I used the girls' room for the first time today

[GrinitchSpinach]

from reddit mtf:

all comments affirming. They are delighted to have actual women apologizing for being in the 'wrong' place in the women's room. Absolutely no understanding of the fear any woman or girl might feel encountering a male person in a vulnerable, isolated space. Also: "little girls' room" for a 19 y.o. person...

Floral I think you’re confused. I argued that you should need a GRC to use the toilets. But was shut down because vulrenable woman would be too scared to ask for one or challenge them.

But you appear to be arguing for something that would also rely on woman challenging someone, no?

I know it doesn’t affect woman but if the whole point of transgendism was for men to steal woman’s spaces, what would be the point of a transman?

Because, men and women transition for different reasons. Gender dysphoria occurs, for different reasons.

Men, a small cohort in my opinion, reject toxic masculinity. Women are identifying out of objectification. Different reasons.

And cross dressing fetishists are hijacking gender dysphoria.

After all, we can’t have one rule of boundary for half a group and another for the other. That would take us back to men and woman having different rights.

Women's boundaries are more important because they do not commit 98% of the crime. But they should both be upheld. Men's boundaries may not affect safety, but they will affect dignity.

So any implications that you want to happen for transwomen will obviously have to apply to transmen too.

Unbelievable. Why do you think transmen aren't clamouring to get into male prisons?

transmen are encroaching on the privacy and dignity of men - they need to go and have a conversation with them

we can't speak for men

But you appear to be arguing for something that would also rely on woman challenging someone, no?

That's how it works now. There is a social taboo to having men in women's toilets. Although, that is sliding, right now. People are worried to say mate I think you're in the wrong loo.

Before, it would have been thought that it was a genuine mistake. Now you could be challenging someone who is going to give you a mouthful, quite legitimately.

early no, I'm really not confused at all.

When women have complained about the male bodied being in their spaces, the counter from such as yourself has been "Well, unless they are doing something bad, why should it bother you, and if they are doing bad, you can challenge them."

This has been repeatedly pointed out as ineffective and potentially dangerous to be challenging someone who is already behaving badly.

What Datun has highlighted, and my point, is that currently, most women still feel it is acceptable to challenge a male person or someone who looks male just because they are in the female space.

What you are proposing removes that layer of social taboo, which then means that women no longer have any confidence to challenge someone in that space at all, lest they be accused of hate crime etc.

Has someone got a copy of that "onion" analogy?

Do you mean the Swiss cheese layers of security? R0wan will probably know where it is, her skills at curating are most excellent.

But yes, that's the appropriate link here. You don't improve safety for anyone by stripping away layers of protection, be they legal or social.

transmen are encroaching on the privacy and dignity of men - they need to go and have a conversation with them

we can't speak for men
This.
And men might legitimately decide there is no problem and they don't mind transmen in their spaces. That doesn't change our right to insist on women's spaces.
I doubt men would accept it though. Two reasons- dignity/privacy and accusations. Most men wouldn't want to be in a situation where they could be accused of something by (for example) the quite female looking duo chucked out of the university men's toilets.

Well, unless they are doing something bad, why should it bother you, and if they are doing bad, you can challenge them."
Nope, you’re definitely confused. I’ve not said that at all. I’ve said only GRC holders should be able to use the toilets, and it should be common practice to be able to ask for them.

I’ve said only GRC holders should be able to use the toilets, and it should be common practice to be able to ask for them.
Do you not think this could lead to homophobic bullying? Anyone who is gender non conforming will need a special pass to pee?
Plus what happens if they're faked and sold online? What happens if all the 500000 people in the UK under the current Stonewall trans umbrella apply for one? How would you or I even know what a GRC was supposed to look like? How would we ask the person we suspected wasn't born female without being transphobic bullies ourselves?
There are a million practical issues with dividing trans people into "legit" and "not-legit" groups. Never mind whether it's even the right approach.
It's quite easy to divide people into male and female, even if some of the male are effeminate (or just enjoy wearing feminine clothing) and some of the females have a shaved head and bovver boots.
If your friend uses the gents, that's between your friend and the men who use that facility. Nothing to do with me.

Well, that's nice, early. Yet again you are arguing for something which no one else, GC or TRA/AWA is campaigning for.

It's an interesting take, and I don't agree, but it's also entirely pointless as none of the pro-reform orgs are going to agree with anyone being able to ask for a GRC, in fact most often we have AWAs coming here and highlighting that you don't even need to have a GRC, just be intending to pursue one to have access.

So I'm not sure what your point actually is, really.

Nope, you’re definitely confused. I’ve not said that at all. I’ve said only GRC holders should be able to use the toilets, and it should be common practice to be able to ask for them.

Toilets isn't about stringently having to police access. It's about customs and protocols.

And we need to have a custom that the women's is for women. And if you are not a woman, you have other options.

It’s not about dividing transpeople, it’s about keeping transpeople, and perverts who claim to be trans to access woman, separate. As they are two different things.

It always boils down to some sort of ‘woman with short hair and men in dresses’ some of these people will have been on hormones for many years, had surgery etc, it’s quite dismissive to completely ignore that in favour of men’s in dresses or whatever. Not that any of you care, which has been said many times, but people reading this might.

Also FYI, it’s not just handmaids that support this: www.endsexualviolence.org/where_we_stand/statement-of-anti-sexual-assault-domestic-violence-organizations-in-support-of-equal-access-for-the-transgender-community/

early

I don't quite understand that post. But if you are saying that keeping all men out will negatively affect some men, then yes you're right.

datun I’m saying there is a difference between trans people, and perverts pretending to be trans. Obviously, Some trans people may be both, just like non-trans people. But trans people with GD are not the same as fetishists and pedofiles.

I think your mistaken a bit floral in the sense your point of clarity comes from who shouts the loudest. TRAs are obviously on the extreme end of the scale, as are the GC people who are shouting around. You are only hearing the two extreme views, of ‘get them all out’ vs ‘let any one in’

Most people, inclduing myself, will be in the middle. In the sense that we are happy for trans people to access facilities but obviously want to restrict this to people who are in fact trans.

The ‘get them all out’ viewpoint is also unlikely to go down well in central govt, who as we all know, will do whatever they can to appear inclusive. So while we’re on the subject of ‘things that will never happen’ I’ll just leave that there.

Why are we excluding anyone from single sex provision? What is the purpose of it?

It's because males as a class present an issue of safety around women. Not because males are icky, or don't like frills and flowers, or even that every single individual one is a rapist pervert.

What is it, specifically, about a male who truly, honestly believes he is, in fact, a woman, that removes him from the broad class of men that are mostly benign but we still exclude from sex segregated spaces?

Seriously. I get that you are a nice person who wants to be accommodating, and you're presenting yourself as the reasonable middle ground here, but you have yet to show why your GRC-as-passport idea, backed by no one, is reasonable and those campaigning to keep sex segregation are an 'extreme'.

Early: not all men are violent, yet male violence is why there are sex segregated spaces. The scarce scientific data available suggest that fully transitioned transwomen (Incl. SRS) show male patterns for violent crime. So why should we do the NAMALT song and dance there? They are statistically as risky as run of the mill males, who summarily do not get access, no matter how harmless many individuals certainlY are. It makes no sense. (Transmen, on testosterone show elevated, rather male violent crime patterns btw).

Early, most around here want no specific law to be made (other than existing convention) and indeed a completely passing on hormones for 40 years post op trans person would still be able to use the restroom of their transitioned sex because, well, they are completely passing. Convention already makes the distinction you are trying to put forth.

It is TRAs that wish to change the law in order to force custom to change. They don’t want custom to allow people to gradually accept a variety of body types. No, they want people to be arrested, and institutions to be shut down, if they do not accept literally any male person who says they are female.

In my view, if new law is desired, the full impacts of the law should be examined and all stake holders consulted. There must be a demonstrated Upsides that override any and all possible downsides.

To be clear, upsides seem to be:

• Enhanced safety of trans women from transphobic men (though trans men would be at additional risk from such men and that might cancel this).

• validation of the feelings and struggles of the subset of transgender people with a serious mental illnesses that may improve their mental health.

• validation feelings for those trans and NB people who are not dysphoric (but do feel euphoric when being “seen as” a particular gender).

downsides:

• increase in assaults and acts of voyerism in mixed sex or women’s “inclusive” accommodation (target, that one recent study, mixed sex changing villages, prison assaults).

• gender nonconforming people being asked to leave their biological sex accomodation / being questioned if they are trans / generally being invalidated (probably balances the validation aspect above).

• increased rate of assaults of transgender and GNC people in single sex spaces

• possible and should be studied: reduced use of public services by vulnerable women where mixed sex accomodation is law.

datun I’m saying there is a difference between trans people, and perverts pretending to be trans. Obviously, Some trans people may be both, just like non-trans people. But trans people with GD are not the same as fetishists and pedofiles.
How do you determine someone's intentions? How do you determine the risk an individual poses? How do you perform that risk assessment?
Well you take generalities and give them weighting. Hence why, until it was made illegal, car insurance companies discriminated against male drivers in the form of higher premiums. They had more accidents, so were charged more.
An individual man might have been a superb driver but his risk was weighed against the wider group of all men.
Men carry out the vast, vast majority of violent and sexual crime. Individual men may be absolutely fine, and indeed the majority are, but we weigh up the risk of the entire group.
My dad is much less dangerous than a "girl gang" member with a knife in her sock. That's irrelevant. We don't qualify each woman who uses a women's facility, but the trend overall is that women are much less likely to commit violent or sexual crime and that keeps us safer.
Safer. Not safe.
So to undo that would mean qualifying individuals in some way. You suggest a pocket copy of a GRC. I think that's impractical as mentioned above. How else? And how could you feasibly work in a requirement that some transwomen might meet, but others won't, without leaving yourself wide open to litigation from the excluded?
Do you say surgery only?
Encouraging mutilation of healthy organs and discriminating against those who can't have surgery due to other health concerns? Payout ££££££
Do you say GRC only?
Do you say "passing" only? Can you imagine the kinds of lawsuits that would throw up? £££££££
How do you decide?
(Of course, you don't get to decide, not on other women's behalf, this is theoretical).

FWRLurker
There's an argument that validation isn't even an upside. Validating something that is not true, in a group of people with high rate of MH co-morbidity issues, has its own problems.
gender nonconforming people being asked to leave their biological sex accomodation / being questioned if they are trans / generally being invalidated
This already happens.

"Little girls room" is something I say as an older American woman. You were encouraged to be more euphemistic then.
Ha! I am remembering a trip to the UK I made when I was young, and I was literally shocked to see signs that said "toilets". I was actually punished for putting the word "toilet" into a little rhyme I made up as a girl because "young ladies don't talk like that".

Oldermum156 and TP instead of saying "toilet paper"! That confused me when I heard it on telly once

yet male violence is why there are sex segregated spaces

Really?

Early, most around here want no specific law to be made (other than existing convention)

I disagree, the law currently allows GRC holders to be seen as their preferred sex and therefore access facilities accordingly, no one seems very happy about this.

How do you determine someone's intentions? How do you determine the risk an individual poses?

I don’t know, I’m not a dr/psychiatric etc. Which is why I said way back there should be more focus by these diagnosing bodies to differentiate. It appears rather than talk to people, these days they’re just giving them hormones or similar. When my friend went through it, only 10 odd years ago, he had to jump through hoops to even be listened too. I don’t imagine it’s much like that anymore.

the law currently allows GRC holders to be seen as their preferred sex and therefore access facilities accordingly no, there's still a provision to exclude GRC holders but it would need to be proved to be necessary
no one seems very happy about this
There was no debate before the GRA was passed, PFC were very proud of themselves for that. However it's the one bit of government forecasting that was correct: 5000 people got one. Proposals to expand the entitlements to 500,000 people are being discussed as we speak. It's believed by some that the gatekeeping in place currently for a GRC is better than nothing (which is the proposed alternative).
TRAs are against any and all gatekeeping no matter how well intentioned. I don't doubt that there will be more and more legal challenge heaped on gatekeeping. It's simplistic to say nobody is happy about the GRC entitlements - it's not very well written law and has a number of issues with it.
I don’t know, I’m not a dr/psychiatric etc. Which is why I said way back there should be more focus by these diagnosing bodies to differentiate
You can't expect "I don't know" to be an acceptable answer after you suggested changing the current system to accommodate some trans people. That isn't fair. If you think there's a way to segregate legit and non-legit trans people, or harmless and dangerous male bodied people, or dysphoric and fetishistic people, you should say what it is.
I don't think you can tell. It might be possible to be 100% sure about any given transwoman, like I'm 100% sure my dad is no risk to women, but I'm not providing him with a signed sealed "I'm allowed in here because my daughter vouches for me" card. It's not my place to make decisions on other women's behalf about who is and isn't allowed in to women's spaces.
It's not just public toilets, it's hospital wards, secure units, prison cells, it's body searches, it's intimate care, it's gynae services, it's sleeper compartments on trains, etc. I can't say, that because I'm woke and fit and healthy and not scared of fighting off an attacker, that I can bestow the privilege of entering those spaces on a transwoman, all transwomen, or some arbitrary subcategory of transwomen.