Thank you for the article. From it, I count one or two alleged rapes by one minor against one or two minors, where the alleged perpetrator has been described as "g****r fluid", male, and wearing a skirt.

Most sexual violence happens even when there aren't any t***ssexuals involved. So it may still be true that t***ssexuals commit less sexual violence than do people who are not t***ssexuals.

Maybe there will be a conviction, and we'll be allowed to see it (though we probably won't be, as they're minors), and maybe we'll all accept the conviction as valid.

The boy _could_ have done the same thing, masquerading as a female, even if he weren't "g****r fluid". Some people (like, maybe, that boy) are willing to use anything, such as a t*********r bathroom policy, as an excuse to do wh**ever they want to do anyway.

For me the bottom line about it, at this point, is that sexual violence allegedly occurred (and I suppose it probably really did occur as alleged). I don't much care whether it was a t*********r person who did (or allegedly did) it. The act would be significant regardless of who did it or what kind of person did it.

As for bathrooms, I've noticed some new signs on some bathroom doors, depicting that anyone, even "g****r fluid" or "wh**ever g****r" people are allowed to use those bathrooms. So basically _anyone_ is allowed to use those bathrooms; they are not segregated by sex; but inside of them, maybe there are stalls that give privacy. I like the bathrooms that are just single-occupancy; but I realize it might be expensive to have a lot of those. The least expensive would be communal bathrooms that are not segregated at all. Does going into a public bathroom heighten the risk of sexual violence, beyond what risk there is in other normal settings? Maybe, because what happens inside is typically more concealed from public view, depending on the architecture. Should we _not_ have areas which are concealed from public view?

I don't really have a solid opinion about the t*********r bathroom policies. I can see that a weaker sex ("female") might deserve a special bathroom where a stronger sex (male or "not female") aren't allowed to go (but how does one ensure they don't go in there anyway?) I notice that females aren't all weaker and males aren't all stronger. The most solid solution to prevent bathroom violence, it seems to me, is to have single-occupancy bathrooms with locks and architecture sufficient to keep any extra comers out. Another possibility would be to have communal bathrooms where _everybody_ is allowed in, but having some kind of monitoring system, either a person or cameras, in there, monitoring what goes on inside.

What I think is that violence of any kind can be done by anyone with the strength and will to do it, and that t***ssexuals probably do less violence (including less sexual violence) than other people do, and that all people deserve accommodation such as to be able to relieve themselves in some bathroom accommodation, and t***ssexuals are no less deserving than others, of that. And when violence _does_ occur, it should be prosecuted according to the act itself, not according to who did it to whom or wh**ever kind of people they are.

I found the meanings in your opening line somehow difficult to parse (although with repeated reading it has begun to seem more clear), such that, at first, I was not sure what your opening line meant. It was: "I think if more t***s thought as you point out here they wouldn’t be so discouraged on their “ thoughts “ of what they are or not..". I think you are saying:

that some (or did you mean "all"?) t***ssexuals _are_ discouraged about their own thought processes about what they are,

but

that, contrastingly, t***ssexuals as _I_ describe them are not necessarily much discouraged about their own thought processes about what they are.

There's another interesting thing about t***ssexuals in society: We've lately (here in this thread) been talking about whether, or how much, t***ssexuals harm other people. But, lately (here in this thread) we haven't been talking about whether, or how much, other people harm t***ssexuals.

And yet, it seems to me quite likely that other people do harm t***ssexuals much more than t***ssexuals harm other people. That's because those other people are intolerant about t***ssexuality and about whomever they think represents it.

Lately such intolerance (about t***ssexuality or any relatively nontraditional g****rs, and about black people, and about Asian people, and about women, and about pretty much anybody who might be seen as "different" from one's own group) has increasingly led to violence, in this country, particularly, I think, since about five years ago.

I say, "violence" is "a problem".

If we want less violence, then, on just what should we be focussing?