That works fine for spas. It doesn’t work for public bathrooms. If I’m at, say, an airport, I don’t really have a choice about which style I go with. And you can’t really privatize airports, not in this sense.
Airports should be allowed to decide based on local consumer preferences; I don't expect OKC to have the same rules as SFO.
Are you pretending that one wanker is somehow representative of everyone who claims to experience gender euphoria?
Why? They don't only serve locals. And given how air travel works, they also have a monopoly on serving customers to certain areas (and for hubs, quite a bit of travel for passengers just passing through), so they aren't exactly optional like spas are.
I don't care if a spa in San Francisco (or Oklahoma, for that matter) chooses to allow males and females to be naked together in the same space, so long as they let customers know the rules beforehand so they can choose whether or not to participate. If some women like to sit around with naked trans-identifying males, that's no skin off my nose. Choose your customer base. Nobody needs to go to a spa.
I regret to inform you that it is definitely socially acceptable in much of Europe, assuming that "someone like Bryson" isn't currently serving time.
I regret to inform you that Europe is mostly a dying civilization, and their choices on such matters are not to be emulated.
They have airports, though, and sometimes we have to fly there for work.
The fact that I am powerless to do anything about their suicidal choices doesn't make them OK.
I'm proposing a return to the honor system, with legal protections for citizens that try to enforce it.
This is obtuse.
You don't really need legal protections for segregation by sex (observed at birth) or gender (declared at the moment) if you've repealed the laws under which plaintiffs file suit against places of public accommodation for treating customers differently based on these characteristics. That said, an explicit carveout might be easier to pass and easier for courts to interpret consistently.
I'm confident that you have specific examples in mind, but none of them spring readily into mine.
Agreed.
It is indeed ominous to imply that you'd like to regulate people because they suffer from AGP, a psychological condition which isn't in the DSM and thus cannot be ascertained with any degree of medical consensus.
It's bad enough that you've picked a serial rapist as a stand-in for every trans woman seeking to use a bathroom, but this claim is so hyperbolic that I'm unsure whether to keep going.
Of course it's not defined that way by pro-trans sources. Of course, none of those sources will even remotely acknowledge that autogynephilia is associated with transgender identities either. Similarly, no religious fundamentalist would define their faith as including hatred and aggression.
Stuff that transgender people actually write about themselves and their own experiences.
How can you claim to know with any confidence that these are actual transgender people rather than pseudonymous trolls?
That's a rather biased approach to gaining knowledge. You're essentially limiting your information to only the most positive narrative that can be crafted, and excluding anything that presents a downside.
I did nothing of the sort.
There is nothing hyperbolic about the suicide of Europe. Since you seem easily confused by what I'm saying, let me clarify: the trans issue isn't primarily what's driving them to suicide. But it's very much a part of the general pattern of cultural suicide.
Tyranny of the majority... or at least tyranny of the vocal. Imagine if 100% of males are perfectly fine with special males using female facilities, and 20% of females are also okay with it... then you have a majority of people who are just fine overriding consent for all of the females who are NOT okay with it.
No, I'm limiting myself to narratives which are directly on topic instead of cherry picking Reddit for viral content from pseudonymous posters. "Gender euphoria" was coined by a certain community, it isn't remotely biased to go to them to ask what it should be taken to mean.
Imagine if only 20% of females objected and you still said that was grounds to maintain segregation by sex instead of changing it to the policy favored by the other 80%.
None of these pro-trans policies are actually implemented because of popular support.
Well if you want to bring facts into it then I'd reject the hypothetical from @Emily's Cat on other grounds altogether. The premise that men and women would be 80% apart on a question like this is rather silly, especially with men overwhelmingly espousing the progressive position despite voting 5-10% more conservatively than women.