No. of Recommendations: 1
Because these are not the only choices. "trans woman" is just a phrase, it doesn't mean he/she/they are a "woman". I could call them "intersex" or "drag queen" or something else. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Ah. I understand.
Well, I think then that makes it even more clear that the answer to your question lies in the question. If you start from the position that a trans woman isn't a woman (or more broadly are unaware that "intersex," "drag queen," and "trans woman" are specific terms that refer to very different types of people), then you're going to be puzzled by why non-discriminatory policy efforts lean towards inclusion.
But the answer is pretty simple. Most folks drafting inclusionary policy start from the premise that trans women are women. So if you ask, "Why should she be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, be housed with "real" (sorry, sorry, biological) women, be allowed to use the Ladies' restroom?" the simple response is, "because she's a woman, and that's what women do." Unless there's some specific, compelling reason to exclude these women from engaging in activities that all other women get to engage in, we don't exclude them.
Many facilities that involve very private functions (like bathrooms) have been designed for convenience to be communal facilities divided on gender. In such circumstances, wherever a trans person goes may cause discomfort or confusion - people may be confused and uncomfortable if a trans man goes into the woman's room (because it looks like she's going into the "wrong" bathroom), and people may be confused and uncomfortable if that tran man goes into the men's room (because he may not have male genitalia). The absence of a clear and compelling reason to prohibit a trans man or trans woman from using the restroom that matches their identity means we don't prohibit them from doing it, in places that are willing to take steps to avoid discriminating against trans people.
