To alert you to the fact that Topshop just changed its policy to let men into the women's changing rooms

[YouStoleTheBowlFromTheRoom]

Been made aware of this today: a 'gender fluid' man having a pop at Topshop because he wasn't allowed to use the women's changing rooms at their Manchester store:

twitter.com/travisalabanza/status/927198660089339904

Topshop have now been quoted as apologising to him, and saying they've changed their policy to get rid of sex-segregated changing rooms altogether.

Another shop to strike off the list. Am I the only one worried this is past the point of no return?

Pandapenguin

The guidelines have been written for both primary and secondary school pupils.

Take a look. It’s insane.

@datun read it. Feel really powerless and furious for the future of my family and children everywhere. Might sound dramatic but fuckit it's true.

Feel really powerless

I hear you.

What can we do to address this?

feel really powerless
Yes

saga i wonder if you are deliberately not getting the concerns. The law protects trans* people quite rightly from discrimination. At the same time, the current law allows people to legally change gender after fulfilling a range of conditions. I expect you know this.

However, if I see a trans* person in the female bathrooms, i have no idea whether they have fulfilled the conditions or not and (in some ways rightly) no right to ask. As the cases discussed on this thread and others suggest, there are people who are being allowed into female spaces on their own say so, and this is accepted.

So in a sense, self-identification is putting on the statute (if it is passed) behaviour and social norms which are already in process, because of the confluence (if that is the right word) of existing laws (which is what I meant when I said the law; same way as family law is a set of laws which produce an outcome as well as case law = the law, not one act of parliament, although in the case of self-identity, this is proposed - and let’s be clear, until now, any debate on this has been stifled as transphobic)

In terms of Scotland, I think there is a history of being progressive in terms of same-sex marriage, and this week, apologising rightly to those who were criminalised for same-sex relationships, without doing the joined up thinking that trans* politics are regressive and damaging.

However, if I see a trans person in the female bathrooms, i have no idea whether they have fulfilled the conditions or not and (in some ways rightly) no right to ask. As the cases discussed on this thread and others suggest, there are people who are being allowed into female spaces on their own say so, and this is accepted*

The current law does protect people from discrimination once they have undergone the process of gender reassignment. The equality act change has been around since 2010:

From the Act

Gender reassignment

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons

I am not sure how this protected characteristic relates to someone who just says they are trans - and what evidence is needed.

I think that the proposed changes in law relate to getting a gender recognition certificate and demedicalising that.

There has been leglisation for the last 7 years making gender reassignment a protected characteristic.

I think that the current law states that it is illegal to discriminate against someone because they are undergoing gender reassignment.

It does not state that someone undergoing gender reassignment must be treated as a member of the 'opposite sex' - so a transwomen does not aquire the 'sex of a woman' if they say they are undergoing gender reassignment - and don't have to be treated as a woman in spaces designed for women.

Once a GRC has been aquired, then a transperson can apply for a GRC and is treated as a woman / man by the law.

The new act seeks to propose making a GRC much easier and claims that anyone can self identify as a man / woman and will be treated by such in the eyes of the law.

Which is wrong.

I thik Scotsnd ikes to be extra progressive partly as a one upmanship to England. As a way of showig a definite difference between the 2 - that Scotland has power to make it’s own laws. Often they get it right though (rape in marriage)

So in relation to the OP

If Top Shop had said: this is a female only space, it's women only - and Travis had said "But I am a woman" - Top Shop could have asked him to prove it by asking for a GRC - or they would have been discriminating IF he had a GRC and they didn't let him in.

If he didn't have a GRC, they would have been within their rights to refuse admission.

If they had said, we don't serve trans people - they would possibly have been discriminating because Travis could have claimed he was undergoing gender reassignment.

Under the proposed changes, Travis could have said I am self identifying as female, had applied for a GRC easily and then aquired the 'sex of female' in the eyes of the law (if the route followed is similar to Ireland)

And that's wrong. A GRC should be a medicalised process over a few years as it is at the moment.

Sooner or later there will be legal action to protect women's safety and women only spaces.

Shops and public buildings still have duty of care liability for safety of women.

Unless the law is formally changed to officially give us second sex status.

The Family Research Council (FRC) insists that – contrary to what homosexual activists claim – transgender-friendly policies and laws escalate the risk of women becoming victims of sexual attacks at the hands of men who claim to be women
.
www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2017/02/18/21-women-assaulted-by-transgenders-in-restrooms

Saga but the point is that TopShop is in a difficult situation as if Travis had a GRC they would have been discriminating and Travis would have had a case against them, plus bad publicity. With all the TRA shouting of transphobia, people are very wary of even looking like they are questioning. So on the ground, who is actually going to ask for a GRC? It is a double-bind, because a person who has a GRC should not be harassed for that certificate, they should be able to get on with their lives. Or have their own spaces so that the question does not arise and they are recognised in their own right, not as adopted women or men, if that makes sense.

The problem is that, like so many other things that are 100% well-intentioned, people with their own agenda will take advantage of it.

It won't be the genuine transwomen who cause the problem. It will be the men taking advantage of the situation to invade female space. Or female professional sports. Or female only refuges. Lather, rinse, repeat, don't cry when the soap gets in your eyes.

What's the bet that Travis has gone into topshop in the last few days and dramatically sauntered into the womens changing rooms? Have they posted a topshop changing room selfie yet?

Oh the irony. If a real woman behaved with his arrogance and entitled nature she'd be slapped down immediately. But a dude can put on a dress, strike a pose, metaphorically flop it out and get what he wants.

#boycottTopshop is trending

In the past Men and women just sensibly got on with keeping to spaces set aside for either sex. It was understood generally apart from the few suspect folk. It was no big deal and exceptions would sometimes be made. There seems to be a more political thing going in here to break down the generally accepted and understood status quo, social norms - just for the hell of it. Obviously some change is good, necessary but just seems to be a lot of loud, awkward outliers getting a taste of power and getting carried away.

Some good points here. Very very good.

mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/boycotttopshop?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Ehashtag

Could a woman go into a topshop changing room and request that while she's changing, no people with penis' are allowed in, to ensure her safety?

It seems the most sensible course of action would be to dispense with gender; after all it's a social construct as TRA's are fond of saying.

Good. Let's have sexed rather than gendered changing rooms then. I realise TRA's say biological sex is also a construct, except it's not. It's concrete, so let's separate along biological sex lines. No amount of 'advanced biology' rubbish will convince me otherwise.

Also, to Cocoa, trans* is apparently now offensive 🙄. The terms that are 'acceptable' are constantly shifting and the linguistic acrobatics one has to engage in to discuss these issues seem designed to shut down discussion with cries of transphobia. #nodebate indeed.

Regarding that little twerp on twitter, stop with all the genderfluid/queer/non- binary rubbish. You are gender non- conforming. Own it like the rest of us do- I've never met a living breathing perfect stereotype of femininity or masculinity, we are all GNC in some regard.

Posting this again, thanks to person who first posted. Very informative video

m.youtube.com/watch?v=uzwMJAFWLtQ

"Shops and public buildings still have duty of care liability for safety of women. "

Do they? I didn't know that.

I just find it mind-boggling that a man who 20 years ago would have been considered a bit like someone you should keep your kids away from - dressing up as a 15 year old girl and pouting at the camera - clearly a bit fetishy about teen girls, best mate describes "little girls" as "kinky", now is being thrust into an area where there are stacks of little girls in states of undress behind flimsy curtains with gaps down the side. It's just weird.

How can we have "me too" going on and at the same time, from the same people, a strong preference for allowing men access to places that are a bit hidden away, and have women taking their clothes off? It's some kind of massive cognitive dissonance and I don't get it.

How can we have "me too" going on and at the same time, from the same people, a strong preference for allowing men access to places that are a bit hidden away, and have women taking their clothes off?

Misogyny. That’s both the reason #metoo is happening and necessary and the reason men don’t give a shit about the consequences of male access to private female spaces.

Apparently one of Travis's friends was due to discuss this on LBC this morning. Did anyone hear? Would love to know what their response was unless it was just the usual 'radfems are transphobic bitches'