I think the problem is that she's kind of not wrong, it's just a social norms issue, and if the social attitude shifts, there will not be a way to enforce a rule that is not culturally supported. A lot of social norms have changed over the years including many to do with privacy and sex-shared spaces, so shared or partially shared bathrooms could just become the new norm, and I don't think laws would stop it from happening. It would just look outdated where they tried to hold it up until a judge changed the law. The difference between justice and social norms is not as wide as we might like to think.

So it's not that self-ID is changing everything, but that it's reflecting a change has taken root in some parts of the culture and affirming it as widespread and legitimate and the right way to think. It's not the law itself but our cultural response and conversation that really matters. If we say "well, we can't stop them" that misses the point. The question is, should they want to go into the women's loos to start with? What right as a TIM is someone being denied by having to use the men's private areas? Why do they need access to women's rooms? Usually there is a longer line for women's rooms especially since we have to sit for everything, plus approx 1/5 of the population may need to change a tampon, so why should they infringe? There's no argument for their need.

That doesn't mean no one ever broke the code in the past - but there was still an expected code, and people who were "going stealth" and getting around it were making their own choices. Now, they can just be open as trans, as most of them are and use the actually appropriate toilets. If they're somewhere that they're still not "out", they can make their own choice about trying to hide or not: as with every part of their life, they can try to live a lie that most people don't believe anyway, or they can come out and be proud - and acknowledge their real sex.

The fact that there is punishment for murder doesn't keep all people from murdering each other.

So, I guess, by the same logic applied here, we should just...make it legal?

[–] bellatrixbells BoobatrixRex 3 points

So... Then why have separate facilities at all? Her reasoning is empty of all logic.

[–] OwnLyingEyes 27 points Edited

One of the insidious things about this is how it wasn't that long ago that men going into female spaces was one of the few things men could actually recognize as creepy behavior that couldn't be easily rationalized away. A man who followed a woman into a bathroom or locker room was instantly highly visible as a creep, he'd crossed a clear line. And now we're back to the usual "he said, she said" where "her" word almost always counts for less than "his," even when he's been caught with his erection out in the women's section of a spa.

[–] crodish [OP] 11 points Edited

Found in the replies to a thread perfectly laying out how criminal male predators are using the cover of trans to get away with stuff that they wouldn't be able to get away or have a harder time getting away with, as "cisgender" males.

This female TRA in question has a shit ton of publicly identifiable information on her account; she's an elderly woman and co-owner of a small husband-wife run restaurant. All her replies are just her screenshotting very sound GC logic and sending it back to the OPs as some kind of "this you?" gotcha.

In one tweet in her timeline she even talks about how women have to deal with patriarchy and men and then in the same breath complains about rampant transphobia.

She likely prides herself on being an ally and having a restaurant with trans-friendly facilities. I hope she gets a very rude awakening one day on exactly why we need to keep ALL males out of female spaces, no matter how they identify.

Maddeningly frustrating.

Image Transcription: Twitter

User 1

We have targeted restrictions to keep males out of female spaces such as toilets, changing rooms, & prison cells & have done so for many decades. Nothing we've seen of male behavior tells us that should change now based on the self-reports by males of special feelings.


What are the targeted restrictions that stop men going into women's toilets?

User 1

1) Being male.
2) If a male intentionally walks into a female toilet, any female in that toilet can:
a) announce there's an interloper in the space
b) tell the male to leave
c) request help from security
d) report incident to police

Pathetic this has to be explained to adults.


A) announce to whom? B) if women were able to just tell predatory men to leave with an expectation that they would, I don't think we would be having this debate c) what security??? D) have you ever tried to make a report to the police of someone using a toilet?

User 1

Does your disingenuous behavior about sex-segregated toilets fool anyone?


I don't think I am being in any way disingenuous. I have 50 years experience of using women's toilets. There is literally no barrier or safeguard whatsoever that would in any way be altered by anybody getting a GRC. And that is ALL that self-ID refers to.