Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

580 replies

Akiddleydiveytoo · 23/04/2025 14:46

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
20
Naepalz · 27/04/2025 16:56

Xenia · 27/04/2025 16:14

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."

So trans men are to be excluded from men's spaces on the grounds of sex/biology but also women's spaces if they look too masculine. Where does that leave them to go if there is no gender neutral space? Struggling to see how this can be viewed as "sensible".

maddening · 27/04/2025 17:02

Yabu op for trying to assert that transmen habe not been mentioned - it is the only ridiculous argument that the TRAs have been making since the ruling.

spannasaurus · 27/04/2025 17:12

Naepalz · 27/04/2025 16:56

So trans men are to be excluded from men's spaces on the grounds of sex/biology but also women's spaces if they look too masculine. Where does that leave them to go if there is no gender neutral space? Struggling to see how this can be viewed as "sensible".

Edited

If there are no alternative provisions available then providers would not be able to exclude transmen from female spaces

Naepalz · 27/04/2025 17:26

spannasaurus · 27/04/2025 17:12

If there are no alternative provisions available then providers would not be able to exclude transmen from female spaces

I hope that this would be the reality.

spannasaurus · 27/04/2025 17:28

Naepalz · 27/04/2025 17:26

I hope that this would be the reality.

If it isn't then people are going to have to take legal action to enforce it

New posts on this thread. Refresh page