Ministers commit to preserving sex-based exemptions

Is there evidence to show that trans men exhibit more aggressive behaviours towards females once they have transitioned?

I am not sure. The numbers are so very small surely. However, it's not just about safety, it's also about privacy and dignity. I wouldn't 100% be against it, but I can see how some women might not be comfortable with someone who appeared male being in their space, even if they were reassured that said person was born female. I guess the difference also is that nearly all trans men will undergo significant physical transition whereas many trans women will do relatively little, yet still claim to be women. I definitely haven't seen any trans men who present as typically female, yet insist they are male.

But I think it also needs to be viewed from their perspective and I can understand how a transitioned trans man would not want to share facilities with women.

Pratchet
The only objection I would have is this. If someone like Buck Angel, who passes completely, were to use women's toilets, the intention would only be to cause mischief. Plus, they (in general, not Buck) have a higher propensity, according to the Swedish study, of committing violent crime.
Oh right. So the only reason a trans man would have for using the ladies loo would be to cause mischief. And the only reason (according to you ) that a trans woman would have for using the ladies loo would be to commit some sort of crime. And you don't want cis-men in there, either. So even though there is no legislation in place at the moment that forbids any of those people from using a ladies loo, you want the law rewritten to exclude transwomen — the one group that is most vulnerable if they venture into the gents.

Please explain to me how this can be anything other than hatred?

People not wanting to be treated by black HCP was/is racist.

Women not wanting to be treated by someone with a penis is not comparable, given the issues in the world with male violence.

The numbers of trans men who have phalloplasty is minute due to the technical difficulties associated with the surgery. That means that the vast majority of trans men are as they were born so I would have no trouble with them in my space.

Many of them face discrimination from people who say they don't want to be nursed by a trans nurse,

Are you sure it's because they are trans and not because of their sex?

Is there evidence to show that trans men exhibit more aggressive behaviours towards females once they have transitioned?

I would be OK with a transman being on my ward if I knew it was a same sex ward and the only people admitted to it has female sexed bodies.
I doubt very much that a transman would want to be on a woman’s ward, just as a transwoman may not want to be on a men’s one.

Yes, yes to the poster highlighting the amount of hours you spend with other patients compared to visitors and staff.

To those saying they would be perfectly happy if trans men used women's spaces, I'm not sure that bears scrutiny. Trans men often pass more readily than trans women. Women are highly alert to men in women's spaces. Trans men are treated with hostility in women's spaces from fairly early in transition, and women don't hold back if they read someone as male in the ladies loos.

Yes, I actually agree with this. Especially the post about a trans man with penoplasty. I don't think being trans makes you the desired sex, but if you go through a physical transition, it does make you something different to your birth sex. This is why I think specific trans spaces are needed. A trans man with a beard, no breasts, on a high dose of testosterone and with a surgically constructed penis would conceivably cause discomfort to women sharing the same space. Nor from that person's point of view is it in their interests to share space with female bodies because it would breach their dignity. Ditto for trans women. They are not biologically female, but if they have undergone physical transition, it's not really appropriate to ask them to share with natal men either. Everyone has always worked from the assumption that there can only be provision for 2 genders, but once we get rid of that assumption, it is possible to meet the needs of natal men, natal women and trans people.

This doesn’t have to be a battle

We are beginning to have mainstream acceptance that gender reassignment protections should not be prioritised over sex protections. There must be a balance and that will not be the case where there is an assumption that inclusion is the default.

I believe that we can find an amicable solution.

There do need to be amendments made to the EHRC guidance this would help to make the exemptions workable. We also need a mechanism to enable women to challenge institutions which do not implement the exemptions; possibly a tribunal system to reduce the difficulties and expense of having to bring claims via the court system.

This needs to be done whether or not self id comes in

MsBeaujangles because with a GRC they are legally a woman. That's my personal view, I totally get why someone else might not be comfortable with it,

I am completely uncomfortable with this lie. @mnhq deleted me for saying so, because this perspective is 'uncivil' and 'uncivil' is a lovely blunt instruments that one can be confusingly bumped over the head with.
But I am sure people who feel 'comfortable' will be free to express their view until their hearts are content. Lucky you.

I am interested in how a male bodied person having a certificate makes you happy to have them in a space for people with female sexed bodies, but not a male bodied person without a certificate.

Which is why a GRC should not bring about that entitlement. A piece of paper confirming someone has gender dysphoria means nothing. It is still a male body. On a social level, in the workplace, on ID cards whatever, I have no issue with someone having a female gender identity and this having legal recognition. However, certain spaces need segregation on the basis of SEX- ie the EA exemptions need to be made mandatory and they need clarification as to specifically which services should be female only.

The hospital ward thing is interesting. On single sex wards you get staff of both sexes working, who will see you in vulnerable, naked, emabarrassing bodies states.

Most patients are ok with both male and female hcps because their priority at that time I should to get the professional care they need.

I think the difference with sharing a ward with a person not of your gender is that they are not required to be professional, and they don't spend their working life looking at bodies, plus they are there with you 24 hours, often for days or weeks at a time. So staff is different to fellow patients. If you want to complain about medical staff you can do that and often the first response is that the member of staff is kept away from you.

Similar for prison staffing I expect, though I have experienced that myself.

To those saying they would be perfectly happy if trans men used women's spaces, I'm not sure that bears scrutiny. Trans men often pass more readily than trans women. Women are highly alert to men in women's spaces. Trans men are treated with hostility in women's spaces from fairly early in transition, and women don't hold back if they read someone as male in the ladies loos.

I don't think I would be ok with having a trans man in the next bed, or in a changing room. Which seems weird, but is true. Knowing that someone is biologically female doesn't seem to stop the part of your brain that reads gender signals from interpreting that person as male.

As a person can obtain a GRC and remain 'intact' I and many other women would feel highly uncomfortable so I cannot accept that as a licence to be able to enter spaces where women should be afforded safety, privacy, dignity and respect.

We need to give people more confidence in their reasoning when they have to make these single-sex exemption decisions.

In some ways it is similiar to health and safety law in that most people do not have the legal/logical skills to confidently interpret the law according to its intention and we get massive over or weird reactions.

A blanket ban could be problematic but similar to a risk assessment, the policy just needs a moments consideration to qualify as not being a blanket ban. A person applies for a rape counsellers position in a women's charity - the manager considers the issue of sex. Do the reasons/ conditions for the female only policy still exist? YES Could it be achieved in another way without exlcuding males? NO, then the policy holds. This is all that is needed under the law. Some campaigns are trying to shake our confidence, that is all. Gaslighting.

Test cases are needed but women's organisation tend to lack money and exposure, unlike some other groups :(

I once tried to get legal help for a test case to do with disability under the EA that would have significantly benefitted many other disabled people, but although I did have a very clear case, and gone throught at length with the EASS etc, none of the top civil rights firms were interested. I couldn't do it on my own because of the difficulties of coping with disability. Only one firm called back an they wanted £540 per hour. Some groups are more 'worthy' of help than others it seems.

massive

I am interested in how a male bodied person having a certificate makes you happy to have them in a space for people with female sexed bodies, but not a male bodied person without a certificate.

When the rationale for a provision is difference in sexed bodies, how does a certificate have relevance.

snappity

Visiting hours are controlled and nursing staff are happy to help you prepare for visiting hours so you are suitable dressed etc. If you feel vulnerable they will pull the curtains around your bed etc. during those hours.

Patients do not have to receive intimate care from opposite sex practitioners. Also, medical staff have special training with regard to respecting boundaries etc that most patients wouldn’t have.

I can fully empathise with the difficulties trans people can experience with same sex provision when this conflicts with their gender identity. This is probably because I experience difficulties with mixed sex provision. This is why I fully support suitable provision for trans people who would experience distress from using provision that matches their sex.

I'd absolutely have no objection to female bodied trans people in female spaces.
This

They were really what got me fully involved in this issue. I have such respect for the way they got their point across.

It just goes to show, punching people, bomb threats, intimidation and doxxing won't advance your cause but gentle humour will.

Kettlepotblackagain They have loads of respect too. It's how gently they do what they do that grabs attention.

They were really what got me fully involved in this issue. I have such respect for the way they got their point across.

Snappity: they can go in the men's - why not?

The Man Friday blog