A large number of posters in this thread are welcome at my place for a beverage of your choosing.
That’s my take on it, too, but add also the idea that men can’t help themselves when they encounter naked female flesh.
If you “can’t help yourself” then you’re a goddamned psychopath. Go to prison where you belong.
They aren’t really ignored, so much as reframed, as we can see upthread where a story of a man assaulting a woman outside the restroom was used as an example of… well, I’m not sure what, but it seemed they had some sort of point that it was a transgender person’s fault somehow.
Responding to someone noting your dipshittitude with “cunt” really doesn’t have the winning effect you may think, shitnugget.
I hope no one’s holding their breaths…
People in this thread have said a lot of stupid things. Just because violence can happen doesn’t mean that’s the main reason. Violence happens in lots of places that are not gender segregated. It may be a secondary or tertiary reason, but not certainly THE reason.
The reason, from my point of view, is that we’re socialized from a young age that it’s inappropriate (not dangerous, mind you) to be naked or be doing personal private things in front of the opposite gender. We’re supposed to be more comfortable in front of the same gender. Probably a hold over from not arousing someone sexually, not a danger issue. It’s not about being traumatized by a penis but that society accepted the idea that “it’s just not done that way”. It’s why we don’t have many nude or topless beaches in the US etc.
Let’s not conflate fear of danger with compliance with social norms.
Part of the reason that they feel the same is that both try to reframe debate by saying that support of marginalized group X as bigotry against marginalized group Y. So you have the Gender critical people saying that being pro-trans, is being anti feminist, while the race realists say that being pro affirmative action is being anti-Asian.
I’m going to hold my breath until @Aspidistra tells us where he or she thinks Buck Angel should go to the bathroom.
Hey, not everybody has to keep using their debate-forum manners in the Pit, even if some of us have a bad habit of doing so. 
Not trying to tell you you can’t block anybody you want to for whatever reason you want, natch.
Anyway, yeah, of course it makes sense to use binary sex categories as a first approximation to describe sex and gender in a bisexually reproducing species like humans. The vast majority of humans are indeed either heterosexual cisgender women or heterosexual cisgender men, because heterosexual sex is (mostly) what makes the baybeezzz that a species needs in order not to go extinct, and gender categories among humans originated as a cultural reflection of biological sex.
However. It is equally true that binary sex and gender categories are only an imperfect approximation to the realities of human sex and gender (and sexual orientation), for all the reasons that other posters have explained. As soon as you get out of the statistical average and into individual cases, you find all kinds of exceptions and outliers everywhere on a continuous spectrum of possibilities.
Gay rights, transgender rights, intersex rights, and all other movements to affirm the rights of individuals not to be legally forced into conformity with artificially rigid binary sex and gender norms are ultimately just a long-overdue recognition of these scientific facts.
It’s also a bit of a generational and subculture issue. I went to college in the northeastern US in the early 1980s and lived on a dorm floor with a mixed-gender bathroom. There was one urinal discreetly tucked between the row of stalls and the shower, and the shower was multi-user with multiple showerheads but no partitions (old-fashioned locker-room style).
If you wanted to shower and somebody else was already in there, if either of you happened to be uncomfortable about being naked in the shower with somebody of that individual’s gender, you just waited till they got out. If neither of you minded, you just got in the shower and went to one of the other showerheads, and didn’t stare at the other nekkid person.
I never cared who was in the shower with me, mostly because I’m nearsighted af and can barely tell a fellow human being from a towel hanging on a hook when I’m in the shower with my glasses off. But also because in the rather earnest crunchy hippy-dippy peace’n’love “proto-woke” subculture of that era, a lot of people valued that sort of casual non-sexualized attitude towards situational nudity. We felt very mature and wise 
about not letting hangups about naked bodies get in the way of ordinary human needs like getting washed. (And of course, we knew all the people who lived on that dorm floor and shared that bathroom, so it wasn’t like there were naked random strangers all over the place.)
I very much doubt whether any college dorms these days have similar setups. Even mixed-gender dorm floors probably have gender-segregated multi-user bathrooms, and even gender-segregated multi-user bathrooms probably have individual shower stalls instead of communal showers.
Not that that’s a bad thing either. I predict that what will ultimately do the most to defuse the whole transphobic pants-shitting epidemic about transgender bathroom/locker room use will be increasing prevalence of individualized facilities such as puzzlegal described. When people can share bathroom and washing and changing facilities in some form without having to be visibly unclothed in one another’s presence, you’re not going to be seeing any unexpected genitalia.
And initially, a lot more spaces were sex-segregated than nowadays:
Fair enough, but this still seems to reinforce my notion that the ideal Gender Critical world would have no need for sex segregated spaces. In a world with no form of gender identity genitals become just another body part and no section of nude flesh is more salacious than any other section of nude flesh. For instance, the idea that exposed female breasts are meaningful and male breasts are not is purely one of gender. Likewise, the idea that women can wear revealing clothing in public and men cannot is equally due to gender, because like you said in some cultures nude beaches and tight swim briefs on men and family saunas are more acceptable than others. Any cultural difference between how men and women are expected to behave is by definition a difference in gender identity.
Of course, the world we live in is nothing like this idealized gender-free world, but the curious thing is that Gender Critical folks seem uninterested in bringing this world into being. They say there is no wrong kind of gender expression, which I agree with, but insist there are still cultural concessions that need to be made based on biological sex, for instance single-sex spaces and also single-sex sports. But why? Isn’t this just enforcing gender ideology, but specifically tied to biological sex? Why can’t sports be organized by physical ability rather than by biological sex? Why are we putting so much value on genitals, which are just another body part that we only care about because they reflect gender identities that shouldn’t exist? Why aren’t Gender Critical folks trying to tear down institutionalized gender enforcement, and are instead seem to be propping up the same old patriarchal system with their words and deeds?
I have a theory, which is they’re lying about their motivation and actually they’re just prejudiced toward transgender people, but that’s just a theory.
Gasp.
I think you misunderstand what these people mean by “gender critical.” And, to be fair, so did I originally.
It’s not that they think gender as we understand it should go away. It’s that they are critical that there is something called “gender” which is distinct from biological sex. Despite the name, “gender critical feminists” are very much gender essentialists, believing that (what we call) gender and sex must always match.
And, yes, this view is, IMNSHO, quite sexist.
(In My Not So Humble Opinion)
You see, this is exactly what I said earlier in this thread, but the response was an insistence that this is wrong and to be Gender Critical is to allow people to dress and behave (what we could call expressing a gender identity) however they choose to, as long as they respect biological sex (whatever that means).
I’ve encountered this line of rhetoric many times when dealing with Gender Critical/TERFs and it never makes sense, because everything they cite as places where biological sex is important are actually just socially constructed systems where gender is important. There’s no biological need for sex-segregated bathrooms or changing rooms. There’s no biological need for sex-segregated sports. The only possible place where biological sex is actually important is the doctor’s office, and even the most hard-line trans activist will agree that your doctor is the only person who probably needs to know what sex you were born as.
Haha! I, too, am quite shocked at that accusation.
This suggests that they have any authority to “allow” people to dress or behave certain ways. As if this is something they will permit as a reasonable compromise, an indication of their support, since they’re not advocating beating trans people with bats for daring to be seen in public. See how nice they are, they will actually let trans people exist, and only accept the necessary assaults, like when they try to use a public bathroom.
If I’m reading Aspidistra’s response to your post correctly, I think her position is that the differnces between the sexs are very real and very important, but they will allow that people can decide to break those norms and pretend to be the opposite sex if they want to. However in no way should society accommodate their delusions. Oh, and by the way they probably shouldn’t transition either because its bad for their health.
I think this is analgous to those people who would they aren’t conservative because they are willing to accept that gays can go ahead and have sex with other men and dance in parades, and live together, but they shouldn’t be allowed to have any of the benefits of marriage because can only exist between a man and a woman. Also they probably actually shouldn’t have sex because it causes AIDS.
I think that’s just because they don’t see dress as part of gender roles. It’s fine for someone to dress however they like, but they still have to conform to the gender role they were assigned at birth. So, sure, a man can wear a dress, but a trans woman can’t say she’s a woman.
But there’s also just an inconsistency. There are gender roles that they consider to just be based on society, but also gender roles they consider essential. A stay-at-home dad? That’s fine. But he must stay in the dad gender role. No one who is AMAB can take on the mom gender role.
I would argue it isn’t entirely consistent, but that this is normal due to it being based more on fear. Part of it is fear of men, and part of it is fear of transgenderism. In fact, the former is the reason for the latter. A trans woman must be one of those icky men who is out to get them. Only if “men” stay in their lane can they be trusted.
Of that we’re in agreement
I’m with Citizen, J.R. I don’t believe in status-based honorifics.
There is no biological need for sports (well, arguably - one could construct a hypothesis for a genetic basis for competitive play which feeds into an inborn psychological need for some). There is a cultural demand for them however. Non-sex-segregated sports however wouldn’t work for a number of sports because there are in fact biological differences in physical size and athleticism. I’m loosely a fan of both women’s basketball (mostly NCAAW, some WNBA) and men’s (NBA). But I’d readily admit that even the best women player in her prime (maybe Diana Taurasi) would never make even the back bench of the worst NBA team. She has the skills and likely could shoot as well as many men in a vacuum, but she would just be way too slow and and pretty damn undersized. She’d be a massive liability on defense herself and even as a specialist spot-up shooter on a spread floor would still have great difficulty in getting free of modern NBA defenses to take that shot.
So no sex-segregation at all in college or professional basketball and there would be very, very few women playing at the collegiate level and none at all in the professional league. Which is bad for women that want to compete and bad for me as a fan that wants to see the competition.
But I don’t have any particular issues with trans players competing on women’s teams at this point because a.) it isn’t common b.) it hasn’t been compellingly proven to my satisfaction that it has made a huge difference and c.) even if a negative competitive effect is proven in a fringe case I can’t see how it would be anything other than a minimal impact overall. In this case harm mitigation leans towards trans participation rather than exclusion. Trans athletes just aren’t that common and the alluring rewards of participating in women’s sports are mostly pretty minimal relative to the stigma and difficulties of living life as a trans individual.
I’m open to a reasonable discussion about potential checks and balances on the issue, but for the most part I think the anti- crowd is being driven by panic rather than logic.