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've met 10s of thousands of people in my life. Is this not the average?

Oestrogen does not make you grow a vagina. So no you did not vary your sex development.

The development or lack of development of secondary sex characteristics is a part of sex development.

i've posted this a few times before, i avoid spaces with people who are clearly mentally unwell. i would avoid the same way i would avoid someone high on drugs, using drugs at the sink, this included unstable people who live on the streets.

Couldn’t give a flying fuck who is in the toilet or changing room next to me. It’s not somewhere I spend more than 2 minutes.

You took drugs to medically alter a typical male development path though. That is by definition not ‘development’.

There was nothing typically male about my development, this is why it was variated.

Jolly good, another volunteer alongside Clio to share the mixed spaces with men to ‘affirm’ them as ‘women’. As a bonus you may even provide entertainment to some of those with more ‘niche’ fetishes.

Leaves more space in the female only provision for the rest of us women. Ta very much.

There was until you medicated it. And then had surgery.

yes, and further surgically variated.

As you were born male and have said that you took drugs to suppress your natural testosterone I’d say that’s a very typical male development pathway.

Secondary sex characteristics are not what defines biological sex; they are merely the downstream effects of it.

In biology, sex is determined at conception by reproductive organization—specifically, whether an organism is organized to produce large gametes (eggs) or small gametes (sperm). Secondary characteristics, like facial hair or breast tissue, are simply the body's response to sex hormones later in life.

Artificially altering secondary characteristics through cosmetic surgery or synthetic hormones does not rewrite a person’s underlying biological sex or genetic blueprint. A male who undergoes cosmetic changes remains biologically male, and a female remains biologically female.

Trying to redefine 'sex development' to include cosmetic modifications is a complete distortion of science, and it doesn't change the necessity of single-sex boundaries that protect the privacy and safety of women and girls

But not developmentally. You have admitted this.

Variated" is the (mostly obsolete) past participle/adjective form of the verb "variate," meaning to alter, make different, or introduce variation.

People also ‘variate’ the number of legs they have by amputation, even if it is for no reason. A doctor in Scotland (I believe) was struck off for doing just that.

Still no to men, even ‘variated’ men in women’s spaces.

It's a little under 1 in 5,000. But some occur in geographical clusters, which skews the probability of meeting.

[Edit: quote fail. That was a reply to the posts on likelihood of knowing someone with a DSD.]

Also so much of what makes women women is socialisation. Women have an entirely different experience of life from men. I cannot even begin to imagine how a man could become a woman psychologically. The lack of early formative experiences and socialisation would mean a man could never understand truly what it is to be a woman. Many of them seem to think that it’s all about wearing heels and make up. It’s so much more than that.

I've not had a chance to visit Google yet, to learn the definition of vsd. So I am still using the common definition of the word 'variation.' If 'VSD' is a replacement term for DSD, then obviously everything I've written since then should be ignored because I am unaffected by DSDs.

I did experience a variation of development. It seems though, that my development is determined to be male by virtue of whatever gametes I may have been organized to produce (whether or not any were actually produced doesn't appear to matter).

Sex boundaries have existed since before I was born. They're necessary, I agree. They may even align for 99% of the population. But the margin is messy, and sex realists can focus on the margin all they wish but it won't make it completely disappear.

That's exactly how your development is defined, well done.

We are making progress here.

Thank you for the clarification. Conceding that your posts should be ignored because you are unaffected by DSDs completely proves the point: rare congenital conditions should never have been weaponised to debate trans-identified males in women's spaces.

As for the claim that the 'margin is messy'—it isn't messy at all. In biology, an organism is defined as male or female based on which of the two distinct reproductive pathways its body is organised around. Whether a medical condition causes a pathway to function perfectly, imperfectly, or not at all does not mean a third pathway exists. A broken compass doesn't prove the existence of a fifth cardinal direction.

The legal and social boundaries that protect women and girls do not exist to police rare clinical conditions. They exist because healthy, typical biological males have a completely different physical capacity from that of biological females. The law acknowledges this, which is why the UK Supreme Court anchored the Equality Act strictly to biological sex at birth. The baseline is crystal clear, and our spaces stand.

💯

Onepostwonder seems to think that looking something up on Google is akin to cycling to Mongolia by tomorrow morning.

It's on my todo list.

Biology can be quoted all you wish, but it doesn't absolutely reflect how real people move and exist in the real world. Legal and social boundaries exist because they reflect cultural beliefs. The current UK government and legal landscape reflects, or is moving to reflect, conservative culture war beliefs after a period of being liberally permissive. The law changes. It will continue to change.

Safeguarding women and girls from the male sex is not a 'conservative culture war belief'—it is a permanent, immutable requirement of human reality.

To claim that biology doesn't reflect how people exist in the real world is total nonsense. In the real world, biological males possess a massive physical power advantage over biological females, and the vast majority of sexual and violent offences against women are committed by the male sex. That is why separate facilities were established in the first place: for safety, privacy, and basic human dignity.

The law isn't changing because of a 'permissive' or 'conservative' trend; the law is stepping in because forcing women to ignore their natural safeguarding instincts to accommodate male feelings has proven to be dangerous and unsustainable.

The UK Supreme Court anchoring the Equality Act strictly to biological sex and Faye’s monumental tribunal victory against NHS England, are not temporary political fads. They are the legal system returning to objective material truth after a period of bad policy. You can wish for the biology to disappear all you want, but women's need for safety is non-negotiable. The line has been drawn, and it isn't moving.

This particular law didn't change. It was merely clarified after a lot of people including you, took the mick.

Yes, laws change. But you are not legally allowed in a single sex female toilet etc. Get over it.