There are genuine transgender people - but they are quiet.

Damn I'm a slow Tyler.

I totally agree ROwan! I won't accept anything that means any woman thinks twice about accessing services. I hate the fact that whenever I see anything advertised as 'for women', I wonder if it really is. There is now a doubt about whether women's prizes, races, refuges, swimming sessions are in fact only for women. I hate that.

"I am proud truscum and will happily stand with any women in protecting womens rights.

Including not using spaces or services intended for women, I presume?"

This exchange though- TSNTG has been operating for some time (presumably) under the assumption that they were one of the good guys. They thought that having been through all the hoops, they were now allowed in and that they were being considerate in those areas they didn't assert it. It's hard being told you are part of the problem. Really hard. Even harder because it is true.

I think we should all be extra nice to each other. I feel like a bad swimmer. Bobbing about trying to make progress while scary efficient sporty people zoom past mowing me down.

This thread is useful for people wanting to understand better the issues. Many have found it helpful:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

If this is a women's space that men may not come in at all, than fine. All non women exit now.

There are plenty of male posters who contribute on this board and join civilised robust discussions. I don't think anyone has sought to make this female only, but it is relevent that its the Feminism and Women's Rights board.

There are also sometimes females who are disagreed with robustly when they seek to manipulate, misrepresent or bully other posters.

Narcissitic control patterns can be demonstrated by both sexes and any gender identities.

I feel like a bad swimmer. Bobbing about trying to make progress while scary efficient sporty people zoom past mowing me down.

Haha. It's all a big learning curve. I've no doubt. Too many people, including me, have been on it.

I wouldn't say this is a man free space, it's a space for centring women. They are not mutually exclusive.

It's hugely liberating to accept that there IS a space centring women. Without excuses or justifications.

And it's incredibly revealing quite how many men are utterly unable to navigate it, without trying to dominate it.

It appears to mysteriously go against everything they believe in.

Funny that.

It can be difficult to recognise how much female socialisation has done a number on you, but responses here have helped me to see that really i'm just trying to be nice, but what for? My aim is to protect womans rights and spaces and the line has to be drawn very clearly to do so.

Its always worth thinking of the silenced and vulnerable woman or girl who will be impacted, whether she is wanting to use the school toilet, trying really hard to compete in sport, manage the consequence of having being raped or abused by men and seeking female only spaces, in prison, on a hospital ward, having a smear test etc.

Those women and girls aren't demanding people protect their rights, asking for allies, having the ear of policy makers and politicians.

Its not unkind or unreasonable to stand up for Safeguarding and protecting women's rights.

I am listening! I've been on the other threads too, so am by your standards looking a bit 'hard of thinking'.

If this is a women's space that men may not come in at all, than fine. All non women exit now.

I am learning. I see the patriarchy all around when I never used to. I play patriarchy chicken.

And yet... I prefer to be disagreed with kindly. I don't think we should be extra nice to TWs. I think we should all be extra nice to each other. I feel like a bad swimmer. Bobbing about trying to make progress while scary efficient sporty people zoom past mowing me down.

Passtheknitting

Just consider what the transwoman on here has said.

Softened you up by saying they and their friends have already felt attacked. So now you are already on the back foot. You don't want to look like you're going to attack. Despite attack not been defined. (Be nice, be nice).

They then said they agreed with everything you say, and stand side-by-side with your rights.

Now you're feeling grateful. And perhaps a little protective, because they too are coming in for a lot of stick from nasty TRAs. (Be nice, be nice).

But when asked a question, which was framed in the most neutral way possible, they got annoyed.

Because it is the question which exposes the duplicity.

Whilst knowing they are male, knowing that women don't want men in their spaces, they are still going into female only spaces, because they are special.

The fact they think that some men are outside the remit, only serves to show you that they do not understand. You cannot make exceptions for 'some men'. And they know that. But they still want you to. For them. (Be nice, be nice).

And adding the mammogram scenario? Nonsense, emotional blackmailing. Men everywhere can have mammograms if they want.

And then they flounce. So you never get the satisfaction of listening to them defend the indefensible.

And their flouncing has made you upset with the women! (Be nice, be nice).

Having to confront one’s ‘inner Beryl’ is an uncomfortable but necessary process.

There is a fantastic thread about it here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3412053-Mumsnet-FWR-Guide-to-De-Programming-Yourself-From-Self-Harming-Kindness

I'm not the only one who can see a repeating pattern to these threads. This has to be the third or fourth almost identical thread. With everyone saying how important it is. Each time.

Lots of women saying how they used to make a distinction, but now realise you can't. And other women getting upset that what you might call a genuine transsexual is getting treated the same as a fetishist.

The most telling part is the poster up thread who said the motivation of the man in question is irrelevant to the need for the woman to have a single sex space.

The fact that some women might discern a lack of harm and a genuine, massive desire in the transwoman to access the space is what makes the problem.

And it's fascinating.

They know the motivation of the man is irrelevant. Logically. But struggle, nonetheless, to disregard it.

Even when the person in question has been rude, declined to engage, and flounced. And the very flouncing causing the aforesaid empathy to come pouring out of some women!

The refusal to listen to women, engage with what they say, and respect their boundaries, is, in an awful, but undeniably interesting way, leveraging their female socialisation against them.

No one is stopping that poster coming on here and debating. Disagreement isn't attack.

I will continue to define female only spaces to be female only.

But I can talk all day about it. I understand the word debate is perhaps wrong. Because I will never change my mind.

But I can talk all the live long day about why.

Great post Charley

Who do I prioritise?The men who cause no trouble and who just want to quietly get on with their lives but whose presence in women's spaces causes discomfort to many women and extreme distress in traumatised survivors of male violence? Or all of these women?

And I'd add to this, the female children, the girls who are learning from this that their opinions and their consent doesn't matter. I bet there are more pre-pubescent and pubescent girls in this country than there are transwomen and girls and yet apparently only the latter count. Only the latter get to decide who they share intimate spaces with. Even intimate spaces which will be used for dealing with menstruation which is a huge deal when you're just starting to menstruate. Girls stay off school because they're not comfortable already.

We are simultaneously saying girls should have bodily autonomy and teaching consent should matter, and at the same time saying that if they do not believe a male bodied peer with a penis is a girl they are transphobic bigots. And apparently THEIR choice does not matter, so even though we're supposed to believe the transgirl is just a girl, apparently some girls (those with penises) are more important than others when it comes to deciding who they get to share private spaces with.

So, those nice transsexuals who are all bigger and stronger than my 8 year old daughter, they're definitely making my 8 year old daughter uncomfortable if they're in the women's loos (where she wouldn't expect them) and she'd definitely be too scared to say anything. So being nice isn't going to work for me, it's a hard no.

Thanks to all the women on here Lang Sweary Charlie who have helped me to understand that being nice to a few just results in ever more demands to prostrate myself and my daughters at the feet of male entitlement. And you know, it never lets up, being 'nice', using the 'honey' is what has bloody got us here.

It can be difficult to recognise how much female socialisation has done a number on you, but responses here have helped me to see that really i'm just trying to be nice, but what for? My aim is to protect womans rights and spaces and the line has to be drawn very clearly to do so.

Of all the things I've learned on FWR this has been the hardest in that it was so difficult to see how deeply and often invisibly female socialisation impacted on me.

I always thought I wasn't that invested in being nice but it took a long long time on here to really have my eyes opened to how much I was invented in being nice without realising.

Now I've seen it I will be concentrating on women and girls and their rights.

There is no meaningful way of distinguishing between transsexuals and transgender and since the effect of both groups on women's rights and spaces is the same then there is no point really in drawing a distinction.

I think distinguishing between transsexuals and other transgender people is irrelevant because how exactly do we include one group and exclude the other from women's spaces? We can't even ask to see a GRC, which doesn't even indicate whether a transwoman has had the chop.

As much as I don't like it, I am pushing for the status quo to remain the same, i.e. no self-ID, because I think that's the best we'll get. Then again, everything has changed and many males now have the confidence to use women's toilets and spaces when previously they didn't, so that's another battle that needs to be fought.

I don't see the GRA being repealed in the foreseeable future though. It is very hard to take rights from people, especially when they have had them for quite some time.

Exactly, BettyduMonde

And further on that page you quote it says in relation to single-sex provisions:

If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your acquired gender. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment

The EHRC, as we have noticed, makes a complete hash of their guidance as noted previously, contradicting it's own guidance in the same paragraph.

Aquired gender refers only to those who are GRC-holders. On another page they clarified last year that when deciding whether a person has a right to access single-sex provisions, only two things matter:

• the legal sex of the person. If you are biologically and legally male you have no right and excluding you is as lawful as excluding all other men, regardless of how they identify.

• if you are biologically male but legally female (aka in possession of a GRC) then the provider can legally exclude you from single-sex provisions of the opposite sex if they can show that this is a proportionate means to a legitimate end. Something that due to CEDAW and international human rights law applies to the women-only spaces we're discussing.

The Equality Act does not speak of very restricted cases in relation to single-sex spaces and those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. That's because the EqA is very clear: no GRC, ie no legal sex, no right to access single-sex spaces of the opposite sex as the right to access single-sex spaces depends on one and only one criterion: sex.

I agree we can't have exceptions made for 'nice' 'old school' 'quiet' transexuals. We can talk to them though.

I would have used the honey and vinegar thing on TSNTG but they'd gone...

The protection for gender reassignment is there to ensure that those transitioning are not discriminated against when it comes to jobs, housing, etc. Same as the one for religious beliefs, same as the one for LGB people.

It is absolutely right that these protections exist and protecting women’s SEX segregated spaces, services and rights to political assembly and representation does not mean removing protections for those undergoing gender reassignment.

The right to exclude transpeople of the opposite sex from specific sex segregated services exists, but isn’t being implemented in practise.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination

The final sentence ‘In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment’ is the part that is (finally) being used to introduce seperate third spaces such as the newly proposed trans prison facility.

All we want is clarification as to what exactly these restricted circumstances are - personally, I believe it should be based on bodies - ie, transwoman should be allowed in women-only book clubs, but not in women’s hostels. However, transwomen should not be allowed in lesbian-only bookclubs, because lesbian = same sex attracted adult human females. Transwomen should not be permitted to compete in women’s sporting categories (but should be welcomed in open categories).

Sex segregation is about body types, not internal senses of self. That’s the line. I don’t see how it can be moved to fairly include some transpeople and not others.

It’s all about that Y chromosome, from the point of conception onwards.

It feels as though we're trapped in a cycle of unreasonableness. TSnTG came on this thread because OP was wondering where the 'quiet transexuals' are

That's not how I read the OP. andyoldlabour observed that there are some transsexual persons out there who publicly disagree with TRA extremists and who match the prevalent notion of the genuine trans person (always used to denote that these are generally harmless among the group of males who identify as trans). OP expressed pleasure and surprise at this. There was no question here where all the nice TS are or why they are quiet.

This subgroup is also often referred to by either side in the debate as having used women's spaces for decades and we all got on just fine. Now I for one know that while, yes, they have been quietly getting on with their lives, generally posing no more threat to women than other men, many if not all women have been noticing and felt uncomfortable or even scared in all of that time, too. Now some of these women are speaking out about their discomfort at seeing any male in what should be our places.

And I get it, it's bound to be heartbreaking if you've transitioned many years ago, you've certainly never caused any trouble and you've felt accepted "as a woman" by other women in women's spaces to hear or read that what you took for acceptance was experienced as coerced acquiescence to your presence by many of these women whose socialization prevented them from protesting your presence.

When I came into this debate, I honestly couldn't see what all the fuss was about toilets. I've learned a lot, not least about myself, especially how important our spaces are to me even though I never realised it.

But what I have learned most is just how badly the presence of males impacts on some women. Often women who daren't raise their voices, who are voiceless even.

And now I'm faced with a simple decision:

Who do I prioritise?

The men who cause no trouble and who just want to quietly get on with their lives but whose presence in women's spaces causes discomfort to many women and extreme distress in traumatised survivors of male violence? Or all of these women?

To me, that's a no brainer. An easy call.

Women-only spaces, services, sports, provisions and programs are for women.

Men, however they identify, have no right to displace women from these. And they do - either by causing vulnerable women to self-exclude or by taking up resources and places created and provided for women.

Glad to have read this thread as to be honest i've been stuggling to sort out how i feel re is there any difference between transexual and transgender. I've always approached this whole situation as there being a difference but the scales are falling having read the replies here.

It can be difficult to recognise how much female socialisation has done a number on you, but responses here have helped me to see that really i'm just trying to be nice, but what for? My aim is to protect womans rights and spaces and the line has to be drawn very clearly to do so.

I need to stop drawing a distinction.

Im not sure I agree. If we say that no male bodied person is allowed to use a female only space then we need to have the Equality Act remove its protection for gender reassignment.

Having the protection of gender reassignment doesn't mean that a male person has access to all female spaces.

There is no such thing as a distinguishable group of "old-school transsexuals" who should be the chosen ones. There is no sacred caste.
The whole idea is deeply unethical.

It's not a negotiation. No means no.

Important thread detailing the history & extent of TRAs lobbying and impact:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

AngryAttackKittens wrote,

"I'm going to point every "but the nice, harmless old school transsexuals whose movement has been unfairly appropriated by the nasty transgender people" person to this thread from now on.

All the same elements we're seeing now were there in that old BBC roundtable from the 70s with the 4 transwomen, the politician, and the doctor. None of this is new."

OP Sunkisses wrote:
'BBC Open Door programme 45 years ago on transsexuals - a real jaw dropper
I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06c83f4/player

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

The only ones that are female only are the ones in tiny spaces, portocabins and the like, where women have to emerge from the scanning room straight into the waiting room, with no vestibule space to change in.

One of these was challenged by Liam Hackett CEO of 'Ditch The Label' (an anti bullying charity!)
He tried to used his twitter leverage but was unsuccessful and the NHS service asserted the specific needs to be single sex (women only)

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/men-ban-breast-screening-clinic-waiting-area-hospital-brighton-anger-a8243666.html

Liam Hackett was also very involved in attempts to silence and smear Professor Kathleen Stock when she started speaking out for women's rights.

threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3289890-great-piece-by-academic-kathleen-stock-mentions-mn?pg=8

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3299191-A-new-member-of-the-Leftie-Misogynists-club

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3301937-Sussex-Students-Union-defames-Dr-Kathleen-Stock-Title-Edited-by-MNHQ

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3334491-Womans-Hour-discusses-adult-bullying-with-representative-from-Ditch-The-Label-providing-expert-advice

There is no such thing as a distinguishable group of "old-school transsexuals" who should be the chosen ones. There is no sacred caste.
The whole idea is deeply unethical.

It's not a negotiation. No means no.

YY Ponyo

I'm starting to see that the 'old school transsexuals' may well be objecting to TRActivisits not because of any sense of aggrievement on behalf of women but because it shines a spotlight on their actions of 'quietly getting on with it', ie, using women's spaces.

'Catch more flies with honey...' is not anti feminist. If only women are expected to follow that advice, that would be anti feminist.

Perhaps you might reflect on this - and ask yourself why neither you nor knitting made such a request to the TS person who got aggressive and flounced at the slightest challenge in the form of a straightforward question.