Row breaks out over event’s single sex policy: bbc

I cant actually imagine a stronger example of internalised.misogyny than pretending one can stop being female by removing breasts and growing facial hair.

I hear you, but space must be held for women who have internalised misogyny, especially as so often it involves trauma responses.

Which isnt to say other traumatised victims must be held responsible for sorting out everyone's problems.

At the end of the day it's up to sisters heal to set their own policy on eligibility. But I am tired of the fact that women's organisations seem to be held responsible for nannying everyone. Whether it's men in dresses who call themselves women, or women who have taken drastic steps to alter their appearance to the point they are perceived as a threat by traumatised women, why is it always women picking up the pieces? I sympathise with the fact that many trans-identified women have been motivated by sexual trauma but we have to balance everyone's needs and rights. It was their choice to alter their bodies to the point they are threatening to women and they have to accept that some limitations will come with that.

I think this is all mostly theoretical. I doubt there are many, if any, women's group that have trans-identified women attending. They are committed to being perceived as men, why would they attend a women's group? It's fine if sisters heal want to be open to trans-identified women, but I doubt they will get any turning up.

It what way is it "cult" speech.

And anyway, the comment was about women not having to be "femme" in response to an earlier comment which assumed trans men would all just pass as actually being men.

So in fact was making the point you agree with.

As I said a total red herring.

The issue is can or would a woman who has not just socially transitioned but has undergone surgical and use of drugs to transition then be experience by vulnerable women as being in the presence of a man.

That is the issue.

People are allowed to object to cult speak and to be jaded from endless attempts at manipulation by bad faith derailers.

How are you using or understanding the word "stealth".

It is now legally classified as an act of sxual violation of a woman by a heterosexual man.

I think jumping on the use of the word "femme" is missing the point.

It was in response to the suggestion that someone who "looks like a man" would upset other women so the suggestion that TM should be included could be problematic.

I did respond to say I thought even if a woman who had transitioned "appeared" masculine, just as TW do not pass, the same for TM.

So if the PP had used the word feminine in response to the suggestion that TM shouldn't be allowed, they aren't talking about only women who look feminine or "femme" being able to attend.

This is a complete red herring.

It was in response to the original suggestion that TM would make women feel uncomfortable and but it was only one post.

Is part of the over reaction because "femme" is more associated with lesbian "butch" "femme" role playing that used to be common at one time. Or worse going back to the sort of Anne Lister "lesbian" were the idea was a woman with "male" attitudes would be same sex attraction. And also proposed in the dreadful Well of Loneliness. And I think Daphne du Maurier also though along those lines.

(Slightly off topic I once saw a woman who was with some man wearing a tee-shirt saying butch on the streets, femme in the sheets. I did wonder at the time whether that was more for her, or in fact more for him.)

"Stealth" is such an oddly predatory choice of word from men who want us to believe they're ever so marginalised and vulnerable as they violate women's spaces.

I’m glad the concept of stealthing was raised as a point in kcsie.

I can't find anything about stealthing in these documents. Am I looking in the wrong place?

Statutory guidance
Keeping children safe in education
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education--2

Worth bearing in mind the TRA/Scotgov argument was to exclude transmen from all women's spaces and services and remove their rights to pregnancy and maternity protections.

Well, are you going to admit the transman and exclude women who are triggered or alarmed by the presence of someone with a beard, flat chest, and a voice that doesn't sound quite female?

It is a tricky situation. Tbh most transmen are unlikely to alarm anyone, and are generally aware and considerate of how they may impact on other women.

And most women, I expect, will be reassured if they know a person is female.

So I'd imagine the problem may be tricky but not insurmountable - so long as people are free to talk honestly and openly about what they want and need.

It's not about dogma. You can't exclude trans-identifying woman because they're trans. You can exclude someone - anyone at all - if their presence means the service can't be provided.

The options are:

• Provide women's services on the basis of biology (in which transmen can use it but transwomen can't)
• Provide women's services on the basis of biology + perceived maleness (in which neither transwomen or transmen can use it).

I tend to prefer the former as I am a sex realist. But I can see both sides of the argument.

Yes, being a transman can be deceptive. But if a transman goes to a woman's service, says she is a biological female and shows her birth certificate showing that her sex at birth is female then she is not being deceptive at the moment.
For consistency purposes, the rule has to be either biology (in which case transmen can access the service) or perceived maleness (in which case transmen can't)

I didn't say I rejected them, they are females, I said we can't help everyone and the priority are the women who haven't rejected being women. If they're presenting as male and if that would add to the trauma of the women who are already traumatised, they can't be given access the service. It's a cold hard choice, they made their choices so can others.

All this talk about 'passing' and 'stealthing' is really talk about fraud, lying, and deception.

I guess what will be necessary is talking openly about these issues

Trans people will need to accept that other people also have rights and needs, and these sometimes are in conflict.

There are probably ways around it - talking to everyone to ensure that they are all supported and offered options will probably resolve most issues.

The key thing that won't work is pretending, or lying, or trying to obfuscate or win points.

Its not just 'how they look', so much as the active and deliberate steps they've taken to pretend they are men.

Taking testosterone and having a mastectomy are extreme actions taken with the aim of deceiving others as to you sex. Several 'sex by deception' cases involve women who went to extraordinary lengths to conceal their sex.

Its not the same as having short hair and wearing check shirts, by any means.

I'm not talking about the SCJ, I'm only sharing my own opinion on the topic. Saying you believe in sex based spaces but rejecting some women from it because of how they look is hypocritical and logically inconsistent imo.

Yes and for toilets, a few years down the line, everyone will realise how many people have been harmed by this. By then, these toilets will have been closed down or converted back into single sex.

What a shame we can’t prevent and protect people between now and then. There’s been no equality impact assessments on introducing more mixed sex toilet designs. There’s been no risk assessments on introducing more mixed sex toilet designs.