#or are purposefully dumbing it down to stick to radfem party lines and basically misrepresenting their beliefs to win internet points

[butchviking]

tbh i think the post is representative of a theory (radical feminism) taken to it's natural conclusion, not an argument for a long term solution to issues around public restrooms. the point being made is that it's a natural extension of radfem beliefs that transmen should have access to female only spaces, no matter what their secondary sex characteristic have been changed to look like. of course, because this is based on a political theory, it would require everyone to act according to the theory in order for it do actually make sense in daily life (otherwise it would require external enforcement). the reality, of course, (and i think most radfems know this) is that a long term solution is not a set of ideas, but policies like the ones you described, that will accommodate for the realities of daily life, such as that we judge people's sex off of a few seconds of interaction with them unless we have reason to reconsider it.

idk i think in most cases where someone talks abt the "natural conclusion" of an ideology its like. not actually a natural conclusion at all. like it would be the natural conclusion of the one simple statement "a woman is an adult human female". (perhaps w an added "womens spaces should be for any and all women and only women" but u could say thats implicit in just the phrase "womens spaces" anyway making it a natural conclusion there but whatever.) but no ideology is ACTUALLY built solely around one single statement. radical feminism isn't just that one statement it's a movement comprised of many many women who agree on some core tenents but also have plenty of varied & complex beliefs. so i don't think there IS any one natural conclusion to 'radfem theory' bc there's not even one radfem theory or one radfem point of view. aren't ppl always talking abt how dworkin was pro-inclusion of transwomen in the feminist movement? (forgive me i dont know specifics on that i havent read much dworkin i hate ebooks so bad im SORRY.) she was very definitely a radical feminist but she clearly didn't have all the same conclusions as many other radical feminists.

& u say (and i think most radfems know this) abt shit requiring practical real-life solutions/policies but im not so sure they DO! not on this website anyway. i think a lot of women who call themselves radfems dont truly understand that having like. 3 core beliefs and no complex personal views built around that will NOT translate into reality. and i think many many more do /technically/ know that but would rather waste time dumbing shit down and sticking rigidly to what they think are the official radfem party lines or smthn cause they want to win arguments on the internet. and i think a lot of trans activists do the same. and i think that's why ppl keep having these dumb arguments instead of actually trying to agree on a solution and BOTH push for that solution to be implemented in real life in a practical way.