[bobalob]

Bathrooms are only a small part of this.

The Supreme Court ruling will also ensure that males are not present in women's prisons, women's hospital wards, women's sports, domestic violence refuges for women, and many other spaces designated as being single-sex.

It also confirms that, in law, sexual orientation is defined in terms of sex. One of the intervenors in the case included lesbian groups who were concerned that legal recognition of the rights of lesbian women would be rendered meaningless if heterosexual males could simply identify as such.

As for bathrooms, they are one of the few facilities for which access is based on trust. The activists who insist that they're going to use opposite-sex bathrooms regardless of what the law says are confirming that they can't be trusted to respect boundaries and stay out. Which says a lot really.

[mitthrowaway2]

I'm not sure that it says what you think it says. It seems to equally apply to the trustworthiness of people like Rosa Parks.

[bobalob]

How so? Are you suggesting that the civil rights of males are being violated when they're told that female-only spaces are off-limits?

[mitthrowaway2]

I'm merely following the logic of your argument, that people who violate rules demonstrate untrustworthiness and a lack of respect for boundaries; you did not specify an exception for those people whose civil rights are being infringed by those rules.

Are you saying that it's fair to extend such an exception?

[bobalob]

You're taking part of my comment and ignoring the context in which it was written.

[thomasfedb]

I think you should expect to have your arguments deconstructed on HN.

[bobalob]

To do that requires addressing the actual argument.