What right to a single sex space do I have and how?

Mishi what about women's prisons, if you don't believe everyday women deserve the right to single sex spaces to 'just pee'?

Do you accept that biological males who may be anywhere in the gender reassignment process from 0 to 100% should be permitted onto the female estate, living amongst some of the most vulnerable and abused women in the country? Or do you at least accept that a separate prison purely for transwoman is justified?

I'm not saying they should stay in the male population, I can see some very vulnerable transwoman would be at huge risk there, so let's get that one right off the table.

Women's estate or separate facility, and why?

Blue interested in your answer here too if you don't mind since you refuse to answer my and others question about telling the difference between harmless transwomen and male pervs

Two examples, a third unknown.

Again rare exceptions. And the offenders are and should be being dealt with.

The rest is just fear mongering against a minority group.

Oh dear. There are so many examples of men who say they're women getting up to the nefarious 'activities' in women's toilets, it's become a porn genre.

Numerous films uploaded to porn hub.

Of course.

Violating women's boundaries is the cornerstone of pornography.

Your statement is extraordinary. Do you want men and women separated in society as well for the same concern? As logically that is where your argument goes.....

(and thank you for the stats - I really didn't know that there are only 5000 post-op transsexual people in this country. Gosh. )

I wonder (if there are 5,000 post-op transsexual people in the UK) if that includes girls/women who are getting their breasts removed for cosmetic rather than other reasons It is people, so men and women.

Again rare exceptions. And the offenders are and should be being dealt with.

The rest is just fear mongering against a minority group.

And on reflection, OP I apologise, I've contributed to a derail there and should not have done.

So Mishi I have to wait until I'm attacked or perved on, then find the strength to report and go to court, rather than the legal provisions to stopy attack in the first place being enforced?

OK, thanks for letting me know where I stand in comparison to hurting people's feelings.

We don't design laws based on feelings. We design laws based on risks. Males as a class represent a risk of rape resulting in pregnancy that is unique to that class. That is why the law distinguishes male on female rape as a separate, specific crime, and why we have single sex facilities.

Other assaults and sexual assaults can of course occur, and are obviously also deplorable, but that is the specific reason why we separate the sexes according to their impregnator / impregnee class.

A GRC is irrelevant to womens space access per the EA Act 2010.

We already know that butch women being challenge in the toilets for appearing to me trans is a problem. This fear mongering is irresponsible.

Incidentally it's really disappointing to see yet more misinformation about the GRA on here. The wonderful Ann Sinnott and her GC donors paid £100,000 for the high court judgement pointing out the idea trans people only get access to spaces if they have a GRC - is "wrong in law" and "absurd".

Absolutely correct and something that I believe needs changed immediately.

Where someone is able to use the space of the opposite biological sex I think everyone would agree that if it's to happen it must be at the very end of a medicalised journey not the start!

Trans people are just not interested in anything in the bathroom then others also wish to do.

Well post op Jessica Yaniv, who wants to help little girls with their tampons, disagrees.

As does sex offender and killer Karen Jones, post op, with a GRC.

As did the TRA, whose name escapes me, on Twitter laughing and joking about listening to women urinate in the cubicle next to them. They had no idea that women urinate differently to men, apparently

Third spaces are not disabled spaces.

Third spaces would be mixed gender spaces. And the women displaced and distressed by enforcing single sex spaces to be mixed sex come from multiple minority groups with vulnerabilities and add up to many, many more people negatively impacted than the umbrella of people not of the sex class the space was set up to provide for.

It is not proportionate. No one is talking about making ALL women's spaces single sex again, but there must be single sex options for women who need them because natal women cannot be excluded from all facilities so that others can take a preferred choice. That isn't inclusion, that's plain sexism. Third spaces are the way forward with this, and would be gender neutral, many women would perfectly happily use them who don't personally need single sex spaces, parents with opposite sex children would, they would be for inclusion a generally very good thing.

It would however require the respecting that some natal women need single sex spaces, and for those spaces to be respected in the same way you're quite rightly saying that disabled spaces should be respected.

Mishi but men DO go into changing rooms, loos etc to perv on women. Do you accept that?

And men cannot be challenged at the moment because the current climate means they can shout bigot and the woman will be shamed, lose her job etc. Do you also accept that?

I'm useless with links but others have them and can direct you to thread after thread of links.

So given the two above points, even though a bog standard man with stubble andale genitals is not allowed in the ladies, realistically he can enter whenever he likes and most women will just try to politely ignore him, or else they will move out the way.

He might not be actively saying 'budge up love, I'm a lady too' but the current situation means that he could say that and all women know he could say that, and therefore they keep quiet and slowly diminish their activities and lives to make way for him

Of course, some men (very, very few) have a cosmetic job done on their genitals. Some men may have part of (or all of) their genitals removed in the case of accidents or disease. Should these men, or even elderly gents or impotent man have access to women's spaces too? If not, why not? Physically, their bits may not be in full working order either. Why is it not terrible they should still have to use the facilities provided for their biological sex? Should they fall into one of the exceptions too?

I don’t want any males in my single-sex spaces regardless of whether they’ve had their penis removed or not. A penis is not the only thing that can hurt a woman. And male socialisation and the male gaze are also things I do not want in spaces where I’m vulnerable. Also, when transwomen talk about ‘having surgery’ they often mean only facial feminisation, breast implants, or something else other than removal of the penis.

Also, as others have said, how would you police allowing those who’ve had their penis removed into women’s spaces? You aren’t legally allowed to ask to see a GRC and in any case that’s irrelevant as GRC doesn’t prove the person has had their penis removed.

It’s interesting that the trans ‘allies’ to GC women often argue that all the other transwomen should be banned from women’s spaces, but that an exception should be made for them personally or the tiny subgroup they represent. Debbie Hayton argues (or used to, not sure where they are now) that they should be allowed to use women’s spaces because they’ve had surgery, even though they don’t have a GRC. Bluelipstick and others appear to be arguing it should be on the basis of a GRC.

A line has to be drawn somewhere, and experience shows that the only clear place is: no males. No matter how they identify, what surgery they’ve chosen to undergo, what legal process they’ve gone through - no males. Any exceptions end up falling into the trap of giving an inch and a mile being taken.

Also, and above all for me, a woman is not a man without a penis. For centuries, following Aristotle, this is how women were seen: as deficient men, men who lacked something important. We still fall back into thinking like this if we’re not careful. Women are people and a class in our own right, and the absence of a penis does not enable a man to join us, whether that loss was freely chosen through surgery or the outcome of a terrible accident or illness, for instance. A woman is not a man without a penis.

What about a lesbian being in the female toilets? Should they be stopped in case they fancy someone?

This is why what you are saying is bigotry. It's being blown up as an issue that really just isnt there, and hasnt been a problem in the 11 years the EA 2010 act has been in place.

Take action against any offender who is doing the wrong thing - not discriminate against a class of women such as transwomen!

The last time we had this conversation and kept going round in circles, my questions remained unanswered. I'm posting them again. Let's see if any of those who are against women's rights to single-sex spaces from all males can answer them.

How am I meant to objectively tell the difference between a transsexual and a transvestite or autogynephilic male?

How am I meant to objectively tell the difference between a pre-op transsexual and a post-op transsexual?

How am I meant to objectively tell the difference between a transsexual with a GRC and a transsexual without a GRC?

Original thread

Amazing, isn't it. How many people don't want women to have their own space. Extraordinary stuff.

Other women may hold different opinions to you. Why should they be criticised for doing so?

Gender Critical people define sex as - Small/Large Gametes. Or when challenged "The pathways to produce those"/Body "organised" to produce them. (From what I've seen, do correct me if wrong)

There are no spaces that are "single sex" by that defn, and I hope we never live in a dystopia so severe that there are such spaces. The law doesn't define "sex" in that way. And thank gawd the government doesn't mandate the tests necessary to decide what "sex" marker you should have on your official "GC ID" to gain entry to spaces.

Incidentally it's really disappointing to see yet more misinformation about the GRA on here. The wonderful Ann Sinnott and her GC donors paid £100,000 for the high court judgement pointing out the idea trans people only get access to spaces if they have a GRC - is "wrong in law" and "absurd".

Businesses cant afford such a third space, and under the EA act at present, there is no need for them to provide the same.

For the small minority of trans people, letting them do their business and taking action against anyone who misbehaves is the way forward - and has been operating in that way for the last 11 years with very few incidents. Trans people are just not interested in anything in the bathroom then others also wish to do. Men just dont pretend to be trans to go into the toilets and offend! It would be easier to pretend to be a cleaner!

Amazing, isn't it. How many people don't want women to have their own space. Extraordinary stuff.

Blue I used to work with a woman like you, post op transsexual who used the ladies loos at work, and I had no problem at all with her or with that situation.

I don't have an issue with a small number of post op transsexuals in the ladies. I acknowledge and accept that other woman have different boundaries on this, but I'm talking about me.

I do however have a problem with the situation which seems to have been created under 'kind' women's noses where suddenly any man who fancies it cam declare himself a woman and enter our changing rooms, loos, refuges etc.

Please can you tell us your suggestion about how to actually administer what presumably is your ideal scenario where genuine transsexuals can try on a dress in the appropriate changing room but Joe bloggs who wants to sit in a cubicle wanking to the thought of all the naked women around him trying on bras? Or Bob Jones who wants to hang around in the ladies loo and see knickers round ankles or whatever else he wants to do.
Or another man who wants to get slowly changed in the swimming pool next to my naked 7 yr old?

What is your solution?

Because a lot of women aren't happy that we can't challenge the above without being called bigots.

I don't want to challenge you being discrete in a cubicle in the corner of the women's changing room, you're welcome. But not everyone is, so how can we distinguish?

One does not need a GRC to access single sex spaces. The GRC is irrelevant. So confronting a transwoman or who you suspect may be one in a toilet is not going to be a valid action and could mean a discrimination action against yourself.

Exceptions are allowed where a legitimate purpose.

Per EA Act: Exceptions allowing services to be provided only to women (or only to men)

The first two relevant exceptions (Schedule 3, Paragraphs 26 and 27) allow service providers to provide separate services for men and women, or to provide services to only men or only women in certain circumstances. The symmetrical nature of the ban on sex discrimination means without these exceptions it would be illegal, for example, to hold women-only sessions at a leisure centre or a new fathers’ support group at a nursery.177

Exception allowing single sex services to discriminate because of gender re-assignment

The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010.

Application of this exception must be objectively justified as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example given in the explanatory notes to the Act is that of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault where the organisers could exclude a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they judge that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there.

Schedule 23, paragraph 3 of the Equality Act 2010 also allows a service provider to exclude a person from dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation, and to refuse services connected to providing this accommodation on grounds of sex or gender reassignment. As with paragraph 28 and other exceptions under the Equality Act, such exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147010.htm

Blue, I’ve read your posts with genuine sympathy. I understand you don’t want to use Men’s Facilities for a number of reasons. But isn’t the obvious answer to this to have third spaces? Those third spaces wouldn’t ‘out’ you (apologies if that’s the wrong word) because they would be open to all who chose to use them.

Those third spaces would then solve the problem: women could retain their single sex space and you wouldn’t have to use the men’s space. Ignoring all my personal feelings on this topic, isn’t that the logical answer?