Rosie Duffield thank you

[Whatthechicken]

I haven’t seen another thread on this today and I know she must be on here - thank you Rosie!

Rosie on Twitter today:

twitter.com/rosieduffield1/status/1436276236049862661?s=21

Hope that’s a clicky link.

Despite the hate you may be getting Rosie, there is a legion behind you!

sorry for the post and run - I was pretty tied up at work.

to those who say they don't "self-ID", they are following their personal biology. Trans women would say the same thing. It is also not "a courtesy" that we "allow them" to use the women's. It's the law.

Why don't we go for "third spaces"? If we have the money for that, we can also create nice toilets with cubicles and privacy for all, or? Also: the idea that trans women should not use women's toilets (walking back the EA2010) would likely lead to more problems for women who don't clock as "female". And would we need a fourth space for trans men?
Has anyone answered my question how we would police trans people's use of toilets? Who would check and how?

As for "social contracts" - I have used the men's when the women's was oversubscribed

Regarding prisons: I am always really disappointed when "safety in prisons" is reduced to "no trans women", rather than to go much further and demand prison reform and far reaching social reforms to ensure the population in prisons drops. I'd like to see safe prisons for all. Violent criminals, independently from sex or gender, should not get the chance to hurt other prisoners.

But to take it back to Duffield: as far as I can see, she is propagating the notion that self-ID would somehow make life more dangerous for women and that is just wrong. It would just make life a wee bit easier for trans folk.

I have just recently found a new amazing pool, lovely 50m lanes. The shower facilities are to rows of back to back showers, with the last one in each row behind a screen. There are communal changing areas and cubicles. Options for what every women/girl feels comfortable with ...

Duffield: as far as I can see, she is propagating the notion that self-ID would somehow make life more dangerous for women and that is just wrong. It would just make life a wee bit easier for trans folk.

It makes it impossible to define women, as such it makes it impossible to count crimes against women, so ultimately you would have no way of knowing what the effects on women would be.

Thankfully we have people like Duffield speaking out against this.

And what about DV shelters? Female prisons?

It is also not "a courtesy" that we "allow them" to use the women's. It's the law.

No. People with a GRC must be treated as their acquired sex unless in a situation where this doesn’t apply e.g. sport. This is in the GRA 2004.

However most trans people don’t have a GRC. You can’t discriminate against somebody because they have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but it doesn’t follow that somebody without a GRC is suffering discrimination because they are treated as their legal sex. Similarly a bus company is not discriminating against me on the basis of sex if they legally discriminate on the basis of age and don’t allowed me to pay a child fare.

There is no particular law about toilets. There are health and safety regulations for workplace toilets.

I am always really disappointed when "safety in prisons" is reduced to "no trans women", rather than to go much further and demand prison reform

As you must know, the concern is about men in prisons. If you want to make an argument that trans women aren’t men, you will need to explain where the line is drawn and why, otherwise you are just arguing for unisex prisons. If you think unisex prisons are a good idea make an argument on that basis.

I can see, she is propagating the notion that self-ID would somehow make life more dangerous for women and that is just wrong. It would just make life a wee bit easier for trans folk.

No you are wrong, unless you can explain why trans women are women and who is excluded from that definition. Otherwise women are very definitely harmed because the term ‘woman’ becomes meaningless in law and policy.

I really don’t understand why you haven’t yet grasped the fact that you can’t protect the rights of a group you can’t define, whether that group is trans people or women. This leads me to believe that your concern is less about rights and more about validation, regardless of who that affects.

the notion that self-ID would somehow make life more dangerous for women and that is just wrong

Do you think that males fighting women is tickety-boo? Males in women's prisons? Males in refuges where women then cannot access the single sex service they desperately need? That is where self ID takes us. It is more dangerous for women. That is entirely the point we are all here, Catherina.

@CatherinaJTV

sorry for the post and run - I was pretty tied up at work.

to those who say they don't "self-ID", they are following their personal biology. Trans women would say the same thing. It is also not "a courtesy" that we "allow them" to use the women's. It's the law.

Why don't we go for "third spaces"? If we have the money for that, we can also create nice toilets with cubicles and privacy for all, or? Also: the idea that trans women should not use women's toilets (walking back the EA2010) would likely lead to more problems for women who don't clock as "female". And would we need a fourth space for trans men?
Has anyone answered my question how we would police trans people's use of toilets? Who would check and how?

As for "social contracts" - I have used the men's when the women's was oversubscribed

Regarding prisons: I am always really disappointed when "safety in prisons" is reduced to "no trans women", rather than to go much further and demand prison reform and far reaching social reforms to ensure the population in prisons drops. I'd like to see safe prisons for all. Violent criminals, independently from sex or gender, should not get the chance to hurt other prisoners.

But to take it back to Duffield: as far as I can see, she is propagating the notion that self-ID would somehow make life more dangerous for women and that is just wrong. It would just make life a wee bit easier for trans folk.

to those who say they don't "self-ID", they are following their personal biology. Trans women would say the same thing.

They can say it all they like. It's not true. Transwoman are male. It's not personal biology, it's actual reality.

And would we need a fourth space for trans men?

Why would a fourth space be needed? A third space would be available for anyone who wanted to use it. There would be single sex toilets and also a mixed gender toilet.

Has anyone answered my question how we would police trans people's use of toilets? Who would check and how?

People can tell what sex people are. It's an evolutionary trait. Women's politeness (and fear of causing a fuss/being threatened) has been mistaken for acceptance of a situation.

Regarding prisons: I am always really disappointed when "safety in prisons" is reduced to "no trans women", rather than to go much further and demand prison reform and far reaching social reforms to ensure the population in prisons drops. I'd like to see safe prisons for all. Violent criminals, independently from sex or gender, should not get the chance to hurt other prisoners.

Well yes. But you seem to be overlooking a specific problem of convicted sex offenders being placed in a place where they can rape women with impunity. It isn't a 'it'll never happen'. It is happening and is being condoned by the MOJ. It's state sanctioned punative rape.

she is propagating the notion that self-ID would somehow make life more dangerous for women and that is just wrong. It would just make life a wee bit easier for trans folk.

Self ID will make it more dangerous for women as predators will take advantage of the loopholes of self ID. Again, it is happening. Have you commented on the Wi Spa incident as you have been requested to repeatedly?

Have you answered @sophoclesthefox yet?

It is also not "a courtesy" that we "allow them" to use the women's. It's the law.
It is not the bloody law, and if you're confused on / refuse to accept this very fundamental fact I think we can safely assume the rest of your interminable arguments are complete bollocks too.

It is also not "a courtesy" that we "allow them" to use the women's. It's the law.

No it isn't.

that trans women should not use women's toilets (walking back the EA2010)

There is nothing in the EA2010 enshrining a legal right for this group of males to use female spaces such as toilets and changing rooms. The EA2010 deals with discrimination/harassment on the grounds of gender reassignment, ie being refused service, a job etc.

There are clear exemptions possible for all males to be excluded from such spaces as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. As it is recognised that such things are necessary. So no, no "walking back" needed. Please inform yourself better about the law.

Suspect this is just a poster coming for a daily plop to keep the thread derailed. I doubt there will be further engagement until the thread re-establishes itself, at which point we can expect another plop-by post.

If they genuinely wanted to talk about these issues they would start a thread for them.

@AbandonedCharacter

And what about DV shelters? Female prisons?

I spoke about prisons - for DV shelters, it's the same thing: they need the resources to be able to support all victims of DV without compromising their safety.

@Blibbyblobby

Suspect this is just a poster coming for a daily plop to keep the thread derailed. I doubt there will be further engagement until the thread re-establishes itself, at which point we can expect another plop-by post.

If they genuinely wanted to talk about these issues they would start a thread for them.

for which issues? This thread is about Duffield. I think she is trans phobic, because she seems to equate access of trans women to women's spaces (which is legal now) as inherently dangerous. Why would I start a new thread when this thread is there? Are you not just annoyed because I didn't chime in with the "she's SO brave" choir?

@GreyhoundG1rl

It is also not "a courtesy" that we "allow them" to use the women's. It's the law. It is not the bloody law, and if you're confused on / refuse to accept this very fundamental fact I think we can safely assume the rest of your interminable arguments are complete bollocks too.

How is it not the law? EA2010, section 7?

I think she is trans phobic, because she seems to equate access of trans women to women's spaces (which is legal now) as inherently dangerous.

Are you not reading the thread?

She believes (probably influenced by her experience of DV) that access for men is inherently dangerous.

Again, please could you explain what trans woman means and who is excluded from this definition.

People can tell what sex people are. It's an evolutionary trait. Women's politeness (and fear of causing a fuss/being threatened) has been mistaken for acceptance of a situation.

I am sorry, but that's bollocks. I was misgendered until my boobs became absolutely unignorable. My classmate B didn't grow boobs and had stuff thrown at her whenever we entered the women's changing rooms, even in her late teens. Butch/NGC women are mistaken for men all the time. "We can always tell" is just not a thing.

access for men

nobody wants to give "men" access though.

Have you answered @sophoclesthefox yet?

I tried - seems my answer wasn't satisfactory (needs a "shrug" icon).

nobody wants to give "men" access though.

You do if any man can be included in the group of people ‘trans woman’.

This shouldn’t be a difficult concept.

I was misgendered until my boobs became absolutely unignorable.

You might have been misgendered as a child. Without an Adam’s Apple and a deep voice it is unlikely that you would mis-sexed as an adult.

I think you are confusing prejudice against people who are gender nonconforming and genuine inability to discern sex.

I tried - seems my answer wasn't satisfactory

Really? Perhaps you could copy and paste.

nobody wants to give "men" access though.

Yes they do. They want to give access to people who would be considered men by practically everyone in the world. TRAs' own definition of 'women' does not trump the rest of the world's.

@merrymouse

nobody wants to give "men" access though.

You do if any man can be included in the group of people ‘trans woman’.

This shouldn’t be a difficult concept.

Have you read the GRA reform bill draft? It's illegal to wrongly self-ID. Therefore not "any man" would be included in the group of "trans women", just trans women.

How is it not the law? EA2010, section 7?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

This is simply a description of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment?

Please explain the law around single sex spaces (bearing in mind the exemptions allowed).

@CatherinaJTV

Have you answered @sophoclesthefox yet?

I tried - seems my answer wasn't satisfactory (needs a "shrug" icon).

Oh, I must have missed it - could you direct me to your answer please?