No, they don’t have to tolerate “any and all men”, they have to tolerate “any and all transwomen”, which might include some people that they think are men at first glance. And I would recommend that, when there’s any doubt, unless the person is behaving lewdly or badly in some other way, they should assume that it’s a transwoman.
No it’s not – it’s a perfectly good reason. You just don’t like it – is it because it’s a “shared fiction”?
I think you’re arguing philosophy, and I’m trying to argue the real world – in the real world, there are shared fictions like gendered bathrooms, and I’m not particularly concerned about the philosophy behind them as long as I don’t see them causing harm.
In the real world, I doubt your wife or daughter or mother or other hypothetical woman would stand for your constant dodging and refusal to acknowledge their very real feelings about something like this.
How am I not acknowledging their feelings?
Just because you don’t like my answers doesn’t mean I’m dodging. We obviously approach this very differently. Why assume I’m arguing in bad faith rather than just honestly expressing a very different point of view? You’ve strongly criticized others for this in other threads, I’m pretty sure. I hope your aggressive approach isn’t leading you to assume the worst because you’re getting angry or something.
Then why don’t you want to address his question?
I’ve certainly tried.
I guess that’s a matter of opinion. I don’t see it.
Which question do you think I’ve failed to answer? My patience has no bounds, and I’d be happy to try again, and I’ll even try to word it differently. 
Suppose a woman is discomforted by the idea of a male being present in her bathroom, not due to any fear of physical harm, is that a feeling which is to be respected and which “counts” in terms of who should or should not be allowed in that bathroom?
Sure, it should be respected, and in a moral sense, I’m fine with “counting” it (not necessarily above any and all other considerations) in terms of who should (morally) be allowed into the bathroom.
I listed somewhere else why a cis male might be in a women’s bathroom. Here are the reasons I can think of:
- Custodial or other professional reason to be in there.
- The men’s room is unavailable–it’s filthy, it’s broken, it’s locked, etc.–and he can’t wait.
- He’s escorting a female (child or adult) who needs assistance and does not want to use the men’s room.
- He’s curious about the amenities.
- He went in the wrong bathroom by mistake.
- He’s hoping to see something to perv on.
- He’s got another plan to commit a crime.
- He’s got some annoying political point to make, and he’s making it by going into the women’s restroom.
There may be others. The first three seem pretty reasonable to me, although I’d expect him to make some sort of nod to the sensibilities of the people in there–for the first one because it’s part of his job not to irritate clients, and for #2 and #3 because it’s going to be a rare occurrence for him. This nod to sensibilities doesn’t mean he doesn’t enter the restroom; it means that he gives a heads-up.
#4-8 result in his being asked to leave.
If there’s a reason that’s not on my list, what is it? I’m certainly willing to listen. But the first three reasons indicate some courtesy to let folks know what’s going on, and the last five indicate he should get the hell out of there. A cis dude that goes in without the courtesy indication is going to look to me like he’s there for one of the latter five reasons.
Ok. But that seems to contradict what you wrote in an earlier post, in which you said:
There you seemed to be saying that their feelings were not an issue and only the possibility of harm is what counted.
Unless there’s some special relevance you adding the word “morally” this time around.
“Addressing it” (and doing nothing) referred to confronting the man, in that post – I would address their feelings by talking to them and trying to make them feel better, but I would only address the situation by initiating a confrontation if I thought there was the possibility of harm.
Since there’s virtually no way that I could know for certain that someone was not intending harm, then that might require confrontation (or alerting authorities) in most circumstances. Again, this assumes that we all know for a fact that this is a cisgender man who entered the ladies’ room (presumably, not the janitor or plumber or similar, and not because the men’s room is broken, etc.).
Well OK, I don’t think the question was about you “initiating a confrontation” specifically.
The post you cited referred to confrontation multiple times.
ISTM that you brought in the issue of confrontations in your response, but it was not part of his initial question.
Manyeyes, I’m wondering if part of the problem with the scenario is that, while you’re told what isn’t the motivation of the dude, you’re not told what is. It’s hard to judge without having an inkling of that: different motivations lead to different responses. To take two examples:
- The dude went into the lady’s room when it was empty and the men’s room was locked. When your wife went in, he shouted, “I’m in here!” from a stall.
- The dude came staggering drunkenly into the lady’s room and said, “Hey, ladies! Haven’t you heard, anyone can go in any bathroom now? So here I am, deal with it, I’m gonna take a piss and you can’t stop me!”
In neither case is the man presenting a clear danger; but I’d respond differently to the two scenarios.
Motives are important.
He asked me why I’d confront the man.
That sounds reasonable to me.