Row over women-only sleeping berths on trains; Men V Mumsnet!

Timely article on the "golden age" of the sleeper: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/between-the-lines-of-rail-s-golden-age-7qxfgwhpx?shareToken=194dfc56e61fd33472c8df112cc4534b

Why does Allington believe that women who wish to travel safely in a bunk in shared accommodation should pay more than a man?

If women are to forego the shared cabins in order to guarantee not being made vulnerable by being locked in with a man, they will have to pay more for a single berth (or spend the night awake in the seats). That is discrimination.

Allington why are you in favour of discrimination against women?

am less clear about TW with a GRC as I am less familiar with the legislation about what their legal status vis a vis the Equality Act is.

I agree with you but think a major problem here, which lets self ID in by the back door, is that you're not really supposed to ask if someone has a GRC. That needs to end.

Ahh human rights. The Equality Act is a good starting point. The drafters clearly envisaged the legality of single sex facilities provided by services providers under because there is a whole section of exceptions to the normal rule (about service providers not discriminating) concerning sex discrimination (note the Equality Act states "sex" not "gender") in Schedule 3. It includes:

One of the exceptions is that it is not discrimination to provide single sex facilities where—

(a)the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and

(b)the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

The next section then states:

Gender reassignment

28(1)A person does not contravene section 29 (the normal rule about not discriminating when providing services to the public), so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)The matters are—

(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;

(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;

(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.

So the Act allows that providing sex-segregated services does not constitute transgender discrimination providing it can be shown to be a propionate means to achieve a legitimate aim (and clearly privacy, safety, psychological and modesty considerations are recognised by the section above).

So I dont consider requiring only women to use single accommodation would be discrimination on the grounds of transgender.

In contrast I think that a female user of the rail service, if they show they are deterred from using the service, may have a claim for indirect sex discrimination if it required them to share, with self IDing TW, the single sex accommodation.

I am less clear about TW with a GRC as I am less familiar with the legislation about what their legal status vis a vis the Equality Act is.

To quote the rules of misogyny with thanks to the Bewilderness:

2nd rule of misogyny: Women saying no to men is a hate crime.

3rd rule of misogyny: Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.

And probably others apply too.

So I do question, for example, stats that get extrapolated from men who would object (violently) from.being associated with trans-women, being considered as typical (statistically) of the likelihood of a trans-women being a rapist

Why would they be less likely? You know, with all your evidence and logic?

Did someone up thread mention "human rights" and I missed it?
Allington keeps referring to human rights and im not sure why.

As for examples of trans causing issues - Tara Hudson, Davina Ayrton, quite a few whose names I can't recall.

I can't understand all the first world shit. Alliington, you have access to the web, so check your privilege and don't whine about opening a bottle because no one understands you when you refuse to answer politely worded queries.

You have (unlike all too many women - and men) a choice. Pay extra and be rested. Pay less and be more uncomfortable.

Excellent. So if you're well off, you can reduce your risk of assault. If you're poor, tough.

Allington I'll say again, though I'm sure it'll fall on deaf ears, women have been happily accommodating transsexual women for years. They are not the problem. The likes of Davina Ayton are the problem.

Ask your vulnerable colleagues/clients if they'd be happy to share accommodation with that individual.

Why is having a sleeper train for long journeys being seen as a "luxury" rather than a pragmatic, sensible way to travel?

Loads of countries have sleeper berths in trains, it's not a "first world luxury". I went on a sleeper train in Europe last summer, they offer single sex or mixed berths, 6 to a cabin, or you can pay to have it to yourself eg a family of 4 pays for the 6 and gets a cabin to themselves. The cabins lock on the inside so the people inside in their night gear can feel safe.

If you pick single sex you want single sex for god's sake. Most men would be equally uncomfortable having a random women in with them (although she'd be much less of a threat than vice versa).

I could also get over having my smear test done by a man, having a shower with a naked man at the pool and having a man sharing the women’s ward at hospital. I could totally get over all these things but I shouldn’t have to because we have sex segregation for a reason.

Men want it too btw. My uncle is currently having problems with his catheter. His nephew is attending the medical appts with him rather than his niece who usually takes the lead. For dignity and privacy reasons. He could just get over it but instead his wishes are treated with respect.

Poor Allington has been reduced to word salad.

To me a man is a man and how they identify is irrelevant. It's only trans people who believe that identifying as a woman if you are a man magics you in to becoming a woman.
There are a small number of m to f transexuals I'd be happy sharing a sleeper cabin with, generally those who did full transitioning several years ago and are hard to tell from women.
Men in dresses can share with the men. Identifying as a woman is just magical thinking. Just accept you are a feminine man.

Female and male - protected characteristic - sex.

Actually I don't have a qualification in gender studies - sorry. In development, then a specific interest in gender (being, y'know, female). But I am interested in evidence and logic. So I do question, for example, stats that get extrapolated from men who would object (violently) from.being associated with trans-women, being considered as typical (statistically) of the likelihood of a trans-women being a rapist

Budge up old fashioned style ladies, lots of uncomfortable seats over there. You sit up the entire length of the country, where we can keep an eye on you.
Lead the comfort of the bunks to the new women.

Allington is unable to answer the question, this was not covered in the gender instruction manual.

@2rebecca - yy, spot on:
I think people who are genetically male who don't want to share with males are the ones who should be paying for a single.
I find it bizarre that women should be expected to pay extra to not share with genetic males where as the genetic males shouldn't. If men aren't that scary then let the men identifying as women share with them.

It really, really, really bloody pisses me off that it's always women who are expected to budge up, never men.

As for that poster's assertion that women should meekly accept a sleepless night in an upright seat, instead of a bed on a Sleeper service, so that poor ickle TIMs can have a good night's sleep? That poster can fuck right off.

Is not being able to have a single sex sleeper between London and Scotland a deprivation of human rights? No. Get over it

No one has said it is. You are completely missing the point. Why is the option being offered at all ?

Allington, why do you think single-sex accommodation is such an unreasonable thing for women to want? Why is it something women should have to ‘get over’?

No one seems to be able to point to a situation where a trans-man/woman is the problem. Men who identify as men (and the whole toxic masculinity problem) yes, but that is different from men identifying as women. In less comfortable, multi- seat carriages women are less vulnerable because of so many witnesses.

Should anyone be able to travel anywhere in any situation without fear? Of course. Is not being able to have a single sex sleeper between London and Scotland a deprivation of human rights? No. Get over it.

Allington is sadly part of the gender studies diasphora that has emerged over the past ten or so years who believes that because they identify as cool then no one is entitled to any privacy or respect for their sex based differences anywhere in the world. It's just not cool anymore to the people from gender world.

I have taken the chance and survived ,( with any threat being from a self identified male). It seems a tiny chance is being blown up into a huge issue - given that the sleeper train is in any case an unnecessary luxury

It is completely irrelevant whether or not it is an unnecessary luxury. If the rail company don't wish to offer segregated accommodation- fine but don't offer it then fail to deliver.

If it's not a problem to trans people and it's fine for women to sleep with strange men in tiny bunk bed cabins then why not stick with sharing with people of the same (genetic) sex.
It's a first world problem because having travelled in India I very much doubt a woman there would be expected to share with a man who wants to be a woman.
I thought talking about the third world wasn't pc any more so surely the first world isn't OK either as it assumes there are other (lower) categories.

Are there cheaper, less comfortable options that would afford a woman an environment free of unknown males then?