Debbie Hayton in the Times

Props to you for coming back Debbie I imagine some of what has been sent including what I've said is hard to hear.

I have to admit though "women's spaces, and I'm willing to debate it." makes me want to cry. It seems so unjust.

Why are women's spaces even up for debate? Why weren't we asked first? Why are male people able to make what we thought were our rock solid rights 'up for debate' whenever it suits them?

It's so fucking unfair and such a stark reminder that this is patriarchy and women are second class.

The way the GRA was won, was by lobbying and litigation behind the scenes. They managed to get it passed by stealth. Hence the lack of objection or reporting in the press - a point that C Burns - the first person to obtain a GRC has no shame in boasting about.

Yep. A really important article appeared in the Guardian in 2013 which covers the original TRAs and describes their strategy for achieving the GRA...

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

And here's where they admit they deliberately did it on the quiet and celebrate that they got the legislation in without anyone noticing...

Much of their campaigning remained on the quiet. The passage of the 2004 law to give trans people legal status was "remarkable," says Burns, because "the government was able to pass an entire act in parliament without anyone throwing a fit in the press".

Thing is, everyone is motivated by self-interest to some extent. That only becomes a problem when it isn't openly acknowledged, or when pointing it out leads to "shut up, how dare you" type responses.

I'm sorry that I disappeared. I've had a very busy couple of days at work and Mumsnet moves so quickly that I struggle to keep up.

It's been really interesting to read through the comments on this thread. I totally understand the way that people question my motives. Of course there is self interest involved. I believe that trans activism desperately needs to get back to reality and seek compromise before society gets exasperated with us. But I do care about the rights of women and girls (I may not be female but my partner and daughter are). Finally I'm an intellectual and I want to be able to suggest workable solutions.

I did know that yesterday was the anniversary of the fracas at Speakers Corner. I think that incident was the most significant event in shifting the direction of this debate. I'm sorry that Maria got thumped though. I nearly went to that meeting but I'd been away at TUC Congress and needed to get home.

Where do we go from here? I hear the arguments about banishing transsexuals from women's spaces, and I'm willing to debate it. But not now ... I need some sleep.

Best wishes to all
Debbie

No typos pal

I'm the same in real life. I find the written word more manipulative, because in the absence of reality I think the mind builds its own picture. Hence "I feel quite sorry for Annie" needs recasting back to reality. "John is walking all over me".

In the spirit of things let's just pretend that comment didn't have multiple typos, eh?

Just using male names and pronouns resets my whole perception back to what is truly happening here. No euphemisms, no weasel words, no photoshopped reality.

Honestly, this has never been an active process requiring thought for me. My brain automatically reads "Annie", sees the person's face, and continues to put "Annie" in scare quotes because I am aware that Annie is male. The name change does nothing other than make me vaguely irritated that I'm expected to remember that the male individual wants me to pretend that they're female and will likely throw a strop if I don't. My working assumption is that this is how it is for most women, since the criticisms of women who don't play along tend to focus on how rude and inconsiderate we're being, which would end to indicate that the person complaining doesn't think the male individual is female other - the "bad behavior" being critiqued is the failure to put the male person's feelings first.

I assume that the hope for those for whom it's not a straight up exercise in domination is that if women are forced to pretend for long enough our brains will eventually stop recognizing the person's sex, perhaps out of sheer exhaustion. If so they've vastly underestimated just how much mental and emotional energy women are always forced to put into our dealings with male humans - we're used to this.

Sexist fucking pigs.

When I read about Bailey sort of boasting that he was such an ally to transpeople, because he would actually refer AGPs for SRS which had been previously limited to homosexual males, I felt properly pissed off - there seemed to be no reflection upon how this might impact upon women.
Who are these male fucking experts to have the authority to decide which other males can live among women 'as' one of us?

x post

I also imagine the reason for it, is because no one gave enough of a shit about women to ask if it was okay. As TerryLeather says. Everyone is orbiting the male patient like planets, performing different interventions to ease their suffering, without thinking how things might impact others who don't revolve around with them.

It must just be that women's boundaries don't matter - and that is justification enough for most people.

Sadly I think you're correct-it certainly seems that way...

If you allude to transsexuals with GRC like Debbie, these were simply the legal rules, so I can see that.

TBH, I am not thinking about Debbie at this moment.

I imagine transsexuals were using opposite sex facilities long before the GRA.

I do not remember any women's groups (who were stronger than they are now and grounded in reality) take up the issue, to be honest

The way the GRA was won, was by lobbying and litigation behind the scenes. They managed to get it passed by stealth. Hence the lack of objection or reporting in the press - a point that C Burns - the first person to obtain a GRC has no shame in boasting about.

To be honest. I just can't see why some males feel entitled to use women's facilities. It is so disrespectful to women and women's boundaries. Why did they get it into their heads that its okay?

If you allude to transsexuals with GRC like Debbie, these were simply the legal rules, so I can see that. Were no women's groups consulted at the time? Possible. But I do not remember any women's groups (who were stronger than they are now and grounded in reality) take up the issue, to be honest. (I remember feminist Cathy Brennan explicitly say years back, that she could accept shared bathrooms post SRS. Not sure what her stance is now.)

Yes. Sad but true Terry

I can see in situations where homosexuality is illegal some people might pretend to be the opposite sex in order to pass as heterosexual and live in peace. But homosexuality isn't illegal.

I can see in situations where women have so few rights to education and autonomy, they may pretend to be the opposite sex to access them.

I also can see in situations, such a totalitarian regime where a man is avoiding the draft the may pretend to be the opposite sex to avoid detection.

But were not in those situations in the UK right now, so there is no justification for anyone engaging in this deception and crossing sex boundaries.

It must just be that women's boundaries don't matter - and that is justification enough for most people.

*To be honest. I just can't see why some males feel entitled to use women's facilities. It is so disrespectful to women and women's boundaries.

Why did they get it into their heads that its okay?*

Because women aren't real actual autonomous humans in the same way as men are so why would it matter if we are disrespected and our boundaries are violated.

Plus men are the stars and women are bit part players who have to make way for the star even if it's a film of the woman's own life...

To be honest. I just can't see why some males feel entitled to use women's facilities. It is so disrespectful to women and women's boundaries.

Why did they get it into their heads that its okay?

The "honour system" for toilets worked (still works?) because of the very small numbers involved, making it incredibly unlikely that you would ever encounter a TW in the ladies loo. Plus the TW who genuinely did want to get on with things and not cause a fuss are a far far cry from the Travis Alabanzas of this world, who delight in making a themselves the centre of attention and appear to enjoy others' discomfort

The 'honour system' collapses/collapsed, as soon as women are/were deprived from the right of calling someone out and/or calling management as soon as they perceive someone to be (possibly) male in a women's space, imo. (Now irrespective of whether one is ok with a strict GRC-policy after SRS, whereby the GRC then has to be shown to management in case, or whether one rejects any GRC-policy on principle.)

If you take that away from women or make it unreliable (like, it is unpredictable whether management will side with the female or the male), you will always have some males (trans or not), who will use it to intimidate or antagonize women, and women will basically be forced to put up with it.

I have encountered them in the ladies and it has made me uncomfortable. So the 'honour system' didn't work for me.

If it is down to low numbers, I would call that 'pot luck' rather than something as intelligent or consenting as a 'system' of 'honour'.

The "honour system" for toilets worked (still works?) because of the very small numbers involved, making it incredibly unlikely that you would ever encounter a TW in the ladies loo. Plus the TW who genuinely did want to get on with things and not cause a fuss are a far far cry from the Travis Alabanzas of this world, who delight in making a themselves the centre of attention and appear to enjoy others' discomfort

It's difficult to see why women would consider John an ally.

Furthermore, I always imagine the women who make sweeping statements about how the 'honour system used to work' and 'women were fine about it' are actually a bit like those bath-sharing 'I'm so cool with it' types who took the piss out of me.

I agree with you Baracker.

I have never been comfortable with males being 'one of the girls' - ie when gay male friends would sit in on a conversation about menstruation or not respectfully leave the room when we'd be changing for a 'women and gay men's night out' or what have you. Some of my female friends would be totally cool with it and sort of enjoy the exhibitionist/subversive element, sharing baths with gay men, etc, and would take the piss out of me for being so rigid in my sexed boundaries.

I just don't feel comfortable. I don't feel comfortable that their gaze is a male gaze even if it is a homosexual male gaze. I don't feel comfortable with the fact that my female body is the exotic other that men, gay or straight, seem to have fixations with that frequently slip into creepy territory.

When males talk about feeling embarrassed, keeping their head down, ashamed, awkward, etc in women's facilities I think "Well so you fucking should. You are not supposed to be there. You are male. You have overstepped a boundary. You should feel embarrassed, should keep your head down, should feel ashamed, should feel awkward. You are not supposed to be there".

BarrackerBarmer I really hope your post is Not deleted (I can't see why it should be but the rules are not applied evenly) as expressing that truth without the names and pronouns that distort reality Provides a clarity to the discussion