Do you avoid the bathroom if there is a transwoman?

[PeachyDaisy]

I’m going to an industry event next week and I know there will be a transwoman attending. Should I use the disabled bathroom to avoid an awkward encounter or just continue to use the women’s and hope not to run into them?

I read the above and the logical conclusion is as follows: "The only people who legitimately belong in women's space are mothers who have birthed their own offspring as this proves the presence and support of large gametes within her body. Everyone else is suspect and must be prevented from entering women's space."

It is absolutely no surprise that you think having given birth is the only way to "prove" the presence and support of large gametes.

You are disingenuous and you know it. It's about females (that is not you), whether or not they have given birth.

Seems like our resident opera singers have arrived. Yay!

As a bloke you might know what periods are. But if a man or boy is bleeding from his genitals, best go to A&E.

The logical conclusion is that we don’t want biological males in our toilets or changing rooms. Listen to what we are telling you. It makes most of us feel uncomfortable and some of us feel scared. Isn’t that enough for you? It doesn’t matter if you ‘pass’, and it doesn’t matter if you feel uncomfortable in the gents.

Yet again, it's all about a man's absolute inability to hear or respect a woman saying 'no'.

I've heard of 'creative writing' but this is 'creative reading'!
How on earth did you get that out of Appledrop's post?🙃

Creating straw men is an established TRA tactic.

My response is primarily to this:

"To ensure the safety of women, we must maintain clear boundaries based on the objective fact of biological sex. If we make exceptions based on appearance or medical conditions, the boundary becomes subjective and impossible to enforce, which ultimately compromises the safety of women."

By controlling what is defined as the "objective fact" of sex, sex realists erase the realities of everyone that cannot fulfill (or have not yet fulfilled) its definition of sex, which is aligned behind the biology of mammalian reproduction. The possibility of anovulatory periods removes menstruation from the list of 'proof' of sex.

Children and youth (and adults) may appear to be female, but could have medical conditions (or be diabolically assisted by medicine, in my case) affecting their appearance. If all boundaries are subjective and compromise the safety of women, it makes sense to remove everyone from the pool who cannot biologically prove themselves.

I feel a bit sorry for all those men who were told they could access female spaces and are now being told no. You’d think being women, they’d #bekind, budge up, put others feelings first and accept the situation gracefully.

Somehow though that male entitlement overshadows their “womanly feels” and they throw tantrums.

By controlling what is defined as the "objective fact" of sex, sex realists erase the realities of everyone that cannot fulfill (or have not yet fulfilled) its definition of sex

"Sex realists" do not control what is defined as the objective fact of sex.
Nice try, but no.

Are you saying sex realist women are controlling the whole spectrum of mammals and if it wasn’t for them, sex would be a spectrum? Goodness me. I didn’t know I had that power 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

😄
Absolute drivel

Human sex categories are an objective fact. Just like the objective fact that a person cannot change sex category.

If it requires philosophical theoretical thinking for a person to be able to come up with a definition to include them in the sex category of human that they are objectively not included in, it is just a confirmation that they are not the sex category that they demand access to.

The lack of menstruation is not part of the criteria for excluding some female people from the female sex category. Menstrual status is only part of universal female experience.

This is an interesting perspective from a male detransitioner after three decades of having a transgender identity.

https://x.com/Nadiabro/status/2053495796440440940?s=20

The Betrayal of the Body and the Noise of Ideology

There is a silence that only arrives when you reach the end of a path you should never have taken. After nearly three decades in the artificial exile of my own body, this path is over. I do not stand here as a victim of yesterday, but as a fearless witness for tomorrow. I did not merely see the abyss—I dwelt in it; I breathed its coldness until I forgot what life feels like. Now I have returned to give the void its true name.

We live in an era that seeks to exorcise the pain of the soul with the scalpel. We have been taught that identity is a construct that can be operated on and chemically enforced. But I have learned: You can silence biology, but you cannot defeat it. My body was never “wrong”—it was the stage for a profound inner distress that sought solace and found medicine instead. We have forgotten that a wound in the mind does not heal through a scar on the skin. For in the end, one unyielding certainty remains: Nature cannot be deceived.

"The true betrayal of youth is not the lack of affirmation. It is the cowardice of adults in forcing children to confront the truth."

That life means maturation and not a surgical project. We sacrifice the integrity of healthy bodies on the altar of a fleeting ideology. We steal their puberty, that sacred, painful process of becoming, and chain them instead to a lifelong dependence on chemistry.

Have we as a society truly lost our minds to the point that we celebrate the loss of their fertility as freedom and their mutilation as self-discovery?

This is no progress; this is the systematic execution of human nature.

Today, I gaze into the mirror with a clarity that no hormones could ever produce. It is the unyielding realization that true freedom lies not in changing one's sex, but in the strength to embrace it. Real redemption is not found in the design of a new "self," but in surrendering to one's own reality. Only when I stopped waging war against my own nature did I truly begin to breathe. I have learned that the privilege of your life lies in becoming who you really are—not who you pretend to be.

These decades of self-alienation are not mere loss for me; they are a monument. A call to repentance, to once again understand biology as a home port. Whoever remains silent today, while children are led into lifelong medicalization, has betrayed the essence of humanity.

Truth needs no majorities—it needs only someone to speak it. I stand here today because I will not stop breaking the silence about this path. I carry my scars into the public eye as testimony, so that others do not first have to break in order to become whole—

Freedom begins where the lie about one's own being dies.

sex realists erase the realities of everyone that cannot fulfill (or have not yet fulfilled) its definition of sex

Sex is determined at the instant of conception. Anyone who has 'not yet fulfilled' it has not been conceived and therefore doesn't exist and has no reality. So I suppose in a sense you're right. Just not in the way you think you are.

Bluntly, and really not unkindly meant, but enough now with the 'erase' stuff. If your reality really can be erased by a woman failing to enable you as you wish, then the answer is probably to take responsibility for this and seek help with your sense of self, rather than to try and harass and bully women into abandoning their own needs and selves to take responsibility for you. They have lives and stuff of their own, they're not here to provide for you. You cannot control all women, you cannot erase women and the world to create that reality you desire, it is not possible. And the stress that causes you is seen daily on this board.

The erasure hyperbole is really very clear in its emotional coercion.

The erasure hyperbole is batshit on every level

I don't.

They don't get to use women.

I have no sympathy for men who want to do so.

Of course we know that when they say 'erased' it means 'you didn't do everything to centre, facilitate and bow down to me'.

That is a classic straw man. Being a woman isn’t a performance or a reward for giving birth; it’s a biological category. An infertile woman or a young girl is still female because she lacks the Y-chromosome blueprint that organises the body toward the male path.
If you truly believe my logic leads to excluding childless women, then tell me: In your version of reality, does an infertile woman suddenly develop a Y-chromosome and male gonads? If not, then your comparison is a fantasy, not an argument.

I watched a trans influencer talking the other day about the dysphoria of having manly shoulders and being ‘clocked’. It’s really weird that the person knows that they don’t pass as the opposite sex (why fear being clocked) but still use the women’s loos. They know but don’t care was the impression I got.

That example exposes the entire contradiction. If an individual is anxious about being 'clocked,' it proves they are fully aware of their own male biology.

And we cannot leave out the men who happen to look more feminine and 'pass' more easily. They might escape immediate notice, but the underlying reality is exactly the same: they are fully aware of what they are doing. Whether a male has manly shoulders or a feminine face, he knows his own biological sex, yet chooses to override the boundaries of women's private spaces anyway.
If society is going to use the language of psychological distress, then let's be honest about how it goes both ways.
Activists expect everyone to stop everything to accommodate a biological male’s dysphoria over his appearance. Yet, they completely ignore the profound environmental dysphoria they are inflicting on biological women by entering their spaces.
Forcing women to ignore their basic instincts and share private, vulnerable facilities with a male can create a state of constant, acute anxiety and distress. Why is a male's internal identity dysphoria treated as a medical emergency by these groups, but they treat a woman's safety-based dysphoria as completely irrelevant?