@ElephantOfRisk
It has and i'm sure everything has been discussed to n'th degree but the thing that always puzzles me is that I truly appreciate that trans people feel as under threat from men as women do, but this would mean that the people they also consider a threat have access to the spaces that they want access to for their own safety. Do they think that it's up to women to protect them? Honestly, prior to all this if a transwoman entered a female toilet and went about their business in normal fashion, I wouldn't bat an eyelid. It seems to have made an issue that possibly wouldn't have existed or have been dealt with on an individual basis for that particular part. Appreciate that there are many more strands to this.
Exactly. To some extent I think the GRA is a bit of a red herring... As I understand, not all (even not the majority) of trans people ever get a GRC and nowhere asks for a GRC routinely (I assume they aren't even allowed to) - its only relevant for eg getting married or getting buried as your acquired gender. The Equality Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment (which is so wooly as to have required no previous action at all other than "being on the journey of altering your gender") so "self ID" is basically already in place for eg toilets, changing rooms, same sex services, changing documentation etc. And trans-people have been using these facilities and services as they want and are entitled. Indeed, in order to apply for a GRC at the moment, they have to prove "having lived as their acquired gender" (whatever t f that means) for a certain time, so would have to have been using those facilities during that time. I know there are exemptions in the Equality Act where single sex spaces can be kept - whether or not a trans person has a GRC - and it seems to be
these that are at risk at the moment, from what I understand. Though that seems to be not through self ID itself, but rather changing the language so that "woman only service" no longer means what we all know it should mean, but includes anyone who is claiming the protected characteristic of gender reassignment too!
I accept totally that it wouldn't be safe or dignified for a trans woman to use male facilities or vice versa - much though it should be perfectly acceptable for anyone to "present" however they want, and in any case, we shouldn't be imposing the stereotype that men shouldn't wear makeup, dresses etc and women should look a certain way. But we are where we are, so it's reasonable to accept that TW need segregation from other, potentially violent males, just as much as women do. And personally, there are many occasions when I don't actually care (or know) if someone in the cubicle next to me is a man or a woman - though obviously not everyone feels the same way, and they are entitled to that. Sometimes I think it depends on the behaviour exhibited. A TW changing quietly in a communal women's changing room - fine. A TW prancing around showing everyone their bits - not so much. But I'd feel the same if it was a woman too, and I think either should be able to be stopped on grounds of indecent exposure or something without hiding behind "but I'm a woman - I'm just getting changed" . And sometimes I think there really should be a blanket ban - just because of the vulnerability of the women/ girls involved - like crisis centres/ refuges and so on. I think most genuine trans people would likely agree that they don't want to make anyone feel unsafe or uncomfortable!
But I don't know how those women's spaces can be kept for those who need them to be single sex (justifiably), without harming (genuine) trans people who are also vulnerable - so I end up tying myself in knots. I just can't understand how that undoubted conflict of rights can just be brushed away by "no women's rights will be harmed by the making of this policy" or "we aren't going to debate this because all the other side are bigots/violent". It is a reasonable question, as many people recognise. Whatever solution is offered may not please everyone, and there may well be some conflict and some compromise, but the answer can't be a foregone conclusion of "oh, just let the women budge up and be kind" or "well, we'll change the definition of women to include men, and men to include women, and take away all reference to any biological function or physical feature that only one of those groups have, because that might offend someone". Because that's just bananas.