I don't think what I typed could be read as implying that, and I did not intend to imply that. I never thought about it because I don't think how someone dresses or "presents" themselves says anything about them other than how they present themselves.

I think the idea of judging someone based on how they "present" is actually a very middle or upper middle class concept, along the lines of "dress for the job you want". Many people wear what they can afford. I went to a high school where the kids were a mix of middle class from one town and working class from another. The towns on their own did not have enough kids to justify a high school, so the poorer kids were bused through one larger town to get to the middle class town where the school was. The girls from the middle class town were generally considered more attractive than the working class ones because the middle class ones could afford better, more stylish clothing that complimented their curves and they were made up better and all that. They had their teeth straightened. Once you grow up a bit you realize that was not about the women but about money. How you are able to "present" is in a large part a luxury. Once you see it as a luxury, it loses a lot of the meaning some might want to attach to it.

But my comment was inspired by user "circling my own void 2" who says that if there were men's women's and trans spaces then, by using the trans space, the trans person would be "outing" themselves. So much for trans pride and all that. Outing themselves is not my concern but it does seem to be theirs, at least until those who insist on the need for sex-segregated spaces to protect women are beaten by the state into submission.

So, what is it about "outing" themselves? The context of "C.M.O.V.2"'s comment was the Wi Spa which has men's, women's, and mixed spaces. A trans person would not be outing themselves in the mixed space, but that does not serve an AGP's purpose, does it? It's not "validating", and based on the woman who was complaining about it, he ^{see footnote 1} got that validation because she said he was semi-erect. The concern about "outing" themselves might be more important to them than women's and little girl's privacy. Or, it's all bs excuses like a bad 1940s cartoon character trying to get at a pie cooling on a window sill.

I have no opinion on "passing". I suspect it is analogous to a mythical Shangri-La that I do not think anyone (even people like Munroe Bergdorf who has had every imaginable surgery) ever arrive at in their own minds. Taking trans people's words at face value though, they seem to see deception as a big part of their navigation through public spaces.

Footnote 1: I'm saying he and not violating anything because no one has confirmed that the person she was talking about did identify as trans (where "identifying as" is a big leap away from "being"). Until she points to a person and says this is who I was talking about, and until we see that the person had been "idtentifying as" trans before that, we only have her words to go by. It was her lived experience. Everyone else is making excuses for the event and assuming it was a trans person. Why? What's the underlying truth about this? That transgender-identifying people are indistinguishable from those of their same sex unless they get surgically altered to change that.