior citizen discounts kick in or phase out because the terms can be very broad - a 15 year old is a kid as much as a 3 year old so if you only want to give young kids free entry you have to tell people that your definition is the only one in effect. The same with seniors. Places will say "55 and older" or "65 and older" because "senior citizen discount " could be validly interpreted many different ways.

So, when the court says that Planet Fitness has to disclose how they are defining "women", they are in essence saying that term "woman" is broad enough that both definitions are valid and it's the company's responsibility to lay out which definition it is using.

The MIGHT be saying the definition is broad, but they might not. They MIGHT be saying "We think you should tell women if men are going to be in their bathroom."
 
Well this is a win for common sense. I just don't understand why we have this meto movement and yet there is no outrage over men trying to take away from women one of the most private places imaginable i.e. a dressing room.

https://thinkprogress.org/michigan-court-anti-transgender-planet-fitness-ruling-11d48ac24db8/


There actually is a fairly good sized population of feminists who don't support the transgender use of bathrooms and similar stuff. They are called TERF's (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) by other feminists.
 
The MIGHT be saying the definition is broad, but they might not. They MIGHT be saying "We think you should tell women if men are going to be in their bathroom."

The Court wasn’t asked to define a woman. At most they said that Planet Fitness is obliged to disclose their definition of woman to their clientele. It’s not a comment on whether the definition is valid or not.

If the fact pattern was reversed and the Plaintiff was a trans woman denied access to the change room because Planet Fitness defined woman to only include biological women the Court would still say that definition would need to be disclosed, and such a judgment would not be interpreted to mean the courts are saying the definition of woman DOES include trans woman.
 
The Court wasn’t asked to define a woman. At most they said that Planet Fitness is obliged to disclose their definition of woman to their clientele. It’s not a comment on whether the definition is valid or not.

If the fact pattern was reversed and the Plaintiff was a trans woman denied access to the change room because Planet Fitness defined woman to only include biological women the Court would still say that definition would need to be disclosed, and such a judgment would not be interpreted to mean the courts are saying the definition of woman DOES include trans woman.
Well, I follow your logic, but the reverse fact pattern hypothetical you mentioned would make me think that yes, the court was "leaning" towards a conclusion that men in drag are in fact, women.
 
The Court wasn’t asked to define a woman. At most they said that Planet Fitness is obliged to disclose their definition of woman to their clientele. It’s not a comment on whether the definition is valid or not.

If the fact pattern was reversed and the Plaintiff was a trans woman denied access to the change room because Planet Fitness defined woman to only include biological women the Court would still say that definition would need to be disclosed, and such a judgment would not be interpreted to mean the courts are saying the definition of woman DOES include trans woman.
Just change the labeling. Individuals with vaginas only. Individuals with scrotums only.
 
So you approve of cultural appropriation? This man is Sicilian!
Shaaaaaaaaaaaame!

I do and that makes it even more funny (to me at least).

Shame on you if you think someone has an exclusive right to culture. They didn't build that. :eek::D
 
Well, I follow your logic, but the reverse fact pattern hypothetical you mentioned would make me think that yes, the court was "leaning" towards a conclusion that men in drag are in fact, women.

Fair enough, but you shouldn’t read that into the Court’s decision. They weren’t asked to define woman. They weren’t even asked to impute an interpretation to the contract. The case hasn’t even been decided on its merits. When it is, that issue could be put to the court, whether a reasonable interpretation of the contract would be to include trans women as women or not. But that wasn’t the issue here. The issue to be decided by the court was whether the possibility of a misunderstanding between the parties could exist. This decision was only an appeal of a motion to dismiss on summary judgment. Summary judgment is only granted when there’s no triable issue. Clearly, the court is saying there is a triable issue, without commenting on the merits of each parties’ case. That will come later.
 
Transwomen are women, they're certainly not men, but I still think that bathrooms/locker rooms being segregated by sex rather than gender, or not at all, is best practice. Unfortunately, this puts a small minority in a really uncomfortable position, appearing to be in the wrong locker room/bathroom and having to deal with hostility for following the rules. But., it's probably the best path forward to make as many people comfortable as possible.

All the bullshit about safety and lechery is, of course, a distraction. There's no higher incidence of assault when you allow transgender people to use the bathroom of their gender rather than their sex. It's a question of comfort, and given the places being discussed, a reasonable conversation to have.

Gender and sex are the same. This bs about them being different is just neo-liberal nonsense. The moment we give ground on this you know they are going to go after "sex" next.
 
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.

I almost always just post the title used in the news story or in this case since it was a long one part of it. In this case the full title was
"In ruling against Planet Fitness, Michigan court concludes trans women aren’t women"

So I cut it down a bit. However I concede that the news story's title is a little deceptive and I have just gone with a couple news story titles and it might have been better practice to come up with my own title.
 
There actually is a fairly good sized population of feminists who don't support the transgender use of bathrooms and similar stuff. They are called TERF's (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) by other feminists.

I've always found it funny how gays and trans sort of operate together. Seems like very different things.
Lgbtqi is alot of very different people imo.
 
I hope it goes to your supreme court and becomes law of the land.
 
Gender and sex are the same. This bs about them being different is just neo-liberal nonsense. The moment we give ground on this you know they are going to go after "sex" next.

No they're not, that's the whole reason we have two different terms. You're a male at birth, you don't become a man at birth. Hell, by most conservative estimations, being a man has strict requirements for ability and behavior. Gender is all of the norms we put around expected behavior for one sex or the other. Those are things we built up and now are choosing to ignore in the name of preferred prejudice.

If a male wears dresses, makeup, tries to have a feminine body type, avoids physical conflict, consciously limits testosterone, aligns behaviorally with everything we typically identify with women, calling that person a man isn't particularly useful as a description. Calling her a woman is, even if you mean in derisively.

The thing that gets me about this is that the people most outspoken about how males have to be men are also typically the most inclined to value our current gender norms. So, these people aren't going to stop acting this way, it's who they are, you can't do anything about their behavior. Your behavior, you can control, and if you value your own usefulness, why insist on using inaccurate and useless descriptions when talking about others? That doesn't help anything at all.
 
Last edited:
Here's a perfect example of how stupid and potentially dangerous this is and how those pushing it don't care about real women, reality or consequences.

Transgender inmate charged with sex offences at Wakefield jail

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-44877856

More lurid details here courtesy of the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...emale-jail-sexually-assaulted-four-women.html

This is a biological male, not even a post-op male-to-female transsexual. He merely 'identifies' as female and that was enough for him to be sent to a women's prison. Utter madness.


Honestly, why not just identify as an innocent woman? Then they would be forced to set you free.
 
Back
Top