Nope, not too much to ask.
What's your view on untransitioned transwomen:
- competing in female sports?
As you said "untransitioned," I'm 100% against it. For those who have had medical treatments, I think the criteria should be up to the governing bodies of the individual sports. If there were legislation on the issue, I think it should be to protect the right of sports leagues to make their own decisions in the matter, one way or the other. My reasoning on this is that a criteria or ban that makes sense for cycling may not make sense for, say, bowling.
- performing intimate medical and person treatments on females when the female has requested a female doctor/nurse/aide?
A female patient should get a female doctor/nurse if requested. (Aide, gets a little fuzzy and depends what you mean. The person who collects your vitals at the doctors office doesn't do anything intimate or invasive and makes little difference in my mind.)
- being housed in female prisons?
I general, I'm against it for the same safety reasons you cite, but there may be exceptions that should be considered on a case by case basis.
I think it's worth noting that this sub-issue highlights that there needs to be some sort of reform in the way prisons work to make prison safer for
all prisoners. But that's another topic.
- qualifying for female shortlist positions or being counted as females for quotas?
I'm not aware of any actual quotas from, say, affirmative action programs. But there are programs, I think, that encouraging government agencies to award contracts to female and minority owned (or co-owned) businesses. I don't have a problem with trans people meeting that requirement, but not because they are women. Rather because they are a minority in their own right.
- having access to female scholarships and grants?
I'm not aware of government grants that are awarded to a specific sex, but I could be wrong. (I have seen PR campaigns encouraging girls to go into STEM fields, however.)
If the sponsor of the scholarship is private, I think they should have the right to set their own criteria. I could be swayed on this, however, depending on the nature of the organization.
The discussion always gets dragged back to toilets and changing rooms. Can we just set those aside as a case where there's probably a reasonable compromise available... and maybe focus on the areas where there is a real issue of safety and rights?
It always comes back to bathrooms because its something that affects people on an everyday basis. Most of us aren't going to prison or looking at scholarships on a regular basis.
But there are a whole slew of things you could add to the list.
What about a girls or all boys boarding schools?
Male strip clubs?
I had a couple friends from high school who were male strippers in their 20s. (This was in the 90s.) The local gentleman's club had a male stripper night once a week. The only men allowed through the door were the dancers and staff. I'm not sure what the policy would have been for trans-women, but should it be permissible for these events to be sex exclusive?
Race for the Cure?
It used to be that the Susan G. Komen Race For the Cure did not allow men to participate. There were some complaints because they excluded men who were themselves breast cancer survivors. (Yes, men can get breast cancer, but it's rare.) I believe they have changed this on a chapter by chapter basis. But the question is can a private organization have an event restricted by sex?
