Good on you for coming back to the thread Debbie.
1. Yes, my campaign is based partly on self-interest. The situation is potentially disastrous for transsexuals and I am trying to mitigate the fall-out.
TBH I think it is okay to be upfront and open with your self-interest. At least we then all know where we stand. On the women's side, there is the problem that women are socialised to be utterly shite at acting out of self interest, or even to recognise what our own interests are. That's why a lot of people with male socialisation find us frustrating, full of mixed messages and difficult to pin down. So the problem isn't your self-interest, but women's lack of self-interest. That's why it is so easy to trample all over us without even knowing you are doing it (or even us knowing that you are doing it - we are more likely to find ourselves at fault again). Women are waking up out of the brainwashed complacent stupor we've been in though, so I think we can put a clear set of cards on the table.
2. I hope that my arguments are coherent and they add to the debate but I would be crazy to imagine that is the sole reason people listen to them. It has been much easier for me to secure a platform as a transsexual than it ever was before I transitioned, and I know that women find it harder than men. But I would be equally crazy to pass opportunties when they arise.
I don't think you shouldn't take opportunities when they arise to give your voice a platform. You didn't create the patriarchal bias against women that advantages you. The swiss cheese thing which works against us women filters out most potential audience members - a woman's name, a woman's face, a woman's voice - at each stage the majority will tune out to look for something more 'authoritative'. If at any stage - the name, face, voice, people suspect you may be male, you retain the attention of swathes of more people.
3. While I am happy to take criticism, and - yes - I do mess up appallingly at times (I'm human), I didn't say for example that I use communal showers. I said that I thought that GRS was more important than a GRC. I worry moving from protecting actions (e.g. GRS) to trying to protect identities (that are then "validated" by a GRC) is dangerous for both women and transsexuals.
This is to be expected, members of the oppressor class will be utterly oblivious to all huge multiplicity of ways that the oppression plays out upon the oppressed. You will always be wearing massive clodhoppers when you are treading on eggshells. Its just the way it is - when you blindly blunder onto a sensitive issue, you will meet a pressurised geyser of fury you weren't expecting. That's just what it is to be from the oppressor class wandering around among the oppressed.
4. Solutions must be pragmatic and workable. We don't live in an ideal world and promoting solutions that don't work will not build confidence - and confidence is crucial.
This again I find a bit grating. I'm being very pragmatic. People can't change sex. Our sex is just the luck of the draw. People who are born of the male sex do not have the same requirements as those of the female sex. That is the pragmatic starting point. We don't live in an ideal world where we can live as though we have the requirements of the opposite sex without pissing people off and putting people in harms way. There is no line to draw or way to separate the harmful males from the non-harmful ones.
However I think we clearly need workable solutions, so mine would be that body dysphoria is a psychological issue that should be helped by psychological services. Since it is impossible to change sex and it unethical to use the opposite sex facilities without the genuine consent of every potential user (because it renders them mixed), if an individual cannot cope in their life using the facilities intended for their sex, then a campaign for a third space is the way to go, along with proper psychological support.