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?

'Environmental dysphoria' is the perfect term to use. I'm definitely adding that to my lexicon.

there is a certain subset of men, clearly, who struggle to accept women telling them no.

Yes. And struggle/refuse to accept that their "reality" is not women's reality. Women explain over and over again what women's reality is. But it falls on deaf ears. There's no wish to understand or engage.

To be fair, given that their reality includes balls going on a walkabout and turning into ovaries im not sure reality is an appropriate moniker.

Exactly! The hypocrisy of their vocabulary is astonishing. They constantly demand 'validation' for their internal feelings, while simultaneously 'gaslighting' real women who dare to state biological facts.

Let’s look at what their version of 'validation' actually means in reality: they are demanding that women validate a male fantasy by surrendering their physical safety and privacy. True validation belongs to the material facts of biology and the hard-earned rights of women, not a male's ego.

And the real 'gaslighting' is expecting women to look at a biological male in their changing rooms, ignore millions of years of evolutionary danger-instincts, and pretend they are looking at another female. Forcing women to deny objective physical reality to protect male feelings is the absolute definition of gaslighting.

They can throw these buzzwords around all they want, but demanding that women compromise their safeguarding to accommodate a delusion isn't inclusion—it’s pure entitlement.

Using an exceptionally rare medical anomaly like de la Chapelle syndrome (which affects 1 in 20,000 births) to pretend sex isn't binary is a complete logical fallacy.
An 'XX male' is still 100% biologically male. In 90% of those cases, the SRY gene (the male genetic switch) simply translocated onto an X chromosome. Because that male blueprint is active, they develop male testes, male anatomy, and a male hormonal system. They do not have a uterus or ovaries, they do not menstruate, and they cannot get pregnant.
A rare genetic glitch that causes a male to have an unusual karyotype doesn't magically turn him into a woman, nor does it give him access to female changing rooms. Nice try, but biology remains a binary reality.

Absolutely @Appledrop i always find the demand to “allies” hilarious, would love for a tra or a handmaiden to tell me what benefits females get from surrendering to the tra demands? As ever it’s not allies it’s a one way system, kindness and sacrifice one way only

Surely the reverse is true then?

if an XY person has an inactive SRY gene, or it has been deleted from the Y chromosome, as in Swyer syndrome, that foetus lacks the “male blueprint” and doesn’t develop as male, it continues with female development.

if an XX dsd individual can be defined as male, then why can’t XY dsd individuals be defined as female?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of reproductive biology. Swyer syndrome is an exceptionally rare medical disorder (1 in 80,000 births) where the male pathway fails to activate because the SRY gene is missing or broken.

But a defect in the male pathway does not mean they have 'female development.' Individuals with Swyer syndrome do not develop functioning ovaries; they have non-functional 'streak gonads' and cannot produce large gametes (eggs). They cannot undergo natural female puberty or menstruate without hormone replacement therapy. They are a medical exception where a pathway failed, not a third sex.

More importantly, using a rare clinical condition to argue that healthy, fully developed biological males—who went through male puberty and possess full male anatomy—should be allowed into women's private spaces is a massive logical fallacy. A medical glitch doesn't erase the binary reality of sex, nor does it destroy the need for enforceable boundaries.

To address your specific attempt at 'reversing the logic': your formula completely fails because biological sex is not a game of algebraic substitution. You cannot just swap letters on a chart.

I am not misunderstanding reproductive biology. I know full well they don’t develop “normally”, but neither do they develop into phenotypic males. Nobody’s arguing that a rare clinical condition should mean biological males are allowed in female spaces.

i just have sympathy for individuals with dsd who some people seem to insist are men because they have a Y chromosome. I understand that it isn’t “true” female development and it’s a “failed pathway” but these individuals do develop what appears to be female external genitalia. And can be assumed to be female until puberty fails.

i don’t like some people’s attitudes that i see on here that XY dsd individuals are men. And will correct pronouns and insist “it’s a he”.

And do most individuals with Swyers Syndrome not present and class themselves as women? Are we seriously arguing that they should not be using womens spaces?

I don’t think it’s got as far as using women’s spaces, as short of genotyping at the toilet door there’s no way to tell.

but yes, most do present as women. But there are mumsnetters who believe that because they have a Y chromosome they are men, and should be told they are men, and placed in male categories for sports etc, even as kids. They don’t have any empathy for a 15 year old girl who visits the dr because of lack of periods, and discovers they have a dsd. “Still a man”

i just don’t think it’s that easy or straightforward when it comes to dsd’s and the “rules” we might apply to trans people cannot be extended to those with a dsd.

A person with a DSD is not a trans identifying person. It’s not even an identity. Conflating the two is a great big scam being carried out to garner more sympathy for those who want everyone to see people who identify as trans as being the most vulnerable people in society who we should feel sorry for.

So how do we know who has a dsd and who is lying to gain access to places they should not be? I mean if they know they’re male, which they would do as they’ll have had lots of medical tests, why would they think it’s appropriate to access female spaces?

Maybe because they're not male in any meaningful way?

Edired to add: That was in reference to Swyers Syndrome.

It’s not an ‘attitude’. Since when did being truthful become so distasteful?

If they are male they are male. It’s not a spectrum of maleness.

Exactly. PPs heading off down rabbit holes of extremely rare medical conditions for *reasons is not relevant or helpful to this thread where men who call themselves women are the actual topic.

Creating ever decreasing circles of “well what about this extremely rare condition..” or ”what about this even more vanishingly rare scenario..” are all just a trans activist tactic to derail and distract.

We never seem to hear from any actual DSD sufferers, just people putting forward theoretical scenarios of potential detriment.

<cue new onslaught of trans activists in a cunning new disguise instead of pretending to be reformed GC women>

@Soontobe60 if you can't tell what's distasteful in some of what you've posted you may have a failed developmental pathway or two yourself.

Not half as distasteful as trying to shoehorn males into female spaces by co-opting people with VSD. Now THAT’s distasteful.

I wasn’t trying to pretend anything.
I know sex is binary.
You were the one dividing toilet facilities into XX and XY. I was simply explaining that in rare cases that doesn’t work, for the reasons you’re now outlined.

People with Swyers are women.