People should be consistent about their beliefs. Let’s put a bodily autonomy situation to the test.

  • Major Premise: Any moral principle protecting a woman’s bodily autonomy and safety must be applied consistently to all areas where her biological sex is directly relevant.

  • Minor Premise 1: Abortion rights protect a woman’s bodily autonomy.

  • Minor Premise 2: Female-only spaces protect a woman’s safety and dignity, which are inseparable from her biological sex.

  • Conclusion: Therefore, just as abortion is morally protected for bodily autonomy, the right of women to control access to female-only spaces must also be morally protected

Let’s consider a possible counter –

  • Trans inclusion claim: Some argue trans women should access female spaces.

  • Counterpoint: Biological sex, not gender identity, determines risk factors (e.g., privacy violations, physical safety concerns), which are the basis for female-only spaces. Moral protection of women’s autonomy and safety therefore cannot be overridden by gender identity claims.

 

This (and logic generally) only works if you belief in objective truth and a shared common reality.  Social constructivists are bound by neither, so this argument probably wouldn’t work well with them.