In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> >It is not the duty of an employer to pander to other people's prejudices.
> Well, yes and no. I'm not sure it's 'prejudice' to dislike the idea of penised people listening to one pee. It just might make some people uncomfortable.
I'm not saying that it is deliberate nastiness, but unfortunately humans are pre programmed to distrust groups different from one's own (eg small children can be very racist without realising it) and only through education and knowledge of other groups can inequalities be diminished.
> And, as to violence, the question is not whether pre-op penised women are more likely to assault you than men; it's whether they're more likely to assault you than other women.
What I said wasn't that that trans women had lower testosterone than men, I said that they had lower testosterone than other women! (Hence less of a sex drive etc)
I know a trans woman who got assaulted in the loos by a non-trans woman. The other woman, I think, was curious about what was still there, what was real and what was fake etc, and decided to find this out with a non consensual grope.
> But your points are well made, to be sure. I was just raising a bit of sympathy for the poor ol
d employer
My mother in law ran a struggling pub which didn't serve travellers. My mother in law wasn't racist. It was the only pub in a small village in a deprived ex mining community, and a lot of the locals were racist, and so whenever travellers came in, her insurance premiums went up because the locals got in fights with them and broke the windows, and she couldn't ban every last one of the the locals. So she put up a 'no travellers' sign. Which was, I believe, illegal as well as wrong. Sucky situation all round.