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.

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.

There's a difference though between having short hair / not wearing dresses and actively taking testosterone to develop secondary male characteristics.

Passing is a red herring.

This is talking about entire classes of people, not individuals. The 'sweet little transgirl' situation: a MNetter described a situation a while back arising at her daughter's school. (Sorry whoever you were, I can't remember your name!) There had been one transgirl, shy, long known to the children, well liked by the girls who were protective of them, and they had no real issues about agreeing to that one male child joining them in the changing room. Which has its dodgy points, but the girls were willing to do the exceptional for this well known, well liked child.

This was fine until a creepy teenaged boy the girls did not like and did not trust with a history of dodgy sexual behaviour towards the girls, identified as a girl. They wished to exercise the precedented right of changing with the girls. The girls were not happy about this, but they'd agreed to the principle. The school had no means to allow the girls to choose who they felt safe to get undressed in front of: any male student who said the words got the right.

Third spaces. I am all for trans students being allowed to come out of their own sex changing spaces for privacy, dignity, meeting of their feelings of discomfort and concern, because I believe no one should ever have to be in a vulnerable situation and be expected to just cope with those feelings. But those students should be provided with a third space because everyone is entitled to have those feelings respected, and that is equally applicable to female humans.

Separate out the need. The need is for the trans child to have somewhere to undress that they feel safe and comfortable. The need cannot be to prove validation of the child's chosen identity by compelling girls to sacrifice their comfort and dignity with their bodies and by taking clothes off.

If you've chosen to change your body and appearance to the point that you may cause confusion or alarm in others then you have to take responsibility for that, and either explain or choose facilities accordingly. Although the very lovely TM I worked with a few months back presented initially as a smart, bearded and rather small and slight man until they smiled and said hello, and were instantly readable as female. As soon as I'd seen them from the back, the hips and body shape was equally apparent. I felt my body shift from the alert of working with an unknown male to the comfort of working with a female, I would have had no hesitation whatever in sharing a toilet or changing room with them because they were female. They were also a lovely person who I can't imagine would hesitate to help if they saw a female looking upset or scared.

I can't ever imagine for example them taking selfies in a female single sex space with a sword for example, and written threats of what they plan to do to females who displease them.

TRAs do the 'you're obsessed with genitals' thing to distract from your argument and make you feel bad.
We're not obsessed with genitals, we're obsessed with safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.
We're not suggesting Transwomen are a problem, we're saying that the relaxing of rules around self ID and asking women to accept anyone in a dress in their toilets leaves a massive gaping hole for potential abusers to take advantage of.
Children or women should know that if someone in their protected space is making them feel uncomfortable then they should be able to alert anyone to the presence of that person whether they present a threat or not. Surely anyone with the child's best interests at heart would accept being challenged even by mistake because they would recognise it was an innocent concern and would prioritise the need of the child to feel safe over their own potential sense of being insulted. But the signs from Stonewall and others telling women and girls to accept anyone in their toilets without raising their concerns is a massive safeguarding concern.
It's not (only) about what's in their pants, it's the prioritising of other's feelings over girls' safety.
And as others have said above it's about always asking women to be kind and make room and to accommodate rather than asking men to be more accepting of males however they dress.
In practice I think Transpeople will find ways to use toilets privately and safely and without drawing any attention however they want, and most will never be questioned about it. It's the silencing of women and asking them not to raise concerns if they have them that is the problem.

Tabby - agreed there is a difference - but then what of detransitioners? Testosterone changes don't wear off. And I think it's pretty vital for transmen - who are for the most part our confused lesbian daughters - know that there is a way back. I think the door needs holding open for them when they're ready.

Plus there's always the possibility of homophobic idiots (who do come in female as well as male varieties) using Everard's proposal to police the space to suit their own beliefs. This happens to a degree anyway, but I really don't like the idea of said homophobes having legal backing.

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)

My understanding is that Buck Angel retained their female genitalia......and has even been called transphobic in recent times for stating that biology is real. I believe they suffer tremendously on account of the medical and hormonal treatments they have received in the past.

This argument has never been about people who pass. If someone passes then they can use the facilities of the opposite sex because no one will notice that they're not really meant to be there. Whether or not they should is another matter, but in practical terms they can regardless of what the law or any applicable policies say. The whole point of the TRA push on toilets, changing rooms etc is to open them up to people who do not pass in any way, not even if you don't have your contacts in and the lighting is dim and also you're a bit drunk. It is explicitly and consistently about forcing women (let's be honest, it's about women, men aren't alarmed by transmen in their spaces and would most likely succeed in getting them kicked out if they tried) to accept into our spaces individuals who are clearly and obviously male and whose presence therefore violates our dignity, denies us the right to privacy when in a state of undress, and creates fear. TRAs know that all of those things are going to be the result of what they're demanding, and they don't care.

Blaire White and people like Blaire are being used as human shields for the actions and desires of a very different kind of person.

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.

You're right that the EA provides for single sex spaces to be exempt from sex discrimination and that MTF trans people can be excluded, but I think only in workplaces and schools are single sex toilets mandated. If a service provider chooses not to use the exemption (or is pressured into it by TRAs) then mixed sex toilets are ok legally, as is letting any and all MTFs use supposedly not "single sex" toilets if that is their policy.

The whole point of the TRA push on toilets, changing rooms etc is to open them up to people who do not pass in any way, not even if you don't have your contacts in and the lighting is dim and also you're a bit drunk. It is explicitly and consistently about forcing women (let's be honest, it's about women, men aren't alarmed by transmen in their spaces and would most likely succeed in getting them kicked out if they tried) to accept into our spaces individuals who are clearly and obviously male and whose presence therefore violates our dignity, denies us the right to privacy when in a state of undress, and creates fear.

YY. 100% this.

And it is the point of this argument. They see it as a gotcha.

Buck Angel was in a life threatening situation due to complications of vaginal/uterine (?) atrophy caused by long term testosterone use (23 years) & inadequate gynaecology care.

Blaire White and people like Blaire are being used as human shields for the actions and desires of a very different kind of person.

Adult male TS who acknowledge their sex & also continue to use intimate female spaces are breeching sex-based Safeguards.

Safeguarding is every adults' responsibility.

It only works as a gotcha if you think the choice is between Buck or Blair changing next to you.

But if you choose Blair, you get Karen White along for the ride.

Buck or Karen? No contest.

And I suspect the average man would be a lot happier changing next to Karen than next to a very obviously female transman, too.

The term everyone is avoiding because it pisses people off is "Trojan horse".

On the point that no trans men are taking up space in sporting events - wasn’t there that trans boy called Mack Beggs in America who beat all the other girls in wrestling because he wasn’t allowed to wrestle in the boy’s category?

Also, there’s a trans man called Chris Mosier who’s going to the Olympics and competes in the male category... Should he be considered ‘taking the space of a biological man’?

RedHood remember to put the biological sex differences into your reasoning. We have female-only sport because being born male gives an unfair advantage. I'd consider Chris Mosier to be competing in the open category on account of being disqualified from the female-only due to unfair advantage. And fair play to 'em.

Remember, we only have a men's category because of the creation of a protected female category. The open becomes the men's by default.

Mack Beggs, the crucial question is, were testosterone supplements involved? If not, then competing with girls is fine. If T was involved then that's utterly unfair.

On the point that no trans men are taking up space in sporting events - wasn’t there that trans boy called Mack Beggs in America who beat all the other girls in wrestling because he wasn’t allowed to wrestle in the boy’s category?

The use of testosterone is likely to have been a significant factor in why Beggs' beat girls in a contact sport such as wrestling, rather than Beggs's identity as a transman.

The point I made was that transmen aren't sweeping up gold medals unless they're competing with only women.

Mack Beggs has gained golds in women's sporting events because they're on testosterone. They shouldn't be competing with women while on performance enhancing drugs in my opinion.

Chris Mosier (transman) normally comes in at a very low rank in the open category, sponsored by Nike or something, gets a lot of publicity but virtually no winning medals. Transwomen should also a compete in the open rather than the women's. Why can't they?

When you look at TW in women's sports, virtually all of them are coming in 1st or 2nd (in cycling recently, a TW coming in 2nd place to another TW in 1st) and they are frequently breaking women's world records.

It's incomparable to TM competing.

A slight tangent, but seeing as it's well established that reducing T in males makes virtually no, or very little difference to their sporting performance, there's a site documenting the age at which high school males have broken women's world records in many sporting events

boysvswomen.com/#/

Obviously no one wants to make this thread all about sport, but I still find it a worthy site to share.

boysvswomen.com/#/world-record
Err sorry this is the world record page...

I can maybe assist wrt the trans child dilemma.

There is no such thing.
A "trans child" is like a vegan cat. We all know who's paying for the cat food, shopping for it, and returning home to open the cans.