'Passing' trans

[SavetheVees]

Namechanged due to ~controversy~

I understand the anti self-ID issue. However, what I don't understand is how single-sex spaces can be policed by appearances alone? I have seen many threads where people speak about 'male bodies' - which is clear in the case of trans people who haven't actually made any effort to transition (incredibly rare in my experience - of course there are high profile examples)

This just really confuses me because I know quite a few trans people, including being a vague acquaintance to Tara Wood (I don't condone her actions so lets not go there), and in many cases, especially where hormones and surgery are involved, it is not really possible to tell they are trans. I first met Tara before she 'came out' as trans and the first time I saw her after the transition, I failed to realise it was the same person I had met before, and thought she was absolutely stunning. I was actually a bit envious of how effortlessly feminine she looked. I also know 'butch' presenting women, who despite being biologically female, are not feminine in the stereotypical-appearance way, and are often mistaken as men. I ALSO know women who have PCOS etc etc and have facial hair, who would be mortified to be accused of being biologically male when accessing single-sex spaces, even though they have a characteristic perceived to be 'male'.

So how would this be managed and policed? If you saw someone you knew to be trans accessing a women's changing room, despite them 'passing' as female visually - would you challenge them? What if someone was truly androgynous - would you challenge them? Would you expect someone else to? Surely there is no way on earth that we should be mandated to carry ID cards with details of our genitalia printed on them, or even worse expected to flash our privates at a changing room attendant in order to gain entry?! These sound far, far more intrusive and offensive to me than having a wee in a cubicle next to someone with a penis.

just to reiterate - I completely understand the ideological values of single sex spaces etc and protecting women from violent and voyeuristic men, however I struggle to understand how these spaces can be policed to avoid "be-penised" bodies without 1) being ineffective and 2) not offending biological vagina-owners who do not fit feminine stereotypes as effectively as trans folk do

You have a point. That's not what I came here to do.

MadBadDaddy The bra fitter thing isn't really affected by self ID. The issue with the bra fitter is that customers can be given a trans bra fitter without being warned that they are trans and then the onus on them is to object if they suspect that they are trans and feel uncomfortable (although the store won't be able to confirm whether their suspicisions are correct in order to protect the bra fitter's privacy). At best, for those who are uncomfortable with a trans bra fitter, it's a waste of everyone's time. At worst, customers might feel pressured into doing something that will cross their boundaries, even though they technically have the right to walk away. Female socialisation is very powerful and women are taught from birth not to make a fuss or hurt anyone's feelings, so I do think it's very possible that a woman might feel she just has to shut up and go ahead with the appointment even if it's not what she wanted. Similar issues arise where eg transwomen are employed to carry out smear tests - www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-shocked-transgender-nhs-nurse-11776953.amp
Police involvement won't come into it (unless the customer yells something offensive at the bra fitter etc)

The main argument against self ID is that it erodes single sex spaces to the point of making them meaningless. Denmark has already introduced same sex laws, and there is an artist called Ibi-Pippi Orup Hedegaard who has legally changed their sex to female by filling out a form whilst making precisely zero other changes to their lifestyle or appearance/anatomy.
reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/35dm73/meet_ibipippi_the_lesbian_trapped_in_the_body_of/
They are regularly allowed into women's communal changing rooms at gyms and swimming pools, and sue when they are refused. Arguably, they are doing this to be provocative and highlight the stupidity of the law, but it doesn't change the fact that they are using women's spaces. The law is weak and if they can do it then do can any man who has voyeuristic tendencies or other bad motives. Under the current British law, if you see someone in a female changing area who looks like they don't belong there you could challenge them/get security etc., but with self ID they could easily have a legal right to be there.

There are other consequences of self ID but the above is my main concern.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the Government's latest proposals were to scrap the limited exemptions in the Equality Act at the same time as bringing in self ID. This would mean that eg rape/domestic violence refuges are forced to accept transwomen (and anyone pretending to be trans) as both employees and users of their services. This is particularly concerning after what happened in Canada:
www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault
So this is technically a separate issue from self ID but has been tied up together with it because of the Government's plans.

So in a nutshell, the self ID issue isn't really a problem with genuine trans people, but self ID means that anyone can easily legally change their sex as there is no gatekeeping process in place. It risks making single sex spaces a joke.

Sorry stupid typo! *Denmark has already introduced self ID laws

@ZeroFoxGiven very clearly put.

I say Ruth from Stonewall and Owen Jones interview last night. Smug city. And on Twitter saw Ruth was open to debate. Wonder if she could answer those concerns!

I saw (watched) I mean...

I have a friend who wants to be a trans woman and appear more feminine any advice

I have a friend who wants to be a trans woman and appear more feminine any advice

You might want to ask this on the Style & Beauty board.

@ZeroFoxGiven Thanks. I don't get why the concerns you list aren't blindingly obvious to anyone. That the "phantom bra fitter of M&S" seems not to even exist (apparently, going by the later comments) doesn't change a thing. If you put a foot over the line of a safe space, it ceases to be safe.

I don't get why the concerns you list aren't blindingly obvious to anyone.

Yes, that's it in a nutshell. I don't either.

My only criticism of Mumsnet so far is that there isn't a [facepalm] or [bangs head on wall] emoji.

This is probably one of the better threads I've read which discusses the actual outcomes of sex essentialism and what this would look like, as well as the problems of lesbophobia, and "misgendering" of butch presenting lesbian women.

Out of interest, I was in the loos with a prominent essentialist lesbian activist, who was angrily complaining about such things at an LGBT event that I went to. I could really empathise, knowing the problems that gender/sex policing can cause, so I empathised with her and it was only later that I discovered her disparaging views about trans people. And also I understand the worries that butch lesbian women have about people going along with transition rather than living as a gnc woman, which is what they are. However, that perspective isn't informed by trans men's emancipation. To me, there is room for both!

I can also really relate to having a very well tuned threat detector, having lived as a GNC male/male presenting for part of my life and having experienced varying degrees and all different colours of male violence. It really resonates with me. Transitioning bought me safety, as well as feeling comfortable in my own skin.

Because of this, I'm really really sensitive to people who might be upset by my physical appearance - although when I needed help, there just aren't any spaces where people who are tuned like me actually belong. My man-dar triggers me, and I constantly have to self-reassure that I'm actually safe. But also I'm distressed by upsetting people because of how I look (although I'm a lot more body positive thanks to finding partners who are actually ok with me).

But what I'm also sensitive to is violence and unpredictability from either sex, so I've felt unsafe with people rather than the actual sex, although it's much more often that men or male-assigned people overstep their boundaries so I understand the generalisations that people make.

As far as loosing the right to challenge goes, regardless of changes to the GRA - that right will still exist. The argument comes down more to whether someone "feels" that they are less able to challenge people who behave in an intimidating way. But even with changes to the GRA everyone still retains the right to challenge.

If people act in a predatory manner or in an intimidating manner, your legal sex will not really form any part of your defence. A plea of “your honour, I’m allowed to perv on the ladies in the ladies because I’ve got a female birth certificate” doesn't follow.

However, there still exists the distress of being forced to share spaces with people who trigger you and for that reason I'm very much against the proposed changes to the GRA. It would make my life difficult too.

The loos in my local pub have gender neutral toilets and the problem I have with them is that they aren't made from scratch - I.E, there are shared basins and cubicles and men in there freak me out. I can't brush my hair, wash my hands and male gaze/presence/risk, so I feel really threatened and get out asap. If the loos have their own sink and open onto the main space - like in cafe's, its MUCH safer.

In the same way a trans loo would petrify me unless it was built in the same way with a sink/mirror etc and opening on to a public space.

As far as other spaces go, prison wouldn't bother me personally because I'm very law abiding! But I am worried that male prisoners might self declare for nefarious intent. There needs to be somewhere else for them but also with keeping women safe. I've read that often people are put in forced solitary confinement, which is unfair too.

For me, it's this comment from @Teacuphiccup which summarises the problem:

The issue with self id is that it creates a culture where women are no longer able to challenge any Male in women’s spaces in fear of being transphobic as they could potentially id as female. It’s a cultural shift as much as a legal one.

So if you specifically wanted a female HCP, and were allocated a transwoman, the implications of the proposed changes to the GRA would mean that you could no longer set aside the Equalities Act legislation in the case of women-only spaces/services/service providers etc.

For example, All Woman Shortlists, under current Equalities legislation, could legally limit applicants to women only, and even exclude transwomen with a GRC, who are legally women. There would be good reason to do so if the Labour Party wished to make a case. but the Labour Party & the trades union movement are historically deeply anti-woman and anti-feminist so they never will

However, as I understand it, under proposed changes to the GRA, this ability to insist on women-only spaces/services etc - ensured by the Equalities Act - will either disappear, or be in conflict with the proposed new GRA.

although it's much more often that men or male-assigned people overstep their boundaries so I understand the generalisations that people make

Yes, totally agree - the problem is usually always male violence & gendered stererotypes of masculinity.

But women are being expected to solve the problem, or accommodate the fall out from such toxic masculinities. And in the course of us having to clean up men's mess, women's rights are being compromised, and discarded.

@TheRagingGirl, I'm not sure it follows that transwomen will all fill non trans people's spaces because the evidence shows that they are much more likely to be unemployed and suffer discrimination and ostracism than non trans women.

@TheRagingGirl, yes there needs to be consultation and discussion. I can see how it has happened that people are being accused of being TERFS because the root of sex essentialism was from a position of transphobia. But there are real concerns from people who don't actually share this ideology and this needs to be addressed sensitively for everyone.

If people act in a predatory manner or in an intimidating manner, your legal sex will not really form any part of your defence. A plea of “your honour, I’m allowed to perv on the ladies in the ladies because I’ve got a female birth certificate” doesn't follow.

That's basically an extension of the same argument American gun enthusiasts use to oppose changes to gun laws.

Laws and sex-based protections exist because of known risk. To dilute protections offered by sex-segregated spaces, we would need evidence that risk is reduced due to transition. Until then - and evidence so far tends to show no risk reduction at all - there is no adequate reason for women to assent to giving up these spaces.

Additionally, we are already seeing "stress of transition" and "distress over identity" being used as defences and mitigating factors in court.

I think you are being breezy over this.

because the root of sex essentialism was from a position of transphobia

At the risk of sounding rude @sapphireflower my primary concern (and that of most of the gender-critical feminists I know) is for women, not transwomen.

While I think that transwomen - like all people - should be treated with respect, and have freedom from discrimination, in order to be free to live their lives as they please (within the law), I'm actually not particularly concerned about transwomen.

I am concerned about women, and the centuries of oppression & inequality we have experienced due to our biological role in reproduction, and all that goes with that.

That is NOT a transphobic position. It is a trans woman-excluding position, because many of the adjustments and accommodations made for women over the years are made in the knowledge of a) attempts to rectify and even out the long history of unequal treatment; and b) attempts to mitigate the effects of socialisation & conditioning as female, into femininity.

So all-woman shortlists, or book prizes for women writers, or all-girls' schools, or dedicated scholarships & bursaries for women to study engineering, and the many more things that are trying to readjust the centuries of bias, discrimination, maltreatment (to death), misdiagnosis of women - all the things women suffer because in a patriarchy we are generally defined as "non-men" - these should not be available to transwomen, because they have been socialised into masculinity.

Yes, transwomen clearly suffer under masculinity. Clearly as a group and as individuals, they probably (and understandably) do not see themselves as privileged or entitled as biological males.

But they are.

And this is the thing many of the "new" style transwomen (and certainly transactivists) do not get. They don't get it because they are born male, and are privileged by that, nit by any action they individually undertake.

That feminine men are not safe as men is NOT women's problem to solve - men need to sort it out themselves. And stop requiring that feminists centre feminism on the needs of men.

@langcleg

Sorry it's difficult to talk about everything without becoming TL:DR.

I'm not quite following about the gun issue. I'm with you about the known risk, and I think it's a bit more complex than "all males".

Firstly I think that the issues about feeling safe are very real for survivors. It's very difficult to make progress without this and this is why I think individual spaces for trans people is a good idea. I've also been aware that lesbians may have very individual needs in this respect too, I got the feeling that things were very straight centric.

When talking about risk and trans people, it's difficult because trans is such a big umbrella term. For people who have no testosterone, being either physically / chemically castrated then I would argue that the risk is much lower, and lower still for people who have had lower surgery.

There is strong evidence for chemical castration for sex offenders and statistics. This is for people who are literally the highest risk to people and society. I'm very cautious about comparing transwomen to sex offenders, but this clearly demonstrates a point.

(content discusses CSA/paedophilia)
www.medicaldaily.com/chemical-castration-sex-offenders-386339

I totally share women's concerns about spaces for people who don't take blockers or have surgery and this is exactly why there needs to be discussions like this.

As far as loosing the right to challenge goes, regardless of changes to the GRA - that right will still exist. The argument comes down more to whether someone "feels" that they are less able to challenge people who behave in an intimidating way. But even with changes to the GRA everyone still retains the right to challenge.

the difference between having the right to challenge and actually being able to challenge is huge. the public is pretty under informed about the different ways in which people react to perceived danger. the freeze response to danger can look like acquiescence when actually a person demonstrating it is no less terrified than one who fights or flees. this and the aforementioned female social conditioning can make it very very difficult for women to extract themselves from situations where their boundaries are being crossed.

@TheRagingGirl

I'm totally ok with your position wrt to women and girls, and the sex-essentialist position, which is why I modify my language so as not to cause offence.

Transwomen have also suffered centuries of oppression, and I understand that it is biology that has been the root cause of this - for both women and transwomen. (I'm only referring to transwomen with lifelong dysphoria, who rail against their biology, and not the current definition of "transgender" - which is basically selfID)

In terms of shortlists etc. Would you prefer that transwomen have equality by having their own bursaries, scholarships etc, in the interest of equality?

Transwomen see themselves as transwomen, it's a discord between body and identity, and we're born with it. We've existed in every country, every society and each have their separate ways or excluding or encompassing.

I'm ok with you saying "not my problem", that's fine, but there is feminist discourse that concerns and aligns itself with all kinds of oppression and all kinds of people.

Also I'm hearing that there needs to be more discourse between sex essentialists and trans people, which is partly why I'm here :)

If I were to say "not my problem" to the issues faced by women and girls, how would you feel about that?

@Changeypants,

Yes I'm very much aware of that and I share the same concerns.

If I were to say "not my problem" to the issues faced by women and girls, how would you feel about that?

Weeeeell, it would depend on what specific issues we are discussing, I think.

Mostly, I would applaud any activism by transwomen who set out to work with feminists to challenge male & masculine stereotypes: for example, if transwomen focused their energies & anger (maybe that's transactivists I mean there) on making male spaces safe for 'feminine men.' Which I suspect might make those men suffering from bodily dysphoria safer and more comfortable and make their lives easier. Or working to set up services for transwomen, which do not take away scarce & precious resources from women & girls.

And if you said - well, I'm more interested in doing that than working on issues of girls & women, I'd have no problem at all. I'd bluddy cheer you on.

But it's when transactivists decide that feminists must consider transwomen's issues as central feminism - that's when I think, "Hmmmm, they're like men. They just don't get it. They don't understand what it's like to be female in patriarchy."

I fully get that transwoman know what it's like to be transwomen under patriarchy. But it is not the same as being female. Sorry, but it's not.

The problem is where transwomen choose to ignore the fundamental differences between them and women, and bully (by violence as we've seen) women into solving their problems, and then calling them transphobic or trans-exclusionary, wen we say - Well, we've got our own stuff to be getting on with.

The idea that feminist have to solve everyone else's problems is misogynist & anti-feminist. It's entitled, and steeped in male privilege.

The idea that feminist have to solve everyone else's problems is misogynist & anti-feminist. It's entitled, and steeped in male privilege.

YY.

Sorry it's difficult to talk about everything without becoming TL:DR.

Why do you say that?

When talking about risk and trans people

I'm not talking about trans people; I'm talking about male people, whether they are trans or not. If there is any suggestion of extending women's private spaces to non-women, the onus is on the applicant group to evidence there is no elevation of risk. If the applicant group can't evidence this, there is no justification to extend women's spaces. If the applicant group is subject to risks of its own, it will need to campaign for its own space.

Talk of "pervs gonna perv anyway" and "judges will take a dim view in court" is the same argument American gun nuts use to oppose restrictions on firearms. Following that logic, what is the point of any law? I'm not sure why that was unclear.

@sapphireflower
The ideology of gender replacing the meaning of sex is intentionally designed to demobilise women and girls. This is articulated clearly in this paper written by Stephen Whittle.
www.socresonline.org.uk/12/1/whittle.html
We are now being demonised for speaking about our rights which is intentional smearing and silencing by Stonewall/mermainds/gires you name it, and is part of this demobilisation campaign. So in this context I think you have sufficient weight on your side already, resisting our demobilisation is about us.

There are a number of trans people that are campaigning for a less totalitarian approach to demobilising women. Kristina Jayne Harrison, Miranda Yardley, Debbie Hayton. Have you read any of their stuff?