That wasn't a very specific answer. You can't complain about misunderstood positions if you refuse to do more than imply what your positions on particular issues might be.
I can, however, complain about ASSUMED positions that assign malice or hatred to me for no good fucking reason at all.
Lay it out plainly. What should be the legal standard for who should be allowed or compelled to use a given changing facility, and how should it be enforced?
Public Bathrooms and Dressing Rooms in stores: Use whatever you want, but respect other people's privacy and dignity. Enforced by the store management when it comes to expected comportment, and by law enforcement for criminal violations like peeping and flashing and other inappropriate behavior.
Primary & Secondary Public School locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms: Segregated on the basis of sex. Enforced by school administration. I *might* consider some extremely few exceptions depending on very specific criteria.
Publicly accessible and Post-Secondary school locker rooms and showers: Use whatever
other people are going to assume you are, based on what they will see. If you are a pre-op, post-HRT transwoman who passes even relatively well, and you keep your genitals out of view, chances are nobody is going to notice or care. If you are a pre=op, post-HRT transman, keep your boobs covered. It's a common sense approach. Enforcement by the other people using the facilities, in that if you are obviously not passing or are not keeping your other-sex genitals covered, they can ask you to leave and expect it to be honored with assistance from the management. I would expect such facilities to provide a small mixed-sex or family room for people who fall somewhere in the middle, or for actual mixed sex families. Again, law enforcement when inappropriate criminal behavior warrants.
Domestic Violence and Rape Shelters: General expectation would be segregated on the basis of sex, with allowance for post-op trans people. I also support the creation of more mixed-sex, trans-friendly, and male-focused shelters as well, because they're in horribly short supply. I'd be perfectly happy with the same facility having multiple wings with different criteria, so long as there is an area that is sex-segregated (again, with allowance for post-op people). I'm perfectly happy to allow the shelter operators to make case-by-case exceptions to those general expectations if the circumstances warrant it. What I don't want is for female victims to have no access to a male-free space.
Prisons: Strictly sex-segregated with allowance for post-op trans people. Keep the genitals separated. I fully support separate trans-gender wings, and I'd even consider optional mixed-sex wings. What I don't want is a situation in which females are forced to share housing and intimate accommodations with a male against their will, and vice-versa.
I have other views when it comes to other kinds of situations, like political representation, honors, scholarships, etc. Most of those are broadly based around the view that a person born and raised male should not be considered a representative for the experiences and views of people born and raised female. Those criteria are a bit less strict, and are open to discussion. For the most part, I consider those to be general expectations but allow for some exceptions when it makes sense.
Some of my views on those honors are admittedly biased. For example, I absolutely object to Torey Peters being considered for the Women's Literary prize. Partly because Torey is male... but also because the content of their books are so offensively and disturbingly misogynistic and degrading. Same concept for Andrea Long Chu - I refuse to consider that person a "woman" in any way when it comes to the hateful, dehumanizing, objectifying crap that they write. Julia Serano is in the same boat.
