How can we work towards a constructive debate about all things transgender?

[TruthIsNotHate]

It's absolutely needed, but I just can't see how we can get to a position where it's possible.

YY therealposieparker

I have spoken about my reasons for hating shared toilets, etc, with men on other threads, etc - but I don't think getting down to the details of mine, or lots of different opinions and comfort-levels for boundaries in each micro-situation, will be very fruitful.

There are many reasons people (including me) feel uncomfortable about them, and there are some people who don't mind, or some who mind in one situation or not the other.

Isn't the pressing issue whether we have a right to sex segregation in any situation at all?

Cornflake girl.

Sexual assault has never been higher, or more widely reported. Why would we now want to give up our safe spaces?

cornflakegirl I'd say the main point about toilets is that biologically we don't use them in the same way. We don't wee in the same position and men don't need sanitary products/bins.

I think we need segregation in any area that biology makes a difference (health, sports) or makes people vunerable (mental health care, rape crisis, prisons).

I think we need segregation in any area that biology makes a difference

But I would go further than that. I think single-sex education and Girl Guides, etc should be legally possible.

Terry thanks for your kind comment at 15:47

Also toilets are not just for adults, my daughter would also go in them. Should I tell her men in toilets pose no risk?

Goldenbug wrote - "And Trans Identifying Male (TIM) makes no sense at all. To say that they identify as trans? They don't! Whether right or wrong they identify as women"

I accept that it is not an accurate term.

I think that alternatives such as ""female identifying male" or "woman identifying male" are at risk of being misunderstood as referring to a female who believes she is a boy or man, when the intended meaning is actually a male who believes he is a girl or woman.

I think the search for a better term would not be easy, bearing in mind that many people already misunderstand the word "transwoman", mistakenly assuming this refers to a female person who believes she is a man. (Of course, militant transactivists will only accept girl or woman).

Trans identifed male also refers to gender fluid and non-binary as a collective term.

Also people like Travis of top shop notoriety. Who claims he is a trans femme, not a woman.

In terms of segregation and not appropriating the word woman, it doesn't matter how a man identifies, or what he calls himself.

Trans also means transvestite.

'Transgender' doesn't necessarily mean identifying as a male or a female.

The safety of boys in mens toilets is a valid one, but as pp says, different discussion. It's not a reason to abandon sex segregated toilets.

Women in other countries are fighting for their right to have sex segregated toilets, and are unable to access toilets in public spaces because they are unsafe. We are not short of sex offending males in this society, one was just arrested in my local McDs for hiding in the women's toilets and peeking over and under at women and girls using the next cubicle. A 'very distressed' teenaged girl (police wording) was the one who went into the shop and raised the alarm. Under self ID the guy will have every right to be in there, and it will be very difficult to prove malicious intent. (Oh I just was looking for my contact lense officer - Oh I thought I heard her in trouble and was looking to see if she wanted help). Sex offenders will joyfully welcome self ID as legalising using women and girls as props in their sex life in public. The message the general public will hear is 'don't look, don't say anything, it's transphobic'. In practice, women and girls will stop using those spaces.

Bear in mind too that when a woman is raped (and if it gets to court, only a tiny proportion do even with plenty of evidence) she will be held accountable for any possible thing she may have done that puts the responsibility on her for a man using her body. What was she wearing, what time of day was it, where was she and can it in any way suggest she knew what she was getting into. It doesn't take a genius to foresee that sooner or later a woman will hear in court 'you know that men go into women's toilets - why did you go alone/use that one/ not be more careful'?

Why put women and girls in that position? It doesn't matter if I'm comfortable with having a miscarriage/washing hands covered in period blood/ having a poo/ getting naked or showering next to a male bodied stranger. some women aren't . Some women will have to stop using public facilities if this goes through, and it will be vulnerable women. I'm not ok with colluding in removing their freedom and liberties. In matters of consent, no always trumps yes.

This was an interesting thread from a little while ago which seems to cover many of the points brought up on this one:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3034143-It-was-the-Gender-Recognition-Act-that-messed-everything-up?pg=1

Jelly - I just read the thread - much shorter than expected. But yes! very pertinent. I think we are onto something.

IMO trans-identified male or man (TIM) works best for several reasons:

1. It does not cede the word 'woman' (which is the crux of this whole debate).

1. As Datun says, it covers the whole spectrum of men under the trans umbrella, from transsexuals to transvestites to 'non-binary' dudes.

1. A big strength of the term (which relates to 2) is that it emphasises that trans status no longer has any objective criteria - it is solely about how a person 'identifies'. Under current trans ideology, the only thing that differentiates any man from a 'transwoman' is that individual's self-declared identity.

This last one is a really important point to get across, because most people don't realise this - they hear 'transwoman' and think 'transsexual'. And when they think 'transsexual', they think, 'vulnerable, castrated male' - why do those bitchy women want to exclude them? How could they possibly pose any threat to women? And don't these harpies know it's women's job to take care of vulnerable men?

I've just reacquainted myself with that thread too.

Something that struck me. The diagnosis of gender dysphoria necessary to gain a GRC.

I have no doubt that AGP individuals will, and do, deceive therapists into thinking they have gender dysphoria.

In order to qualify for treatment, and a GRC.

But, as far as I know, to date, relatively few GRCs have actually been given out. A total of 4000 until June 2015. Which isn't that many, given the estimate of 650,000 transpeople.

So I am wondering if therapists are completely wised up to fetishists trying to game the system.

So they either refuse the certificate, or the fetishists just just don't bother trying to go through the whole charade.

I knew that keeping the criteria would be a form of gatekeeping, but I'm wondering if it is far more effective than I had originally supposed.

Which would be a very good reason for keeping the law as it is.

Strengthen the exemptions under the equality act. And at the same time, making a publicised distinction between what the equality act allows and what the GRC allows.

The question isn’t, What is a woman? Because that’s not up for debate — everyone really does know the answer. A woman is the one who gets pregnant, and a man is the one who impregnates. Arguing hypothetical “what if’s” about infertility, menopause, or genetic disorders is just sophistry.

God, it is so much sophistry, Materialist. It is incredibly frustrating to see TRAs and allies goad women into tortuous debates using post-menopausal or infertile women or intersex people as a crutch. The bad faith and gaslighting they engage in is just surreal: they pretend that no one can tell who is male or female without a chromosome test (saw Stella Creasy do this on Twitter recently!), say that male and female are social constructs that don't exist anyway because sex is a spectrum because intersex, are you saying women who've had hysterectomies aren't women, and so on.

Every single one of these fuckers knows what a woman is because they fucking came out of one. None of the woke men who piously lecture women about how female is a social construct has ever woken up from a one-night stand wondering if there's a chance he might be pregnant because 'sex is a spectrum' and he's never had his chromosomes tested.

So tired of this bad-faith bullshit - you're right, we should treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Strengthen the exemptions under the equality act. And at the same time, making a publicised distinction between what the equality act allows and what the GRC allows.

I don't agree with a 'Gender Recognition Certificate' - it is confusing and enshrines 'gender' as a thing, that someone is and which can be recognised.

All bollocks.

It should be called a 'Sex Dysphoria Certificate' - in order that it does not over-reach what is real and true. A mental health problem regarding one's self-perception of sex.

I agree that there should be distinctions about what it allows, but I think it should never include being classed or treated as the opposite sex, in particular where sex segregation is stated.

Which I think is what you mean by 'strengthen the exemptions'...

If that's not what you mean, it is what I want.

People need to be made to visualize what they’d rather escape visualising.

This is really important. A core part of the TRA agenda involves disappearing the reality of the sexed body from discourse. All their language is designed to achieve this, hence terms like 'bottom surgery' and 'top surgery' - which stop people from visualising what is actually being done to the genitals or breasts, and even suggest these parts of the body are so taboo they cannot even be pointed to (beyond a vague designation of the half of the body they reside in), let alone named.

That's also why, as pp have mentioned, sport is often the thing that peak transes people - because you can't ignore the reality of the body in sport. Speaking of Fallon Fox and Tamika Brents, this was the thing that made my DP finally 'get it'. I'd been ranting to him about trans issues for a while, and although he agreed with my position (that of course people can't change sex), he still thought I was making a big deal out of a minor issue. I showed him the Fox-Brents match and he was horrified - he made me turn it off. He was like, 'How can this be allowed'? Now the TRA agenda makes him legitimately angry.

I don't agree with a 'Gender Recognition Certificate' - it is confusing and enshrines 'gender' as a thing, that someone is and which can be recognised.

Agreed. It's unlikely that feminists will persuade the UK government to get rid of GRCs, especially since the legal fiction of 'changing sex' exists in most Western countries, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose them. By articulating our stance on sex and gender, and why 'gender' should not be enshrined in law, we move the Overton Window, advance the feminist analysis of 'gender' (sex roles), and put forth an alternative vision for society.

Regarding protections for trans-identified people, I would like to see a strengthening of sex discrimination laws so that they cover sex-role presentation (at the moment they really don't). Anyone who deviates from expected sex-role presentation would have their rights in employment, housing etc. protected, whether they identify as trans or not.

I would like to see a strengthening of sex discrimination laws so that they cover sex-role presentation (at the moment they really don't). Anyone who deviates from expected sex-role presentation would have their rights in employment, housing etc. protected, whether they identify as trans or not.

I suppose this would be a way to protect gender non-conforming people and to reintroduce the term 'sex role'.

we move the Overton Window, advance the feminist analysis of 'gender' (sex roles), and put forth an alternative vision for society.

Currently a vocal TIM ally has said they want to 'abolish' gender. Maybe taking a stance on their own GRC - they could help move that window?

I don't know about any certificates at all. Wouldn't it be simpler to outlaw all discriminatory gender practices (such as telling people whether they can wear a skirt to school or not) whilst retaining sex-based protections?

I agree with this.

Apparently the only reason for GRCs in the first place was so transsexual people could marry someone of the same sex. Now that we have equal marriage, surely GRCs are worthless, as their original aim is not needed?

My (somewhat incoherent) thoughts:

We can't debate the TRAs, it's like arguing about a religion.
Negative campaigning (eg no TIMs on AWS) is not a very good look

IMO
We do need to keep defining women as a protected groups by sex
Remind people that women are a protected group because of discrimination due to biology
Never ever use the word gender only use the word sex
Campaign for the sex based exemptions in the EA to be beefed up
Campaign for gender something to be a protected characteristic eg no boys /girls uniforms, women can wear trousers and flat shoes / men can wear dresses heels etc

That way the only thing the TRAs can campaign is is that they want to be seen as actual women, which is obviously ridiculous. They would have all of the same!e rights as every one else, specifically laid out in law, they just couldn't lay claim to "woman"

Oh, and repeal the GRA.

Apparently the only reason for GRCs in the first place was so transsexual people could marry someone of the same sex. Now that we have equal marriage, surely GRCs are worthless, as their original aim is not needed?

I definitely think this is a fair point and a way forward.

But I am aware that TIMs who have gone through the effort to get a GRC and feel it is important they are recognised as being dysphoric and different from non-binaries, etc, would feel a bit lost at sea because they would not be understood as having a powerful sense of being the opposite sex, and be seen as just 'expressing' something.

However, I feel that I would like input from gender-critical, dysphoric TIMs on what would be necessary/useful - because I am just guessing.

Excellent suggestions, ItsAll.

Especially this one:

Never ever use the word gender only use the word sex