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!

There's always a legitimate and proportionate reason to exclude men from women's spaces, because they're men and the spaces are for women. As soon as a man enters a women-only space it's no longer a single sex space. If there's a legitimate and proportionate reason for a women-only space then there can be no legitimate and proportionate reason to allow men into it.

I voted "other" as I would go for a 2.5 option. I think transpeoole should be accommodated to feel comfortable, so third spaces, but I also think that bring trans should be an identity people are open about.

You should be able to say "I'm trans and I prefer to be called she", rather than just pretending you are a woman, or expecting everyone to state their own pronouns/be called they.

Just like disabled people might need to say "I'm visually impaired so I appreciate if you can do x,y,z" or "I prefer to be referred to as a wheelchair user, rather than in a wheelchair". You can't expect people to know how you want to be referred to and the world works best when we communicate openly and honestly.

I used to think third spaces were a possible way forward. I must have been on glue. Apart from the fact that this wouldn't afford the validy validating validation trans people require from their opposite sex, what is it we are actually saying?

... That extra facilities should be built, taking space away from some other service, especially for people with a certain erroneous belief about themselves. How fucking mad is that?! Loads of people believe things about themselves that aren't true. Doesn't mean we run around building expensive accommodations, removing resources from other people, to help them live their fantasies.

I'm picturing restaurants with second kitchens for all the self-identified chefs, corporations with hundreds of CEOs, all but one of whom qualified for the role by saying "Huh, I could do his job", airlines handing half their scheduled flights over to Xbox Flight Simulator pilots, Secretaries of State for Defence who identify as intelligent (oh, wait ...) and, of course, local authorities should build dozens of glittery castles staffed by handsome flunkies for all the self-identified princesses out there.

Nope. The very idea of special spaces is absurd. It's one more example of how badly this farrago has fucked up our minds, values, and common sense.

This is a really well put point.

It also reflects the attitude of the trans people I knew nearly 2 decades ago. It's not just that they were decent honest people, it's also that the "trans" part of their identities (not that anyone used the word "identity" much then) was really important to them.

Edit: I think this is the only workable solution going forward. We can never balance rights between people with dishonesty.

@DadJoke - the difficulty in accepting transwomen into socially women-only environments is the moment they step over the threshold, it's not a women-only environment, it's a mixed sex space.

It's like those little secret perfect tourist spots people want everyone to stay away from except themselves - Going there dismantles the reason for going.

There are a lot of different reasons women choose to congregate is single sex spaces. For safety, sure, but also to be somewhere without male socialisation dominating discourse, bonding over shared experiences growing up in a patriarchal society, for mutual support and friendship.

Transwomen do not share these traits or experiences. They are male. Being a less masculine male than society expects has its own significant challenges, undoubtedly. But these are not the battles women face. It's a problem for men to solve together, not for women to be used as Support Humans.

The talk always focuses on transwomen and not transmen, because transmen are in no way a threat to men the way transwomen might be to women (because male violence is real).

And also because pretty much every feminist I know considers transmen as part of feminism, because they are female.

All men can stay the hell out of women's single sex spaces. All of them. Regardless of how they identify. End of. That's plain basic respect for women as human beings and the capacity to understand that other people have needs for access, inclusion and choice too.

Those unhappy with this are more than welcome to create third spaces if they choose and women who wish can go use them too.

@2024GarlicCloves I would compare the third spaces to disabled access, places are only required to make "reasonable adjustments" and a lot of places don't make them on grounds of cost, inconvenience etc.

I think the threshold for deciding what's "reasonable" to accommodate transpeople should be considerably less generous than what's "reasonable" for disabled people, since disabled people often cannot access facilities at all if they aren't adapted, whereas transpeoole could access them but might prefer another arrangement.

I think the concept of "reasonable adjustments" could also be applied to other areas of this debate, it isn't reasonable to restrict use of the word ",women" or to expect everyone to do double think, but it would be reasonable for a patient to ask a Dr to use their preferred name.

Voted other as I wanted to see the figures. Option 1 discriminates against, and is harmful to, women and children. Option 2 - there is no such thing as "acquired" sex. Option 3 -Interactions with services sometimes have to take account of the damage trans people have done to their bodies.

Given that you can't or won't clarify some of the options, you can't be that interested in what people think

I am! Completely even split between option 2 and 3, its fascinating. Only 4% for option 1. It shows there is not a single "GC position".

Well duh

😂

It's only TRAs that lump all gender critical women together as anti-trans, bigoted, fascist, nazis. They don't listen to what we are actually saying, hell they don't even let us speak sometimes.

This is why we want it looked at in law and proper definitions provided, etc. so that we can all come together and create something that works.

But having to start from a position of #nodebate and #acceptancewithoutexception was not exactly helpful. Then all the rape and death threats, the silencing, cancelling and no platforming. People losing their jobs and having to take their employers to court. Having to have a judge rule that biological sex is real, that it matters and that it is WORIADS.

We are only just getting to the point where people are actually starting to talk about this in a semi sensible way.

Sorry - that question was a quote from you answering your question.

You've confused trans women and non-trans men. They are treated differently under the EqA. Under the EqA's definition of single sex spaces, they can exclude men, and trans women if it's legitimate and proportionate.

The gender critical definition of single sex and the legal definition of it are different. See AEA vs EHRC. A space with trans women and non-trans women is not, legally, a mixed sex space.

A space with trans women and non-trans women is not, legally, a mixed sex space.

What the hell is a non-trans woman?

EA2010 is itself confused on this. This is most clearly evident in the explanatory notes. The first example of an allowable single-sex service - that is excluding men "a cervical cancer screening service to be provided to women only, as only women need the service". There is absolutely no other way to read this than to say that 'woman' here refers to biological sex. No transwoman needs the service, many transmen will.
It's why clarification is needed

An indication that @DadJoke knows precisely what a woman is?

Well that's not true - I've been called a TRA on here lots for not being fully option 3. Page 1 gives you some clues!

The debate is very polarised both ways but i think lots of people are more on the middle.

@DadJoke Transwomen holding a GRC have a legal fiction of being a woman. All others are still legally men.

EA 2010 specifically mentions that there are legal reasons that a transwoman can be excluded.

The debate is very polarised both ways but i think lots of people are more on the middle.

You think a lot of TRAs are in the middle? If that were the case they would come to the table. They don't.

DadJoke has persuaded me that we should ...

Rescind the GRA and delete gender reassignment from the EA23010.

Allow self ID in the form of a pink and blue T sticker for your ID documents.

Allow all gender nonconformity if not deceptive or indecent.

Allow references to genderism but only interposed with suitable antidotes such as Mr Menno videos.

Mandate third spaces for gnc people too embarrassed by their appearance to use a single-sex space.

Ban medical transition below the age of 30.

I voted 4. It's too complex to reduce to the 3 options given. The fact that trans has become an umbrella term for many different things is an issue. Solutions will need to be found in all the different domains based on evidence and discussion between interested parties.
Rational (reality-based), compassionate, democratic. No more purity spirals or no debate dark ages. No more witch hunts. No more privileged groups lobbying in order to have disproportionate influence.
I try to trust that solutions will emerge. I can't really say I know what they are. Maybe I can contribute in my own field (mental health) as a professional. I hope so.

Since only options 2 and 3 are really in the running, the poll is made rather meaningless by their vagueness. In option 2, does 'Treated as their acquired sex in most social and work contexts' refer only to the legal requirements placed on employers, service providers and public bodies? Or does it apply also to the social and/or legally imposed requirements placed on ordinary individuals?

For example, if I want to set up a woman-only book group or walking group or poetry competition, etc, does option 2 allow me to do that without social or legal sanction, even though this right is not implied by option 2's dispensation regarding situations 'where biology is important for safety or dignity' ?
If not, option 2 is no good for me. I want to be able to treat people according to their sex in all of the situations when I want to socialise, reflect, discuss, laugh, etc just with other women.
However, option 3 requires that all 'interactions with services remains as birth sex'. Since I don't have a problem with uncontentious situations in which (eg) lcoal authority refuse collection services are expected to refer to transwomen as 'she', option 3 seems parodically harsh.

It looks like the poll phrases option 2 in a recklessly (or deliberately?) unsatisfactory way that forces gender critical respondents toward option 3.

How does one acquire sex? Is this only through Tinder or is there an off line option?

Only joking. I would change the 'acquired sex' part of the poll as it's nonsensical and open to silly responses.

It's not yet a properly functioning debate.

If it were, each side (and there are more than two) would have to first demonstrate that they understood what the other side meant, and be open to revision if wrong. There would have to be agreement on the meaning of words.

Interesting- I expected 3 to lead by a long way (based on posts on the board) and it doesn't.
I'm also very grateful to people posting their position and reasoning - very interesting reading, thank you