In "Changing Sex," Raymond's rather extreme "essentialist" argument included the idea that "[a]ll transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact" (Califia 95) and yet at the same time seems to regard female biology, or two X chromosomes, as the ideal. Must a woman be defined by her body? It seems like Raymond is in this case arguing against both maximizer and minimizer feminism - if by maximizer perspective women's bodies are to be appreciated, biological men who prefer to have women's bodies would appear to be advocates of such a belief ("look! even men want to be women, being a woman is fantastic!"), while from the minimizer's viewpoint it is undesirable to cite biological differences as a barrier between the sexes. In "Female Masculinity" the issue of gender definition through perceived biology is raised again in the bathroom problem (Halberstam 947-954), which also ties to conceptualization of "self" and "other" - neither gender is comfortable enough with the other gender thanks to centuries upon centuries of social constructs that even someone of the same sex with characteristics of the opposite sex will cause commotion in the restroom. This seems very silly since the restroom is, at the basic level, a communal wastebasket. So why do people rely so heavily on visual perception to define others (and why do they become so outraged when they realize their eyes tricked them)?