Only if you retcon the word "woman" to only mean some magical gendery soul that people are assumed to have. Up until about five minutes ago, "woman" was understood by ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ everyone to mean females.
We've been sex-specific for a very long time, which necessitates being male-exclusive or female-exclusive in many situations.
The EA applies to restrooms, changing rooms, showers, spas, hospital wings, athletics, and a host of other situations in which sex is deemed to be a meaningful and material distinction that supports separate provisions for males and females.
Yes, it actually does. Perhaps it's not what's intended by those who have good intentions... but the actual for-realsies effect is to give males the entitlement to override sex segregation whenever the ◊◊◊◊ they want to. Because literally all they need to do is say the magic words "I'm trans". Nothing else at all, just say magic words and sex-segregation doesn't apply to them - the magic has transformed them into a "woman".
How do you tell who's honest and who's a liar when the only requirement is to say the words "I'm trans"?
That is exactly what it means. How does it not mean that? If transwomen are women, and any male who says they are trans is a transwoman, then they can, in fact, override sex segregation whenever they want. Never mind claims about intention, that's the actual effect. And we've seen it put into practice.
They sincerely *identify* as a race that they objectively are not.
You're now back around to arguing that males should be given the *right* to violate female boundaries without our consent, and it's not our business. You're not even trying to argue that it's only "genuine transwomen" we're talking about - you acknowledge that there's literally no way for us to tell who is and is not a "genuine transwoman"... but females are just supposed to what? Suck it up and know our places?
Because we don't want rando males around when we have to wash out skivvies in a sink and then dry them under an air-dryer! Why is this so ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hard to understand?
... Therefore we shouldn't ask females what they want when it comes to spaces where they're naked or vulnerable, we should just make the decision that females don't have a say and give males the right by law to violate female boundaries.
You're appealing to claimed intentions, and ignoring actual effects. Under self ID, there is no possible way to determine if someone is lying about their identity. In fact, taken at face value, self ID makes it impossible to lie. If someone's self-declaration is their identity (which is what self-ID means), then nobody can lie about it. What you declare is axiomatically the truth, because declaring it makes it so.
I recognise self-exclusion because my daughters unfortunately practice it. After their experiences with transwomen, they now won't use public restrooms unless they absolutely have to. They will either hold on until they get home, or try driving to a friends place. They have had to make adjustments to the way they do things to minimize the risk of needing to go, for example, going to the local swimming pool already changed.
Yup. His whole shtick is "me, me, me, me, me"
Female is an unambiguous term. It's the fixed constant in all of this - sex in humans is binary and unchangeable.
I physically cringe at that term. It makes my skin crawl, it's so incredibly degrading.
Ok, knock it off. The scenario as posed specifically allowed for single occupancy privacy rooms, for exactly that reason. So you are just gonna play make pretend and strawman it? Come on, EC.
