Let's have a poll!

[AdamRyan]

Thought it would be interesting to see the majority view on this board for what the consensus is on how trans people should be accommodated in society. I want to see what less vocal posters think

Options:

1. as they identify. Exactly the same as the sex they identify with. Access to womens spaces at all times, protected in law.
2. Third spaces: Treated as their acquired sex in most social and work contexts, use third spaces or treated as birth sex for times where biology is important for safety or dignity (i.e. hospitals, prisons, sports, changing rooms, providing or receiving intimate services like waxing, smear tests)
3. As their birth sex. People can choose to refer to them in their acquired gender but there is no expectation of this; all official documentation and interactions with services remains as birth sex.
4. Other - please explain

Let's see!

@AdamRyan
Can you answer this? I'm trying to think of what sort of social and work contexts you mean, where men and women are treated differently, but a man who wants to be a woman should be treated as a woman.

Can you give some examples?

If a woman or group of women wants to socialise with a transwoman "like women" - whatever that means- obviously they are free to do so. Why wouldn't they be? However, they do not have the right to give consent on behalf of other women when that transwoman wants to use a women's public loo or changing room.

Originally, when I first became aware of this issue, I'd have probably said 2, but now I'm at 3.

No opinion on the poll bar this

It is a regular poster who gets antsy about others posting on FWR

@Menstrualcycledisplayteam , spot on. Overreach, slurs, sackings because organisations are in thrall to this ideology. Makes me more a 3

I'm a send waver. I think gender stereotypes (and identity) is a load of piffle and i can't really give a stuff about what people do for hobbies, jobs, and fun. I don't give a stuff how they dress.

Obviously i have caveats to this because otherwise i wouldn't be posting here. And they are this: Where single sex provision is requested it should be provided. Exceptions only in very rare cases (I can think of emergency medical care but not much else to be honest). Clothing should be appropriate to the weather and occasion and normal standards of decency (so the German Green trans woman politician wearing a lacy see through top for parliamentary meetings can fuck off because other women wouldn't get past security dressed like that). Uniforms should be comfortable and practical (and with safety considerations/requirements accounted for) I don't believe women should be restricted to skirts, for eg, and men to trousers. If there is a uniform - all items should be available for all employees unless there is extremely good reason why not.

Sports - either open and women's (natal) categories, or women's, men's and open (except things where it really doesn't matter and the only one i can come up with is eventing and racing)

toilets, changing rooms: women's (natal), men's (natal) and 3rd. (whereby 3rd isn't taking any accessible spaces away)

Employment, politics etc. Where an industry/profession etc is traditionally dominated by men - all (natal) women shortlists, and affirmative actions are fine by me (and before anyone gets huffy: affirmative action is where 2 equally qualified candidates are up against each other - the one with the minority is picked. So woman over man for eg)

Some things should be for women, men, POC, whatever groups want them to be exclusive. If they are private organisations not in receipt of public money - have at it (Turf Club for example). If they are in receipt of public money and there are no regulations around single sex exceptions (ERCC for eg) then we need to be sensible. Yes men get raped, they deserve their own safe spaces for therapy and support. As do women. And if either of those groups want single sex spaces, then other people need to have facilities offered to them.

yadda yadda yadda

A bit of sense, understanding, compassion and empathy would go a long way. But nobody should be getting death threats for stating biological reality (or anything else really)

Until a definition of 'trans' becomes available with some sort of diagnostic then surely the only answer is to treat people as their actual sex?

Treated as their acquired sex in most social and work contexts

How does one treat a woman differently to a man in a work setting? Is this something that anyone would want to encourage. Most women want to move away from that.

Also, at work is different to socially because you can't choose who you work with but you can choose who you socialise with. Most of us tolerate work colleagues but have actual friends, who we have chosen, outside of work.

I feel OP is missing the nuances of being asked to join in with someone else's identity.

Yes. That's why I voted for 3.

Birth sex really matters, but...

Gender nonconformity is fine, but...

Malaga, but...

How can we police the insides of people's heads?

I'm also concerned that disabled people will lose access to their spaces in this. Because, technically, the third space is for disabled people.

Fourth spaces then. Fourth spaces, mixed sex, for anyone. Single sex spaces kept separately.

I left it too late to edit, but I would like to add: institutions and employers to have the right to ban cross-dressing in formal and educational settings. For discussion. Could be tricky.

Is there something wrong with women's opinions

why though? if the clothes are appropriate to the setting "ie, skirt suit or whatever, the same as women wear) why shouldn't a bloke wear a dress? Especially in summer.

If all the men wore dresses it wouldn't be cross-dressing any more (Grayson Perry effect) 🙂. I don't really have an answer.

There's a conflict between options 2 and 3. In 2, OP says using sex where sex matters. In 3, OP says not changing sex markers on official documentation.

Sex DOES matter on official documentation. As the mess of the census showed, you need to collect data accurately by sex, not a bungle of sex and gender, to predict future needs, spot trends by population. And of course to correctly record crimes and medical data by sex, not gender.

So what does option even 2 mean if the existence of option 3 means no falsification of sex on legal documents? That in option 2 there can be the legal myth that people change sex? that there are "women" with a penis?

I think enforcing a Business Appropriate Dress Code is perfectly doable. I don't give a monkey's if Daniel wants to wear a women's skirt suit to work. I care when it's a weird sexualised parody of women that any natal woman would be disciplined for wearing to a professional setting.

well as i have explained before (this thread and elsewhere) i don't believe in gender stereotypes, that is as valid for clothes, jobs, hobbies etc. It has to be appropriate for the situation. That is my stipulation.

HOWEVER THEY WANT!! Honestly, get your head checked. They just want to live life, they don't need to be 'accommodated'. It has absolutely nothing to do with you.

... when it's a weird sexualised parody of women that any natal woman would be disciplined for wearing to a professional setting

This.

Once again this appears to be all about assigned male at birth persons identifying as women. Not much mention of what to do about AFAB people identifying as men, although there are more of them, and the number is rising really, really fast.

I vote sticking to all the spaces, lists , facilities and sports based on natal sex (although we might have to introduce a testosterone test for AFAB, although that already exists as it is a performance enhancing drug.) because it is the only reality verifiable scientifically ( or just by using your eyes).

I voted 2 but I would like to see part of 3.

I think it is extremely dangerous for trans people themselves to have their sex incorrectly listed on NHS documentation, for example. I think there are a lot of places where people could change from "M" to "TW" but shouldn't be able to register as something they are not, such as "M" to "F".

If, for example, India Willoughby came into the ladies loos (even though I know India is not biologically a woman) then I honestly would have no problem with that. Before all this Stonewall trans ideology madness happened, I would turn a blind eye, or simply not notice most probably. However because I know, because I have seen myself, men who do nothing to present as women pissing in a cubicle with the door opening and then telling me 'shut the fuck up, i identify as a woman', it has made everything murky. Because Stonewall and of course the influential lobbyists are pushing for self id, any fucker can use women's spaces. As long as they say 'I self ID as a woman' then we can do nothing about it. I find it enraging actually that genuine trans people aren't more angry about this.

ID to have both a sex field and an optional trans status field. Useful in medical/policing contexts.

Except in the area of sport, surely? And I imagine the Olympians Caitlyn Jenner and Sharron Davies know more about this than you, so let's accept that, at least.

@LondonLass91 please define 1) trans and 2) genuine trans.