Please can someone who thinks that TWAW..

It's not the policy makers. They don't actually care. It's the people who influenced them.

This. I have no doubt that at least some of the men driving this are doing so precisely because they want to destroy safeguarding and have unfettered access to vulnerable women. The examples of some of these people (and their involvement in the campaign) are already out there for us to see.

I don't want a "woman" with a beard, deep voice and dressed like a man to be in the open plan changing room. Or to be conducting my smear test. But to have no right to object because you have defined them as a "woman" by virtue of their birth and chromosomes. Because to me he isn't a woman.

Now, how do we differentiate?

Well, the old GRC, with a period of "living as" your chosen gender to prove good faith and two psychiatrists signing off that your attempt was genuine did at least offer some gatekeeping.

Self ID offers none. If "preparedness to sign a legal document" is the only test, then there is no criterion by which an application could be deemed to have been made in good faith. I put that bit in bold because I'm tired of TRAs saying "but it would be a criminal offence to lie on your declaration" without saying what the legal basis would be for deciding that someone was, in fact, lying.

(Note too that even if "womanhood" is a social construct, which as I understand it, is more or less RatRolyPoly's position, social constructs which carry legal implications are typically subject to gate-keeping. Nationality is a social construct - that doesn't mean you can rock up at the Home Office and say "I self-ID as British, please give me a passport.")

Precisely. But can you rely on people to self govern?

You have to, to some extent. What needs to be thrashed out is to what degree that is reasonable.

You can't do that though can you because these things have to be testable in court. You can't argue someone did something wrong if that wrong thing isn't defined and relies on individuals to determine for themselves what is right or wrong.

How do you suggest we differentiate? You're not happy with any of the suggestions. What would you do?

No idea whatsoever. Stop the process now and go back to the start definitely.

I don't know how you draw up definitive lines based on only 2 sexes and genetics, when in every day life those judgements are based on far more than XX or XY chromosomes and cannot be practically made other than on appearance.

Possibly there are some people trying to do that but I doubt that is the intention of most of the policy makers

It's not the policy makers. They don't actually care. It's the people who influenced them.

I agree with Lass on the floor-to-ceiling cubicles and religion aspect. I was recently in a unisex changing village in a pool (in a town with a large ethnic minority community) and was struck by the number of women changing from salwar kameez/hijab into burkinis. They were clearly not worried or put off by it being a changing village (and the cubicles weren't even floor to ceiling). There will be people whose interpretation of their religion is much stricter (there were no niqabis that I saw, for instance) but I don't think these arrangements are an across-the-board problem for all Muslims for instance.

In contrast, my local outdoor pool (run by a community charity, changing facilities are two small, open plan, single sex rooms) would cause a big issue for Muslim women were "non-binary" male individuals to start changing in them.

Sorry for the derail, but this argument seems anti-feminist to me - Anything that makes it harder for mothers to leave the home is a negative for society.

I agree. And I don't want intact males (or any others actually) in with you and your twins. People need to start fucking listening to women and what women say. It's not all about what men want, all the time.

My comment about the unintended consequences is that I'm assuming the notion of self ID came from a good place.

I think that is a somewhat naive assumption when we are discussing where this impetus came from.
In that case I stand to be corrected.

I do find it hard to believe that MPs or whoever are agreeing to this are coming at it from the view point of "let's make it easier for perverts to get access to women" or "let's make it so that women don't feel safe anywhere so all stay at home". Maybe I am wrong. Possibly there are some people trying to do that but I doubt that is the intention of most of the policy makers. I'm just not sure that they have considered the reality of what they are planning.

Now, how do we differentiate?

How do you suggest we differentiate? You're not happy with any of the suggestions. What would you do?

Precisely. But can you rely on people to self govern?

You have to, to some extent. What needs to be thrashed out is to what degree that is reasonable.

My comment about the unintended consequences is that I'm assuming the notion of self ID came from a good place.

I think that is a somewhat naive assumption when we are discussing where this impetus came from.

I realise that might not be much of problem to you personally, but it becomes so for those women.

But there you are wrong. I do have a problem with men being in that space. I also have a problem with women, who look like men, being in that space.

In effect, you are saying that women have no right to feel safe or have their privacy respected because some tims want to feel validated in their choices. So, 100% of public space becomes open to tims and 0% to large swathes of women. If this is a situation you're happy with, at least have the balls to state that. Honesty is better than this dancing around obfuscating that happens when people posit that TWAW, because everyone knows they aren't in any rational sense.

Show me where I've said that women have no right to privacy or to feel safe.

I don't think that nor do I think that the rights of men to enter female spaces should over ride the rights of women to privacy or to feel safe.

What I don't agree with is your definition of what is a woman.

I don't want a "woman" with a beard, deep voice and dressed like a man to be in the open plan changing room. Or to be conducting my smear test. But to have no right to object because you have defined them as a "woman" by virtue of their birth and chromosomes. Because to me he isn't a woman.

Now, how do we differentiate?

But what about people who are required by their religion to go to separate changing/toilet facilities?

Re toilets or even changing rooms for that matter,- that is a complete non point if toilets are floor to ceiling lockable cubicles. For example with the layout in the renovated Glasgow Theatre Royal there is no more reason for saying a woman cannot use the toilets there than saying a woman cannot use any other part of the building, including the theatre auditorium. Or another example- the changing rooms in shops like Cos. Cos has male assistants and male customers but the changing rooms are floor to ceiling with mirrors, proper walls, not partitions, and heavy, lockable doors. How much more separate does one need?

There may well be extreme religious views which say a woman cannot sit in a theatre next to a man , but that is a different argument (and one frankly which should get little truck).

As Bertrand says much of this problem can be dealt with by spending money and good design- as Glasgow Royal Theatre and Cos have done.

Intersex and trans are completely separate issues, particularly when it comes to sport.

Transwomen are typically biologically normal men (normal in the statistical sense, not in any sense implying moral judgement). The claim is often made that testosterone blockers iron out differences in performance when it comes to muscular strength, but there are serious doubts in the scientific literature that even this claim is correct, and it certainly doesn't remove the height advantage, weight advantage, massive advantage in VOMax (a measure of how efficiently you can oxygenate the blood going to your muscles) or grip strength.

It is simply and straightforwardly cheating for male bodied individuals to take part in women's sport. This may be a very sad thing for transwomen who like sport to accept but them's the breaks. We don't all get everything we want in all areas. If your sport matters that much, make the choice Jiayah Saelua has made, to hold off cross sex hormones while continuing to play men's international football as a transwoman.
www.theguardian.com/football/2014/aug/29/jaiyah-saelua-transgender-footballer-interview

Incidentally I really admire and respect Jaiyah for making this choice.

I have a question for Rat, who very helpfully answered the question. According to Rat, any person in a room who has a disposition to say “yes, I am a woman” is a woman. But note, this can’t be the definition of “woman” because it is self referential. The definition of woman can’t be “anyone who is disposed to state “I am a woman” is a woman.” Rat has given us a tool to enable us to find out who the women are (just ask them) , but this doesn’t answer the question of why they are women.

So my question is, what is the difference between those individuals who say “ I am a woman”, and those who say “ I am a man” ? And if someone says “I am a woman” but they are lying, how could we tell? In short, what features are people thinking of when they say “yes, I am a woman and I’m not a man?” And, more importantly, what features do women and trans women have in common- what makes them both women?

When it important for female bodied people to have a space that excludes male bodied people, the deciding factor for inclusion is sexed body. they should not get a job working there/ would not be suited to using the provision

Is the opposite true then?

If someone tries hard to look female/wants to be thought of as female, they can be included as female?

I thought this was the whole argument? That it doesn't matter what you think you are or what you look like you can't change your sex?

So where is the line drawn as to who is female enough to say work in a refuge? How on earth is this legislated for? If you were born female and don't look too male then you can apply?

The argument for enclosed changing rooms/toilets seems to completely ignore the fact that we exist and benefit from women-only open plan areas.

Indeed. And unless you have each enclosed cubicle large enough for the purposes you describe here and large enough to include a shower cubicle, then many women will still be unable to use gym changing rooms which allow XY people in there. Me, for example.

I don't think anyone with a penis should be in the ladies' changing rooms, whether they're Pip Bunce or a transwoman awaiting surgery.

But how do you ban him without banning the very genuine trans woman

Well, don't ban him then. But the problem becomes that you severely restrict women in public space. I realise that might not be much of problem to you personally, but it becomes so for those women.

The problem is that you have two marginalised communities, but one of those communities rights have to supersede all the rights of the other. In effect, you are saying that women have no right to feel safe or have their privacy respected because some tims want to feel validated in their choices. So, 100% of public space becomes open to tims and 0% to large swathes of women. If this is a situation you're happy with, at least have the balls to state that. Honesty is better than this dancing around obfuscating that happens when people posit that TWAW, because everyone knows they aren't in any rational sense.

So what does the law look like when it needs to say " only natal women but not natal women who look male"?

Again, this isn't difficult if we go back to rational. When it important for female bodied people to have a space that excludes male bodied people, the deciding factor for inclusion is sexed body. If someone tries hard to look male/wants to be thought of as male, they should not get a job working there/ would not be suited to using the provision. If a female bodied person in GNC or has facial hair etc, then they should be included - this really isn't difficult to spot.

I find these faux barriers quite ridiculous really. They would not be difficult to implement!

I agree with the PP who said that all toilets need to be floor to ceiling solid cubicles. Same with changing rooms.

I just want to jump on this for a moment, I have twins - one of my friends has triplets, none of them are old enough to be able to get dried and changed on their own yet. I can just about (although not comfortably) use a family sized cubicle, but it's impossible for her. We use the open plan women's changing room for convenience and safety (you can't leave a young child outside on their own while you get their sister dried and changed). Also toilet cubicles it's hard enough taking more than one child to the toilet, without having the option to use it with the door open, so that you can keep an eye on your children.

The argument for enclosed changing rooms/toilets seems to completely ignore the fact that we exist and benefit from women-only open plan areas.

Sorry for the derail, but this argument seems anti-feminist to me - Anything that makes it harder for mothers to leave the home is a negative for society.

@Italiangreyhound

I agree completely and no I can't think why that wouldn't work other than some trans gender people wouldn't like it. But then they should be told tough luck basically.

Anyone could use the 3rd space which is a win win as far as I can see.

The 3rd space works when you cannot separate on the male/female basis because of these cross overs so it is the only sensible way.

As regards sport - I have no idea.

Wasn't there a case with an athlete reported to be male because of their appearance but genetic testing proved them to be XX genetically?

Truly I have many many more questions than answers.

But how about addressing the specific example I did give, of someone like Pippa Bunce walking into an open plan gym changing room. It's my dignity (I don't want to be naked in front of men) vs his dignity (he doesn't want to be seen as a man on one of his lady days).

Honestly, I don't know and I agree, I don't want it either.

It's mad. But how do you ban him without banning the very genuine trans woman, living as a man before they have surgery?

I am really not arguing against anything that you say.

It's a total mess. Clearly the law, or whoever decided on self ID, is moving faster than society and even just facility provision is moving.

If every toilet and changing room was a general self contained unit most of these issues wouldn't arrise. Still prisons, healthcare and the like would be a problem yes. But not many of the practicalities.

What do you think self ID is? I just want to be clear you understand the full situation.

My understanding is that anyone, regardless of biology, lifestyle, appearance can decide that they identify as the opposite sex and then access facilities of that sex. They can choose to switch back and forth.

Is that correct?

My comment about the unintended consequences is that I'm assuming the notion of self ID came from a good place. That it was intended to help trans gender people to live their life as a person of their chosen sex.

The unintended consequence, as I see it, is that this deregulation then allows for any pervert to walk into a female changing room with the sole intention of looking at women and girls, or raping them, or exposing themselves.

The same with allowing a man to be housed in a woman's prison.

I doubt at the outset self ID was brought in to allow these things to happen?

This is the problem with laws though isn't it? That many of these issues boil down to quite a subtle argument.

It's quite difficult to create a black and white law - you can do this but not this, or this is ok but this isn't - when there is no black and white.

If you’re an individual who is putting their right to identity as x over other people’s right to have specific, intimate care from someone who identifies as the same sex as them then perhaps it is your responsibility to not go for jobs or positions that put your patients/ clients in that position in the first place.

Precisely. But can you rely on people to self govern? If you put rules or laws in place how do you differentiate between men and women, or trans men and trans women?

So currently there are exemptions for sex based discrimination in law aren't there? A refuge for example can advertise for only women applicants. So what does the law look like when it needs to say " only natal women but not natal women who look male"?

The evidence there is relates to brain structure. The problem is that most of the studies are small, they don't take into account neuroplasticity, many don't take into account or control for effects of cross sex hormones, most don't control for sexuality. The ones that have done have found similarities between homosexual MTFs and women but not heterosexual MTFs. Which bears out Blanchard's typology.

The interesting thing is that several studies have found a difference from both sexed controls in an area of the brain relating to perception of the body. So there may well be a biological basis for transgenderism itself, but the evidence does not suggest that they are women trapped in male bodies.