Single sex areas - petition

Hmm certain angry men are ranting about this petition on twitter (so sad that they have nothing better to do than to monitor MN)

One point was raised though which made me ponder. If, as women we are fighting to keep biological males out of womens only spaces-does that in turn mean we have to accept all biological females into womens spaces? (even if they present as a bearded man.)

I know trans men tend to 'pass' more easily, men are not threatened by them, they pose no danger etc etc. but it would not be acceptable to me if trans men had to use the womens facilities. (They probably wouldn't want to.) Might we, by arguing for sex segregated spaces (for safety of women) end up having to accept trans men in our spaces by law?

Also that women under self ID would be expected to be equally accepting of a self identified woman with a penis whether that person has lived all their lives with severe gender dysphoria and transitioned twenty years ago, or is someone who lives as a man six days a week but likes to cross dress on a Saturday and is delighted at being legally entitled to undress and dress in a room full of women. Both count equally under the Stonewall umbrella. Neither person would be expected to show ID, the whole point is no gatekeeping, so logically any bloke who walks into the women's facilities has self IDd just by doing so and has every right to be there.

Just so that none of us are cherry picking bits of the EA ECHR regs to suit our argument, here's an excellent guide from FairPlay for women which explains all the relevant bits of the legislation

fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

I also think a transwomen who deliberately exposes her penis is likely to be causing the offence of exposure.

The phrase 'her penis' is a misnomer.

Yes, of course someone deliberately exposing their penis in a room full of women and children is causing the offence of exposure.

However your point above is that women can have a penis, and it's therefore understandable that women are going to expose their bodies in a communal changing room and that isn't indecent exposure IF they're all women. You can't have it both ways.

If self ID was about discreet additional changing spaces for transwomen with penises then it would be less of an issue, but the issue here is that there will be naked people with penises in female changing spaces, and many females are not ok with that.

I don't think it is ok for mothers of young girls to see a penis in the changing room. I think it is entirely possible for transwomen who have a penis not to expose it - perhaps by using a cubicle.

I also think a transwomen who deliberately exposes her penis is likely to be causing the offence of exposure.

Really? Because I and all other women currently using the women's changing rooms are allowed to be naked. What rule would prevent a TW with a penis also being naked?

Go on sarahah explain to me & all the other mothers of young girls why you think it's ok for them to see a penis in the changing room hmm

I don't think it is ok for mothers of young girls to see a penis in the changing room. I think it is entirely possible for transwomen who have a penis not to expose it - perhaps by using a cubicle.

I also think a transwomen who deliberately exposes her penis is likely to be causing the offence of exposure.

You missed off the next sentence Sarah which goes on to say: 'However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment."

In good faith? hmm

And then the guidance goes on to talk about when the exceptions can be used and the need for a case by case approach. My comment at Fri 03-Aug-18 08:38:03 mentioned this.

Signed. Thanks for posting the link Mxyzptlk.

Great post Orchid!

You missed off the next sentence Sarah which goes on to say: 'However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment."

In good faith?

I was alone in the gym changing room again today. As I took my shower, I realised just how vulnerable I was if a self-id person with a penis were allowed in, especially one who enjoyed wanking in public (or even worse pursuits involving their penis).

SarahAr could you explain to me why you think placing me in that position would be a good thing?

Go on sarahah explain to me & all the other mothers of young girls why you think it's ok for them to see a penis in the changing room

Yes, yes, ok for the umpteenth time Sarah , you believe women and children are entitled to no privacy or dignity whatsoever from people with penises, in fact they are stupid and wrong for wanting privacy for people with penises and people with penises should go wherever they want and do whatever they want and people without penises should really stop believing they have any rights or entitlements of any kind. They should just be allowed to breathe, if they just take small breaths.

Wish you'd try explaining or justifying some of that instead of just re releasing the same thing over and over and over.

transsexual was intended to mean those making a meaningful transition, ie. following the process to get a GRC - not 'non-binary males who feel a bit feminine today'

Exactly - so people that are actually serious about it, not blokes with a beard in a dress that just want to be able to flash their cock (not looking at you Jess Bradley at all......)

transsexual

not transgender.

If you're going to quibble over words, you should be clear about what those words mean - and in this circumstance, transsexual was intended to mean those making a meaningful transition, ie. following the process to get a GRC - not 'non-binary males who feel a bit feminine today'

Now I thought that this meant their gender according to their GRC - if they haven't got one, then they're still the Sex that's on their birth certificate surely?

I was paraphrasing. The actual text is clearer (section 13.57)

If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present.

The gender role in which they present. So no GRCs needed.

I think most GC feminists would agree there are no longer single sex (in the biological) spaces. Where we disagree is whether this is a good thing.

I don't agree that there are no longer effectively single sex spaces in the vast majority of cases. I do see that they are being threatened by stealth and are becoming fewer and this needs to be openly addressed by society as a whole.

signed-sex segregation is so important for the safety of women, children & vulnerable adults-Sarah why on earth can you not see that? If any man cans self id as a woman & gain access to women only spaces, that puts genuine trans women with a GRC at risk of sexual assault as well. How can you justify your position?

Signed. If you have a penis you do not belong in female-only spaces.

She started that 2 years ago...bloody hell.

I suspect it might more traction now.

I do wonder why so many born men are totally committed to the art of removing access to womens' and girls' spaces.

Now why would that be?

trans people should be treated according to their acquired gender.

Now I thought that this meant their gender according to their GRC - if they haven't got one, then they're still the Sex that's on their birth certificate surely??

It's the whole "self certification" thing that's the problem...

Thing is due to the EA spaces are gender segregated not sex segregated.

That is incorrect. Sex is a protected characteristic. Gender is not. Gender reassignment is.

Do you believe all single sex spaces should be removed sarahAr? How do you reconcile that with the fact that single sex spaces exist for the safety of women and children?

I’m sure you don’t want women and children to be harmed - so why do you support getting rid of single sex spaces??

I suspect this comment

Sarah, you are lying again.

Sex is a protected characteristic, and real, factual. Gender identity is not.

will be removed for breach of guidelines. However, I would like the opportunity to defend myself.

By the comment you mean that I am deliberately intending to mislead and have done so before. Every comment I have posted to MN has been made in good faith and is true to the best of my knowledge. I suspect this is pretty rare for an pseudonymous on-line discussion board.

The EHRC statutory guidance states that when it comes to single sex spaces, trans people should be treated according to their acquired gender. It further states the exceptions can only be applied on a case by case basis.

For clarity, the statutory guidance has to be taken into account by courts. And the EHRC defines trans people as people who intend, in the process of, or have reassigned their gender and the process does not have to be medical.

Sex is a protected characteristic, but it only provides the right not to be discriminated on the basis of your legal sex. It does not guarantee the right to single sex spaces (legal or biological).

I think most GC feminists would agree there are no longer single sex (in the biological) spaces. Where we disagree is whether this is a good thing.