Passing privilege

[DamnCommandments]

Just filled in the GRA consultation and it got me thinking... Trans people face uncertainty every time they need to use single-sex faculties like toilets and changing rooms, right? 'What if I'm challenged? What do I say?' But no one is going to carry their birth certificate around with them. And even if they do, and they have had it changed to match their acquired gender, once they've been challenged, it's too late - they already feel shite and have had to justify their existence.

Presumably if they have the privilege of passing, this stuff happens less. Fewer challenges, less time feeling like shite. So the people who have most to gain from the GRA are the people who already have least trouble - people who pass in their prefered gender but just want a little extra confidence. (People who don't pass will still spend their time being challenged, not having their birth certificate and feeling shite. No GRC is going to make a 6'4" transwoman with a visible Adam's apple blend in.)

And predatory imposters who want to gain access to women's spaces. They'll gain too, of course.

Gulags, that was a horrible thing to happen. I was walking down a street one night, with a group of friends, and a man punched me in the head and kept walking. I hadn’t even noticed him until then.

Women never know which unknown man is a threat to them, and that includes unknown men dressed like women.

I do understand why my questioning this makes people angry as it's not something which really affects me as a man and I'm sat here pondering it like a crossword clue whilst others are genuinely concerned about their safety in the near future. However, it's something which I've seen a few people raise before, so there are obviously a fair few others pondering the same questions as me.

Trans people cannot be compared to victims of racism though. There is an inherent power structure in racism. Victims of racism are oppressed.

But one could argue that there is a power structure in place where women vastly outnumber trans people and already have the gender apartheid in place that some trans people want to abolish.

But then when I get the night bus and feel vulnerable I wonder why it's taboo
If you feel vulnerable then you feel vulnerable. (I'd never advise someone to talk themselves out of recognising that vulnerability because being aware of danger is so important.) The question is would you extrapolate that to mean anyone of the same demographic as the people on the night bus who made you feel vulnerable would be a threat to you. That would form a prejudice. What would you do with that "information"? You might avoid night buses. You might avoid groups of young women from Finland on night buses. You might avoid Finnish women altogether. Is that discriminatory? Or is that free choice? It doesn't affect them.
To me, being discriminatory would be to refuse to hire a Finnish woman because a group of Finnish women made you feel intimidated on the night bus, and you have assumed certain characteristics are shared by the whole group. That affects them.
We have the free will to either accept and challenge our prejudices or to use them against people by being discriminatory. Everyone has prejudices!
Men being excluded from women's spaces is different, it's a proportionate response to a risk, it's fair because men have their own spaces and their own privacy concerns too. Most importantly men recognise the need for women to have safety and privacy - let's face it, if men everywhere suddenly decided sex segregation was unfair we'd end up with no women's facilities at all. Men know what other men are capable of.
Likewise most adults aren't child abusers but we all recognise the importance of safe children's spaces and appreciate why nurseries have security features that prevent adults accessing children. That's age segregation. Like sex segregation, it's there for safeguarding. Take it to the libertarian extreme and you could argue it was discriminatory, but in effect it doesn't remove rights from adults.
Disabled parking spaces. Discriminatory? No. Provision is made for a group, there's an argument (fairly spurious) that this removes provision for other people (we have to walk a bit further to the supermarket front door) but adequate provision still exists for those who aren't disabled.
I can recognise that I am different to an elderly person, and that they have different needs to me, without being ageist. You've conflated discriminatory segregation with non-discriminatory segregation. It's the discrimination that is missing and that's why it isn't like segregating by race.
TRAs might argue that not being allowed to go where they like is discriminatory, and that argument has to be played out fairly, logically and publicly. My personal opinions as to why it isn't discriminatory are: existing provision, risk of male violence is not women's responsibility, risk of male violence is not avoided by self-id, single sex facilities are reasonable requirements and achieve what they intend to, more people would be adversely affected than would benefit and this adverse effect is measurable and tangible, whereas the benefit is subjective, and that it creates legal precedent.
That's just concerning TRAs being able to go where they please, not the cluster fuck that is changing what the word "woman" means.
Using emotive language to co-opt the racial equality struggle is manipulative. TRAs need to make their own arguments, not piggyback on others' hard work. Their arguments don't hold water which is why they use this tactic.

“gender apartheid” ???

Women want sex segregation where appropriate because of biological sex differences. Gender is not the same as sex.

I suppose I could ask it differently...

Why do we feel it's right to welcome other races into our spaces, even if they commit crime at greater levels? Why are we happy to allow safe passage for refugees for example, despite many coming from misogynistic cultures and evidencing an increase in sex crimes like we've seen in Europe.

I believe it's because we generally like to give the benefit of the doubt when we feel that helping a minority would be our chosen action in an ideal world. Why don't we want to extend that sentiment to transpeople, knowing that the majority are non-violent.

Is the average British transwoman a greater threat to women than the Syrian refugee from a misogynistic culture who we happily let into our spaces?

”Let other races into our spaces”
Just have a think about what you’ve just written.

Men being excluded from women's spaces is different, it's a proportionate response to a risk, it's fair because men have their own spaces and their own privacy concerns too. Most importantly men recognise the need for women to have safety and privacy - let's face it, if men everywhere suddenly decided sex segregation was unfair we'd end up with no women's facilities at all. Men know what other men are capable of.

I think this Is perhaps also the root of the difference of opinion we often see.

I don't really regard transwoman as 'men' in the standard meaning of the word, even if I'd ultimately say it's their gender. I think that the best place for transwoman would be female spaces (in an ideal world) but it's obviously not the best outcome for women who have nothing to gain (and potentially their safety to lose) from the situation.

Therein lies the contradiction. It's like there being only one spare kidney and the best outcome for each person who needs it is getting it, with that same situation being the worst outcome for the other.

Sorry, I am rather drunk! Maybe not explaining myself as well as I might...

”Let other races intoourspaces”
Just have a think about what you’ve just written.

I'm talking about it in relation to apartheid when we did have 'our spaces' and 'their spaces'.

Scott Why do you think the best places for transwomen is female spaces?
What biological needs do they have to use those female spaces?

Why don’t you “really” regard transwomen as men? What is your standard meaning of the word “men”?
Do you consider a trans woman to be “really” a woman in your standard meaning of the word “woman”? In all ways, including as a sexual partner of a straight male friend of yours?

I'm not sure why a man's opinion on whether or not transwomen belong in women's spaces is even relevant.

Hi Scott,
Re your race analogy, you could equally argue that the history of slavery and evidence of ongoing institutional racism show that white people are a threat and should be excluded. The race analogies are absurd and bring absolutely nothing to the debate about GRA.
I don't have a problem sharing a women-only space with transsexuals and people with genuine gender dysphoria. I have a massive problem with a piece of legislation that normalises and legitimises blokes in frocks loitering in women's dressing rooms and packs of AGPs acting out their fetishes in spaces intended for victims of sexual violence etc. If you have doubts, read the Trans Widows thread.

It's hard to explain why I think this. To give an analogy, I think religion is pretty much a delusion, yet I'd never say that a devout Muslim would be better off living in a devout Christian community. It's to do with identity, and whilst I'm extremely sceptical of identity politics on the whole, I think many transwomen's sense of identity would align better with women's than with that of a fairly masculine bloke like myself. Maybe (or maybe not) how a lot of young gay males seem to fit in better with female friend circles at school before they enter the proper gay scene after passing adolescence. I'm not talking about the Daniel Muscatos etc, some of whom I don't really think are proper TW, more fetishists.

Scott You are talking about gender stereotyping.

If you are straight, would you sleep with a transwoman, or are they not “womanly” enough for you?

I don't have a problem sharing a women-only space with transsexuals and people with genuine gender dysphoria. I have a massive problem with a piece of legislation that normalises and legitimises blokes in frocks loitering in women's dressing rooms and packs of AGPs acting out their fetishes in spaces intended for victims of sexual violence etc.

I'm pretty much of this view, although ultimately as a heterosexual bloke it's not my place to say what should happen wirh women's spaces. But I don't regard genuine transsexuals as being anything akin to myself as a fairly typical bloke.

That's like me as a white Brit saying that my sense of identity aligns best with someone who's Jamaican. How the hell would I know? And if I tried saying that to someone who was Jamaican just imagine the eye rolling that would ensue.

You, Scott, are the American standing to the side telling the eye-rolling Jamaican person that no, you really think that it's important that my beliefs be honored and it's kind of sad how they don't see how important it is to me and how tragic it is that they don't feel the same.

Don't be that person. Nobody likes that person.

And I don’t consider transsexuals, or other transwomen, as being anything akin to myself as a woman either in biology or lived experience.
So why should I have to have a male-born person in sex-segregated spaces?

Scott It seems that you, and men like you, are the problem here.
You don’t want non-conforming men in your men-only spaces, even though they would not be a threat to you physically.
If men were willing to accept that not all men were stereotypically “masculine” then that would prevent a lot of pain for non-conforming male-born people.

Therein lies the contradiction. It's like there being only one spare kidney and the best outcome for each person who needs it is getting it, with that same situation being the worst outcome for the other.
It's nothing like that. It's more like two people who have two kidneys each, but one of those people thinks the other should give up a kidney, just because.

But I don't regard genuine transsexuals as being anything akin to myself as a fairly typical bloke.
There you go. We don't consider them to be anything akin to women either, and don't want men in our spaces.

^You don’t want non-conforming men in your men-only spaces, even though they would not be a threat to you physically.
If men were willing to accept that not all men were stereotypically “masculine” then that would prevent a lot of pain for non-conforming male-born people.^

That's a fair argument, but most trans people don't want to share a changing room with people like me, and I'd say that there are likely more women who are sympathetic to the trans issue than there are men.

I mean, why is "terf" such a dirty word, and why are gender critical views being shot down left right and centre on social media, in workplaces, in political parties, etc. It surely wouldn't happen if everyone agreed with them.

So you would outsource the problem to women, and hope that their female socialisation means that not many would complain?
I am fed up with Women being expected to solve everyone’s problems. We are not your mummy and we are not a trans person’s mummy. I am fed up with being expected to “be kind” when men and trans people are not willing to be kind also.

So you would outsource the problem to women, and hope that their female socialisation means that not many would complain?

Didn't say that.

It just seems that 'terfs' do not necessarily represent the wider opinion - if they did it surely wouldn't be such a dirty word.

Personally, I can totally see the concern but I think the issue is likely more an ideological one than something which is going to cause lots of real life issues. The trans community is a miniscule proportion of the population and even if self ID came in (which I don't think it likely should) I'll get none of you would ever actually see a trans person in your changing room in real life.

I'll bet that should've been