TIFs in single-sex spaces

I genuinely feel for TIFs ,- I don't consider myself a TERF as I do include all females even the ones who don't want to be one in my feminism and I think they've been dealt a shitty hand by TIMs.

What makes you believe that TERFs don't include all females including the ones who identify as men. TERFs should really have been called MERFs because its the men they are excluding

wrong.

As a male - and all the other blokes I know - we would not want biological women in the men's loos, for a number of reasons:

• it is inappropriate
• it is a safeguarding risk for the men as well - if an allegation is made, and they had been the only other person in there, it might be difficult to disprove
• blokes using urinals are in a partial state of undress - young boys often more so than others - no bloke who is partially undressed and using the loos wants a woman in there with them
• etc.

It might be that the individual in question believes that they 'pass' but it is pretty easy to spot when someone has an adam's apple or not / to see different hips / to see different walk patterns... the reality is that most don't - so yes it would make men using their loos uncomfortable...

In the same way that a bloke entering the gents dressed in high heels and a skirt, pearls and a wig is not going to make anyone believe that they are anything other than a man dressed up... they may well get comments, but they won't be rejected as they are men...

so, as a woman the OP needs to use the women's facilities - if there is comment then it is up to her to explain that she is still a woman (so should / may / must) use those facilities, but also as appropriate explain why she looks as she does...

and yes, I appreciate that there shouldn't be comment, but we live in a world where the normalised stereotype is expected and anything else is commented on - so while I support any individual's right to dress as they wish / to grow any body hair they wish / etc. any individual choosing to step outside the norm must accept that sometimes there will be comment...

ultimately the OP is a woman so must use women's facilities - and the legal position is just that. The guidance goes a bit further in suggesting that where possible alternatives are offered - but the core law is - women into their loos / men into their's.

I fir one I'm totally shocked that the OP has not returned to their poor attempt at a gotcha thread

There is no safeguarding issue of any kind with a woman using women's spaces. Discomfort or surprise is not a safeguarding issue
This has a whiff of 'reframe your trauma'.

I genuinely feel for TIFs ,- I don't consider myself a TERF as I do include all females even the ones who don't want to be one in my feminism and I think they've been dealt a shitty hand by TIMs. That said, it's not appropriate for people who look like men to be in women's loos because it erodes the already flimsy 'stay out because you stand out' social contract.

As for 'men deserve SSS too!' I don't GAF - the whole self ID/trans/GI thing is nothing but one big fat mens rights movement.
If men had given a passing shit about women and said to TIMs a decade ago 'No campaign your own spaces' or even better 'No, we will ensure you are safe in the space assigned for your sex', they wouldn't have to share with TIFs now.

Suck it up boys. Get your power, influence and cash onto creating more unisex toilets.

Personally I think this is a faux naive TRA thread from someone who thinks men in dresses should be allowed in the ladies toilets because then transmen can go in without anyone challenging them 🤷‍♀️.

You are right, the toilets are not disabled - the users are.

Accessible toilets are intended for people who need the adaptations - the support rails, the extra space for a wheelchair, the positioning of washbasins, the space and privacy to change colostomy bags etc.

Some people will always need these adaptations, and the accessible toilet is the only one they can use. Some people, as you say, need extra support and space temporarily, e.g. if they have a broken leg.

Some disabled people need the adaptations on bad days, when their mobility or balance is particularly bad; on good days they can, should and do use the standard toilets.

The accessible toilets are for people who actually need the adaptations in them, who cannot use any other toilet and who have no choice but to use them.

Looking at some of your examples:

'A parent with a pram' should not use the accessible toilet.
Wider 'ambulant' cubicles are provided in single sex toilets, they have more space and some supports for people who need a bit of extra space or support, but do not need all the adaptations of an accessible toilet.
That's where parents with a pram should go.

They do not need the adaptations in an accessible toilet.

'A parent with opposite sex child' should not use the accessible toilet.

A mother can bring a young boy into the women's toilet. A father can safely let a young girl go into the women's toilet on her own and wait outside, often asking a woman to take her in and keep an eye on her -- that's what my father used to do when I was little
They do not need the adaptations in an accessible toilet.

'Being a trans person would count as an accessibility need' 'an accessibility need' means physically needing the adaptations in the accessible toilet, not choosing not to use all the other available toilets.

They do not need the adaptations in an accessible toilet.

Accessible toilets were campaigned for for decades by people with disabilities, for people with disabilities, who use them not because they prefer them, or they feel more comfortable using them, but because they need them.

There are no toilet police to keep men out of women's toilets, it has to work on trust and respect.
There are no toilet police to keep able-bodied people from using accessible toilets, it also has to work on trust and respect.

It is interesting that despite men's toilets being such dangerous places that if transwomen have to set foot in there - even those in professional offices, cultural venues such as theatres or expensive restaurants - they will be instantly brutally murdered, transmen (actual females) can apparently use them quite safely. Does anyone know why?

You know... I'm a transman too, and weirdly enough, when I read this, my immediate answer was, "Well yes, of course, where else would I go?" It took a couple of seconds for my rational brain to kick in and remind me why that would be a terrible idea.

So consciously, I know that I would ask to be housed in the women's estate - but damn if it doesn't feel completely wrong!

If you pass so well use the men's. Out of curiosity if you committed a crime would you're choice be to be housed in the men's estate?

I don't see much from the OP after the initial post...

As a man, I don't want women in the male toilets. I can just about manage to put up with sharing facilities with other men on a good day to be quite honest! But the way the male loos work, if you come in and just go to a cubicle, wash your hands and leave, I don't see any big problem.

The biggest issue in male toilets (apart from the social terror of negotiating aforementioned urinals) is how do I get out of the place without touching the furniture that the dirty non-handwashing minky bastards have touched. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that OP is not one of those people!

For trans identifying men they provide easy validation on a daily basis and/or a wonderful opportunity to make women feel uncomfortable, win win for them.

Yes it did, though I did see a post by Akua Reindorf saying it must be case by case and was unlikely to be proportionate in response to regular services like toilets. It's more applicable to something like a rape crisis service where women are particularly vulnerable and likely to be triggered by a male appearing person.

I don't think therefore that my argument against TIFs in female space is one that the law mandates. I think it's a matter of ethics and that TIFs should have the decency to realise that they are intimidating and undermine the integrity of female single sex space and so should seek out unisex or accessible facilities instead.

Of course there will be times when they require access to female services like gynaecological care or if they were imprisoned. But that is a very different situation to using the toilet with strangers who have no idea of your female sex or medically 'transitioned' status.

@Tinks2026 @Whatchamacallitt

Didn't the UK SC judgement expressly mention that a transman can be excluded from a female single-sex space if they are likely to cause distress to the women in it? Of course, they must then be offered an alternative, most likely a unisex or gender-neutral space.

Not being allowed into female single sex space does not mean being permitted into male single sex spaces. That's a strawman argument and you know it. That's why you're pretending that unisex and accessible facilities are irrelevant when they are deeply relevant. The OP put up two far from ideal scenarios as if they were the only options that existed. They're not.

Passing TIFs do not belong in single sex space at all. They are not male and don't belong there, and they have modified their appearance to the point that they have precluded themselves from using female spaces.

There absolutely is a safeguarding issue in letting people who look like men use the female facilities. It opens them up to any man using them. If challenged he can simply say he is a 'trans man' and permitted (or even forced according to some of you) to use it by law.

Sex Matters have written about this exact issue clearly, and the safeguarding and dignity issue it imposes.

Er, yes of course there is. Legally men are entitled to some single sex spaces. So if a woman wants to use a man's single sex space, she can't, either legally or ethically.

She can try to slyly slip into men's spaces and men might let her, of course. That's her choice, and her problem to deal with.

Unisex areas were not being discussed, because it doesn't matter. The discussion is should a woman use men or women's spaces. Of course if the spaces are unisex there is no problem. But that's not the discussion.

There is no safeguarding issue of any kind with a woman using women's spaces. Discomfort or surprise is not a safeguarding issue.

What a weird response.

There is nothing ethically or legally that forces women into female only space against their will. It's perfectly ethical and legal to use unisex or accessible facilities. It is also perfectly safe for them to use those facilities. What is your obsession with trying to pigeonhole TIFs into female single sex space despite the obvious safeguarding and comfort concerns for women who haven't betrayed their sex?

Out of interest Op, how do you think the legislation should have dealt with it?
Personally, I don't have an issue with you using women's spaces but I understand that could make you and others feel uncomfortable.
I was at the theatre recently and they had single sex and gender neutral facilities as probably many other places do too.I thought that was a great solution so perhaps that could be something I could
support more generally if such a thing was started. However it seems that Trans ideology is mainly based around the desires of TW and a vocal element don't appear to find this a palatable solution. I agree that TM seem to be an afterthought,
plus ca change.

Yes, women will have to deal with their discomfort/shock at a woman pretending to be a man in the toilet/changing room/facilities and that's horribly unfair. This is another thing inflicted on us by this idealogy.

But nevertheless women should, ethically and legally, use female facilities and women who have harmed themselves with wrong sex hormones will have to figure it out every time they go out in public.

And even though these mentally unwell women are causing other women distress at times, they are still women, and from a safeguarding stance they should use female facilities.

Most things are very straightforward, and I have come to realise that "nuance" usually means "I am going to tell a lie or say something unacceptable and demand that you agree with me" in modern discourse. This is straightforward. Women use women's facilities.

And, of course, almost none of them come close to passing and a quick shock is all you will receive when you catch them out of the corner of your eye, before swiftly realising it's a woman who has harmed herself with wrong sex drugs.

The good news is, this entire fiction is collapsing and in another ten years it will be absolutely burned out. The bad news is that the carnage of those who are left with damaged bodies will be diminishing by the year. In another 20 years few, if any, women who harmed themselves like this will be functional or seen in public at all. And that's a horror story, but it's true.

Except it’s not just her who has to deal with the problems imposed by her presence. It’s women who are making use of the space. Many would rightfully feel intimidated and distressed at the presence of someone they believed to be a man.

Furthermore allowing people who look like men to frequent female toilets threatens the integrity of female only space. It’s a safeguarding issue and women shouldn’t pay the price for her choice to impersonate a man. We know that TIMs are using TIFs like her as cover to try and manipulate their way into female toilets.

If men have an issue with her then she can use a unisex toilet if there’s one available and if not the accessible toilet. She has precluded herself from having the right to enter female only space.

@Wowthatwasabigstep
I am menopausal and I can't go very long at all without a toilet, so that's a good point. Menopause has affected me so much that I find it so very sad to have induced that at a young age when you should not be dealing with loss of libido, genito-urinary problems and aches and pains.

Just musing on the fact that this will be another generation of kids who probably won't be told the truth about how their desire to pretend to be the other sex actually plays out in real life.

So you are a woman, who dresses like a man and for some unknown reason you decided to take hormones which will have detrimentally altered your bodies normal hormonal functions for a pipe dream when you subscribed to a cult.

Toilets are the least of your worries but as an aside how frequently do you need to use them as they seem to be an utter obsession for the cross dressing community. Amazingly I can be out and about for many hours without having to have a wee, maybe the unnecessary hormones that you have subjected your body to have had an impact.

To clarify you are a woman so use the female toilets.

I didn't mention the puberty blocker trials. But completely agree that these poor children should not be encouraged to think they'll receive extra privileges because they harm themselves like this. They are just creating a lifetime of suffering for themselves, and it is deeply sad but their lives will be shortened too and their health will suffer if they take wrong sex hormones.

And unfortunately girls and women taking wrong sex male hormones are also harmed more dramatically and more permanently than men who take wrong sex female hormones, even if they later desist.

They are accessible toilets not disabled toilets. They are for anyone with an access need. That can be temporary or permanent.

Examples of temporary needs - someone with a broken leg needing the help of the rails and extra space. Pregnant women with urgency issues. A parent with a pram, or parent with opposite sex child who cannot use the sexed toilet of the parent. All of these people can use accessible toilets.

Being a trans person would count as an accessibility need. Though in this case a permanent one.

Not every access need is visible.

@Tinks2026
I bloody well hope that if the puberty blockers trial goes ahead (which I hope it does not) that those children are told that when they persist and go on to cross sex hormones (as most, according to what we already know, will) that they will not have the rights they think they have to enter cross-sex spaces.

I doubt it. They'll just be further enabled to think that they have changed sex and that because they've been enabled to 'pass' even better, no harm no foul