To ask if you think it is controversial to say that a person with male genitalia should not be allowed to use changing rooms used by people with vaginas?

[aaarrrggghhhh]

www.theargus.co.uk/news/16334391.trans-women-are-still-males-with-male-genitalia/

The Argus (Brighton newspaper) says that it is controversial for someone to say this:

"many trans women are still males with male genitalia, many are sexually attracted to females, and they should not be in places where females undress or sleep in a completely unrestricted way.”

The definition of controversial is likely to give rise to a public disagreement.

Do you think it is likely that most people would disagree with the statement that people with penises should not use the changing rooms which people with vaginas are using?

Also, this argument reminds me an awful lot of when I came out as bisexual and the girls in the changing rooms reported me and said I shouldn't be allowed to change in the same room as them

@MsFrizzle I think that's part of the problem. It does seem like that - but its not. It's not based on prejudice - its based on a realistic risk assessment of the possibility that someone with a male body will harm someone with a female body in a vulnerable space.

Notably the general view certainly on mumsnet seems to be that post operative transexuals are fine. Because they have undergone physical changes - the most obvious being the removal of That Appendage.

If it was based on prejudice then why would so many women who have manned the barricades against social injustice against others all of a sudden turn into raving bigots?

what's quite interesting about these threads is that for the amount of knowledge people apparently have, few appear to understand what self-id in the context of the Gender recognition Act means.
A simple perusal of countries where it already exist shows that it involves a statutory declaration (which is a legal document) to replace a panel (who don't actually meet the trans person) to change a birth certificate - and that this is what is being asked for by all the main trans organisations.
Gender reassignment is covered under the Equality Act and has been there for the last 8 years - this doesn't mean medical intervention is necessary and never has.
So the huge panic being boosted by the likes of the Daily Mail, and some very vocal voices on here, when nothing will change apart from making some trans peoples lives a little easier, is totally unnecessary.
But I think some people know this too well - and I fully expect the usual accusations of troll, TRA or comments about my supposed masculinity - alternatively there will be repeated aggressive questions to answer that don't deal with the points I made.
This is why there are valid accusations of transphobia and why many people think that the Feminist chat unfortunately does little to fight for women's rights -
So - for the avoidance of doubt I've been a member of mumsnet for some time and given birth to 4 children.
This is for all the lurkers like me who can see that the transphobes are trying to shift the debate to AIBU and can't be arsed to reply to the echo chamber they're creating

Most of the people I know I think would say trans women should use female facilities. I’m not sure personally

Even if they have a penis? I would say that someone with a functional erectable penis is a man. But that's just me. What do I know?

There's not that much to stop a sex offender from going into a women's changing room anyway if they wanted to. I doubt they'd be wanting to go in and undress to be vulnerable.
So you think a male sex offender would feel too vulnerable to be naked in a changing room where a woman was naked? How do you think the woman might feel?
The difference when the law is on the woman's side is that his presence in the room is something she could complain about and get him removed.
When the law recognises any man as a woman if he says he is, she has no choice but to accept him there and potentially put herself at risk, or leave and not be able to access the services.

@kate1956

but its about much bigger issues than this though isn't it. As the article in the Argus that I referred to show. Its about a hugely significant push to change some basic understandings and social norms. Its disingenuous to suggest that this is not a broader debate which will actually have a quite significant change.

For example, youth hostels and their policy for same sex accommodation now being based on self identification of gender.

I find it quite offensive to be called a transphobe btw.

Have you read the article? Do you agree that it correctly describes what is the majority view and what is the controversial view (regardless of what your own view is). If you think that it is a misreporting what issues do you think that raises?

I was just interested in whether it really is the norm for people to think it is okay for people with male genitals to use the same changing rooms as vagina folk - to the extent that saying otherwise is considered "controversial"

It really isn't the norm in my universe. I'm getting on in years, but I have two acquaintances who are post-op trans women. Their ops were both way over 10 years ago so I've had loads of time to get used to it. They are in completely different social circles, not connected in any way. Neither of them would think it's controversial to say that peni don't belong in women's changing rooms. I know this because I've asked them.

It's just people who have penises telling people with vaginas how it's going to be. As usual.

kate1956

Despite how confusing those two bits of legislation are, people do understand the difference.

They also understand that the exemptions are not being invoked.

Indeed, they've only just had reassurance that the equality act is not going to be changed. As that was what was being campaigned for by trans lobby groups.

There are exemptions written in to both equality law and the gender recognition act, but unfortunately they are either not known, or difficult to interpret for some people, or are actively being ignored.

When the laws were written, they were designed for a handful of men (and some women) with gender dysphoria. The estimate was about 5000. There are still that number of people who have gender recognition certificate. It would appear that men with gender dysphoria are the ones who are prepared to commit to getting one.

I'd like to say that exploitation of the the law was not anticipated, but it was. Unfortunately that was ignored.

So instead of a handful of men with gender dysphoria being given the opportunity to navigate their life a little easier, you have men claiming they are biological women, getting on all women shortlists, rules allowing 14-year-old heterosexual boys to share overnight accommodation with 10-year-old girls, without parental consent, or even their knowledge, swim England saying that if you don't like a naked penis in your changing room, you need to be re-educated.

Transvestite men with a fetish and part time cross dressers are considered transwomen according to stonewalls official glossary.

Therefore men who fetishise women, are attracted to women, and are fully intact are now perfectly able to access women's spaces, as a matter of accepted protocol, claiming they are biological women and lesbians should include them in their dating pool.

Any law that allows this to happen needs to be rewritten.

I don't think I would be bothered with unisex loos as long as had full seperate cubicles. I often use them at work.

Mixed changing rooms are the norm in many countries.

Mixed changing rooms are the norm in many countries

Which countries? I'm genuinely interested to know.

I know that in France that there is often a row of toilet cubicles which are open to both m and f (although even there, the men's urinals are
in a separate space)

I've travelled a bit. Haven't come across shared changing rooms anywhere. (I'm talking about shops)

Carrefour and Springfield, are two that come to mind immediately, our local Gap in the uk also.

Kate1956 absolutely, well said.

I think they are going to have to introduce third spaces.

One for biological females only one for biological males only and a unisex one.

It's the only way forward.

There's a reason we have separate facilities. Nothing has changed in the world to make them no longer necessary.

@SuitedandBooted posted a very good link a few days ago. Re-linking it because it's really worth reading:

sages.org.uk/publications/sages-factsheet.html

I know trans people have a hard time, and have the right to be identified as the gender they feel they are, plus they don't decide to go through the whole process of transitioning lightly. However, sexual violence against women and girls is a very real problem - I am including fully transitioned women into this category BTW - and we should have the right to feel safe in vulnerable situations, and not wonder if there is someone with a penis in a setting where you don't expect it.

This whole situation can be used by potential perpetrators to gain access to places and individuals that they wouldn't under normal circumstances, simply because if someone says they feel female they have the right to be treated as one, no questions asked. And since there are more women and girls being potentially put at risk by this legislation than there are trans, cis or whatever people being "discriminated against", it makes no sense.

Those who have a penis, even though they may don't identify with it, should go to the bathroom/changing room/services for people with penises. Might sound harsh, but reality is life can be very harsh, and even threatening at times, for those with vaginas and we won't have the right to even say a word about it, for fear of being charged with hate crime. WTAF.