AIBU to ask what you think should happen with Trans men?

[Akiddleydiveytoo]

OK, I know this is an emotive subject that people feel passionately about so I'm prepared to don my hard hat here in anticipation of the backlash I'm likely to receive. I'm genuinely not trying to be goady though - I am genuinely interested in trying to understand people's opinions on this.

Since the Supreme Court ruling last week there has been lots of discussion about trans women and the impact that the ruling has on their rights to access female only spaces. There has been less debate, however, on the impact that this ruling has on trans men. Surely, if it is ruled that trans women are men, then it follows that trans men are women and should, therefore use women's facilities.

Is this really what women want? A post op trans man who had undergone full gender reassignment surgery would, to ask intents and purpose have a male presenting body complete with muscles, body hair and penis. Would women really be comfortable sharing facilities with such a person. Similarly, should a post op trans woman with breasts and a vagina be forced to share facilities with biological men?

I fully understand and support the need for women to have female only safe spaces and disagree wholeheartedly with trans women competing against biological women in sports due to their genetic advantage but I'm not sure the SC ruling of last week is really the 'triumph' that women's rights activists claim it to be as it presents as many questions as it does answers. I also fear that this judgement will result in single sex spaces being lost altogether as service providers, unable (or unwilling) to comply with all of the legalities and complexities involved, just get rid of single sex provisions in favour of unisex/ gender neutral facilities.

As I said, I've seen lots of debate about this over the last week but, for me, I still have a ton of unanswered questions so I was just wondering what others opinions are.

But without the size and strength of men.

I'm really sorry Rufus you were completely right and I was wrong. Took me a while to find the relevant bit but got there in the end. It is section 221 of the SC ruling. This section of the ruling is imo in legal terms "perverse" and totally contradicts the rest of the ruling. How the Supreme Court didn't see this is absolutely beyond me.
Nonetheless I berated you for saying this and wouldn't stop banging on about being right when I wasn't . Now thoroughly ashamed. Will try to do better.

Women have been accepting of butch, androgynous, tall, wide, muscular, short-haired, trouser and biker boot wearing (insert gender non-conforming adjective here) women (inc lesbians) in our sex specific services and facilities since forever. We don’t have an issue. We’re also used to seeing other ordinary women every day who happily present in all manner of ways, pronoun or identity in tow. It’s fine. We know we’re still women.

This seems to come as a shock to some men. Of course it tends to be men who most strictly police gender stereotypes and get all antsy and weird when other men don’t conform. Maybe men need to catch up and start accepting the full range of fabulousness that is the male sex, and welcome them in their own facilities?

Women of course don’t pose a risk to men’s safety, sports, social or financial status or representation in society. So on that basis the main factors to consider for where women who identify as trans go, is their own safety and causing the least amount of fuss.

I'm not hand wringing. Merely pointing out that a group of women may be negatively impacted unless the guidance is very clear as to their position. They are women and therefore 'persons of interest' to feminism, regardless of whether one agrees with their choices or who they have chosen to ally with. I hope that when the guidance is provided in full there is more clarity about when women may be excluded from women's facilities, a subjective assessment of their appearance to check whether in the eyes of the beholder they are not too masculine obviously won't do. I'd also hope to see clarity about what provision is required, and for that provision to be a third space not just "Oh they just use the mens then".

I suspect that this issue will just not arise in reality, and that trans men are far more capable of judging whether they actually pass than trans women.

Apart from anything else, some trans women may have been persuaded up until now that they pass simply because people were too afraid to challenge them, whereas the same won't be true for trans men.

I think the guidance is clear that people cannot be excluded from facilities or services for their own sex unless alternative provisions are made. Not to do so would be direct discrimination due to gender reassignment status.

I don't think it is perverse, it follows the same logic which says that a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate can be excluded just as easily as a trans woman without one, because the fact that they have a certificate cannot make any difference to how their presence in that space is perceived by women. The women's perception counts for more than the individual characteristics of any individual trans person.

Bear in mind that the court's role is to determine what the law is, not what it should be. Sometimes a judgment does expose certain oddities or loopholes or unfair consequences. In general they will try to find a justifiable interpretation of the law which resolves that issue, but sometimes they cannot.

It's essentially the same logic that says you cannot distinguish between trans women who have had genital surgery and those who have not. Even if there were some way of checking, which there isn't, the impact of a post op trans woman in a female only space is the same as the impact of a trans woman who has not had surgery.

In reality I think that these passing trans men are already choosing not to use either men's or women's toilets, and if this judgment results in there being more unisex and single occupation toilet provision available, it will benefit them in the long run.

This is taken from an article in the Spectator written by Deborah Hayton, a trans woman “In 2018, the BBC Reality Check team found that 48 per cent of transgender offenders were serving time for a sexual offence.”

It isn’t all trans women, just as it isn’t all men, but the potential is there which is why men aren’t allowed in women’s single sex spaces. I also feel the debate over the years has become so heated the threat to women has increased. A trans woman I know posted on Instagram following the Supreme Court ruling threatening violence to any woman who tried to stop them using women’s toilets.

Responding to women’s need for single sex spaces by threatening violence reinforces why we need those spaces.

What really irks me is the misogyny of it all. We only hear about trans women’s rights because men are used to being entitled and can’t fathom why they wouldn’t get what they want. Whilst proclaiming to be women the section of the transwomen community protesting about this are demonstrating hard worn male entitlement.

Create safe spaces for transwomen, just don’t trample over our rights.

I think the ruling that states transmen can be excluded if they are so convincingly men they are likely to be indistinguishable, is a clever and necessary workaround. It means that women, businesses and services can ask any man to leave, without getting into legal trouble or being challenged to prove things. It gets around the whole ‘genital inspection’ brigade.

IMO, that's exactly what it means.

Its really not a problem, i was being a bit lazy not finding the relevant info and I have not read the ruling, I was just cheating and using someone elses hard work

💐

The ruling is there in recognition of the inherent fear in women. I stated earlier that growing up I was aware that I was prey and acted to avoid harassment and attack as women are still advised to do nowadays; don’t walk home alone, stay with your friends, ask for Ani at a chemist and Angela at the bar etc.

We shouldn’t have our fear drive triggered in private spaces. Women understand this.

Yes, I did think of that. I find the whole thing unnatural, perverse and deeply sad. But on balance, they are still women and if TW should use the mens facilities then the opposite should apply. I am not saying there won’t be some problems.

@PowerTulleyes correct they can be excluded. Which is what a few of us have been trying to tell @Naepalz for several pages 🤣 but nonetheless gracious in defeat.

I see what you are saying but where I feel it is perverse is that the interpretations have been apart from that, all biology based and then suddenly biology doesn't matter in the case of clause 221.

This is what I thought until I discovered I was wrong. Clause 221 of The SC ruling says basically that trans men may also be excluded from women only spaces if their appearance is sufficiently masculine as to disturb women or make them fearful.
Since trans men are also not supposed to use men's spaces that leaves them somewhat cast out from all possibilities, which personally I think is wrong and discriminatory.
I welcome the rest of the SC ruling as it rights a lot of wrongs but I don't think this part, discriminating against male identifying biological women is fair. There is no reciprocal section that affects trans women in this way.

But on balance, they are still women and if TW should use the mens facilities then the opposite should apply. I am not saying there won’t be some problems

I disagree. The balance of risk is not evenly distributed between the sexes. Women do not pose a risk to men’s safety, social or economic status, representation in society or fair sports. The risk to men barely moves the dial if a woman enters men’s spaces. The opposite scenario is totally different and puts women in harms way, plus taking resources and space in the world that is already massively unequal for women.

That’s fair enough. I would concur with that if it is a changing room where clothes come off.

Otherwise, not sure how it’s policed or judged, you’d need a complaint because technically that beardy woman would be allowed to be there. We should possibly accept that the circus bearded lady has made a comeback and ignore.

As I don't have a problem with trans women using ladies' toilets, I think trans men should be able to use men's toilets. I wonder in any of the (majority) transphobic responses on here are from women who know a trans person? Most trans men I know of look masculine. I don't think they would be comfortable using the women's loos. I don't think women would want someone who looks like a man in that space. If it's deemed they cannot use either the men's or women's facilities, what the hell are they supposed to do?
But hey, it's mumsnet. Home of transphobia.

Worse the ruling doesn't give any detail as to who is to be the judge of how masculine a trans man needs to look before they would be disallowed from any given women's only space.
However as another poster has pointed out, the trans men who fall into this category may well be thrilled that they make such convincing men and use the men's facilities regardless thinking they'll pass unnoticed. BUT I think as many of us are already aware, trans people can be terrible judges of how well they "pass" meaning trans men who think they are convincingly manly may come a cropper using mens facilities, while being barred from using women's. This is a sub optimal position to say the least.
There is also the problem of detransitioning trans men. A lot of the effects of the hormone treatments can't easily/really be undone, leaving them also at risk of being denied the use of women's facilities.
This ruling was meant to provide clarity but bits of it are opening up a whole new can if worms.

I know and I agree with the sentiment. I just think that if you make exceptions then the other ‘side’ will say not fair what about our exceptions. If the basic truth is bio spaces, then TM will by default have to be included in womens spaces. Sticking to the facts is the most powerful stance. The only glaringly obvious one is. TM with tackle in eg. a swimming changing room. Use the cubicle and that should be mandatory.

On another note, I think if you welcome these women back, it may or may not halt the mystique of their
change, because it’s not accepted as anything other than a cosmetic change.

Transmen can be barred from female spaces but that doesn't mean that they are entitled to use male single sex spaces.

I would hope that the exclusion of transmen from female spaces will be very limited eg rape counselling groups.

This is the problem I was highlighting. They can't be barred from everywhere!!
Who knows how many places this will apply to, hopefully as you say, very few.
If I were a very masculine looking transman I might be trying my luck in men only spaces regardless, rather than risking the ignominy of being turfed out of a female space.
Also I don't agree with a trans man, regardless of their appearance being excluded from a women's sexual abuse survivors group. What if they were sexually abused while living as a woman. This may even have been what led them to becoming trans. This was the case for a friend's DD.

I agree they can't be barred from everywhere and I think it could be direct discrimination on the basis of GR to bar transmen from a female facility without providing a suitable alternative

I don't think para 221 of the judgment is wrong - it sounds quite sensible to me

" 221. There is nothing in the wording of this provision to indicate that paragraph 28 was directed specifically at those holding a GRC, nor is there any basis for concluding that this is its likely context as the Inner House suggested at para 56. (The example given in the explanatory notes at para 740 also does not distinguish between transexual people with a GRC and those without: “A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to- female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful”).

We can see nothing to support the Inner House’s conclusion that “the importance of this paragraph is that it provides the only basis upon which a person might be permitted to exclude a person with a GRC from services which are provided for their acquired sex”.

Nor is the EHRC correct to assert that paragraph 28 is redundant on a biological interpretation of sex. On the contrary, if sex means biological sex, then provided it is proportionate, the female only nature of the service would engage paragraph 27 and would permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status.

Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination. This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women-only service being provided. Their exclusion would amount to unlawful gender reassignment discrimination not sex discrimination absent this exception."