I didn’t say you were. That should have been obvious by the fact that I said they would oppose you. The relevance is that they are an obstacle to implementing your ideas.
Of course. You don’t actually know what solutions would work, but your convinced they must exist because reasons.
Do you understand why evaluating that at scale is a problem?
You argue against those things all the time. If your posts are a true reflection of what you believe then you almost certainly vote for politicians that actively reduce funding for those things. At least be honest with yourself.
We aren’t arguing them here. Even taking them all as a given doesn’t change anything for this discussion. Do not try to derail the thread.
You suggested something totally unworkable, and when I pointed out why it was unworkable you dodged and shifted topics. If you think your answer is workable you are revealing that you know nothing about this debate.
You may not identify as a TRA but you have fallen for their propaganda. The fact that you seem to think that this is about a tiny number of people who are distressed about their sex and have transitioned and want some accommodations made for them as exceptions demonstrates this.
It wasn't an unworkable suggestion and what you replied with was a load of TRA twaddle.
The only actual suggestion I've seen from you is GRCs. But you don't actually know how to implement them in a way that will achieve whatever goal it is you want to achieve (or any way at all, in fact). Nor have you even specified what that goal really is.
It is unworkable because the first goal of the modern TRA movement was to remove all gatekeeping requirements for a GRC, going to politicians directly, avoiding media attention and suppressing debate by smearing critics as transphobes and destroying their lives and careers. They almost succeeded and only failed because a few people stood up to them at enormous personal cost. Then when a movement formed to oppose this, TRAs framed it as an attempt by the far-right to take away existing rights (which you have uncritically swallowed). There is no way that TRAs will ever accept gatekeeping requirements for a GRC or that access to facilities is contingent on having a GRC.
I don't believe I have fallen for the propaganda from either side. I think the TRA lot are just as or more extreme than you guys!
I can accept that claim.
That's like saying laws against theft are unworkable because the first goal of thieves is to break into your house.
Do you believe GRCs could work in principle? If not then there is no point in discussing them further.
Possibly for some purposes.
As a recognised way for trans people to verify they have been through a regulated assessment and treatment program.
People who make it through the assessment and treatment program.
And what does that do? Does that give them access to bathrooms? Changing rooms? Rape crisis centers?
What assessment? What treatment? And how are these going to be regulated?
Where should transsexual women toilet in public?
The same way all medical services are regulated, indirectly by the state by people with appropriate expertise.
If they pass, in the women's bathroom. If they don't, in the men's. That will be true for most sex segregation, but note that it's a lot harder to pass in contexts where you will be naked. For sports, no male should compete in the female category.
That's not really an answer. And given the manifest failure we have already seen from "experts" in the field, I do not trust ANY of them to be deciding which males should be allowed access to female spaces.
Who decides if they 'pass'?
It is an answer. Is your preference for there to be no assessment, no treatment and no regulation? That's certainly a low upfront cost approach.
The women in that space.
Medical treatment is regulated as medical treatment. That applies even if that treatment does not give you any privilege to transcend sex segregation. And anyone suffering from dysphoria should certainly get assessed. So nothing I've said suggests that there should be no assessment or treatment for trans people, or no regulation of that treatment.
I already told you. What part of "That will be true for most sex segregation" did you not understand? If they pass, they should change with the women. If they don't, they should change with the men. Why are you confused by that answer?
Where do men go to get help if they have been raped?
I'm not opposed to spending tax dollars to fund services to support any victim of rape.
There are already alternatives for them. That has never been the problem. Excluding trans identifying males from using the women's bathroom doesn't mean they can't use any bathroom.
I don't know how you're inferring what I think here, but you're way off. I don't deny the existence of butch lesbians or effeminate men (gay or straight) - I celebrate people who defy stereotypes. You seem stuck in some mindset that anyone who criticizes this movement must be right wing and therefore their viewpoint can be dismissed (both logical fallacies).