Would you back self ID if...

[daimbars]

Once a trans women got their GRC they had to wait a period of time (say 5 years) before they were able to have the same rights as all women? For example they would only be able to apply for a job as a women’s officer, appear on a female only panel or to compete in women’s sport after five years of lived experience as a woman?

Someone I know is meeting with her MP to discuss how to propose this legislation. She thinks it will address possible repercussions from self ID and stop it being abused. I thought it was an interesting idea I could get behind.

The thing that I have come to understand, is that yes, a particularly vocal bunch want access to women’s spaces -the majority of those voices are coming from outside of the UK.

When you talk to transfolk here, or look at the kinds of things the long established trans charities are concerned about, it’s all very reasonable and understandable.

So we need to amplify the reasonable trans voices and muffle the TRA’s.

I’ve done quite a bit of strategising over how trans folk can have legal rights enshrined without encroaching on women’s rights, I’m sure it’s not perfect (still a work in progress) and i’m sure the most militant TRA won’t like it, but if we can solve all the logistical problems and tackle the real issues transfolk are facing, they won’t actually have anything to object to, so objecting will make them look silly.

Anyway, it’s not the TRA types we need to convince, it’s the middle ground of actual British transfolk and the MPs.

If I can get a decent document together I am willing to take it along to the upcoming trans event in Manchester, Sparkle, and see if we can get some wide scale support.

Because the practicalities of having three changing rooms, three lots of hospital wards, three sets of prisons, three types of refuges is one hell of an ask. Disabled facilities can be provided, on the whole, within what is already there, a whole new third space is much more impractical.

No, I don't think we should allow this argument to dictate what happens. No, a third space is not impossible or excessively burdensome. When the first female judge was appointed to the court of appeal, there were no female toilets and there was a hoo-ha about how this was going to be really cumbersome. It's not- you find the space.

40 years ago disabled toilets in buildings were not commonplace. Now they are. The law has mandated it and surprisingly, people have managed to find the space that they probably doubted existed.

If there were 3 human sexes rather than 2, there would be provision for all three. If we say it's too cumbersome, we will remain stuck where we now are.

Betty that sounds really interesting. Will you be sharing the document on here as well for people who cannot attend the meeting?

Kettle sorry, I realise my entire last post was indeed all about toilets but the point is the same. It IS possible to provide services to men, women and a third category. The state has a duty to all its citizens- men, women and trans people. The money and resources are there if it is considered important enough.

The 'too expensive/too difficult' is a typical neoliberal argument to make people shut up. It's what the PM tells the millions living in poverty while magically finding the money to buy the allegiance of the DUP, renovate Buckingham Palace and organise a 21 gun salute for the birth of an extremely privileged baby. It's a load of tosh basically.

I agree with Kettle, third spaces is just too expensive and won't happen. It is just like those pesky toilets or changing rooms: if it were all cubicles there wouldn't be such a perceived potential threat. But I know that a lot of companies, swimming pools, schools etc just don't have the money or space to do this. So unless you put in law that organisations have to provide cubicles or sex segregated provisions, it won't happen. And as that law will also probably not happen, we are back at the demands to let transwomen into womens spaces.

And peak, the ID thing, it's got nothing to do with immigrants. It is about being able to identify yourself, for example when picking up parcels, buying alcohol or cigarettes or when being stopped by the police. Which for the majority of people never happens, probably mainly for loitering youths. And as far as the x goes for gender neutral, either remove it as x is useless information or change it back to sex. The latter will not be popular though with gender identity politics.

I agree with Kettle, third spaces is just too expensive and won't happen.

You would need laws obviously. But I am pretty sure that this is what people said about disabled spaces. The alternative is that trans women will use women's facilities. It's actually not that difficult to legislate to make sure all new buildings have unisex spaces. At the moment, many restaurants and coffee shops (e.g. Starbucks) already have just one or two unisex loos and there is no issue.

As for providing refuges, counselling, rape crisis, healthcare facilities, prison space, the fact that it's 'too expensive' is an appalling argument for the government to use. These people are owed a duty to be looked after just as other citizens are. Most of the time it just means reconfiguration of existing buildings and of existing services.

And peak, the ID thing, it's got nothing to do with immigrants.

No, I just meant the sorts of people who have campaigned for ID cards in the past have tended to base their reasons on migration type arguments. But I know that the concept of carrying ID has nothing itself to do with that.

Because, why the hell should I take time away from women's issues, money from women's charities, use my free time to campaign for some people that are frankly knob heads.
If they had just been kind in the first place and asked for help like we gave gay people

Some quite sweeping generalisations there. Are they all 'knob heads'?

Actually, peak, the alternative is still that transwomen use the mens spaces.

So you would advocate changing the law to ensure single gender neutral spaces are always provided? And then have services for men, transmen, women and transwomen? Or men, women and transwomen/transmen? So 4 or 3? Just asking as it might make the difference with being achievable. If 4 different types of services need to be provided, which is not a bad idea as the needs will be different for all four groups, this will be more expensive.

If people of both sexes have to share 'transgender' or unisex spaces, it will only be a matter of time before a minority of the males start putting spy cameras in, jizzing on the toilet rolls and rooting through the menstrual bins - and the females will want their own space.

peakpants

At the moment, all I have is on my Equality Act Reform thread on here -I’d like to get a few more opinions and then get it into some kind of document with footnotes and further reading.

I think it’s really important we start out with why the case for women is.non negotiable, and what we need from reforms.

And then go straight into how we make separate, but equally important laws to enshrine trans rights, and why the overlap can only be based on birth sex (safe guarding and statistics gathering etc).

At first I thought it was impossible to find a middle ground, but now I realise that even from a position of absolute refusal to concede women’s rights and spaces, we can set up a framework that makes life more dignified for transfolk.The current expectation (that they should simply try and blend in and keep quiet) is probably one of the reasons that depression and suicide rates do not go down after transistion.

We’ve been sharing toilets for years, mostly without incident, under a gentlewoman’s agreement. There is no real reason for this to change, but women need a framework to challenge/alert attention when feeling threatened and trans people need to know exactly what is expected of them under the law, because right now it’s all dead woolly, and have also have access to specific facilities when necessary. That doesn’t necessarily mean a total set of third spaces, there aren’t enough transfolk to justify it - instead it means things like access to private side rooms on birth sex wards and staff trained to not freak out that there is a ‘man’ in the private side room of the gynae ward.

Transfolk’s needs are specific, lumping them in with women helps no one in the long term.

trained to not freak out that there is a ‘man’ in the private side room of the gynae ward.

Are you referring to a female who has taken hormones to look like a man? Because males have no place in side rooms of gynae wards.

So we need to amplify the reasonable trans voices and muffle the TRA’s.

They can organise together and amplify their own voices. They're more than capable.

I'd prefer to amplify women's voices - you know, the ones they get threatened for raising - thank you very much.

Relegating all trans people to a third space is Apartheid for trans people. It is a non-starter.

They retain the right to use the one that corresponds with their biological sex.

Relegating? Is there a league table? I think you are confusing this with the footie. And appropriating apartheid is A NON-STARTER.

Permission - I am referring to a person that is perceived to be a man, but is on that ward because they have a female body. The side room arrangement gives the patient dignity but the safety and dignity of other patients is not compromised.

Actually, peak, the alternative is still that transwomen use the mens spaces.

Which they won't do and haven't been doing for quite a while. That is why feminists are concerned about this- it is already happening. And I can understand why someone who has undergone a degree of physical transition such as hormones or surgery does not want to use male spaces and I don't think forcing them to do so will help.

So you would advocate changing the law to ensure single gender neutral spaces are always provided? And then have services for men, transmen, women and transwomen? Or men, women and transwomen/transmen? So 4 or 3? Just asking as it might make the difference with being achievable. If 4 different types of services need to be provided, which is not a bad idea as the needs will be different for all four groups, this will be more expensive.

Yes, I am saying there needs to be law. I don't necessarily think there needs to be completely separate provision for trans men and trans women everywhere, but obviously in prisons and stuff they should have separate facilities. I honestly don't think it will be as hard as people imagine and I think it is better than the current system of only male and female.

Relegating all trans people to a third space is Apartheid for trans people. It is a non-starter.

How is it Apartheid to provide targeted services to meet their needs? How is it any more Apartheid than 'relegating' women to female spaces?
What do you think is the alternative? That women just suck it up and deal with it?

I am talking about a gradual change whereby unisex but private spaces become more commonplace and are also openly used by natal men and natal women where they wish, while retaining privacy and dignity for natal women in some circumstances such as healthcare, refuges, sport, prisons etc.

Relegating all trans people to a third space is Apartheid for trans people. It is a non-starter.

Well its not apartheid, it's providing a solution to meet their needs in a dignified manner. There is an alternative, which is to use the space designated for their biological sex.

"And appropriating apartheid is A NON-STARTER."

Segregation is segregation. It is ugly. Always.

"Well its not apartheid, it's providing a solution to meet their needs in a dignified manner. There is an alternative, which is to use the space designated for their biological sex."

Why should a woman be expected to use a man's facility?

Segregation is segregation. It is ugly. Always

Not when it serves a logical purpose, ie providing biological women with safe spaces.

Betty that sounds like a great idea and really interesting. I totally agree with you that requiring people to 'blend in' and simply fit into the gender binary is unhelpful for trans people in the long run, especially if they don't convincingly pass as being the opposite sex. I think recognising them as a distinct class of people, making provisions for them, acknowledging that on a social and cultural level trans women are not the same as men, we could help not only women but also trans people.

Why should a woman be expected to use a man's facility?

Women are entitled to use the women's facilities???