@moreofthisagain
@ Datun
It's because transwomen are women
But even if you believe that, that doesn't change the fact that letting TW into changing rooms etc, also lets in the sexual predators/ voyeurs. That's my point. That's the very fact based point based on generations of knowledge of how sexual predators operate. Everyone knows or can quickly work out that this is true. So why don't they care? And why won't they clearly articulate why they don'y care?
The ideologues don't even get as far as not caring. Their worldview precludes them from (consciously) even perceiving the risk.
Gender ideology rests on two pillars: that trans women are women (and TMAM) in every meaningful way, but that this cannot be externally/objectively confirmed, only self-described (self id).
Speaking logically, the possibility that opening up female-only spaces to trans women creates male-on-female risk boils down to two basic scenarios:
Scenario 1) Some trans women will behave more like cis men than cis women (using the words cis and trans here because I am framing the observation in gender ideological terms).
Scenario 2) Some male people who are not trans women will claim trans status to gain access to women and children..
Scenario 1 is rejected because that implies a meaningful difference between the trans - and cis- woman populations and the ideology says there is no difference.
Scenario 2 is rejected because that would be a valid reason to require objective proof of trans status and the ideology says there is never a valid reason for requiring proof of trans status.
Therefore, there is no risk that requires them to care about it in the first place, and anyone raising concerns can be comfortably dismissed as either well-meaning but misguided (“educate yourself”) or having a hidden, transphobic agenda.
The one thing they can't acknowledge is there are valid concerns because if even one situation exists where it makes sense to segregate by sex not gender and/or objectively prove a trans gender identity, the whole thing falls apart.
It's a perfect example of what happens when you try to fit an unrealistic ideology onto reality. You end up having to defend the patently absurd because if you acknowledge that any bit is absurd you acknowledge the ideology doesn't fit reality.
See also sports, prisons, 50/50 boards and all the other places where trans women have been lumped into the female category based on ideology without any evidence that their real-world needs and risks follow the same pattern as the original all-female group.