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?

Use the toilet instead.

Of course not.
They are separate issues for the most part.

The only reason I’m commenting on this thread, which should be only about trans as per the title, is because I noticed some confusion about DSDs and/or discrimination against those with DSDs in some posts.

I would be very happy not to talk about DSDs on this thread as they are not relevant to the subject being discussed imho. However it is hard not to respond to inaccuracies and to allow other readers to be mislead by what some pp have said on here regarding DSD conditions.

Re the DSD issue, a TRA poster called Plasticdreams started talking about 'intersex' a few days back. What they said was irrelevant and nonsensical whataboutery. Posters responded. Posters are now being accused of not caring about people with DSDs as if someone randomly out of nowhere said 'and another thing...'
Therefore the whataboutery has I supposed worked to derail from the main, and very simple, issue of female spaces. But what are posters to do? If the nonsense spouted by TRAs in pursuit of males taking female spaces and prizes is allowed to stand, that is yet another thing male rights activists will use to argue that women support them...It's the 'no woman has ever told me she doesnt want me in her space' argument in a different form. 'You see, no one argued with me about DSDs so that means they're ok with males taking female spaces and prizes'. But it isn't ok.

I agree with you. A lot of your comrades will disagree with us because of the XY chromosomes.

I don't know what I failed at, though.

If it is about gametes, what do hairy handed truckers have to do with this?

(also, what is a vsd?)

Faye's win against NHS England in court today has yet again had a judgment state that it is harassment to permit men with gender identities to use single sex female facilities.

The suggested accommodation (yet again) is gender neutral additional spaces.

And not only that. They also found that a work policy stating men who identify as trans can use female toilets is harassment - that is the policy itself is harassment,

variation of sexual development I assume.

That makes sense. How does it differ from DSD though? My sex development was variated.

I read about this earlier and I'm so thrilled for Faye. All the sneering, quibbling and whataboutery we get from various transactivists on this site, doesn't change the fact that an ideology that forces women to undress in front of, or use the same toileting facilities as men with who say they're women, will never be anything but illogical and cruel. This is even more pertinent in Faye's case, where her religious beliefs and disability also came into play.

Faye, Sandie Peggie, the Darlington nurses, the list just goes on and on...I don't think we've seen the last of these employment tribunals.

I would avoid. I don’t want to share female facilities with them. I know a couple of trans male to females, they’re lovely people, I spend time chatting to them and would never want to show hostility or make them uncomfortable but I don’t want to share a ladies loo with them.

I have no idea. Perhaps you could google instead of expecting women to do the work for you?

I'm sorry, i'd never heard of the term before here. I was mistaken to believe it was a sex realist thing. I will look on google.

If your 'sex development' was varied surely you'd know the term?

Is there a bandwagon that passes sans TRA, like ever?

The standard sex realist assignment of motivation strikes again.

Claiming 'Swyer women can carry a pregnancy' as a gotcha completely leaves out the actual medical science of how that happens.
An individual with Swyer syndrome cannot produce eggs because they have functionless streak tissue instead of ovaries. The only way they can carry a pregnancy is through a highly intensive, artificial medical intervention: they must use a donated egg from a biological woman and take massive amounts of synthetic hormones just to artificially expand an underdeveloped uterus. There are fewer than 20 documented cases of this happening in human history.

Using an extraordinary, highly artificial 1-in-80,000 medical intervention that completely relies on female donor eggs to mock 'sex realists' is completely disingenuous. A medical defect that requires a biological woman’s egg to create a pregnancy doesn't disprove the binary reality of sex—it completely confirms it.

You are assigning motivations to my post that were not present in what I wrote, so that will fit in the sex realist narrative.

I didn't assign motivations; I stated the medical facts.

You posted a half-truth about Swyer syndrome and pregnancy, and I provided the full clinical reality: that it requires a biological woman's donor egg, intensive synthetic hormones, and has occurred fewer than 20 times in medical history
.
If correcting a scientific omission to provide accurate information 'fits a narrative,' then that narrative is simply called objective reality. If you have any actual peer-reviewed medical data to dispute those facts, please present it. Otherwise, the biology stands.

Swyer women receive IVF treatment, with a donated egg. I never said they didn't. Rarely, in comparison to unassisted pregnancy, other women also receive donated eggs.

I'm not the person building walls around women here, you are.

Thank you for confirming the medical facts. By conceding that it requires a biological woman's donor egg, you have proven my exact point: a rare reproductive disorder requiring a highly artificial intervention does not erase the binary reality of sex.

As for 'building walls around women'—yes, I absolutely support the physical walls of our changing rooms, restrooms, and domestic violence shelters. Those walls exist to guarantee the privacy, dignity, and physical safeguarding of biological females against the male sex.

Dismantling those protective boundaries to accommodate male emotional comfort isn't 'liberating' women—it is the definition of entitled misogyny. If you want to view basic child safeguarding and female privacy as a restriction, that is your choice, but women have every right to maintain our single-sex spaces

And that where men with trans identities are permitted into women's single sex spaces in the workplace, the workplace no longer provide single sex spaces and are in breach of the workplace regs. Several mentions of the helpful GLP JR that confirmed the meaning of sex in the workplace regs.

So single sex provisions, with additional gender neutral to meet the needs and beliefs of those who do not choose to group themselves by biological sex, or whom in very rare cases may have differences of development that would make this a more sensitive option for them.

And they all keep reaching the same conclusion.

Unlike you, I am not claiming the use of IVF or donor eggs diminishes the womanhood of women with Swyer syndrome.

I've never claimed any of this has anything to do with trans people or sex realist beliefs in spaces. It doesn't.

Yep. Men need to stay out of women's spaces. No surgery, pills, or certificate entitles them to use women's spaces.

No one is diminishing anyone’s womanhood. Stating the objective, scientific mechanics of a medical condition is not an attack; it is simply reality.

As for your claim that this has nothing to do with spaces, the entire context of this thread is about the necessity of sex-segregated facilities. Dropping rare, complex medical anomalies into a discussion about safeguarding is a well-known tactic used to muddy the waters and make biological boundaries seem 'too complicated' to enforce.

The facts remain unchanged: rare genetic glitches do not dismantle the binary structure of human reproduction, nor do they justify the removal of single-sex boundaries that protect the privacy and safety of women and girls. The biology stands, and so do our spaces.