I have said at least a half-dozen times in this thread that I recognize that the physical characteristics of biological sex (including features like genes and genitalia) objectively exist.
For most human individuals, although not for all, the combination of those characteristics permits consistent and unambiguous assignment to one of two artificially simplified binary categories of biological sex.
You’ll have to decide for yourself whether you think that those statements of biological fact are equivalent to the assertion that “sex exists as an objective physical condition of the body”.
I also think, based on what I understand of the still-evolving science on the subject, that it seems very likely that the phenomenon of perceived gender identity is also an “objective physical condition of the body” based on brain characteristics. So are other neurobiological phenomena like sexual orientation.
Both gender identity and sexual orientation usually, although not always, correlate with the characteristics of biological sex. That’s why large majorities of people with XX chromosomes and female reproductive systems are female-identified and sexually attracted to males, while large majorities of people with XY chromosomes and male reproductive systems are male-identified and sexually attracted to females.
But AFAIK, these characteristics can and do occur in different combinations in a minority of individuals, and no combination is objectively more “wrong” or “unnatural” than any of the others, although they may entail greater or lesser chances of reproductive fertility.
That depends what the restrictions are, and how carefully “sex” is defined. For example, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say that obstetric medical care is restricted to (a reproductively fertile subset of) people with uteruses, because the biologically female reproductive system is what obstetric medicine is about. If we’re taking “people with uteruses” to be synonymous with “people with biologically female sex”, then that’s an example of a perfectly reasonable restriction based on biological sex.
But if, for instance, we insist on using the term “women”, unqualified, as a synonym for “people with biologically female sex”, then I think that’s a disingenuous and misleading attempt to inaccurately conflate sex with gender. In the process, it contributes to the unjust erasure and/or misgendering of transgender men, which I think is some transphobic bullshit.
Insofar as I can come up with a rule that’s both general and useful for this issue, I suppose it would be something like “Don’t impose restrictions on the basis of biological sex except where it’s realistically necessary, and don’t use restrictions about sex as an excuse or stalking horse for imposing restrictions about gender.”
Then that’s something we as a society will have to address as we figure out how to reconcile the historical legacy of our previous oversimplified binary, heterosexist, patriarchal assumptions about the nature of sex, gender and sexuality with our growing understanding of the much greater complexity of sex, gender and sexuality in the real world.
My guess is that the specific issue of public restroom categories will ultimately be resolved primarily by the growing trend of individual non-gender-specific restrooms. But that’s only a guess.
I don’t pretend to know exactly how many eighths of hatred are allocated by exactly which groups of people categorized by some unspecified criteria as “transgender rights activists” to exactly which groups of people categorized by some unspecified criteria as “these people” versus exactly which groups of people categorized by some unspecified criteria as “people like JKR”. Or vice versa.
And I’m not at all persuaded that you have any objective quantitative answers to those questions either, as opposed to just a bunch of confirmation-bias-inspired vague rhetoric.
But I’ve said all this stuff before, in response to all this stuff that you’ve said before. I re-entered this thread recently after a long hiatus only because it seemed to me that there was some new information to discuss regarding the relevance or lack thereof of Rowling’s new book to transgender issues. Looks to me like we’ve finished discussing the new information, and are now back to arguing about the same old shit we had the previous fifty arguments about. Nothing personal, but I think I’ll pass on the next round.