@JohnHuffam1812
"This is happening" and I agree it needs to be addressed with more nuance than just identifying.
However the current anti stance paints all trans.peiple as prospective sex offenders who merely adopt their status in order to exploit it.
No. That is how the Gender Absolutist side - the side that demands “acceptance without exception” and insists any legal or social recognition that significant and material differences exist between female people (of any gender) and trans women is transphobic and verboten -
misrepresent what is actually being said in order to
dismiss any attempt to address the real injustices their ideologically driven demands imposed upon female people as “anti trans”.
If you listen to what people are really saying rather than what you are being told they say, no one is saying “all trans.peiple as prospective sex offenders” any more than the existence of (originally) single sex spaces is saying “all males are prospective sex offenders”.
What is really being said is:
Female people commit vastly fewer sex offences than male
There is no evidence that male trans women follow female rather than male sex offending patterns
The evidence from prisons would suggest trans women actually offend more than the male rate but this could be due to false claims of trans identities
If it becomes generally socially acceptable for male people to use female facilities, either through an official policy of Self ID or through “Stonewall Law” where the social consequences of challenging a self-declared trans identity produce de facto self id, female people will have no way of differentiating between the majority of males in their spaces who are “harmless”* and the minority of males who are not.
To put it briefly, if any male can gain access to female spaces without having to prove their true identity as a woman **, female people must consider all males in their spaces a potential threat, not because all males are a potential threat, but because the knowledge of whether any given male is a threat or not is not always available to them in the circumstances that male is encountered.
- physically anyway. I believe the doctrine of Womanhood as an aspect of mind rather than a type of body is in itself damaging to female people, being after all exactly the basis on which we were denied the vote, ownership of property, rights over our own children, bodily autonomy and indeed full personhood, and because it by definition precludes analysis of how social constructions around the female body and reproductive role produce sexist outcomes. But that’s not the topic here.
** It is worth emphasising here that under the doctrine of gender identity, such proof is in fact impossible anyway, since the entire premise on which gender identity rests is that a person’s gender cannot be externally perceived, and therefore it must follow that the characteristics that would make one a “woman” or a “man” are never, indeed cannot be, defined.