Continuation Transwomen are not women - part XI

[crazycat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Cis men can go into women's bathrooms any time they like. And they've been able to do so since time immemorial. Those cis men are degenerate.

And, by the way, if either a trans woman or a cis man starts waving their genitals around deliberately in a women's bathroom/changing area, that's ample grounds for investigation and possibly criminal charges.

In the real world that's often not what happens. The offended women complain to the management and the management tell them that "that's the law now". (The law that your supposed experts made)

In real life. the offended women change their routines so that they don't have to be in that situation again - they change at home or don't use the offending facility, or just stop doing whatever activity they were doing there.

In real life, women tend to avoid confrontation and leave the scene. It would take a very brave woman indeed to actually bring criminal charges against the offending man. (Even a crime as serious as rape isn't often reported)

Perverts know this very well and have a good idea of just how far they can push women.

Nobody is claiming that transwomen are perverts. What has been said countless times is that self-ID allows perverts to enter women-only spaces by claiming that they are transwomen.

Does the trans community really want to have these perverts prentending to be trans?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again gay men and BDSM enthusiasts and every other comparison doesn't work because those groups have criteria beyond "purely internal self declaration."

I would say that the comparison also fails because none of those other groups place an obligation on people outside of their groups other than "stop beating us up".

Nobody is being asked to take part in the activities and beliefs of homosexual people. Nobody is being obligated to support the insertion of BDSM practices into the lives of Non-BDSM people.

That's where we end up with a considerable divergence in those analogies.

If the ask were simply "don't beat us up, don't fire us, don't deny us fair housing" there is zero rational argument against that - and nobody in this thread would oppose that in any way. We already support that, 100%.

The demand inherent in the current approach to transgender self-identification goes far, far beyond the asks of other civil rights groups. The current approach demands that everyone else completely internalize and take part in their self-declared identity, and that we subordinate the effects of sex to the desires of gender.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Okay, what do you suggest?

Does that okay means yes, you recognize that there are circumstances where Self-ID is not sufficient?

I suggest that it may mean that we will eventually have transgender prisons or at least separate wings. It seems obvious that keeping them with male prisoners is problematic and keeping them with female prisoners is also not a good idea.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I think the historical parallels are super obvious. The Dobbs decision aside, we always trend towards greater freedoms over time. More suffrage. Less segregation. More inclusion. Sure, people fight against those things, but they always lose eventually.

Aye, there's the rub. Greater freedom for whom? More suffrage for whom?

If you only look at one side of this, if you only view it from the perspective of transgender identified people, it's very easy to believe that this results in greater suffrage and greater freedom for transgender identified people.

But it often fails to acknowledge the loss of freedom, the loss of suffrage, the loss of equal participation in society that is faced by females as a result of these policies.

At the very minimum, it seems like we should at least acknowledge that increasing the freedom of transgender identified males to use female-only intimate spaces denies access to those spaces to muslim and othodox jewish females. Allowing transgender identified males to participate in female sports directly denies participation to an equal number of females. Allowing transgender identified males to claim recognitions and political positions reserved for females directly reduces the ability of females to be recognized and to participate in governing their society.

The policies put forth result in an already under-represented population having their participation further eroded.

[JoeMorgue]

What I want is for people to take a deep breath, touch grass, and stop acting like "I have to sometimes use the bathroom with people I don't like" as some kind of grand human rights violation. Sometimes it is no more complicated than it's just one of two identical and arbitrarily divided public bathrooms behind the bar at the Applebees on 5 dollar Margarita Night that you have to walk past a family of 4 eating their spinach and artichoke dip appetizer to get to, not a gas chamber at Auschwitz you're being lead into.

I want people to stop acting like going to the bathroom is ALWAYS like going behind enemy lines.

Not EVERY goddamn public bathroom in this country is a some dusty isolated Saw-trap room in the corner of an abandoned parking garage dimly lit by one flickering bulb at 3 in the morning. Sometimes the risk factor is low. You're not going to get either raped or hate crimed. You can put your guard down some of the time.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Are you unaware that being gay is entirely a state of mind? That the "visible" consequences (showing romantic love to someone of the same sex, having sexual interactions with someone of the same sex, etc) are merely manifestations of that state of mind?

Are you aware that describing homosexuality as being a "state of mind" is the entirety of the argument in support of conversion therapy for homosexuals?

It's not a "state of mind", it's "wiring in the brain".

FFS, this is like saying that my being epileptic is a "state of mind". No, it bloody well isn't a "state of mind".

Cambridge dictionary:

Quote:

state of mind
noun [ C ]
US /ˈsteɪt əv ˈmɑɪnd/

a person's mood and the effect that mood has on the person’s thinking and behavior:

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I'm saying "because they say so."

Okay... but I would also note that christians say that god is real.

Just because a group of people says a thing is so, doesn't make it truth. There must be some method of objective observation that supports the claim.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Samson

Also I do believe that men who wish they were women can never change that.

Except that some of them can, and indeed do, change that. They desist, they detransition.

This is especially true for minors. A child may wish to be the opposite sex, but if they are left to the natural process, well over 80% of them desist in that wish during puberty. A majority of those who desist, gain recognition that what they initially perceived as a desire to be the opposite sex was a manifestation of a sexual attraction to members of their own sex.

The blunt version of this is that if you leave a kid with gender dysphoria alone, they become a fairly well-adjusted homosexual adult. If you interfere, you trans the gay away and create a medical patient for life.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Agreed. I would only ask why you need something defined beyond socially defined terms?

I disagree that the any of the terms we are talking about are purely personally defined. There is no question that the terms are in transition (pun intended), but as Thor said, all words are made up.

Generally speaking, the term in question is "woman". For some people, this is a term that is well defined, objectively observable and verifiable. For other people this is an ephemeral word that is inherently solipsist in nature and means whatever they want it to mean whenever they want it to mean something, but which cannot be observed or verified in any fashion.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

You do realise (or maybe you don't?) that it's entirely possible to be, for example, a gay man who never actually expresses his homosexuality in any observable manifestation (ie he never develops a romantic togetherness with another man, nor has any kind of sexual activity with another man, etc)?

By your criteria, since this man is homosexual by "purely internal self-declaration", does this somehow invalidate his homosexual identity?

I really find it weird that in support of transgender policy, you end up defining homosexuality as an "identity", rather than a state of being based on neurological wiring.

LJ, have you ever looked into what an identity is, from the perspective of psychology? Is specify psychology, because legal identity is something else altogether - in legal terms, identity is the means by which other people discern that you are who you say you are and aren't fraudulent.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Does that okay means yes, you recognize that there are circumstances where Self-ID is not sufficient?

Of course it's not perfect. But no one has been able to suggest anything else that is in anyway fair.

Originally Posted by Brainster

I suggest that it may mean that we will eventually have transgender prisons or at least separate wings. It seems obvious that keeping them with male prisoners is problematic and keeping them with female prisoners is also not a good idea.

Okay for prisons, what about bathrooms?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

You do realise (or maybe you don't?) that it's entirely possible to be, for example, a gay man who never actually expresses his homosexuality in any observable manifestation (ie he never develops a romantic togetherness with another man, nor has any kind of sexual activity with another man, etc)?

By your criteria, since this man is homosexual by "purely internal self-declaration", does this somehow invalidate his homosexual identity?

I'm literally seconds away from making you prove to me the invisible dragon in my garage isn't gay.

This discussion is obsessed with difference that don't manifest as a difference.

Who the **** cares what difference someone has that never manifests as a difference? How would we know to even care? Nobody's Gaydar is that good.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Your clear implication here is that (in your opinion) there's nothing more to transgender identity than declaring that one has transgender identity.

But of course that's simply flat wrong. As has already been pointed out (many times), most societies have deeply-entrenched sets of gender roles/expectations/attitudes/behaviours. And as such, when (for example) someone assigned female/woman at birth comes to realise that they do not internally inhabit society's version of "woman", and that instead they internally identify as society's version of "man".... this is how/why they come to have transgender identity. It's not a circular definition, and it's not a meaningless definition.

I very strongly disagree with your perspective on this. How well one aligns with a set of stereotypes does NOT define what sex a person is. Nor does it determine whether or not an individual is tansgender.

Your definition forcible requires that icons like Prince, Annie Lennox, David Bowie, and Grace Jones be viewed as "transgender". In fact, your definition changes MY gender, as well as the large numbers of gender nonconforming males and females across the globe. Furthermore, it makes a person's "gender" something that is fluid depending on which country they are in at the time.

Your definition makes regressive social stereotypes prescriptive.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Your clear implication here is that (in your opinion) there's nothing more to transgender identity than declaring that one has transgender identity..

Maybe because we keep asking what else there is to it and don't get answers.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

What I want is for people to take a deep breath, touch grass, and stop acting like "I have to sometimes use the bathroom with people I don't like" as some kind of grand human rights violation. [snipped for brevity]

I agree with the full content of this post, not just what I quoted.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

So much to unpack, there. Are you imagining a trans woman whipping around the one feature that she's the most self-conscious about because it is a constant reminder of how her body doesn't fit her?

What you think transgender people are, and your personal experience of them, does not align with the vocal groups who are pushing policy.

Because self-declared transwomen flaunting their penises in female-only spaces has been in the news several times. Self-declared transwomen raping females in female prison estates has been in the news several times.

I will reiterate for the hundredth time: The problem is not transgender, the problem is self-id and the gigantic gaping loophole visible from space that allows predatory males to transgress female boundaries at their whim.

This is a problem for females. It's also a problem for genuinely transgender people.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Do you think they are all ********?

How do we tell which are which?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

As has been pointed out many times, you're wrong. Fortunately though, we have a huge number of competent, experienced experts in mainstream medical science and medical practice. And those people/institutions are right.

Like Tavistock? Now you are an adult in this room. How about addressing the damage this once “highly competent”, much praised and authoritative bunch of fanatics did to (mainly) young people?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

But minors are presenting with gender dysphoria (or, in some cases, purely transgender identity) every day.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

What is a "purely transgender identity" in the absence of gender dysphoria?

I'd be quite interested in the answer to this question, as well as any real life examples of the phenomenon.

Suppose a middle school girl tells her GP that she is now identifying as non-binary. She is referred to a specialist who asks all the right questions and determines that she is not suffering from gender dysphoria. Okay, so she is now under the transgender umbrella but does not require any medical intervention, perhaps not even watchful waiting and psychotherapy. All that differentiates her them from her their classmates is a sense of personal identity, one for which we have no diagnostic criteria. In the absence of such criteria, why defer to medical expertise at all?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Well, what of it? Do we punish all trans people because of a few?

No... apparently we just punish all females because of a "few" opportunistic and exploitative males.

Upchurch, the problem is not that these people are transgender, the problem is that they are male. The problem is not rights for transgender individuals, the problem is self-id as the basis of policies that allow for the transgression of female boundaries and consent.

[JoeMorgue]

"If perfectly spherical person with no chromosomes and no genitals floating in a fiction vacuum over an infinite plane of uniform gravity falls over but there is no one around to hear it do they have a gender identity..."

At this point we're defined it to have less actual meaningful meaning than a Zodiac Sign.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I recognize that trans women also human beings who sometimes need to pee. Odds are, most of them have been using the women’s bathroom for years and nobody knew or cared. This moral panic is similar to the gay moral panic of the late 20th century. Given time, it will likely seem just as silly.

Do you genuinely think that at some future point, society as a whole will think it "silly" that we ever allowed females to have a right to bodily and sexual boundaries, a right to consent?

Do you genuinely think we will view it as "silly" to have ever granted females access to female-only spaces?

Would you require that your transgender friend change in front of males, given that you view them as being 100% a man? Would you require that they expose their lack of a penis to "other males"?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TomB

And since it's repeatedly ignored, I will again point out that it is cis-men not necessarily trans-women that cis-women feel they are being put at risk from.

Speaking for myself, as well as at least a couple of other female posters who have been involved in this discussion, I will object to your framing on our behalf.

It is MALES that FEMALES feel they are being put at risk from.

How those males identify in their subjective minds is irrelevant. Their beliefs and feelings about themselves is irrelevant. This is not about gender, this is about sex.

And at the end of the day, we cannot reasonably tell the difference between a transwoman and any other male.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Adam Graham, the man pretending to be a woman, is given an extended prison sentence of 8 years and another 3 on licence, for the rapes he committed.

https://www.judiciary.scot/home/sent...-v-isla-bryson

It is a shame the Judges sentencing maintained the fiction he is a she, by only using his pretend female name and avoiding any use of pronouns.

I don't mind the avoidance of pronouns. I don't mind the usage of legal names. I'd rather have avoidance of pronouns, or exclusive use of neutral pronouns, than have compelled use of selective pronouns.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Do you genuinely think that at some future point, society as a whole will think it "silly" that we ever allowed females to have a right to bodily and sexual boundaries, a right to consent?

Not at all. I never suggested otherwise.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Do you genuinely think we will view it as "silly" to have ever granted females access to female-only spaces?

I think future generations and, at the very least, my kids' generation views not allowing trans women and trans girls to uses the women's restroom as silly, yes. that has already started.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Would you require that your transgender friend change in front of males, given that you view them as being 100% a man? Would you require that they expose their lack of a penis to "other males"?

I wouldn't require anyone to do anything they did not feel comfortable with. And whoever said he lacks a penis? I've not personally checked, because it's none of my damn business, but the subject came up when another friend was having a medical issue in the same general area.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The “old system” worked so long as trans gender people could pass without notice. As I mentioned above, sometimes cis women can’t even pass as cis women if the culture warrior bathroom guardian is misogynistic enough.

Females who were gender nonconforming were never a problem under the old system. It's only become a problem now, when females are being forced to tolerate any male who wants to be there in our female-only intimate spaces. Self ID is bad for females, it's bad for gender nonconforming females, and it's bad for genuine transsexuals as well. The only people it is good for are males who enjoy making females uncomfortable.

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Okay. So. What do you suggest? What is the solution to this problem? Government licensed gender ID cards issued to every child when they start going to school, that are required to enter bathrooms and locker rooms?

How about we stick with the prior approach of all intimate spaces being separated on the basis of sex. With some few exceptions granted on a case-by-case basis, where a clinical diagnosis and sufficient screening has been done to ensure the individual in question is not a danger?

We can set aside the posturing here. Humans are really, really, really good at accurately identifying the sex of other people. We're fairly good at determining the sex of prepubescent humans irrespective of presentation... and we're damned near perfect when it comes to physically mature humans.

We're so good at it, that we can even built algorithms to identify the sex of a person from their facial structure... and those algorithms aren't as accurate as us. But they're accurate enough to really piss off some people who currently self-declare as transgender when the software can tell what sex they actually are.

Sex isn't some incomprehensible mystery. It's an innate, and very important element of every aspect of our lives as humans.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I never said that they do. I'm advocating for equality here.

Equality between what? What's equal? Transwomen and females? Why is that the right equality, rather than between transwomen and other males?

I don't think you've actually thought in any depth about what kind of equality you want, and why it's desirable to have.

Quote:

When there is a trans man in the men's restroom. I do my best to make him feel comfortable by behaving the way I with every other man: I ignore him completely and go about my business, because it's a freakin' bathroom.

Again, this is a privileged position. Female sexual predators don't follow the same pattern that male sexual predators follow. There is basically no risk that a female will try to gain access to a male bathroom in order to prey on males. But that's not the case with males entering female space. There's a very deep asymmetry here, one which your shallow conception of equality doesn't acknowledge.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I'd also like to see some reliable confirmation about the (alleged) behaviour of Lia Thomas in the changing room......

Why is it that you always believe what self-declared transgender people say, but you never believe what females say?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

We can set aside the posturing here. Humans are really, really, really good at accurately identifying the sex of other people. We're fairly good at determining the sex of prepubescent humans irrespective of presentation... and we're damned near perfect when it comes to physically mature humans.

Oh, you probably actually believe that, too. Don't you?

That's adorable.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Cis men can go into women's bathrooms any time they like. And they've been able to do so since time immemorial. Those cis men are degenerate.

How do we discern whether a given male in a female-only intimate space is a "degenerate cisman" or a "genuine transwoman"?

What is the objective difference that a third party can use to distinguish between them?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Erm... she's a trans woman. A trans woman who - absolutely correctly and justly - will be placed into a men's prison instead of a women's prison.

As I said before: trans women prisoners who have any history of violent/sexual crimes against cis women should never be considered for placement in women's prisons. This is a crystal clear situation where proportionate actions override the notion that trans women deserve to be housed in women's prisons.

It is also, by the way, crystal clear indication that transwomen are NOT women. And that even the most vocal supporters of that catechism recognize that transwomen are males.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Equality between what? What's equal? Transwomen and females? Why is that the right equality, rather than between transwomen and other males?

Why not have them all be equal? But I was referring to equality in gender. I treat trans men as my equals, for example.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Again, this is a privileged position. Female sexual predators don't follow the same pattern that male sexual predators follow. There is basically no risk that a female will try to gain access to a male bathroom in order to prey on males. But that's not the case with males entering female space. There's a very deep asymmetry here, one which your shallow conception of equality doesn't acknowledge.

So, where would you have trans women go to use the bathroom? Would you have them use the men's room, which has all the same problems you just mentioned in having cis-men in the women's restroom?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Oh, you probably actually believe that, too. Don't you?

That's adorable.

Again in the real world (not cherry picking pictures of trans people off of instagram and posting them a glib "Oh so this person isn't obviously a blah blah blah" trick people think is clever)... yeah. Do you really think most transpeople blend?

And again we're in the loop. If the transperson passes so perfectly that nobody can tell... what are we talking about?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Why not have them all be equal? But I was referring to equality in gender. I treat trans men as my equals, for example.

That statement literally only makes one once of sense if there is some gender combination you don't see as your equal.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The old system largely was self ID coupled with a necessity to be able to pass. Those who couldn't pass sufficiently did not fare well in an anti-LGBT world, including beatings and death, or else they had to deny pretend to not be trans at all. Since then, some progress was made to legally change names and genders, but when it comes down to who walks into what bathroom, no one ever verified anything other than who could sufficiently hide their trans status. A passing trans woman who walks into the women's bathroom is self identifying as a woman.

The fear of trans women is so great that even a cis woman can sometimes not sufficiently pass as a woman.

The only change is that society has become increasingly accepting of trans people. The consequences of a trans person not passing have started to decrease, so trans people can come more out of the closet.

Since you attempted to guess at my position, allow me to do the same. You seem to be taking the stance of, "Everything was good when trans people hid who they are. Trans people should be forced back into the closet."

I'm more of the opinion that males who like to dress in female clothing are still males. There's no need for a closet at all. Any male who wants to don a skirt and heels should be 100% allowed to do so, and to walk around in public with make-up and a fancy hair-do if it makes them happy. The trappings of regressive gender roles and expectations are something I'm happy to stomp into the ground.

But... and this is important... that does not change a person's sex. And sex is a material reality that has a massive impact on all humans. Even completely divorced from social stereotypes, sex remains a fundamental reality.

And if a male who prefers female presentation wishes to transgress female boundaries by invading female-only intimate spaces... that male damned well better be good enough at passing that we don't take note and we don't perceive them as a potential threat.

Because reality is that males are a danger to females. Not every male, not all the time... but with such an incredible level of frequency that it cannot be ignored.

Males who are comfortable with their male bodies and their male genitalia should NOT be granted RIGHT OF ACCESS to female spaces, against the will and consent of the females who use those spaces.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Why is it that you always believe what self-declared transgender people say, but you never believe what females say?

Well this is as close as anyone will get, and rightly so with swim team members threatened with expulsion from the team if they don't welcome Thomas into the women's rooms.


https://nypost.com/2022/01/27/teamma...er-lia-thomas/

Quote:

“It’s definitely awkward because Lia still has male body parts and is still attracted to women,” the swimmer said. Thomas has reportedly told her teammates that she dates women.

The swimmer told the outlet that other team members have spoken to the team’s coaches about possibly getting Thomas to change elsewhere from the rest of the team, but those discussions haven’t gone anywhere

“Multiple swimmers have raised it, multiple different times,” she said. “But we were basically told that we could not ostracize Lia by not having her in the locker room and that there’s nothing we can do about it, that we basically have to roll over and accept it, or we cannot use our own locker room.”

As you say, it is interested that commentary by trans women is accepted as biblical truth, but Thomas' teammates are bigoted TERFs.....

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Of course it's not perfect. But no one has been able to suggest anything else that is in anyway fair.


Okay for prisons, what about bathrooms?

There are actually two or three related "private spaces" that have traditionally been segregated by sex: bathrooms, changing rooms and showers. I think they merit individual consideration.

Changing rooms are pretty easy for the most part. Usually, these are individual cubicles with individual privacy for trying on clothes or putting on a bathing suit or something. these have already been trending towards unisex. If I go into Wal-Mart, JCPenney, Macie's or Goodwill there is one set of changing rooms. I think they have all replaced curtains with doors which offer more privacy. And there are usually attendants who (along with construction design) can limit voyeuristic opportunities.

Bathrooms are similar, but more complicated. People generally don't walk around naked in bathrooms or disrobe in full view. More privacy can be built into bathrooms. I don't think the problem is people going pee, however. The women on the forum assert that there are issues with the common areas of the bathrooms as well where women would not want a man to have access. Basically, they feel that self-ID (or unisex) opens those common areas to males (not necessarily trans) who can use the space to harass and intimidate females. Emily can give more details.

Locker rooms are the third area. These are areas where people actually do fully undress in front of others. And in some spaces, they use group showers. A trans woman can change clothes discretely without exposing their genitalia to others. They really can't take showers though. without doing so.

We live in a society where, for whatever reason, we (particularly women) are uncomfortable being observed naked by the opposite sex. It is also considered inappropriate to expose oneself to the opposite sex. Particularly children. So communal showers are problematic. If we think it's undesirable for a ten year old girl to be exposed to a 40 year old cis-man, what is different about being exposed to a 40 year old trans-woman?

But it's also true that trans people do not fit in to the spaces set aside for their biological sex. which leads me to some conclusions:

Segregated facilities are incompatible with self-Id.
The existing structure does not adequately accommodate the trans community.
Attempts to enforce segregated spaces with or without self-ID can result in humiliating circumstances for people who are gender non-conforming. Cis or trans.

Consequently, I think segregated spaces are reaching the end of their useful life. We should be focusing on designing non-segregated spaces that can serve the whole population in comfort, privacy and safety.

Do I know how to do that? No I don't. But I think it starts with new construction rather than trying to retrofit old facilities.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

As an example, I've lost count of the number of times I've asked how these denialists think transgender people should be accommodated at, say, municipal swimming baths with men's/women's/disabled communal changing facilities. I asked the denialists to consider the position of a trans woman; I gave all the available options: should the trans woman:

1) Use the women's changing room
2) Use the men's changing room
3) Use the disabled changing room
4) Be barred from all changing rooms, and have to change in their car etc
5) Not be allowed to use the swimming baths altogether?

The usual "answer" is either (2) or (3). And of course there's vehement opposition to (1). But the denialists answering (2) or (3) seem unable to see the inherent injustice and denialism behind compelling trans women to use either the men's changing room or the disabled changing room if they want to visit the swimming baths.

You have never explained why it is in any way unjust to expect males to use male facilities, nor why offering up third, neutral spaces for their use is unjust.

At the same time, you categorically seem unable to even comprehend that it is unjust to demand that females relinquish all rights to consent and boundaries.

Why does your view of justice exclude females altogether?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

For any given transgender person, there's a substantial difference between a) not having suffered gender dysphoria before or after their transition, and b) having no self-consciousness around displaying parts of their body (genitals for all trans people, breasts for trans men) which are incongruent with their trans gender.

And in any case, as I said a few posts back, if any trans woman or cis man is deliberately waving his penis around in a women's changing room, then action can and should be taken against that person. I mean, if a cis man was doing that in a men's changing room, action could/should also be taken against that person.

What if they're not waggling their penis around? What if what they're doing is engaging in voyeurism of the females in that space, without the consent of those females?

It's all well and good to expect that they will cover their penis - can you make them cover their eyes as well?

[JoeMorgue]

I've said before that we take bathrooms (and similar public but also private spaces like changing rooms and locker rooms and all that), pronouns, and sports off the table... there's nothing to talk about FUNCTIONALLY which is weird.

It doesn't invalidate the discussion or any side of it, it doesn't mean it doesn't matter, but it is weird. It IS talking about a much smaller slice of life then say the Women's Rights or Civil Rights or even Gay Rights movements.