Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure the facility would be happy to look for another specialist who isn't a bigot.

You CANNOT be serious. Doctors are hired for their medical expertise, not their political or personal beliefs.

You would go see a dermatologist who believes in white supremacy?

I’m not the PP but wow does this comment demonstrate your remarkable privilege. You are clearly telegraphing how young, white, fully-abled, thin, and AMAB you are here.

Anyone who is not as favored by the medical establishment as you are lives in a very different world. There is so much deep bias in medicine against women, against the elderly, against the disabled, against POCs, etc, that those of us in these categories already know we’ve been treated by care providers who are bigoted against us. If women started demanding that any provider who held a bigoted view of women leave the field, we’d have many fewer professionals left to treat us. I think if you made the same demand with respect to beliefs about obesity, there might not literally be a single doctor left practicing in the country.

I’m kind of shocked by your entitlement and cluelessness here but I guess I shouldn’t be.

Nope. And I absolutely do stop going to doctors I discover are bigoted.

That is a privilege most people don’t have.

Of course they do. No one is forcing you to see a particular doctor.

Well, maybe if you're captive at a mental health facility. Then you are forced to see whoever they can scrape up.

I am the mental healthcare facility doctor. Thank you for showing your true colors.
I will continue to provide excellent healthcare to my patients (even though to you it is inherently inferior because I don’t walk in with a sandwich board proclaiming “trans women are women!” but I digress) while you continue to bang out your trans rights screeds on an anonymous forum. I guess it makes you feel like you are doing something meaningful in the lives of trans people.

You’re a bigot. You want to be congratulated for hiding it at work?

DP, when your arguments mostly consist of name calling like “bigot” then you’ve already lost the argument. At least explain your position in a respectful, coherent way otherwise it comes across as meaningless and intellectually lazy.

They can't. Their very platform of ideas is incoherent and anti-scientific.

The PP thinks transgenderism is mental illness and wants to exclude and discriminate against transgender people. No bathrooms, sports, etc.

Their choice of bathroom and sports are not basic human rights.

Using the bathroom is a human right. Sports is not.

So you’re trying to tell me that we are taking away their right to use the bathroom? Is that what you’re saying? Because that is 100% untrue.

That's kind of the point even if you won't admit it. You don't want trans women in the women's room. You don't ACTUALLY want trans women in the men's room with your husband and son either. You don't want a bearded trans man in the women's room. Many trans men look like cis men. Some trans women look like cis women. The whole point of saying that trans people should be banned from the bathroom that aligns to their gender identity is to prevent them from going out in public. I know you'll never admit it even on an anonomouys message board.

It's kind of irrelevant though because in DC trans people are legally allowed to use the bathroom that aligns to their gender identity. Same in Maryland. I'm sure you can live in a state that will force trans people to use the bathroom of their birth gender (even if their ID shows the one that they identify as).

I support having a third category of gender neutral bathrooms. Why are you trying to take away the rights of biological females to define ourselves as a sex-based class of people. Just admit that you ACTUALLY want to remove sex-based protections for women.

+ a million.

This is exactly what feminists worldwide are fighting for, but they are told to STFU and censored in the US.

Only the trans-exclusionary feminists.

All of the other feminists want to protect ALL women.

The New Oxford Dictionary defines
feminism as “the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the SEXES.”

SEXES. Not gender. Or is this just another definition that has changed?

Inclusive feminists want to protect rights for ALL women.

So then the definition of feminism HAS changed. Thanks for clarifying. It’s so hard to keep up these days.

It has always been about protecting “women”, not “females”.

I think you’re being disingenuous with this. When the women’s movement started, it wasn’t about people who “feel” like women. It was about females (which back then were also called women because they were considered one and the same). If you can find me any literature from the beginning of the women’s movement that talks about equal rights for all women (even those who just feel like women), I’d love to see it.

It’s always been about women.

The definition of woman has expanded over time.

It’s always been about females. I think you know this.

No, because the issues have always been about constraints imposed by society, not biology.

Gender, not sex.

Feminism is about women and their challenges imposed by society.

They were imposed by society BECAUSE of biology. Women were the weaker sex - their job was to give birth and raise the children. They were seen as less than - so they were treated as such.

A job and viewpoint defined by society.

You’re probably right. Those cavemen definitely decided that the woman should stay home and have/raise kids. That’s totally what happened.

The expectation came from society.

I can see there is no rational conversation to be had here.

Exactly what Jeff said at the start of this post. How ironic.

And yet we’re 30-something pages in. Interesting.

Not really. The people that think sex and gender are the same thing think everyone should change their mind to agree with them but are not willing to reevaluate their own opinion.

Same can be said about those who think gender stereotypes have nothing to do with sex, and aren’t willing to reevaluate their own opinion.

Nobody said that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure the facility would be happy to look for another specialist who isn't a bigot.

You CANNOT be serious. Doctors are hired for their medical expertise, not their political or personal beliefs.

You would go see a dermatologist who believes in white supremacy?

I’m not the PP but wow does this comment demonstrate your remarkable privilege. You are clearly telegraphing how young, white, fully-abled, thin, and AMAB you are here.

Anyone who is not as favored by the medical establishment as you are lives in a very different world. There is so much deep bias in medicine against women, against the elderly, against the disabled, against POCs, etc, that those of us in these categories already know we’ve been treated by care providers who are bigoted against us. If women started demanding that any provider who held a bigoted view of women leave the field, we’d have many fewer professionals left to treat us. I think if you made the same demand with respect to beliefs about obesity, there might not literally be a single doctor left practicing in the country.

I’m kind of shocked by your entitlement and cluelessness here but I guess I shouldn’t be.

Nope. And I absolutely do stop going to doctors I discover are bigoted.

That is a privilege most people don’t have.

Of course they do. No one is forcing you to see a particular doctor.

Well, maybe if you're captive at a mental health facility. Then you are forced to see whoever they can scrape up.

I am the mental healthcare facility doctor. Thank you for showing your true colors.
I will continue to provide excellent healthcare to my patients (even though to you it is inherently inferior because I don’t walk in with a sandwich board proclaiming “trans women are women!” but I digress) while you continue to bang out your trans rights screeds on an anonymous forum. I guess it makes you feel like you are doing something meaningful in the lives of trans people.

You’re a bigot. You want to be congratulated for hiding it at work?

DP, when your arguments mostly consist of name calling like “bigot” then you’ve already lost the argument. At least explain your position in a respectful, coherent way otherwise it comes across as meaningless and intellectually lazy.

They can't. Their very platform of ideas is incoherent and anti-scientific.

The PP thinks transgenderism is mental illness and wants to exclude and discriminate against transgender people. No bathrooms, sports, etc.

Their choice of bathroom and sports are not basic human rights.

Using the bathroom is a human right. Sports is not.

So you’re trying to tell me that we are taking away their right to use the bathroom? Is that what you’re saying? Because that is 100% untrue.

That's kind of the point even if you won't admit it. You don't want trans women in the women's room. You don't ACTUALLY want trans women in the men's room with your husband and son either. You don't want a bearded trans man in the women's room. Many trans men look like cis men. Some trans women look like cis women. The whole point of saying that trans people should be banned from the bathroom that aligns to their gender identity is to prevent them from going out in public. I know you'll never admit it even on an anonomouys message board.

It's kind of irrelevant though because in DC trans people are legally allowed to use the bathroom that aligns to their gender identity. Same in Maryland. I'm sure you can live in a state that will force trans people to use the bathroom of their birth gender (even if their ID shows the one that they identify as).

I support having a third category of gender neutral bathrooms. Why are you trying to take away the rights of biological females to define ourselves as a sex-based class of people. Just admit that you ACTUALLY want to remove sex-based protections for women.

+ a million.

This is exactly what feminists worldwide are fighting for, but they are told to STFU and censored in the US.

Only the trans-exclusionary feminists.

All of the other feminists want to protect ALL women.

The New Oxford Dictionary defines
feminism as “the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the SEXES.”

SEXES. Not gender. Or is this just another definition that has changed?

Inclusive feminists want to protect rights for ALL women.

So then the definition of feminism HAS changed. Thanks for clarifying. It’s so hard to keep up these days.

It has always been about protecting “women”, not “females”.

I think you’re being disingenuous with this. When the women’s movement started, it wasn’t about people who “feel” like women. It was about females (which back then were also called women because they were considered one and the same). If you can find me any literature from the beginning of the women’s movement that talks about equal rights for all women (even those who just feel like women), I’d love to see it.

It’s always been about women.

The definition of woman has expanded over time.

It’s always been about females. I think you know this.

No, because the issues have always been about constraints imposed by society, not biology.

Gender, not sex.

Feminism is about women and their challenges imposed by society.

They were imposed by society BECAUSE of biology. Women were the weaker sex - their job was to give birth and raise the children. They were seen as less than - so they were treated as such.

A job and viewpoint defined by society.

You’re probably right. Those cavemen definitely decided that the woman should stay home and have/raise kids. That’s totally what happened.

The expectation came from society.

Why do you think society expected this? Could it possibly be because men are stronger and naturally better hunters/gatherers? And the women breastfed the babies because, oh I don’t know, they had breasts? Because back then, breastfeeding was caring for the baby. Are you trying to tell me men could do that but as a society they got together and decided “nah, let’s let the womenfolk do it! They love that stuff anyway”?

Gender and sex are related.

The only aspects that are sex-based are biological functions (insemination, pregnancy & breastfeeding). Beyond that, any roles, expectations, or limitations are formed by society. Even a primitive one.

There are physical differences beyond reproduction. Bone density and muscle mass, to name two. Those are sex based as well.

Those are hormone based. It’s actually kind of interesting that transphobic people believe all trans women look like Lia Thomas. It makes it a lot harder for you to be able to tell whol us trans.

Those hormones are sex based. Males produce testosterone and females produce estrogen. These hormones are also responsible for the development of the reproductive organs. So once again, those features are sex based.

[Anonymous]

There are environmental factors as well. Xenoestrogen, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are environmental factors as well. Xenoestrogen, etc.

Xenoestrogens have nothing to do with this discussion.

[Anonymous]

The bathroom issue is a hard one because it is inescapable that predators already have and will continue to misuse the laws to get access to and to harm vulnerable women and children, but it is also undeniable that transwomen in particular are at risk in men’s bathrooms and in general a law making a transperson use the bathroom associated with their biological sex puts them at increased risk.

Violence from men is the root issue. The blue states have prioritized the safety of transpersons over ciswomen and children, the red states have gone or are going the opposite direction. I think the long-term solution is individual bathrooms but in the meantime a lot of people are going to get hurt.

I honestly don’t know what the right answer is, but I do find it infuriating when trans rights activists suppress any discussion about what increased access to women’s spaces means to women’s safety as transphobic.

[jsteele]

Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

Nope. Female’s physical weakness and ability to bear children mean that they have been historically oppressed by males. Men will always have the ability to dominate women physically and therefore sex-based protections are needed for women to keep certain spaces single sex. This is a conversation about sex, not gender.

Feminists advocate for both males and females to have complete freedom to live how they want regarding “gender” roles, which are cultural ideas about how each sex should behave. Men can wear dresses and women can go hunting.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

No. And I think you know that at heart.

I consider myself someone whose primary issue is the safety and progress of women (that also means I am very pro gun control, for instance). For millennia, women have faced extreme violence, almost always at the hands of men, specifically because women bear children and on average they are physically weaker. The stats on violence are overwhelmingly male; violence in our society as a whole is overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who have or start life with penises.

You can’t just erase that history of violence and oppression based on sex-based characteristics because a small percentage of the population identifies as trans. That seems to be the position of trans advocates (and perhaps yours), but it is wishful thinking at best. And this is shown in the limited stats on criminality of transwomen that we have: transwomen retain male criminality profiles, not female, even after transition.

I think trans people deserve to be safe. But it is critical to make them safe in a way that does not increase the risks to women, and that’s not happening now. Women who raise issues of safety in fact often face violence for doing so: they are doxxed, they get violent rape and death threats, they are physically attacked, often now on video. This is, of course, exactly in line with the history of feminism. Women fighting for the safety of women and children have always faced extreme violence from angry men. It is literally a characteristic of the history of feminism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

No. And I think you know that at heart.

I consider myself someone whose primary issue is the safety and progress of women (that also means I am very pro gun control, for instance). For millennia, women have faced extreme violence, almost always at the hands of men, specifically because women bear children and on average they are physically weaker. The stats on violence are overwhelmingly male; violence in our society as a whole is overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who have or start life with penises.

You can’t just erase that history of violence and oppression based on sex-based characteristics because a small percentage of the population identifies as trans. That seems to be the position of trans advocates (and perhaps yours), but it is wishful thinking at best. And this is shown in the limited stats on criminality of transwomen that we have: transwomen retain male criminality profiles, not female, even after transition.

I think trans people deserve to be safe. But it is critical to make them safe in a way that does not increase the risks to women, and that’s not happening now. Women who raise issues of safety in fact often face violence for doing so: they are doxxed, they get violent rape and death threats, they are physically attacked, often now on video. This is, of course, exactly in line with the history of feminism. Women fighting for the safety of women and children have always faced extreme violence from angry men. It is literally a characteristic of the history of feminism.

Are you saying that trans women are attacking cis women in bathrooms or that you’re afraid of trans women in bathrooms? Like what, sexually assaulted? With an estrogenized penis?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

You do not. Female gender roles were established BECAUSE women give birth and have other substantial biological differences than men. Nothing justifies gender roles - we’re just trying to explain where they came from. And to show that gender and sex, despite having different meaning, are very very linked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

Nope. Female’s physical weakness and ability to bear children mean that they have been historically oppressed by males. Men will always have the ability to dominate women physically and therefore sex-based protections are needed for women to keep certain spaces single sex. This is a conversation about sex, not gender.

Feminists advocate for both males and females to have complete freedom to live how they want regarding “gender” roles, which are cultural ideas about how each sex should behave. Men can wear dresses and women can go hunting.

This is a really really good answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

No. And I think you know that at heart.

I consider myself someone whose primary issue is the safety and progress of women (that also means I am very pro gun control, for instance). For millennia, women have faced extreme violence, almost always at the hands of men, specifically because women bear children and on average they are physically weaker. The stats on violence are overwhelmingly male; violence in our society as a whole is overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who have or start life with penises.

You can’t just erase that history of violence and oppression based on sex-based characteristics because a small percentage of the population identifies as trans. That seems to be the position of trans advocates (and perhaps yours), but it is wishful thinking at best. And this is shown in the limited stats on criminality of transwomen that we have: transwomen retain male criminality profiles, not female, even after transition.

I think trans people deserve to be safe. But it is critical to make them safe in a way that does not increase the risks to women, and that’s not happening now. Women who raise issues of safety in fact often face violence for doing so: they are doxxed, they get violent rape and death threats, they are physically attacked, often now on video. This is, of course, exactly in line with the history of feminism. Women fighting for the safety of women and children have always faced extreme violence from angry men. It is literally a characteristic of the history of feminism.

Are you saying that trans women are attacking cis women in bathrooms or that you’re afraid of trans women in bathrooms? Like what, sexually assaulted? With an estrogenized penis?

I was talking about more than bathrooms. But with respect to bathrooms, the issue is more complicated that you describe. It isn’t transwomen attacking ciswomen. It is male-sexed predators in general using self-ID laws to get access to places they couldn’t access before. Some of those predators will be trans, some will be cis, but what they share at heart are historically male violence patterns towards women.

Also, whenever people (usually trans activists) claim that estrogenized penises can’t cause sexual assault, I know without a doubt that they are not female. Sexual assault is a crime of power and violence. The penis is a tool; if it can’t be used, something else will be used. Women over the millennia have been raped and assaulted by men using many, many other means. Transwomen taking estrogen retain male violence patterns in any event; estrogen doesn’t seem to stop anything.

It is not at all true that all transwomen are sexual predators, and I want to make that clear. Neither are all men. But SOME men are, and SOME transwomen are, and they will use (and already have used) increased access for predation. But since many places are elevating the self-ID of transwomen over the safety of women, women who even talk about the risks of expanded access face extreme violence themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

Nope. Female’s physical weakness and ability to bear children mean that they have been historically oppressed by males. Men will always have the ability to dominate women physically and therefore sex-based protections are needed for women to keep certain spaces single sex. This is a conversation about sex, not gender.

Feminists advocate for both males and females to have complete freedom to live how they want regarding “gender” roles, which are cultural ideas about how each sex should behave. Men can wear dresses and women can go hunting.

This is a really really good answer.

It's a really really good narrative, which happens to be false.

In the countries where women have more freedom, like Sweden or Norway, they tend to choose more "traditionally female" studies and careers than feminists would like them to.

Feminists advocate for themselves, not for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

Nope. Female’s physical weakness and ability to bear children mean that they have been historically oppressed by males. Men will always have the ability to dominate women physically and therefore sex-based protections are needed for women to keep certain spaces single sex. This is a conversation about sex, not gender.

Feminists advocate for both males and females to have complete freedom to live how they want regarding “gender” roles, which are cultural ideas about how each sex should behave. Men can wear dresses and women can go hunting.

This is a really really good answer.

It's a really really good narrative, which happens to be false.

In the countries where women have more freedom, like Sweden or Norway, they tend to choose more "traditionally female" studies and careers than feminists would like them to.

Feminists advocate for themselves, not for women.

Irrelevant. There may never be as many female hunters as male hunters or as many male nurses as female nurses and that is OK. The point is that men can be nurses and women can be hunters. But that doesn’t make them a different biological sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

No. And I think you know that at heart.

I consider myself someone whose primary issue is the safety and progress of women (that also means I am very pro gun control, for instance). For millennia, women have faced extreme violence, almost always at the hands of men, specifically because women bear children and on average they are physically weaker. The stats on violence are overwhelmingly male; violence in our society as a whole is overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who have or start life with penises.

You can’t just erase that history of violence and oppression based on sex-based characteristics because a small percentage of the population identifies as trans. That seems to be the position of trans advocates (and perhaps yours), but it is wishful thinking at best. And this is shown in the limited stats on criminality of transwomen that we have: transwomen retain male criminality profiles, not female, even after transition.

I think trans people deserve to be safe. But it is critical to make them safe in a way that does not increase the risks to women, and that’s not happening now. Women who raise issues of safety in fact often face violence for doing so: they are doxxed, they get violent rape and death threats, they are physically attacked, often now on video. This is, of course, exactly in line with the history of feminism. Women fighting for the safety of women and children have always faced extreme violence from angry men. It is literally a characteristic of the history of feminism.

Are you saying that trans women are attacking cis women in bathrooms or that you’re afraid of trans women in bathrooms? Like what, sexually assaulted? With an estrogenized penis?

I was talking about more than bathrooms. But with respect to bathrooms, the issue is more complicated that you describe. It isn’t transwomen attacking ciswomen. It is male-sexed predators in general using self-ID laws to get access to places they couldn’t access before. Some of those predators will be trans, some will be cis, but what they share at heart are historically male violence patterns towards women.

Also, whenever people (usually trans activists) claim that estrogenized penises can’t cause sexual assault, I know without a doubt that they are not female. Sexual assault is a crime of power and violence. The penis is a tool; if it can’t be used, something else will be used. Women over the millennia have been raped and assaulted by men using many, many other means. Transwomen taking estrogen retain male violence patterns in any event; estrogen doesn’t seem to stop anything.

It is not at all true that all transwomen are sexual predators, and I want to make that clear. Neither are all men. But SOME men are, and SOME transwomen are, and they will use (and already have used) increased access for predation. But since many places are elevating the self-ID of transwomen over the safety of women, women who even talk about the risks of expanded access face extreme violence themselves.

Which specific self ID laws are you talking about in the DMV that resulted in cis men attacking women in bathrooms? Is this something you’re scared of or something that’s happened in let’s say, MD?