Let's backtrack to what I originally said on page 15 because this conversation has been taken in any number of different directions from my point. My point was that the two sides of the restroom / locker room/shower debate are treated much differently by liberals In general and as it turns out, by you and most every poster who has weighed in with an opinion. I've listed out the derogatory labels/comments multiple times. In other words, my original point has been proven correct and continues to be proven correct. It's one thing to say you believe trans women should be allowed in female locker rooms. The vitriol does not have to be included in that opinion.
You specifically seem to believe that there is not a single cis woman who would have negative feelings about, or made uncomfortable by, a biological male in their bathroom / locker room/shower. You backed off of that claim the tiniest bit in your last post about the 43% polling data. I personally think that was just lip service and, for whatever reason, you either don't or don't want to admit that there are women who would be very uncomfortable with having a biological male around when they are changing, showering or walking to and from the shower. The only support you have provided for that belief is anecdotal. You have spoken to a few women around you that have apparently told you that they wouldn't be bothered by it.
1. At no point did I say there is not a single cis woman who might have negative feelings about. In fact, I said that there were some. There are very few beliefs that actually have universal acceptance. Even things that seem well-established, like the shape of the Earth, has doubters.
2. With that nonsense out of the way, the point remains that this problem simply does not exist. All those women who **would** be uncomfortable with an XY in the locker room have almost certainly been in the locker room with an XY (or XXY) without feeling uncomfortable. Well, not every single one, to be clear. But the vast, vast, vast majority of people have been around trans people and don't know it. They never felt uncomfortable because what was there to be uncomfortable about? And even if trans people are more common or at least more visible, that still doesn't change the fact that a woman has to try to be uncomfortable because she would have to try to figure out who is or isn't XY. And if a person is going out of their way to be uncomfortable, then I don't take that seriously. It's bad faith.
This is why I don't care about your poll data. You could ask people whether they would approve of a constitutional amendment barring extra-terrestrials from obtaining birthright citizenship, and it would signify nothing because you are asking a fake, hypothetical question. And so too is "would you be uncomfortable being in a locker room with an XY person" because that doesn't happen. IDK maybe somewhere there's a non transitioned trans woman who likes to walk around with junk hanging out. It's probably happened at least once. But for the vast majority of people, that never happens. And no, I don't have sympathy for a snoop on the basis of the what the snoop found.
3. As to what I would say to a woman who was in the locker room when an XY individual with a particularly deep voice starts talking very loudly? I'd empathize. Of course I would. That would be a disturbing experience fora lot of people. Whether or not I thought it should be disturbing doesn't matter. And if the deep voiced woman continued to bellow, I would try to help resolve the conflict. Maybe the resolution would have to be that the loud woman gets removed. But there are a bunch of other solutions too. You know, like the loud woman just not talking. Or staying on the other side of the room.
And that's the problem with all this bathroom bullshit: it is creating injustice to lots of people by trying to resolve extremely rare problems categorically in advance. Deal with the loud woman when she's being loud. And maybe that woman not only needs to be removed but barred from any further entry. That's case-by-case. What should not happen is that all trans women suffer because of this hypothetical loud person.
4. And finally, this shouldn't have to be said but apparently it does: inconvenience and denial of civil rights are not commensurable. If given a choice between a) some people being uncomfortable in a public bathroom; and b) other people being unable to use any public facility at all (or a "separate but equal" one), I will have more sympathy for b) every time.
By the same token, I think back to when I was a young boy who moved to NC from CA. I started riding a bus, and there were black kids on the bus, and I didn't have any experience with black kids. In CA I'd seen black people but I don't remember knowing any. And something about these kids smelled bad to me. My mom said it was the smell of black hair products. I have no idea, and I don't care. The point is that I got over it. Pretty quickly. And even if I hadn't, my annoyance at that scent would be not at all comparable with the other kids' right to be on that bus. That my reaction to that olfactory sensation was real -- it was very much so -- didn't make it right, and it certainly didn't justify special status for me or lower status for anyone else.
And that's really what this is all about. Again, you keep ignoring that the same evangelical churches who were dead set against integration then became dead set against women's rights, and then cultural acceptance of gay people, and then gay marriage, and now trans. When you think about the full context, it's easy to see that it's not about trans. It's about denying other people civil rights. It's about stigmatizing them for the sake of doing so. And no, that's not true of every single person. But it is true for an overwhelming majority of these women who are so concerned about XY people in their locker room.
