**Solution** 'CIS' women and transwoman form a class together

[2BthatUnnoticed]

By ‘cis’ I mean only women who ID as ‘cis’ (CW). This is only a small proportion of the world’s 3.8 billion women, but politically very influential.

Most women want some sex-based protections, and access to certain sex-segregated spaces when in need – refuges, shelters, rape crisis centres, prison.

Some women, usually 'CW,' do not – they support removing sex-based protections for gender-based ones. [Many CW believe "TWAW" (regardless of transition) and that any risk of predators assuming a trans ID to access women’s spaces is minimal.]

To solve this fairly for all – why don’t CW form a class with trans women (TW)? Leaving women who want single-sex spaces to do so?

(Eg 1) In Vancouver, 2/3 rape crisis centres admit TW. TRAs are trying to get the one female-only one (VRR) closed (incidentally I've worked in a shelter - there are genuine reasons for single sex). Instead, why not have a 4th centre specifically for CW/TW - and respect the female-only centre as is.

(Eg 2) Youth hostels could have (1) male dorms, (2) female dorms and (3) CW/TW dorms. This would respect everyone and keep everyone happy:

• CW would be with TW as they wish – with gender ID in common.
• TW would be amongst those who believe TWAW - gender affirming.
• Women who want and need a female only space would have it.

I think there would be high profile people happy to champion the TW/CW cause (eg Sally Hines, Mhairi Black, Munroe Bergdof, Danielle Muscato).

What do you think?

Are there CW/TW posters about - would you support this?

Most “women’s” Refuges currently admit TW. They will lose their funding if they don’t. This policy is causing harm. Do you support it being changed as proposed?

Post edited by MNHQ at OP's request

@SummerPlace yes I’ve seen some disabled toilets become unisex, and wondered about this. Did anyone ask disabled people for input?

I think the rationale was that trans people are less than 1% of the population (less than disabled people) and would hardly be noticed... not sure about that.

Yes good point 3mks (for those places where it has not been slipped in under the radar - its worth standing firm.)

[Also, there has been immense trauma for some women associated with this policy (eg victims of Chris Hambrook and Karen White) - not meaning to minimise that]

From Field's link:

For example, in 2002, 6% of the prison population was female, but 12% of reported sexual assaults occurred in female establishments.This over-representation continued until 2012, since when proportions of incidents in male and female establishments more closely aligned to their respective share of the prison population. It is possible that, towards the start of this timeframe, some of this imbalance was due to men being less likely than women to report such incidents to prison staff.

Right. So there was a small proportional imbalance, which even the idiots at the MoJ understand was likely down to shame and lack of reporting by male inmates. And the elephant in the room? In the same timeframe as they started to call men women and put men into female prisons, the numbers changed.

Did anyone ask disabled people for input?

Of course not. Why would we be consulted?

Austerity has taught the public that we're all scrounging idlers living like kings on the spoils of 'hard working families'. Also, there's nothing stunning or brave about disabilities.

I agree Girl, it was an act of intimidation. Apparently the culprit has been ID’d.

Weezol sorry to hear that. Are trans people (via) Stonewall the only one with a lobby group these days?

@Bespin this is the thread I was referring to, although of course no obligation to comment

weezol rhetorical question as the answer is, evidently, no

Apparently the culprit has been ID’d.

Oh, that’s good news
Is it someone known to us? Will I find more detail on the original twitter?

Be interesting to see bespins reply to you.

It is alleged to be a well known TRA - someone saw it on FB and is trying to verify it - hopefully soon!

Cheers 2BthatUnnoticed. I actually hope it’s not a well known TRA, they really do their communities no favours by such overt and hostile behaviour.

I do think the action is deplorable whom ever committed it, I’m just sure many LGBT are probably not on point with this kind of ‘activism’ #waronwomen

TW are not the biggest problem women face?

If Patriarchy can put on a frock and own woman, that's pretty much check mate in terms of women's rights, equality or even existence as a group. There's really no point in worrying about anything else for females once 'woman and girls' is just anything a man says, including men and boys. Put feminism in a box in the attic, it's over.

Women can experience homelessness for various reasons including poverty, mental illness or male violence.

For many women, these are the major problems they face - not TW.

But if they leave a shelter on the second day because sharing with males is too triggering - how can they access the support they need? They can’t.

This is why we need to regain female-only refuges. Which this proposal (in OP) aims to do, in a way those in power cannot refuse.

I kind of feel that, in the case of shelters, TW share more common ground with gay men escaping domestic violence, than women. That perhaps for each scenario we should find the right solution, instead of trying to find one answer to all the problems or adjust female solutions to other groups.

So toilets: third space - either gender neutral or your CW/TW group is the best solution, where possible.

Refuges: LGBTQ refuges. These will be mainly TW and gay men escaping male violence. As men, they can't have a male free space, the triggers will be different, they are unlikely to have dependants with them (not impossible, I know, but women are often isolated by their care giver status) - the best model is surely different than for women.

how can they access the support they need? They can’t.

Same for toilets. Changing rooms. Hospital wards. Health care procedures. Guides and Brownies. How long have you got?

The current thinking is that women who aren't gender identitarians should rightfully be excluded from support and services, which in fact discriminates against them and breaches rights.

These people will actually gladly see women on the street, without health care, without access to toilets or hospital beds, if they are the 'wrong sort of woman'. That's how loving, inclusive, intersectional, basically moral and capable of normal social skills and empathy this movement is. They were not kidding when they mentioned gulags.

I still can't understand how shared sex toilets are compatible with certain religions.
@Datun, I always find what you say to be what I wish I could say! I hope I follow you on Spinster but I don't think I've seen your writing style there.

I still can't understand how shared sex toilets are compatible with certain religions

They are not. But the TRAs don’t care about these women . All they care about is getting their own validation.

So how is it all still going ahead, why aren't religious leaders standing up and saying no? The religious lobby have the fucking Equality Act on their side.
I suppose it's just because it's women who then can't go out... only women eh?

At the moment this isn't something the average person in the street is aware of. That's been done intentionally: the aim (openly stated and on the record) was for all this to be embedded in law and it to be too late when women realised what had been done to them. The amount of kicking off women have done and the effect on slowing things down and forcing our government to do its job - which it is doing as reluctantly and half heartedly as possible - is a cause of rage on the part of the TRA lobby. It's also the reason that meetings are picketed, protested, disrupted and as far as possible prevented from taking place by intimidating the venue: women telling other women the realities of this is 'hate' because it leads to 'no'. The whole thing is about never having to face a 'no'

Some religious groups and leaders were contacted (by women, the govt and TRA groups avoided letting anyone know who might give the wrong answer) during the GRA consultation and contributed, but this was minimal I think.

Yes, this directly puts government targets around equality, inclusion, access, community links and many other things in conflict. The LAs will have one department focused on how to help BAME or disabled or traumatised women isolated at home and limited access to facilities/health care by encouraging them to single sex swims at leisure centres for example, or women chaperones or single sex wards in hospital. While another LA department works on those single sex swims becoming mixed sex swims, the chaperones being mixed sex and mixed sex wards with the bonus of refusing you service/ threatening you with hate crime prosecution if this doesn't work for you. Slapping those women down hard if they are not able to accept mixed sex provision, and shooing them back out of public life.

Utter insanity. Which tax payers are funding.

So how is it all still going ahead, why aren't religious leaders standing up and saying no? The religious lobby have the fucking Equality Act on their side.

TBH I think many religious organisations and individuals are very hesitant these days to contribute to social discourse on contentious issues. Particularly anything remotely connected to sexual issues.

I agree with @Goosefoot. They got bad PR over homosexuality and abortion so they don’t want to stick their neck out now. And they honesty think ( like most of the general public ) that’s it’s about a few hundred transsexuals who aren’t doing anyone any harm.

I met with a lady who is very high up in the Church of England and is supposedly their unofficial expert on trans issues ( among others ). She thought it was all about confused teenaged girls and social contagion. That the role of the church was just to support these troubled teens and their families to hold on tight until they grew out of it.

She had zero understanding of AGP, TRAs, impact on women and children, drugging and sterilising of GNC / ASD kids etc

She thought it was all about confused teenaged girls and social contagion. That the role of the church was just to support these troubled teens and their families to hold on tight until they grew out of it.

Well, that's a better understanding than some, anyway.

Yes I agree. Although she didn’t get the link with autism or that so many of these girls will probably be lesbians and it’s part of the overall antipathy towards women in women in general and lesbians in particular. Nor how many het girls are rejecting pornified and over sexualised ‘femininity’.

They think it’s all a few nice chaps like Miranda. They have no idea.

I like your idea. Trans people are vulnerable and it is important to provide safe spaces where they fell comfortable.
If some don't feel this is enough I can't male myself care. The provision of female only spaces and outright rejection of GRA is more important.

The issue is as all of these services are being cut, there isn't enough funding for the places that exist so providing trans or trans/CW/CM prison wings and shelters doesn't feel anywhere close to imminent.

I’m bumping this thread in light of the “Devon rape crisis” one, calling for “self-ID women” to apply for roles. A woman said her rapist now IDs as a woman, and could apply for the role

The removal of single sex services is hurting women!!

Women who want it should have a dedicated CW/TW service. The trans lobby does not want “TW only,” so grouping them with self-ID “cis” women solves this.

(TW have much support also - remember the gamer who raised $500k in a day? And $245 million pa in LGBT funding?)

Those who want female-only should have it. I defy any CW or TW to find fault with this proposal.

Sorry - just realised others had posted on the thread which I hadn’t responded to as was too to read,

Will read later on and respond

I’m aghast at that photo of Jameela Jamil and Muscato.

I knew JJ wasn’t the sharpest tool but JFC she’s an utter fucking moron.