Quote Originally Posted by PaulaQ View Post
Yes, but without an epistemological discussion of the matter - a weighty thing to undertake while waiting to pee - how does one distinguish one from the other save by passability. That is not an approach that keeps any of us safe, including cisgender women. Because not all cis women pass all that well. And if we go by looks, or by documentation, then how do new trans women, just starting out, ever go fulltime? It could easily become a catch-22 unless you are one of the lucky few who passes fairly well without HRT. What about those who'll never pass? And if we can't go fulltime without passing well, then how do we show enough time lived as a woman to qualify for documentation changes.
In my view, there are two parts to this.

1) The part where somebody challenges your right to be in a space (leering, staring, saying things, etc.)
2) The part where the situation resolves (nothing happens, somebody is ejected, taken to jail, etc.)

I view the first part as a social issue that will take time, no matter what legislation we pass, and so I see it - for the moment - as immutable.

The question then, is who has the RIGHT to be in women's spaces? Meaning, when part 2 comes to involve some kind of authority, what ends up happening and why. I think that trans men and women should be protected, regardless of appearance. I think that we need to come up with a strategy and a standard so that men and women who are not yet able to get identification changes done (which should be easier than it is) are protected.

I also think that CDs will benefit from this, because as you say, it's hard to tell the difference in many cases. When there's a perfectly reasonable and verifiable situation that explains a situation, law enforcement are that much less likely to care, and other people are (over time) less likely to assume the worst.

If somebody tells me they're "gender fluid", "bi-gender", or anything else that ultimately gives them some claim to womanhood, I'll simply say that I don't get it and have my doubts, but I'm not going to fight them on it if we have some sort of standard (e.g. medical/psychiatric approval). If they are a person who clearly and definitively (and often defensively) identifies as a man, however, I'm not going to say that they should have the right to access the women's facilities. I have a rather expanded view on what can constitute being a woman, but I also believe that being a man is, in the majority of cases, a mutually exclusive condition.

I have no problem, for the most part, with CD men getting away with it most or all of the time, but that's different from having the right. If they want to start telling me they're not really men, then there's a conversation to be had.