comment: >
  
  Lol but they also very often accompany their fathers into similar spaces, do they not
context: /u/BbgAlys (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  My mom is one of the 10 percent of cis woman with increased facial hair growth. She usually shaves but has a cancer that’s making her too weak to shave and increasing the hair growth further. 
  Without exaggeration she has a very noticeable 5 clock shadow on most days. I can easily see people assuming she’s a trans woman. 
  If someone wanted to enforce sex or genital separated bathrooms does she have to take off her pants in front of everyone else to show she has a vagina before entering? Does she have to show video of her giving birth to me to prove she is cis? >
  
  Thank you for support doing fine right now thanks for reaching out and sharing! I’m actually a non-binary person with a beard that leans more towards woman than man most days so that’s helped with this specific issue for both of us as we have extremely similar experiences >
  
  That is good to hear.  Family support is critical for everyone, but especially those going through cancer treatment. >
  
  So, you want to force Trans men into women's lockers rooms.
  You can't tell cis from trans men so any cis men who are predators can now go into these spaces by claiming they're trans men and have no choice.
  That seems to be less safe. >
  
  “You can’t tell cis from trans men “ uh…yes you fucking can >
  
  No you can't. >
  
  How do u think that like 80% of trans men look idk not biologically male they look feminine. I’m not being mean it’s just true I don’t see how people couldn’t tell >
  
  Most of the transmen you've seen in your life you had no clue were trans. >
  
  Hmm idk >
  
  If you did know they wouldn't be passing. >
  
  Ya and a lot of them don’t pass or not a lot >
  
  Some don't but most do. >
  
  Alr >
  
  
  Why is it okay to take safety away from us? 
  
  What about sex-segregated spaces ACTUALLY makes you safe?
  Does a woman placard on the door physically prevent a would-be rapist from entering? Does it keep a cis man from walking in and assaulting, peeping, or harassing people?
  
  How do we tell a transwomen from a man pretending to be one in order to gain access to these vulnerable spaces for wrongdoing?
  
  You can probably tell by whether or not they're minding their own business and changing or if they're harassing someone, same as you would literally anyone else in the room.
  Frankly, as a butch lesbian, I find this obsession with sex-segregated spaces for the "safety" of women actually laughable. I've gotten all manner of nasty looks, comments, and attitudes by women who decided I'm a predator because of being masc, despite not being a trans woman or a man. Cis women are generally fixated on this for the perceived safety of feminine, socially acceptable women, and but have no interest in whether or not the spaces actually provide them any safety or if the hypervigilance against "threats" (who are just people washing their hands/changing their clothes/literally not interacting with you) is actually harming OTHER women. >
  
  It doesn't entirely prevent it but it allows women to speak out if a man is accessing their space. If there is a law in place allowed anyone to use any restroom/changing room, they will just be told the person is allowed to be in there if they identify as a woman.
  Also, it is not just active harassment. A lot of predators would be fine simply staring at young girls changing, or able to secretly take pictures, place a hidden camera, or intentionally make others uncomfortable with gratuitous nudity/borderline inappropriate behavior. 
  Thank you for sharing your experience. I don't want or agree with hypervigilance against masc-presenting cisgender women like that. >
  
  How would you feel about cutting out sex segregation and doing away with communal changing/bathrooms altogether?
  We have the technology and the resources to make stalls proper walls, and similarly we can divide up communal changing rooms.
  This would make individuals more comfortable (because I can guarantee, even amongst their own sex basically 0 people enjoy anything communal with strangers) and it solves the issues of women feeling discomfort and trans women being beaten almost to death.
  Win-win.
  How does that sound to you, as an alternative solution? >
  
  I would not be opposed to this solution. I definitely favor when stalls are their own tiny rooms, this is much safer. >
  
  Would you say that this constitutes a change in your view? De-sex-segregating and changing everything to be non-communal would be safer for men and women, and satisfy every party involved.
  Feel free to delta me, if so! >
  
  Haha, I suppose it could be! It does go against my view of sex segregated areas. I haven't felt compelled to give a delta to anyone else yet so here you are. !delta
  let me know if it works...I'm not sure if i've done it correctly. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/PeoplePerson_57 (2∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Well, we can see if this actually happens. In some places we already allow people to use the bathroom matching their gender identity. And, well, nobody seems to have seen a problem with sexual assault being more common. So this doesn't seem to be a well-founded fear. >
  
  I mean...These incidents do in fact happen. Maybe there hasn't been a significant rise noticeable by officials, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Also, these predators don't have to actively commit a crime. Simply being in a changing room and getting off from staring at undressed women/young girls is lowkey but still very much not okay. >
  
  
  I mean...These incidents do in fact happen. Maybe there hasn't been a significant rise noticeable by officials, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Also, these predators don't have to actively commit a crime. Simply being in a changing room and getting off from staring at undressed women/young girls is lowkey but still very much not okay.
  
  The question isn't whether incidents literally ever happen ever.  Obviously trans people are human like the rest of us, and that means sometimes trans people are assholes who make other people uncomfortable or even attack them.  Because the same is true for everybody in every demographic.
  The question is whether or not trans women are more likely to attack cis women in "women only spaces" than other cis women are.  And so far there's no evidence to suggest that. >
  
  I dont think OP thinks transwomen are more predatory (which i highly doubt they are). I think they are more concerned with men pretending to be trans, just to be a creepo in the bathroom. Men pretending to be trans is a fair concern. They already deceive women in order to rape and assault women, maybe by pretending to be nice or pretending to be in need of help Pretending to be trans, is well within their ball park. >
  
  
  I dont think OP thinks transwomen are more predatory (which i highly doubt they are). I think they are more concerned with men pretending to be trans, just to be a creepo in the bathroom. Men pretending to be trans is a fair concern. They already deceive women in order to rape and assault women, maybe by pretending to be nice or pretending to be in need of help Pretending to be trans, is well within their ball park.
  
  Okay, but what's to stop them from doing this already? What's to stop them from claiming that they are cis women right now?  I'm genuinely asking, because it seems like you're implying that having a policy in which trans people can use spaces corresponding with their gender identity is somehow going to be the thing that finally lets a dedicated sexual predator get away with the crime they've always wanted to commit. >
  
  That’s exactly what we’re saying. Men don’t do it today because trans women in women’s bathrooms is not a common occurrence. 
  But if we normalize it and it becomes more common, predatory men will seize the opportunity. >
  
  To /u/BbgAlys, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.
  In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
  
  Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
  Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
  Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.
  Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
  
  Please also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track.  Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do. >
  
  You're making some hurtful assumptions in here:
  
  but why does that mean they get to make these female-only spaces unsafe? Why is it okay to take safety away from us?
  
  Why does the presence of a transgender woman (or a man) immediately make a space unsafe? Given the current climate, I think it's fair to say that a transgender woman has a better chance of being the victim of violence in the men's room than you do of being victimized by them. 
  
  Children oftentimes accompany their mothers in these spaces, so it is a vulnerable space for children as well
  
  My child goes to the bathroom with me (dad) just as often as they do with my wife. And again, with the equivalence of "man nearby = danger". 
  The farther I read, the worse this gets. >
  
  It doesn't seem you read very far because I specifically spoke about why making these spaces non-sex segregated is unsafe. And yes, unfortunately men are often unsafe and that's a reality women have to face. I realize that is a reality transwomen must face too, but their solution cannot be taking away safety from other women. >
  
  What evidence do you have that trans women are inherently more dangerous to cis women than other cis women are? >
  
  
  What evidence do you have that trans women are inherently more dangerous to cis women than other cis women are?
  
  What evidence do you have that trans women are inherently no longer as physically dangerous as cis men? >
  
  
  
  What evidence do you have that trans women are inherently more dangerous to cis women than other cis women are?
  
  What evidence do you have that trans women are inherently no longer as physically dangerous as cis men?
  
  You want me to provide...what, news articles about trans women not attacking people or posing a danger to cis women?
  I've been in tons of locker rooms, bathrooms, communal showers, pools, baths, and other gender segregated spaces.  I've even been in a few with trans women.  And it's literally never been an issue because everybody is just trying to shower or use the bathroom or change or whatever.  
  If you want to claim that trans women are inherently a danger, the onus is on you to do so. >
  
  
  You want me to provide...what, news articles about trans women not attacking people or posing a danger to cis women?
  
  No, but if you're going to make a distinction based on why a threat exists - I think it's entirely appropriate to examine why we're talking about it in the first place.
  If someone is going to use 'danger' as a justification for segregated bathrooms and does so on the basis of sex (that's what makes the distinction, not gender, of violence) - because males/men are generally bigger and stronger than females/women - how do you reconcile the failure to address putting biologically male individuals in a biologically female space? >
  
  
  If someone is going to use 'danger' as a justification for segregated bathrooms and does so on the basis of sex (that's what makes the distinction, not gender, of violence) - because males/men are generally bigger and stronger than females/women - how do you reconcile the failure to address putting biologically male individuals in a biologically female space?
  
  Sure, but all this is predicated on the assumption that bathrooms are currently segregated out of concern for safety rather than privacy and dignity. Like, I'm not going to pretend safety is never a concern like for locker rooms and stuff, but the main reason that we have gender segregation in such facilities is so that men and women aren't seeing each other naked. It's a comfort thing.
  Personally, I care more about the comfort of trans people minding their own f** business than I do about the comfort of transphobes scared of a gender non-conforming shadow.  So as long as there's no increased threat, which there's no evidence to suggest there is, I have no reason to think that we shouldn't let trans women use the facilities that any other women use.
  Again, trans people are and were already using bathrooms and locker rooms that conformed with their gender identity. If you want to stop that, you got to have a reason for it. Especially because it's going to come with consequences, like forcing post-transition trans men into women's spaces. >
  
  
  Sure, but all this is predicated on the assumption that bathrooms are currently segregated out of concern for safety rather than privacy and dignity.
  
  That's my point - if it's not, this isn't even a relevant stream of discussion. >
  
  
  
  Sure, but all this is predicated on the assumption that bathrooms are currently segregated out of concern for safety rather than privacy and dignity.
  
  That's my point - if it's not, this isn't even a relevant stream of discussion.
  
  Then I'm not sure why you interjected? The OP was the one who made the assertion that the issue is that trans women are inherently more dangerous to cis women. I was responding to that claim. If you don't agree with the OP's claim, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. >
  
  Because you're arguing in bad faith as well as the OP. You biting the argument doesn't make it valid. It makes it worse.
  Danger was never a motivating factor between bathroom segregation - it was always based on sex. >
  
  
  If you think a predator won't throw on a dress, wig and makeup and pretend to be a transwoman to gain access to victims, you are either ignorant or sorely naive.
  
  But you think putting a sign on the door will stop them?
  Someone intent on assault is going to walk right past that sign. It's a lot easier than spending months on hormones, as it turns out.
  
  .How do we tell a transwomen from a man pretending to be one in order to gain access to these vulnerable spaces for wrongdoing? You can't, that's the issue.
  
  Your policy would require trans men to use the women's room. How do you tell them apart from "a man pretending to be one"? >
  
  
  Your policy would require trans men to use the women's room. How do you tell them apart from "a man pretending to be one"?
  
  This honestly should be a greater talking point because it makes the whole argument unravel. Forcing trans people to use bathrooms by birth sex has the exact same theoretical risk that an assailant could claim to be a trans man in order to get into womens' spaces. So forcing trans people to use bathrooms based on their biological sex has absolutely 0 value in preventing assault and only harms trans people. So if you truly want to do something to prevent assault in these spaces, anti-trans laws are not the answer. >
  
  
  transgender women
  
  What about trans men? 
  
  Sex-segregated spaces help keep these men out
  
  What's your enforcement? You believe I am in the wrong room, what happens? You have no idea whether you are correct or not. >
  
  
  Recent events concerning predators in locker rooms/changing rooms have made me even more worried about this topic
  
  What recent events? were these events ACTUALLY trans people? my understanding is that no trans woman has EVER been arrested for sex crimes in a public bathroom, here is a good article I found debunking a lot of the claims about trans women in bathrooms Amusingly, there have actually been more republican legislators arrested for sex crimes in public bathrooms than trans women, the score is 3-0
  
  I support the option of a third facility, such as a handicap/family/single room. I think that's what trans activists should be campaigning for, instead of making female spaces vulnerable to predators.
  
  Ah yes, "separate but equal" worked out so well last time we tried that...The idea that trans people should be isolated from society because of a fear that has no basis in reality and solely exists to stigmatize them is pretty offensive.
  
  How does trans women being allowed in women's restrooms/locker rooms make them unsafe, you might ask? Well, those are places where one is vulnerable, performing intimate actions like using the toilet, fixing clothes, changing, taking a shower etc.
  
  And what do you think the trans women want to do in the bathroom? All those exact same things. There is no reason to believe that trans women put anyone at risk unless you are claiming that trans people are somehow inherently evil or morally deficient, they are just people who want to use the bathroom in peace.
  
  Unfortunately, women and children are disproportionately preyed upon by males.  The vast and overwhelming majority of sex offenders, rapists, and voyeurs are biological males.
  
  Ok...are they disproportionately preyed upon by trans women? Do you have any evidence that there is a disproportionate representation of "sex offenders, rapists, and voyeurs" among trans women?
  
  Sex-segregated spaces help keep these men out. Men know they are not allowed, so they're more likely to stay out
  
  Keeping men out is all well and good, but 1) we arent talking about men we are talking about trans women, 2) If your plan is to commit some sort of sex crime, do you really think that laws about who is supposed to go in which bathroom will stop you? You know those crimes are already illegal right?
  
  Now I don't doubt transgender women simply want to use the facilities that they are comfortable with and feel safer using. I have zero issue with this.
  
  Glad you recognize that trans women often don't feel safe using the men's bathroom, do you know why that is? In a study from UCLA’s Williams Institute, nearly 70% of transgender people said they had experienced verbal harassment in a situation involving gender-segregated bathrooms, while nearly 10% reported physical assault. That is ACTUAL HARM being inflicted upon people in a real way, not just some imagined boogey-trans woman.
  
  But the problem is....How do we tell a transwomen from a man pretending to be one in order to gain access to these vulnerable spaces for wrongdoing?
  
  Do you have any evidence this is happening in a substantial way? Even if it was, I would once again argue that the idea that making a law about what bathroom you are allowed to go into will do nothing to stop people who intend to commit actual crimes.
  
  If you think a predator won't throw on a dress, wig and makeup and pretend to be a transwoman to gain access to victims, you are either ignorant or sorely naive.
  
  I'm sorry, but if you think anything you are proposing would stop this from happening (once again...if it actually does) you are "either ignorant or sorely naive"
  Now the biggest thing you are forgetting, as most people do when discussing this issue, is that TRANS MEN EXIST. And despite what you might think there are a lot of trans people that pass, both men and women. If you think we should be policing the sex assigned at birth of people and who can go into which bathroom, you are saying you want to force people who look like men to go into women's bathrooms. (I guess unless you want some "separate but equal" bullshit) Now actual men being in women's bathrooms, I could see why that could be awkward, but also...is it really worth all this concern? What if you just accidentally went into the wrong bathroom? should that be a crime?
  Even if you believed that this was a good idea, how do you enforce it? Will there be gender police outside all public bathrooms inspecting peoples...idk? genitals? DNA? What about post-op trans people, or intersex people? If you didnt know, around 2% of the population is intersex. often chromosomal intersex, meaning that they were assigned one sex at birth, but their chromosomes are of the other sex or some other deviation, like XXY or something. What bathroom are these people allowed to use? What about people who (I imagine like you) don't actually have a fucking clue what their DNA says. If you were to get a DNA test there is a non-trivial chance you would find that you actually have the chromosomes of the opposite sex, does that mean you think you should now be forced to use the other bathroom?
  At the end of the day all of these laws are simply futile nonsense fighting against an imagined evil, solely for the purpose of stigmatizing trans people. There is no realistic way to enforce the kind of restrictions you propose, and no benefit to doing so. In fact, there is substantial harm, did you know that cis women who present a bit more masculine are often accosted in bathrooms due to the kind of hate these movements are fueled by?
  If we could get past our stigma as a society and just let people piss in peace, we would have a lot more time to focus on problems that actually exist rather than causing more harm trying to solve imagined ones. >
  
  
  but why does that mean they get to make these female-only spaces unsafe? 
  
  What makes you think a man can’t go into a female bathroom and do the same thing? Do you think there’s cops posted outside every bathroom to make sure you’re the correct gender? I never understood this fear. Why would a predator need to pretend to be trans to get into a bathroom? >
  
  The difference is, if laws are passed explicitly allowing AMAB people to use the women's facility, women can't complain about a man in their locker room if he man claims to identify as a woman. Even if said man is creepy, staring, acting borderline inappropriately. They will likely just be told that that person is legally allowed to be in their space. This has happened before. 
  If these spaces are explicitly female-only, then women will feel more empowered to report a man in their space if they see one go in. >
  
  
  ...women can't complain about a man in their locker room if he man claims to identify as a woman. Even if said man is creepy, staring, acting borderline inappropriately. 
  
  Yes they can, because no person is allowed to stare or act otherwise creepy in a bathroom. I've seen women report other women for using their phones in changing rooms, since it is against the rules. I'm positive that if I told my Y staff, for example, (or my workplace's security) that a person of any kind was making me uncomfortable and described creepy behavior, they'd back me up. >
  
  One problem with sex segregated spaces:
  Gay people exist.
  Which space should a gay man use? Or a gay woman? >
  
  Eh...I don't really understand this argument? They use the restrooms that their sex is? >
  
  If you are basing your premise on the idea that people could sexually harass others in the bathroom, then your suggestion does nothing to prevent that from people who choose to harass people of the same gender.
  If the goal is to prevent "predators" it still doesn't achieve that goal while also banking on said people obeying the "bathroom laws" when they're already willing to ignore sexual harassment laws. >
  
  I'm basing it on the premise that men commit the majority of sexual crimes and the majority of victims of these crimes are women/children. Thus the need for female only spaces. >
  
  Men commit the majority of sexual crimes and the info you posted has nothing to do with that. That's about percentage of crimes against men. We're talking all sexual crimes, not those against men. >
  
  Richard Felson and Patrick Cundiff report in a fascinating recent analysis, a 15-year-old male is considerably more likely to be sexually assaulted than a woman over 40. The CDC reports that 12.3 percent of female victims were 10 or younger at the time of their first completed rape victimization; for male victims, that number is 27.8 percent.
  OP is very clearly making this about women getting raped by women that use to be men. 
  When statistically even if her worries held water. Younger boys are at a higher risk. >
  
  
  from a man pretending to be one
  
  What stopped a man pretending to be a woman from entering a restroom for wrongdoing in 1977?    Or a man not pretending to be a woman?
  Whatever your answer is, hasn't changed.
  You're creating a 'problem' from your imagination that simply does not exist. >
  
  Many laws are being passed now that allow anyone to use any restroom/changing room they would like. I don't believe this was so in 1977 >
  
  That wasn't the question.
  What prevented men from doing wrong things in 1977? >
  
  Social convention. A man had no effective excuse for being in the ladies toilets and that was an effective enough deterrent. >
  
  At what point has a man had an effective excuse for assaulting someone in the toilet? >
  
  Not for assaulting, for being in there in the first place. >
  
  So what? What's the issue with someone existing in the same space and not inflicting harm? The statement "social convention prevented men from doing wrong things" is neither correct nor sensical. >
  
  
  So what? What's the issue with someone existing in the same space and not inflicting harm?
  
  Because if they were in there it would be for the express purpose to cause harm. What other reason would they have?
  
  The statement "social convention prevented men from doing wrong things" is neither correct nor sensical.
  
  You know what, you’re right. It’s the threat of punishment. Punishment that is assured if there any shred of evidence to confirm that they were in the ladies toilets because they have no reason to go in there other than to cause harm. >
  
  
  Because if they were in there it would be for the express purpose to cause harm. What other reason would they have?
  
  To pee?  To change their clothes? >
  
  We both know that isn’t true. >
  
  Uhhh what is a “female/child” space? >
  
  Referring to my previous examples: women's restrooms, women's locker rooms/changing rooms, spaces like that. I add "child" because like I said, children very often accompany their mothers into these spaces.