Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,018
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Nobody is discussing admitting entirely pre-surgical trans women anywhere in such a manner.at no point is it immediately apparent a pre-surgical transgender woman belongs in that place.
The discussion of allowance is at a minimum post-surgical. What that surgery is varies, but it is 100% a discussion of post-surgical individuals, isolated 100% to situations where the post-surgical or in the case of secondary educational students post-HRT/Blocker individuals are accessing the "members-/current students-/prisoners-/team members-only space".
This is a statement NOT that you have to accept any random stranger in such situations, but that you DO have to accept your known to be post-surgical (or depending on age post-blocker) trans classmate, team member, cell mate, or fellow gym member.
At no point does your argument at all speak to the context of vetted areas and people.
If we are talking a simple public restroom, any time someone can see an exposed pubic region is already violating decorum and acceptable use, regardless of the genitals attached to said pubic region, and it always indicates a likely threat..
There is no fork that gets you to "but what if a stranger with a penis..." Where the fact that they are "stranger" does not preempt "penis" as the reason for concern, or wherein the due diligence of the site does the same.
Which is to say nobody here is asking anyone to accept "any apparent rando".
All of the locations discussed are pre-filtered on NON-PREJUDICIAL grounds, and the ones that aren't are not suggested to allow anyone but "clear cases", because in all those other locations there is the expectation of a completely private option, particularly in support of the ADA.
That's why your all your arguments continue to fail.
The expectation is that there is a minimum accessibility of showering facilities.
When discussing "simple restrooms", rather than shower facilities, the point is mooted for the same reason as voter ID is mooted: because neither of them are practical concerns, and to advocate for such is to advocate of the right to harass people such is my niece, who is a biological cis-gendered female who happens to have a neckbeard (and maybe eventually a full beard, IDFK).