Glaring Flaws in Guardian Letter

[Catiette]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/11/glaring-flaws-in-the-idea-of-excluding-trans-people-from-single-sex-spaces

I think it was the "glaring" that irritated me most. "Flaws" would suggest a productive contribution to a much-needed debate. But "glaring" shifts the tone and content into a rather complacent dismissal of our concerns as self-evidently unjustified. Ironic, given some "glaring flaws" in the author's argument: at best, it feels disingenuous; at worst, somewhat ignorant and illogical. I know you'll see the following and more besides, but, to still my beating mind (never read The Guardian before bedtime)...

1. Our concern is that female spaces remain single-sex. I don't think I've read of anyone who feels strongly about the males'. The author's tilting at windmills while GC feminists are busy suggesting alternatives, such as...

2. Females and open; or females', males' and third spaces. Perhaps the author could consider these possibilities, and also why they're so rarely proposed and sometimes often outright rejected as possible compromise positions.

3. Few of us have concerns about transmen in our spaces. This is where the continuing mispresentation of the GC position as comprehensively "trans-exclusionary" by institutions and people who should know better (like the BBC; I'm thinking of that sportswoman - forgotten her name - who the presenter said quite emphatically was advocating for the removal of transpeople from sport or similar!) enables this fundamental misunderstanding - or tactical strawmanning!

4. With reference to this, the author's argument appears to assume that we either haven't realised the logical end point of excluding transwomen (which would suggest a rather offensively low opinion of our capacity for critical thought) or that we haven't appreciated the risks that including transmen would present (ditto; or, more cynically, a disregard of our own very real perception of danger in favour of his/her politically expedient theorising).

BRIEF INTERLUDE: Why is biological sex in inverted commas (Macmillan: "quotation marks can also highlight that a word is being used somehow peculiarly – a writer may wish to indicate irony, inaccuracy, or scepticism"; telling...?)

5. The idea that "a greater number of more masculine people" should be of more concern than an open door to actually biologically male people is remarkable, even when you take into account the core argument that...

6. It would be easier for "cis (or biological) men to infiltrate" female spaces under the cover of the normalisation of females presenting as male entering than... actual males coming in. There seems to be an extraordinarily naive (at best) or disingenuous (more likely, surely) presupposition that all trans people pass, despite height, gait etc. And...

7. That would disregard the whole premise of self-ID at the heart of the movement and on which our concerns are founded: if we open our spaces to any transwoman on the basis of their self-perception and however they present... we lose the right to say no to any man.

8. And that gets us to the old chestnut of "policing" and the apparent need for a "feasible system of distinguishing between [the sexes]". I refer the letter-writer to the precious hundred and fifty years or so during which females of all shapes and sizes unconcernedly shared single-sex spaces enabling them full access to society. Upsettingly, I can see that maybe, in the current context of angry fear generated by those arguing for the removal of these precious spaces, there's a possibility that a woman "who [does] not appear sufficiently feminine" may face suspicion, but it does feel something of a stretch to me personally. (I'm prepared to stand corrected on this if anyone's been unfortunately enough to experience it; if they have, I'd be interested to know whether this has become more of an issue since this movement's evolution).

9. Now, the rather upsetting arguments. "There is no evidence of an increasing in risk to the public at large" (interesting phrasing) "when trans people are legally allowed to access the... facilities appropriate to their preferred gender" raises two questions:

a) Is evidence even being collected?
b) How is it being collected in the given societies, given that what characterises them is a rejection, in key contexts, of the distinction of biological sex, and we know the impact this is having on data collection regionally and nationally over here?
c) What evidence is there that there isn't an increase in risk? Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence.

10. And, to round off with a satisfyingly tidy number 10: I completely agree that all the issues listed exhaustively in the closing lines need addressing; but this reliance on the rhetorical flourish of logical dichotomy to close belies the weakness of the argument overall. It's not either/or. Give us these things - AND give us our spaces.

So, what have I missed? (Or got confused by; it's late!)

NB. My personal thoughts on a thorny issue. I've been following the "Would you call a transman/woman a man/woman" threads with interest. Like so many others, I tend to come down on the wonderfully-named CharlotteSometimes' side, but am troubled by the challenges faced by truly dysphoric and committed individuals. As so many others have noted, before the recent aggressive activism attacking women's rights, language and very political existence, I think I'd have welcomed these individuals in. Now, I find it more complex, and, as a tolerant, empathetic person, find it rather upsetting to have been (as someone else said) forced into this defensive corner.

But not quite as upsetting as I found that letter. Clearly. 😂

Bed.

Oh, yes, I forgot.

Spoiling my pleasingly rounded number:

11. It would be easier for "cis (or biological) men to infiltrate" appears to be a rare admission that predators are prepared to take advantage of any loophole. Thank you for that, at least. But there's something about the almost incidental tone here that grates. Too tired to work out why. Maybe it's just me.

I was going to post this but decided it was just too brain dead to bother with. My faith that we are an intelligent species dies a little every time I read the Guardian.

I wonder what Matti's perspective is? Google is your friend.

I did, Google confirmed what I thought. I can't even pretend to be surprised.

yeah, it's mindless/meaningless crap. the big 'gotcha' focus on TM arrows in on the issue that no-one of any sex, gender, or feels gives a damn about (TM in male spaces) and the focus on toilets sidesteps the many fields in which sex can be discreetly verified in a watertight fashion.

All I saw was lots of sites sharing the letter as news. Mind you, I can guess what sort of mind he has if he is the same person I saw on LinkedIn.

This Dr is very clever. He used the GC arguments and switched them. By saying in point 1 that accepting transmen into women's spaces will encourage predatory men is EXACTLY the point they've denied for so long i.e. that some men will take advantage of the law to commit crimes. Aside from the fact most trans men would prefer to use the gents and men haven't opposed this, I see no reason for that to continue if the trans person in question wants. A trans man in a women's space usually looks like a woman anyway so I see that as no problem myself (point 2). This does not apply to sports of course as there is the T issue. What Dr doesn't admit is these two concerns of his are already happening and it's boring to do with trans men. Because trans women are accessing women's sources, butch women are being stopped (we're led to believe, I've never seen it) and predatory men are accessing women's spaces unchallenged.

Dr is very clever but stepped into a trap of their own making. He inadvertently confirms the GC pov, that changing the ecosystem of single sex spaces puts women at risk.

Sorry for a couple of typos - I'm swipe texting

“Letting women continue entering women’s only spaces is more likely to entice men into women’s spaces than letting men into women’s spaces” has to be the in the top 5 most idiotic arguments of the entirety of gender ideology.

Is it this Dr Matti? I was looking for a medical doctor but could only find a data scientist.

On a separate note, I read today that trans paedophile Katy Dolatowski, who says Katy .. or rather Alyanna as they now like to be called ... is a great supporter of Nicola Sturgeon and that Katy/Alyanna says Katy/Alyanna is no risk to women in a public toilet.

Katy/Alyanna attacked Katy's victims, both young girls, in a women's public toilet.

Thing that never happens, Dr Matti?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/11/katie-dolatowski-trans-paedophile-nicola-sturgeon-gender/

Apollo and NotBad sum it up nicely. Not bad, NotBad! Guess I could have just gone with that, but it annoyed me soooo much when I read it!

Ugh! Spots and stripes.

Yes OP, I also bristled at the “stupid GC haven’t thought it through…” tone, especially given the GC arguments are consistent and coherent, and…. Well I’ve never actually heard GI arguments laid out (despite asking). So, I suppose well done to the author for trying to do a bit of that.
The article is all based on the idea that transpeople pass, which we know is v often not the case beyond a casual glance, and even less so if you talk to them.
To add to the excellent points above, I think

• certain men would find it far less exciting to enter a female-only space claiming to be a transman than a transwoman.
• if a transman did want to use female facilities that would suggest they didn’t think they passed so they’d probably be quite happy about being asked.
• if women challenge a masculine-looking person, then they’ll only get a really aggressive response if that person is actually male - still scary, but at least we would know we have that right.

I can’t imagine why anyone would think that would be worse than a situation where any man can enter women’s spaces just by saying the magic words!

God, I couldn't get beyond the first bit. How is it more alarming to force transmen into women's spaces than to allow transwomen into them? Women are deeply primed to tell men and women apart and most transmen are bloody obviously not blokes.

There is a reason that I have almost entirely stopped clicking on Guardian links.

They do print GC letters, oddly it is a bit of the paper that allows debate so it is worth replying to that letter or several replies from different people. The point of letters’ pages is to get reader responses and they love people talking to each other through the pages. Gauge of interest is how many they get. While it’s good to talk here, it has more clout sending in a response

I do like how accurate the title of this thread is. The glaring flaw in the letter is the idea that obvious men entering women's spaces with the magic words "I identify as a woman" doesn't create a massive loophole for predatory men.

Maybe we should all write a response to it. See if they print any.

I have basically the same thoughts and feelings about this as you, OP.
The thing about 'forcing' 'more masculine people' into women's spaces is a breathtaking example of tortuous thinking.
Putting biological sex in inverted commas is hugely offensive.
I read somewhere recently that in one of these hallowed jurisdictions the writer refers to, Belgium, a journalist approached the police for info about the stats and was told that they don't keep figures. So I'm not sure how watertight any statements along these lines are.

Does he think wearing a dress occasionally makes him more feminine? Or a woman? Surprised that someone with that level of cognitive ability is a doctor of anything.

The whole letter is a false premise, though.

I really, really don’t care if transmen continue to use the men’s toilets. Not my problem. If tm use the women’s toilets that is also ok.

if tm has a beard and a woman perceive them as a threat in the toilets that is not a gotcha, that is the tm’s problem and the tm should consider this. TW’s are male and should never be in the women’s facilities.

I only care that men don’t use the women’s facilities.

But ideally there should be a Third options for TW and those who are happy using mixed sex.

Can confirm, rare indeed is the man who would give even the most flightiest of flying fucks who uses men’s toilets/changing rooms etc.
This is the truly glaring flaw.

The Guardian is discussing this. Or at least offering a perverted view and inviting others to discuss it.

This is actually glaringly good news. There is now a petition with over 100k signatures by transpeople and their allies, asking for a debate in Parliament (to counter the EA petition that also reached over 100k signatures). This is great news too.

They started with a very firm No Debate stance and now here they are petitioning for a debate in Parliament.

What a U turn! We have come so far and the more these issues are discussed the better. Sunlight.

Brilliantly put. These people are utter morons.

There are some genuine complexities with this issue, but it's the trans movement that's created these complexities. It's hardly fair to criticise the GC movement just for pointing them out.

I think a fair number of men don't really want biological females in the women's toilets. They aren't scared of them, but some want privacy, some are worried about being accused of being inappropriate, and some have religious reasons they can't use toilets with the other sex. So I tend to think transmen should not just take it for granted that men's toilets are ok for them.

But that's a really stupid letter. I saw it being headlined around the internet a bit today, and I thought it must have a bit more to it. I guess not.