Female SNP lawyer tells court the suggestion that men would use gender self-ID laws to attack women is not “rational”

My response to that is always that laws don't work like that.

Either all women are entitled to single sex toilets and changing rooms free from male people, or rape survivors can't have them and are excluded.

Similarly, you can't distinguish between good trans people and bad trans people, or real trans people and people who are just pretending, or even between trans people who have had surgery and trans people who haven't had surgery, because there is no way to either write or enforce a rule which treats them differently. So either you have a rule which says that no male people, not even male people who have had a penectomy and vaginoplasty and have got a gender recognition certificate which says they are female, should be allowed in women's toilets and changing rooms, or you are completely unable to exclude any male person from entering women's toilets and changing rooms. No one is standing guard at the door checking people's genitals and gender recognition certificates. So these things don't make a blind bit of difference and if you believe in the principle of single sex spaces you should believe in excluding all of these people with no exceptions.

This is how I've come to develop such a hard line position on it all.

Because whilst it might sound completely reasonable to say, "Of course genuine trans women who have transitioned to live as women should be allowed in women's spaces, that doesn't mean we are going to let all other men including sex offenders in", that is in fact exactly what it means because neither the law nor the police nor the general public is capable of distinguishing between these two subcategories of male people for the purposes of regulating access to toilets.

So that's how I push back and say, "Actually, none of this is OK. Not even one tiny little bit of it is OK, and I will die on this hill. Unless you can come back to me with a proposal about how we can simultaneously let nice trans women into women's spaces AND keep male predators out of them AND keep them inclusive of women whose vulnerabilities or beliefs don't permit them to share these spaces with the opposite sex. If you can solve that conundrum, I'm all ears. Until then, the answer is no, no, absolutely not."

And on the subject of religious beliefs, when someone says, as they inevitably will, "Why should someone's belief in [Allah] trump the rights of trans people to use toilets and changing rooms?" my response is always, "I think someone's belief that they cannot share an intimate space with members of the opposite sex and must only be with their own sex due to their personal belief system trumps another person's belief that they cannot share an intimate space with members of their own sex and must be permitted to share such a space with members of the opposite sex instead due to their personal belief system."

I totally get where you are coming from Margot and respect your position. I also think the TRAs and many men know what the issues are for us and just enjoy pushing the position where we imply some things are maybe ok when they’re just not. It is difficult to have an eye on both balls at the same time (without wishing to sound like a Viz character)

I totally agree.

But I'm thinking in terms of the kinds of arguments that might penetrate the skulls of the fence sitters and the be kind brigade.

For example, my best friend, who I love and respect very much, would tell you if asked that trans women are women. If you asked her to explain why she believes they are women she would get flustered and upset and say she didn't want to talk about it.

We don't talk about this subject very often because she doesn't want to, and I don't want to lose her friendship. We both know that we are diametrically opposed on this subject.

I know that she is coming from a place of wanting to be kind, and is also undoubtedly influenced by her social circle (London based, university educated, Labour voting 30 something professionals working in the public and third sector, where it would be social and professional suicide to say that a trans woman is a man).

When we had a debate about toilets and changing rooms, she said she thought people should be able to use the facilities where they feel safe and comfortable, and I said, "What about the women who don't feel safe or comfortable sharing these spaces with members of the opposite sex? What should they do?" and she had no answer.

I know that if we were to have this conversation again and I said, "I don't want to share toilets and changing rooms with trans women because it makes me feel uncomfortable" she would think I was being mean and probably say something about how trans women are the most vulnerable people in society. If I pointed out that some of them are literally convicted sex offenders she would get very cross and the conversation would have to end there because we would be on the point of falling out.

But if, instead of saying that I don't want to share toilets and changing rooms with trans women because it makes me feel uncomfortable, I said that many women who have been raped can't share toilets and changing rooms with trans women because the presence of a male bodied person is going to set off all their trauma responses, and that those women have a right to feel safe and comfortable using toilets and changing rooms too, she wouldn't have a response to that. Because she would know that I was right. She might not come out and say, "Yes, you're right, I didn’t think about it that way but of course including trans women in women's spaces is going to result in vulnerable women being excluded", but she would at least privately be thinking, "Oh shit. Are we the baddies?"

You’re right of course, but I object to the insidious creep of what can be objected to - this is not ok for any woman to suffer. 100 years ago men shamed us for showing our ankles, today we get shamed for not being willing to get naked in front of those men which they deem to be women and so say are acceptable in our spaces. They can F off both times.

This exactly. As far as I am concerned the constant bleating on about safety issues alone is deliberate straw manning on the part of TRAs. As is the single-minded determination to have a debate on toilets and only toilets, when other spaces involving actual communal nudity, such as showers and changing rooms, pose the question in much starker terms.

Haldane needs to answer yhe "n+1" question.

How much (more) collateral damage is acceptable?

You shouldn't, but the optics of calling a rape survivor a bigot for wanting to avoid strange penis are worse than the optics of calling a regular woman with no particular vulnerability a bigot for wanting to avoid strange penis.

I don’t fit in any of those categories, but why should I and others (including young girls) have to undress in front of men, whether they are perverts getting off on it or not?

You’ve missed one category out - girls/women who have medical needs eg. Needing public toilets with a certain degree of visibility so if they collapse they can be noticed, and also if they are confined to a bed, have their personal hygiene from a woman. Both of these situations occurred in my young family.

She might as well say that it's not rational for scammers to set up fake websites when they could just go out and mug people. Should we therefore trust all websites?

It definitely wasn't rational for a children's nurse to murder the babies in their care. Should her employers have continued to trust Lucy Letby?

We could obviously go on and on...

I always hated Russell Brand and his attitude to women, but how like the media and the authorities to be having an extended dark night of the soul moment about his historical behaviour (oh, but times have changed!) at the same time as finding it too difficult/politically embarrassing/personally dangerous to call out the misogyny and abuse of women being enshrined in law and practice in 2023 under the guise of GI and “be kind”.

Indeed, so why not lay out the red carpet for them and remove all inconvenient obstacles? It’s not like rape, sexual assault, upskirting, peeping toms, illegal photo trading, mysogyny etc is a problem.

Well yes, we know that.

I'm having a Lord of the Rings moment -

"and get from him, willing or no, a little ring, the least of rings, that once he stole. It is but a trifle that Sauron fancies, and an earnest of your good will."

It's a trifle, this least of rings, an earnest of our goodwill.

That's all they're asking.

The argument appears to be that this change in the law makes no difference to anything at all.

So why on earth bother changing it, in that case?

This one? I hope she cringes herself inside out when she thinks about this in the future (I mean, she won't, but saying it at basically at the same time as the world becoming aware of Isla Bryson must sting).

I didn't listen to the whole session but I did listen to the afternoon bit where Stonewall was quoted a lot.

The argument was more subtle than "it never happens". The Stonewall/SNP argument was more like "transwomen already have access based on self-id so this legislation makes no difference to attacks on women or anything else, and the UK govt didn't give evidence that it will make any difference to women".

But we know that’s not what they really want Rebelliouscow

How is it “rational” to let anyone be anything because they identify so without any classification of what that means, medical diagnosis, medication, investigation of knock on effects, open discussion with all stakeholders, advice from experts etc?

Gold medal darvo

auditorium

Third spaces and facilities have always been the obvious solution. A new audiorium in my city has such a facility. A Woman's and man's toilet block and a 'gender neutral' toilet for those that require that. If privacy and dignity is really the issue for trans identified people, then this is the obvious solution.

@MargotBamborough for lord advocate

I agree.

If I were debating this in Parliament I would say something like this:

"The question as to whether male predators would use self ID to their advantage to gain easier access to potential victims should not be in dispute, since it has already happened on several occasions. The only question, to my mind, is how many times it needs to happen and how many victims need to be harmed before the proponents of self ID admit that this is a real safeguarding issue. However, I can see that our learned friends are not yet ready to confront that issue and so, to avoid getting bogged down discussing that one particular aspect of this debate, I would like to move on from the question of safety, to that of privacy and dignity.

My question is this: how can we make women's spaces inclusive and welcoming of trans women, whilst ensuring that they also remain inclusive and welcoming spaces for women who cannot undress in the presence of the opposite sex for religious reasons, such as Muslim women, and women who have been victims of male violence and whose brains have an inescapable trauma response to seeing a male bodied person in a space where they are vulnerable, even if they agree with the political position that trans women are women? Should these women be forced to self exclude from these spaces if they are unable to use them in the presence of a woman who had a penis, or are their needs also valid and worthy of being accommodated?"

It's Lady Haldane, not Lady Hale, @mb2512cat.

This puts me in mind of Shona Robeson's comment that men don't have to pretend to be women in order to assault us.

I know this isn't the main point, but I don't think "Female SNP lawyer" in the thread title is accurate - Although she's appointed by the (mainly SNP) government, and often attends (though isn't a member of) cabinet, it is an apolitical role.

"SNP Government Lawyer" in the title of the article that's quoted is technically accurate as she is a Lawyer for the (currently mainly SNP) government.