"Autumn" Sandeen, the king of the boys in the women's room, has already posted another post on the "bathroom issue." This time, he is trying to argue that it would be too hard to enforce keeping men out of the women's room, so women should just put up with being overrun by men.
No one is suggesting guards at the bathroom door. The answer to enforcement is simple. If someone complains, someone responds. That is how it has always worked. In fact, that is exactly where Sandeen's argument falls apart. He is approaching this as though keeping men out of the women's room is some new idea, or as though there is going to be some sudden increase in enforcement. The answer is simple, we keep doing what we already do. For example, if a woman encounters an obvious man in the women's room, she goes and finds someone, perhaps a store employee, a security guard, a manager, etc., and complains. That person takes the appropriate course of action. Problem solved.
Yes, in extremely rare cases, some very butch lesbians may be viewed as men. Of course, we have to keep in mind, they have most likely chosen to make themselves appear to be men, so they have to take responsibility for their choices.
Mr. Sandeen also raises the straw trans man argument. That is, he raises the straw argument of "what about trans men?" If someone has been on testosterone long enough, then they should simply use the men's room. End of discussion. They look like men, sound like me, etc. They should be in the men's room. Just like those men who look like men, sound like men, even though they happen to be wearing a dress. It is a smoke screen, and a false argument.
Intersex individuals are also a false argument on the part of Sandeen. First off, most intersex people identify as one sex or the other. And most intersex people usually are credible as one sex or the other, almost always the one they identify as. So, another false argument. Mr. Sandeen is grasping at straws.
And no one is suggesting underwear checks. Another false argument by Sandeen, who certainly would not pass such a thing.
No, again, the answer is simple. If someone complains, the offending person can be approached by security. They can discretely discuss the matter with the person, explaining that a complaint has been made. If the person agrees to refrain from behavior in the future, the matter can be settled. If the person is a repeat offender, become belligerent, or refuses to cooperate, then they can be arrested on appropriate charges, and/or banned from the property. Having worked retail, I am quite familiar with store policies where shoplifters are served with papers banning them from entering the store for an extended period of time. The same can be done for men in the women's room.
Finally, Sandeen raises the ID issue. Again, the answer is simple. The rules about changing gender markers on licenses should be tightened. The law was originally intended to help those actually transitioning from male to female. Anyone who is not actually going through an RLT, and who is not actively surgery tracked, should have their license reverted to their birth sex. And if someone makes a false claim that they are surgery tracked, after a certain period of time without showing clear progress towards surgery, they should have their license reverted. They could continue to have their legal name, and current photo, but the sex marker would revert to the birth sex. And in the future, they would not be allowed to change it until after surgery is performed. The period could be reasonable, say 10 years, but that would be it. No SRS, and your license reverts.