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!

I've said before, I'm just a random Internet person with an opinion. I'm not going to start detailing exactly how it would work in my mind as 1) I'm not in charge so it's irrelevant 2) I can't be bothered with posters shouting me down for not being GC enough.

The principle (which I'm happy to discuss) is how to protect vulnerable people from male violence. As a feminist who is about smashing the patriarchy, I agree with that.

i dont think its very hard to understand why the subset of males who may have experience being sexually vulnerable with other men would understand how traumatizing it would be forced to be vulnerable 24/7 or put in solitary confinement.
I don't understand why youre assuming anyone who doesnt want to be intentionally placed in a cell with a violent prisoner to help maintain prison order (v-coding) must want to go harm women, its textbook poisoning of the well to avoid any sympathy being garnered for the other side.

I would argue those people should have access to a third space.
Or maybe to be genuinely progress those people should have the space and the violent aggressive men should have a less pleasant third space.

Let's start rewarding men who aren't violent shitbags, rather than letting those who are set the agenda.

Well first you need to discern how you intend to distinguish between the men who say they’re trans who are vulnerable from male violence and the men who say they’re trans who are the perpetrators of male violence.

And its perfectly possible for someone to both be extremely vulnerable themselves AND a threat to others (including other men). In fact that probably describes quite a lot of male prisoners. But that comes down to how prisons are managed and run rather than a reason to just put those men in a woman's cell.

GRC would be useful here. Some gatekeeping as to why someone wants to transition. If a male has a GRC before they go to prison, they get treated differently to males who don't and say they are trans. (I'd go third spaces, not womens prison).

If I ran the country I'd also make it impossible for males to apply for a GRC in prison - and a history of sexual offending being a reason someone could be barred from being granted a GRC.

I don't think it's very hard to understand why it's extremely traumatising to force women to be locked up with men, threatened and coercively required to pretend that those men are something other than men and different to all other men who aren't allowed to be locked up with them due to privacy/dignity/risk of harassment and assault issues, and to put aside their own vulnerabilities to be mummy to them.

Because apparently vulnerable men, gosh how awful, we must do something and take care of them!

But vulnerable women? Shut up and mummy on command, you don't matter when there's a penis person with needs.

Fgs.

It is perfectly possible to meet the needs of vulnerable male prisoners of any identity without using women. Because using women is a bloody awful thing to do, they are not therapeutic resources for men. And no one is saying to the vulnerable men in prisons 'pretend he's not a threat' and that it's mean to assume that those men will hurt them. And to put aside their own fears and needs and issues and take care of those scary men, cos gosh poor little scary men.

Can we please have some equality of thinking that is not as sexist as all hell?

The gatekeeping for a man to get a GRC is that someone “lives as a woman” for a period of time. How does a man live as a woman?

i literally said "dont want to go harm women" as in go to a 3rd space and you still posted this childish rant, get a hobby

Why don't you say what you think rather than firing questions.
Do you think a GRC certificate and process could be used as part of a risk assessment for trans identified prisoners?

Men’s safety in prison- Is that a feminist issue? I’m more inclined to leave that as a societal issue. As a mother of boys it matters to me. As a feminist, I think, not my business.

As a mother of boys-

Rape isn’t about the sexuality of the victim, surely? It’s a power move. If all the gay men were housed elsewhere would the rape stop? I doubt it. Is rape worse for a gay man than a straight man? I doubt it.

Fun idea. Instead of a wing for the vulnerable, let’s put the aggressive power players in a special wing.

Structural male violence is a feminist issue, if you are an old school radical feminist (which I am).

A lot of other feminists (lib fems mainly) would see that as Marxist feminism, not appreciate the class based element and disagree.

Fun idea. Instead of a wing for the vulnerable, let’s put the aggressive power players in a special wing. 100% agree with this. And give the non aggressive males special perks.

In my feminist utopia males would need a penis license to show they were responsible and understood basic things, like consent, that other humans have wants and needs etc, before they were allowed out after dark

I think much of this sounds reasonable but underlines a problem. We know that prosecutions for sexual offences are low. We can then assume that there are men who have committed offences but will have no official history of offending. They wouldn’t therefore, under the system you suggest be barred from a GRC. These men will then be accommodated under your ‘option 2’.

If that option is merely (and I don’t think it’s clear) call them Margaret and use ‘she’, but no access to any female-only spaces then there probably isn’t an issue of safety at least. Anything more, and there may be.

There’s also the implication that a GRC is a reward for good behaviour, rather than a necessary mechanism for people who simply cannot ‘live as’ their birth sex. I’m not sure that’s how trans people would see it.

No. Because it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.

This is the crux of the issue. You’re proposing a cascade of various pathways but ultimately each step relies on a falsehood.

Smash the patriarchy by protecting vulnerable men! How are they vulnerable? Because they have a certificate! How did they get that certificate to say they’re vulnerable? Because they lived as a woman before they got it! How did they “live as a woman”? Errr….

It’s no basis at all for legislation and organisation of society, including prisons.

Men who are vulnerable in men’s prisons should be protected by making men’s prisons safer, not by using the falsehood of womanhood to create a hierarchy of structure.

Women having been raped in prisons = 'childish rant'.

Nuff said really.

It’s not irrelevant. Ideas start with individuals and then if they are any good they may eventually become a reality. I know some women on here believe that male violence is men’s problem to deal with but personally I see it as a societal problem. I am genuinely interested in how 3rd spaces might work to reduce male violence against other men. But it’s men that’s need to be convinced that this is what will help them. If enough men were calling for third spaces for those vulnerable men who are at risk in current spaces I’m sure they could make it happen. Men are not so lacking in agency that they need feminists to sort out their problems are they?

its childish because it had nothing to do with what i said, unregulated missplaced rage is a hallmark of children. what i did say though was people who bring up women when seperating tw into their own ward away from violent men is mentioned are poisoning the well of discussion and you proceded to do just that and then were suprised when me and the op agreed u were being absurd.

Men don't need feminists to solve their problems, the issue is (most) men don't see it as a problem as male violence and intimidation doesn't impact them and they get the benefits of living in a patriarchy.

So it is up to feminists to raise the issues if we want any chance of change (which I do).

Fair point, so I still think the optimum is a choice M/mixed/F. Women and children are the most vulnerable so shouldn't have to bear the brunt of any compromises.

Children used to work hard to get a pen license at school. Let’s make the boys work a bit harder for their penis licence.
I like it. It could have age appropriate levels, starting with the ability to pee in a domestic toilet without flooding the floor!

Anyhoo-
So there are different kinds of feminism, you can be a feminist and still disagree on lots of issues.
You can be Tory and disagree on lots of issues.
… GC
… labour- I hope so. I really do.

" Over-turning the patriarchy" is a dated cliche. Straight from the 1960s and 70's - before equalities legislation and before women could even have a mortgage in their own name.

In countries which actively enforce male rule over female rights - then yes - patriarchy is a thing - but now that equal rights have long been legislated for and we see women in all walks of life; women as leaders; women earning their own money; having their own mortgagae and bank account and so on......

All we're left with is sex differences, and the way some of these differences impact on our choices, tendencies and preferences. Not all men are violent, though violence is higher in males as a population; and of course, women/females can be violent too. Male sexual patterns are different, generally, to female patterns. There are biological drivers behind both of these factors.

So what you are grappling with is not so much 'the patriarchy' as sex based differences. Sex based differences remain even after 'transition' for the reason that sex is a powerful factor in human beings, no matter how much it is legislated for, or how it is modified or pacified by individual preferences, talents or personality characteristics.

x

Sorry, are you saying you believe there is no patriarchy and the reasons straight white men have a disproportionate amount of power in the UK is because of "sex based differences"?

This just sounds like another version of intersectionalist identity politics to me -whereby all men are the oppressors and all women are the oppressed. I'm just not buying this version of feminism and women's rights. Far too simplistic and far too dogmatic.

You managed to condense a whole post into two pre-ordained conclusions.
That is because you are rigid and inflexible and cling to ideological dogma rather than enage in genuine and open discussion.