Agreed, and I think that's entirely deliberate. Using the existence of DSDs to try to discredit the sex binary and then leverage that into dismantling sex-based protections.
Those "sex based protections" aren't going to get you what you want though. I really didn't think people have thought this through. Do a Google image search for trans men and take a good look at what you see. Those are all people whose birth certificates say female. Do you think anybody is going to be comfortable with them in the women's rest room?
In the UK, a recent Supreme Court decision has clarified that "sex" in this sort of context refers to biological sex, and is not affected by any shenanigans with birth certificate changes or GRCs.
Right. These guys are "biologically female" by that ruling. Do you think the people pushing these bathroom bills are going to be comfortable with them in the ladies room? I doubt it.
Ah, sorry, I misread your previous comment. And yes, the general gender-critical position is that transmen are welcome in women-only spaces, since they're women.
Though in practice I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually converge on "women only" and "unisex" as some sports have done. The risks posed by self-identification are very much one-way; this isn't a symmetrical situation.
I would guess both the trans men and the cis women in question are going to be uncomfortable with this. But it's possible I'm out of touch with the zeitgeist in the places where these bathroom bills are being passed.
My mental scenario is one of these guys trying to go into the women's restroom they are now legally obligated to use, and a whole bunch of bystanders bringing violence to the table to prevent it.
> My mental scenario is one of these guys trying to go into the women's restroom they are now legally obligated to use, and a whole bunch of bystanders bringing violence to the table to prevent it.
That's the desired outcome for them. They want us to either die or comply.