If this thread was started today it would have very different responses

The sort of people who want to breach women's boundaries and come into their safe same sex spaces are the sort of people women don't want in there. The more aggressive they are about wanting it, the less women want them there.

I wanted to pick up a further point from your 'men in positions of trust and authority' argument. It would seem to follow from this that you are saying that, since a proportion of these men will use their positions to harm women, we might as well even things up by allowing women to be harmed everywhere.

Surely the sensible reponse is to say 'let's improve safeguards, oversight - and most of all believe and take seriously people when they complain about a man's behaviour - so that harm by trusted professionals is curtailed'.

You seem to be suggesting that the people unhappy about transwomen accessing women's spaces are not making that case. I don't see that lack. Post-Saville, #metoo (and Shipman) etc, surely everyone is aware and supportive of the need to tighten and enforce safeguards, everywhere?

The only people moving in an anti-safeguarding, libertarian direction are transactivists.

You make a very similar argument when you say that men who want to harm women will find a way in to women's spaces to do that anyway. Well, no, they won't, generally don't and pps have explained repeatedly why that is. Because people, women and men, will uninhibitedly challenge men trying to enter women's spaces. Everyone seeing such an attempt is immediately on alert, noting that 'something's wrong here, what's this bloke up to'. I've seen this happen, with a pissed bloke going into the women's loos met with an immediate, stern 'Hey, this is the ladies!'.

You might indeed just as well say 'well determined paedophiles will get to children anyway, so why bother with gates on schools, or regulating who may enter? Safegaurds and checks are in place because they work. Cultural reinforcement, noticing, challenging or reporting individuals who look like they're in the wrong place, plays a huge part in this.

At the moment, with so few transsexuals, who all make a big effort to look like women, everyone can see that the person, while natally male, is at least a determined cross-dresser, not any old man. Then there's the 'trying to fit in' behaviour.

Of course TRAs want self-ID, because they want rights. The right to enter, the right not to be challenged - and the right to disparage anybody who dares try. They don't want to go to all the effort of trying to fit in, visually, behaviourally, or socially - being aware of others' comfort and preferences and acting to accomodate these, like most women do.

So I'd suggest that answers your 'what's the point of a GRC if they're never shown' question. Those who have them wouldn't generally need to be challenged, because their behaviour would be unlikely to invite challenge.

That doens't mean that some women won't feel uncomfortable that they're present.

Ready for you to all pick that apart

Why would everyone pick it apart

Ive lost count of how many times ive seen posters post similar views

Let’s not forget that women have been excluded from things on the basis of sex (voting, education) for all sorts of bullshit reasons.

If you are going to exclude anyone from anything, you really need to be able to explain why. You can’t do that if you can’t even define your terms.

Yes that one is the tricky one.

After reading another thread on how the government refused to distinguish between sex and gender in the GRA, I think this is where this has all gone wrong - for the act, for women and in the minds of those questioning their 'sex' - except to many it's gender and the word has clearly evolved. Thanks to the refusal to include the definition of sex in the GRA 2004 half of the people involved in this debate think sex is gender and they can truly change it easily.

Anyone that holds them can share sex specific spaces of their desired gender.

The problem here is that you really have to ask why the space has been segregated in the first place, and identify the shared qualities that make it logical to exclude others from that space.

As soon as you look closely at any of this it starts to fall apart.

Part of the problem is that the existing law is a bit of a mess. Nobody seems to have thought through why sex based segregation is necessary or grappled with the reality that you can’t change sex.

In 2004 the only person most people had heard of who had ‘changed sex’ was Jan Morris and gay marriage didn’t exist. The GRA was a work around that has never made much sense.

Now we have a movement asserting that everyone must legally accept the concept of gender identity. Any dissent is suppressed, but nobody can explain what gender is. For comparison nobody has ever forced me to agree that God exists.

Dear OP, you are right, the fact that one cannot ask for a GRC makes the whole affair rather pointless, which is, why the only clean solution is to repeal the GRA, really.
As for the legality of men being in toilets, it is really a matter of social taboo, so that women currently will simply confront men and drive them out, and management will back them. Should any kind of MRA try to sue, I am confident parliament would fix this problem easily, sex being a protected characteristic and all.

Earlywalker, if I was feeling generous, I could certainly understand why you are struggling with the concept, because it is a nonsense that an simple bit of administration could be being used to claim that reams of people are ready to do themselves an injury if they don't get it, but we aren't the ones making those claims.

For clarity, no, the framing of Self ID was not so that any Tom, Dick or Harry could have access to women's spaces. It's been framed as the greatest human rights issue of our time that someone is able to be the only arbiter of their own gender, which has been jumbled up with the idea of biological sex. No one else must be able to have a definitive word on that. It's an entirely personal decision, unrelated to mental health, actual testable biology or any of that stuff.

The GRC is homophobic in basis, arising from a time when equal marriage didn't exist and for some people with severe gender dysphoria, it was a helpful compromise to enable them to live peaceful lives.

The world has moved on, and now the need for 'recognition of gender' is pretty much obsolete. Men can marry other men, and women can marry other women etc.

As has been said more times than I've had hot flushes, there was a time when women were politely ok with the situation. But now the transsexuals who just wanted to get along are shouted down and frankly dwarfed in number by the types who cannot but help calling women names and posting pictures of themselves shitting in women's toilets and bullying anyone who dares to question their behaviour or their attempts to ride fought shod over the reasons for sex exemptions that were not supposed to be affected by the original GRC at all.

Self ID obliterates the sex distinction that allows sex exemptions to exist. It's a wholesale cultural change that has already begun with various places acting as though it already existed.

So yeah, big conundrum. What's your solution, given that we've all expended so much energy explaining the issues (again) for you?

Surely a predator is still a predator and whether he identifies as a woman or not, he will find his way in if he wants too?

This is not a reason for potentially eroding safeguarding rules around same sex spaces.

We don't say, 'well predators will always find a way so let's not bother with DBS checks' do we?

I think it's to do with the culture of 'self id', and it's not just about changing rooms. Lots of organisations seem to be pre-emptively bringing in self Id policies (for example the Labour Party and their all women shortlists, or the Girl guides) and there are huge issues with this as we have seen.

Also, currently a very small number of people have a GRC and all of those people will be 'legit' transwomen who, even if they don't pass look like they have taken all the steps to 'live as a woman' (whatever that means). Under self id, a 6ft burly bloke with a beard could walk into the women's and no one would be able to challenge them because it's perfectly possible that they are a 'self identifying transwoman' and it would be transphobic to do so.

Plus their is the issue of privacy laws - currently, if someone has a GRC then only the police and courts can know that they were ever previously a woman. Again hardly anyone has a GRC so this might not be a huge problem, but under self ID......

If you read the Fair Play for Women guidance for the consultation, it sets out all the ways in which self ID could be a potential problem quite clearly. It's not just about toilets and changing rooms.

Firstly, currently is it an offence for a male to use woman’s facilities (and visa versa) not even identifying as trans, what would happen if a man went into a ladies bathroom?

No, entering an opposite sex toilet is not specifically against the law. Toilets aren’t usually ‘policed’ by anyone. However, a provider is alliwed to specify (EA exceptions) that a facility like a toilet or changing room is single sex.

so if a GRC ultimately means nothing - in the sense that you’re not allowed to ask for it anyway, what difference is self ID going to make?

It’s generally assumed that it is possible to tell whether somebody is male or female and that nobody tries to ‘fake’ their sex. However, just as we have blue badges to show entitlement to disabled parking spaces and passports to allow us to cross borders, there is no reason that a proof of sex shouldn’t be necessary if it is clear that any system is being abused.

Equally, if a GRC means nothing, why is it necessary?

Surely a predator is still a predator and whether he identifies as a woman or not, he will find his way in if he wants too?

No - that is why there are safe guarding rules and criminal database checks. However abuse by predators is only part of the problem.

I think you are missing the point. There is no reason for anyone to be ‘treated as a woman’ anymore than you should be ‘treating people as disabled’ or ‘treating people as black’. You should treat everyone as a human individual. However sometimes you need to acknowledge differences. Women sometimes need separate services and provisions because of the objective characteristics they share as women, not because of their identity.

Also I’m slightly confused, so if a GRC ultimately means nothing - in the sense that you’re not allowed to ask for it anyway, what difference is self ID going to make?

So why are trans activists so keen to bring in self id?

Oh and a 6) to my list above is, it's much easier to refuse to give up something you already have (single sex spaces), than it is to claim something new that you want (a world with the option of sex-segregated provision across all professions and service providers - if that is indeed something people want). Especially when the 'want' is something so huge, expensive and socially revolutionary.

So there's a principled argument that single sex spaces are necessary and are there for well-established reasons. There's a tactical one that ground ceded voluntarily is very, very hard to win back (the current Self ID movement is seeking to take full advantage of the tiny space already ceded to transsexuals, using that toe in door to prise the door wide open. Which is a reason, in retrospect, to regret that decision having been made so lightly). There's a pragmatic one that the resource required to maintain the status quo is negligable, compared to that required to overhaul all professions, service providers and the social norms, attitudes, structures and funding that surround them.

What seems to me more likely, is that 'what people want' with regard to service providers, is for standards and complaints procedures to be rigorous, fair actively applied and - more than anything - for women and girls to be listened to, believed and seen as 'equal enough' that their legitimate concerns should be acted upon, when they complain.

And surely that is the core of the issue?

I've changed my mind from earlier posts. I was thinking carefully about OP's question and trying to clarify my own thinking as I responded.

Now, I think that as long as transgender people allow the likes of Lilli Madigan, Pippa Bunce and Laurel Hubbard to be visible without disagreement, then I won't be comfortable sharing women's spaces with them.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but for me it's as much about comfort and dignity as well as danger. If a male transsexual comes into a space where I am undressed or otherwise vulnerable I just see someone wearing 'women's garb' who I read as male. Whatever surgery that person has undergone it's still vanishingly unlikely that I will not nevertheless perceive them as male. That leaves me in the presence of not only a male person, but a male person who registers 'unusual' on my radar. I don't want to undress in front of men, especially unknown men who may or may not indulge in sexual fetishes. So it's a flat no from me.

As well, I think a lot of women here who started out very supportive of 'old school transsexuals' had their eyes opened by some who came on here and displayed their male socialisation for all to see. So now it's a flat no from those women too.

No.

lottiegarbanzo 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 You have far more patience than I.

The exemptions under the EA are a chocolate teapot.

Unless you are the Masons and want to exclude women but continue to include trans identifying men on a 'case by case' basis.

Labour apparently want to run AWS in the same way. Exclude all men except the ones you want to include.

It seems to be a licence to discriminate for vague non specific reasons.

Unlike human rights or citizen rights, rights on the basis of sex are awarded on a 'case by case basis'.

To build on breastfeedingclownfish's post Amnesty International say this

*Women and girls travelling alone and those accompanied only by their children felt particularly under threat in transit areas and camps in Hungary, Croatia and Greece, where they were forced to sleep alongside hundreds of refugee men. In some instances women left the designated areas to sleep in the open on the beach because they felt safer there.

Women also reported having to use the same bathroom and shower facilities as men. One woman told Amnesty International that in a reception centre in Germany some refugee men would watch women as they went to the bathroom. Some women took extreme measures such as not eating or drinking to avoid having to go to the toilet where they felt unsafe.

"If this humanitarian crisis was unfolding anywhere else in the world we would expect immediate practical steps to be taken to protect groups most at risk of abuse, such as women travelling alone
and female-headed families. At a minimum, this would include setting up single sex, well-lit toilet facilities and separate safe sleeping areas. These women and their children have fled some of the world's most dangerous areas and it is shameful that they are still at risk on European soil," said Tirana Hassan* Amnesty International also support the proposed changes to the UK GRA processes to allow self-id.

OP I'm reading this from a 'reading comprehension' perspective and think I get your 'positions of trust' comment. I think you're saying 'if a proportion of all men pose a risk, why is it ok to allow men to become midwives, or doctors, teachers or sports coaches at all, given that a proportion of them will try to abuse these positions to groom and abuse girls and women?'. Your comparison is with transgender men being allowed into single sex spaces, like toilets, changing rooms, women's shelters, prisons etc.

You seem to be saying 'why are posters willing to accept men in positions of trust which they can abuse in order to target women and girls but not willing to accept transwomen into single sex spaces, given the risk can only be the same or less (pro rata) than it is from encountering men intimately, or disadvantaged by a power imbalance, as doctors, teachers etc. Further, given that there are so many more male professionals than old-style transsexuals, the total risk posed by male professionals must be higher.'

You are particularly interested to know why some posters would be so bothered about 'old style' post-op transsexuals, who would seem to pose a lower risk than the average man, accessing women's spaces, given the same posters will encounter men in positions of trust and are not campaigning to have them removed from these for the benefit of women as a class, or, for an entirely sex-segregated society. Is that right?

I think you've had all the answers already but would need to join the dots to draw them together. A few are:

1. The 'single sex spaces' line is not compromised by men in 'positions of trust' at all. (Male teachers don't supervise girls' changing rooms, male prison and police officers don't conduct intimate body searches on women, rape crisis centres can employ female-only staff etc). It is compromised by post-op transsexuals, because they are natal men, however altered. They have still been socialised as men and may still perform the same level of male pattern violence as natal men. So, however few and however lovely most are, their presence, as a group, raises the risk of male violence, abuse or pervy behaviour in female-only spaces, plus the discomfort of women at having non-natal women in female spaces, from zero to something. (Ok it's not zero because men can barge in but, that won't change and isn't what we're talking about).

2. There is honesty and transparency about the sex of trusted professionals. You know if they are a man. You can refuse to see a male doctor or midwife and be provided with a female alternative. You can chose not to join a sports team with a male coach (you may lose out on a sporting opportunity). If you object to male teachers you can choose to home educate your child, or choose a religiously-segregated school. (You may miss out on some educational opportunities and may not be able to afford these options but, the choice is there). So, there is cost, loss of opportunity and inconvenience but there is choice. When you are presented with a transsexual or transgender person and told they are a woman and must be treated as such - be that in a changing room, a prison, or a consultation with your midwife - you do not have a choice. They are a woman, being a woman. You will not be granted, or in a positon to seek, alternative provision.

3. Professionals are bound by professional ethics, subject to oversight and complaints procedures and can be struck off.

4. There is no way of knowing what is going on inside the head or under the clothes of any transwoman you encounter. You cannot know whether they are acting in good faith, or feel good will towards you. There is no polite or permissable way of asking. Either 'people who look like that' (natal males presenting as women) are allowed in this space, this role, or they are not. If they are, you have no way of ascertaining their motives.

5. None of this was such a big deal when the only transwomen involved were a small number of post-op transsexuals. That doesn't mean it didn't bother anyone at all. It did bother some women, a lot, or a bit. It just wasn't as high a priority, in the context of everything else that women experience in their lives, as it has now become. Given that everyone cannot campaign about everything all the time, it wasn't picked up as an issue worth putting a lot of energy into tackling.

Is that helpful at all?

How do you know who has a GRC? When a transwoman walks into the toilet, how do you know if they have one? You can't ask.

I don't think there are any laws that allow you to stop people entering a single sex space if you aren't the owner of the space. You would need to rely on a different law e.g. outraging public decency, but it would be difficult to show that this was happening if somebody were just quietly going about their business.

Segregation of male and female and toilets is really governed by social convention, not the law. It's normal for people to take children into opposite sex toilets, but there is no legal age at which this becomes unacceptable.

I've always been fond of Bunbury's foundational text "If you're in need of tutoring my rate is 30 pounds an hour".

And her advice if that offer is not taken up immediately? "Ice the cake before they do."