Transmen

I don't know if it was me you quoted but I made the argument up thread.

I don't think it's hypocritical at all.

Women and men have different needs and the reasons for segregating women and men in the first instance were often to benefit women. In sport women have a separate category to allow for fair competition and safety. Men don't need to have a separate category for those reasons so it doesn't matter if there is a female / open approach. The history behind female toilets and changing rooms was to allow for women to be able to safely participate in public life. Men already had the privilege of participating in public life because the whole of society was already set up for them.

And we currently find ourselves in a situation where women's facilities are being taken away whilst men get to keep their spaces. I don't think it's hypocritical to say that the reverse of this would be much better and that under the circumstances if there are only two sets of toilets there should be a mixed "gender" toilet for men and all those other genders and people who don't mind a mixed-sex space and a female toilet for those of us who want single-sex provision.

Its a very old sexist belief that it's up to women to sort everyone else's problems and set up facilities for them before considering themselves.

The clue is in the title of the forum: this board looks at the needs and issues of female humans.

I don't think that means what you think it means.

You might second guess what men might want, the post I quoted had decided it was fine for men to not have single sex spaces but women must have them. Hypocrite.

Are there any scientific studies that compare adult male and female ability to recognise sex in adults?

I’d be surprised if it was equal because the drivers behind sex recognition are not the same for both sexes.

Survival is prioritised before reproduction in all humans. The physical differences between the classes of men and women create a requirement for women to recognise the male sex as a potential threat. This is not the case for men.

Men are free to campaign for single sex spaces if they want them. I'm not going to second guess what men "might" want.

Why do people think it is any of their business, it baffles me. Presumably the same people who think she should use men's toilets as she is trans (in their ignorant opinion) will also think a transwoman shouldn't use the women's toilets. The sense of entitlement of some people is just amazing. They really do want their cake and eat it.

Men might be just as unhappy as women about "their" space being overtaken by others. I think we either have a law about single sex spaces or we don't, picking and choosing on behalf of other people isn't reasonable.

We all know what is happening with you as well, you don't think you should be upset but you think it is an easy solution to upset men. Shame on you.

@Inthetropics

I'm really sorry that your wife is treated that way.

It really nails the TRA lie that they are concerned about GNC and butch women, when it's trans people who have brought this nonsense on them.

Many venues wouso say they haven’t got the space for three different sets of toilets. The easiest solution is the have Female Only toilets and Mixed toilets.

But we all know why that isn’t happening. We don’t want to upset a few TW so we will upset women, who we dont give a shit about.

Arguably the contract has already been broken.
Once a social contract has been broken is it ever possible to go back?

The assumption is that people agree to the implicit social contract which has governed public toilets for as long as they have existed for each sex, i.e., that the person chooses to go to the toilet matching their sex. Once that social contract has been broken, we get discussions of this type.

I'm lesbian. My VERY butch wife is most of the times treated as a transman and she really hates it, finds it awkward when people use the wrong pronouns (he/his) when adressing her and is very embarassed when she needs to go to the bathroom at work or any public place. She uses the women's toilet and is sometimes met with a situation in which a woman doesn't notice that she is a woman too. She's had issues with this at work. She doesn't want to use the men's bathroom as she doesn't feel comfortable and safe there because she is a woman. It does get very tense sometimes. She doesn't have a solution for this neither does her workplace (she works in a hospital). We have discussed this at lenght. Our not ideal solution's been to go to places where there are single space toilets whenever we have that choice. It's a real souce of pain for her because some woke people try to explain to her that she is in fact a transman and that she should use the mens toilet. She is just a butch lesbian. She jokes and says she is "vintage", from a time in which butch lesbians were butch lesbians and not trans. It's not really funny but I guess this is how she copes.

🙄

It means people of the opposite sex and not entitled to be there.

And if/when women object, the law would be on their side.

Rapists, abusers, perverts, fetishists - none of them come with handy labels. Right? So we don’t know which people are nice, and which might harm us.

So - all people with penises and/or XY chromosomes: out of our single sex spaces, regardless of how they identify, what their wooly gender is, and whether they might ‘pass’ (to some people). Out. By law.

so how exactly does that work?

If they "pass" you can't tell they're trans. When people enter a restroom, do you ask to see their genitals?

The "law" doesn't have to be symmetrical though. It's perfectly possible to have female-only spaces without requiring male-only spaces. The "law" should follow the need not some arbitrary concept of "fairness".

I agree with this.

Also a person using toilet facilities that don't match their sex isn't really "breaking the law". This suggests that a person using the wrong bathroom is doing something illegal / criminal, which is not the case (in the UK at least)

In the dark, oppressive days before the last Labour Government liberated us with the brilliant and coherent EA2010, we had to rely on an unnatural and artificial social concept called honesty.

It used to work like this....

Most people were honest with themselves and wouldn't dream of breaking the unwritten social contract by using the opposite sex's facilities.

This was backed up by by the expectation of honesty if your presence was queried. People would accept your answer and apologise. The threat of the query was sufficient to discourage those who wanted to break the contract.

The system wasn't foolproof as there were people who might lie. If you were certain that the person had lied (I believe that the current expression is "at it") you were free to invite them to leave. This seemed to work

I don't think I would be able to tell 100% of the time. Like you say if someone "passed" as the opposite sex I would be none the wiser.

I do think though in the vast majority of cases if you meet a person IRL (not just see a photo online) you can tell. Most TM seem to grow beards and I think this could potentially fool me in the first instance or in a fleeting situation. But if I spent any time with that person I think reality would eventually re-assert itself.

The "law" doesn't have to be symmetrical though. It's perfectly possible to have female-only spaces without requiring male-only spaces. The "law" should follow the need not some arbitrary concept of "fairness".

Exactly.

Women are vulnerable and need protection, not men!

A lot of money has been spent on creating mixed sex spaces instead of adding third ones.

That was because of trans activism.

Well the women using the toilets decide. There aren't going to be toilet police ffs!

The important thing is that there shouldn't be any expectation that "transwomen" have a right to be in women's toilets. Then women are free to rightfully, and without fear of recrimination, "police" this themselves the same way they would, and always have, if a man (non-trans identifying regular man type man) went in the women's toilets. They can ask him to leave, they can gang up and ask him to leave. They can report him to the facilities management, report him to the police. They can do all sorts of stuff, the point is it's self regulated.

But if a "transwoman" genuinely passes and goes into women's toilets we'll just have to live with that, because there's nothing can be done about it.

That depends on how the changes are written. The legal protections for F people and M people aren’t symmetrical and never have been (blokes don’t need maternity provision, for starters) so no reason to assume they would be now.

*that they can't

But the new changes will mean that can't and shouldn't which is what this thread is about.

The obvious answer is the need for additional gender neutral spaces.

Not to force women to shut up and accept male people of all identities or just live with exclusion from public life as their sex based biological duty to the Penis People.

This is about ending the exclusion and harm to women who require biological sex based spaces. Other people's 'complicated' is not an acceptable reason to just accept the discrimination and inequality for 52% of the population.