Yes, you built your entire premise on a lie. There are some cases where you can't tell. Granted. But most of the time, especially without makeup, you can tell quite easily. Human beings are extremely well evolutionarily adapted to be able to do this. Most babies can do it by the age of 3 months.

That's the entire reason why the concept of "passing" exists after all.

But even if we put that aside. By definintion, women aren't complaining about males in their spaces if they can't tell they're male. The issue is the males who are very easily distingushable, because of this push for there to be no sensible standard for who is considered a woman. If you're saying that all that needs to happen for me to be a trans woman is for me to say that I'm a woman, then yes, you'd definitely be able to tell the difference between me and a woman

I wonder if you understand how bizarre the things you're saying sound to somebody who hasn't been brainwashed by gender ideology. If I "prefer feminine things sometimes" it might be worth looking into different genders? What does this even mean?

First of all, why do I need to redefine myself, why do I need to find a new word to describe my "gender" just because I occasionally like feminine things? Why is the concept of a feminine man so abhorrent to you people? Or just a man who likes some stereotypically feminine things?

And secondly, what do you mean "prefer feminine things"? Am I not a man if I like the colour pink? Or baking? Or scented candles? Or flowers? Does liking any of these things mean I'm not a "real" man, but some other "gender"? What if I like makeup and dresses? Is that a clear sign in your mind that somebody isn't a "real" man?

This is so hilariously regressive and sexist. You'd be in absolutely perfect alignment with a Christian conservative from the 1950s. Do you not see that?! They too would have told their son that he wasn't a real man if he liked any of these things. Now, that father might have beaten his son with a belt or sent him off to the army, instead of gently suggested he try a new "gender," but the "logic" is exactly the same.

Lastly, no, trans women are not assaulted more than women. Trans woman sexual assault figures always ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of trans sexual assaults are sex workers usually in countries like Brazil. Ever wonder why it's always "especially trans women of colour" when these statistics are quoted? It's because being a sex worker carries an enormously increased risk of sexual assault. This is true whethere you're a trans woman or a woman.

But the bigger problem is that the only data available on trans sexual assault is self-reported and includes everything fom rape to unwanted fondling. I'm not trying to minimise sexual asssault against trans women. Sexual assault is a terrible problem regardless of how often it happens. But I'm tired of seeing it used as a form of emotional bribery against women when women suffer it more often and ahve to deal with greater conseqquences like pregnancy and just their generally lesser ability to fight it off.

I'm not sure what you mean by "grouping them with men woudln't impact the statistics? What statistics? And why should I care whether they're impacted? But yes, I think even you realise that the last paragraph you wrote doesn't qualify as "logic" 😅 You seem to think that any ggroup that isn't identical to men is automatically women.