Help me with an argument re adult transwomen please

[plipplops]

I was having a conversation with my sister about why transwomen should be in women's spaces. She's open to the conversations but thinks 'it's complicated'.
I was saying that under no circumstances do I want a bloke in my changing room/toilet/hospital ward/rape crisis centre/sports team.

She works for a large bank and there are a couple of transwomen who work there. They're older, more of the old school transsexual and possibly have a GRC (or would certainly go through the effort of getting one).

She feels that if they have a GRC they should be able to use the ladies loo as having gone through the process of getting a GRC means they're somehow vetted and therefore no safeguarding risk to women. I feel that they just need to go in the mens.

How do you 'be kind' to the genuine gender dysphoric men out there if they would genuinely be distressed by asking to use the ladies loo? Or is it just that you can't be?

My hunch is that you can't be, and sorry but just use the mens, but I'm interested in the other side to the debate?

As mammals cannot change sex, transwomen entering women's toilets turns them into mixed sex spaces. Some women may be ok with that, but observant religious women and some survivors of male sexual violence won't be.

A large employer could hopefully provide single occupancy mixed sex toilets that transwomen could use (others also might prefer these for a variety of reasons).

You explain to her that even if she is fine with it, she isn't able to consent on behalf of all women - including those from minority religions, sexual abuse survivors and anyone (like you) who just doesn't want to see a man in there.

The GRC is a non starter as you can't put the responsibility onto women, that it is their job to essentially vet these men. Their distress at going into a toilet with men, is of no greater value that a womans distress at the same.

Tell her you will fight with TW for them to be given third spaces, but that for you women come first.

What does she think the 'vetting' consists of? There are no safety checks or DBS equivalent involved. You need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (no requirement to have had surgery or hormone treatment), £5, and some utility bills that say 'Miss' or 'Mrs'.

www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/what-documents-you-need

There is no vetting. Sex offenders, rapists, none are precluded from getting a GRC. You don't need surgery either.

You aren’t “vetted” before receiving a GRC. I’m afraid your sister has been misled. You need a diagnosis and evidence you have been “living as a woman”. Some jurisdictions want to do away even with that small barrier and allow self-ID.

I know it's a controversial opinion but I do think there is a difference between "old school" transsexuals and the new breed of "identified". Somewhere I used to work I had an "old school" colleague. Transitioned in the 90s, full reassignment surgery. Not at all shouty and demanding about rights. None of us had an issue sharing bathroom space. I didn't work there pre-surgery but AFAIK they used the disabled loo.

I do think that is different to someone who leaves the office on Friday as John and appears on Monday as Jane and expects to be immediately embraced as one of the girls.

The evidence that you've been living as a woman is seeing a different name on your gas bill, or similar.

Also, op , you're not allowed to ask to see someone's GRC. So in terms of general access, they're irrelevant.

There's no vetting.

I have read someone's assessment before getting a GRC. It basically is 2 pages of 'she's living as a woman and thinks she's a woman so meets the criteria'.

I was shocked that was all there was to it.

But however lovely and undemanding your former colleague was, legally and practically you can't differentiate. It's all or none.

Oh and to add - depending on your position in a bank, you may have to have a DBS check at basic or standard level. But this is a blanket requirement for all senior staff, or staff with access to money. It's looking at whether you're a risk for stealing or have a history of dishonesty. They might also run a credit check for the same reasons.

Gender/sex of the person being screened is not relevant to any of that.

It's a toilet. It's private. Unlike ladies changing rooms which are not so much. If there is a massive queue for the ladies I will use the mens. I have no problem with this as it's just a toilet.
I don't see the problem here. Can someone explain it to me ?

Even if for the sake of argument you agreed that transwomen with a GRC were 'safe' to be in women's spaces, and (just hypothetically) religion wasn't an issue, how would the women using this space know that that this particular man has a GRC? If the answer is that some of the women using the space won't know this, it's not really a safe space if they are allowed in (even if transwomen with a GRC are not a threat). By this I mean a) women will not know whether a transwoman using the space has a GRC and b) as no-one will know, transwomen without a GRC could also enter the space unquestioned. I'm sure that the OP's sister will say that people in the office know the transwomen who work there and will know that they are 'safe'. But what about the new employee, visitor, temp? Would the transwomen be happy for HR to inform all females on site of their GRC status? Perhaps a photo on the wall? I doubt it.

I have worked with a couple of transwomen and as I knew them quite well I wouldn't actually have personally felt uncomfortable with them being in the ladies' toilets at the same time as I was using them. This is because I knew they were respectful and just wanted to get on with their lives in peace. In the same way that I would not feel threatened to share a space with most men that I know personally. But that does not mean that I should be able to make that decision on behalf of all women. (In my case this was not actually an issue as there was a single cubicle unisex shower and toilet and the transwomen chose to use that)

I don't see the problem here. Can someone explain it to me ?

It's not all about you. Some women may be very uncomfortable sharing with males. What toilet provision is available for them if the women's has to become mixed sex?

Part of the reason the current situation is so complicated is that the kind of scenario described makes it very difficult to change the requirements to exclude people from spaces they have used uneventfully and with no complaints for years. (I recognize that no complaints does not equal no one has a problem, but no complaints is all there is to go on).

The problem comes when someone new comes in or changes who wouldn’t be so welcome, for whatever reason. There is a long-standing precedent on how it’s been handled in the past, so those in charge are hamstrung.

I think it will take a change in legislation requiring single sex spaces and not just allowing for them, though whether that will ever be forthcoming is anybody’s guess. I’m not holding my breath.

I think the “moving ahead of the law” in shifting men into women’s spaces probably started without much consideration, but then it was realised what a powerful tool precedent was and then it was deliberately encouraged. It’s why this is all such a mess and so difficult for women to tackle.

I agree with NoBiturongs. Ultimately the current balancing act has proven to be problematic. You can’t have a single sex space if you make any exceptions at all. It’s immediately then a mixed sex space.

It's a bit like saying a marriage certificate means a man won't assault or rape his wife.

It does not make one jot of difference what their transition entailed. Whether they have changed nothing outwardly but demand to be referred to as 'she', or whether they have gone through full emasculation surgery, cavity and labia formation surgery, testosterone suppression abd exogenous oestrogen, changed all their documentation and have held a GRC for 20 years.

They have not changed sex.

Womanhood is not a status that any man can earn. It is not d on them because they want it soooo much, or have gone to so much trouble to get it.

And it doesn't make any difference that you know they're so nice and inoffensive, either. They still have not changed sex, and Julie from Accounts should not have to share facilities with a male just because you think you know them.

I don't think it's unusual that women don't particularly want a man in the stall next to them, when they're sitting there with their knickers around their knees.

Women who have been sexually assaulted, certainly won't.

But apart from that, and the obvious fact that men in women's toilets don't have urinals, and therefore create a lot more mess, women do more in their toilets than men. By dint of their biology.

We deal with menstruation, possible blood on clothes, on our hands. We deal with leaking breasts when breastfeeding. Morning sickness happens in the ladies. A significant number of miscarriages happen in the toilets.

Plus religious women might adjust their headwear, which they can't do in front of men.

Etc.

Men tend to think it's just number ones and number twos, what's the big deal?

But for women, it isn't.

I would also worry about women dressed up as men using male only spaces.

Indeed. Men really don't like women in their toilets.

They're standing there with their penises out, for God sake.

@Rosiem2808 you might have "no problem" with it but many many women and girls do. Can you really not see why?

I honestly don’t know what the answer to this is that would make everybody happy.

I know in our office building around a year ago I believe there were complaints made about something similar, as a result we now have 3 sets of toilets on each floor, one with the male symbol, one with the female symbol, one with both.

It’s not something that particularly bothers me or that I would lose any sleep over but I can see why others may feel differently, our workplace clearly decided this was the middle ground but I know lots of people who are still unhappy with this set up.

Back in the (good? hmm) old days, a man who really really wanted to be a woman could have surgery, wear a dress and so on, get himself a certificate and be tolerated as a matter of kindness.

No longer. What with their self-ID, gender identity, trans children (!), transwomen-are-women, no debate, punch a terf and so on, certain men have thoroughly queered the pitch for such old-fashioned transsexuals (as they used to be known). (OK, and some women have too. Shame on you, J. Butler for one; you know better than to have played the game of queer as you did.)

So now it's just too dangerous for women and girls in particular, and too bad for society in general, for such tolerance and kindness to remain the norm.

A bad thing? Sure. Certainly not good for old-fashioned transsexuals. But women and girls need protecting. And the overall harm to society of foolish ideology requires mitigation.

Who's to blame for the harm caused - in particular to those sad old-style men-who-would-be-women? Not them. Nor feminists who stick up for female rights and (correctly) see the misogyny inherent in gender.

No, the harm has been caused by those certain men who have tried to force their peculiar ideology on all and sundry. (And J. Butler et al.) Transwomen are men, after all. And men need to keep out of women's private spaces, no matter their certification status. By definition; but now also for the safeguarding of women and girls, and the good of our society as a whole.

As a transman (ftm) I can honestly say there is no vetting whatsoever. I was given an appointment via video chat with a gender specialist, diagnosed that same day and given the all-clear to start on testosterone. Had my prescription delivered by the end of the week. Applied online for the GRC and had that also within a week.

It takes longer to go down the NHS route, but again - never heard of any type of vetting happening.
I'm not saying trans women are all men in wigs going into public toilets to abuse women, but the reality is that any man CAN contact places like I did and get a GRC incredibly quickly if he can afford it.

That aside - this isn't an issue about trans people. This is an issue about women no longer being able to feel safe - for example, a victim of SA could be in there and suddenly come face to face with a transwoman who still looks very masculine. It would be traumatic.

I just think it would be better if we had male, female, and unisex/everybody/trans toilets and people just thought of others.

Where is all the campaigning for men to #bekind and welcome transwonen and cross dressers into the men’s facilities?

Thanks all, I'm just going to send her the link to this thread. Completely agree with jinag2 that the TRAs have a lot to answer for.