Ministers commit to preserving sex-based exemptions

So single sex is a fairy tale. It's now about the best possible compromise. And for me that is Self-ID.

Nope.

Snappity well given your views about sport, not really surprising. Shame though that Serena Williams would only be number 300 under your view that any form of sex segregation is patronising and it would mean that absolutely no women at all would ever have won Wimbledon and hardly any would have won an Olympic medal. But yeah, seems really logical.

"Your answer does suggest you see the value in single sex provision. Can you not see that it becomes mixed sex provision the moment a person of a different sex (as determined by their sexed body) enters it."

The question is how do we map sex which these days is definitely not binary onto male and female spaces? There quite simply isn't the sort of simplistic split some people on here want. Human biology was always too complicated for that; modern medicine has made it more complicated and medical advances over the next 20 years will just make that much more so.

So single sex is a fairy tale. It's now about the best possible compromise. And for me that is Self-ID.

Dunno Pratchet. I say "person presenting opposite to their birth sex" mainly but have no problem saying trans man as they are women.

Oops sorry kettle...no, I don't mind them! They're women! It was the whole trans male thing you said - to me that means MALES that are TRANS!

I need to know the MN view. Never going to use woman for a person with a male body. Are we all alright going the other way? I mean using men for people with a female body?

Ereshkigal OH NO! They hate us.

They are on Twitter etc and are a very well known trans activist.

Not a fan of Mumsnet.

Kettlepotblackagain That forum is owned and run by a person who presents as opposite to their birth sex called Susan Lawson. They are on Twitter etc and are a very well known trans activist.

I don't think there is any mileage in third spaces because many people who identify as a gender opposite to their natal sex want the validation that comes with using women's spaces. They are not going to stand for it.

Kettle, we do NOT need to hear more from these people! We've heard enough!

Who? Trans men? I think they have been very quiet in this debate.

Sponty posted this link though www.susans.org/forums/index.php

So I could hear more of what they had to say.

Kettle, we do NOT need to hear more from these people! We've heard enough!

Thank you for answering my question snappity. I do appreciate it.

Because as a woman I want single sex facilities. But I believe in equality so I won't throw trans women off the bus

I am with you in not wanting to throw trans people under buses. I genuinely want to find an acceptable solution for all.

Your answer does suggest you see the value in single sex provision. Can you not see that it becomes mixed sex provision the moment a person of a different sex (as determined by their sexed body) enters it.

spontaneousgiventime
Kettlepotblackagain I recommend reading their own words. It is quite fascinating and not being that way inclined myself an eye opener. Try a forum, American ones are the most open and revealing.
That explains a lot.
So you are basing your opinions of trans people on posts that appear on US-based public-access forums. The ones that trans people don't bother with because they are full of weirdos discussing stuff that doesn't interest us. And which anti-trans propagandists get onto so that they can create fake stories about things that they clam to have "read on a trans forum".

Kettlepotblackagain I saw it this morning and donated straight away. I meant to post it here and got sidetracked.

I suggest donating to women's rights <a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.crowdfunder.co.uk/the-campaign-to-save-sex-based-rights" target="_blank">heree** They are "A campaign of films and information outreach to ensure women’s and girls' rights are defended during the government consultation on the GRA."

Who knows where they may be able to branch off too with enough money.*

Another great link, thanks Spontaneous. I'll definitely be sharing this on social media.

I don't think this is entirely fair. It's not just about safety, it is about privacy and dignity. 9 times out of 10, you as a trans woman would not be attacked in the gents, but there are other reasons why it is not appropriate for you to use it.

Well said.

Very true, spontaneous

The actions of a public authority can be ruled illegal in judicial review but a new law is not passed in a judicial review.

Now, but it is possible to get an agreement for a Statutory Instrument to be presented as part of a settlement. It is also possible to then work with the public body on what needs to be in the SI.

There are times I love the private forum I post in. It's a haven of peace, calm and free speech. There are times I love it when people post on here, it shows the whole world who they are - we should take note!

Kettlepotblackagain
^I'd very much like to hear more from the trans male community.
It's funny but it just appears to be the trans born male that are more vocal.^

The word is trans-women.
And the main reason you hear more from us than from trans-men is because they don't have to constantly defend themselves against an endless barrage of misleading propaganda.

Big love to the amazing women on here - Pratchett, Sponty and Lang.

"What do you think the point of sex segregated provision is? What is the point of having male and female wards when access is not determined by sexed bodies? You object to third spaces but not to stealth mixed sex. Why don’t you just campaign to abolish single sex provision?"

Because as a woman I want single sex facilities. But I believe in equality so I won't throw trans women off the bus. There's no perfect answer. Personally I believe Self-ID is the best option because those who just want to cross-dress at weekends aren't going to change ID which affects their work and the rest of their social life.