Debbie Hayton in the Times

[Igneococcus]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-are-right-to-have-concerns-over-trans-reforms-5kj5k28sd?shareToken=aa090ad90f6f886db629247a0d6ca19b

We have female only spaces for dignity and safety. Surely it must be easier, safer and more reassuring for women and girls to segregate on the basis of sex and not SRS.

Even if it can be demonstrated that they don't pose any risk, I don't know which obvious male transperson has a GRC and /or SRS. I might have clues that they are trans, but I don't know if they have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, are taking medication or have had their penis removed. Why should I be put in a position where I feel unsafe or uncomfortable in female only spaces because of a male person?

Cwenthryth
If I am in a vulnerable situation and a transwoman is also there - if we are in a legal single sex space that they require a GRC to access, I at least have some reassurance that they are verified, as it were.

I have been trying to get my head around this issue. Maybe someone on here can help? Surely using sex segregated spaces is currently done on a self id basis - a trans woman has to be 'living as a woman' before she can get the legal change, so she must be using women's loos, changing rooms etc. I don't think it's legal to ask to see a GRC for 'proof' . There have been conventions about who can use single sex loos but it's not really been regulated by the law. It's simply that there have been so few trans women that it hardly ever arises, and the majority of people trying to do this are not making a song and dance about it.

There is some confusion about this on 'this side' of the discussion, which allows self id proponents to say there is misinformation and obfuscation about what a GRC actually does.

It seems to me the issue is that self id will normalise male bodies in female spaces and make it impossible to challenge anyone at all. At the same time the definition of trans gender has broadened to include more people including those who are not disphoric, more (newly invented!) types of gender identity, and there is now no need to make any changes to the body. This is being backed up by a set of arguments which are designed to break down the distinction between male and female bodies.

Cwenthryth I wasn't really directing this at you, just your point reminded me of it.

I'm really sorry that I must be missing something. This isn't a pro women article even gender critical article and I'm not sure why so many people appear to think it is something to thank Debbie for from a feminist perspective. It's "pro the right sort of transwomen" article.

To me, it's plain and simple. As a rape survivor but also just as a woman, I don't want any male bodied people in female spaces whether that person has a GRC or not or whether they regard themselves as a genuine transwoman or not. I don't care how you feel about it. I care about how I, and other women, feel about it.

I do not subscribe to the theory that there are two tiers of trans:
TrueTrans™️ and FakeTrans™️.
However, there are definitely two tiers of sex, and my sex is decidedly on the bottom tier, as evidenced by members of the top tier writing articles reassuring me that they will limit who from the top tier gets to push past my boundaries. And that they will keep that boundary pushing to a reasonable number, so long as they are facilitated as an authorised boundary-pusher too.

Manderleyagain. Yes, of course self id will normalise male people in women's spaces. But that normalisation began with the GRA. As you say, to obtain a GRC and obtain a new birth certificate, a male transperson needs to 'live as a women'. That's seems to be interpreted as using women facilities and changing id. As a result, self id male transpeople change their id and using females spaces and declare themselves women. They are following the same procedure as needed for a GRC.

I don't understand why some transpeople are criticising other transpeople for doing exactly what they do.

I think it's very good that The Times is doing the stuff proper newspapers should do (but sadly some aren't) - reporting news and investigative journalism. And also giving comment space to sensible people on both of the sides of the legitimate debate - women's rights (as represented by Janice Turner) and trans rights (represented by Debbie Hayton).

I just read the article not the thread though.

It makes me very uncomfortable. It doesn't consider women's consent, or lack of it.

The original GRA allows males to legally pretend to be us, move among us, in our private spaces where we are vulnerable, without ever asking women if we consent.

The proposed reforms to the GRA allow a broader spectrum of males to legally pretend to be us, move among us, in our private spaces where we are vulnerable, without asking women if we consent.

I didn't consent and I don't consent.

However, that doesn't matter does it?

Males are legally allowed to trample over my rights to ease their own suffering.

It is male domination. I don't consent.

So, although I think Debbie (you if you are still reading) seems like a likeable person, I do not like the entitlement to be in women's spaces and think that people concerned with women's rights must also be concerned with obtaining women's consent.

The only fair solution is for third spaces (or 4th, so that disabled people don't have to share theirs), non-consenting women must not be forced to share with male-born people.

Hear hear! Barracker!

Everything you said!

I appreciate the conciliatory tone of the article, and Debbie, you sound perfectly nice, but I get stuck on the fact that I can’t think of any other situation where a delusional belief is allowed to infringe on a whole swathe of people’s rights. With no consultation and no consent.

Im going to stick my neck out and say after reading that article, i don't think Debbie is too concerned with women's rights. I think Debbie is concerned with how self ID will impact those with a GRC and how they might now be perceived using women's spaces with a greater degree of suspicion.

FFS the TV licence seems ludicrous to a non-UK outsider. Can't think of a better way to criminalise those in poverty.

FFS the TV licence seems ludicrous to a non-UK outsider.

Germany has a licence fee, Euro17.50 per month and household, needs to be paid even if you don't have a TV, radio or computer. Not pertinent to the thread, I know.

It's not women's job to sort out where everyone goes for a piss or goes to prison or anything inbetween.

We should be just able to say what our needs are.

It's up to trans people to say what their needs are. It's up to the government to come up with the clever ideas that accommodate everyone's needs, in consultation with everyone.

The honour system is fucked.

I suspect it only ever 'worked' in the first place because of the tiny numbers in the past (i.e. it never really worked, there were just so few people affected that it was never highlighted as an issue). In 2004 we were told it wasn't a big deal because there were only about 5000 trans people and we could all budge up occasionally. We're now being expected to believe there are anything up to 500,000 trans people.

This is a ten thousand percent increase.

Also everything Barracker said.

On the anniversary of Speakers' Corner it would have been nice to have an acknowledgement in The Times that a year ago a woman was hit by a TW for attending a meeting about the GRA, but I doubt Debbie even knew it was today.

Yes.

DrRadfem - look what you started! Can't believe how far we've come in a year.

a trans woman has to be 'living as a woman' before she can get the legal change

For the purposes of getting a Gender Recognition Certificate, 'living as a woman' involves having 2 years worth of documents in the new name and 'gender markers' - drivers licence, passport, household bills, payslips, benefit letters etc. They suggest submitting 5-6 docs to cover the entire 2 years.

You don't need to put a skirt on or use women's facilities. Someone from #ManFriday changed their drivers licence to male without having to provide any evidence, and changed it back again a few weeks later without any problems.

The 'real life test' that is talked about is nothing to do with the GRA, it's part of the requirements for surgery (which itself is not necessary for a GRC). This was discussed extensively in the first oral evidence session for Miller's trans equality report by Dr John Dean, Chair, Clinical Reference Group for Specialised Gender Identity Services, NHS England. There's a link near the top of the transcript to video of the meeting. (this discussion also features Jess Bradley's contribution to the clusterfuck).

I don't have any issue at all with people objecting to the proposed changes to the GRA from any and every point of view. And it's a fact that women qua women are not the only people affected, and surely it's a good thing that all sorts of different objections are made?

That article makes it quite clear that the problems it identifies are from the point of view of someone with gender dysphoria in the sense that the original 2004 GRA was drawn up for. It doesn't claim to be puting women's perspectives.

I hope the Times publishes another article by a lesbian specifically about the issues lesbians are facing from rapey "ladydicks". That's not a probblem I'm going to face, but it does matter, and it adds to the volume of oppostion. I hope it publishes one by a frontline staff member somewhere like a swimming pool about how difficult their job is now that changing rooms are mixed sex, and by the pool's security guard that has to try to "police" things and can't, and keeps finding hidden cameras. I hope it publishes one by the Orthodox Jewish family who have had to stop using said swimming pool, and by the HR manager of the leisure complex chain about how their equalities monitoring tasks have become completely impossible. I hope it publishes one by Little Owen about how no, he won't have sex with vaginas no matter how they identify. (Well, I can dream).

I do entirely understand the point that so many people have made, best summed up as "what Barracker said". And I agree with it. I just think that "And transsexuals don't bloody want this either" is a valid and useful addition to the discussion, from the point of view of trying to get the likes of Penny Mordaunt to see sense.

TL:DR. Short version: article is pragmatically welcome, ideologically up for discussion ...

TL:DR. Short version: article is pragmatically welcome, ideologically up for discussion ...

Yes I agree. It's good ts people are speaking up for themselves. There are a few shared aims, even though there are huge ideological differences. We can make political alliances (as opposed to being 'allies'). Where our aims differ, don't expect us to compromise.

It's a bit like Hands Across The Aisle. Just because feminists and the christian right can forge an alliance to fight the encroachment of women's rights by the trans agenda, doesn't mean we'll compromise on reproductive rights or LGB rights.

I thought Debbies article was well written and measured.

If transwomen were represented by Debbie there could be a polite, reasoned debate and an agreement reached.

If transwomen were represented by Debbie there could be a polite, reasoned debate and an agreement reached.

It's obvious from the article that TRA like Debbie expect access to female facilities. And it's obvious from this thread that many women want female only spaces.

I don't see how a debate, however polite can solve that? Unless TRA stop trying to abolish female only spaces and campaign for their own facilities, any agreement will be the removal of female only spaces.

I've met Debbie. I like Debbie. But I am never going to think that Debbie should access female only spaces.

As I understand it, forgive me if I am wrong, but people like Debbie (post op) have been accessing certain female only spaces for years, under a quiet, unassuming 'I'll be unobtrusive and give you no cause for concern' way. People have generally accepted this.

Surely the issue has only blown up now because the activists have been forcing themselves (and their penises) into female spaces saying 'tough luck we demand a right to be here (and no debate and if you object you are a hate filled transphobic)' and then also, (which I think is worse), back door forcing boys to be permitted into girls areas too?

The sad thing is that now people like Debbie are getting caught in the crossfire. (But the activists don't care).

I think in the past it was assumed that transpeople would not put themselves into positions were they would likely to out themselves or cause women to confront them.

Now transpeople are more open and talk about themselves more in the media. Which is great. Its not right for anyone to have to hide what they are.

But it's not right that someone talks openly about being male and then expects women just to ignore it when it suits. We have female only spaces for obvious reasons, those reasons don't disappear because it's inconvenient for transpeople.

As I understand it, forgive me if I am wrong, but people like Debbie (post op) have been accessing certain female only spaces for years, under a quiet, unassuming 'I'll be unobtrusive and give you no cause for concern' way. People have generally accepted this.

I tend to agree with you (others on here don't), but I don't really know. The bottom line is that I have no idea what the effect of these policies has been. And I believe this decision should be data driven. Surely, given this has been longstanding practice, there must be stats available that can tell us, how this policy has impacted women's safety, scholarships... and whatever else is on the table. Without an analysis of these data, the whole discussion is a bit pointless, no?