Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on What makes them experts?

It points to a problem in the ruling, however. Maybe it could be exploited. I don’t know.

Activists are claiming the ruling is unclear/flawed/wrong anyway, so the heel-dragging and nose-thumbing is happening without reference to the ruling in any case. They need no reason or excuse. They’re still following Stonewall Law and its unlawful guidance, which was made up to suit what activists claimed and wanted despite the original intent of the Acts it was supposedly embodying. They’ve never argued their case; why would they feel the need to start now?

If a woman is fool enough to make herself look convincingly male, that’s not anyone else’s problem to fix.

While I see women trying to escape the demands and expectations of an increasingly sexualized, patriarchal femininity as a completely different and unrelated demographic from the AGP males who have roped them into the chimerical “trans community” by way of forced teaming, they chose this path for themselves, and shouldn’t expect or demand the rest of the world to go along with their delusional beliefs, just as secular society cannot be forced to follow the rules and strictures of a particular religion or denomination thereof.

My alma mater, Western University, has an “inclusive” washroom policy, featuring the following incoherent and gaslighting sticker on many washroom doors:

“Western respects everyone’s right to choose a washroom appropriate for them. Trust the person using this space belongs here”.

The first sentence is vitiated by the second. Resistance to this policy is characterized as “gender policing”:

Gender policing is where someone imposes or enforces normative gender expressions – i.e., the narrow definitions of what a man or a woman should do or look like – on an individual who they perceive as not adequately performing, through appearance or behaviour, the sex that was assigned to them at birth.

Gender policing a washroom is inappropriate and is contrary to Western’s policy on non-discrimination and harassment.

It is up to the individual to decide what washroom they wish to use based on their lived identity.

It is not up to anyone else to decide who can use, or who should use, any particular washroom facility.

[Read it and rage here: https://www.uwo.ca/hro/doc/inclusive_washrooms.pdf ]

Of course the activists who foisted this policy on us have to do this, because if they admitted that segregation of facilities by sex is the whole point of separate toilets, it would halt the whole gender project before it got out of the gate. Washroom segregation is not a way of enforcing “normative gender expressions”, or punishing “inadequate gender performance” but an attempt to KEEP MEN OUT OF WOMEN”S BATHROOMS. They see “gender inclusivity” as a continuation of efforts at accommodating people with disabilities and facilities with change tables for family use. But these are vastly different “inclusivities”. “Gender inclusivity” in anything other than single-user washrooms is potentially open season for women, with the guiding ethos of “trusting” the judgement of the person entering a (nominally) women’s washroom, supporting male aggressors invading female spaces, rather than women’s safety and privacy.

Someone who decides to go into a bank wearing a mask and carrying a realistic looking toy gun should not expect to feel welcomed by the staff, other customers, or bank security. Someone dressing like a bank robber is going to get treated as a bank robber, because the stakes are too high to offer anyone the benefit of the doubt. Bank robbing is a thing. Similarly, women can’t be expected to second guess whether or not a trans identified female is actually male or not. Predatory males assaulting women in washrooms is a thing. The safest course of action is to assume that a “male presenting” individual is male. This might not be the kind of “passing” TiFs want, but it’s a matter of safeguarding, not out of any respect for the TiF’s “identity”. Women’s safety should always come first. Trans activism has never admitted or accepted this, demanding women sacrifice their own wellbeing for the sake of validating gender cosplay. If some TiFs get caught in this as “false positives”, like sheep in wolves’ clothing, that’s not women’s problem. In situations where women are vulnerable, disguises that conceal or alarm are warning flags. “This person is not to be trusted,” stickers be damned. Women shouldn’t be forced to risk their safety for women pretending to be men, any more than they should be doing so for men pretending to be women. Your precious “identities” aren’t worth it.