Trans men using female spaces

The vast majority of trans people don’t ‘pass’ though so it won’t be an issue for them.

I guess if she has carried out so many modifications that she would genuinely cause upset in a women’s spaces then she’s precluded herself from that.

She may or may not cause upset in a men’s space. DS would be mortified to find a woman in a men’s space but men seem generally less observant. There are also generally unisex available.

Her husband on the other hand WILL cause upset in the ladies, is unlikely to cause any upset in the men’s and can avail himself of third spaces if he fancies.

Interesting how trans activists are now suddenly worried about male looking people upsetting women.

"but SexMatters' summary of toilet rules implies that it applies to toilets in general."

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...

Some here think the exception (which may sometimes bar trans-identified women from women's spaces if they look convincingly male) only applies in some particular circumstances (such as victim support groups and refuges) - but SexMatters' summary of toilet rules implies that it applies to toilets in general.
The EHRC's interim guidance leaves things somewhat vague...
I think this exception is probably unavoidable but can understand the desire for greater clarity.

Yes, but "could" is the operative word.

Along with "proportionate". How much time is this transman intending to spend in there? If she was planning to camp out all day, that's one thing, but if she was just passing through, then anyone who does have a problem can wait until she's gone.

If you're talking two regular patrons where you've got one transman and one other woman who can't cope with her there who will be frequently encountering each other, then you've got a continued conflict so the establishment's going to have to come up with a solution to separate them - an additional unisex or private space.

It can be explained who they are and why they are there.

Who knew therapy was so easy? You just explain things. Job done.

Also wondering how far this goes - if someone has a clown phobia, do you let people turn up to the same session in clown suit and makeup, and just explain "they're not a real clown" and why they've turned up like that. (Why?)

Not turning up to a group therapy session in fancy dress that might upset people isn't a huge ask. A transman is making a conscious choice and significant effort to try to look male and project as many male cues as they can. If they want to join in with other women, then they can give it a fucking rest.

But in practice, yes, most women aren't going to have a problem with a transman, so usually there won't be an issue. But a phobia against someone with too many male cues is not unreasonable, so again, some form of separation will be required.

And the SC judgment made clear that asking the transman to join another session would be permitted gender assignment discrimination. Up until the judgment the assumption/convention has been that the trans-identified person always gets what they want in the presence of a conflict, and the non-trans-identified person would have to find another space (which may not exist).

I have to disagree, I'm afraid. You said it yourself, they are in the presence of a woman, no matter what they look like.

It can be explained who they are and why they are there.

because he doesn't want to create a stir in the women's but he also doesn't want to use the men's...who would?

Women on a Saturday night!😂

I doubt it would ever happen anyway. The trans man I know has always used the disabled loo when I've been at the pub or whatever with him, because he doesn't want to create a stir in the women's but he also doesn't want to use the men's...who would?

"could be excluded from women's loos at people's discretion if women think they're men and are upset?"

This makes it sound like some random person using the toilet could decide whether transmen are excluded. Surely this will be decided by the organisation / management of the establishment in question

Yes, but "could" is the operative word.

No, they should not in every circumstance. The women in a therapy group or sharing a refuge while recovering from male violence should not have to be in the presence of a woman who looks and sounds male. The other women have rights and the masculinised woman chose to become so. Separate provision should be made where possible - separate therapy group, unisex toilet etc.

I don't see where loos are excluded? It doesn't mean they can't use the women's loos, full stop, but surely it suggests they could be excluded from women's loos at people's discretion if women think they're men and are upset?

Exactly. Very very few tw who may pass as blokes (extremely unusual) might not be able to / might not feel comfortable using women’s loos.

So what. I and many other women have felt like this about women’s spaces since men were allowed in them. No one gave a shit, and in fact called us bigots and worse for raising our concerns.

Tw who pass might feel bad. So. What.

Edited to add - this is such a teeny tiny non issue. Pity tv didn’t and doesn’t give more air time to women. Women who’ve been treated like shit for years. Millions of women.

And you haven't read the whole of the section you posted. They "could" be excluded. 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.

They should not use the men's. They may use the women's. If they have chosen to become very masculinised in appearance, they run the risk that they may be excluded from certain spaces/services. The obvious examples are RCCs and prehaps refuges. This does not = not allowed to use the women's loos.

Trans-identifying people of both sexes broke the social contract here. It is entirely understandable that there will be hightened vigilance until it becomes socially unacceptable to use opposite-sex facilities again.

It’s interesting that since the ruling the TRAs have been trotting out about transmen using the ladies. The fact is that most transmen pass exceptionally well unlike most transwomen who just look like a man in a dress. Additionally transmen pose no threat to men however transwomen do pose a threat to women, the statistics prove this. Additionally many women do not want to share facilities with a man, men are a risk to women.

To pretend that transmen and transwomen are the same is ridiculous in the context of toilets. I understand that transmen are already treated in separate rooms in hospitals but surprise surprise transwonen don’t want this. As usual it’s the transwomen stamping their size 11 stilettos and saying but I’m a laydeeee.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with anyone being excluded from a single sex space based upon their appearance.

If they are female they should be allowed in a female single sex space regardless of how they look.

Well this is what HJ meant by "a huge problem in a sane world" - but I think we are going to have to see more unisex options and an expectation that non trans identified people may want to use these too with single sex spaces available for all those who need them.

This is language again. First confuse everyone by talking about transwomen when you mean men. Then confuse them again by changing your terminology to trans idenfied men. Leaving polite, well meaning people unsure who is being discussed. Tell me this isn’t deliberate.

"This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example"

I also interpreted this as an exclusion ( against transmen) in specific "proportionate " circumstances such as women's shelters etc rather than a defacto banned from all women toilets in Tesco because another woman might get upset.

After all the whole point is that transmen are women and therefore not a risk to other women...

Up until the judgement, all that bio man had to do was say he was a woman to access womens spaces

It is a dilemma for them. Unfortunately many took irrevocable decisions, often while extremely young, encouraged by activist organisations who lied to them. The same organisations who couldn't be arsed to speak up for them at the SC.

Opens the possibility of bio men with an agenda to gain access to the womens could pretend to be transmen. Off with yer knickers so!

This is mostly a problem in trans people's heads - they want to believe that they pass, so obviously they want to believe that no-one could possibly cope with them being in a correct-sex space.

Whereas they're most likely to get people doing a double-take before realising "oh, trans", and moving on.

People will be paying them far less attention in a correct-sex space than when they're in the wrong-sex space, because what's happening is far less disturbing for everyone else.

The women's loos are the right place for trans-identifying women (transmen).

But anyone who has undergone significant body modification with the intent of deceiving people into believing she is a man can't reasonably complain when she is mistaken for a man.

At that point, she'll have to explain herself. Which isn't a big deal, it occasionally happens to many of us.