What rights do transpeople believe they do not have?

[sunshinesupermum]

Serious question, so I can go back and discuss with my DDs (aged 38 and 42) without a row. I support JKR and they call me a TERF!

Transmen are at risk in male facilities because they are female. Is there evidence that being trans and female is more risky than simply being female and in male spaces?

You said "trans men (trans people in general) are at severe risk of violence for being trans". What's the evidence for this, in the UK?

So, for example, in my local cinema they have non-gendered individual cubicle toilets that have their own sink and everything inside each, along a corridor as opposed to being in rooms. Would that sort of set up be acceptable or you would prefer men's, women's and then gender neutral/mixed facilities?

In that case @EsterCat for me it’s third spaces because I dont want women to be at risk even if they dont see the risk from men but MN isnt a hive mind and others will think differently 😊

A fully enclosed toilet cubicle including sink is fine, it’s what we have at work. However most public toilets don’t have that set up & I think most do not have the money/space to install them.

@EsterCat

We can certainly consider mixed spaces for those that would be interested in them, but not at the expense of single sex spaces.

I don't think "third spaces" for exclusive use by transpeople have any more utility than spaces segregated by race or class. Sex is specifically relevant to toilet and changing facilities.

On the safety of trans people? I really don't think it's been proven that trans men are more at risk in a men's toilet. Young boys use them all the time, so the size difference isn't the issue and I'm not aware of any particular examples of trans women being attacked (misgendering or teasing isn't violence) and I imagine it's very rare. Men use the toilet in a very functional way, don't really look or talk to each other, so it's easier for a transman to be undetected.

The risk in a women's loo is that a man in there has already violated a societal taboo, and there are plenty of women on MN with stories of men masturbating in cubicles, leering, peeking through doors etc so it's a known risk.

I think in the whole we'd all be better off as a society if we all agree that there are lots of ways to act or present as a woman or man, but recognising that you still are a woman or a man, and that gender non-conformance isn't inherently weird.

It's ok, but I'd still rather have those in addition to the usual provision of male and female toilets. For a variety of reasons. The ideal for me would be lots of women's toilets, separate accessible toilets, mens toilets and some unisex ones as you describe.

Women take longer per toilet trip, and so need the highest number of facilities. Sharing unisex toilets increases the risk of hidden camera related voyeurism, so personally I'd avoid those where I could.

In some ways I don't think it's for women to solve the problems that trans men might face. They have chosen to reject womanhood.

It's up to them where they pee, they are not the same physical threat to me as trans women are. If they face issues in the women's facilities because they have modified their bodies and/ or taken testosterone or had voice coaching that's not really my problem.

This whole issue is not for GC feminists to solve. Men have caused this problem by being violent in the first place and then a certain class of men have decided that they 'identify' as women and have imposed themselves on women's spaces without consent. Were that not the case and had the social contract of single sex spaces not been broken then less people might be approached in loos for not having the right to be there in the first place.

Well surely it's generally understood that, being part of any protected or marginalised group, including black, lgbtq+, disabled, working class, etc etc makes you more vulnerable and at risk of discrimination, violence and hate crimes. Add any of those to being a woman, and increases even further. Tick many of those boxes, and further again. I'm sure this is why intersectional feminism, across all feminism ideas, is generally agreed upon as being important. Trans people are a marginalised group, so this applies to them, too.

https://www.stophateuk.org/about-hate-crime/transgender-hate/

"Transgender people are twice as likely to be victims of crime in England and Wales as cisgender people"

And just like women, trans people often don't report the crimes they are on the receiving end of. Official statistics haven't been created for violence against trans people so there is no hard figure to refer to.

Yes, they are women.

As far as I am concerned, they should be welcome to use all women's spaces provided they do not "pass" so convincingly that other women perceive them as male and are distressed by their presence, and to compete in women's sports provided they respect the anti-doping rules. I do not much care whether they use men's spaces, and I think the fact that trans women can compete in women's sports if they take oestrogen but trans men cannot compete in any sports at all if they take testosterone is a feminist issue. I will happily fight for their rights to healthcare such as abortions and I am even OK with trans inclusive language being used in women's healthcare communications (e.g. "pregnant people") as long as it is additional and does not replace the word "women".

I believe these things despite the fact that I think the entire concept of trans men is deeply unhelpful to women as a sex class.

All you're saying here is that intersection feminism includes trans men, because they are transgender as well as female. I agree with that.

It still doesn't and will not ever include trans women, because trans women are not and never will be female.

And just like women, trans people often don't report the crimes they are on the receiving end of. Official statistics haven't been created for violence against trans people so there is no hard figure to refer to.

Well, as "someone did a double take," and "I saw a GC sticker," have been referred to as hate crimes, it's not really surprising. If there was violence, I'm pretty sure we'd know about it, it's not really tenable to claim that there's twice the level of violence and then say that you can't prove it, as the statistics don't support it.

Individual cubicles are not good. Mixed sex toilets are not good. You need a degree of visibility (gaps at the bottom of doors) for safety reasons. Including my child, who had on her school plan that she must use the girls (not the disabled loo) for this very reason. The vogue for full height doors decreases the safety for lots of people.

I have copied and pasted this a few times now. Apologies if you have seen it before.

The below is taken from this and I have added some personal bits:

www.wcportables.co.uk/blog/why-public-toilet-doors-do-not-reach-the-floor/

Some reasons why public toilet doors do not reach the floor

1. Ideal in cases of emergency: The gap could help other users notice someone who has collapsed or fainted in an enclosed stall. In these circumstances, a toilet user or a member of an emergency team can squeeze through the gaps to provide help to the affected individual. It could be the difference in a life-threatening situation.

My friends and I saw an arm sticking out the door gap in a nightclub. My friend shimmied over the top. There was a girl in there grey-coloured, covered in vomit and unconscious. We moved her so the door could open (inwards) and called an ambulance. It happened so quickly and never thought about it until my own child went to university.

There are hundreds of thousands of epileptics in this country whose seizures aren’t controlled by medication. Sometimes people feel ill before a seizure, sometimes not and wouldn’t have the time or ability to pull a cord.

Where do any of us go when we are out and about and feeling ill? Strokes, heart attacks, fainting and hitting your head all are better to be seen.

2. The overall cost is cheaper. Designing and constructing a door that extends to the floor might cost more. This could be due to the complexity of the design, material and labour hours. This may explain why some management teams opt for toilet doors that have a considerable gap from the floor.

Also means the doors don’t get jammed as they warp.

3. It makes cleaning easier: Cleaners can easily extend the floor mops into the stalls without having to open the doors. They can also evaluate the state of the toilet via the gap between the floor and door. It saves cleaning time and encourages frequent or a short interval cleaning routine.

They can get to all crevices, particularly with all sorts of fluids not encrusting the door.

4. Faster escape of bad odour: Toilet is a natural environment for the release of bad odour. The gap between the door and the floor provides a quick escape of the foul smell that was generated by previous users.
   It helps your toilet experience to become bearable. Without the gap, the odour is sustained in a stall and becomes unbearable to subsequent users

5. Easy to determine availability: The uniqueness of modern-day toilet locks can make it quite hard to tell if a stall is empty. As some toilets use a green indication for a vacant facility and red for those occupied. Nothing beats the eyes test of glancing through the gap for any sign of occupancy.

As an ex-teacher I used to do sweeps of the toilet blocks. If a cubicle was locked, I gave a
shout then looked under the gap. What would I have done in a real fire/bomb emergency with a locked full-length door? I don’t know

6. Ensures the toilet queue flows: Toilets with doors of this nature could negatively impact people’s privacy. When individuals sense others can listen to their business that easily, they are prone to wrap up quickly.

7. Reduced bad toilet habits or behaviours: As we have earlier indicated, raised toilet doors can limit the privacy of users. With this in mind, people will refrain from exhibiting poor behaviour. The embarrassment of being spotted acting inappropriately will ensure people err on the side of caution.

It was documented and discussed that there one as least one rape per school day in U.K. schools reported (Parliament and BBC article). As a teacher I am shocked but wondered where these can happen. Obviously anywhere that decreases visibility increases the chance of bad things happening - particularly if it’s mixed sexed toilets so each sex has a reason to be there. Also drug taking and self harm happen are other behaviours that happen.

There are very, very good safety and hygiene reasons for toilets being designed as they are.

The safest are single sex toilets with doors with gaps top and bottom.

Link for rapes in schools evidence:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34138287

I think you've misunderstood the reason for my questioning. I'm simply trying to ask how would GC like to see this resolved, how would they create a solution that makes them happy? I'm not saying it is the responsibility of GC, just how would they perceive it.
So then, my understanding from what you're saying, is that some GC think that trans men are considered women but aren't owed the protections of feminist values because they don't accept their womanhood? For some, the women who are sure of their womanhood are the only women GC feminism will support?
I am not interested in discussing trans women as I have heard a lot about that. I am trying to learn more about the relationship between GC women and trans men, and more than who is using what loo, that is just an example I gave.

What if you are taken ill in a completely sealed cubicle? How long until someone finds you?

What if you are using these facilities at a quiet time and the only other person there is a male predator who forces you into a sealed cubicle and rapes you, in the knowledge that he will not be seen by anyone who might enter?

Single sex washrooms with individual cubicles with gaps underneath and above them are safest for women, provided they are genuinely single sex.

Yes, the first step towards having reliable statistics about violence towards trans people is to stop counting things like misgendering as violence. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously otherwise?

It is also necessary to record both the biological sex and, if applicable, the gender identity, of both perpetrators and victims of hate crimes. Otherwise it is impossible to determine whether trans people are at greater, lesser or equal risk of either committing or becoming the victim of these crimes.

Trans people do not help themselves in this respect.

@EsterCat would you consider not referring to the individuals responding to you as "the GC" or a "GC". It's weirdly dehumanising. I am a person. I am critical of gender as it's a tool of hierarchy and oppression. I have been critical of it since I first as a young child experienced discrimination because of my sex. It had nothing to do with modern gender ideologies and identity politics. I'm just a feminist, a fairly radical one by nature, that's all.

You seem to think that because some men have decided they're women and vice versa, women have to decide what changes should be made by society to accommodate them. Are you asking the same question of men?

I don't think we have to find a solution to this problem which is of their own making. We should be able to say 'no' to males in female-only spaces and then they can find a solution which takes this into account.

It's not our problem to solve. We shouldn't have to spend our time thinking up ways for people who have chosen alternative lifestyles to be accommodated within society. They have chosen their lifestyle, it's up to them to find solutions which are acceptable to both them and the rest of society.

But there should be no males in female-only spaces.

My stance is no penises, either past or present, real or imaginary, in women's single sex spaces.

So if you have or have ever had a penis, or you genuinely look like someone who has a penis, you should use men's spaces out of respect for women.

Most trans people do not pass. And it should not be up to individual men to assess whether they pass as a woman or not.

So then, my understanding from what you're saying, is that some GC think that trans men are considered women but aren't owed the protections of feminist values because they don't accept their womanhood? For some, the women who are sure of their womanhood are the only women GC feminism will support?

I think you are twisting my words somewhat.

What I was actually saying is that in my opinion TM are women so they are entitled to use women's safe spaces. If they feel uncomfortable using those spaces or are mistaken as men in those spaces that's on them. The argument often advanced is that they are not welcomed in women's single sex spaces because of their appearance.

Until about five minutes ago all feminism was gender critical. Isn't that kind of the whole point?

Are you suggesting that trans people are responsible for lack of statistics or just that they are reporting the wrong things? We need statistics and details of all involved, yes, but from the people who have access to the information and process said crimes. National Office have probably not considered the need for this but I would hope it is being worked on.

As I have said a few times already, I'm simply interested in learning more about the view on trans men, not trans women, and how the view on this relates to them and issues they may face.

The thing is, every transman is born a girl and is subject to the issues addressed by feminism, pretty much from conception onwards. Hence feminism covers them.

Asking about their specific needs due to their gender identity is not part of feminism, unless you can demonstrate that transmen face additional discrimination for being female whilst having a trans/non binary gender identity. And not just for being female.

"In some ways I don't think it's for women to solve the problems that trans men might face. They have chosen to reject womanhood."

This is what you said, and I understood it to mean that you don't feel that the issues of trans men are a feminist issue or should be supported by women and they've done that to themselves by being trans. I wasn't intentionally trying to twist anything, just trying to clarify. It sounds like what you're saying in your follow up that you don't have a strong opinion on trans men and you're not interested in their problems either.

I really don't care if trans people want to have their own sporting categories and competitions. That's their business. Good for them. (Although I did LOL hard when the mother of a non binary athlete competing in a non binary category in a race complained that there ought to be separate categories for AFAB non binary people and AMAB non binary people.)

I don't believe that trans women should be allowed to compete in women's categories in any circumstances. Taking oestrogen does not lower their testosterone to anything like the level of a natal woman and it does not negate the physical advantages of having gone through male puberty.

I do think it is unfair that trans men who are taking testosterone are not allowed to compete in men's categories even though their testosterone will still be far lower than that of a natal man and therefore doesn't put them at a physical advantage.

Obviously trans men who are not on testosterone should be welcome to compete in women's categories.

To me, the fact that trans women get to have their cake and eat it, i.e. they can take hormones and compete against women despite still having a clear physical advantage over their female competitors, whereas trans men have to choose between hormones and sport despite the fact that they don't pose any serious threat to the male athletes even if they are on testosterone is one of the clearest examples of how this ideology only benefits natal males.

I don't wish to be unkind, especially since I know that many of these people are neurodiverse or otherwise vulnerable in other ways, but trans men really do come across like useful idiots in a game which really doesn't benefit them in any way. Literally the only point of trans men is so that when we object to trans women in women's spaces, trans activists can post a picture of someone like Buck Angel and say, "Are you saying you want this person in your toilets?"

It's so fucking dishonest.

But anyway.

The sports issue shows that whatever gender anyone claims to be, however anyone identifies or whatever language they use to describe themselves, it's always the ones who were born with (and probably still have) a penis who get the privilege.

So, no, trans women are not the most vulnerable and marginalised people in society. Not even close. They are an extremely privileged group, who have self identified as an oppressed minority based on nothing more than their own subjective claim to "identify as a woman", who have rights no one else has, and whom nobody dares to say no to.