not sure how I feel

[pinkpantsrock]

I work in an corporate office with single sex loos. There's a trans person (just started) using the ladies and i'm not sure how I feel about it.

One part:omfg like it's a man but it's a woman, i guess they have to pee somewhere

second part: I'm being homophonic just thinking about it

third part: what would the mn feminist say?

4th part: Arrrrrrrrrr

You wouldn't be homophobic, you'd be transphobic.

It isn’t transphobic to wonder about someone who was male, last week now saying they are a woman and using single sex female spaces.

You need to know the company's policy and to be consulted.
I'm sure you mean transphobic 😉 but you're not just for questioning the situation

The only times to treat someone ‘as a woman’ are times when sex matters. As it does here. Otherwise, people should be treated as people.

100% this. That's where I started 5 years ago. I tried to think of any situation where someone's "gender" should matter and couldn't.

Basic equality means we should normally be treating people the same.

We do sometimes make an exception for sex, but there's a clear reason for that.

There is NO justification for discrimination on the basis of "gender", particularly when we don't know what it is.

@trancepants should bisexual people be defined by the sex of their current partner?

I appreciate that it is a different experience and I wouldn't speak for lesbian or gay people but is it not okay to identify as bi in a heterosexual relationship?

Genuine questions as a gender critical feminist married to a man, but attracted to women, and generally a bit confused.

[quote Fukuraptor]@trancepants should bisexual people be defined by the sex of their current partner?

I appreciate that it is a different experience and I wouldn't speak for lesbian or gay people but is it not okay to identify as bi in a heterosexual relationship?

Genuine questions as a gender critical feminist married to a man, but attracted to women, and generally a bit confused.[/quote]
@Fukuraptor It's absolutely fine to identify as bi even if you are married to someone as the opposite sex. If that's what you are, that's what you are. But in my wider social circle I know a bisexual woman who actively describes her family as a queer family. And uses this online to quiet anyone who she disagrees with. She is a massive TRA and calls the LGBA a hate group that will never represent her queer family. She's married to a man, they are monogamous and they have children together.

She is bisexual and being married to a man doesn't change that. She has had relationships with women, she is undoubtedly still attracted to women. But her family isn't queer. If the recently won rights that same-sex attracted people have, get rolled back, she loses nothing. So realistically, she doesn't really need what the LGBA stand for. And I find it infuriating that she uses her bisexuality as a massive gotcha to berate lesbian women who say that what she actively campaigns for is hurting them. And that by campaigning to protect themselves they are bigots and she's queer, so she knows.

I hope that makes sense. Bisexual people do have specific needs in law and society related to their sexuality. But while being in an opposite sex relationship doesn't change doesn't change your sexuality and make you any less bisexual. It does mean that what you need and your perspective is very different from a homosexual person's, or a bisexual person in a same sex relationship. So you shouldn't use that bisexuality to speak over people with very different needs and experiences.

Thanks for explaining @trancepants that makes sense. What an odd thing for her to do.

Break it down.

It is wholly normal and expected and set in law that male and female people have separate toilet provision for privacy, dignity and the safety of women. That's how they came about.

We now have male people who, due to strong internal feelings and needs, wish to have this boundary set aside and use female spaces with female people in them, while females are in a vulnerable state, for the meeting of their own needs.

Female people are saying no, they have equally strong internal feelings and needs about this and do not wish this boundary to be set aside. And some are saying that they cannot use toilets at all if male people are in them, often due to protected characteristics.

Currently, the leaning is towards male people's feelings matter and female ones don't, and it's ok to exclude and remove resources from female people so that male people can have their preferred choice and access female people's presence whether or not female people consent.

This is beyond messed up and sexist.

The obvious answer is a mixed sex facility - into which can go all the females who don't mind mixed sex provision, and male and female people who prefer not to use sex specific provision.

This is not ok with the male people either, as this allows some female people to continue to have a space that presents a boundary. That this is essential for female need, equality and inclusion is not seen as a justifiable reason to say no to male people. (Who will call this about inclusion, but only for male people, but remember sex doesn't exist.)

It's sexism on crack.

Do you have any Muslim women in the office, who now have no toilet they can use?

It's not just Muslims; Sikhs and Orthodox Jews also need same sex facilities by dint of their beliefs. But certainly any Muslim woman who needs to adjust her hijab will be stuck without a suitable space to do that in.

Also women with Autism may have challenges, women with PTSD or trauma, women who have been victims of sexual assault or rape.

None of these women should have to disclose protected characteristics to justify having an accessible toilet.

. It's normal to be surprised and take time to adjust but as long as you treat her just as you would any other woman you'll both be fine.

Depends what you mean by woman. I am sure that the OP will respect this person's rights to dress as they choose and will use their preferred name. However, as this person is not female, there is really no need for them to impose themselves into a female only space and I am surprised that they have shown such rudeness.

@LizzieSiddal

You wouldn't be homophobic, you'd be transphobic.

It isn’t transphobic to wonder about someone who was male, last week now saying they are a woman and using single sex female spaces.

If transphobia is understood to mean fear of trans, then it would be considered to be transphobic. If transphobia is understood to mean hate of trans, then it wouldn't.

I think the typical strategy is to say "I'm not a transphobe (i.e. I don't hate trans, BUT I'm worried about the erosion of female rights."
But it might be better to say "I am a transphobe (i.e. I fear trans) BECAUSE I'm worried about the erosion of female rights."

Currently if you give reasons for opposing some of the trans agenda, they lump you in with the "hateful transphobes." This smear seems to be quite successful. The attempt to distance themselves from transphobes has not worked. It might be better to seek to reclaim the word. If the majority of feminists said they were transphobes, it could shift the meaning in the public discourse, weakening the allegations and smears of the trans activists.

I think this change of rhetoric has had some success with other terms, such as xenophobia and Islamophobia.

@Truthlikeness

Personally I would have a problem with it because I don't believe males should share single-sex toilets with women. Would I raise it as an issue? Possibly, possibly not.

I definitely wouldn't have in the past when I was of the 'be kind' persuasion, but I'd be more likely to now. 'Be Kind' means be kind to men, not to the majority of women who would prefer not to share with a male.

'Be Kind' means be kind to men

Yes, and thank you for saying it so clearly. I always substitute it in my mind now when I read someone saying "be kind".

The way I would approach it would be to ask if they had considered how this would affect the corporations diversity agenda, as their new policy would actively exclude women that belong to certain religious groups.

You know, start playing protected characteristics top trumps. That’s what I’m going to do, if it ever comes up where I work. I’d out they would have considered it.

I would raise it with my manager. I would request single sex facilities are provided. If they refused, I would consider my next move.

@Artichokeleaves

Also women with Autism may have challenges, women with PTSD or trauma, women who have been victims of sexual assault or rape.

None of these women should have to disclose protected characteristics to justify having an accessible toilet.

this. put much better than I was going to post at the same point in the thread... if I had actually got round to posting when it was at this point.

A rational fear is not a phobia.
Women not wanting males in their single sex spaces is a rational fear. There are lots of stats saying males are a risk to women. I've yet to see any stats saying transwomen are a lesser risk than other males, and have seem some stats suggesting they're a similar risk to other males.

Plus we have no way of discerning if any given male who says they are a transwoman actually is (or indeed any definition of what the difference is). So the category we're actually admitting is TW + any male prepared to lie.

I think it's reasonable to surmise that any man who presents a risk to women is also going to be prepared to lie. Is it really feasible that admitting the combined category of (males who believe they are women + males who are a risk + any males lying for other reasons) adds no risk for women?

A rational fear is not a phobia.

Does a phobia have to be irrational? "A phobia is an overwhelming and debilitating fear" or a "persistent and excessive fear of an object or situation." Maybe excessive suggests disproportionate? But does that really make sense? Doesn't saying your fear of men or TW is disproportionate mean that you should accept some risk?

In any case, I think the meaning of phobias can be appropriated. For example, Islamophobia was no doubt coined as a term of abuse against people alleged to hate Muslims, but some say a fear of Muslims is rational due to the threat posed by some of the radicals.

And some would call that statement racist.

@334bu

*second part: I'm being homophonic just thinking about it*

Didn't understand this. Why are you assuming that this transwoman is attracted to men? It is quite possible they are a heterosexual male person..

Very likely, based on the available statistics: very few transwomen are homosexual. They are mostly biological men attracted to women - so heterosexual - hence their homophobic rage against lesbians who are not attracted to men including transwomen.

I would not enter the toilets if I saw a male person in there, and I would feel deeply stressed if one came in while I was there. Having been pushed into a small space and assaulted when I was young, I dread the thought of being in a cubicle knowing there was a male person waiting outside.

I would be furious if he had been allowed by management to use the women’s toilets. It’s illegal, but women are reluctant to speak up for our legal rights as we know we will (a) be abused and threatened by TRAs, and (b) risk losing our livelihoods.

@Shedbuilder

And some would call that statement racist.

Is it any more racist than it is sexist to say men are more dangerous than women?

Of course it can be considered offensive to the majority of moderate Muslims, but the majority of men could similarly take offense at being included with dangerous men.

In both cases you can fairly state that you fear the group because you cannot tell who is dangerous and who isn't.

I don't think the propensity of men to violence against women is disputed. I don't think the several barbaric Islamic regimes and terrorist groups are disputed, nor the significant minority of Muslims who hold misogynistic views.

I appreciate that it is a different experience and I wouldn't speak for lesbian or gay people but is it not okay to identify as bi in a heterosexual relationship?

Genuine questions as a gender critical feminist married to a man, but attracted to women, and generally a bit confused

Of course it is ok for people to be bisexual.

What is not ok is heterosexual men who have decided they want to present as women, calling lesbians "transphobic" or "homophobic" because they refuse to date men or "suck their ladydicks" because, you know, lesbians happen to be homosexual women and therefore by definition they are not attracted to men. It is the worst kind of gaslighting and they shouldn't have to put up with people attempting to coerce them into consenting to sex that they do not want. There's a word for that which isn't a fake slur.

There is a big difference between asking for tolerance and respect for someone else's beliefs and requiring someone's active participation in a belief they do not hold.

It is absolutely within the bounds of reasonability that a heterosexual male encounter no discrimination in employment or legal rights on the basis of how they choose to present, name themselves, dress, or to record themselves as a TW. It is reasonable that they may prefer alternative facilities than male ones for their safety, dignity and privacy particularly in situations that involve undressing or vulnerability.

It is not reasonable to require female people who do not share a belief that a male person becomes something other than a male to participate in that belief not just with words or actions but with their own body, by being willing to toilet, undress and sacrifice their own privacy, dignity, and in the case of lesbians to have it suggested that sexual access should be included. This is requiring women to submit their bodies to a political movement. Against their own beliefs. Their own needs. Their own consent. Their own autonomy. With penalties of how they will be spoken of, treated, threatened and shunned for stating boundaries. Twitter examples easily found.

This is fact. This is happening. This is the reality.

Either everyone gets to name their boundaries, to have their privacy, dignity, safety and personal beliefs recognised and provided for, equally, or we stick to entirely sex based provisions. Because there cannot be two classes of people: those who get to have such things, and those who must go without and accept subordination. This is a caste system embedding inequality, and this is where the word 'privilege' does a lot of heavy lifting trying to make that underlying inequality and differing standards and treatment ok.

Compare the 'hate' of 'I am an adult human female' and 'I want female only spaces', with 'die in a grease fire'. One is supposed to be appalling; ffs we have students talking about how sad it is there is no death penalty for an academic saying such things. The other is considered perfectly justifiable and rightful punishment for the crime.

Which is largely to be female and to say so.