M&S changing rooms

Huh?

What did you think women’s spaces are for biological women only actually meant? 🤯

I genuinely think that poster was asking a question not weaponising Jake Graf.

Ok.

It will be easier if you read what I write instead of what you think I wrote.

Yes you are if you think that people with the opposite 'gender identity' should be in them.

As I said.

The thing is, it has been recognised for a long time that female people who take testosterone may cause some other female people distress if they see the male cues the testosterone has created. There have been quite a few female people with transgender identities who have taken testosterone post on MN and have told us what they do instead. It is not new that these discussions have happened.

All those posters who read the threatening and intimidatory rhetoric about those female people entering the toilets are simply weaponising that group. Not surprisingly, those female people who are horrified that they are being used this way also point out that often they feel ignored by the trans community if they dare speak about their own feelings on who should be using female single sex spaces.

But posters still try to invoke those female people as a tactic to convince female people into accepting male people into the female single sex spaces. And they seem to think that they are righteous in doing so.

No, I think third spaces will need to be advocated for and provided.

They work there. They aren't someone untraceable like a customer in a shop.
Deploy some thinking facilities.

No, I am not “supporting the loss of single sex spaces”. Glad to correct you on that.

Reading the article posted by the other poster - Jake Graf can legally be excluded from women’s single spaces so likely would have to use the men’s whicb he probably would want to do anyway.

Interesting:

In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.

So going back to first principles - the judgment really will be focus on those who don’t pass (and not getting into a discussion of whether people think it’s a lot or none.)

Those who do pass, likely people like Jake Graf etc. can still be probibited access to the space that matches their biological sex and likely have to use the facilities that match their gender identity.

I suspect that Jake would be fully in support of being used to make women scared and distressed the way so many posters over the past years have weaponised female people who have taken testosterone, sadly. That couple seem to be as heavily invested in supporting the extreme demands as I have seen. There is only a few female people though with that level of investment in the UK. Jake, Freddy, whittle and James Morton come to mind.

Just reread my post & the sarcasm is a little stronger than usual for a first comment... but I really do find the lack of understanding of & empathy for women's experience of the world, especially the least privileged and most vulnerable women, quite distressing at times.

"Inclusive" for me means accommodating those who simply can't use any other space: the physically vulnerable, the traumatised, and religious minorities. It's not about facilitating, or accommodating, or welcoming, but literally about including those who literally can't access a resource otherwise.

Like "safe" spaces, and the word "woman" until last week, the term "inclusion" feels as though it's been diluted from its original meaning and implications - large-scale, physical, do-or-die implications - to perception, and feeling, and choice.

I think inclusion should prioritise those who would, otherwise, have no choice but to quietly walk away, unseen and unheard.

Here is another explanatory article, this time from Michael Foran.

https://t.co/aELsNw2UHz

It also has information relevant to questions being asked. I recommend people read whatever they can get their hands on.

Guidance will no doubt come out where needed. But in the meantime, legal bods are providing overviews for us for free.

What she does doesn't really impact women. She's not a threat to men if she uses their spaces.

She shouldn't be used as an argument to support the loss of single sex spaces which is undoubtably what you are trying to do here.

What a relief.

Women and girls matter, despite what so many advocate for on these threads.

I doubt he would want to use the woman’s
space but unless there is a unisex area then that is the expectation (although I expect in reality somebody who looks like that would likely just use the men’s facilities for ease.)

Not necessarily.

She's female so she can if she's comfortable with it.

If she isn't then the unisex space is probably best for her.

As she's taken steps to modify her body to look like a man she can't really complain if she chooses to use the women's and is questioned.

No I mean inclusive spaces as in trans men/women in the sex space that aligns with their gender identity (as opposed to just a unisex space which many accessible spaces are). I did not realise it prohibited that.

I'm really confused by what you think inclusive means, JHound. My understanding is that you're defining it as including males who perceive themselves as female in both men's and women's spaces, should they wish to access these for their increased comfort, while excluding female victims of rape, assault and domestic abuse unable to be undressed in close proximity to males from any space? This doesn't seem to fit with my understanding of what inclusive actually means. Could you clarify?

For anyone asking who is Akua Reindorf…

Akua Reindorf KC
Commissioner at Equality and Human Rights Commission

www.equalityhumanrights.com/akua-reindorf-kc

She wrote this article without signing off as being in a personal capacity. Meaning she would have to have okayed it with the EHRC before it was published.

I think we can consider her take to be in line with any guidance that will be forthcoming from the EHRC

I think it means he should just use women’s spaces and everybody will be fine with it as he does not have a penis.

Thanks for that link Helle, I haven't seen it before.

The judgement actually covers some of this. It says that if a female person has changed their body with testosterone, there maybe times when they are excluded too and that organisations need to provide spaces accessible to them too.