I think this is the big question.
I have framed it as a fear of sexual assault. LondonJohn recently said that in order to justify the exclusion of transwomen you would have to demonstrate an increased risk of sexual assault.
Is that really the case, though. Is "modesty", quite apart from sexual assault, a valid lived condition. Is it natural to feel anxiety when naked in the presence of the opposite sex? I strongly suspect it is, and that the degree of anxiety is much greater for females than for males.
Obviously, some exceptions apply, but in general, people, especially females, are anxious about displaying their bodies to the opposite sex? Is that, all by itself, harm? I'm inclined to believe that it is. At the very least, I decided a long time ago that I would support the people who wanted to be protected from that situation.
It's probably some modesty, as well as some fear of sexual assault.
But I think it's even more core than that: It's the removal of
consent.
If you go to a nude beach, you go knowing that there will be naked people there, of both sexes. You know that you will see their bits, and they will be able to see yours. You are not forced to go to a nude beach, you have the agency to decide that your don't want to see them, or have them see you. By going to the beach, you are tacitly consenting to see and be seen.
With sex-segregated restrooms and changing rooms, there is similarly implied consent. You know beforehand that there will be naked people there
of the same sex as you. You know that your bits may be seen by someone else who has the same kind of bits, and vice versa.
In school settings, this is semi-consensual. In a lot of cases, the minors involved have to use the changing rooms, and it is generally deemed acceptable because you're only going to be exposed to others with the same bits as you. And for those who are more modest, there are often ways to minimize their exposure to the eyes of others, and to avoid looking at other people's bodies. But it's still an expectation that the other people in the room will be of the same sex.
Now the rules have changed. Now young girls are being told that they have no choice, and that they can be viewed by members of the opposite sex without their consent - that they have no right to refuse to consent.
It comes back to the comment mentioned way back. Having the transgirl agree to always keep their genitals covered is only half the problem. It doesn't address the fact that none of the females who are required to use that changing room have not given consent to have their naked bodies viewed by a person of the opposite sex. "Can she cover her eyes?"
They were told that their lack of consent is bigotry.
This is, by the way, the same argument being used against lesbians who do not wish to engage in romantic liaisons with transwomen who have penises. They're being told that their lack of consent to sex with a penis is bigotry.
The girls who have been told that they don't have a choice about whether or not they are seen by a penis-haver while naked haven't been harmed?
