Excluding trans women from women's single sex spaces is discriminatory - Human Rights Watch

Is it not that excluding transwomen from mens single sex spaces is discriminatory?

That would of course make sense.

It is transphobic and discriminatory to say a male person cannot use male areas because of how they look/dress/etc. Rightly so.

If saying transwomen cannot use male areas, that is clear discrimination. As its not allowing someone to do something specifically because they are trans.

Not letting male people in female areas is different.

Trans people have the same rights as others in that..they should be able to use single sex areas. Associated with their sex. Its transphobic to not allow this.

But not letting male people (regardless of 'trans status') into female areas is not discriminatory at all.

Conversely, there is no evidence that allowing trans women access to women-designated spaces, which has been the case for a number of years, puts other women at risk."

Well not transwomen specifically.

But I thought it was fairly well known that mixed sex areas are quite bad for women, stats wise.

And theres been plenty of evidence of this thing that will never happen happening, yet its still parroted that it will never happen for some reason..odd.

As usual, its not the trans part..as people keep trying to make out. Its the male part!

Excluding Transwomen from women’s single sex spaces is discriminatory

Excluding male people from female spaces, and vice versa is discriminatory for obvious reasons.

Also, how are they defining 'transwoman' I wonder. I tend to be able to understand a bit more where people/places are coming from if their definition is post op transsexual.

However, if its the current definition of trans, then its just nonsensical and basically, we might aswell do away with single sex spaces all together. Makes no sense arguing for single sex space, then arguing that the opposite sex should be able to use them

" ... We are particularly concerned by media reports suggesting that the government plans to exclude trans women men from women-only spaces. This would be a seriously regressive and discriminatory step."

There, fixed it for them. Showing the ridiculous, regressive demand for what it is.

I would
Like to write to my mo about this
Does anyone have a template letter I could use? I know that's lazy but I'd like some ideas to help qualify my position and I'm just so tired

This is so depressing because human rights are essential for everyone. Are women not humans any more? With rights like everyone else?

Apparently not, because let's face it, self ID is a bonfire of women's rights.

It's not just toilets and dressing rooms.
This is an attack on our right to organise separately and our ability to identify sex-based discrimination. What is the point of monitoring things like pay, if 'women' means women + men with self-declared gender identities? It's 'non-men', like a pp said.
Why are we in the same category as someone like Bunce (although in his case only 50% of the time) - what is it that we all have in common? I rarely wear dresses or lipstick, like Bunce does on his woman-days.

I can see why this idea appealed to some Conservatives, but it's a fucking travesty to see orgs like HRW on board with this madness.

This is so depressing because human rights are essential for everyone. Are women not humans any more? With rights like everyone else?

I can well believe that HRW they are close to government. Their UK CEO tweets that Theresa May ‘promised’ to make these changes. mobile.twitter.com/Benjamin_P_Ward/status/1273284285747941377

"To be honest, men who do not conform to the pretty narrow view of 'what men are', are probably at more risk of being beaten up etc. By who? Other men."

Yes. Often these other men are the fathers or relatives of young boys or men that don't conform to the gender stereotype of what a man should be. The ones that don't play with the correct toys, aren't interested in the correct sports, enjoy ballet/cooking/sewing. The list goes on. Even without identifying as a woman these males are often at risk of violence and abuse in their own homes, sometimes from as young as toddler age.

I've seen numerous campaigns put out there to 'empower' women, to do things like play whatever sport they want, go for whatever career they want, to love their bodies even if they're not stick thin. I'm pretty sure I've even seen these campaigns include transwomen, on a Boots advert.

But I don't believe I've ever seen a similar campaign for men.

So for as long as nobody bothers to campaign for men on TV or online or billboards, wherever, a lot of men will continue to believe there's only one way a man 'should be', they won't be tolerant of effeminate men using their bathrooms/changing rooms/ whatever, and women will continue having to host the safe havens for outcast men to run to after they decide they must not be a man after all.

But do I think that will happen? No. Men aren't interested in broadening the definition of what a man is. It's much easier and far more fun to expect women to continually have to question what they are at a fundamental level for eternity, while they walk around confident that they are 'man'.

I haven't been able to find any cases of transwomen being attacked in men's bathrooms but there are several instances of them being beaten up by men because they used women's bathrooms. Women's bathrooms are MORE dangerous for transwomen it appears. It's really frustrating that the entire narrative about trans rights is based on bald-faced lies (murder rate, suicide rate, safety) and mainstream institutions and media just ignore that they are LIES and play along.

'Thee is no evidence that males who identify as women are in any more danger in male facilities than any other males.'

To be honest, men who do not conform to the pretty narrow view of 'what men are', are probably at more risk of being beaten up etc. By who? Other men.

Male violence is the problem here. Women, feminists have been fighting for years to try to improve things. Why do single sex prisons, changing, etc exist in the first place?

1. To reduce risk to women and girls
2. Privacy and dignity (it is not a cultural norm in the UK to do these things with men around when outside the home

WHY are trans activists not fighting WITH feminists to break down the strict gender roles and tackle male violence.

If men who fall outside the strict gender roles are at risk from other men (which I imagine they are) then how come one group of at risk men get to come in the ladies (and changing, prison, hospital wards etc) and not the others?

Why don't the trans movement care about men who are at risk in these places in the same way as gender non conforming trans identifying men are?

Why are they really going for WOMEN? In particular feminists?

We all know why but it's shit.
It's so male as well. It's the 'non man' idea that puts women as the mop up for the men that other men don't accept.

The thing that pisses me of as well is all this 'how would you feel if you were scared when you went out, getting verbal abuse, funny looks, sexual assault' etc etc. Zero interest in the actual female experience.

How have we got to the point where rapists with penises are put in women's prisons, girls at swimming clubs are expected to get undressed with any man or boy in the club who fancies coming into the female communal changing, women's toilets being relabeled anyone while the gents stays the gents etc etc.

And without much push back at all.

It's properly mind boggling.

Could the reasoning being used for self-ID, extend to me changing my birth certificate and passport to say that I am now and always have been Canadian, and then get deported there? I am not equating this with seeking asylum as that is a separate issue.

As far as I'm aware its only sex (of passport/birth certificate details) which is possible to self identify into in/ out of. Age and nationality seem not to be available for modification in the same way.

There was a case with a Dutchman who attempted to self identify to a lower age but he was unsuccessful.

Interview with the Dutchman and Jane Fae (TRA) on BBC Victoria Derbyshire

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3421396-Transage-bloke-on-Victoria-Derbyshire

Can somebody help me to understand if this example could be equivalent to what is happening with trans rights and self ID:

I was born in England. Let's say I don't like that, I'm angry upset because I was born into a society with rules and regulations that I fundamentally disagree with following, and I didn't get the choice to be born anywhere else.

Could the reasoning being used for self-ID, extend to me changing my birth certificate and passport to say that I am now and always have been Canadian, and then get deported there? I am not equating this with seeking asylum as that is a separate issue.

I don't want to be reductive, I'm not playing ignorant. But I do have so many questions.

I am confused. What is the law at the moment?

Can TW access women's spaces legally?
Is a grc needed or can a tw access it without?

Thee is no evidence that males who identify as women are in any more danger in male facilities than any other males. There is abundant evidence that far more sexual assaults take place in mixed sex facilities than in single sex facilities.

This. 90% of assaults on females take place in mixed sex facilities if I remember the statistics correctly.

And while you can bet if any TW had been assaulted in a male facility in the UK we would know the name and their case would (with justification) be all over the press and social media.

However I'd bet most women here can name at least Karen White and Katie D whatzit who have both sexually assaulted and abused females they accessed by being TW in female spaces, and are aware of the 'This Never Happens' thread, where more cases are described.

Bear in mind too: as females we know the names of perpetrators, but no one knows the names of the females those perpetrators damaged the lives of. And mentioning the existence, never mind the names of those females is seen as unkind and throwing a negative light on TW using female spaces in a very wrong way. However a TW who had been assaulted I would expect to encounter no such barriers in gaining public knowledge, sympathy and public anger that better protection should be a basic entitlement.

I keep reading that NOT changing the GRA will take rights away from trans people. But how can it?

When they "got out in front of the law" they were basically breaking it. Now they are being expected to comply with the law and they are very upset about it.

However, this proposal would force [some men] to use male facilities, despite strong evidence that this puts them at risk of violence. Conversely, there is no evidence that allowing [some men] access to women-designated spaces, which has been the case for a number of years, puts other women at risk."

This is a strange reversal of reality.
Thee is no evidence that males who identify as women are in any more danger in male facilities than any other males.
There is abundant evidence that far more sexual assaults take place in mixed sex facilities than in single sex facilities.

I remember when the MRAs made common cause with TRAs and were organizing on line to take influential roles in as many advocacy organizations as possible in order to use transgender rights to strip women of their rights and return us to conditions of total dependence on males for survival.
The speed with which they have achieved dominance is horrifying to behold.

And all the kicking off is because demands have been made which it appears are not going to be fulfilled and that is seen as a taking away of rights (which were never there in the first place!)

TRAs have been availing themselves of 'rights' based on their interpretation of the rights they think they should have.

The almost immediate re-writing/interpreting of part of the Equality Act 2010 by Sarah Brown (former LibDem Cambridge councillor & Stonewall Trans Advisory Group) is a good example.

Cambridgeshire Live 26 SEP 2018
'Transgender toilet row - claims city has gone 'a step backwards'
(extract)
"Cambridge has been accused of “taking a step backwards” as the city revises its policy on transgender people’s access to public toilets.

In 2010, Sarah Brown, then a Cambridge city councillor, proposed an amendment to the council’s equality policy in which it committed to non-discrimination against transgender people. Since then, self-identifying trans women have been allowed to access women-only facilities including toilets and changing rooms.

In July, Ann Sinnott, who represented Petersfield at Cambridge City Council, stood down from the council saying their policy allowing self-identifying trans-women to access women’s facilities was in breach the Equality Act 2010.

The city council has now responded and proposed amendments to the policy including replacing references to “gender” with “sex” and replacing references to “transgender” with “gender reassignment” or “transsexual people”. The council says these changes would mean the policy is consistent with the law.

Amendments to the policy also make explicit that the council has discretion to apply the “single sex exemption” in the Equality Act 2010 in very exceptional circumstances.

This exemption enables public bodies to exclude transsexual people from single sex spaces, facilities and jobs where this is a “proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim” and where there is “clear evidence” this is necessary." (continues)

Sarah Brown, who is transgender herself, said she was “disappointed” the council had re-worded its policy, and said she was worried this meant the council would be able to “discriminate” against trans people. (continues)
www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/transgender-toilet-row-claims-city-15199314.amp

threads
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3376567-anne-sinnott-vindicated-she-was-right

original thread (includes the minutes detailing Cllr Sarah Brown's role in the change to Equality Act policies in Cambridge) :
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3322389-labour-councillor-quits-in-row-over-facilities-for-trans-people-the-times

Ann Sinnott in discussion with Venice Allen:
www.youtube.com/embed/wgHOgO5HX1o

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3327625-venice-allen-speaks-to-anne-sinnott

It's like if I said "I have the right to come into your house, eat your food, and sleep in your bed" and the government came along and said "just to clarify, we have no intention of changing the law to give her those rights", and then I went "see, they're taking away my rights that I'm entitled to!"

I hadn't really thought about the GRA already giving transpeople who go through the full process additional rights over and above what the general population have.

So really upholding the current GRA terms is the equivalent of reiterating existing boundaries rather than drawing new ones? And all the kicking off is because demands have been made which it appears are not going to be fulfilled and that is seen as a taking away of rights (which were never there in the first place!)

I keep reading that NOT changing the GRA will take rights away from trans people. But how can it?

Some assumed or had been led to believe by Stonewall et al they had 'rights' which they did not. If GRA self-id had come in these would have been secured.

Thanks

I wouldn't hold your breath!

I keep reading that NOT changing the GRA will take rights away from trans people. But how can it?

It won't be. And in fact, reforming the GRA would actually give trans people more rights that other people have ie. The legal right to create a total falsehood about who you are just on the basis of you saying so.

I was born in England. I have one Irish parent, I grew up in a fairly tight Irish community in England, I can do a pretty good Cork accent, I learnt tin whistle and accordion at my local Irish centre, my brother played GAA, I still go to Ireland fairly regularly. I quite strongly 'identify as Irish' despite being born in England. Does that mean I should have the right to change my birth certificate so that it says that I was born in Ireland? If I proved my dad had been born there, gave a little tune on the tin whistle, did the accent to the relevant person. I could also maybe show that I could hold my drink, or fulfil another stereotype about Irish people to prove I was 'living as an Irish person'. I mean, it would be great to be able to do that, it would mean that my own children could also automatically be irish citizens, making the Irish passport thing cheaper and easier? No, of course I shouldn't be able to do this.

How about if both of my parents were English, I had never actually been to Ireland and had never met an Irish person until my teens, but I 'self identified' as Irish? I was Irish because I say so? Should I be able to claim I was born in Ireland on my birth certificate? No, I definitely shouldn't be able to do this!

Because it is a total falsehood. A lie. An untruth. Bollocks. Bullshit. Crap. I was born in England.

At the moment trans people do actually have the right to legally create an untruth on their birth certificate, if they go through a certain process. To me, that is already a right that no one else has. To suggest that they should be able to do this on this basis of 'self-id' is laughable to be honest. Or it would be laughable if it wasn't such a threat to women's rights.

Re the stats
Please can you share where they are from? So we can see which country/ies, how they collected the data etc etc

Assuming UK I have some comments:

Men were more likely to be a victim of violent crime than women (2.4% of males compared with 1.3% of females)

If the UK, sex crimes are not included in the violent crime category. A lot of crimes against women and girls are sex offences/ sexually motivated

Stranger violence showed the largest difference in victimisation between men and women (1.4% and 0.4% respectively)

As above, if this excludes sex offences it is an incomplete picture

Women were more likely to be a victim of domestic violence than men (0.4% compared with 0.2%,)

They didn't used to count offences over a certain number against the same woman. There is under reporting across the board. What definition of DV is being used?

43% of violent offences (563,000) were perpetrated by a stranger1, 36% (469,000) by an acquaintance, and the remaining 20% (261,000) were categorised as domestic violence across both men and women.

As above in UK sex offences are not counted in the violence category

The majority of children and teen victims know the perpetrator.

Ok no comments on that

Of sexual abuse cases reported to law enforcement, 93% of juvenile victims knew the perpetrator:
59% were acquaintances
34% were family members
7% were strangers to the victim

Ok no comments on that

16% of women experience sexual violence during there lifetime.
21% of trans people experience sexual violence during their lifetime which is made up of 18% of transwomen and 4% of trans men.

What is the definition of sexual violence? Depending on the definition, the figure for women feels low, possibly very low

37% of trans people are physically attacked a year on account of their gender identity by strangers

This is very strangely worded. Again I'd like to see the source please for definitions, data collection method etc

Thanks

I loathe this insistence that single sex exemptions include both this sexes by default already. It's just rubbish. And why do we continually have to justify all over again the single sex exemptions when they already exist.

Men can just fuck off.