Ladies bathrooms and trans acceptance

[RosettaStoned]

After reading many trans threads on here and other articles online I have come to realise I may have some internal conflict.

I'm generally a very open-minded live and let sort of person, always have been and I can't stand the thought of a person, be it man, woman or whatever, being unable to have their human rights acknowledged and dignified.

However I am opposed to self-identification as I feel it is prone to all sorts of abuse. That's just how I feel and various evidence backs up my concerns.

Anyway, I was reading an article (published 2 years ago) written by a woman about ladies public toilets and the fact that even when they were invented, women of the Victorian era were simply too embarrassed to use them in public.

Tying the point in to trans-issues, the author of the article goes on to say:

So where does that leave the transgender woman who would much rather endure the dirty looks of the ladies' room than the potential fists of the men's room? In a brutally unfair position, unfortunately. They are pioneers, and pioneers have never had an easy time of it. They live in a society that hasn't yet grown to accommodate them, just as ladies' bathrooms once didn't exist because society wasn't ready for women to pee in public. It sounds ridiculous, but that's how it is.

I must state that I don't wish to see a male in a female space unless there is a legitimate reason. But the author's comment about "transgendered people (sic) live in a society that hasn't yet grown to accommodate them" got me questioning my own belief system.

Will my children or my grandchildren (or anyone for that matter) one day look at me as someone with bigoted, old-fashioned views because self-ID will have a more common place in society as time goes on?

I'm perhaps not making myself very clear and before anyone jumps on me, no I am not calling anyone who opposes self-ID bigoted or old-fashioned. I am trying to get across that society changes all the time. In ten years time, self-ID may well and truly be as normal and everyday as wearing socks or drinking a brew. And society will adapt to it whether we want to or not.

What I'm asking is, what if the author makes a valid point? What if one day we do look back and see we were once 'out of touch' with the modern world? I dunno.... has anyone else questioned this?

I'm also not buying that.

And that's why I'm surprised that male transpeople show no empathy for women and girls who are weary of male people in their spaces and who do not attempt to try to keep those abusive males out of female spaces.

If the trans community actually wanted a third space, there are enough very loud voices out there to at least try and make that happen.

If the safety in toilets was the actual issue there would also be calls for those with the fists in the men’s toilets to be punished and re-educated.

The author of the article you quote is full of shit.

the third space option if you can tell me how that will work and how it will be enforced without saying that's for you to sort out. I would be happy to listen. but no one seems to have a answer to that because you need to bring something in that does not prevent one section of society from accessing services. this I feel is true on all sides

A trans sign on the door?

Bespin how would it work? Well, 50 years ago, there weren’t many disabled toilets around were there? Now, thanks to legislation, they are mandatory and they are everywhere. So it is entirely possible. You legislate and mandate that service providers must have access to a gender neutral space if they segregate the bathrooms or changing rooms by sex. You mandate that certain prison wings are designated transgender prisons and put trans inmates there. It’s really not as complex as you seem to think and nobody is avoiding the question. How will they be policed? The same way that toilets are ‘policed’ now.

What you have avoided answering is why the small risk of assault to you is much more important than the small risk of assault to me. Why is that? Is it because you think that you personally wouldn’t assault a woman so we must all be marking a fuss over nothing? Imagine if all men thought ‘well, I wouldn’t do this so it obviously can’t be true’ and eg voted to get rid of DV services for women.

If the safety in toilets was the actual issue there would also be calls for those with the fists in the men’s toilets to be punished and re-educated.

It’s not thought is it? Toilets aren’t a safe space because there’s a lady sign on the door, there’s not some magical forcefield that stops predators going into them that’s going to change with the GRA. Public loos are as safe as any other enclosed public space. Of course we need a societal change, I don’t think you can legislate any more than we do already to make public toilets safe. However places that are (or should be) safe for women such as prisons, dv shelters, sports are another matter. I can’t understand why there’s no understanding from the more extreme TRA twitter types that some women have been so abused by men that the presence of a penis would trouble them in a place that is meant to be ‘safe’. Even if the owner has no intention of causing harm with it, it’s denying the experience of quite a lot of women to claim they should just see through that to the ‘person underneath’ or whatever. A little understanding on both sides would go along way.

Its nothing to do with women actually.

Exactly. It seems that men sometimes attack other men in their toilets if they perceive them to be gay or trans. Gay men have never demanded to use the women's toilets. Why do those who are trans think they should? This is a problem for men to sort out amongst themselves. It's not women's job to sort out the problem of male violence.

where is the fellow-feeling for women of those with alleged "lady brains"?

No it doesn't noeffingide and I truly appreciate what you are saying. But isn't that the point of changing the GRA? To enable people to use facilities aligned with the 'gender' hmm that they feel more akin to rather than their birth sex?
...
Or have I completely got the wrong end of the stick with Self-ID

The GRA does not give trans women the right to use women's spaces. The right to use women's spaces comes from the Equality Act, applies to trans women with the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" and is subject to some limited exceptions. No GRC is needed for the EA protections to kick in.

So the idea that self-id will lead to lots more trans women using the ladies is a complete fallacy.

Generally GRCs make little difference to the day to day lives of trans people. Many prominent trans people e.g. Jane Fae do not have them on political grounds. But there are edge cases where a lack of a GRC could make life difficult.

For example, it may be hard for a trans women without a GRC to bring an equal pay claim. Her employer discriminates against her as they perceive her to be legally female. However, she is legally male - so no discrimination etc.

This isn’t just about toilets, but I’ll use the toilets as shorthand for other safe spacescurrently reserved for women (the cunty type- to borrow a phrase from another poster)
If the argument is that transwomen aren’t safe in the mens’ toilets and therefore need to use the women’s but you open up the women’s to anyone, including male bodied people who identify as a woman, then you are allowing any man to enter the women’s toilets by default. There is no way to tell the difference between a “genuine” transwoman and a man identifying as a woman for nefarious purposes. By doing so this increases the risk of harm to women and doesn’t make transwomen any safer.
It is using women as human shields and I personally find that totally unacceptable.

SarahAr
The GRA does not give trans women the right to use women's spaces. The right to use women's spaces comes from the Equality Act, applies to trans women with the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" and is subject to some limited exceptions. No GRC is needed for the EA protections to kick in.

Are we having this discussion yet again? The EA gives transgender people the right not to be discriminated against because they are trans. It does not give them an automatic right to be treated as the opposite sex.

It doesn't matter how often you repeat an untruth, it won't make it true.

So the idea that self-id will lead to lots more trans women using the ladies is a complete fallacy.

It’s not particularly trans women that people are concerned about. It’s the nasty males (because NAMALT).

The issues with loos are no different to any other in this debate, problems stem from conflating sex and gender.

Those in favour of welcoming trans people into the loos of their choice seem to view the provision as gender segregated and not sex segregated. However, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to explain how segregation by gender is a proportionate means to meet a legitimate aim. What is the 'legitimate aim' of segregating loos, changing rooms, hospital wards etc by gender? There are many legitimate aims for segregating them by sexed bodies.

I really do think that we need to keep bringing the argument back to the EA2010 and keep demanding the organisations articulate the 'legitimate aim-proportionate means' argument.

In relation to the OP and pre op/post op argument. If an organisation was clear about the legitimate aim of their single sex loos, it should be relatively easy to establish how the aim would/wouldn't be undermined in relation to trans people accessing them and this should also help organisation review how to cater for trans people.

For example, it may be hard for a trans women without a GRC to bring an equal pay claim. Her employer discriminates against her as they perceive her to be legally female. However, she is legally male - so no discrimination etc.

Wouldn't the discrimination against a transwoman at work be about the fact they are trans rather the fact they are female (because they are not female?)

Women are discriminated against at work for many reasons including society's perception of women in the workplace. However, a significant proportion of workplace discrimination is because of the fact that women are the ones who have babies. Transwomen don't have babies, therefore they are not going to be subject to the same sort of discrimination at work as females are they? The discrimination they face will be because they are transgender, for which they wouldn't need a GRC to fight against, because don't need to be seen as 'legally female to bring a claim? Just that they come under' gender reassignment' (which seems to be everyone these days, there doesn't seem to be any agreed criteria for this).

For example, it may be hard for a trans women without a GRC to bring an equal pay claim. Her employer discriminates against her as they perceive her to be legally female. However, she is legally male - so no discrimination etc

It would be easy for a person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to demand an equal pay. They have a protected characteristic and should be paid equally/in line with other employees

Generally GRCs make little difference to the day to day lives of trans people.

Many transgender people don't have one because they wouldn't pass the gatekeeping currently required to get one. If someone is diagnosed as having a cross dressing fetish rather than gender dysphoria, they will not get a GRC under the current rules.

Yes MsBeaujangles. That’s the crux of it: sex is not gender. That used to be a bit of a slogan for the transgender community only a couple of years ago. I don’t see it used much these days.

Generally GRCs make little difference to the day to day lives of trans people.

I do find this argument incredulous. Does being considered female in the eyes of the law not make a difference to being considered legally male?

If this argument holds, it proves that the EA2010 fails to deliver any sex based protections!

I can’t understand why there’s no understanding from the more extreme TRA twitter types that some women have been so abused by men that the presence of a penis would trouble them in a place that is meant to be ‘safe’. Even if the owner has no intention of causing harm with it, it’s denying the experience of quite a lot of women to claim they should just see through that to the ‘person underneath’ or whatever. A little understanding on both sides would go along way.

This is spot on. Yes a little understanding both ways would go a long way but I can't see any room for debate amongst the government and political parties. Sorry to the trans/gay community for any abuse you have suffered at the hands of prejudiced men but women have been historically suffering that same abuse plus worse and we don't want to increase that risk by allowing men in to places we should feel safe

www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/702003/fife-teen-on-sex-offenders-register-after-supermarket-child-attacks/

With regards toilets, the article linked above describes how two young girls (aged 10 & 12) were sexually assaulted by a 17yr old in women's toilets in supermarkets. The article uses gender neutral desciptors and pronoun for the attacker. It also records direct speech describing them as looking and sounding 'male/man'

It seems likely that the attacker was male-born but does not identify as a man. As they are 17, they could not have a GRC.

The father of one girl had waited outside (as is common)

There has only been (I think) this one article and the court is adjourned pending pre-sentence reports.

Additionally the attacker had social care involvement and had gone to the supermarket with a carer.

There will likely be a case review and more to come out.

Its a really serious and significant case.
What should a father and young daughter do when out together & she needs the loo?

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3329936-teen-films-girl-in-toilet

There's something rather disingenuous about the OP that I'm struggling with. Calling transwomen 'pioneers' put a very positive spin on what is a very problematic situation. Charming as you are, OP, with your mention of ladies' bathrooms (are you American?), I'm not persuaded.

While 95% of sexual crimes are committed by men and while the number of men in prison for sexual crimes outnumbers the entire female prison population, I think it's safe to say that there are good reasons why men have traditionally been kept out of certain areas of women's lives.

It’s not thought is it? Toilets aren’t a safe space because there’s a lady sign on the door, there’s not some magical forcefield that stops predators going into them that’s going to change with the GRA

Societal habit is actually very strong. Sure, there's nothing stopping DP (male) going in the ladies, but the very thought of it is horrifying to him (he'd need an extremely good reason - ie. someone was in danger - I don't think he'd even do it if he was (for instance) about to have a poopcident).

Just look around you - look at how many men vs. women are wearing skirts - there's nothing stopping men wearing a skirt except for societal habit. Hair length - the vast, vast majority of men have short hair in the UK - why is that? Habit. Sikh men are more likely to have long hair, because, habit (in this case, the habit being religion).

To pretend that this pressure to follow the rules doesn't exist, that it doesn't give some protection is ridiculous.

SaraHar:
So the idea that self-id will lead to lots more trans women using the ladies is a complete fallacy.

'Self-id' means more than just the proposed changes to the GRA. There are also the societal changes to consider, many of which are happening now.

Currently, it is only really considered acceptable to use women's toilets and other facilities if you look female, or have made an attempt to dress/present yourself as 'female'. (Make up, dresses etc). Anyone who is obviously male and has made no attempt to present themselves as a 'woman' would be treated with suspicion of seen in the ladies. They might be questioned or challenged, or females might leave the facilities rather than sharing it with them.

TRAs are trying, with some success, to change these attitudes. Trans ideology would like to see a society where anyone, no matter what their appearance, no matter how they present, can enter women's facilities without being challenged, without even a confused look.

In a society where anyone can enter the ladies without suspicion, more males will do so. Not necessarily more transwomen. More males. I don't see how anyone could possibly argue that this won't happen. That's what GC people are concerned about.

"So the idea that self-id will lead to lots more trans women using the ladies is a complete fallacy."

There are no laws about who uses which bogs only convention. What the current push from the activitsts means is that men (not TW - MEN) are much harder to get rid of. The social convention that it's a space for women & girls is being removed. We have been told that we can report them if they attack us. Awesome. Before we could tell them to get out / if it was somewhere with security get them to get them out if they were just being weird (but not illegal) which as all women and girls know is way more common than actual physical attack.

And this is the true purpose - it's about making women and girls feel unable to challenge creepy men. It's about the pleasure some men get from making us feel uncomfortable / upset. Lots of men enjoy this - it happens to us all the time - men we dont' know trying to frighten or upset us, but not doing anything actively illegal.