If this thread was started today it would have very different responses

[Earlywalker]

Having a look through old threads, trying to decide where I stand on the GC debate. I’m still solely against Self ID but still have no issues at all with someone holding a GRC under the current criteria accessing facilities of their desired sex. I do not agree with some of the views regarding trans people that are so obvious on here.

Anyway, I came accross this old thread - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1591015-Which-toilets-a-F-to-M-transgender-student-should-use?pg=1&order=

And looking at the responses, they are so ‘tolerant’ staying that ‘in the 21st century this should not be an issue’ nearly every response says a transgender person should use their desired facilities and now, over 5 years later.. I believe the responses would be VERY different on mumsnet.

When did it change? Why did GC start objecting to all transpeople using their desired facilities?

Disclaimer - I do NOT want a fight, I want a discussion. Every time I try to discuss I get jumped on by posters, so without saying ‘ladies please be nice’ I will address now that I am not a man, a spy or a TRA.

Yes, I'm off to reread some Bunbury, but before I go, I'll point out to those reading Halka's claim that the Equality Act will continue to ensure protection of single sex spaces, that Self ID will enshrine in law that sex is self defined, therefore the Equality Act will mean bugger all.

This whole thread illustrates so beautifully why the idea that a man can legally become a woman is so ludicrous.

As a class group that was once (and still is in many ways) repressed, I don’t think repressing another to ensure absolute certainty of protection is the way to go. If you think women not wanting blokes in women's private spaces is oppression I'm not sure you'll find a lot of agreement here. It's as if you see the gc pov but feel constrained by your desire to be nice. Free yourself. :)

As for ensuring 'absolute certainty of protection' well that's just pie in the sky, we know we enjoy no real protection in private or public spaces. If we felt protected from male violence, or even if we knew it would be punished, we might feel more generous.

Op, I understand you say you've come here to discuss this issue, determine when opinions changed and 'for education, to get involved' but with respect you seem defensive. I'm not sure if you want to change minds or want your mind changed or what you want really. I think you'd be happier with the response if this was in AIBU, but if you're here because you want the gc pov I think you're getting it.

Op - a few years ago I probably shared your view.

That was until I saw women being threatened and debate being shut down and people being unable to speak truths.

I really don't like some of the language on this board, especially the term handmaidens, but I respect the women who are putting their career and personal safety on the line to discuss this issue.

A GRC will not erase all risk of male violance, however it will minimise it. We can not erase all risk of violence to women. As a class group that was once (and still is in many ways) repressed, I don’t think repressing another to ensure absolute certainty of protection is the way to go.

^^this is gaslighting. Using untruths, to subvert the real situation and make the women doubt themselves.

If you say a GRC minimises violence, you'll have to explain how. I've just given you an example of a murdering rapist whose gender dysphoria was blamed for their crimes.

Also pretending that women have any power to a oppress men is risible. More gaslighting. Transwomen are men. Women cannot oppress swathes of men.

Pretending that excluding men from accessing women on intimate spaces is oppression, is disgraceful.

Single-sex space is protected by the Equality Act (2010) and reform of the GRA does not affect any of the provisions of the Equality Act.

Perhaps you can explain this, in that case.

If sex is a protected characteristic, but anyone can be any sex, how does that work?

However, as long as the Self ID doesn’t, I don’t see a problem with those with a GRC using the facilities.

How do you know who has a GRC? When a transwoman walks into the toilet, how do you know if they have one? You can't ask.

Shon Faye and their ilk have taken great pleasure in telling women that 'transwomen who don't have a GRC have been using the female facilities for years because you don't ask for a GRC at the door'. Apparently not giving a fuck how women feel about that.

Just to clarify that reform of the GRA will make no change to use of single-sex spaces. Single-sex space is protected by the Equality Act (2010) and reform of the GRA does not affect any of the provisions of the Equality Act. As far as entitlement to use of single-sex space is concerned, nothing will change from how it is today.

Well that's not quite true, is it. As has been mentioned on this thread and discussed at considerable length on other threads already.

Stop lying to women that we already have, and will continue to have, all the protections that we need.

Single-sex space is protected by the Equality Act (2010) and reform of the GRA does not affect any of the provisions of the Equality Act.

Yes, we have been told this a lot.

Except that if anyone can simply 'self identify' as a woman and become legally a woman and therefore have access to that protected single sex space, then the above is not actually true is it?

If sex is a protected characteristic, but anyone can be any sex, how does that work?

I’d love to hear the answer to that one

The problem is that the more you look at the question - shouldn't people be able to use toilets based on the gender identity? - the more you realise that the premise of the question isn't more tolerance, but more sexism.

It would be perfectly fair to have a debate about when unisex facilities are necessary and when and why there are provisions in the Equalities Act that allow single sex spaces.

However, that discussion is being silenced. Instead we should apparently be segregated according to 'identity' and nobody can explain why.

It's not even a hundred years since women could vote on equal terms with men in the UK (less than 50 if you are Swiss). Women can't protect their rights if they can't explain who they are.

Why do charities support single sex facilities in the 3rd world, asylum refuges etc. Because women are at risk from men. This fact doesn't change because it's the UK, or is it just the non Brits who are a risk to women? Because that seems pretty racist to me.

If sex is a protected characteristic, but anyone can be any sex, how does that work?

The lawyer on womens hour yesterday said something like this, dont worry your pretty wee heads about this, sex is a protected characteristic. And I was screaming at the radio for someone to pull her on the fact that if anyone can declare themselves female its not bloody protected is it!!

But womens hour were worse than useless conducting that debate.

I've always been fond of Bunbury's foundational text "If you're in need of tutoring my rate is 30 pounds an hour".

And her advice if that offer is not taken up immediately? "Ice the cake before they do."

How do you know who has a GRC? When a transwoman walks into the toilet, how do you know if they have one? You can't ask.

I don't think there are any laws that allow you to stop people entering a single sex space if you aren't the owner of the space. You would need to rely on a different law e.g. outraging public decency, but it would be difficult to show that this was happening if somebody were just quietly going about their business.

Segregation of male and female and toilets is really governed by social convention, not the law. It's normal for people to take children into opposite sex toilets, but there is no legal age at which this becomes unacceptable.

OP I'm reading this from a 'reading comprehension' perspective and think I get your 'positions of trust' comment. I think you're saying 'if a proportion of all men pose a risk, why is it ok to allow men to become midwives, or doctors, teachers or sports coaches at all, given that a proportion of them will try to abuse these positions to groom and abuse girls and women?'. Your comparison is with transgender men being allowed into single sex spaces, like toilets, changing rooms, women's shelters, prisons etc.

You seem to be saying 'why are posters willing to accept men in positions of trust which they can abuse in order to target women and girls but not willing to accept transwomen into single sex spaces, given the risk can only be the same or less (pro rata) than it is from encountering men intimately, or disadvantaged by a power imbalance, as doctors, teachers etc. Further, given that there are so many more male professionals than old-style transsexuals, the total risk posed by male professionals must be higher.'

You are particularly interested to know why some posters would be so bothered about 'old style' post-op transsexuals, who would seem to pose a lower risk than the average man, accessing women's spaces, given the same posters will encounter men in positions of trust and are not campaigning to have them removed from these for the benefit of women as a class, or, for an entirely sex-segregated society. Is that right?

I think you've had all the answers already but would need to join the dots to draw them together. A few are:

1. The 'single sex spaces' line is not compromised by men in 'positions of trust' at all. (Male teachers don't supervise girls' changing rooms, male prison and police officers don't conduct intimate body searches on women, rape crisis centres can employ female-only staff etc). It is compromised by post-op transsexuals, because they are natal men, however altered. They have still been socialised as men and may still perform the same level of male pattern violence as natal men. So, however few and however lovely most are, their presence, as a group, raises the risk of male violence, abuse or pervy behaviour in female-only spaces, plus the discomfort of women at having non-natal women in female spaces, from zero to something. (Ok it's not zero because men can barge in but, that won't change and isn't what we're talking about).

2. There is honesty and transparency about the sex of trusted professionals. You know if they are a man. You can refuse to see a male doctor or midwife and be provided with a female alternative. You can chose not to join a sports team with a male coach (you may lose out on a sporting opportunity). If you object to male teachers you can choose to home educate your child, or choose a religiously-segregated school. (You may miss out on some educational opportunities and may not be able to afford these options but, the choice is there). So, there is cost, loss of opportunity and inconvenience but there is choice. When you are presented with a transsexual or transgender person and told they are a woman and must be treated as such - be that in a changing room, a prison, or a consultation with your midwife - you do not have a choice. They are a woman, being a woman. You will not be granted, or in a positon to seek, alternative provision.

3. Professionals are bound by professional ethics, subject to oversight and complaints procedures and can be struck off.

4. There is no way of knowing what is going on inside the head or under the clothes of any transwoman you encounter. You cannot know whether they are acting in good faith, or feel good will towards you. There is no polite or permissable way of asking. Either 'people who look like that' (natal males presenting as women) are allowed in this space, this role, or they are not. If they are, you have no way of ascertaining their motives.

5. None of this was such a big deal when the only transwomen involved were a small number of post-op transsexuals. That doesn't mean it didn't bother anyone at all. It did bother some women, a lot, or a bit. It just wasn't as high a priority, in the context of everything else that women experience in their lives, as it has now become. Given that everyone cannot campaign about everything all the time, it wasn't picked up as an issue worth putting a lot of energy into tackling.

Is that helpful at all?

To build on breastfeedingclownfish's post Amnesty International say this

*Women and girls travelling alone and those accompanied only by their children felt particularly under threat in transit areas and camps in Hungary, Croatia and Greece, where they were forced to sleep alongside hundreds of refugee men. In some instances women left the designated areas to sleep in the open on the beach because they felt safer there.

Women also reported having to use the same bathroom and shower facilities as men. One woman told Amnesty International that in a reception centre in Germany some refugee men would watch women as they went to the bathroom. Some women took extreme measures such as not eating or drinking to avoid having to go to the toilet where they felt unsafe.

"If this humanitarian crisis was unfolding anywhere else in the world we would expect immediate practical steps to be taken to protect groups most at risk of abuse, such as women travelling alone
and female-headed families. At a minimum, this would include setting up single sex, well-lit toilet facilities and separate safe sleeping areas. These women and their children have fled some of the world's most dangerous areas and it is shameful that they are still at risk on European soil," said Tirana Hassan* Amnesty International also support the proposed changes to the UK GRA processes to allow self-id.

The exemptions under the EA are a chocolate teapot.

Unless you are the Masons and want to exclude women but continue to include trans identifying men on a 'case by case' basis.

Labour apparently want to run AWS in the same way. Exclude all men except the ones you want to include.

It seems to be a licence to discriminate for vague non specific reasons.

Unlike human rights or citizen rights, rights on the basis of sex are awarded on a 'case by case basis'.

lottiegarbanzo 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 You have far more patience than I.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but for me it's as much about comfort and dignity as well as danger. If a male transsexual comes into a space where I am undressed or otherwise vulnerable I just see someone wearing 'women's garb' who I read as male. Whatever surgery that person has undergone it's still vanishingly unlikely that I will not nevertheless perceive them as male. That leaves me in the presence of not only a male person, but a male person who registers 'unusual' on my radar. I don't want to undress in front of men, especially unknown men who may or may not indulge in sexual fetishes. So it's a flat no from me.

As well, I think a lot of women here who started out very supportive of 'old school transsexuals' had their eyes opened by some who came on here and displayed their male socialisation for all to see. So now it's a flat no from those women too.

No.

I've changed my mind from earlier posts. I was thinking carefully about OP's question and trying to clarify my own thinking as I responded.

Now, I think that as long as transgender people allow the likes of Lilli Madigan, Pippa Bunce and Laurel Hubbard to be visible without disagreement, then I won't be comfortable sharing women's spaces with them.

Oh and a 6) to my list above is, it's much easier to refuse to give up something you already have (single sex spaces), than it is to claim something new that you want (a world with the option of sex-segregated provision across all professions and service providers - if that is indeed something people want). Especially when the 'want' is something so huge, expensive and socially revolutionary.

So there's a principled argument that single sex spaces are necessary and are there for well-established reasons. There's a tactical one that ground ceded voluntarily is very, very hard to win back (the current Self ID movement is seeking to take full advantage of the tiny space already ceded to transsexuals, using that toe in door to prise the door wide open. Which is a reason, in retrospect, to regret that decision having been made so lightly). There's a pragmatic one that the resource required to maintain the status quo is negligable, compared to that required to overhaul all professions, service providers and the social norms, attitudes, structures and funding that surround them.

What seems to me more likely, is that 'what people want' with regard to service providers, is for standards and complaints procedures to be rigorous, fair actively applied and - more than anything - for women and girls to be listened to, believed and seen as 'equal enough' that their legitimate concerns should be acted upon, when they complain.

And surely that is the core of the issue?

Thank you to everyone who took the time to respond, it is really interesting to hear different perspectives and understand better.

So there’s a few things I’m unclear about, I have been researching but I could not find the answers.

Firstly, currently is it an offence for a male to use woman’s facilities (and visa versa) not even identifying as trans, what would happen if a man went into a ladies bathroom?

Also I’m slightly confused, so if a GRC ultimately means nothing - in the sense that you’re not allowed to ask for it anyway, what difference is self ID going to make? I’ve completed the consultation on that, but it doesn’t seem like it will make much difference from the responses here?

Also, what outcome would you all like? I gather that it’s For no transgender people to be able to access their desired facilities - I understand the reasoning, but how is this possible to police? In terms of how someone will be prosecuted etc... but also, is it not likely to mean only those who ‘pass’ will be able to? What about those biological woman who look very manly?

And if it comes down to the end result of a complaint, surely factors do come into play? Such as who if someone has been a transwoman for 50 years etc..

Surely a predator is still a predator and whether he identifies as a woman or not, he will find his way in if he wants too?

Is the point just that what happens afterwards? That if you complain he can say he is a transsexual? But then m in the court of law, would it not comes down to whether they hold a GRC or not? If not, how is it currently being policed? And is this the desired outcome for you? That transgender cannot be seen as an ‘excuse’ as such if a complaint is made?

Sorry if it’s all a bit mumbled! I find it hard to write what I’m thinking.

Also I’m slightly confused, so if a GRC ultimately means nothing - in the sense that you’re not allowed to ask for it anyway, what difference is self ID going to make?

So why are trans activists so keen to bring in self id?

I don’t know I’m not a trans activist! From what I’ve read, I thought it was so any Tom Dick and Harry can have access to woman’s spaces. But now, lots of you are saying that you’re not allowed to view a GRC anyway when someone has got one through legitimate channels so I don’t understand what difference it will make as to how someone got one if you’re not allowed to know if they have one anyway?