Please can someone who thinks that TWAW..

And are you engaging in whataboutery?

Since your entire argument is whataboutery that's a bit rich!

I asked you first, I think.

PS what about "trans men" who don't want to use male spaces? Would you insist they did? What about butch lesbians? They are women in women's spaces. If it's so difficult, that's going to be a problem isn't it?

Yes a massive problem.

And are you engaging in whataboutery?

So do You think that women should have to accept a person that looks like a man into their space? Even if those women are triggered by men being in there or, in the case of women who for religious reasons have to be segregated are then excluded from that place? Does that even work - this person looks like a man and acts like a man but he was born a woman and so it's ok for me to undress in front of him?

Being trans is not contingent on having a gender recognition certificate. The overwhelming majority of trans people don't have a gender recognition certificate.

Brown I do see what you mean! I think it's trickier to draw the line for TM. We know that TW are generally bigger, stronger, and retain male patterns of violence - easy to say "no male-born bodies in here". TM are often smaller and tend to have female patterns of violence - testosterone really complicates matters, though, because we do see a rise in violence. So it might be possible to say "no male bodies or testosterone taken for the purpose of transition", perhaps?

On third spaces, I do think this will eventually be the way forward and obviously not at the cost of single-sex or disabled facilities. It's incredibly costly (particularly here in the UK where we already have resistance to fitting appropriate disabled facilities into listed buildings); but what really grinds my gears is the "no compromise, we want access to female space" attitude. This was really typified for me by - I think it's Hope aka gncmaninpink on Twitter? - who raised wads of money for a transgender shelter and found it was outright rejected. It's self-defeating, shows no respect to people who need single-sex facilities, and shows that these demands are about validation, not actual tailored services.

What?

That in an ideal world the GRA would be repealed. No more GRCs. A new legal framework would be worked out. It would have to be decided what happened with current GRC holders. Probably we'd have to maintain the legal fiction for this tiny group but we'd need to dispense with the idea that they are entitled to absolute privacy. Because you can't change sex. It's a nonsense.

No I'm not asking for any of those things. Being "trans" and having a GRC are not the same thing in any way shape or form. Disingenuous straw man.

Then I have no idea what you were saying in the first statement if it's not suggesting

PS what about "trans men" who don't want to use male spaces? Would you insist they did? What about butch lesbians? They are women in women's spaces. If it's so difficult, that's going to be a problem isn't it?

Teddy

I don't agree with women's spaces being eroded or taken over. Equally I don't agree with trans people being pushed out of society either. I hope that a way can be found that does both

I think third spaces would work well for many, especially because of the growing number of people who are non binary etc. For some, they would never be enough as they think gender identity should trump sexed bodies in all situations.

It sounds to me as though you are of the view that where sexed bodies are significant, sexed bodies should determine access to single sex provision/ sport etc.

In addition to facilities it is important to consider whether/ when people's sex should be recorded accurately regardless of their identity. For example, when monitoring pay at work, crimes committed etc......For example, a natal male who transitions in his 40s - should their pay be recorded as that of a female employee or a male employee? What if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate - does this change anything? If this person goes on to commit a crime - should this be recorded as male or female crime. Perhaps this is another case where a third category is useful?

One of the things I find upsetting is when questions such as the above are dismissed as transphobic or hate fuelled. I think this is a silencing technique used by some to try and stop solutions that they would feel are unpalatable, but would appeal to many, being discussed.

Please don't @ me.

No I'm not asking for any of those things. Being "trans" and having a GRC are not the same thing in any way shape or form. Disingenuous straw man.

And we're back to "it's so difficult to tell what sex people are".

@Ereshkigal

So are you asking that being trans is banned?

Gender dysphoria is what? Made illegal? Medicated out of existence?

then I am saying that includes trans men, who look like a man,

Very occasionally.

But thanks to your rules I have no choice because you have declared that they are female.

THEY ARE FEMALE. It's not my rules.

You say you would challenge a man. But you also say it's so terribly difficult to distinguish between a man and a woman, so how would you justify challenging anyone?
I'm not saying it's terribly difficult to distinguish between a man and a woman.

What I am saying is who are you going to allow to use a womens toilet?

If you say "simple. It's anyone born female" then I am saying that includes trans men, who look like a man, who I don't feel comfortable sharing a toilet or a communal changing room with. But thanks to your rules I have no choice because you have declared that they are female.

What does that mean though? That even if a person got a GRC you wouldn't recognise it anyway?

That in an ideal world the GRA would be repealed. No more GRCs. A new legal framework would be worked out. It would have to be decided what happened with current GRC holders. Probably we'd have to maintain the legal fiction for this tiny group but we'd need to dispense with the idea that they are entitled to absolute privacy. Because you can't change sex. It's a nonsense.

Shots - exactly.

And now we have a government consultation which women are putting a lot of time into, but which is clearly framed as #pretenddebate.

So it will go
Women: in answer to your questions, no men in women's spaces, no self ID.
TW/government All Men #nodebate (yes, we were only kidding when we said #pretenddebate - fooled you)

Spot on Barracker.

My mother's in her 70s and I'm watching her health.
I'm curious as to how my elderly mother on a hospital ward or care home would be afforded her privacy and dignity if a man (let's say a cross dresser like Pips) identifies as a woman and is able to provide intimate care.

Or how she might cope on the ward (and she's tiny, she might have early stages of dementia) sharing the bed next to a 6ft 4 guy who says he's female. He's been socialised on a diet of porn and abuse.

How do vulnerable people speak out?

This. Let's stop trying to make it easier to change people's legal sex class, something that IMO shouldn't happen anyway.
What does that mean though? That even if a person got a GRC you wouldn't recognise it anyway?

I don't think a lot of women would be happy with a person that looks like a man using their facilities, regardless of whether they were born male or female.

And a lot of women aren't happy with actual men using their facilities.

You say you would challenge a man. But you also say it's so terribly difficult to distinguish between a man and a woman, so how would you justify challenging anyone?

As people have said, this is a disingenuous argument.

Are men around the world worried about trans men coming into their toilets?

If not, why not?

Dysphoric people can already get a GRC. Nobody else needs one

This. Let's stop trying to make it easier to change people's legal sex class, something that IMO shouldn't happen anyway.

MrsBeau - I feel like the two groups came to the discussion with two polar opposite viewpoints:

Women: No men whatsoever
TW: All men, #NoDebate

After a while, it got chewed over, and we returned and said
Women: We suggest third spaces and we'll support you in the fight for that.
TW: All men, #NoDebate

Bit later on:
Women: So these third spaces, how do you want to set up the cause? We're still willing to support you.
TW: All men, #NoDebate

Later on still:
Women: Well you can have your third spaces, but I'm cooling on the idea of supporting you as you won't listen or do anything
TW: All men, #NoDebate

Now:
Women: Well quite frankly you can all piss off. We offered a solution, we offered to help you fight for that solution, but now we see you have no compromisable bones in your body, so we too now have hardened our position back to: No men, whatsoever
TW: All men, #NoDebate

(All the while the TW faction involved were twisting and contorting the facts to appear the victim in public, while women were distracted trying to find solutions.)

I think it's more reasonable for them to use the men's than the women's personally if it comes down to that. You make a lot of assumptions.

Not saying they should use the womens.

But if you make trans women use the mens then by default you allow trans men to use the womens - and I'm not happy with that and I don't think a lot of women would be happy with a person that looks like a man using their facilities, regardless of whether they were born male or female.

I can support arguments for a third space.

You must support whatever argument you agree with.

If I saw what looks like a man in a female toilet how can I challenge him if a someone who looks like a man is allowed in there because he was born a woman?

Because some people are quite obviously men. The trans people who are indistinguishable can obviously go "stealth". We can't stop them. Therefore they are likely to go in the opposite sex toilet and be discreet. It's not great but short of chromosome detectors as you seem to think we are advocating for, that's just how it is.