What would it look like?

[Bewilderednow]

First in the hope of clear answers, and so I'm not viewed with suspicion, I am transgender. My question is what would legislation look like if you could pass every law regarding transgender issues tomorrow? Thank you for reading and for any response.

It was a fair question OP and you have been courteous in the teeth of some tough questions.

Do you feel you have enough of an understanding of the issues faced by natal women?

Lots of women disagree (like you) with “separate but equal” until we go through something that men don’t do (eg childbirth).

I do not believe is separate but equal. It never works. It always creates an underclass of less thans.

So you don't believe in sex segregation of any kind? Mixed prisons, homeless shelters, hospital wards, everything? Sports, youth services, military?

And Black people can't have organizations like Black Lives Matter? No Pride? Nothing for just the oppressed people? In this case women in case anyone was in any doubt. Trans people ALSO face discrimination. So no LGBT+ organisations either to address that?

I really do understand because of the history of segregation in the US. That really was 'separate but unequal' in every sense.

We have sex segregation in certain spaces and situations for very good reason, OP. We can evidence the necessity of this - via crime rates, biological fact, the historical record, and countless other metrics.

We have the right, in the UK, as a protected class under the Equality Act, to certain spaces, services, affirmative action programmes and statistics collection to evidence our right to equality when scrutinising policy.

If trans people need such things, then they need to fight for them. Not colonise ours. You are not the same as us. Your identity does not trump our reality. And if you can't accept this - you are asserting the right to override our consent and the right to remove our boundaries. You can say that you don't agree. But by saying you don't agree, you are also saying that we do not have the right of consent. It may injure your identity for us to say that - but it doesn't make it untrue.

@Bewilderedagain I do not believe is separate but equal. It never works. It always creates an underclass of less thans

I can why, as an American with Jim Crow laws in your history, you'd think that. Jim Crow laws and South African apartheid were "separate but unequal" marketed as "separate but equal" to sanitise them. We are not talking about that, we are sincere when we say equal.

@Baroquehavoc Women and girls need 'separate but equal' for our own safety and opportunities. I have never seen this as creating an underclass.

YY. There are a lot of circumstances in which not having separate but equal facilities actually creates an underclass, such as girls dropping out of school because of their periods. Guess what, the underclass is always the people with the ovaries.

I went to an all-girl secondary school and I thrived. During my mixed primary school, I was bullied, beaten up, and sexually assaulted, all by boys, and none of them asked my gender identity first. They mistreated me because I am female. Nothing like that happened at my secondary school, and the safety allowed me to concentrate on my studies. At 13, I was being catcalled by builders whilst in school uniform (paedophile scum) and I doubt boys would have been any better to be around. Separate but equal schooling was the best thing for me.

I think that many TIM don't appreciate how important sex segregation is for women and girls. Not just for safety, but for dignity and opportunities too.

Despite what they may believe, they do not share many many of our experiences so cannot begin to understand the full scope of why segregation is vital. I think if they did, they wouldn't be pushing so hard to abolish sex segregation.

(Too many 'sex' and 'segregation', but I can't be arsed to thesaurus)

There is no connection between lesbians and child murder. None.
Do you not see the connection between men who wish they were women, Men who wish to access women's spaces, and men who take that a step further and acquire their used sanitary wear??

@speakingwoman, YY, young women don't care because they've no maternity experience, unless they've had to hide in the loos from a pushy bloke. I didn't care that much until I read Cherry Austin's account of completing a miscarriage in a pub toilet.

One of the strangest things about the current situation for women in the world is that while the UN is promoting the provision of sex segregated space for women in countries where they do not have them the so called "first world countries" are hell bent on removing them.
It isn't as though they do not know how it was before the men burned down the first women's public loo in London or how things are for girls and women in countries without sex segregated facilities.
Pretending that it can't happen here is absurd and dishonest.

.....some young women, obs, not all (goes without saying I know)

Women's sport is separate but unequal (not covered much in the media, not funded nearly as much as men's) but yet it is still necessary because men and women are physically different. And yet trans girls and transwomen can't even let girls and women have that lower-valued space to themselves.

Ok obviously I am offending so I'll exit as well.

@Bewilderednow you're not offending me.

I am interested to know how you think the issue of sex segregated provisions should be dealt with. (We've read what other people here think).

Should trans women with a penis be sharing open changing rooms and showers with non trans women?

What about post-op women is that ok?

What about toilets? Or refuges?

'Trans women' (potentially a wide umbrella nowadays) that have no medical treatment at all - where do they fit in to the above arrangements?

How do we accommodate all these rights - practically and specifically?

Let me ask you to consider this, OP

I'll assume, for the sake of argument, that you are male or AMAB, as you might say.

Imagine a man - many men in fact, in powerful positions and with a strong public platform and funding. And those men follow you wherever you seek refuge, no matter how hard you try to separate yourself. And they insist that you are the same as them. And to illustrate their point, they point out your bodily similarities to them, and then they list off a roll call of ridiculous macho attributes which they insist that they and you both possess, on account of you both having the same anatomy, since, by their logic, male anatomy always pairs innately with macho personality attributes.
And whilst you can acknowledge that you have similar anatomy, you refute that you share these macho attributes with them. They may be paired with the other men, but they definitely aren't with you, yes? And that absent pairing has great significance to you.

I'll assume that at this point in this hypothetical scenario you want to escape with all your might from these men who are associating you against your will with attributes you know you don't possess. They are telling you what you are, and you don't like it, and aside from your body, none of it is true. You want to distinguish yourself with great vehemence.

This is how I feel.
When a man calls himself a transwoman, and calls me a ciswoman, and tells us we are both the same, that he has observed what I am as a woman and determined my 'woman' characteristics and concluded I am the same as him. So I must not be allowed to separate myself from him.

But all your perceived 'woman' attributes are wrong. I don't have them; they aren't paired with my anatomy, nor any woman's.

And you don't even share my anatomy, nor my experiences that are pursuant to it.

We are not the same, and I will not be designated by you.

Don't be surprised by the anger you see from some women at the prospect of some men redefining women to match themselves.

Just think of the depth of feeling with which you want to distinguish yourself from men; who DO share your anatomy.

And then multiply it by 100 for me, a woman, wanting to distinguish myself from transwomen, throwing in the factor of our not even sharing anatomy in common.

You cannot force non-consenting people into a category with you based on a lie of attributes they don't possess.

Now that was an eloquent response. I'll think on it before resonding properly. If my presence here asking questions is inappropriate, I will refrain from further discussion. I actually do believe in boundaries, just those created by curtesy not law.

I like the op. A listener as well as a talker.

Just a point about law - it is important. It’s important in several ways.

Firstly, when you make a big change, you legislate first and society follows, and eventually if the law works, society changes. Think about things like seatbelts - you wouldn’t dream of not belting up in a car but only a few decades back it was t common and people grumbled when the law came in.

Secondly, the law exists to deal with transgressors. It’s a social taboo to kill, but killing still happens. We have to have the law to deter, to deal with those who break societal rules.

And thirdly, the law sets the tone. - it sets out what a society thinks is and is not ok. In many countries snacking children is illegal, and a social taboo. In others, it’s seen as necessary corrective measure.

So the law is important. Courtesy has been used up to now with transpeople - there has long been a kind of gentlewoman’s agreemrnt with the more old school transsexuals regarding spaces. However the recent vocal TRA movement has blown that away.

Ok maybe this will help me illustrate where I believe there is some agreement possible between us( at this this transperson.)

Sexual preference is just that. Lesbians are not transphobic for not wanting to have intercourse with transwomen. Obvious but in this day...

Direct sports inclusion is stupid in all but a few rare cases. I'd leave those up to an independent sports experts.

Private gatherings can exclude folks, transfolk obviously included. If a
Group of lesbians wants to party in a private facility... go for it.

I don't know those are small, but maybe small movements will add up. I don't want ANY woman to feel uncomfortable in spaces. That bothers me the most the inability for me to see a solution that does not harm.

I would like:

1. Misogyny to be made a hate crime and that crimes against women for being women are taken as seriously and punished as severely as hate crimes towards other groups.

2. Repeal the GRA. Sex change is a lie and no one should be supported in such a deception.

3. Remove the wording of 'gender reassignment' it doesn't make sense. Gender is not binary and it cannot be 'reassigned' without ratifying two rigid sex stereotypes.

4. Protect people who present or behave in a way that defies sex stereotypes under hate crime and discrimination law.

5. Mandate that single sex facilities are offered where people remove clothes, sleep or discuss personal (particularly sexed or medical) matters.

6. Remove the 'case by case basis' clause and allow specific sexed provision.

--

Suggestions for trans people to take up:

1. The Mt record keeping idea upthread if people who have had their reproductive/sex organs removed could work, except it may lead to more people permanently altering their bodies for that status, so my feeling is that it is better to keep M/F as they are since you cannot actually change sex.

2. People who are uncomfortable using their appropriate single-sex facilities may campaign to have sex neutral spaces in addition to (not instead of) single sex provision.

Those statements are all true OP

But I think women feel angry that those things are talked about as if up for negotiation.

It’s like being asked to have a polite chat about whether we should be allowed to drive, vote and use contraception (rights which are hard won). It feels like turning back the clock. And that’s not an abstract threat. As you know, reproductive rights are under constant attack around the world.

"I actually do believe in boundaries, just those created by curtesy not law."

The trouble is in some situations the curtesy seems to go one way. Some people are polite and will do the right thing, thing for others etc.

Some people (both males, females, trans, non-trans) are capable of putting themselves in others shoes etc.

The law is there for when other people are just not able to do that.

At a holiday camp we go to as a family there is a rule: during the sessions and activities adults are not allowed in the toilets with kids. Even with their own kids. For the mornings the toilets in the activity areas become kids only zones.

I know I am not a danger to my own kids or anyone else's but I understand and respect the rule. If I needed the loo I would need to go elsewhere. I don't feel hard done by, I feel pleased they are taking safety seriously.

So for me being different does not mean being unequal.

I think it is probably a lot harder and more complex for trans people, and I understand trans people might feel very strongly that they are exactly the same as natal women, but laws are not built around feelings.

I think we should have unisex spaces and sex segregated spaces. More choice. Not less.

And all the other stuff people like MrsTerryPratchet said right at the start.


I actually do believe in boundaries, just those created by curtesy not law.

I'm not sure what this means? That boundaries should evolve as a result of the needs in society rather than law enforced on society?

As Italiangreyhound said, curtesy often seems to go only one way. Some people have more power than others, can be more of a threat than others and some can be more vulnerable. Laws are often in place because of this imbalance of power and have been hard won and are in place because curtesy was not followed.

Sorry if that's not what was meant.

Ok maybe this will help me illustrate where I believe there is some agreement possible between us( at this this transperson.)

Here are some situations, what do you think of them, OP?

1. A DV survivor with PTSD related to the male body is in a refuge. Should the refuge be able to exclude both trans employees and trans clients? Whose rights come first?

2. A beauty salon offers intimate waxing as one of its services. It also employs Muslim women. The salon is woman only. Should it be required to perform sack'n'crack waxes on self-identified trans people?

3. A woman goes for her smear test. She requests a same sex HCP to perform this intimate examination. Should a trans person be eligible to perform this?

4. Should locked mental health wards be mixed sex? Even when a woman in that ward has issues relating to men?

5. Should a male-bodied sex offender be accommodated in a woman's jail?

6. Should club and youth organisations have mixed sex overnight accommodation for teenagers on residential trips without disclosing this as a safeguarding risk to parents (teen pregnancy, etc)?

ALL of these things are happening. It's not scare-mongering. It's not about prejudice against trans people. It's not about disliking trans people. It's about women and their rights.

I read your questions, Lang and can only conclude that any 'decent' transwoman would realise that this was not about them but about truly vulnerable women. Not vulnerable males who are affected by the literal violence of someone identifying their sex.

As such, and I know there are many transwomen posting on here and elsewhere who feel the same, I can also only conclude that any transwoman who did not recognise that the rights of females trumps theirs in those situations you describe are demonstrating precisely why they should not be allowed in in the first place.

I can also only conclude that any transwoman who did not recognise that the rights of females trumps theirs in those situations you describe are demonstrating precisely why they should not be allowed in in the first place.

Yes, like the trans identified male in Canada who pursued the only rape refuge in Vancouver to only allow female people and not TIMs to counsel female rape victims through the courts for 12 years, bringing them to the brink of bankruptcy. Definitely the right sort of person to work with traumatised, victimised, vulnerable women who have faced male violence.

bewildered you asked if you are welcome here. My opinion (from observation as i am more of a lurker) is that all are welcome here, if by welcome you mean welcome to discuss, debate and engage around women's rights issues (without necessarily agreeing with each other).