Subject: Re: Can't They Just Leave Women Alone?
I think you are aware of that extreme number imbalance between the groups you mention, that it's about a few individuals versus a huge group. That number imbalance results in an extremely unbalanced scale, with much more weight on the scale's "women" side.

I am very much aware of the extreme number imbalance. There are only a very, very small number of trans women. But you're wrong that this results in an unbalanced scale.

There are only a certain number of trans women. If there are only a small number of trans women to be harmed, then there are only a small number of trans women to cause harm. Most cis women will never encounter a trans woman in a locker room. While there are many more cis women than trans women, cis women's interests are directly affected when encounter a trans woman in a locker room (or similar facility). The scarcity of trans women doesn't just reduce the weight on "their" side of the scale - it also reduces the weight on the "cis women" side, because there just isn't much likelihood of cis women actually running into a trans woman in the locker room.

You need a trans woman to be present for there to be an issue for cis women. The scarcity of trans women just means a scarcity of circumstances where this is an issue for cis women. Since fewer than 1% of the population is a trans woman, statistically speaking fewer than 1% of locker rooms will have a trans woman in them (though obviously that will not be evenly distributed geographically).

In that scenario - the infrequent times when there is actually a trans woman at the gym or similar facility - is the trans woman more likely to cause harm in a women's locker room or be harmed in a men's locker room? If trans women are no more or less likely to commit assault (sexual or otherwise) than any other person with "male energy," then the answer is pretty obvious - they're far more likely to be assaulted in the men's locker room than commit assault in the women's locker room. It's also worth noting that "discomfort" isn't going to be limited to women, either - plenty of men will be uncomfortable with a trans woman in the men's locker room as well.

Again, the legislature faces a balancing test of competing interests. Allowing trans women to use the women's locker rooms will certainly result in an increase in "discomfort" felt by women. But it will also certainly result in far fewer assaults and other violent crimes overall than if they are required to use the men's room (and result some small quantum of "discomfort" felt by men). And even though - again - there's probably more women that will feel "discomfort" than trans women who will get assaulted or rape, I think that it's completely reasonable for a legislature to weigh the severity of harm as well as the number of people being harmed. We frequently impose small discomforts on large numbers of people in order to avoid really severe harms to a smaller group.

Appeals to the "zeitgeist" don't really change that equation. "The majority should be able to impose their own preference against minorities because there's more of them" is certainly a cultural norm that has existed for millennia in lots and lots of societies. But it's not really an argument that's going to hold much weight in an actual discussion of the policy costs and benefits, especially when there's a sizable delta in the risk of physical violence to the minority. I actually don't think it will hold much weight (in the long run) even outside of that. At one time, it made a lot of people feel "squicky" to see an interracial couple or two women holding hands; that's faded over time.

It's a classic balancing of interests problem. The legislature faces a choice. They can reduce the incidence of violent assaults, at the cost of having a finite (and likely very small) percentage of cis women encounter a situation that makes them feel uncomfortable, with the side benefit of reducing a finite (and likely even smaller) percentage of cis men encountering a situation that makes them feel uncomfortable.