@RedDogsBeg
If you really, really want to have a conversation on the finer points of definition then I'll indulge - but I can't see how it isn't going to be profoundly unconstructive.
No I really don't want to have a conversation on the finer points of definition, the only definition that matters is one based on sex which is immutable and unchangeable.
What I would really like is to hear your proposals Butterfly on what happens to the women who cannot or will not be able to access single sex spaces and services if said services include males, irrespective of how that male presents or whether or not that male thinks he passes as a woman? You've said no to third spaces which can and will be used by those women whose have no reservations about sharing with males so would not be 'outing' for transwomen, so what is your solution?
I think the answer is contained within the question - I think you've very succinctly captured the key point of nuance to the entire matter with the word
or and the implications it holds, and why both the EA2010 is as it is currently alongside why efforts to alter it are (thankfully) doomed to failure for the forseeable.
Cannot
or
Will Not
Needs must be met. Single-sex space provisions are necessary and should be made, where need is identified.
The service has to be fit for purpose - if it can't achieve its stated goals, then it's useless. If the only way for that goal to be achieved is by exclusion - for example, with respect to the provision of rape crisis centres that are likely to support women for whom being in the presence of those who are percieved as male would be completely impossible - then it seems that exclusion of people who are percieved as male is regrettably the only option.
This part, right here, is the Cannot.
That's an obvious clear-cut case, right? Sorry Debs, you're percieved as male. This service isn't for you. Just wham a nice big F or M on it, using assigned sex at birth, done.
Only it isn't. Where do trans men go? Is it appropriate for them to attend? Is it always, axiomatically? When is it not appropriate for them to attend? What about non-binary people? Detransitioners? Intersex people? Even if you ban transgenderism, they still exist. As does any flavour of GNC woman who doesn't reliably 'pass' within the category that is subjectively read as female. Birth sex is not, and has never been, a one-size-fits-all silver bullet for this issue, and in today's world it is not fit for purpose.
So what then?
Maybe we need a test? Awesome. Do we get a person to do so? What if they, in practice, have different subjective responses to gender cues? Who wants to be the Gender Cops whose job is to tell people all day long that sorry, no pass means no pass? How do you train the Gender Cops, and make sure their decisions are consistent?
Maybe we need an AI, trained on a vast sample set, to be able to serve as a sorting hat?
Simple, automated, reliable, replicable - perfect, right? OK great. There's a social media network that actually has one of those. It analyses an image of your face and then either allows or disallows you to register. The tech already exists!
Several people in this thread have said they wouldn't be comfortable with any AMAB person, ever, being present in women's spaces.
Waaaaaait. It let me join, using a photo of myself taken that morning at my least flattering, at the least favourable angle I could find. It wouldn't let several of my trans guy buddies, but would let another. The transphobic sorting hat AI couldn't even get its transphobia straight.
So, what then?
You can't rely on visual cues and judgements; all personal assessments are subjective, and frankly, the idea of having a formal 'do you look male enough to be excluded?' process is astonishingly demeaning and offensive. It'll exclude plenty of people you define as women, who are likely to have need of these provisions. It's already horrendous enough that organisations like the TSA over in the states routinely scan traveller's genitals at airport security. Should we implement that here as well?
Any process that ultimately relies on notions of passability, no matter how cleverly worded they are, is broken, demeaning and I'd certainly consider any trans person who advocates for one to be acting like a bus-throwing piece of sh*t. It's just the same prejudices repeated in microcosm.
So we can't rely on recorded birth sex due to trans men, intersex people, non-binary people and gnc women; we can't rely on whether the sorting hat thinks you're a real girl as it'll include some people with a recorded male sex at birth who you want to exclude, and exclude some people with a recorded female sex at birth who you want to include. We could combine the two; first you have to show your sex passport, then you have to let the sorting hat decide if you're woman enough.
Sex passports? Appearance-based gatekeeping? Do you want to live in that world?
Thankfully, we have an Equality Act for that, and the conservatives haven't succeeded in getting rid of it yet, though they were crowing about being able to do so in the run up to Brexit.
In the magical utopia where we're all happily dancing along together, anyone can identify as whatever they want without judgement, all needs are met without pressure or prejudice, and blablablabla there's probably no longer a need for sex-based spaces.
That world obviously isn't ever going to happen. Oppression is real; social dynamics are depressingly real. What we'd be talking about there is a fundamental change in the nature of humanity.
Third spaces have come up a few times here as an obvious seeming solution. The women can use the women's services, the men can use the men's services, and all those weird people who creep us out can use the one in betwee- Uh, I mean, anyone who can tolerate being in the same space as trans people can use the trans one.
Therein lies the problem. The provision of a third space must be an addition; not a subtraction. An extra provision for everyone, including those who identify with neither of the existing options. And it's a great idea, if that's how it is handled.
But we aren't talking about inclusion. We're talking, explicitly, about exclusion.
Third spaces are in theory a great idea, but they fail on two key principles:
Firstly: All they actually do is kick the passing/filtering problem down the road. They don't in any way solve it, just introduce a new category to filter on. That filter problem is still present. Do you legally mandate intersex people use a third space? GNC women who don't reliably 'pass'? Trans and non binary people who experience and identify with some or all of womanhood? Detransitioners?
Secondly: If the Third Space is general-purpose inclusive, then it doesn't cover the established need for same-sex services. If the Third Space is the exclusionary trans ghetto where we send all the icky people who make us uncomfortable, then anyone going into it automatically makes themself into a target, because transphobia is still a problem in our society. It's not a solved problem. The entire idea of a general purpose exclusionary space just for trans people - that's institutionalised transphobia.
The reasonable, safe and fair provision of Third Spaces requires us to already be living in a world where prejudice is a solved problem. Where it isn't still dangerous, for both trans and non-trans people, to open themselves up to suspicion, hostility and fear. We definitely aren't living in the world where a third space is a safe option yet.
What are we left with, then?
Cannot, or Will Not.
We have to, sensitively, on a case-by-case basis, negotiate this kind of subject as a culture. We've -always- had to, as using birth sex is not, and has never been a reliable marker - we've just been all the usual flavours of shit about it and ridden roughshod over things in the past. The need is clearly even greater now.
Cannot is already covered by the EA2010: The exceptions specifically exist to cover need for exclusion where it is objectively justified. I'm hugely sympathetic to the difficulties in practically enforcing the criteria for exclusion, and think they really do have to be defined on the individual level when viewed through the filter of harm mitigation.
Transphobia, however, is not objectively justified. Transphobia is not cannot. It is will not.
It's what the desperately hard-won GRA and EA2010 specifically protect against, and I'm damn glad we have them.