Diva magazine is trans inclusive

Going back to your point daim about the motivations people have to transition and obtain a GRC.

It all worked really well when women trusted those motivations. It used to be accepted common knowledge that the people who transitioned were gay (I mean eg transwomen attracted to men), there were a tiny number of them, they usually had surgery as well as hormones, and they had a doctor supervising and adding a level of safeguarding to the process. Women, on the whole, trusted this.

Now we have for example, in prisons:

Ms Crook, executive director of theHoward League for Penal Reform, added: ‘These men are not transitioning because they like women and want to be a woman, but in order to exert a new kind of control and dominance over women, a sort of infiltration

The trust is gone.

I think it might be possible to get trust back, but this won’t happen if women’s concerns are dismissed and legal processes and protections are not open for women to scrutinise and satisfy themselves all is above board.

That’s why I asked you about what you thought about the Lib Dem LGBT twitter quote. It is both belittling women’s concerns and obfuscating the legal implications.

That is never going to win trust back.

So there's a mix in there of natal male and female genitals (people who have not had bottom surgery) and surgically altered to resemble male and female genitals (people who have had bottom surgery). So how is safeguarding and risk management meant to work in that scenario?

So that’s a bad thing, yes? I’m glad you agree, because That is what will happen if self ID comes through.

A third space however, would need to be self contained.

Segregation of everyone who is biologically difficult.

This is totally illogical and incorrect! And no one is 'segregating' anyone except by sex. As examples posted above show, not everyone who would be (non)-segregated would be 'biologically' anything, let alone 'difficult'.

So, we have two spaces segregated by sex (just plain ole biology). For those whose appearance in the correctly-sexed space causes inconvenience/risk/confusion (transmen, butch dykes, drag queens, intersex, blokes in dresses, drag queens, effeminate gay men in full-on swish mode), or just anyone who doesn't want to use multi-person single-sex facilities for any and no particular reason, there is the alternative of (single-cubicle) 'gender-neutral', unisex, any and everyone able-bodied spaces.

Which gives everyone a choice!

Who knows my missus might even like to use it when the constant re-iteration of 'Oi mate, that's not the gents' gets to be too irksome.........

It's only the wilfull neglect and erasure of all these other groups and none that makes it look like transwomen choosing not to use the ladies (cos they pass so amazingly well you know), would automatically out these wonderfully-passing persons as transwomen.

If it's a space anyone can use it's not segregation. And for the sexed spaces, as long as (unlike my place of work, much grrrhhhhh ) there are equal numbers of cubicles for each sex, then there is no sex discrimination either. After all, given that some trans activists argue for all gender neutral facilities, how can the choice to use them be segregation? The only 'segregation' here is enforcing single-sex spaces, which then lets you see why some trans activists really, really want to get rid of these as well!

A third space for natal women, is the same thing.

Yes, a third unisex space would be a mixture of sexes. But as the provision does not need to be big in scope, I'm sure it could be self-contained.

Transwomen who want to use the ladies are perfectly happy with a mixed space. Evidently.

Transmen not passing can use the women's Space. Or if they do pass, the men's, or the mixed. How many more options do you need, for goodness sake.

Yes that’s sort of what I was getting at SuperDandy.

If the third space was for women who had issues sharing with transwomen, would this be less abhorrent?

I’m not saying going any further than this eg how workable it would be in different scenarios, just in principle would it be acceptable?

Oh hang on, I think you wee meaning third space as in one where only natal women are permitted. Sorry. Wrong end of stick. The phrase gets used in both contexts, so please excuse my confusion.

This third space thing... there seems to be a blind spot there.

Trans women and trans men would be using the third space, right?

So there's a mix in there of natal male and female genitals (people who have not had bottom surgery) and surgically altered to resemble male and female genitals (people who have had bottom surgery). So how is safeguarding and risk management meant to work in that scenario?

The response to that point here is often that trans men would be welcomed in women's spaces I need order to keep them safe, but that doesn't hold up at all because it would open up women's spaces to anyone claiming to be a trans man. For a predatory male that would be a hell of a lot easier than going the self ID present as female route, and unless you're checking pants you're not going to know for sure.

But Snappity, you have agreed with the principle of a third space, for women who have issues sharing spaces with transwomen.

Would it help it feel less abhorrent to you if it were framed as these women choosing to segregate themselves away from everyone else?

It's definitely worth noting, enough, thanks.

The thing with the EA exemptions is that the originations where these exemptions are designed to be used are aware of them they do routinely base approachs on this either through interview process, hr in reltion to employment or through approach to service users and considerations in fields like vulnerable adults where this can and is a issue on occasion. These exemptions are not currently design for the provison of changing facilities or toilets if and when the EA is reviewed then you will be able to campaign for the exemptions to be reviewed. Also the exemptions are not tested in practice as to do that would need people to challenge them and usually solutions are found before this on both sides when needed

Back to the third space. Segregation of everyone who is biologically difficult. Can you really not see why history suggests that is a terrible idea and why ethically it is so abhorrent?

Can you really not see that you taking the word segregation and pretending it is akin to apartheid, is abhorrent. And very silly.

Of course we have sex segregation!

I honestly don't have enough durs.

When men stop raping women, objectifying and assaulting them, then we won't need it.

It's worth noting that the government have just issued guidance that reminds schools that they must provide sex segregated toilets and washing facilities in schools. Discussed here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3291461-New-government-guidance-on-Gender-separation-in-mixed-schools

We also do it for reasons of privacy and dignity.

There's surely a workable suggestion out there, I'm just not sure what it is

Third spaces.

Can you really not see why history suggests that is a terrible idea and why ethically it is so abhorrent?

We already segregate on sex lines in the very few places/scenarios it’s relevant. History shows it lowers the rate of violent attacks on women.

Sex segregation is a thing Snappity. The majority of people don't want to give it up. Which is what you are in effect suggesting.

Males go to male spaces and females to female ones. Plus there could be a third space or option where possible to accommodate trans people.

Back to the third space. Segregation of everyone who is biologically difficult. Can you really not see why history suggests that is a terrible idea and why ethically it is so abhorrent?

A third space, daim.

It really is the simplest solution.

It doesn't rely on grading someone's 'authenticity' as trans.

It doesn't tell a trans person what they are and what they aren't.

It stops the conflict. And it takes the pressure off labelling everyone.

Facilities segregated by sex, and adhered to. And a third option for those for whom it is a problem.

Toilets, changing rooms, sport and prisons.

Rape refuges, I believe already have exemptions. And asking for a female HCP should give you a female.

The alternative is is publicising the exemptions and making it far more culturally acceptable for them to be used.

That requires campaigning, tweaking of laws, raising awareness. It's open to exploitation and it could be a battleground forevermore.

A third space I believe, would help resolve a lot of problems. Any people who don't want that, will be exposed as having a massive agenda.

Its the third space option, Daim.

But say you're right, a person obtains a GRC who is not 'genuine' and that person abuses their new female status in some way. That abuse would not be overlooked and go unpunished. The GRC would be irrelevant.

No amount of waving a GRC will convince a judge and jury of a person's innocence if they have behaved unlawfully.

Daimbars, we have sex segregated spaces because of male violence and sexual obsession. This is expressed from upskirting to rape and murder. It's not impossible to prevent all male invasions of women's spaces but we need to be able to call out, challenge or complain about males without being accused of bigotry.

What you say is pretty saddening. Have you no idea how prevalent sex crimes are, or how seldom victims get justice? That's why women want the slim but effective barrier of explicit sex segregation in spaces where women are naked or otherwise particularly vulnerable. I know some modern public buildings are specifically designed to minimise the chances of crime. A friend used to design railway stations and explained how they work to design out crime and minimise opportunity.
.
The UN Council on Refugees makes providing safe, private loos and washing facilities for women and girls a priority. This is because males, as a class, pose a threat to females as a class. Transition doesn't change that truth. And yet we see transactivists demanding that women in the UK give up this right. No wonder women are refusing to do what we're told. This demand is very much against our interests.

No amount of waving a GRC will convince a judge and jury of a person's innocence if they have behaved unlawfully.

Apart from that being patent bollocks (what's the conviction rate for rape - 6%?), I don't understand how people can think that behaviour is only objectionable, once it becomes a crime.

Leering, letching, smirking, dominating - none of these are crimes. Neither, currently, is upskirting, ffs.

All you can safely say is that this is male pattern behaviour.

Which doesn't change however you identify, and should be enough.

No amount of waving a GRC will convince a judge and jury of a person's innocence if they have behaved unlawfully.

What about voyeurism and indecent exposure? A male person exposing themselves to a woman against her consent is committing a crime.

That abuse would not be overlooked and go unpunished.

The best take on that statement is that its breathtaking naivety.
Google 'William Jaggs' and 'Wendy Jones celebrates leaving court animal porn'.

then come back and explain why women should have no concerns about self ID.