Help me out here

[WelshMoth]

I'm faced with a moral dilemma here and need someone to shine a light.

I'm so used to arguing my point against TRA's who push the acceptance without exception line (ladysticks etc) that it's been somewhat easy to hold the sex segregated line.

Then, I think of Blaire White, Buck Angel and the many transsexuals who pass. I also falter when I'm faced with a question on where trans kids should change/go to public toilets etc - I.e how vulnerable a little trans girl (?) is and how can advocate placing them where THEY feel unsafe (a recent Twitter spat). I've also been accused of being weird for obsessing about genitals.

Help me out MN - my thinking is clouded.

I'd focus back on the basics here. I'm presuming that your motivation for campaigning to protect women's rights is because you want to protect women's rights.

Your thoughts about trans people are a different issue. Some of those trans people will be women, so they are included in the focus on women's rights anyway.

Personally I have huge affection for some trans people, and I have never had an issue with the kaleidoscope of human expression. But as a feminist, women are my focus.

Also, look, people disagree on things. Often people who agree on some things will disagree strongly on others. Make your peace with that, it's just reality. It's perfectly possible to be civil, respectful and still disagree with someone - be they woman or man.

Wrt to the hypothetical child who feels they are trans, they do indeed need to be safe. As does everyone else who uses single sex facilities. My advice? Focus on women and girls for this. The hypothetical trans boy has the entire establishment, including well funded lobby groups pushing for his ability to ignore boundaries.

And if the vulnerable little transgirl's presence makes female peers uncomfortable or scared, what then?

Why prioritise the feelings of the male-born vulnerable child over the feelings of female-born vulnerable children?

It's not a case of advocating to keep transgirls in with the boys, per se. Alternative arrangements can be made for them that don't require the deprioritisation of girls' needs.

You can't argue it with people who accept twaw as a basic premise though. They see it as prioritising the girls who aren't also trans over the one that is. You can't see the problem if you can't acknowledge the sexes of the children involved.

I also falter when I'm faced with a question on where trans kids should change/go to public toilets etc - I.e how vulnerable a little trans girl (?) is and how can advocate placing them where THEY feel unsafe (a recent Twitter spat).

Males need to make sure their spaces are safe for all males. The answer is not to send anyone who feels unsafe to the female spaces.

Thanks both. You make sense.
Can I also tentatively ask about Blair White and Buck Angel. Buck for instance, is very masculine - I'm being reminded that my push for single sexual spaces would mean that Buck could very well use women's spaces (in theory).

There are, to me, loads of grey areas here. My line in the sand was pretty firm - I'm wavering a bit. I can't explain it.

I argue that the needs of all children must be considered. The girls need single sex spaces. If any boy feels unsafe or uncomfortable with others of his own sex, then consideration should be given as to whether he should be offered a separate space, or whether the male space can be modified so he’s more comfortable.

The boy’s feelings of discomfort should not be resolved by an act that is potentially detrimental to one or more of the girls. This is not the girls’ problem to solve.

It's about what people are not what they look like I think

With regard to women who have taken testosterone to the point where they pass as male: I would argue that if they prefer to use the men’s, they should continue to do so. There are no safety issues for men from those transitioners.

More complicated if they detransition, but I would argue they should use the space where they feel comfortable. Female socialisation probably means they will navigate women’s spaces in a way that doesn’t cause other women to feel threatened, even if they have a somewhat masculine appearance.

It is the irreversible effects of testosterone that mean the vast majority of males are unable to convince as women, and the increased risk to women of allowing males into their spaces that is problematic.

It doesn't matter how they present. Once we have established that women and girls ONLY are allowed in women and girls spaces, then everyone who sees Buck would know the reality and truth.

Buck does complicate matters, it's true. But doesn't provide an insurmountable hurdle.

In the absence of third spaces we basically have the choice between accepting the theoretical presence of either a) transmen or b) transwomen in women's spaces. Some women get hurt either way.

It ultimately boils down to: would you rather get undressed next to Buck or next to, eg, Muscato.

Personally I would rather the trans lobby hadn't pushed us to this point in the first place, but we seem to be here now, so I'm going to go for Buck, on the grounds of that one wasn't male-socialised and has a far lower statistical likelihood of assaulting me or getting off on the whole experience.

My push isn't for single sex spaces per se. It's for the protection and maintenance of female spaces. We can have female loos and showers plus open loos and showers, and then everyone's accommodated. Or we can have female loos and male loos and open loos, and everyone's accommodated. Or we can subdivide men over and over into groups rated by likelihood of violence etc, and still have female-only loos and open loos. The point is, there has to be a female-only option.

So Buck can use the men's facilities because these are in fact the open facilities; or we can work together to provide a third, open facility to the benefit of many groups of people if Buck has to be barred from the gents'. There are plenty of ways to accommodate the needs of both women (female) and passing transmen (also female), without opening to door to transwomen (male regardless of passing).

The female class is the protected class. And transgirls, no matter how much they fervently wish otherwise, are not female. They by definition cannot be included in female-only spaces; spaces in which they are permitted are by definition mixed-sex. Which is why they need a mixed-sex facility available. And if we have to turn one of the existing two facilities into a mixed-sex facility, then fine - so long as we keep the other female-only.

Buck would have every right to use women's spaces. They are and always will be female.

There is actually no law that says men are not allowed in women's toilets or vice versa - it is and always has been an honour system. This means that those trans people with 'passing privilege' are able to use their preferred toilets and absolutely no one will be any the wiser. This is the way it has always been.
It is trans people pushing for greater access to opposite sex spaces not feminists trying to create a law where right now there is only an honour system. It is not women creating this problem - and therefore it is not our problem to sort for other people.

Passing privilege isn't fair for genuinely dysphoric people who will never pass ... but life isn't fair, trans or not. It's just one of those things people transitioning will have to come to terms with (which is why access to talking therapies and counselling is so important for trans people and why we shouldn't seek to demedicalise the process - learning to manage expectation is a really important part of successful transition).

The problem with the toilet issue is enshrining in law that everyone can decide for themselves which toilet to use and that no one can challenge that. So men - clearly men - can enter women's spaces, purposefully make women feel uncomfortable and women cannot challenge their presence without her being the one on the wrong side of the law. Even if the man has made no effort to "look female"

Once upon a time a clearly male trans woman could have entered a woman's space and most women would have left them to it, assuming they were dysphoric. And most trans women would have quietly got on with whatever it was they were there to do. And a man who was "dressed as a man" would either be told he was in the wrong place or reported depending on what his intentions appeared to be.
Since TRAs started demanding the right to self ID and eroding women's right to single sex spaces women now will be much more wary of a trans woman in their spaces. It is one of the many ways the TRA agenda has harmed dysphoric trans people in their push for supremacy and erasure of women.

So - passing as they do - under the honour system, Blaire and Buck may get challenged if they use the correct for their sex toilet, but they can simply assert their biological sex - they have a right to be there and anyone's discomfort is their own problem. They can also use the opposite sex toilet with no one being any the wiser because they pass. It is down to their choice, and their conscience.

But women must have the right to challenge or report someone male in female spaces. And using those tiny percentage of trans people who can pass as a reason why women shouldn't be able to speak out is removing rights and safety from 50% of the population in order to pander to a statistical anomaly ... and massively benefits those trans women who do not pass, who use this argument to invade women's spaces regardless of how clearly male they are and how uncomfortable they make women feel.

Blaire White should not be a human shield for Karen White to use in order to access women's spaces - and anybody trying to use them in such a way should be viewed with suspicion.

I agree with other posters - the rights of girls to the dignity, privacy and safety of single sex spaces should not be compromised. Let’s see what happens with Oxfordshire CC who are taking this to court. Everyone is important. At school - a third place can be found. At my sister’s school, a Transgirl uses the staff toilets.

For Transmen:
I would expect Transmen to go to female prisons, women’s refugees, female hospital wards - if that is what they want. If female single sex provision was upheld and seen as important by government and agencies, then in a hospital ward for example, I would be confident that the person presenting as male was actually female and I would be comfortable with sharing a bay with them. However, with the capitulation of the NHS to gender identity- I am highly unlikely to have any confidence with this. Also with the increase in numbers of patients due to Covid 19 - keeping to single sex provision will be more of a struggle for Hospital Trusts.

In places where the identity of the person is not known - public toilets, changing rooms etc, there should be female, male and mixed sex/individual cubicles. Where there is just female/male provision it is more difficult - I think really where the Transmen feels comfortable, as other posters have said, there is no safety threat from Transmen for males. If all adult males ACTUALLY BOTHERED to respect female single sex provision, then women could have confidence that the person who appears more male if actually female.

Buck for instance, is very masculine - I'm being reminded that my push for single sexual spaces would mean that Buck could very well use women's spaces (in theory).

I think that's a bit of a red herring. Buck passes well enough that he's never going to get challenged. The key is that women should have the right to single sex spaces. If they don't then Jessica Yaniv's presence is just as valid as Blaire White's.

I have to say that (from experience) the risks of male bathrooms are wildly overstated. Most men wouldn't give a shit about someone like Jane Fae using them. That's not to minimise the threat from male predators, but those people are not targeting transwomen.

I'm with PPs, especially this:

The point is, there has to be a female-only option.

I'm also not entirely sure how this is a moral dilemma, as it seems more of a practical one (i.e. lack of alternative facilities), unless you are talking about the ethics of some self-identifying members of the dominant group (males) demanding access to the resources set aside to protect the more vulnerable group (females) in order to validate their feelings.

It's a red herring that leads to dangerous territory, too.

Masculine presentation is no excuse for barring females from female-only spaces. The idea that a female could be too butch for the ladies' is offensively sexist, and suggests that there is an appropriate range of gendered expression within which a female can be considered female, thus dehumanising women who don't conform sufficiently to femininity.

Thus we are othered and punished for failing to submit to our shackles and for challenging patriarchal norms.

Being butch doesn't disqualify you from being female, because sex isn't determined by presentation. Even Tolkien got this, ffs.

It's an absolute red herring. They like to say that because they play on women's socialisation and conditioning...they think if they appeal to our compassion that they are in danger we will fall for it.

Naturally women do. That is our upbringing. But I for one get fucked off that these men are using our socialisation against us...they're abusing us, don't you see?

witches I think it appears as a moral dilemma when you've stopped mentally translating all of the woke-speak.

Rephrasing it helps.

OP, why can't a transgirl use the boy's facilities? I can think of two possible reasons: physical danger posed by others is the one I think you're stuck on. But we don't let other vulnerable males flee to the relative safety of the girls' bogs. Why is that?

The other reason, of course, is validation. I remind you that girls do not exist to validate boys.

Slight tangent...a recent question on a Posie P video had a similar question, from a transwoman who had a husband. Posie's response was just because you think you're a woman and you think you pass and time husband thinks you pass doesn't mean you pass and it doesn't mean that a girl should be made to feel uncomfortable (or worse) in a public single sex space just because you think it's ok.

Or something like that.

I don't care if someone 'passes' or not, all women are welcome by me in the ladies loos I use whether they are a 'butch' lesbian or a woman who thinks she is a man or a teenage girl or a woman with baby sick on her shoulder. If you're female, step right in. If you're a bloke, back off. Go pee elsewhere and take your hidden camera with you.

I actually think that anyone who appears male either genetically or who has taken testosterone to become more masculine shouldn't be in female spaces because of their potential to cause women distress. It's not an equivalent situation between men and women because of male violence and because the effects of testosterone means that trans men pass better than trans women. I don't include women in this who just don't present femininely, it's still obvious that they are women from voice, size, body and face shape and movement. That's why it's important there are third spaces.

You might not realise that Buck Angel has been "cancelled" by the TRA crowd for actually agreeing with us on a lot of things.

And, to be fair, Buck disagrees with us on a lot of things as well, as you might imagine, but Buck isn't really a convenient person for TRAs to use as a gotcha. It might be worth looking up Buck's twitter and repeating Buck's opinions back at anyone who tries to use Buck as an example.

Also bear in mind that the "gotcha!" photos of very masculine-looking transmen don't always reflect reality. It is one thing flexing your tattooed muscles in a pic with no other people depicted, but if you met them on the street, well, all the transmen I know, without exception, are shorter than me, and I'm of average height for a woman. And of course that's a fluke, as there will be tall transmen that I just haven't yet met. But on the whole, individuals born female are shorter on average than individuals born male.

Trino so true...I can spot a TM a mile off. I am five foot ten and invariably they are around half a foot smaller so just look off.

Everard I get your point that the theoretical passing transman may cause distress. But think about the implications of what you're suggesting, please - barring masculine women on the grounds that other women are distressed by them really isn't a good look on a feminism board. It's a way of enforcing minimum standards of femininity by stealth, even though it's not intended as such.

I'd imagine if there's an alternative to the ladies' available then Buck would use it though, so as you say, third spaces = important.

There is not a single transman who is taking up gold medals in male sporting events, or exually assaulting males in vulnerable spaces like refuges and prisons, getting their privates out in front of 11 year old girls in the changing room
Somehow, all of these things have happened with transwomen against women/girls.

It's not about individual transpeople. Transpeople are the same as all people, you get lovely ones you get horrid ones. It's about basic safeguarding, and common sense.

Males commit 98% of all sex crime and 89% of all violent crime and it makes no difference what gender identity they have. Males are larger and stronger on average regardless of their gender identity.

Females with whatever special gender identity that isn't a "woman" will still be vulnerable to pregnancy, be shorter etc.

At the end of the day, Buck understands that if they rock up at the latest "women r us" meeting or go into the ladies loos at The Royal opera House, they'll be making a lot of people and themselves feel awkward and would rightly refrain from doing so.

Likewise, Blaire White has been very open that they use women's facilities but limit this so would eg never dream of entering a women's sporting competition or go up for a "best woman in xx" award.

These people fit into what was formerly known as "the honour system". Transexuals have always had access to women's spaces. Always. There was an understanding of mutual respect.
This is now at risk largely thanks to the McKinnon's and Yanivs of the world, so now women are bring forced into a corner.

TLDR
Focus on the bigger picture, not individuals and one specific scenario involving that individual.

^98% and 80%

Any child who can't change in their normal same sex changing area needs to be made comfortable in some other way, which will usually mean changing privately. That might be a kid with issues around gender, or one who is being bullied.

I think the Buck Angel thing is potentially tricky in some cases. Probably it's going to be a case by case basis. Ideally people should go to their own same sex areas, but there may be occasions that won't work and toilets for a passing transmen might cause difficulty in some cases. No one wants to be confronted by someone who thinks you are a man coming in which could happen with no ill intent.

I'm hesitant to say a transman who prefers to should go to the mens - it's not a safety issue and in a toilet it's unlikely to cause embarrassment if they really pass, so maybe it's best - but I do think men also have as much right to privacy as women. And people don't always pass even when they think they do. Third spaces might be the way but there will probably always be an element of individual judgement. Prisons and such, transmen should be housed with women though it may need care.

There is actually no law that says men are not allowed in women's toilets or vice versa

Yes there is; the Equality Act 2010. This allows spaces and services (Eg. Toilets) to be set aside on the basis of sex. There is no equivalent setting up a space that only excludes some men but let’s others in because of how they feel.