Not quite. 'trans' hasn't existed many places at all. Most instances quoted are, in fact, torturous attempts to relitigate instances of historical homophobia. What's happening now isn't too far off, as you've noted elsewhere. Most trans youth resile into being gay at puberty.

What I meant by true is 'verifiable'. Claiming to be trans is nonsense, on it's face. Not that it can't mean anything at all socially, but on it's face, its like claiming to be a rock. Your second point is taken, and the sudden drop in identification in the last 18 months seems to suggest something along those lines. — AmadeusD

I'm not talking about woke types retconning trans identities on famous figures. Historically, anthropologically, there have been people who we would label trans today - although they would most likely have been simply viewed as 'gay'.

There are also some societies that had an identifiable 'third' role, the 'gay uncle' is one example I recall.

This history is fraught. Perhaps some of the examples I've seen have been politicized research? I know that here in Canada some contest the two-spirited designation of indigenous Canadians as a retcon.

There is also the confounding group of those with atypical biology.

None of these groups would have been claiming 'trans' identity though, a modern conceptualization of a human characteristic. And all together, we are still looking at a much smaller percentage of people than those who identify as trans today.

Trans may not be verifiable, but it is arguably universal. Which, to me, is yet another reason to insist on honest, accurate conversations about the topic, as you and others here do - it also helps the 'historically' trans people, those consistent with long-term data about characteristics (early, persistent onset, for one)
highly predictive of 'trans' identity in adulthood.

This seems to me the best benchmark available for judging how 'real' a trans identity might be.

I'm wondering what you are yet to see a convincing argument for. — Janus

The title of the thread. I’d say false. Using “trans” preceding man and woman makes sense, but you cannot change your sex. But it has already been mentioned that “woman” is being used in the same way as gender. Fine. I wouldn’t define it that way myself, but with that meaning in mind then there’s really no issue.

I guess the point is that 'woman' is used to denote both sex and gender, and sex and gender have traditionally been considered to be the same thing. Now the two are being teased apart, so 'woman' is now used to denote gender that is decoupled from biological sex. I agree it's a non-issue, and I can't imagine a level of interest sufficient to have motivated the OP. That said, it seems to have garnered some interest.

I suggest if you cannot imagine a level of interest sufficient to have motivated the OP, you are not paying attention to the world around you. This has been a hot-button issue for years. Largely in feminist circles.

Hmmm. Intriguing thoughts. Intuitively, they don't strike me as particularly powerful. The conclusion, for instance, runs against my experience with conversation generally. As someone who has been essentially a linguistic person my whole life (working with words has always been an extremely easy "flow state" type thing for me) it feels wrong. I'll have to think further.

I suggest if you cannot imagine a level of interest sufficient to have motivated the OP, you are not paying attention to the world around you. This has been a hot-button issue for years. Largely in feminist circles. — AmadeusD

Sure, but those for whom it is an issue because they are trans are unfortunate victims of unthinking prejudice. For the rest, it is an issue for those who are prejudiced and moralizing on account of their prejudice. The point is that an OP like this, and online philosophy forum discussion, will not change anything much.

As I said earlier, apart from transwomen in womens' sport, it is a very simple issue―people just need to live and let live, but of course they won't until the prejudices die a natural death.

I agree it's a non-issue, and I can't imagine a level of interest sufficient to have motivated the OP. — Janus

The philosophically interesting part is the use of erroneous accounts of language, especially flawed accounts of definition, in order to push particular attitudes and prejudices.

I want to go a step beyond that, to include, along side Davidson's point, the one made in Philosophical Investigations, §201; that there are ways of following and going against a rule that are not said, but shown; and this I take to be indicating that it is the activity that is at the core, not the rule. — Banno

And yet, Wittgenstein was a social conservative who wasn't pleased with women having voting rights. I imagine he would be even more disappointed to see people using his philosophy in defense of transgenderism. You can't disconnect the man from his ideas.

Wittgenstein grounding language in the forms of life is not in your favor. If anything, like Hegel, Wittgenstein is an advocate of master-slave rule forming dialectic. For him, all of us blindly following traditions is essential to mastering rules of all kinds. One of the unintended or intended consequences of this is deeply rooted traditions are never going to dissappear anytime soon. Progressivism is nothing more than a secular myth, which once had some sense & direction when it was backed by Christian humanism.

"Wittgenstein was a social conservative… therefore his philosophy supports conservative conclusions." - an instance of the genetic fallacy.

Wittgenstein does not ground meaning in blind traditionalism. A form of life is not a tradition; it is the pattern of activities within which language-games have sense.

“Deeply rooted traditions never disappear.”
Nuh:

• The divine right of kings
• Women as legal non-persons
• Racial segregation as a legal norm
• Capital punishment for homosexuality
• The theological–political identity of the medieval state
• Aristotelian medieval physics

"Wittgenstein is an advocate of master-slave rule forming dialectic"
Nuh. Wittgenstein's approach to rule following says nothing about domination; it says you cannot follow a rule privately. The point is public criteria, not authority or obedience.

Claiming that "Progressivism is a secular myth" is mere assertion. And even if granted, says nothing about contemporary linguistic and social practices around gender; certainly not that they are illegitimate.

To exclude trans women from “woman,” the conservative must say: “The real meaning of ‘woman’ is fixed by biology alone.” But a Wittgensteinian asks: “Where is this real meaning? In what practice? Which rule? Which criteria?” If the linguistic community already has multiple criteria for “woman”... biological, social, legal, phenomenological - then there is no single essence to be preserved.

Not impressed. You post reads as a Dead Cat rather than a critique. Something thrown on the table to distract us from the topic from Wittgenstein’s arguments—language as use, rule-following, forms of life—to Wittgenstein’s private political views, which have no bearing on the logical point at issue.

"Wittgenstein was a social conservative… therefore his philosophy supports conservative conclusions." - an instance of the genetic fallacy.

Wittgenstein does not ground meaning in blind traditionalism. A form of life is not a tradition; it is the pattern of activities within which language-games have sense. — Banno

I'm surprised you are unaware of this. I can't count the articles I have read which established solid links between Wittgenstein's philosophy & his social conservativism

Forms of lives are not just any activities. Picking your nose, farting, pooping, drinking etc are also activities. But clearly not DEEP enough to ground language.

Let me quote Wittgenstein himself

Our language can be seen as an ancient city: a maze of little streets and squares, of old and new houses, and of houses with additions from various periods; and this surrounded by a multitude of new boroughs with straight regular streets and uniform houses. — Investigations, 18

Want some more. I will give it to ya

It is, however, important as regards this observation that one human being can be a complete enigma to another. We learn this when we come into a strange country with entirely strange traditions; and, what is more, even given a mastery of the country's language. We do not understand the people. (And not because of not knowing what they are saying to themselves.) We cannot find our feet with them. — Investigations, Ilxi 225

“Deeply rooted traditions never disappear.”
Nuh:
The divine right of kings
Women as legal non-persons
Racial segregation as a legal norm
Capital punishment for homosexuality
The theological–political identity of the medieval state
Aristotelian medieval physics — Banno

1. There are plenty of kings in the Muslim world who use the Quran & Ahadith to justify their rule

2. Afghanistan (need I say more)

3. Israel & recently South Africa (yes, it's blacks against whites this time)

4. Homosexuality is still punishable by death in many (Muslim) countries

5. Once more, I have yet to see it being separated in the Muslim world

I'm obviously ignoring the West here for now but if you look at 20th century & just imagine for a second if the guy with the mustache had won, things would have turned out very differently. This always remains a future possibility & there's no guarantee of anything.

6. You had to go there. But guess what ? Aristotelian physics is a surprisingly good approximation of Newtonian physics, of material submerged in various fluids

Check this Article

https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057

Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look
Carlo Rovelli

I show that Aristotelian physics is a correct and non-intuitive approximation of Newtonian physics in the suitable domain (motion in fluids), in the same technical sense in which Newton theory is an approximation of Einstein's theory. Aristotelian physics lasted long not because it became dogma, but because it is a very good empirically grounded theory. The observation suggests some general considerations on inter-theoretical relations.

In any case, you should go & read Aristotle's physics because most of the topics it treats fall under contemporary metaphysics or philosophy of physics & the arguments there are as relevant as ever

I also recommend Feyerabend's Aristotle Not A Dead Dog

Nuh. Wittgenstein's approach to rule following says nothing about domination; it says you cannot follow a rule privately. The point is public criteria, not authority or obedience. — Banno

Lol. Except it is. I'm gonna quote Wittgenstein once more.

Following a rule is analogous to obeying an order. We are trained to do so; we react to an order in a particular way. — Investigations, 206

When I obey a rule, I do not choose.
I obey the rule blindly. — Investigations,219

Claiming that "Progressivism is a secular myth" is mere assertion. And even if granted, says nothing about contemporary linguistic and social practices around gender; certainly not that they are illegitimate. — Banno

Well...myths based on blind following (prog liberalism) & emotions etc aren't solid grounds. Especially when the fascists are better at this game. Do you still wonder about the rise of far right politicians & politics across the West ?

You should seriously reconsider the use of Wittgenstein in your politics. Check One Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse. Philosophers like Wittgenstein represent the perfect bourgeoisie philosophers, whose philosophy can be used to justify anything

:grin:

A dreadful reply. Pile on the dead cats. It doesn't help your case.

A dreadful reply. Pile on the dead cats. It doesn't help your case. — Banno

Rest easy. I never attack those who raise the white flag. I'm no ordinary man, but I'm not a monster either.

That was an attack? :rofl:

Good night.

Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving Banno!

Better to drop the idea of a "personal meaning" altogether, and instead of introspection of any sort, look at how the word is actually being used, both in the thread and in the wider community. This form Wittgenstein — Banno

No problem there. I would think my viewpoint is not counter to Wittgenstein. I agree that there are two contexts, or meanings behind a term based on situation, culture, or use.

Moreover, it is not true that there are "...rules and intents that allow an explicit standard of communication and vocabulary to start from", if by this is meant that language functions by following rules. — Banno

To be clear, there is no innate rule of language that exists apart from people. But there are more and less effective ways to communicate when we include anyone who is using the language. The point of the OP is to indicate that the phrase 'trans men are men' is unclear when any speaker of the English language is exposed to it, regardless of culture or background.

These make sense, and are standard English. Metaphor an novelty are not outside of plain English, but central to it. — Banno

Agreed.

We have found it useful to differentiate physically determined attributes of males and females from social norms relating to men and women. At issue is how we might maintain consistency in this new usage. — Banno

Also agreed.

We ought keep in mind that neither the classifications male/female nor man/woman are exclusive nor complete. — Banno

I disagree with this. Male and female are not defined apart from one another, but by the comparison of one to the other. If there was only one 'sex', then that would be 'the being'. Sex is indicated by biological differences in potential reproductive capability and roles that are exclusionary of one another.
In this they are complete.

On this account, "Trans women are women" is a tautology, or a category mistake. Contrast "Trans women are male", which will be true in most cases. — Banno

Also agreed. I think we just have a slight difference of viewpoint in how we get there. Good post Banno, thanks!

Sure, but those for whom it is an issue because they are trans are unfortunate victims of unthinking prejudice. — Janus

Prejudice is not a reason to have unclear, conflationary, or deceptive language. Blacks used to be discriminated against, and this didn't end by pretending they had a different skin color. It was acknowledging real difference while demonstrating that difference did not rationally matter within greater society. There is no rational reason why having a different ethnicity means you need to drink from an ethnic fountain. Prejudice and racism are unreasoned beliefs enforced by action.

It is not prejudiced to note that a trans gendered man is an adult human female. It is not prejudiced to ask whether a person's gender should allow access to cross sex spaces. It is prejudice to stop people from questioning this. And it is abject stupidity to say we cannot converse about a subject as if conversation and thinking about the subject is necessarily prejudiced.

As I said earlier, apart from transwomen in womens' sport, it is a very simple issue―people just need to live and let live, but of course they won't until the prejudices die a natural death. — Janus

Excellent, then there is no problem with trans people staying out of cross sex spaces. Because when you ask for access to cross sex spaces when you are not that sex, you are asking other people to not live and let live, but to bend the rules in how they live for you. Do you really want to live and let live, or do you want to force other people to bend to a certain ideology?

And yet, Wittgenstein was a social conservative who wasn't pleased with women having voting rights. I imagine he would be even more disappointed to see people using his philosophy in defense of transgenderism. You can't disconnect the man from his ideas. — Sirius

I disagree entirely. Let me be clear, author's are absolutely irrelevant to ideas. The idea is all that matters. If it is rational, clear, and useful, then it stands apart from the author. If the author made a misstep due to a misapplication of that law they crafted, then the author is incorrect. This is an immense logical fallacy we need to get over in society. It does not matter what a person has done. if their idea is correct, it is correct. If it is wrong, it is wrong. A murderer who gives a dropped wallet back to the person on the street has done a right action, while a saint who steals that wall has done a wrong action.

If anything, like Hegel, Wittgenstein is an advocate of master-slave rule forming dialectic. For him, all of us blindly following traditions is essential to mastering rules of all kinds. — Sirius

I think this is a misunderstanding of Wittgenstein. Witt believed in webs of language that worked. Not that were merely traditional. The reason why Wittenstein supported science was simply because it was an immensely successful web of concepts and ideas. Not that I think Wittenstein gave a reasonable answer to 'what web should we choose', but he most certainly would have frowned on the idea of following traditions for tradition's sake.

What actual problem is there with a transwoman using women's public toilets (which is what I assume you are referring to)?

↪Philosophim What actual problem is there with a transwoman using women's public toilets (which is what I assume you are referring to)? — Janus

Because public toilets are separated by sex, not gender. A trans woman by definition can have male genetalia and male hormones. The trans demand is that gender override sex differences in society. Do you agree with this?

Who says public toilets are separated by sex, not gender? Is it written somewhere? On toilets perhaps?

In any case if a transwoman looks like a woman how are the others in the toilet to know she is not a woman? Women don't see each other's genitals in public toilets. So, what's the problem.

If a transwoman looks like a man, so what? Some women look like men. People in women's toilet have no way of knowing what sex the others are...that is possible, if impolite, only in men's toilets. It's a non-issue.

Who says public toilets are separated by sex, not gender? Is it written somewhere? On toilets perhaps? — Janus

Because sex separation is based on biology. Women's bathrooms do not have urinals. Females have periods that they need to take care of. Heterosexual norms put female nakedness at risk to male nakedness.

In any case if a transwoman looks like a woman how are the others in the toilet to know she is not a woman? Women don't see each other's genitals in public toilets. So, what's the problem. — Janus

So you are saying it is ok for someone to deceive another person, and as long as they are not caught, the deception is ok? That doesn't change the fact the spaces are divided by sex. Further, trans gender demands do not require a male or female to have transitioned in any way to override the sex difference. A man in men's clothing who appears to be a man in all intents and purposes should be allowed to use the female space because they feel like a woman internally. Remember that gender has nothing to do with one's sex. So a person can be a gender of the other sex, but looks wise appear stereotypical to their sex.

If a transwoman looks like a man, so what? — Janus

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying you can enter or not enter cross sex spaces because of your looks. I'm noting that sex divided spaces are divided by the reality of your sex.

It's a non-issue. — Janus

Turns out its not. When you have a rule divided by sex, and someone not of that sex defies that rule, people have issues.

I'm going to ask again, because you need to if you want to have traction to your argument. Do you believe that gender should override sex in both culture and law? I clearly say no. I'm awaiting your answer.

It's a non-issue because your sex is your own business. You have provided no argument as to why it is important outside of women's sport. People don't generally know what sex the others in a woman's toilet is. Do you object to transmen using men's toilets?

It's a non-issue because your sex is your own business. — Janus

It is not when we have divisions based on sex. I need to declare my sex on my license. I need to declare sex for medical care. We divide sex in all sorts of ways proving that your sex is NOT only your business. I do not mind you claiming "It shouldn't be anyone else's business" and you give your reason why. But by fact, it is societies business what sex you are in many situations.

You have provided no argument as to why it is important outside of women's sport. — Janus

I clearly did. I'll repost:

Because sex separation is based on biology. Women's bathrooms do not have urinals. Females have periods that they need to take care of. Heterosexual norms put female nakedness at risk to male nakedness. — Philosophim

What you have not done is answer my direct question to you, "Should gender override sex in the law?" I've demonstrated clearly we have spaces separated by sex, and you have not given me reasons explaining why they are not separated by sex. I doubt you'll be able to do this, so you'll need to agree with me that we have spaces separated by sex. Its on you to explain why this is wrong, and why gender should override sex separated spaces.

People don't generally know what sex the others in a woman's toilet is. — Janus

You are again ignoring my rejoinder to this:

So you are saying it is ok for someone to deceive another person, and as long as they are not caught, the deception is ok? That doesn't change the fact the spaces are divided by sex. Further, trans gender demands do not require a male or female to have transitioned in any way to override the sex difference. A man in men's clothing who appears to be a man in all intents and purposes should be allowed to use the female space because they feel like a woman internally. Remember that gender has nothing to do with one's sex. So a person can be a gender of the other sex, but looks wise appear stereotypical to their sex. — Philosophim

It does not matter whether someone knows that you are a male or a female in a sex separated space, if its separated by sex, you do not belong there. It is up to you to explain why gender should override sex separation. If you cannot, then my point is explained, rational, and stands.

Do you object to transmen using men's toilets? — Janus

Yes. You should not have had to ask that. If a space is divided by sex, then if you are not that sex, you do not belong there. I am waiting for you to explain why this is not the case.

Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving Banno! — Philosophim

Thanks, you too - but that American holiday is one of the few not to make it big Dow Nunder. We don't celebrate it.

I'm pleased we have so much to agree on. But as always, the stuff about which we disagree is the more interesting bit. I said "neither the classifications male/female nor man/woman are exclusive nor complete", to which you replied:

Male and female are not defined apart from one another, but by the comparison of one to the other. If there was only one 'sex', then that would be 'the being'. Sex is indicated by biological differences in potential reproductive capability and roles that are exclusionary of one another. In this they are complete. — Philosophim

We agree, it seems, that male and female are understood in relation to each other, that the one makes no sense without the other. When I said that they are not exclusive, I had in mind such things as the existence of hermaphrodites, and intersex organisms, both human and otherwise. These are physical characteristics.

And with incomplete, I was allowing for the unknown, allowing that we might change our usage of "male' and "female" for some reason, or use these words in novel ways in novel situations.

The use of "male", "female, "man", and "woman" is not fixed immutably by nature, but chosen by people in order to do certain things. Now this is not to say that there are no males and females, and no men and women. It's just to note that what is salient is chosen by us, and for our purposes. So e should ask where and to what end we might say something such as "Trans women are women", or otherwise.

And it is often about the acceptance or rejection of people who's behaviour differs from our own, or from our expectations.

This is a really good speech by a trans woman. Early on, she says she's been asked if she feels 100% like a woman. She answers that she feels 100% like a transgender woman. I found myself so grateful for the nod to an attitude that I can understand, that I was inclined to honor everything about this person, their decisions, their story. Her story.

When I said that they are not exclusive, I had in mind such things as the existence of hermaphrodites, and intersex organisms, both human and otherwise. These are physical characteristics. — Banno

I might need a more detailed understanding by exclusive. Do you mean that men and women (by sex) are not exclusive of hermaphrodites? Because a hermaphrodite has both male and female gametes ('egg and sperm'). A hermaphrodite would not be male or female, but contain the gametes of both.

Do you mean that man and woman (by gender) are not exclusive of hermaphrodites? Since one can behave in a gendered way regardless of sex, and gender is purely subjective, there are no limitations on what body can act in a particularly gendered way.

And with incomplete, I was allowing for the unknown, allowing that we might change our usage of "male' and "female" for some reason, or use these words in novel ways in novel situations. — Banno

I see. I agree with the concept, but not necessarily the word choice. Words are the capturing of concepts, and concepts can vary between individuals. To me, an incomplete term denotes a concept that has not been fully fleshed out yet. But the concept of "An adult female" and "A person who behaves in the gendered way a society expects females to act" seem to be complete concepts. A person can attempt to add a new concept or adjust an old concept, but I do not find this makes a concept incomplete, this is simply how language works.

To give an example of what I would consider an incomplete concept, "A God". Because it is merely an idea and has no concrete indicator of existence, it is a flexible and difficult to ascertain what it means without further context. Because there is no underlying reality, it is a concept only, and based purely on the whims of the individual.

Incomplete concepts like the above are difficult to discuss because the real key is first to come to agreement what the concept is before one can ascertain the concepts usefulness or truth. I see the contexts of women and gendered woman as complete, identifiable, and clear in use. But maybe I am wrong.

The use of "male", "female, "man", and "woman" is not fixed immutably by nature, but chosen by people in order to do certain things. — Banno

I agree, but that's every single word we use. The question is whether we can apply the concepts underlying the words rationally. Irrational contexts generally lead to irrational results, which are outcomes of reality that are independent of context. I may note that a 'rotten apple' (concept) is 'healthy' (word), but if I believe the term describes a concept that is healthy, the reality of the rotten apple will end in a contradictory result.

The question in analyzing the term 'trans men are men' is if it results in unclear or contradictory concepts of use based on context. "trans men are adult human males" results in a contradiction because by sex, they are adult human females. The flexibility of contexts in language doesn't mean that anything goes or that we cannot come to rational outcomes. Our terms and personal concepts may remain flexible, but real outcomes do not.

And it is often about the acceptance or rejection of people who's behaviour differs from our own, or from our expectations. — Banno

But do you believe I am doing so in my approach? Does the clarification of the terms entail in any way a rejection of a person simply because they have transitioned?

It is not prejudiced to note that a trans gendered man is an adult human female. — Philosophim

I'd not be so quick to affirm this. As we agreed, I think, applying "adult human female" is to an end, and not immutable. Taking it as immutable seems reassuring to those of a conservative leaning, but it leads to its own set of issues. There are, as an extreme example, genetically female people with male sex organs.

A better approach might be to treat the reality as much more flexible, and classification as mutable.

All of which brings with it issues around who and what gets to decide how we use the language hereabouts.

The philosophical point is that, as we have seen, appeals to essentialism fail.

And so we might go back to the common courtesy of addressing someone in the way in which they prefer to be addressed.

This is not to say there are no difficulties here. The issue of sports is obvious. Dividing people on the basis of gender was convenient, but is no longer a simple task. What alternatives there are will have to be worked through. It's tempting to grasp simple responses such as essentialism, but we've seen that it is unfair.

We can fix many issues around toilets by getting rid of the urinal. It is the item in the toilet that precludes certain genitalia.

The discussion continues.

This is a really good speech by a trans woman. Early on, she says she's been asked if she feels 100% like a woman. She answers that she feels 100% like a transgender woman. — frank

This is not a rational argument. This is apologetics. I am not asking for an appeal to a secular religion. I am asking rational questions.

How does that person feeling like they are a transgender woman address the OP?

I found myself so grateful for the nod to an attitude that I can understand, that I was inclined to honor everything about this person, their decisions, their story. Her story. — frank

When I heard Saint Michael explain the love of God, I understood it fully. I was inclined to honor God, God's grace, His story.

Your phrase is an attempt at assertion without an argument. This does not belong on these forums. Please explain how this either supports or counters the OP, or this is off topic preaching.

This does not belong on these forums. — Philosophim

Do you want me to delete it?

A hermaphrodite would not be male or female, but contain the gametes of both. — Philosophim

Notice that you could equally well say that a hermaphrodite would be both male and female.

We might say they are male and female, or neither male nor female. There is no fact of the matter; there is a choice in how we talk about these real, actual people. Yes, "Words are the capturing of concepts, and concepts can vary between individuals", but what a community choose to say tells us about that community. Will we be inclusive or exclusive? Will we "other" some people in an arbitrary way?

Why do you need to put your gender on your driver's licence? It was presumably for purposes of identification. If it no longer works to that end, then why continue the practice?

Why do we divide runners based on their genitals? What other division might we use - weight, muscle mass? What is it that we consider to be fair?


My use of the term "incomplete" is borrowed from logic. The categories do not exhaust all possibilities. Just as in formal logic a system can be incomplete if there are true statements it cannot express, our categories do not cover every possible biological or social configuration. This is why intersex humans, hermaphroditic organisms, and potentially novel or future ways of being can exist without breaking the logic of our classifications.

But that is not the case with essentialist classification systems. They stipulate a classification and then reject the individuals who do not fit that classification. They are exclusive, and authoritarian.

That we are having this discussion shows that the usage of the terms at issue is not settled.

They say they "feel 100% like a transgender woman".

Can you argue that they are wrong here? Can you show that they are mistaken?

IF you can't present an argument showing that they are wrong, then is it reasonable to insist that they present an argument that they are right?

All this by way of showing that "This is not a rational argument" is irrelevant to "I feel 100% like a transgender woman".

Because sex separation is based on biology. Women's bathrooms do not have urinals. Females have periods that they need to take care of. Heterosexual norms put female nakedness at risk to male nakedness. — Philosophim

Female toilets provide facilities for taking care of tampons and sanitary pads and male toilets have urinals because men can piss conveniently standing up. Those facts have nothing to do with the issue. I don't even know what your last sentence is intended to mean.

So you are saying it is ok for someone to deceive another person, and as long as they are not caught, the deception is ok? — Philosophim

It's a trivial point since no one really knows in public toilets (except at the urinal) what another's sex is. Also you haven't said where it is written that the division of toilets is one of sex rather than gender.