Please can someone who thinks that TWAW..

BrownPaperTeddy I don't agree with your definition of 'abuse'.

How I'd like to see things working is for society to acknowledge that although we are separated in society into male and female (rightly I believe for some things) some people are not comfortable with this so we need unisex gender neutral self contained spaces for people who want them.

We do already have them in places, we built disabled access toilets so why not just built more gender neutral unisex spaces.

Build transgender/nom-binary wings for prisons etc. Instead of insisting we pretend males ate females and vice versa.

Not everyone will want this but it is the only answer that take a account of non binary people, that I can see.

Anyone can call themselves what they like or dress how they like but it doesn't have legal implications. I can't sue you for not calling me ' Her lady queen of the universe' etc buy I can choose my own title if o want to. Most people will use others chosen names and pronouns. If using a name or using a word were done in a bullying manner that could be addressed as such (rightly so).

BrownPaperTeddy can you think of a reason why tgis would not work?

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

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

By insisting that transwomen have to use the men's toilet though you aren't treating them in a dignified way.

Who are you including as transwomen? Philip Bunce on his dress-wearing days? Eddie Izzard? Karen Jones? Karen White? Any man who says he's a woman? Where do you draw the line?

That's an interesting video regarding the 6ft 5in Chinese woman.

I used to be on dating sites and I would get angry meeting men who patently lied about their height and age on meeting them. If they lie about something so obvious, then it's not a good way to start a relationship or to even have sex with them because doing an act so intimate, and where there are vulnerabilities, requires trust.

Of course there are trans people who pass, however it would always be on the back of my mind that biologically they are either male, or female but only if I knew they were trans, obviously.

"I suppose I want proper answers because if there actually is any proper scientific evidence that transwomen are really women then I will have to compromise on the 1%

There is no compelling evidence that MTFs are really women. There is extrapolation and there is sophistry based on intersex conditions. It's basically a God of the Gaps argument.

Brown if you'll notice, I didn't talk about toilets as being in that 1% (toilets are a very difficult edge case - I personally am not worried, I know women who've been victims of sexual assault who are absolutely traumatised to the point of PTSD by male bodied individuals in the toilets with them). Long term, I think floor-to-ceiling cubicles, with basins in, opening onto public spaces is the way to go. But that's fucking expensive and not going to happen any time soon.

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).

Who wins this particular game of dignity top trumps? And if it's the gender-fluid non binary trans person, why is their dignity more important than mine?

Obviously BrownPaper, if you pass for the opposite sex completely you'll be able to use many sex segregated spaces without anyone knowing. That's just reality. But if you had an understanding that males should not be in female spaces and a third space provided for trans/non binary, you'd be able to kick out obvious men without fearing you'll be prosecuted for a hate crime.

Argh, rogue apostrophe.

I've let you down, I've let MNFWR down, and worst of all, I've let myself down.

(Deflates slowly).

I once said on here (got quoted on the BBC too, preens) that I'm fully in favour of transwomen being treated without discrimination and in a dignified way in the 99% of cases where biological sex doesn't matter - it's the 1% where it does that I'm worried about.

By insisting that transwomen have to use the men's toilet though you aren't treating them in a dignified way.

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

We can argue what makes a woman a woman and base this on chromosomes but actually in real life we don't examine DNA to make these decisions.

How do you make these subjective decisions when eg a person is walking into the toilet?

A judgement of some sort has to be made. Is it on their appearance?

I fully appreciate the need to be identify anyone who is trying to exploit the situation. What I can't understand is how you can legislate for that. You can't judge on appearance clearly so what do you use?

And when you do use the biological argument you then have to accept that trans men are women and then can't be excluded from women's spaces surely? Or can you legally differentiate between trans women, on the basis of biology, and trans men, on the basis of appearance?

Rachel Dolezal (white woman) claims to be black, and really seems to believe it. She's accused of cultural appropriation.

Man claims to be Napoleon, and really seems to believe it. He is assumed to be delusional and advised to talk to a psychiatrist.

Man claims to be a woman, and really seems to believe it. He's 'brave and stunning' and everyone is supposed to believe he really is a woman.

Why is a man declaring himself to be a woman not viewed as delusional or accused of cultural appropriation?

This is the point at which I realised Izzard is in fact a complete twat.

I'd forgotten that story when I wrote about Izzard. He now says that happened a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that up until a year or two ago he never claimed to be trans - just a bloke who liked to wear dresses and make up. And so would have used the men's toilets.

Rachel Dolezal is good point. Ethnicity, like Sex/gender, isn’t solely biological either is it. If you were raised as and look and feel White European then find out via dna testing you’re over a quarter Native American would you try to acculturate your way in to those communities?

There's two separate issues which shouldn't be conflated, in my opinion. The purely physical issue, as it pertains to the transgender debate (but not the trans-racial analogue), namely that men are bigger, stronger, and have penises with which they rape women (the fact that they account for 90% of violent criminals in prison and 98% of sex offenders just is an indisputable fact). That's the argument that applies to the sheer, unadulterated stupidity (not to mention evil intent) of putting Karen White in a women's prison. Then there's the social issue of male socialisation and privilege. That's the argument which shows the absurdity of giving a women in business award to Pippa Bunce.

Only the latter argument, about socialisation, privilege, the weight of history, applies to the Rachel Dolzeal's of this world. If you've grown up thinking you're white, benefiting from white privilege, not being discriminated against, and you do an ancestry DNA test and find that you're 1/4 Native American* then apply for a scholarship intended to get kids from underprivileged backgrounds on reservations into college - you are a total twat for doing so.

(*FWIW my DS is 1/8 BAME by ancestry - but looks white and due to family background will definitely grow up with white middle-class privilege however you cut it. No way would I be encouraging him to take advantage of affirmative action programmes, because this would be utterly shitty of both of us.)

FermatsTheorem

This is the point at which I realised Izzard is in fact a complete twat.

I cannot begin to tell you how bitterly disappointing this was - and still is - to me. I used to love Eddie Izzard. I now despise him and that photo of him (and others) that was Tweeted by the "Labour LGBT" group - containing not a single, actual XX woman - continues to enrage me.

I don’t think acculturate is the right word there but I can’t remember what is

Rachel Dolezal is good point. Ethnicity, like Sex/gender, isn’t solely biological either is it. If you were raised as and look and feel White European then find out via dna testing you’re over a quarter Native American would you try to acculturate your way in to those communities?

I just don’t think it’s all quite so polarised as it seems in online discussions, nothing is ever that black and white.

A trans woman should not be allowed to work in a woman's refuge or rape crisis centre because they are male, no matter their exterior appearance.

Therefore the argument must follow that a trans man is allowed to work in a woman's refuge or rape crisis centre, because they are female regardless of their exterior appearance. So a person with a beard, who calls themselves Brian can work in a woman's refuge because when they were born they were called Daphne?

I agree that this is a problem, because men are a danger to women, but women are not a danger to men. Transmen might have to be excluded for the safety and wellbeing of the women involved, as well as transwomen being excluded. Because women are at risk from men, an asymmetry in the rules might be appropriate. Transmen and transwomen (who might also be in danger from men), might need to have a separate service.

There are no simple solutions to this problem, and trying to reduce everything to slogans and sound bites or worse, no debate, helps no one.

I'm sure this has been asked and answered, but why can a man identify as a woman, but Rachel Dolezal could not identify as African American?

When Eddie Izzard was just a bloke who liked to wear make up and dresses, he presumably had no problem using the men's, because that was what he was. Why should that change just because he's applied a trans label to himself?

There was the infamous incident Izzard himself describes in his autobiography where he went into a women's toilets to fix his makeup (or similar) and a group of girls of about 14 made fun of him. Izzard paints himself as the victim in this situation. Here it is in his own words:

www.vulture.com/2017/06/eddie-izzard-memoir-believe-me.html

No insight at all into the fact that three young teens, confronted with a grown man in a dress in their toilet, who then aggressively questions why they're challenging his presence (remember Izzard is quite a big, obviously masculine, bloke), might scream and run off.

This is the point at which I realised Izzard is in fact a complete twat.

BrownPaperTeddy

Eg in everyday life what facilities (toilets, changing rooms etc) would a trans man or woman use?

Without some form of inclusion they clearly won't be able to dress as they want or live their lives peacefully and unharrassed.

If you're talking about people simply 'dressing as they want', then clearly there should not need to be any discussion - Philip Bunce belongs in the men's even when he's cross dressing as Pippa, because he is a man.

If you're talking about Tara '7 inch surprise' Hudson - Tara belongs in the men's because of Tara's 7 inch surprise, no matter how much Tara would like people to believe that Tara is a woman.

When Eddie Izzard was just a bloke who liked to wear make up and dresses, he presumably had no problem using the men's, because that was what he was. Why should that change just because he's applied a trans label to himself?

Men have been cross dressing since forever. It's only recently that they've started to think that it means they have actually changed sex.

I agree. I think the biggest issue here is that of self ID. To me it is utterly bizarre that anyone could not see the potential.unintended consequences.

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

Sorry who identifies and objectively is the same sex as the people who use the service.

Afaik no one is forced to volunteer in rape crisis services or work as medical professionals who provide smear tests etc. 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.

If that person switches off and refuses to engage because they are upset by your behaviour how has that advanced your cause?

There it is again - women are not the ones with the cause; women are not the ones trying to redefine ourselves or change the law.

People who say that TWAW are the ones with the cause, and they cant even explain their belief in any meaningful way. So how can it be encoded into law?

The "but what about a transman who wants to work in a rape crisis centre" gotcha isn't really a gotcha at all.

A transwoman is ruled out of employment there because of male biology.

A transman may have the pre-requisite biology, but (if bearded and aggressively demanding that they now have the "right" to work there, regardless of the effect that has on the women in need of the services) clearly lacks some of the other qualities needed for the job, in particular empathy and compassion.

Shared biology is a necessary condition for working there, but not a sufficient one.