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. 😀

@TheSingingBean

I am also interested to view these statistics.

Also did I miss @SpookyFBI linking the research that several posters asked for references for?

I mentioned earlier that I've been sexually assaulted, as a teenager, by a transwoman.

He masturbated in front of me, in the women's toilets. Why don't I get to say 'no, thank you' to sharing the loo with him?

He masturbated in front of me, in the women's toilets. Why don't I get to say 'no, thank you' to sharing the loo with him?
All people should get to say no to people who 1) masturbate in front of them or 2) have assaulted them in the past. Obviously I would never disagree with this.

I'm afraid that's not supported by the evidence. I can share several polls with you that show that most women do not support self ID or males sharing women's spaces.

I don't want to share a space where I am vulnerable with males.

Why does a transwoman's desire to share a space with me trump my desire to have a space free of males?

That might work for most people - but would greatly reduced the number of loos available as single lockable cubicles take up way more space. It isn't safe for my epileptic colleague - she need people to be able to see if she has had a seizure. It also increases the ability to carry out illegal activities such a drug dealing.

You genuinely don't know that males are well known for assaulting, harassing, attacking, raping and murdering females which is the reasonable and proportionate aim evidenced, and has been evidenced for centuries.

This cannot be true.

I agree with you there as well. It just confounds me transwomen haven't focused their campaigning efforts on that instead of trying to make womens toilets mixed sex.

If we take this one step further, away from toilets, what about communal changing rooms found in most leisure centers, swimming pools and gyms? There significant nudity is involved that arguing letting any male person in, will hinder the usage by the original intended group. Surely this is the justifiable aim always quoted?

To be honest, Deiji, I feel the same, which is why I didn't track down the Yougov and other polls that support what I said. 😀

I feel this discussion is getting very focussed on toilets.

What's your view on transwomen in women's prisons, Deiji?

The onus is on you to back up your argument with evidence.

It can then be critiqued. Which is what happens because the research methodology of many studies is not adhering to the scientific method.

When faced with an argument you disagree with you critique the evidence. Have you don't this? Do you have questions?

The evidence that TW are not women is superior in research methods and volume of studies. To maintain your stance you must highlight the research you quote because when we look we can't find it

So would you agree Deiji that third spaces is the best solution for everyone - in a ideal world and notwithstanding the practical challenges?

@sanluca Trans women aren't campaigning to have access to women's facilities, because they already have it in the vast majority of cases. It is currently the case that gender critical women are campaigning to remove those rights, not the other way around.

The argument is in the framing of the question.

Do you mind sharing a toilet with a transwoman

is vastly different to

Do you mind sharing with a male person who has intact genitals and defines themselves as a transwoman

The outcome is that the % of women ok with that flips to partly positive to hell no

No, men have got a solution for the locked room with cubicles dilemma, and that is using hidden spy cams. The only way to keep women safe is to keep males well away from females when it comes to matters of vulnerability.

That's the point of single sex spaces in the first place.

I absolutely, categorically, have no interest in and am not getting into a debate about whether trans women are women. I find it offensive and redundant and I'm not getting drawn into it no matter how much you ask.

I'm here because I'm interested in talking about how we best support the safety of women and I do not agree that switching around trans women and trans men will make women safer, or even maintain their current level of safety.

@sanluca So are you arguing that access to spaces should be based on whether a person has a penis or vagina?

Which I agree with, they should not have these rights.

Did I miss the referendum that asked women if this access was ok?

The idea of accessing female spaces was dreamt up by medics who insisted on men who wanted 'sex changes' to be 'living as a woman' for 3 years. And part of that meant invading women's spaces and not being shouted at.

Of course we will never know if any women minded, as men are known for being aggressive when women say no. Also, women will just walk out. Or never go back. Or cower in fear. Nobody ever asked us. This 'access' was taken from us, not freely given.

We are asking for the existing law to be upheld as we interpret it to mean all male people can be excluded from female single sex facilities and sports, regardless of their gender reasignment characteristics or a GRC. It is good when the government finally confirms this is the correct interpretation.

If it isn't and indeed any male person can claim the characteristic of being a transwoman and it means automatic inclusion in female single sex services and sports, all I can say is what the hell were they thinking? No woman on earth wants to share with every single male person on this planet. But if you let one in, you have to accept all as there is no way to exclude any of them. Not even the rapists or registered sex offenders.

So are you arguing that access to spaces should be based on whether a person has a penis or vagina?

Based on their observed sex at birth. Which makes much more sense than basing them on internal gender or lack of gender feelings someone has.

We are asking for the existing law to be upheld as we interpret it to mean all male people can be excluded from female single sex facilities and sports, regardless of their gender reasignment characteristics or a GRC.
You can interpret anything to mean anything but that's not what it actually says. What you are asking for is to redefine the Equality Act. The Equality Act states that single sex exemptions are allowed as “a proportionate means to a legitimate aim”. The reason you're not seeing this in action is that those demanding that all facilities be facilitated based on birth genitals do not have any capacity to prove in law that it is either proportionate or has a legitimate aim.

Based on their observed sex at birth. Which makes much more sense than basing them on internal gender or lack of gender feelings someone has.

@sanluca This then means that people filled with testosterone, who have a penis, facial hair and a tall, muscular body are required to use women's facilities.

I do not believe the claims that the women who are afraid of people who "look like they could possibly be men" will feel safe when they see these people in their spaces.

No we are seeing it because people are scared of losing their jobs and livelihoods.

If this wasn't ever a problem then why were there single sex spaces in the first place?

Men haven't suddenly become less violent have they? Rape is practically legal in the UK. Why would anyone want to give men more access to women and girls than they already have?

The comparator in the Equality Act is that someone trans shouldn't be discriminated against compared to someone of the same sex, not someone of the opposite sex. Which is why clarity is being sought as it is been corrupted by those with really bad intentions.

So many bad takes are mounting up here, and that's why we have to go back to basics. Where it matters it really matters.

Men exclude themselves from female only spaces because they know that some men are dangerous to women and that sometimes for privacy and dignity reasons, women need single sex spaces. So why don't men who identify as women not behave as well as other men?