There seems to be two different standards in play here. We are told to accept at face value the claim made when someone makes a claim of a gendered identity and to allow that claim to override any possible observable sex characteristics and the categories of man and woman that stem from those. But here, the only thing we know is a woman (possibly two if you listen to the background voices in the famous wi spa video) complains about a naked MAN in the women's (and not the co-ed) area. Any mention of transgender comes from people trying to rationalize or excuse but who were not there, be it the "willie-woke-bro" in the video or everyone rationalizing it since. In the video when the idea that this was a trans person is raise the woman shoots the idea down, but it is always presented not as a fact but as an idea or possibility or rationalization. The woman behind the counter receiving the complaint does not say "yes, we know of that individual but that person in fact identifies as a woman and we can assure you that in spite of the fact that we are a sexual reproducing and sexual dimorphohic species where the males called men are physically distinct from females called women this person identifies as a women based on some other criteria."

Why is her claims, now seemingly the claims of 3 women and one girl, not taken at face value? Even if the alleged perpetrator is named in the legal action, up until now it was all speculation to rationalize the dismissing of the woman's complaint. Even if the lawyer for the alleged perpetrator now says "this person is a woman according to criteria having nothing to do with the reality that our species reproduces sexually through the intercourse of the two and only two sexes" that still is not the alleged perpetrator saying it nor is it the alleged perpetrator saying it before the incident happened.

My gripe is that up until the alleged perpetrator was accurately identified, we only had two sides: the complainant, and people making up excuses to ignore her.