Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

These questions for Liz Truss... How would you answer them?

143 replies

witchesaremysisters · 25/04/2020 17:32

So I fell down a rabbit hole after reading this tweet:
twitter.com/WhatTheTrans/status/1253750544763674629

(Image attached from that tweet. And. Wow. But it's FINE for women to feel uncomfortable in THEIR single sex spaces or have to restrict themselves/go on the urinary leash?!? Also, the number of times I've been told to stop worrying about toilets? Right back 'atcha pal.)

They link to someplace called the Kite Trust, which had a list of questions for Liz Truss taken from Gay Star News.

How would you answer them? I am going to pretend I'm Liz and have a go.

1 What protections are you planning for ‘single-sex spaces’? Will trans, intersex and non-binary people be able to use bathrooms, changing rooms and other facilities freely?

Single sex facilities are to be single sex. They are what it says on the sign, frankly. They really don't exist to validate someone's gender identity. If you were born male, you don't come into a female-only space. You know what sex you are and that you are transgressing by coming into the space of another. Nobody asked women about this initially, but we understand women are not happy about sharing single sex spaces with males so we're rectifying the situation. Policies that trans activists are pushing for today might actually be illegal as they discriminate against females. We'll make third spaces to accommodate those people who don't feel comfortable in the facilities of their own sex. This would seem the most progressive way forward: it keeps vital protections for women and girls, and also lets nonbinary folks not have their sense of identity hurt, and increases the number of available facilities.

We'll throw some of the money that we give to Stonewall at making new toilet facilities in public spaces. Maybe they could even help build them, instead of us paying them to re-explain to us why the difference between neutrois and agender matters. Oh, here's a thought: why don't we make the sign for these third space facilities the Trans Umbrella? Or would the Genderbread person be better?

2 What ‘checks and balances’ are you considering on trans adults’ lives? Will these represent additional restrictions on transgender people’s freedoms?

What freedoms do transgender people lack that everyone else has? Genuine question. Who else is allowed to fake their birth certificate? Why don't we instead make some kind of new gender identity piece of paper that can be changed as freely as you like. But given that sex is immutable, we're going to stop pretending people can "amend" it. Nobody has the "right" to document a lie about biological fact in a historical record. Some things can be gender identity based, but in important circumstances some are to be categorised by sex. Such as prisons. Or collection of data such as in the census. Same with women's refuges. These are only a couple of examples off the top of my head, but if you all want to come and actually talk respectfully with women, the adult female humans who are more than an indefinable nebulous essence in a male mind, I'm sure we could hash something out.

3 What restrictions will you apply to trans access to transition healthcare before the age of 18? Do you realise these medical interventions are often lifesaving for vulnerable teenagers? Will you stop trans teens accessing hormone blockers? Will trans teens be able to access transition healthcare provided they do not take so-called ‘irreversible steps’?

I don't realise anything as nobody is systematically collecting long term data on this unprecedented medical experiment. I'd prefer if we stopped this outright now, but if you want to continue doing any of this, you have to set up proper randomised controlled trials. The onus is on you to prove what you are claiming. Show me the data. Gather it like you would for other "treatments." Include all the stuff about looking for potentially harmful side effects. Properly follow up the children for many years down the line. Show me the actual evidence that any benefit massively outweighs the harms. Show me how you are only picking the "true trans" kids to give these drugs to. Develop an objective marker. Compare medication versus solid mental health support and see who does better over the long run. You'd also have to explain to the kids that this "treatment" may crystallise their gender identity (not "buy time") and that "medically transitioning" will leave them sterile and on hormones for life. And that there is no actual long-term evidence it will make them less depressed (in fact, data released in FOIs from the Tavistock found that puberty blockers might increase suicidal thoughts, but we can't know for sure because, again, they've not made a scientifically robust attempt at figuring out that sort of relevant information about this "treatment").

All you have right now are empty utterings from people who have far too much vested interest in the idea that what they are doing must be "good," probably because the true nature of these "treatments" which mean sterilising gender nonconforming, likely homosexual, children and young people, is frankly horrifying.

If kids are struggling with their mental health, including ideas around their sexed bodies or gendered behaviours, they should have access to excellent, quality counselling, social and mental health support for their developing sense of self.

Produce me the evidence for why only this specific mental health issue in children, gender dysphoria, must be treated with experimental, irreversible physical interventions rather than psychological input. Because according to a Professor in Evidence Based Medicine from Oxford, who looked into this issue thoroughly, we don't have any.

4 Has the government considered the mental health impact of this policy change? And if so, who managed and advised on that assessment? Did they consider the dangers of self-harm, suicide and long term mental health trauma this may cause?

We considered that there may be a tantrum and threats from trans activists. Sure. But then we factored in the mental health of women, many of whom are incredibly depressed and frustrated over being forced to lie about reality. We thought about the feminists who are getting abused for not wanting to give up their hard-won gains to males. Then we considered what is happening to vulnerable young people, mainly female, with the rapid rise in referrals to the Tavistock with gender issues. We thought about these kids with autism, histories of abuse, trauma and eating disorders, who deserve much better than to be funneled into an unregulated medical experiment.

Yes. Mental health was at the forefront of our minds.

5 Is this policy a sign the government agrees with TERFs and the anti-trans LGB Alliance who represent fringe, transphobic views? Why has the government pursued this policy rather than one the vast majority of LGBT+ people would support?

We're listening to lesbians of the old-fashioned, female, cunty variety. Oh... and the common sense of the vast majority of the population.

Need I remind you that sex and sexual orientation are both protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010? Thanks ever-so for not using a misogynistic slur in any future correspondence and for refraining from slandering a brilliant organisation like the LGB Alliance.

6 The UN Human Rights Commissioner has instructed that states do not use the coronavirus period to roll back LGBT+ rights. She singled out Hungary which has attacked trans people’s rights to legal transition during the pandemic for criticism. Therefore is now the right time to proceed with this policy?

Yes better late than never!

Halloween Smile
These questions for Liz Truss... How would you answer them?
OP posts:
JellySlice · 26/04/2020 14:11

As usual, R0wantrees puts it much more eloquently and simply than me Grin

R0wantrees · 26/04/2020 14:22

If any organisation wishes to provide a fourth, unisex provision, that's up to them. Maybe it would be a good business decision for them.

Maybe it lets them off the hook from their responsibilities to ensure safe single sex spaces for all? If there were issues with transphobia in male and/or female single spaces then isn't it better that these issues are addressed robustly?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/04/2020 14:30

And that's right where it slips from 'we have real points to make' to showing the lunacy and distortions of thinking, and complete blindness to how this comes over to someone not part of the GroupThink. It's shows this is not about dealing with rational, adult thinking, or an ability to comprehend that anyone else has a different point of view or to empathise with anyone else's needs and experiences.

TERFS - We Hate Females. Nuff said.

Yes. They have zero self awareness.

JellySlice · 26/04/2020 14:37

How so? Is an organisation responsible for the behaviour of the people who use the facilities they provide? As long as safe and appropriate single-sex spaces and disability spaces are provided, why shouldn't and organisation provide any other spaces it chooses? There is no requirement to provide breastfeeding spaces, for example, but having one may be good business sense.

R0wantrees · 26/04/2020 14:43

Would it be acceptable for an organisation to provide additional spaces for people using single sex spaces who were harrassed by others focussing abuse or intimidation on the basis of their sexuality, religion, race?

R0wantrees · 26/04/2020 14:44

There is no requirement to provide breastfeeding spaces, for example, but having one may be good business sense.

This is provision of a specific facility.

TyroSaysMeow · 26/04/2020 14:53

Re: third space / fourth space. What is needed is an open space, mixed sex, open to all. Alongside maintaining and strengthening protections for female-only space, and same for disabled-only.

If you want male-only too that's fine by me. But in order of priority that one's at the bottom of the list.

JellySlice · 26/04/2020 14:57

A fourth, unisex space would be a specific facility.

Would it be acceptable for an organisation to provide additional spaces for people using single sex spaces who were harrassed by others focussing abuse or intimidation on the basis of their sexuality, religion, race?

An organisation can provide whatever additional spaces it chooses, as long as such provision is not discriminatory. Ithink the problem in your question is not one that can be solved by providing additional spaces. Say I was in a department store and I went up to a floor manager and said "I just went into the ladies' loo, but a woman in there swore at me and made racist threats. I'm frightened to go in there now, but I need to use the toilet." What should they do? Where would their responsibility lie?

R0wantrees · 26/04/2020 15:10

Say I was in a department store and I went up to a floor manager and said "I just went into the ladies' loo, but a woman in there swore at me and made racist threats. I'm frightened to go in there now, but I need to use the toilet." What should they do? Where would their responsibility lie?

Their responsibility would be to ensure the customer be accompanied to the loo so she could use it. Customers who threaten/abuse other customers or staff should be asked to leave. Stores should have sufficient security measures to remove people from their premises if needed. Its completely reasonable & should be expected that abuse/threats against customers is not tolerated.

Presumably noone would propose a reasonable response would be provision of a separate toilet so those being subject to racist abuse could go there?

JellySlice · 26/04/2020 15:20

I agree. Which is why provision of a 4th unisex space should be entirely optional. It should not be a legal requirement, just as there should be no legal requirement to provide toilets segregated by other people's behaviour.

Disability toilets fulfil a quantifiable physical need. Hence they are a legal requirement. You do not need a different toilet because of a belief or orientation.

R0wantrees · 26/04/2020 15:33

I agree. Which is why provision of a 4th unisex space should be entirely optional.

Yes, organisations & businesses also have a duty of care to staff, customers and/or service users using the single sex spaces provided.

There will be a number of initiatives they might consider to promote safe & comfortable use.

TehBewilderness · 26/04/2020 21:44

Pink News by Vic Parsons: Thousands protest against Liz Truss’ ‘deadly’ plan to take away healthcare for trans kids: ‘It will kill trans people’

In point of fact suicide and suicidal ideation increases post transition.
Particularly in female children who take testosterone.

R0wantrees · 27/04/2020 10:57

Its to be hoped that Stephen Whittle is sharing the importance of responsible discussion of suicide risk with other trans rights activists. This need was highlighted in response to Stephen Whittle's contribution to a Guardian article at the end of the Westminster GRA consultation which claimed an inevitable 'flurry of suicides' would be a conseqence of sex self-id demands not being implemented.

17/10/2018 Guardian by David Batty

'Transgender law reform has overlooked women’s rights, say MPs
Inquiry into trans people’s rights accused of being ‘fundamentally flawed’
(extract)
"Senior MPs have called on the government to reconsider plans to make it easier for trans people to have their preferred gender legally recognised to ensure that the reforms are not detrimental to women’s rights.

Maria Caulfield, the Conservative party’s former vice-chair for women, said the parliamentary inquiry into transgender rights, which informed the consultation that is due to end on Friday, was “fundamentally flawed” and failed to consider the wider implications of the proposals for women.

The MP for Lewes, who sat on the inquiry, said she was writing to the minister for women and equalities, Penny Mordaunt, to ask her to extend the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act to ensure that women’s voices were heard. Mordaunt’s office declined to comment." (continues)

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/17/transgender-law-reform-has-overlooked-womens-rights-say-mps

When members of MN FWR identified the serious issues with such a statement, Stephen Whittle acknowledged, "the Samaritan's guidelines never cross my mind"
Following discussion about the importance of well-established discussion of suicide/self harm & reflection, Whittle accepted its importance and ensured the potentially dangerous comment was edited.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?pg=4

Stephen Whittle was the Special Advisor to the Westminster Inquiry on Transgender Equality in 2015/2016

1955stephen copied the email sent to Society Editor, the Readers Editor and David Batty of the Guardian:

(extract)
"It has been brought to my attention that my response conflicts with the IPSO/Samaritans Guidance on reporting about Suicide, which say at
Point 2:
“there is a risk of imitational behaviour due to ‘over-identification’.
Vulnerable individuals may identify with a person who has died, or with the circumstances in which a person took their own life.

For example, combining references to life circumstances, say a debt problem or job loss, and descriptions of an easy-to-imitate suicide
method in the same report, could put at greater risk people who are vulnerable as a result of financial stress.”
And at point 3:
Over-simplification of the causes or perceived ‘triggers’ for a suicide can be misleading and is unlikely to reflect accurately the complexity
of suicide.

For example, avoid the suggestion that a single incident, such as loss of a job, relationship breakdown or bereavement, was the cause.
And at point 5:
“Be careful not to promote the idea that suicide achieves results.”

It is clear in retrospect that my comment was ‘ill thought out’ and completely inappropriate, as it could lead vulnerable and/or young trans people to consider taking their own lives, and clearly nothing could be further from my wishes." (continues)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?pg=7

parallel thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397127-Stephen-Whittle-Press-for-Change-irresponsible-use-of-likely-suicides-follows-Helen-Belchers-Trans-Media-Watch

witchesaremysisters · 27/04/2020 13:03

Maybe it lets them off the hook from their responsibilities to ensure safe single sex spaces for all? If there were issues with transphobia in male and/or female single spaces then isn't it better that these issues are addressed robustly?

Still mulling over the excellent points being made re: third/fourth spaces. Actually a real potential downside of having these could be also an expectation that all gender nonconforming people would be told to use those, which would impact negatively on some women. Agree completely that in general much much more must be to tackle any abuse of others in these spaces.

Despite this, I'm marginally in favour of an additional unisex "alongside" (or to look closer at whether the men's could be an "open" category as suggested). And this to me is because of the question on another thread about "passing" trans men who have had their appearance and voice completely changed with testosterone, actually.

Now, I think they should be welcome in female spaces, because they're female.

Transactivists may have a reply for this, though (which for once I think isn't entirely without merit). They might ask, "well what's to stop a predatory male from saying he is a trans man and accessing female spaces? How would you tell the difference?"

From a safeguarding perspective, I personally think this needs to be considered. If I'm honest, it typically takes longer for me to accurately sex some females who are taking testosterone. I also can't in good conscience say that the hypothetical of a male with ill intent taking advantage of the normalisation of females on testosterone who on initial glance might pass convincingly for men in women's spaces "will never happen."

That's where I've gotten a bit stuck.

What would you say?

I trust women. Women come in all varieties and some are hirsute with lovely deep voices. Many (most?) don't wear dresses, even! They should all be welcome in women's spaces.

BUT... I don't trust that some men would not seek to exploit this.

Can we have confidence that persons would stick with the single sex system, i.e. that males wouldn't seek access to the female space by claiming to be female, but in this other way?

Not quite sure how to parse it.

Additionally, if I am taking into account the safety/privacy/dignity of females who identify as something other than women, does any desire they have not to be in a women-only facility also need to be factored in to the analysis?

So that's why instinctively I would like some females to have another option available, if they want it. All females, including trans men on testosterone, those who identify as nonbinary and detransitioners would be aware of dynamics in women's spaces. They don't pose any threat, but likely don't want to inadvertently cause any upset, either, or feel hindered from accessing necessary facilities. So I'm thinking a separate space might be useful for those who want it, while ensuring that all females are made to feel welcome in the women's space... then they can navigate as they see fit.

It could be the men's is open. So you have "women" and "everyone." But would one say that males have to stay in the "non-women" area, but females are allowed to go wherever suits them best? Are there safety risks to females to consider? If there is a women's but no men's facility, could that be construed as sex discrimination?

OP posts:
witchesaremysisters · 27/04/2020 13:09

TLDR: I'm usually biased for any option that gives us more toilets.

OP posts:
TyroSaysMeow · 27/04/2020 13:24

could that be construed as sex discrimination?

Absolutely, which is why it's necessary to pick apart what sex discrimination is and why there are laws against it and how it all plays out against the background of a society that favours equality within an unacknowledged-sexist society.

It would be discrimination if there were no facilities males could use. Having open facilities means that's not an issue.

Equal rights doesn't mean everyone gets exactly the same provision. Equal rights means accepting that some groups have different needs and the right to have these accommodated.

There is a real and justifiable need for female-only loos - physical safety and the reduction of opportunistic sex crimes.

Women do not, as a rule, pose a sexual assault risk to males in enclosed spaces. Men pose a risk to other men, yes, but a man is in no greater (and in fact likely lesser) danger of being assaulted in mixed spaces than in male-only. Single-sex spaces cater to women's safety needs; not to men's.

Really, both sexes need equal access to space with the lowest possible level of risk. It is discrimination to provide this to males (by allowing them to hide in the ladies') while denying it to females (by removing our single-sex space).

R0wantrees · 27/04/2020 13:38

A very important WPUK speech by Professor Clara Greed (Bath, 1st November 2018) who, in her words, 'has been banging on about toilet provision for years'

TyroSaysMeow · 27/04/2020 14:21

Three thoughts:

A) There aren't actually that many males who could pass for transmen. Most of the hypothetical chancers wouldn't "pass" at all.

B) The privacy&dignity angle is a red herring. The only reason we go on about everyone having the right to p&d in the toilet scenario is because the fuckers refuse to acknowledge the stats on the physical safety angle for the precise reason that it's only an issue for women.

C) On whether it would be sex discrimination to have female-only and open - compare with what's considered equal in terms of numbers. Women need something like three toilets for every one men get, in order to ensure both can access loos in a timely manner. Equality doesn't mean giving each sex exactly the same provision.

Goosefoot · 27/04/2020 18:16

So what would be your suggestion, JellySlice? I have never taken the term "third spaces" to refer to facilities set aside for those with disabilities. They have a separately protected characteristic with quite different provisions and adjustments and were never intended, as far as I understood, to be part of any solution.

I think what sometimes people envision is grouped men's and ladies, and then single occupant spaces that would be suitable for a variety of "third" uses. The important thing for the single occupancy would be that there is enough of them to accommodate the people who need them, the more people who need them the more of them you'd need.

I think it's a lot easier to picture that if you are thinking in terms of people who have had whole sex reassignment or passing transmen, and may in some cases really want more privacy, and who represent fairly small groups, rather than just anyone who wants to wear GNC clothing.

JellySlice · 27/04/2020 18:26

'Fourth spaces' puts unisex facilities firmly behind disability spaces in the order of priority.

R0wantrees · 27/04/2020 18:58

I think it's a lot easier to picture that if you are thinking in terms of people who have had whole sex reassignment

Whole sex cannot be reassigned.

What are you referring to, males who have had genital surgery?

Goosefoot · 27/04/2020 20:08

Yes, that's what I am referring to. Basically people who might really not fit into either sexed toilet and might reasonably think they could be seen to be inappropriate in either space. Those are going to include really a small number though and it's a lot easier to accommodate the needs of a very small group than a large one.

Goosefoot · 27/04/2020 20:09

Well, no actually, it could also include females who have had genital surgery.

R0wantrees · 27/04/2020 20:13

You included females who 'pass' as the opposite sex separately

"I think it's a lot easier to picture that if you are thinking in terms of people who have had whole sex reassignment or passing transmen"

Goosefoot · 27/04/2020 20:22

Yes, there could be females who pass but haven't had phalloplasty, as well as ones who have had. Two different groups. I've met transmen that pass, but transwoman not so much, so it could be a concern.

The point being that there is a small group of people who might reasonably worry that if they go into same-sex toilets people will really get the wrong end of the stick. Or changing rooms where it might be more of an issue.

Ultimately if were are talking about the numbers as they were 30 years ago it wouldn't be that significant. If we get past this whole fad of gender ideology the toilets/facilities issue may take care of itself.