Trans men using female spaces

There is no issue if someone is born female they use the female toilets, if they are born male they use the male toilets. It is not possible to change from male to female or vice versa - that is quite clear now in the SC judgment as far as I can see (unless I have missed something or totally misinterpreted it.) These sort of interviews in my view aim at confusing the public deliberately.

virtually no transwomen truly pass.

How do you know? You could walk past them all the time and not realise.

Which is better than the prior situation where males were allowed access to female spaces just by saying the magic words "I'm a woman". Now males cannot have any possible excuse to be there apart from nefarious reasons.

I agree. Excluding a women who is indistinguishable from a man from a female rape therapy group would, I believe, be proportionate. Excluding a woman from an all female shortlist possibly not.

The judgement has reasserted the EA, which doesn't apply equally to men and women. For obvious reasons.

Transmen just aren't such a big problem as transwomen, overall. They don't have the male offending profile, they don't have penises, they don't present the threat males do to women.

They do need loos rather than urinals and they often need sanitary bins etc.

So it could be that we do need to find different accommodations for transmen than for transwomen. People trying to pass as the opposite sex does cause issues.

"proportionate"

This bit is where guidance /future case law etc I guess is needed..

The Sex Matters guidance is not a substitute for the actual law which makes it clear that transmen may be excluded from single sex spaces if proportionate but they don't have to be.

On my reading, Sex Matters is saying that any provider can exclude "women who look convincingly like men" from the women's toilets, and seems to come close to implying that this would be the right thing for providers in general to do. But anyone can read it and decide for themselves on the precise interpretation, rather than rely on what I might be implying that someone else is implying:

"Is the Supreme Court forcing a person who has taken extreme steps to look like a man to use the ladies’ toilets or saying that they have a right to?
The answer is no. Women who look convincingly like men and who go into the women’s toilets are likely to be just as alarming to women as actual men. They would have to explain themselves, providing personal information that they might not want to share (and that other people might not want to know).
Therefore it may not be practically possible for some trans-identifying women to use the ladies’ toilets."

The EHRC guidance is vaguer - "in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities"

Presumably they'll have thought about this before they transitioned.... thought long and hard about it. Right?

I understand that another poster who is not you implied that.

"I doubt many men would care, because females pose no threat to them"

Surely they are women and this would put them at risk....

I'll repeat

"Another poster says guidance implies"

I've just read the Sex Matters guidance and it doesn't say that all providers should exclude transmen from toilets.

Transmen should just use the men's. Make it men's problem to solve not women's.

I doubt many men would care, because females pose no threat to them.

Ditto sports, no man would care because they'd beat a transman every time.

Men only shortlists don't exist.

Etc etc

I personally think transmen who pass should continue to be allowed to use male spaces. How you could police the notion of 'passing' is another story so I can see it's difficult. But also some transmen do have a neo penis.

As far as I'm aware men don't find transmen in their spaces threatening in the same way women may do about transwomen.

That may sound unfair but it feels more right to me, than saying those who look like and identify as male, and could potentially rape me can share my space.

I'd rather not share with either men or those who claim to want to be/actually believe they are one despite biology.

So are transmen currently using women's toilets? I assumed that if they passed they used the men's, or as someone else said the disabled, or other uni sex toilets.
What is happening to transmen who currently use the men's. I haven't heard of any being assaulted.

"Why do you believe every establishment will ban transmen from womens toilets"

I don't. Another poster says guidance implies the judgement says this should be the case.

I don't think it is permissible as it would not be "proportionate" to do so in all cases but as a pp said this needs clarification

Why do you believe every establishment will ban transmen from womens toilets.

It's permissible to do so but not mandated

"...they will have to live with this practical difficulty and [that] other people have rights".
I think this is important. We (women) have the right to refuse entry to a women-only space to a person not born a woman.
Obviously other facilities have to be provided but this should NOT be at the expense of us.
At the risk of sounding like an angry elderly woman in an old sit-com "WE HAVE RIGHTS!".

Given that men try to avoid looking at other men in the gents and that men can’t recognise sex as well as women do, are many men really going to be challenging transmen in the toilets? I’m not saying it’s right that they do, it just seems unless they really don’t pass and given they usually pass more than TW I’m not sure how often it’s going to happen.

"legitimate means of enforcing the female-only rule"

Well they are women ...

You might go so far as to say it is a minefield

Who decides if they "pass" or not?
Who does ask them to leave?
Are we saying one woman gets to tell another to leave the woman's in a metro type supermarket because they feel upset?
Historically I guess if a man went into the women's a manager or similar might end up having to deal with it when reported to them...

Can you not think of a situation - say a rape crisis centre - where it might be proportionate and necessary for women who have chosen to so significantly altered their bodies to not use women's spaces and cause distress and alarm?

It is a door that needs to be open for women. In part to deal with the gleeful 'but if you say no to men, you'll have women who LOOK LIKE MEN and they'll scare you too and you'll be sorry!' stuff from the GI lobby.

Other people have rights too.

is it "proportionate" for EVERY establishment with men and women facilities to ban them from the women's toilet?

I don't know.
But what if the trans-identified woman "passes" as male (most don't), such that neither other toilet users nor the service provider can tell whether the individual is telling the truth when she says she is a woman? The service provider shouldn't be held liable for asking her to leave if it thinks she is male, should it?

Could the exclusion of women who have self-masculinised to this extreme extent then be a proportionate and legitimate means of enforcing the female-only rule about who can be in the toilets?

It's something of a rare situation but I do think the EHRC need to give clearer advice about what they think the rules are.

As was also made clear - any establishment telling a transman she couldn't use a general female toilet would have to be providing a toilet she could use

But it is "proportionate" for EVERY establishment with men and women facilities to ban them from the women's toilet?

Mostly because it is hard to think of it as "proportionate" to blanket ban people from all toilet facilities on the basis someone could get upset...

As was also made clear - any establishment telling a transman she couldn't use a general female toilet would have to be providing a toilet she could use.

(Because, amazingly, the judgment is about coming up with a solution that works for everyone, not just fucking one group over for the hell of it.)