Confused about trans men or men posing as…

Most transmen aren’t “big” they are women so are just average woman sized. Also most can’t grow a full beard - in fact a lot of men can’t grow a full beard. Transmen also usually have not had any surgery, they have also not grown up as males and are far far less likely to commit sexual crimes than men are (including transwomen). So yes transmen should be using the ladies changing area, unless (as per the SC ruling) they do look very convincingly male and likely to cause concern to women, then they should use the male area. Transmen also don’t pose a threat to men if they were to use male changing rooms/toilets and men are not going to be intimidated by them. So it really is not the same situation as men using women’s spaces.
Most transmen really don’t “pass” though, even if they look like they do online if you met them in real life you are likely to be able to tell.
I’ve known quite a few “butch” presenting women in my life and none of them actually looked like men, also tall women (5’11 +) I’ve known have never looked masculine, just like tall women.
I think the argument that now men can just say they’re transmen when they enter women only spaces sounds a bit silly. That’s no easier than a man saying he’s a transwomen then entering a woman only space. The difference is women will now be allowed to complain and that complaint will be supported by the law (as it always should have been) and they won’t just be called bigots and transphobes.

There are plenty of posts all over social media of trans women saying they will still go into women's loos, but I haven't seen much in this debate about trans men. I wonder if they will continue to go into men's toilets and use the cubicles, as after all, that is probably what they did before the judgement, to avoid being confronted by men. I would like to hear more about this. I agree, I have met many trans people (one in my family), and you often generally know they are trans. Up until recent times, it wasn't an issue, but I think the last five years, young people have been groomed online. You only have to look at X and see all the young men that are into pornified anime, I wonder if they created female characters for themselves online, got more attention as 'girls' and took it over into public life. Something has happened either way.

Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination. This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women-only service being provided.

Thanks, CoralSnail.

I’ve (finally) just read through the whole judgement, I feel emotional relief once again (and proud of my monthly DDs to Sex Matters - sounds like they might have played a massive role in putting coherent arguments forward). My understanding is that if a trans man passes to such an extent that it was reasonable to object to their presence in a women’s only space that would be exempted from any gender reassignment discrimination- but I’m not a lawyer and stand to be corrected- attached what seems to be the relevant paras - but more than happy to be corrected - as we need to make sure our info on this is accurate

220. The references in this paragraph only make sense as references to biological sex. Provided it is proportionate, paragraph 28 exempts gender reassignment discrimination but only in the context of the provision of separate services for men and women or single services to one sex. To rely on this exception there must be a separate or single-sex service that satisfies the establishment conditions to which we have just referred (in paragraphs 26 and 27 for example) and as we have observed, these provisions cannot on the face of it operate coherently if provision of services only to persons of one sex means provision of services to a group comprising women (biological females) and trans women with a GRC (biological males but legally female) but not to trans men with a GRC (biological females but legally male). The difficulty of establishing the conditions for a separate or women-only service on an approach tied to certificated sex makes it difficult to envisage any circumstances where the ability to exclude on gender reassignment grounds could operate.
221. There is nothing in the wording of this provision to indicate that paragraph 28 was directed specifically at those holding a GRC, nor is there any basis for concluding that this is its likely context as the Inner House suggested at para 56. (The example given in the explanatory notes at para 740 also does not distinguish between transexual people with a GRC and those without: “A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful”). We can see nothing to support the Inner House’s conclusion that “the importance of this paragraph is that it provides the only basis upon which a person might be permitted to exclude a person with a GRC from services which are provided for their acquired sex”. Nor is the EHRC correct to assert that paragraph 28 is redundant on a biological interpretation of sex. On the contrary, if sex means biological sex, then provided it is proportionate, the female only nature of the service would engage paragraph 27 and would permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status. Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination. This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women-only service being provided. Their exclusion would amount to unlawful gender reassignment discrimination not sex discrimination absent this exception.

@TheQuickRobin
Third spaces would seem the obvious solution and have been suggested many times. But activists don't want that - they want to deny women single sex spaces.

I worked for a brief period with a fully-transitioned trans-IDd woman. It just happened that I only ever interacted with her when she was sitting down and I came into the room. I assumed my colleague was a quiet young man with an endocrine disorder that had affected puberty and was now being treated - hence short and slight with a beard. She 'passed'. Until the day I saw her walking down the corridor. Then it was immediately obvious that she was female.

I’ve told this before. Few years ago, in the women’s toilets of a theatre, I came out of a cubicle to find myself face to face with a bearded individual. Instantly my adrenaline shot through the roof in fight/flight/freeze. Then, in under a second, I clocked the height, and build, and carrying angle, and lack of Adam’s apple etc and realised this was a trans man. And the fear was gone. We’re pretty good at distinguishing male from female, ad a survival instinct.

Sometimes it is a bit hard to tell. Mostly, it's not.

I will add my agreement to this. I have often been mistaken for a man. BUT I'd much rather than happen and it all be cleared up (ie as soon as I speak) than to have any woman in actual danger from predatory men.

I get what you're saying.

In theory predatory men could go into the female loos and say they were transmen. It could thus be argued we're no different from before when predatory men could go into the loos and say they were transwomen. (BOTH of these situations having arisen due to trans ideology's utter dismissal of women's reality).

I still maintain if this happens you'll almost certainly be able to spot if they're male or female. The chances grow smaller of your predatory man ALSO happening to be short, slight, small handed, wide hipped, have female fat distribution etc etc

Also, the two situations are very different from each other in practice: Correctly sex a transwoman and you risk angering them, hence why many women don't confront; we know that angry males are dangerous. The fear of upsetting a potentially volatile male claiming to be a transwoman is one of the things that most erodes single sex safeguarding. No male can be called out if some males are allowed. And social media was awash with threatening "bathroom selfies" showing an ever more masculine parade of "transwomen".

Correctly sexing a man pretending to be a transman isn't going to cause any additional shift to their emotional state and calling out an actual transman as male would surely be received as a huge compliment?

So in theory, I'm not sure women have got anything to lose by challenging people they perceive as males, but in reality women will probably continue to do what they did previously which is leave the situation.

I think you’re assuming you can tell a transman just by looking at them. If they’re smaller than average they must be trans and therefore be given access to women’s toilets?

I know a few transmen. Trust me, you can’t tell unless they tell you. Testosterone is one hell of a hormone.

The Equality Act is not symmetrical, because it attempts to address imbalances in society.

One sex is larger, stronger, commits 80% of violent crime and 99% of sexual assaults. Historically the male sex has had greater wealth, power, rights and freedoms.

The Sex Discrimination act and subsequent EA attempted to redress the balance to achieve equity. It afforded women extra rights and protections in an attempt to do this.

So a transman in the men's is not the same as a transwoman in the women's. It's not a mirror image. One sex is at greater risk and one has various advantages.

Sorry I took so long typing that out, I didn't notice the poster above basically said the same thing.

Hopefully this helps you understand OP? X

The recent ruling has clarified the issue regarding transmen (female person).

Under UK law it is legal and proportional to exclude a transman (a female on testosterone) from a woman only space/service if the transman looks convincingly enough like a man.

I'm sorry but, if you are a woman going to that amount of effort and medical intervention in order to look like a man, then that's the consequence. I don't think transmen can then complain?

Genuine transmen surely wouldn't want to be in a woman's space anyway?

One glaring problem is that transmen definitely do need to be called in for their smear test and breast cancer screens so hopefully accommodations can be made regarding the waiting room eg maybe implementing this terrible transphobic notion of a third space for trans people.

Because it's legal to exclude transmen from female spaces, there's no point a bloke pretending to be a transman because he'll be excluded too.

As I understand it, the SC ruling does have provision for transmen not to be allowed access to women’s single sex spaces if it is deemed that their presence in some way stops the space from functioning as single sex - this would address the issue you raise OP. Once again women’s (trans men’s) rights are sacrificed because of men’s bad behaviour…… I think this makes the need for third spaces impossible to ignore

I don't think it’s something that’s going to happen a lot or at all, but if a female wants to adapt her looks so much that she passes as male and I mistakenly ask her to leave the single sex women only space I’m in, then her offence is on her, not me. It’s not my responsibility to make her feel ok, if the responsibility lies anywhere, it’s with her to reassure me.

I think they’d have much more to lose, and it would be harder to defend, so hopefully it would put some of them off.
Prior to last week certain wrong ‘uns may have felt emboldened knowing that, if we were to complain about a man in the ladies loos, we would not be listened to or accused of being bigoted or transphobic. Now the law has been clarified how would such a person justify being in there?

I think if transmen are happy using the men’s and men don’t have a problem with that, that situation should be able to continue. The law at present is symmetric but the reality isn’t.

I do wonder why men don't seem threatened at all by transmen in their spaces. It feels like transmen would be better off continuing to use male spaces, as it would cause less potential upset. If a transman came into my space I'd think they were male.

One of my trans man family members definitely passes fully as a bloke. He just looks a bit younger than he actually is. He uses the male toilets but only the cubicle. Obviously because he doesn't have a dick.

But I guess men don't care if transmen do male sport because they'll almost certainly lose.

Its not needed anywhere, written or spoken
Women, Transwomen - simple

I think if you knew more trans people IRL, you'd understand that very few do actually pass. People moving and talking are very different from carefully chosen and edited pictures.

As an occasional runner in a large area of city woodland, I've learned I can accurately tell sex from a very long distance. Bear in mind walking and running gear can be pretty unisex. It is body shape, size and, crucially, gait that I'm reading. I don't think that's especially surprising as it's a survival instinct, both from the point of view of species' procreation and from the point of view of males being a danger to females.

It's possible men aren't as good as women at this and it's possible a minority of women don't possess this skill (I know someone who is entirely face blind, for instance) and maybe this is you. But it's common amongst women I've talked to about it.

Transmen do occasionally pass in my experience, but are usually given away by their height, hand size, and hip shape, as well as obviously gait.

I've just been looking at a photo of a stunning transwoman actor and it wouldn't surprise me if some men did see them as a female. In our culture men are used to seeing quite a lot of "unnatural" women, as there's a lot we do to alter our appearance. To me it was instantly obvious they were male however (and pretty hot!) but the tells are there in people's lips and brows and general facial proportions before you even get to bodies.

I can imagine this actor is used as a gotcha but the concept of passing has always struck me as extremely cruel and just another way to monetise human distress. There's no doubting the current situation is a mess but it's a mess we got to because of misogyny. Because the actual risks to women were routinely mocked and dismissed.

I think that in 99% of cases you would by looking/conversation be able to realise a transman is female.

And at least if you challenge a transman you are far less likely to be met with violent threats than challenging a transwoman, given that women are far less violent than men.

But overall this is where third spaces (in addition to not in replacement of single sex spaces) come into their own. All the people now raising the 'transmen' issue, where were they when people were complaining about transwomen in womens single sex spaces?

If stonewall et al had campaigned for third spaces for the last 10 years we wouldn't have any of the trouble we have had.