This rhetorical dodge frequently appears in arguments about the preservation of female only spaces in society.  It is simply this, do you want this trans identified female in female only spaces?  We are presented with a picture of a female that has masculine features and dressed stereotypically male.

Can you see the false equivocation?  It goes like this, since we expect trans identified males to use the male washroom then also, we must expect trans identified females (like the dudette pictured above) to use the female washroom.  The ‘gotcha’ continues, sometimes alluding to butch lesbians being questioned in female only spaces.

What this argument glosses over is that, back in reality, the class of females and the class of males in our society are socialized in very different ways and despite any gender pretenses have roughly the same capacities of the sex they were birthed into.  So, women do not (in most cases) represent a threat to men in society this holds true regardless of how they ‘identify’.  (The solution the gender religious do not want to hear is that every male space should be ‘gender inclusive’ while female spaces remain protected.)

The contrapositve is not true though.  Men, regardless of how they identify, inhabit the class of people that do present a threat to women.   Male and female standing and socialization in society is not equal, and trying to fudge this fact in an argument about female safety and spaces is patently dishonest.  Therefore trans identified males – since they are male – are a threat to female safety and thus should not be in female only spaces.

If there is one feature that so many gender ideologues gloss over it is the current material conditions in society that we live in still work regardless of how one identifies.   We still live in a society that has many patriarchal features that do not magically disappear if we start erasing females and their boundaries.  On the contrary, corrupting female autonomy and boundaries increases the oppressive features of society for women.