Still Genuinely Willing To Discuss In Good Faith

[Catiette]

I've taken the plunge and started a new thread. In the interests of good manners, an addendum that I may be disappearing to work for a while myself, as this has all been far too interesting to allow me to achieve any of my urgent weekend work to-dos today - I hope that, in the light of that, creating this follow-up thread isn't bad form. I just thought other people may want to continue discussing these issues (mainly, now, the redefinition of woman, and statistical trends re. women globally), and I'd definitely dip back in when the urge to procrastinate overcomes me next. No worries, of course, if people think we did it all to death on the old thread - we were fairly thorough, methinks(!), so can also just let Good Faith Discussion #2 rapidly fade into Mumsnet obscurity. 😀

There are cases of cis women producing child pornography at nurseries. We do not use those as examples of why children are not safe around cis women. We need to get out of this habit of finding someone in a group who has committed harm and using them as a representative of the group as a whole.

Well, yes we do as otherwise women would be exempt from DBS checks.

Currently the only people that are exempt from DBS checks are those that tick a box that say they are the opposite sex, who do not have to declare their 'dead' names and who we leave to their own devices as to whether they call the TRANS hotline to tell the DBS people their old names to ensure a check is made.

This is why the issue is such a problem, because people who believe in this gendered soul seem to be exempt from the commonly understood checks and balances. Not because we hate trans people, but because those checks and balances are there due to 'learning lessons' of the past.

I can see an argument that a transman, with beard, may alarm women.

But I'm not sure that they would be safe in men's spaces either, tbh.

I'm not sure what the solution is. What do transmen think?

It works the same no matter what you do. Whether you ask trans women or trans men to use women's toilets, either way you have the risk of cis men entering. The idea that asking trans women to use men's facilities will stop cis men from entering women's facilities is a logical fallacy; it will make it easier for cis men to enter women's facilities.

I still don't get this, Deji. How will ensuring you can still bar a male person from female single sex facilities make it easier for a male person to enter those facilities? I would actually argue the opposite: the nice male people stay out so any male person entering the female facilities can be asked to leave and then removed because you will know he is there for the wrong reasons.

I also don't think the argument that women will then be barred will hold. Female people are on average very identifiable as female people, ever seen a photo of Buck Angel, Buck is actually quite small and retains female hips. Will some women be challenged? Yes, but would women mind knowing it helps keeping female facilities female only? I know I don't and I have been asked in the past, probably due to my height.

Gatekeeping female facilities is a lot less harder than you think it is, it is challenging anyone you suspect doesn't belong there. Maybe we will have some fallout and angry feelings initially until everyone gets the message what will and won't be tolerated by society.
And toilets is the hardest one of all, changing rooms, refugees, wards, prisons, way easier as nudity is involved and then genitals give them away.

Oh and as self id is based on not having a medical diagnosis, the number of genital surgeries is really low for that group of trans people. No doctor will castrate or sterilise a person without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

do you see a trans woman as a man who happens to identify differently to other men, or a woman who happens to have a different body to other women? I see a trans woman as a woman who happens to have been born in a different body,

How do you distinguish the difference between seeing a man and seeing a trans woman when the light enters your eyes? What has to be on or in or about that male that makes the thought process change from 'that's a man' to 'that's a man born in the wrong body'? It's what I am trying to understand, what is it about that person that rewired your brain to that thought outcome?

Alright, since some of you have asked me to continue, I will - but I'm not responding to anyone who chooses to take a personal approach. We can disagree without needing to accuse each other of things.

To clarify (as I understand it) Deiji is not saying that transmen would be a threat to women but that by accepting a person with a male presentation in the space that would allow predatory males to exploit it.

Correct. I believe that if the premise is "we're afraid of predatory cis men pretending to be trans women to access women's facilities", this risk is drastically increased if we switched it around and they could simply pretend to be trans men instead. Therefore making women less safe (under the specific premise of predatory cis men exploiting the situation).

I am not arguing that we shouldn't try to keep women safe; rather, I am arguing that by requiring trans men to use women's spaces, we are actively making women less safe. Not because I believe trans men are a risk to women, but because it makes it easier for predatory cis men to do what you're already afraid they'll do. In short, I believe that forcing trans women into the men's and trans men into the women's will increase the harm inflicted by cis men on women.

And just to clarify a further point that I've seen a few posts up - I'm not saying that all trans people are gender conforming in presentation. My point is that if you're afraid that someone is a man and will harm you, you are most likely afraid of that person because you looked at that person and you saw something about them that made you think "that's a man". So while I am referring to "masculine" presentation here, I do not mean to imply that all people are gender conforming. Rather, I'm saying that the people who are afraid of specific people are afraid of them because of the way that they look. After all, we cannot know someone's chromosomes (without testing) or birth genitals, so all of these fears are based on the way that a person looks.

Regarding additional toilet facilities
I'm not against the idea of additional facilities exactly. I just don't think they're the easy solution you're imagining for these reasons:

1. Many structures will simply not have the space or money to create a fourth (and possibly fifth or sixth) set of facilities.
2. If we're saying that cis people should have the right to not share toilets with someone of the "opposite sex", should we not take into account the comfort of trans people too? If cis women don't want to be in unisex toilets, maybe trans women don't, either? What if those trans people don't want to use the unisex facilities? Should we create these: Cis men, cis women, trans men, trans women, unisex, disabled? Where does it end? At what point do we draw a line? You will undoubtedly argue that the line is "cis women, cis men, disabled, unisex/trans" - but I personally do not agree that it is fair. More to the point, because many trans people will not agree that it is fair, they will not use these facilities and will simply continue to use the facility of their choice. Why create a facility when the people you want to use it don't, themselves, want to use it?

So yes, while I wouldn't say no to additional facilities, I don't think it's the easy solution that some of you are proposing it as and I don't think it's as simple as you think.

Urinary leash. Women also experienced a urinary leash. Trans people simply do not.
Many trans people today are expressing a fear of going out in public because they no longer feel that they have the unquestioned right to access public toilets. While I appreciate that you will disagree with this sentiment, many trans people do feel that there is a concerted attempt to impose upon them a urinary leash which may restrict them from accessing public spaces.

Currently the only people that are exempt from DBS checks are those that tick a box that say they are the opposite sex, who do not have to declare their 'dead' names and who we leave to their own devices as to whether they call the TRANS hotline to tell the DBS people their old names to ensure a check is made.
The law requires that all people who obtain a DBS check list all of their previous names. The trans hotline isn't a hotline to make sure that a check is made; it's a hotline you can call to request that your previous identity be withheld from your employer, not from the DBS service.

If there are people not logging their previous names on the DBS check, that's against the law.

How will ensuring you can still bar a male person from female single sex facilities make it easier for a male person to enter those facilities?
How are you barring? With the exception of high security things such as prisons, I don't know of any method used to verify the sex of a person. For example when I go to a toilet, I just walk in. Refuges don't require genital inspections and even if they did, 1) people wouldn't go and 2) people who've been medically transitioned would pass. There are few facilities that do in depth background checks.

And so, when most facilities do not have any method of verifying the sex of a person, we're relying predominantly on judging by looking at them. This is what I mean when I say changing it so that trans men are expected to use women's facilities makes it more likely that predatory cis men will enter. They no longer have to pretend to be women. They can just claim that they are trans men. They will look the same as many other trans men who would be obligated to use that same facility.

Glad you're back, Deiji, and thanks for expanding on your thoughts.

Worth drilling into the practicalities, I think:

'If cis women don't want to be in unisex toilets, maybe trans women don't, either? What if those trans people don't want to use the unisex facilities?'

Yes, this exposes the fundamental and I think, irreconcilable problem.

Women don't want to share with males.

Males who identify as women also don't want to share with males.

A third space here is the only viable option I can see that doesn't require placing the desires of males who identify as trans above those of women.

If cis women don't want to be in unisex toilets, maybe trans women don't, either? What if those trans people don't want to use the unisex facilities

That's unfortunate for them but the women's toilets and spaces are for women. Which trans women are not. Women don't need a new space as they have one, trans women have one, the men's, if they aren't happy with that, it's for them to find a unisex toilet. It's not for women to have to allow men into their spaces.

this risk is drastically increased if we switched it around and they could simply pretend to be trans men instead. Therefore making women less safe (under the specific premise of predatory cis men exploiting the situation).

They don't seem to be doing that at the moment, though, when transmen are not barred from women's facilities. Why do you think that is?

The fundamental and irreconcilable issue is that transwomen (males) say they are women.

I've yet to hear anyone explain the difference between a transwoman and any other male.

How is Jamie Wallis like me? What differentiates him from other males? (JW uses he/him pronouns).

A third space here is the only viable option I can see that doesn't require placing the desires of males who identify as trans abovethose of women.

So are you arguing that this third (* fourth - don't forget disabled) space would be trans women, not unisex? So one facility for cis women, one for cis men & trans men, one for disabled people, one for trans women?

That's unfortunate for them but the women's toilets and spaces are for women.

Agreed, and from my perspective (and that of the Equality Act 2010) trans women are women who have this right. I have no problem sharing with them and I disagree profoundly with every word of your comment. I know this comment will probably get me a pile-on here, but I've never felt threatened by or had any problem with trans women sharing spaces with me. I'm grateful to be able to share a little space of safety, considering how hostile many men are towards them. There are statistics showing that trans women are more likely to be attacked by cis men than cis women are.

I've refrained from trying to defend trans women too much here, and have chosen to focus on the way that this affects cis women, since I know that won't be welcome here, but I don't feel comfortable leaving your comments unchallenged.

but I've never felt threatened by or had any problem with trans women sharing spaces with me

And that's good for you but you don't have the right to say all women should have to share with trans women. Many women do feel uncomfortable so why are you dismissing their feelings? They simply will always remain biological men, that's a fact

Many women do feel uncomfortable so why are you dismissing their feelings?
Because I don't believe the feelings of a minority should define the rights of another minority. We don't dish out rights based on whether other people 'feel' that they're comfortable with them having them.

There are many things that are legal that I am uncomfortable with and that make me feel bad, but I do not demand that the law be changed (and therefore disadvantage other people) because I want my feelings to be protected.

Biological women are not a minority.

Cis women who want rights to be removed from trans women are a minority. Studies have shown this clearly.

Agreed, and from my perspective (and that of the Equality Act 2010) trans women are women who have this right.

No they do not. If a provider wants to keep their toilets single sex, it is well within their right to do so.

The only reason they fold is due to the extreme activists who will decimate their businesses and they rely on online business and referrals and reviews to keep trading. And nobody wants a pile on so they crumble.

Can you link to these studies?

What about the women who are not cis and who do not believe in endered souls?

Please link the studies

A third space should be unisex that way the women who are happy to share with TW can access it along with TW and I could have used it with DS when he was 6-10 and not always happy to go into the men's on his own but was getting to tall/old for a 'little boy' pass into the ladies.

Then my Muslim friends could still have a single sex space to adjust their head covering and my 78 year old mother could feel safe using public loos and not end up with a bladder infection every time she comes to visit us.

No they do not. If a provider wants to keep their toilets single sex, it is well within their right to do so.
The law requires them to prove that this is a reasonable and proportionate aim and they don't have the ability to prove that.

Can you link to these studies?
Really? It's every poll that's been done that isn't from a private network.

What about the women who are not cis and who do not believe in endered souls?
Trans and non-binary women tend to be supportive of the rights of trans women. I do not believe any polls have been done on the topic of gendered souls so I'm afraid I can't answer that one.

There are statistics showing that trans women are more likely to be attacked by cis men than cis women are.

I'm surprised that you would say this, Deiji. Can you identify your source for that assertion?

*Can you link to these studies?
Really? It's every poll that's been done that isn't from a private network. *

Then can you find some please

A third space should be unisex that way the women who are happy to share with TW can access it along with TW and I could have used it with DS when he was 6-10 and not always happy to go into the men's on his own but was getting to tall/old for a 'little boy' pass into the ladies.

Then my Muslim friends could still have a single sex space to adjust their head covering and my 78 year old mother could feel safe using public loos and not end up with a bladder infectioneverytime she comes to visit us.

Sounds like all of this would be solved by having locked cubicles with mirrors & sinks rather than having different larger spaces for people with needs ranging from "religious requirement" to "small child" to "afraid of people who look masculine". That way everyone gets their own safe space and doesn't need to share a toilet, sink or mirror with anyone else.

Yes, you are right. I apologise to anyone who felt I was accusing them. I’m feeling rather battered and may have assumed antagonism where it wasn’t intended.

Look, I'll be honest, I know that when I present these polls to you, you're going to tell me they're not valid because you don't like them. I've tried so many times and the answers range from "yeah but they're six months old now so it wouldn't be valid today" to "everyone knows you can't trust YouGov" to "well that's just wrong". I've grown weary of spending my time tracking down the links to these studies only to be mocked and ignored. It's a waste of my time.