Please can someone who thinks that TWAW..

[BertrandRussell]

...explain to me the intellectual process that got you there? I promise -and as far as I can I promise on behalf of other people - not to challenge or argue and only ask clarification questuons. I just want to understand, even if I don't agree.

Rachel Dolezal (white woman) claims to be black, and really seems to believe it. She's accused of cultural appropriation.

Man claims to be Napoleon, and really seems to believe it. He is assumed to be delusional and advised to talk to a psychiatrist.

Man claims to be a woman, and really seems to believe it. He's 'brave and stunning' and everyone is supposed to believe he really is a woman.

Why is a man declaring himself to be a woman not viewed as delusional or accused of cultural appropriation?

I once said on here (got quoted on the BBC too, preens) that I'm fully in favour of transwomen being treated without discrimination and in a dignified way in the 99% of cases where biological sex doesn't matter - it's the 1% where it does that I'm worried about.

By insisting that transwomen have to use the men's toilet though you aren't treating them in a dignified way.

I agree with the PP who said that all toilets need to be floor to ceiling solid cubicles. Same with changing rooms.

We can argue what makes a woman a woman and base this on chromosomes but actually in real life we don't examine DNA to make these decisions.

How do you make these subjective decisions when eg a person is walking into the toilet?

A judgement of some sort has to be made. Is it on their appearance?

I fully appreciate the need to be identify anyone who is trying to exploit the situation. What I can't understand is how you can legislate for that. You can't judge on appearance clearly so what do you use?

And when you do use the biological argument you then have to accept that trans men are women and then can't be excluded from women's spaces surely? Or can you legally differentiate between trans women, on the basis of biology, and trans men, on the basis of appearance?

Argh, rogue apostrophe.

I've let you down, I've let MNFWR down, and worst of all, I've let myself down.

(Deflates slowly).

Teddy-forgive me for c&p myself- but that's sort of what I meant when I said "I suppose I want proper answers because if there actually is any proper scientific evidence that transwomen are really women then I will have to compromise on the 1%. If there isn't, then transwomen have to. Because there is absolutely no way of resolving this without compromise."

Obviously BrownPaper, if you pass for the opposite sex completely you'll be able to use many sex segregated spaces without anyone knowing. That's just reality. But if you had an understanding that males should not be in female spaces and a third space provided for trans/non binary, you'd be able to kick out obvious men without fearing you'll be prosecuted for a hate crime.

Brown if you'll notice, I didn't talk about toilets as being in that 1% (toilets are a very difficult edge case - I personally am not worried, I know women who've been victims of sexual assault who are absolutely traumatised to the point of PTSD by male bodied individuals in the toilets with them). Long term, I think floor-to-ceiling cubicles, with basins in, opening onto public spaces is the way to go. But that's fucking expensive and not going to happen any time soon.

But how about addressing the specific example I did give, of someone like Pippa Bunce walking into an open plan gym changing room. It's my dignity (I don't want to be naked in front of men) vs his dignity (he doesn't want to be seen as a man on one of his lady days).

Who wins this particular game of dignity top trumps? And if it's the gender-fluid non binary trans person, why is their dignity more important than mine?

"I suppose I want proper answers because if there actually is any proper scientific evidence that transwomen are really women then I will have to compromise on the 1%

There is no compelling evidence that MTFs are really women. There is extrapolation and there is sophistry based on intersex conditions. It's basically a God of the Gaps argument.

That's an interesting video regarding the 6ft 5in Chinese woman.

I used to be on dating sites and I would get angry meeting men who patently lied about their height and age on meeting them. If they lie about something so obvious, then it's not a good way to start a relationship or to even have sex with them because doing an act so intimate, and where there are vulnerabilities, requires trust.

Of course there are trans people who pass, however it would always be on the back of my mind that biologically they are either male, or female but only if I knew they were trans, obviously.

By insisting that transwomen have to use the men's toilet though you aren't treating them in a dignified way.

Who are you including as transwomen? Philip Bunce on his dress-wearing days? Eddie Izzard? Karen Jones? Karen White? Any man who says he's a woman? Where do you draw the line?

I agree with the PP who said that all toilets need to be floor to ceiling solid cubicles. Same with changing rooms.

But what about people who are required by their religion to go to separate changing/toilet facilities?

BrownPaperTeddy I don't agree with your definition of 'abuse'.

How I'd like to see things working is for society to acknowledge that although we are separated in society into male and female (rightly I believe for some things) some people are not comfortable with this so we need unisex gender neutral self contained spaces for people who want them.

We do already have them in places, we built disabled access toilets so why not just built more gender neutral unisex spaces.

Build transgender/nom-binary wings for prisons etc. Instead of insisting we pretend males ate females and vice versa.

Not everyone will want this but it is the only answer that take a account of non binary people, that I can see.

Anyone can call themselves what they like or dress how they like but it doesn't have legal implications. I can't sue you for not calling me ' Her lady queen of the universe' etc buy I can choose my own title if o want to. Most people will use others chosen names and pronouns. If using a name or using a word were done in a bullying manner that could be addressed as such (rightly so).

BrownPaperTeddy can you think of a reason why tgis would not work?

The evidence there is relates to brain structure. The problem is that most of the studies are small, they don't take into account neuroplasticity, many don't take into account or control for effects of cross sex hormones, most don't control for sexuality. The ones that have done have found similarities between homosexual MTFs and women but not heterosexual MTFs. Which bears out Blanchard's typology.

The interesting thing is that several studies have found a difference from both sexed controls in an area of the brain relating to perception of the body. So there may well be a biological basis for transgenderism itself, but the evidence does not suggest that they are women trapped in male bodies.

What do you think self ID is? I just want to be clear you understand the full situation.

My understanding is that anyone, regardless of biology, lifestyle, appearance can decide that they identify as the opposite sex and then access facilities of that sex. They can choose to switch back and forth.

Is that correct?

My comment about the unintended consequences is that I'm assuming the notion of self ID came from a good place. That it was intended to help trans gender people to live their life as a person of their chosen sex.

The unintended consequence, as I see it, is that this deregulation then allows for any pervert to walk into a female changing room with the sole intention of looking at women and girls, or raping them, or exposing themselves.

The same with allowing a man to be housed in a woman's prison.

I doubt at the outset self ID was brought in to allow these things to happen?

This is the problem with laws though isn't it? That many of these issues boil down to quite a subtle argument.

It's quite difficult to create a black and white law - you can do this but not this, or this is ok but this isn't - when there is no black and white.

If you’re an individual who is putting their right to identity as x over other people’s right to have specific, intimate care from someone who identifies as the same sex as them then perhaps it is your responsibility to not go for jobs or positions that put your patients/ clients in that position in the first place.

Precisely. But can you rely on people to self govern? If you put rules or laws in place how do you differentiate between men and women, or trans men and trans women?

So currently there are exemptions for sex based discrimination in law aren't there? A refuge for example can advertise for only women applicants. So what does the law look like when it needs to say " only natal women but not natal women who look male"?

The issue around loos is a complete red herring, really, because it is easily solved by just throwing money at the problem. It's frustrating that it's always used as a proxy for the other issues of the 1%. I prefer to use sport as a proxy, really.

But how about addressing the specific example I did give, of someone like Pippa Bunce walking into an open plan gym changing room. It's my dignity (I don't want to be naked in front of men) vs his dignity (he doesn't want to be seen as a man on one of his lady days).

Honestly, I don't know and I agree, I don't want it either.

It's mad. But how do you ban him without banning the very genuine trans woman, living as a man before they have surgery?

I am really not arguing against anything that you say.

It's a total mess. Clearly the law, or whoever decided on self ID, is moving faster than society and even just facility provision is moving.

If every toilet and changing room was a general self contained unit most of these issues wouldn't arrise. Still prisons, healthcare and the like would be a problem yes. But not many of the practicalities.

@Italiangreyhound

I agree completely and no I can't think why that wouldn't work other than some trans gender people wouldn't like it. But then they should be told tough luck basically.

Anyone could use the 3rd space which is a win win as far as I can see.

The 3rd space works when you cannot separate on the male/female basis because of these cross overs so it is the only sensible way.

As regards sport - I have no idea.

Wasn't there a case with an athlete reported to be male because of their appearance but genetic testing proved them to be XX genetically?

Truly I have many many more questions than answers.

I agree with the PP who said that all toilets need to be floor to ceiling solid cubicles. Same with changing rooms.

I just want to jump on this for a moment, I have twins - one of my friends has triplets, none of them are old enough to be able to get dried and changed on their own yet. I can just about (although not comfortably) use a family sized cubicle, but it's impossible for her. We use the open plan women's changing room for convenience and safety (you can't leave a young child outside on their own while you get their sister dried and changed). Also toilet cubicles it's hard enough taking more than one child to the toilet, without having the option to use it with the door open, so that you can keep an eye on your children.

The argument for enclosed changing rooms/toilets seems to completely ignore the fact that we exist and benefit from women-only open plan areas.

Sorry for the derail, but this argument seems anti-feminist to me - Anything that makes it harder for mothers to leave the home is a negative for society.

So what does the law look like when it needs to say " only natal women but not natal women who look male"?

Again, this isn't difficult if we go back to rational. When it important for female bodied people to have a space that excludes male bodied people, the deciding factor for inclusion is sexed body. If someone tries hard to look male/wants to be thought of as male, they should not get a job working there/ would not be suited to using the provision. If a female bodied person in GNC or has facial hair etc, then they should be included - this really isn't difficult to spot.

I find these faux barriers quite ridiculous really. They would not be difficult to implement!

But how do you ban him without banning the very genuine trans woman

Well, don't ban him then. But the problem becomes that you severely restrict women in public space. I realise that might not be much of problem to you personally, but it becomes so for those women.

The problem is that you have two marginalised communities, but one of those communities rights have to supersede all the rights of the other. In effect, you are saying that women have no right to feel safe or have their privacy respected because some tims want to feel validated in their choices. So, 100% of public space becomes open to tims and 0% to large swathes of women. If this is a situation you're happy with, at least have the balls to state that. Honesty is better than this dancing around obfuscating that happens when people posit that TWAW, because everyone knows they aren't in any rational sense.

I don't think anyone with a penis should be in the ladies' changing rooms, whether they're Pip Bunce or a transwoman awaiting surgery.

The argument for enclosed changing rooms/toilets seems to completely ignore the fact that we exist and benefit from women-only open plan areas.

Indeed. And unless you have each enclosed cubicle large enough for the purposes you describe here and large enough to include a shower cubicle, then many women will still be unable to use gym changing rooms which allow XY people in there. Me, for example.

When it important for female bodied people to have a space that excludes male bodied people, the deciding factor for inclusion is sexed body. they should not get a job working there/ would not be suited to using the provision

Is the opposite true then?

If someone tries hard to look female/wants to be thought of as female, they can be included as female?

I thought this was the whole argument? That it doesn't matter what you think you are or what you look like you can't change your sex?

So where is the line drawn as to who is female enough to say work in a refuge? How on earth is this legislated for? If you were born female and don't look too male then you can apply?

I have a question for Rat, who very helpfully answered the question. According to Rat, any person in a room who has a disposition to say “yes, I am a woman” is a woman. But note, this can’t be the definition of “woman” because it is self referential. The definition of woman can’t be “anyone who is disposed to state “I am a woman” is a woman.” Rat has given us a tool to enable us to find out who the women are (just ask them) , but this doesn’t answer the question of why they are women.

So my question is, what is the difference between those individuals who say “ I am a woman”, and those who say “ I am a man” ? And if someone says “I am a woman” but they are lying, how could we tell? In short, what features are people thinking of when they say “yes, I am a woman and I’m not a man?” And, more importantly, what features do women and trans women have in common- what makes them both women?

Intersex and trans are completely separate issues, particularly when it comes to sport.

Transwomen are typically biologically normal men (normal in the statistical sense, not in any sense implying moral judgement). The claim is often made that testosterone blockers iron out differences in performance when it comes to muscular strength, but there are serious doubts in the scientific literature that even this claim is correct, and it certainly doesn't remove the height advantage, weight advantage, massive advantage in VOMax (a measure of how efficiently you can oxygenate the blood going to your muscles) or grip strength.

It is simply and straightforwardly cheating for male bodied individuals to take part in women's sport. This may be a very sad thing for transwomen who like sport to accept but them's the breaks. We don't all get everything we want in all areas. If your sport matters that much, make the choice Jiayah Saelua has made, to hold off cross sex hormones while continuing to play men's international football as a transwoman.
www.theguardian.com/football/2014/aug/29/jaiyah-saelua-transgender-footballer-interview

Incidentally I really admire and respect Jaiyah for making this choice.

But what about people who are required by their religion to go to separate changing/toilet facilities?

Re toilets or even changing rooms for that matter,- that is a complete non point if toilets are floor to ceiling lockable cubicles. For example with the layout in the renovated Glasgow Theatre Royal there is no more reason for saying a woman cannot use the toilets there than saying a woman cannot use any other part of the building, including the theatre auditorium. Or another example- the changing rooms in shops like Cos. Cos has male assistants and male customers but the changing rooms are floor to ceiling with mirrors, proper walls, not partitions, and heavy, lockable doors. How much more separate does one need?

There may well be extreme religious views which say a woman cannot sit in a theatre next to a man , but that is a different argument (and one frankly which should get little truck).

As Bertrand says much of this problem can be dealt with by spending money and good design- as Glasgow Royal Theatre and Cos have done.