Anyone in the middle?

[piesforever]

All I see on here is GC rants. I am in the middle, I support trans people but do agree they shouldn't take part in gender specific sport, and there needs to be more caution in "changing gender" for sure, especially hormones and surgery for young people. I do agree some are troubled or young people, who are hating puberty or have had some trauma. Let's support them overall though, it must be horrible whatever the outcome. Anyone else feel a bit of sympathy to both "sides"? In fact, why are there sides, we need to find common ground and help each other!! Instead of being furious all the time. It's not healthy.

The older and fatter I get, the more true that is of me (and it's the same for many other men). I have shared beaches with naturists without great problem, and going "topless" is more socially acceptable than full nudity.

That's what was in my mind. I come from a large family. Most men have moobs. No silicone implants but obviously that kind of elective surgery does norlt make someone a woman. Men need to broaden their bandwidth as they say.

No amount of pretence will make these men who demand the whole world pretend they are women, into women.

They really need to extend their own bandwidth and stay the fuck out of ours.

Spend money on their own mental health rather than spend NHS money on getting breasts to fondle.

I agree re NHS money. Either it's a mental illness in which case we should not be using surgery, or it's a choice/ dislike with their body and we don't pay for other such choices on the NHS. People should self fund. I'd not ban men putting silicone in their chest personally but for them to make an informed choice we should stop pretending that people then think they're a woman or even a different kind of man. They're just men with silicone in their chest.

@Worriedmum159 I don't see any forced teaming going on here.
"We" refers to the conversation that we are having at this point in the thread. It's a discussion about the viability of third spaces as a possible solution to the current demand collective demand from TRAs to have access to women's spaces.
Have you had chance to read the full thread? It's pretty long, but worth it IMO.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for her to perceive Alpha's discourse as an attempt to forced team with women here, @BonfireLady. She's not the only one.

If a man cant be in a changing room with men, why can he be in the changing room with men with the exact same body, but claiming gender identity?

This.

Putting aside the cost and the issue of taking space away from single sex provision to accommodate this additional space, we have to look at it critically and ask if it can ever be fit for purpose.

We dont even know how many people would use such a space. We know how many people have been issued with a GRC, but thats about it. How can we provide a service when we don't know the demand? We could be spending money on never used facilities or still have the same problem we do now because not enough space has been allocated.

If the reason for the space is saftey and dignity, are we just assuming that no trans and enbies pose a risk, and that all trans and enbies are happy to use the same service at the same time. Why would a TW be happy to share with a TM but not any man?

Given all of this, what would this additional space be?

We also have to be aware that this could be a foot in the door to remove all single sex provision and ignoring sex as a characteristic. Its normalising the idea that some men arent male enough to use male facilities. If we use the PC of GR as a guide, any man proposing to undergo gender reassignment would be classsed as not male.

We also have to be aware that this could be a foot in the door to remove all single sex provision and ignoring sex as a characteristic. Its normalising the idea that some men arent male enough to use male facilities. If we use the PC of GR as a guide, any man proposing to undergo gender reassignment would be classsed as not male.

This is what concerns me the most, and is why many women who have been in this for a while have issues with the approach of some prominent GC figures.

I think the PC of GR is too vague and is potentially dangerous to society, to individual women and children, and some of the people identifying with the characteristics.

How is it possible to provide safe services when a 16 year old girl and an adult male are classed as the same? Especially when the classification is self determined.

Just labeling a service 'safe space' doesnt make it so. Its seems to be focused on the wants of adult men not to be seen as male, rather than the wellbeing of a group.

It is. Just as it's perfectly reasonable for me (as a participant in the conversation, who has set clear boundaries on where I stand on gender identity and sex) to perceive that I'm not being force-teamed in to anything, to state this and to reference the full thread in case the context for my assertion wasn't immediately apparent.

By contrast, my perception is that I'm taking part in a conversation that considers different viewpoints, including Alpha's. I'm more than comfortable with the word "we" being used in reference to a discussion about third spaces where I am taking part in an exploration to understand if there are common goals between women and transwomen (the "we" would cover both in this context). Additionally, I often see it used between GC posters and there has always been a clear understanding that this doesn't create a single viewpoint in a discussion.

I'm more than comfortable with the word "we" being used in reference to a discussion about third spaces where I am taking part in an exploration to understand if there are common goals between women and transwomen (the "we" would cover both in this context)

This is why i find the "we" here manipulating. We are been told to see differences between men with and without gender, and by extension difference between women with and without gender.

Forcing 'women and gendered men' together excludes gendered women from the discussion, as well as women who could never accept that forced grouping.

Putting aside the cost and the issue of taking space away from single sex provision to accommodate this additional space, we have to look at it critically and ask if it can ever be fit for purpose.

We dont even know how many people would use such a space. We know how many people have been issued with a GRC, but thats about it. How can we provide a service when we don't know the demand? We could be spending money on never used facilities or still have the same problem we do now because not enough space has been allocated.

A trial over a meaningful period of time (a year?) in a meaningful place (Brighton?) could help validate this. There may be cases where third spaces are already there, there may be others where they would need to be created. These could all be identified and recorded as part of the trial. If they are already there (e.g. accessible changing rooms/toilets) it would be important to understand any impact on groups or individuals which currently use them. Just as with the Open Category in swimming, my guess would be that the Malaga Airport gang wouldn't be filling up third spaces (unless it was in protest - which would be easy to spot and call out as sabotage) because it doesn't address the main need, and would instead need to face a choice between peeing in the men's/third space (the stated main need) or going home. If the conclusion of the trial is that it didn't keep women's spaces for women only, then that points to lack of enforcement (which can then be dealt with). If the conclusion of the trial is that women's spaces were kept for women only but it impacted other groups, that points to lack of provision and/or a different problem e.g. lots of people wanting their own individual unisex loo (which can be discussed from a priority/budget perspective in amongst all other societal priorities). If the conclusion is that it kept women's spaces for women only and had no impact on anyone else, happy days.

If the reason for the space is saftey and dignity, are we just assuming that no trans and enbies pose a risk, and that all trans and enbies are happy to use the same service at the same time. Why would a TW be happy to share with a TM but not any man?

Given all of this, what would this additional space be?

Everyone can make a choice whether to use the single-sex facilities commensurate with their sex or the additional third space. It would depend on their own personal balance of benefit/risk assessment. If there is an additional unisex shared changing facility, as a random example, the common ground would be everyone is there because of their own need to opt out of the single sex space. But there also may be single occupancy spaces, depending on feasibility/existing provision.

We also have to be aware that this could be a foot in the door to remove all single sex provision and ignoring sex as a characteristic. Its normalising the idea that some men arent male enough to use male facilities. If we use the PC of GR as a guide, any man proposing to undergo gender reassignment would be classsed as not male.

We definitely do. Setting clear boundaries which can't be crossed is key. Sex is a PC that can't be impacted by gender reassignment. The clarity provided by the EHRC (letter back in April, recent revised guidance) on this and the parliamentary debate in June underline this.
The GRC/GRA needs further debate to line it up with the latest clarity but until then, the default position has to be that sex-segregation, where needed, is based on sex (as observed at birth), not legal sex or gender identity.

I think some very good questions have been posed above.

One I am particularly interested in, @AlphaTransWoman is the one about sharing space with other trans people.

If it is sharing spaces with other people of the same biological sex you object to, would it be a problem using a third space with other trans women, who are also male?

If it is sharing spaces with people whose gender identity you do not share, would it be a problem using a third space with trans men, who identify as men?

If it's a question of safety and you just don't feel safe in men's spaces, I can see the logic for having a space for all gender non-conforming people where they can just not look at each other's bodies and not feel judged. But there remains the question of how you would control who has access to that space. You wouldn't be safe from, say, a sexual predator who just wants to prey on vulnerable people and can no longer self ID into women's spaces so decides to self ID into trans spaces instead.

But it may still be a reasonable compromise.

If it's a question of safety and you just don't feel safe in men's spaces, I can see the logic for having a space for all gender non-conforming people where they can just not look at each other's bodies and not feel judged. But there remains the question of how you would control who has access to that space. You wouldn't be safe from, say, a sexual predator who just wants to prey on vulnerable people and can no longer self ID into women's spaces so decides to self ID into trans spaces instead.

Yes. If you create a specific space for 'vulnerable people' then guess who is going to be queuing up to access it?

to perceive that I'm not being force-teamed in to anything, to state this and to reference the full thread in case the context for my assertion wasn't immediately apparent.

She was commenting in general, not about you. There was no need for you to tell her she was wrong.

It's clearly a matter of opinion whether forced teaming was happening.

Depends on your viewpoint.

I fully accept that Alpha identifies as a woman and that for Alpha this has meaning as laid out above. I also accept that this viewpoint will influence the language choice that Alpha uses and that if I want to engage in conversation (which I do), I will be reading comments through this lens.

From everything I've read, Alpha fully accepts that I (and others) don't recognise gender identity as a truth. My own viewpoint will reflect my own belief in sex immutability, and my lack of belief in gender identity, so will influence my language choice. From everything I've seen so far, Alpha is accepting that my comments come through this lens when engaging.
The one where I want to tighten up so that I'm consistent is using the word unisex instead of gender-neutral. That's a shift I've made since being on this thread because I've realised that I was mixing and matching and it doesn't make sense to do so. I am currently failing on that one at times.

I would also add that the middle ground discussion can still centre around sex (as observable) while accommodating a tolerance for different beliefs (its immutability versus that of gender identity)

BUT as I said above, it's also important that there are women holding the line while people like me are exploring in the way that I am.

This is why i find the "we" here manipulating. We are been told to see differences between men with and without gender, and by extension difference between women with and without gender.

Forcing 'women and gendered men' together excludes gendered women from the discussion, as well as women who could never accept that forced grouping.

This.

Understood and agreed. And I wasn't telling anyone they were wrong.

I'm not a "we" with males who think my sex is a costume or a therapy prop.

From everything I've read, Alpha fully accepts that I (and others) don't recognise gender identity as a truth.

This is why the talk of an additional space is confusing.

Why is it necessary for women to find common ground with men, when their intention is to ignore sex? If you dont recognise gender, how can you see a man with gender any differently to a man without? The common ground you talk about must be with every man not just gendered ones.

Why suggest that additonal spaces for both men and women are introduced? If women wanting them, we wouldnt need to team up with gendered men to achieve this.

But it may still be a reasonable compromise.

That would leave you open to accusations of (indirect) sex discrimination from transmen, who (experience has already shown) are more vulnerable to harassment and predation from transwomen (and nonbinary men and straight men claiming to be transwomen) than the reverse, and would most likely self exclude as a result.

So you'll still need to separate the sexes, even when you also separate the genders. Otherwise women (transmen, nonbinary women, etc) will be less well served. That's not a compromise, or at least it's not a fair compromise.

@AlphaTransWoman 's apparent indifference to the dangers facing transmen and nonbinary women is indicative of one of the big political differences between the sexes. Women consciously decide whether to de-prioritise men. Men really don't care.

If we use the PC of GR as a guide, any man proposing to undergo gender reassignment would be classsed as not male.

The PC of GR means that men undergoing GR (i.e. as transwomen) cannot be treated less favourably than other men, and that women undergoing GR (i.e. as transmen) cannot be treated less favourably than other women. The PC of GR does not say that transwomen should be classified as "not male" or "like women". Whatever Stonewall's long campaign of wishful thinking may have trained people to believe.

If you dont recognise gender, how can you see a man with gender any differently to a man without?

In a very similar way to how I accept that some people believe in God.
If Christians were pushing that I needed to write God with a capital (analogy for pronouns) or pray before meals both at home (allyship at all times to keep good habits) and in restaurants (telling me I'm denying their existence if I don't) I would push back. But I would still acknowledge that we hold different beliefs. Some people may focus on whether God exists or not as a key point in the discussion (because to be fair, it is the fundamental underlying issue) but I would be focusing on the impact of the belief.
There are already "third spaces" (churches etc) for people to practice their faith and as far as I can tell, there are clear boundaries of mutual tolerance and acceptance between atheists like me and Christians.

Perhaps the problem is the cage and the label? @AlphaTransWoman you've posted...a lot and I've read very little of it. So, bearing that in mind...

The nuts (no pun, no offence intended) and bolts is you are male. There is no escaping that, surgery hormones, wishful thinking notwithstanding. You cannot be female. There's no blue fairy, it doesn't matter how unhappy it makes you or the things to tell yourself or how much other people pander to you. The best you can hope for is a lie that you can live with. But, every day...every hour(?), there must be instances when you see the truth or you see someone else see it and it must be dreadful for you .

I think accepting that you're male, a man, that soft clothes, even breasts can be encompassed by that definition would be a far better truth to live by. That it's men who need to accept the diversity of their sex. Women cannot make room, it means the destruction of the meaning of what we are. Women aren't clothes and makeup. Men aren't anger and rugby.