Okay, Rogue.

One of the reasons I created my Miro presentation-argument is that I wanted to avoid ever having to put in time again to respond to people around this issue, unless they're raising something new I haven't included in the presentation. I wanted to avoid repeating myself. And I especially, especially wanted to avoid the scenario that might unfold between us: Where I take your argument's conclusion and your premises and I start responding to them as though we are coming to them with the same foundational knowledge and beliefs and because we aren't, it turns into a big disorganized mess. I don't want that for us but because you sound reasonable, I think we can avoid it. And I'm going to just try to recycle what I'm writing here into the Miro document.

I'm going to try to reorganize and rephrase your argument. I think your argument is this:

"J.K. Rowling should not have to share a bathroom with anyone she assumes has a penis, because she finds that traumatizing based on her past experience in an abusive relationship with her husband. Trans people and allies should be able to understand that and willing to accept it because otherwise, they're being hypocritical when citing their own trauma as a reason why they shouldn't have to do something. Also, we already draw distinctions for religious people where their beliefs are protected such that they don't have to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple marrying, etc."

This isn't a valid argument form. Even if all of your premises are true (and I don't think they are but we'll get to that) they don't naturally lead to the conclusion that JKR's traumatized reaction should be honoured because they rely on two false comparisons.

1. The feeling of trauma or fear is not enough of a commonality to make an argument that is "this is like that". We have to compare what the feeling of trauma is being leveraged to do. If people don't want to listen to a podcast in the privacy of their own lives because it causes them trauma, that only affects them. They're not trying to say that the podcast shouldn't exist because they don't want to listen to it. (I'm sure some people do think that, but I never argued for that and your citing my own comment.) JKR is trying to limit the behaviour of other people, by trying to limit the definition of "woman." We're all welcome to try to influence the world around us. But using her own trauma response is unfair because it's illogical and personal and emotional and we can't set that precedent. That's bananas. If trans women shouldn't be able to access publish restrooms, it has to be for a different reason than, "Because of how I choose to perceive these people, I feel scared." That's the very definition of bigotry.

Sometimes, people try to create commonalities by using broad definitions, choosing the frame through which we're going to look at something. So, they'll say something like, "Trans people are using their feelings to dictate how everyone needs to behave. It's the same thing." We can't zoom so far out from a situation until we've reached the point where two groups of people have "feelings" and so therefore it's same-same. We have to interrogate what the feelings are, how much control they have over their feelings, who created the feelings, who has more power versus who is oppressed, etc.

If you were to take each of these questions and make a table with JKR's situation on one side and trans people's need for a bathroom on the other side, and you were to write down the answers to the questions, you'd see that the only commonalities are feelings and bathrooms, really. That's not enough to make logical arguments.

2. You make a false comparison between a) religious people believing in the existence of queer and trans internal identities but not accepting external behaviour and that distinction being protected, and b) JKR believing in trans people's internal identities but not accepting their external behaviour if it impacts her.

Religious people are not allowed to discriminate in any public space. JKR is allowed to not have trans people at her home or in her personal bathroom. If Mormons were trying to prevent gay people from using public bathrooms, this would be a good comparison.

Now, your premises.

Let's start with the very first premise: "people with gender dysphoria." Look. The thing is... in order for this phrase to exist and for it to mean what I think it means to you and others, it relies on a logic that says there's an objective truth out there somewhere about gender. And people who don't abide by it are "dysphoric."

But there is no objective truth, there's just this concept we've been living with in our culture in a specific way, that isn't the way we used to live it and isn't the same way other cultures live it. This is what my Miro-hosted argument proves.

If "gender dysphoria" simply means "I don't feel aligned with my culture's orientation around gender," then it's a pretty neutral phrase. But I think you're using it to say that these people feel like they were born in the "wrong body."

Being trans is not a decision. You could argue it's a realization, like being queer. But it's not a decision, because it's just an internal orientation that people can't decide to have one day.

Whether some one "acts" on their homosexuality or "acts" trans in some externally identifyable way are not things that religious people are allowed to prevent. All they are allowed to do is kick you out of their private spaces. They are not allowed to keep you from accessing public spaces or human rights that are avilable to everyone else.

I don't believe that JKR experiences trauma by being in a bathroom with a person who she suspects might have a penis or might have once had a penis. She seems like an intelligent and rational woman and this sounds incredibly put on and ridiculous, leveraging a false comparison argument that someone thinks is logical and powerful when it's actually limp and nonsensical. I have been raped more than once. I've experienced a lot of trauma at the hands of men. I wouldn't experience trauma because a trans woman is in the bathroom with me. I use multi-stall gender neutral bathrooms. If one person tries to use their supposed trauma to explain why a whole group of people can't use a bathroom, there's always someone else who can counter it with their own anecdote, effectively cancelling it out. Because we aren't trying to create justice for every individual for everything they experience—that's impossible. We're trying to create justice for groups of people who all share the same social problem. All trans people have problematic experiences around public restrooms. That? That's relevants scientific data. JKR only offers us an ancedote.

I'm afraid of men on the street. Can I just prevent them from accessing the street? No. Because it's their human right to be outside and walk on the sidewalk. We can't prevent people from having access to public spaces just because we're scared of them. I'm baffled by this argument.

What it really comes down to is: Are trans women allowed to say they're women? Yes. And my Miro-hosted argument presentation thingie proves this.