To me, a lot of this discussion of TERF has devolved into the oh so common forum activity of determining whether or not someone actually said something. Here's my take on the whole thing.
When discussing the topic of transgenders, their identity, and their place in society, you can engage with arguments, or you can call people names. I prefer the former.
The question becomes, should we be catering towards any sincerely held anti-trans animus in these government run shelters?
I'm sure there were people during the gay panics that honestly felt it was unsafe for their children to have gay teachers or gay sport coaches, given the widely held belief that gay men were all sex perverts and pedophiles.
Should society have catered to that sincerely held animus in the name of perceived safety? The answer seems obvious to me.
I have no reason to doubt the sincerity that some women might have when they express anti-trans opinions, though I do doubt that these sentiments are more common than not. I just don't see the existence of sincere anti-trans animus as sufficient reason to discriminate against trans-women as a category.
I see no downside to making accommodations towards trans-bigoted women that might feel unsafe, so long as those accommodations don't interfere on the ability of trans-women to access these facilities. Obviously, blanket exclusion of trans-women is a non-starter.
In an attempt to steer you toward the former option (from my post quoted above), I would like to understand how you would answer a question.
I am going to reference a nearly 10 year old case, but the circumstances have occurred again. There was a swimming facility at a community college in Washington. The facilities were accessible to students at the community college, and they were also used as the practice facility for a high school girls' swim team. There were men's and women's locker rooms, and there was also a smaller, rarely used facility where people could change. (I believe it was also a locker room. i.e. it had the usual lockers, showers, toilets, etc. often found in a locker room, but I don't know why it existed or its usual purpose. I know it was small, but I don't know how small.)
One of the students at the school was a 40ish transwoman. (I don't know the exact age) who went by the name Colleen Brenna. (The legal name of the transwoman at the time was the male name that the transwoman had been given at birth.) At the time, Colleen Brenna had not taken any hormone treatments or any other steps toward physical transition. Ms. Brenna was also a self-identified lesbian. Ms. Brenna wore stereotypically female clothing in public.
Ms. Brenna frequently used the women's locker room at the same time as the high school swim team, and she made no effort to conceal any part of her anatomy (that means penis and scrotum for you not getting the sense of the sense of this.) The girls on the swim team expressed discomfort at changing in the presence of Ms. Brenna. Ms. Brenna was offered the use of the smaller facility, but she refused. The girls and their parents complained, but the facility ownership said that Ms. Brenna had the right to use the women's locker room. Eventually, the girls' swim team used the smaller facility, but they couldn't all fit at once, so that cut into some of their practice t me.
Would you describe the girls on the team, and/or the parents of the girls on the team who supported their objections to changing in the presence of the transwoman, as "trans-bigoted"?
