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. 😀

Deiji is correct in that we currently have transwomen accessing women's single sex spaces, running a Rape Crisis centre, accesssing support services for women survivors of rape, in women's prisons, etc.

Yet some of these are used as examples in the Equality Act as 'proportionate for a legitimate aim'.

If Deiji comes back, I'd like to ask what would be considered a worthy example of a single sex exemption, or do you just think that single sex exemptions shouldn't exist at all?

As far as I understand it, a man dressed as a man currently has several opportunistic means of entering a women’s toilet. He can

1. Pretend to be a cleaner.
2. Pretend to be a transwoman. He can claim this, if challenged, and because of self-ID, it is not acceptable to remove him.
3. Pretend he’s a transman and therefore female, pretending to be male.

So the argument is, if we return to separating facilities by sex, 3) will become a problem.

I’d say that’s psychologically unlikely. He is going to be challenged anyway because it will be pretty obvious to most women that he’s male. Being able to challenge obvious males is what is currently lacking: women have been schooled not to do it because “he might be a transwoman”.

I realize being challenged isn’t going to put off all men, but it’s a social contract that was there before and largely functioned so that most males simply stayed out because society didn’t approve of them being there.

And having met a few transmen, I can say that my instincts have been very good in experiencing them as someone I didn’t find threatening. Even those who have taken testosterone are usually built like women. The instinctive reactions women have are generally quite good.

Men may not understand that, but the idea that men will pretend to be transmen doesn’t seem remotely compelling. Pretending to be a woman is one thing. Pretending to be a woman who claims she’s a man is psychologically quite different and, I may be sexist, but I think most men would find pretending to be a transman (aka a female person) to be more demeaning than pretending to be a transwoman (aka a man claiming to be a woman).

Anyway, I think most transmen who have taken testosterone are all too aware of the way women might react when faced with them. With that understanding (that men can never have) transmen who have had enough testosterone to understand they might alarm women are likely to use a separate space, either a cubicle in the men’s or a mixed sex space. Most very male-looking people invading women’s toilets are predatory men, whether they claim they are women or not.

A few women might be wrongly challenged, now and then, but the suggestion that men would pretend to be women pretending to be men is too far fetched to take seriously.

We know that Stonewall stated they wished to campaign to scrap single sex exemptions in the EA. I'd like to know if that is a position held by many people.

Personally, I think if we're going to have mixed sex spaces (spaces sorted according to self identified 'gender') then this needs to be made very, very clear.

What is most confusing and disingenuous, to me, is having a space that labels itself as single sex when it is in fact mixed sex.

I'd also really like to hear whether the suggestion is that transmen should always use male facilities. This isn't an argument we hear much about.

Is it safe for them? Do they prefer to be in the male facilities? Are they doing this already?

"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"

Don't recall either women or disabled people doing the NoDebate/Overreach that transactivists have done. The cult like language of "everyone wants to kill you" makes it worse. Transactivists have brought the pushback down on trans people. They are entirely to blame. Change the tone of the activism, accept that women's rights are at risk and we can start to have a good faith discussion.

Hold up @Deiji

I got a pious message about quoting an actual example upthread, it's bad you said, bad to mention ACTUAL bad people .

And yet here you are continuing to make sweeping generalisations about bad people to back up your theory.

If an actual bad thing happens that doesn't suit your purpose?
Must not be mentioned, bad to mention that.

Hypothetical bad things that you think suit your purpose (despite being ridiculously convoluted?

That's absolutely fine to mention.

Stark hypocrisy.

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.

Women are half the human race, not a minority.

Though I agree that already existing and protected provisions for that 50% should not be appropriated by a small minority. You don't build a liberation movement on colonising the spaces of another traditionally marginalised community. You seek your own spaces.

I think that women are called a 'minority' based on the fact that as a sex we are oppressed.

I know, it doesn't really make sense. But I believe that's how it is used.

You cannot remove something that doesn't exist. Single sex spaces are protected in law and even people with a GRC can be excluded from them. That is just a fact.

Your studies are flawed. Most women do not want to share intimate single sex facilities with male people, no matter how they identify and how lovely they are.

For those of you who argue that I'm capitulating to men, I'd like to point out again that I'm supporting the point of view most held by women, and you are supporting the point of view most held by men. Look in the mirror before you accuse me of capitulating to men.

Most men agree with Equal pay too!

The men you are capitulating to are the ones you are here arguing for.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-minority-issues/concept-minority-mandate-definition

We don't need to reinvent the wheel. What we have works just fine as it is.

What is required to accommodate te surge in people with trans identities is some specific type of accommodation. A bit like the prayer rooms which are noew frequently provided for religious people.

No! What we're doing is trying to make clear that which is not clear and explicit in current legislation. Legislation which was written at a different time, before transgender ideology really got going - whe it was really about a a few hundred transexuals.

Lack of clarity makes for bad law. Single sex needs to mean biological sex. That is why the government blocked the GRR.

Not sure what "good faith"discussion can be had with someone who still uses the term "cis"

Well, it really is a bit pointless you being here, then. There is no point you keep re-asserting a position that everyone else rejects in the most fundamental way.

You have what most here would classify as a personal religious belief - which you are welcome to - but that belief cannot be imposed upon everyone else - against material reality and against existing provisions.

Not all transsexuals do that at all. There are plenty who don't. See Miranday Yardley, Fionne Orlander and so on.TW who actually respect women's right to privacy and dignit and know they have not changed sex. If TW are entering into women's spaces when they know they will make women feel uncomfortable ( and many do) than that is an indication that that person is not to be trusted.

Have you seen the TW at demonstrations against women meeting 'jiggling their tits' and screaming abuse at women. You really think women want males like that in their spaces?

Well yes and no, if by gender you mean sex then yes a man hanging about in a suspicious and threatening fashion in the vicinity of the women's loos was something you could call the police about. If a man went into the ladies loos he might well find himself having a conversation with the police about. If he got his penis out anywhere other than a men's public conveniences he might well be convicted of public indecency.

Women in the men's loos were arrested and convicted for solicitation, so whilst being in the men's loos wasn't technically the offence you were convicted of the strength of the social contract was that a policeman found a women in the loos his testimony that she was there it was sufficient evidence to convict.

(UK) and yes a range of non criminal but effective social sanctions like being barred from the pub or sports centre.

It is a pity Deiji has left now, as I would really like to understand the following:

1. What purpose do they think it serves to segregate spaces and sports by internal feelings?
2. What should female people do who don't want to get naked in the presence of strangers who are male? Stay out of society? Get over it?

The legimate aim I was referring to is that if the majority of your service users will not use your service if male people are included, then you have a legitimate aim to segregate. This is only allowed on the basis of sex and age as far as I know, but happy to be corrected.

@Deiji "Sounds like all of this would be solved by having locked cubicles with mirrors & sinks"

sounds a lot like the unisex toilet at the local starbucks - yup could be a way forward for a lot of venues.

What they need (imho): - walls, proper floor to ceiling walls. A proper door. A monitored emergency pull cord for if there's trouble. A baby changing mat, a nappy bin, a sanitary bin. To be more the size of a small bathroom rather than a cubical so mums (or dads) can take in a pushchair and or a couple of small toddlers. More regular cleaning. The door to open out into a sufficiently wide and public place that there is no fear of someone hanging out just outside the door waiting to use it next. For there to be enough of them that women aren't queuing for 20 minutes.

I do find the way the perception of what is and isn't "legitimate" offence and/or fear is very interesting in these debates.

Society has come to accept the following values so rapidly, I find it genuinely scary:

1. it's legitimate for a transgender woman (male) to be offended by the suggestion that they are not a woman, while 2) it's often bigotry for a woman (female) to be offended by the consequent assumption that she is being redefined according to those males' perception of reality.

2. it's legitimate for a transgender woman to be fearful of sharing facilities with men, and 2) it's often bigotry for a woman to be fearful of sharing facilities with transwomen (males) as she should defer to those males' perception of reality.

I don't like expressing this in such uncomfortably bland terms as "male" and "perception of reality" - like so many others on this site, prior to very recent developments, news reports, court cases, research and extensive reading, I didn't see m/any issues with simply extending to transwomen a vague sense of honorary womanhood, and I don't want to offend or hurt anyone.

But it's precisely the resistance to such direct language being used - the largely unquestioning acceptance of the values above by swathes of government and the media and various commercial interests - that mean that these issues, and the terrifyingly high stakes attached, remain obscured to, arguably, a majority of people.

Recent pages of this thread show how very difficult it is becoming even to express the belief that single-sex spaces need to be protected in a clear way - we're losing the language and freedom of expression necessary to do this.

Thank goodness for the forthcoming parliamentary discussion re. the EA and test cases like Sarah's.

Can I say it is shame the discussion is centering on toilets again? I thought the thread before that happened was much more interesting. I vote we stop engaging in toilet segregation debate and always go back to communal changing rooms, womens healthcare, wards, prisons, sport and so on and the very interesting debate on terminology.

I've been reading through these messages and that looked like an uncomfortable ride for @Deiji

Everyone definitely has different styles of posting, as was said above. It's a shame when those different styles can result in an engagement around a different viewpoint ending. Surely nobody wanted @Deiji to leave?

I've read everything including the linked article about the "leash" - thought provoking from both women's (as highlighted by @ArabeIIaScott posting it) and transgender people's (as highlighted by @Deiji commenting) perspectives IMO.

To throw in my two pennies' worth....

I'm an advocate for single occupancy third spaces to supplement single-sex facilities (meaning biological sex) that are accessible to anyone who feels, or physically is, unable to use the single-sex facilities. That would include people with physical disabilities, hidden disabilities (e.g. autistic people who may get sensory overload) and any transgender person for whom going to a facility that is commensurate with their biological sex is distressing or makes them fearful. I can well imagine that a transwoman could easily have a fear of going in to men's toilets.

Toilet provision should be designed and made available based on expected numbers e.g. if accessible toilets can now be used by others (in the UK hidden disabilities such as autism are now covered) then we need councils and planners to do their best to estimate needs and plan for the right number of toilets.

Yes, I'm expecting disagreement from multiple angles on this one 😬 In many different styles and tones 😬 Please @ me in and I'll do my best to respond, irrespective of tone.

I don’t think anyone on this board wants to dictate where transmen go to the toilet. There is no necessity for provision to be symmetrical because the threat is not symmetrical. Male feelings of privacy should of course be taken into account, but it’s certainly not the case that 1 in 50 men has been raped by a woman in the past twelve months, so their tolerance of the opposite sex could potentially be much higher. That’s up to them to say.

It is only legitimate for transwomen to be afraid of men in the same way it's legitimate for frail men, disabled men, very young men and boys etc. They still don't get to have refuge in women's spaces (Young accompanied sons excepted).
Transwomen want the validation of the lie that they are women. They are transwomen not women.
I used to Be Kind and it just ended with the same Do What I Say thing

You were never going to get a straightforward answer - because Deiji stated several times they were not prepared to discuss the fundamentals of sex and gender. They only wanted to discuss as long as terms such as 'cis' were universally accepted, and that we all accepted that transwomen were actually women.