to think that we could have a different sort of discussion on trans issues that might be helpful?

[BertrandRussell]

We can discuss the nature of womanhood endlessly. Philosophical discussions are always absorbing and interesting and very necessary and there should be plenty of space for them. However, it seems to me that there are practical discussions that need to happen which always get subsumed into the theoretical. There always have and always will be transpeople, and for the vast majority of the time it’s not an issue. Or shouldn’t be- there are transphobes in the world who should be treated with the contempt they deserve. Of course trans people deserve all the rights and protections that everyone has. However, there are some areas where the rights of transpeople are in direct conflict with those of non transpeople, and the conflict looks unresolvable. But we need to find resolution- and quickly. Could this thread concentrate on how we do that, and not be sidetracked?
To me, the urgent issues are-

1. How do we make it possible to preserve spaces where women who have been hurt or traumatised by a man can be sure they won’t meet a male bodied person?
2. How do we record crime so that it does not look as if there is a rise in violent crime-including rape- committed by women?
3. How do we preserve women’s sport so that it is not taken over by male bodied people who have an automatic physical advantage over people who were born female?
4. How do we make it possible for people to want to form relationships based on genital preference without being considered bigoted?

Good threat Bertrand

My personal opinion is as follows:

1. How do we make it possible to preserve spaces where women who have been hurt or traumatised by a man can be sure they won’t meet a male bodied person?

In terms of vulrunable spaces like rape crisis centres, you usually only encounter staff members and the equality act exemptions should apply. You are always entitled to request a different staff member without reason from medical and policing staff. Floor to ceiling cubicles in changing rooms/toilets. Prisons should have specific transgender wings.

2. How do we record crime so that it does not look as if there is a rise in violent crime-including rape- committed by women?

I think crime and medical documents should have transgender options and be listed as that.

3. How do we preserve women’s sport so that it is not taken over by male bodied people who have an automatic physical advantage over people who were born female?

Sport is one place I don’t think there’s an ‘inclusive’ answer. Although specific transgender events would be great.

4. How do we make it possible for people to want to form relationships based on genital preference without being considered bigoted? I don’t think it is seen as bigoted in the real word. I’m straight but don’t find certain races of men attractive. It’s personal preference and doesn’t make you a bigot to not find someone attractive.

I do think better data collection methods - in crime, medicine, and so many other areas, needs to be updated to deal with this. Finding strong, well-protected ways of protecting people and spaces is a difficult challenge.

I don't think using "genital preference" rather than sexual orientation helps anything. Some people are just attracted to one sex, some to both, it's not something we can or should try to change, and I think remaining firm on that and that that should be respected (and no sexual orientation has ever meant attracted to everyone of that sex). Also, "gential preference" leads far too much into "you don't know what's in their pants" and things going around these last few years that if you were attracted at first glance you should, if a good person, learn to like what's in there which is harmful. Sexual orientation is not a preference.

I don’t see how that can be anything other than bigotry? If a lesbian refused on principle to have sex with any bisexual because they were bisexual, that would be biphobia.

No, it wouldn't. It is not bigotry to not want to be in a romantic or sexual relationship with someone for any reason and I don't get the benefit of saying it is or to make genitals the exception to being ethically allowed to refuse on principle. Excluding someone from your dating or sex pool doesn't mean you hate them. I'm a bisexual woman who would only date other bisexuals. Had enough run in with straight guys and while lesbians and bisexual women have overlapping experiences, there are some differences that I and others view as important when wanting to build relationships. I also don't do long distance relationships anymore and wouldn't date someone religious or had another strong ideology, my standards doesn't mean I think others or others' standards are worse, just not for me.

Also, it's quite easy for some people to fuck and fetishize while still being hateful bigots - just saying as a mixed race person, that happens a lot more than people seem to think it does and I really hate this whole idea that having or not having sex with someone means anything about the ethics of a person. Finding someone attractive or interesting or wanting to have sex with them doesn't mean anything just as not finding someone attractive means fuck all about how we view them as a person. It's not bigotry to have principles when dating or having sex, saying I only want to date other bisexuals doesn't mean others are lesser. I do not wish ill on nor think the people I exclude from my dating pool are less human nor does me having had relationships with anyone - men or women, trans, or a different nationality or ethnicities, or disabled, or whatever - mean anything about my ethics towards any of those groups. And it really makes no sense to me to make genitals the sole exception to the excluding based on traits is bad nonsense, it takes more than that to have sex and way more to have a relationship.

My belief is that the only equitable solution is to create a 3rd/4th space for TW/TM/NB. Trying to shoehorn biological men or women into spaces/facilities etc that exist based on sex difference is like continually trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. All you end up doing is mangling both beyond recognition in the attempt. Segregation based on sex works because it benefits both the sexes. Women don't benefit from segregation based on "gender identity", only men identifying as women benefit.

It is amazing how quickly that sexual orientation has become accepted as exclusionary.

WTF. All that campaigning for gay rights appears to have been a waste of time.

I suspect that would be accepted in a trice by women.

TRAs on the other hand.... would continue to call 3rd spaces transphobic. Hell, even cubicles in mixed sex/gender neutral loos are transphobic if the doors go from floor to ceiling!

The debate has got completely entrenched so there appears no solution - neither side feels they can, or could, give on the issue of whether TWAW or not.

The thing is, though, that the "category" (and language etc) under discussion isn't new. It already has millennia-old meaning and matter and understanding and ownership.

So you have one side saying "that's ours and we are not willing to let you change it"; and the other saying "we want it, and we want to change it".

If it was some new grouping, then there may be a case for equal "claims" on it, but it isn't and there isn't.

4) How do we make it possible for people to want to form relationships based on genital preference without being considered bigoted?
This is already ‘possible’ - nobody should be forced to be in a relationship with anybody

Exactly what I was going to say @AphidEater.
It is already possible because it's always been the case that you can have a relationship with anybody if you're both consenting adults.
Consent is the key for everyone

4) How do we make it possible for people to want to form relationships based on genital preference without being considered bigoted?

We remind ourselves and everyone else that sexual orientation is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act and is defined as follows:

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,
(b)persons of the opposite sex, or
(c)persons of either sex.

The debate has got completely entrenched so there appears no solution - neither side feels they can, or could, give on the issue of whether TWAW or not.

We really need a legal ruling on whether transwomen are women or not. That would be a good start.

1) How do we make it possible to preserve spaces where women who have been hurt or traumatised by a man can be sure they won’t meet a male bodied person?

Why do we have to only ensure this for women or girls who have been traumatised once, isn't it actually the point that we don't want any women or girls to be traumatised by men in the first place?

“This is already ‘possible’ - nobody should be forced to be in a relationship with anybody”

There are many TRA who think- and say- that basing sexual preferences on genitalia is bigoted.

I also think we should agree what we are teaching children in schools before we start teaching it. I don't think we should be telling them that humans can change sex because that is setting them up for disappointment. I also don't think children should be given puberty blockers until their effects have been properly researched.

There are many TRA who think- and say- that basing sexual preferences on genitalia is bigoted.

For example...

Or... (I mean, there's bloody hundreds more like this!)

'lesbians seem to have hangups about gentials'

How is that not homophobic?

Stonewall needs to release a statement about this sort of comment.

If a lesbian refused on principle to have sex with any bisexual because they were bisexual, that would be biphobia

I don't agree with this. I am straight and I prefer to have relationships with straight men. It doesn't mean I'm phobic or dislike bisexual men in any way.

A lesbian, or any other person, is perfectly entitled to refuse sex with anyone for any reason.

HTH

ANYWAY!

I instinctively agree to about no medication to under 16s. But logically I know that that wouldn’t work, because there is no real chance of an effective transition if it’s left so late. But I don’t know the answer. Maybe there should be some sort of medical commission to discuss the best way forward.

A lesbian, or any other person, is perfectly entitled to refuse sex with anyone for any reason HTH

Exactly! ^^

What about lesbian women who are in relationships - which they consider to be lesbian relationships - with trans women with penises? Would you redefine them - against their will - as no longer lesbians?

The sport one is a big one for me. I have played women's rugby for 20 years and am very passionate about my children playing.

I don't have a problem with bio women who identify as men being allowed to continue playing women's rugby as it doesn't present a safety risk. However, the same logic should say that a transwoman cannot play women's rugby because it is unsafe.

For me Semenya is the first real female victim of the move to include people who are transgender in the sport of their preferred sex. If testosterone hadn't been introduced as a way of managing trans athletes' integration into their identified gendered sport, would she have been excluded, or just considered lucky like Michael Phelps and his lactic acid production?

Elite sport is designed to identify the fittest, strongest, fastest and most skilled. It is divided by sex for fairness, not to protect women's blushes or because we don't like men.

The fairest answer to me is to have separate categories, but there are not enough trans athletes to do this.

Lots of people ask me why it is such a big deal since we can't be talking about many athletes but I am thinking longer term as gender identity is becoming more fluid and it is more acceptable for someone to be trans.

For me, we need to firstly separate gender and sex and reduce the stereotypes of what genders should be. This is definitely happening. I look at my DDs in relation to me and my DM and gender is becoming far less of a defining issue for kids. Unfortunately it is not happening fast enough for people who are trans today.

Once we can separate gender and the stereotypes and ideas which go with them from sex, we can deal with biological, practical issues away from the emotive side.

I would also like there to be an open dialogue. I feel that there are a small number of transgender women who are shouting very loudly and aggressively for things which may not represent the actual interests and desires of the broader trans community.

I also feel really strongly that just because it is women's rights and protections being threatened, it is not our job to find a compromise. It is everyone's responsibility.

I would also like to know what percentage of men would say that they 100% would not have a relationship with a woman who has a penis. I suspect it would be the vast majority and so lesbians are being harshly singled out.

I instinctively agree to about no medication to under 16s. But logically I know that that wouldn’t work, because there is no real chance of an effective transition if it’s left so late.

Not sure what you mean there. Genital surgery on a male who hasn't been through puberty is more difficult than on a male who has. This has been documented regarding both Jackie Green and Jazz Jennings.

“A lesbian, or any other person, is perfectly entitled to refuse sex with anyone for any reason.”

So we all agree that the TRA who say the opposite are completely in the wrong. That’s one box ticked!

I suppose I wasn’t thinking of surgical transition when I said about not staring til 16 was very late. I was thinking about the vast majority of transpeople who don’t have surgery, and how they could achieve the best possible cosmetic result.

Good to see such a constructive discussion.
I also like the two boxes - sex and gender - vital for record keeping and statistics. Especially all those medical / health / crime statistics etc that society needs in terms of provision of health care and resources.

“Especially all those medical / health / crime statistics etc that society needs in terms of provision of health care and resources.”

Yes, I absolutely agree. Box ticking gets a bad rep- but for many aspects of society it’s vital.

Sport- I worry that there seems to be a consensus that this is only an important issue in professional and elite sport. I think that it may become an issue much further down the tree too. The difference between girls and boys in sport starts surprisingly young- and the gap just widens as they get older. Self ID can only have a negative impact on girls in this area.