I posted acknowledging them shortly before you posted in this thread.
I didn't single you out, I stated the debate at large over umpteen circular debates.
How would that be enforced, though? If a trans woman looked feminine and didn't attract much attention, she would technically still be prohibited from using the women's restroom by such a rule. On the other hand, trans men who were still biologically female would be forced to use women's restrooms while looking noticeably masculine.
Again, this is not a new phenomenon and bathrooms are same sex based. Until recently, gender was used in the vernacular as synonymous with biological sex. Trans persons who presented as their preferred gender have always used the ones for the sex that gender was associated with.
I don't think having concerns is grounds for ridiculing anyone, but a lot of anti-trans rhetoric is also wrapped in ostensible "concern" when the purpose is to exclude trans women even if they pose no more danger than other women. In my opinion, overgeneralized approaches like banning all trans women from women's restrooms or treating any woman who has concerns as anti-trans are not helpful.
Banning isnt necessary, its an extremist reaction to the extremist element that's infiltrated trans rights and attracts the most attention. But a real issue is when any point that differs from a pro trans stance is devalued as simply being rhetoric, hyperbole, political or false when that's just not the case.
Trans women have always used bathrooms associated with women. But then, most trans persons (in my experience), largely fly under the radar. That had always been important. A major aspect to alleviating their dysphoria is to not draw attention to themselves, to blend in and be perceived much of the time as the gender they identify as, i.e. have no one look twice as they walk in. No one notices = no has an issue. And when the current drama dies down, that will still be the approach for most.
