[deanCommie]

single-sex spaces are problematic AF.

What about intersex individuals? What about gay or lesbian individuals? What about masculine-presenting individuals?

All have always challenged the clean separation of single-sex spaces, and are mostly unnecessary.

To put an example, I agree that there should be rape counselling that are exclusive for women. Women should feel comfortable in that space without men present. But those women also need to understand that even if trans people didn't exist, they need to share that space with 1) non-femme presenting women, 2) non-straight women, 3) intersex individuals.

Adding transgender women to the list does not meaningfully destroy the validity of these spaces or ruin them for CIS women. They were never as black-and-white-biology-based as the hateful anti-trans bigots claim they are today.

Are there men attempting to infiltrate these spaces? Sure. They are bad faith actors, and they are exceptions.

Anecdotally, cis, hetero, butch women now report more harassment in bathrooms since the rise of anti-trans hate than they faced before.

[LawTalkingGuy]

> clean separation of single-sex spaces, and are mostly unnecessary

Sexual assaults are vastly more often committed by males than females, and vastly more often on females and children. Until you replace single-sex spaces with something equally easy and effective you can't claim they aren't needed.

> single-sex spaces are problematic AF

Sexual attacks are problematic AF, single-sex spaces are the best way (cost vs effectiveness) we've come up with to prevent them.

What other single, easily inspectable, and enforceable rule would you replace it with? If you have only one bit of data to predict someone's sexual criminality you'd want to know their sex. If you have only one bit of data to predict someone's likelihood of being sexually attacked you'd want to know their sex. We know this from thousands of years of human history and from simply thinking about the male biological imperative versus the female.

> They were never as black-and-white-biology-based

There's no biology more black and white than male vs female, birth giver vs impregnator.

> What about intersex individuals?

Despite all the chromosome combinations and mobile genes there are only two gametes, sperm and egg. All intersex people are male or female. DSDs are disorders of sexual development, not whole new sexes.

> What about gay or lesbian individuals? What about masculine-presenting individuals?

They use the washroom that matches their sex.

> Anecdotally, [...] butch women now report more harassment in bathrooms

Yeah, since males started trying to use female spaces people have been on guard. Not only is their suffering not yours to use for emotional weight but you are part of the group which caused this.

> Women should feel comfortable in [rape counseling] without men present.

Magnanimous, to give them that. How about prisons?

> But those women also need to understand that even if trans people didn't exist, they need to share that space [...] lesbians

Do you feel that straight women weren't sharing with lesbians and that lesbians needed you, a male, to point this out?

> Adding transgender women to the list does not meaningfully destroy the validity of these spaces

As soon as a single male enters a female space it stops being a single-sex space.

> or ruin them for CIS women.

It destroys the value for all females.

> Are there men attempting to infiltrate these spaces? Sure. They are bad faith actors,

Bad faith rapists, go figure.

Is there a test that want us to perform to tell one of them from a justified male?

> and they are exceptions.

They're likely vastly more common than males who think they have gender dysphoria.

> as the hateful anti-trans bigots claim they are today.

How does a woman earn the right to declare herself different and politically distinct from you, and deserving of physical separation, without you calling her hateful?

[deanCommie]

We can't have a reasonable discussion if you insist on calling all trans women men.

There might be a chance if you acknowledge the basic facts which is that the vast majority of trans women are as even MORE at risk of sexual assault than cis women. And that the "rapists" who are attempting to infiltrate female spaces are an extreme minority, and are a danger to all women - cis and trans.

There may be a version of an argument we could have about the difficulties have with banishing those people without banishing genuine trans women. But if you can't understand how trans women are victims in this too, and brandish them all as men, we're finished.

There is no point discussing your desire to reduce men and women to sperm and eggs either.

[LawTalkingGuy]

> if you insist on calling all trans women men

I said male. And that's the issue. If trans women were female there wouldn't be a discussion, but they're male and want to be treated as female. This requires women to trust males who say they're women.

Why won't you just acknowledge that this is a huge request and that it'll require you to explain yourself, ask not tell, etc.

> reduce men and women to sperm and eggs either.

You were trying to work intersex people into a defense of bathroom colonization by saying we can't tell who's who and thus categories don't matter. That's incorrect and rude. Intersex people aren't a third sex and don't deserve to be used as a prop in a trans-rights debate anyways.

> And that the "rapists" who are attempting to infiltrate female spaces are an extreme minority,

The number of men testing the boundaries of women's boundaries and spaces is huge and would only go up if they suspected they had a chance.

> and are a danger to all women - cis and trans.

Maybe from passing violence during an intrusion, but trans women are not the target of these rapists. Also, trans women have the benefits of male biology which makes them a much tougher target if they were threatened.

> without banishing genuine trans women

I asked what kind of test you'd have us perform on the males, to see which ones are genuine trans women and which weren't.

How do you propose people do this without compromising their safety, like when a large male wants to enter a female rape shelter at night?

> if you can't understand how trans women are victims in this too

Let's just stipulate to that for now.

How does that imply that women's spaces are what they need to be safe, especially given the problems I've mentioned for the women who are already there? Why not Jewish spaces? Why not new third spaces? Why not arm yourselves and use the original spaces? There are a lot of possibilities here before we agree to take someone else's human rights and give them away.

> and [banish] them all as men, we're finished.

As males. If you don't acknowledge that most trans women have functional penises then you are intentionally not engaging with the problem.

> There is no point discussing your desire to

You're asking for too much to be uninterested in people's concerns.