Transmen

[southbiscay]

There has been a lot of discussion online about which toilets transmen can use. Especially due to the part of the judgement which suggests that it may be legal to exclude them from women’s toilets, and they may not be able to legally use the men’s either.

Going back to basics, the protected characteristic of sex in the equality act does not permit discrimination between men and women. However, there is an exception whereby you can discriminate if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. When a service provider uses the exemption, it is generally in order to provide a female only space because that can very easily be shown to be a legitimate aim. The corollary of providing a female toilet is that another toilet is needed for men, thus creating a male toilet. But it was never the original objective to create a male toilet, it is just a result of having created a female one. So on that possibly dodgy reasoning, would it be legal for a service provider to provide one female toilet and one mixed sex toilet? Because if it is then it would appear to solve the transman question. I know there have been plenty of service providers who have thought it perfectly reasonable to convert the women’s toilets to an all gender toilet and keep the men’s as the men’s. I doubt this was ever legal, but would it be legal the other way round? I’m not saying that men would be happy with this as a solution, but frankly, I don’t care given we’ve been expected to put up with the reverse. What I do care about is leaving transmen with no realistic solution.

Hoping those with much more of a handle on this than I do, can shed some light on it.

My understanding is that it is legal to provide separate single-sex toilets, but not (except in certain circumstances) a requirement to do so. When a single-sex service is provided for one sex, the other sex must not be disadvantaged by the lack of single-sex provision for them.

For women, single-sex toilets are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim: safety from male sexual aggression and dignity while carrying out female bodily functions away from the male gaze.

Pairing women's toilets with unisex toilets therefore seems legitimate.

OTOH men have those same rights. But do men actually need safety from female sexual aggression and dignity while carrying out male bodily functions away from the female gaze? Safety from female aggression - obviously not. Men are not at risk from women. Dignity - possibly. I would want to say yes, as I believe in treating others the way I would wish to be treated, but given the way men pee in public, and use toilet cubicles without shutting the doors, does it actually bother them? Do they even care about that aspect of personal dignity? I know it does for some men. So would unisex toilets disadvantage those men who would not pee in public?

Either way, a trans-identified woman who had proceeded so far with physical body-mods that she actually passed enough to deceive women would also deceive men. So the men would not lose their dignity.

Ha ha I started this exact thread yesterday and no response. My understanding is that trans men can be excluded from female spaces if they’ve gone to great lengths to masculinise themselves. The basis for exclusion is the gender reassignment exception (Schedule 3 para 28). Seems harsh that TM could be excluded from both male and female spaces but I suppose there is usually unisex available in most places now.

From the Judgment...

"221. There is nothing in the wording of this provision to indicate that paragraph 28 was directed specifically at those holding a GRC, nor is there any basis for concluding that this is its likely context as the Inner House suggested at para 56. (The example given in the explanatory notes at para 740 also does not distinguish between transexual people with a GRC and those without: “A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful”). We can see nothing to support the Inner House’s conclusion that “the importance of this paragraph is that it provides the only basis upon which a person might be permitted to exclude a person with a GRC from services which are provided for their acquired sex”. Nor is the EHRC correct to assert that paragraph 28 is redundant on a biological interpretation of sex. On the contrary, if sex means biological sex, then provided it is proportionate, the female only nature of the service would engage paragraph 27 and would permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status. Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination. This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women-only service being provided. Their exclusion would amount to unlawful gender reassignment discrimination not sex discrimination absent this exception."

Sorry I misread your OP (the dangers of skim reading!)

But it was never the original objective to create a male toilet, it is just a result of having created a female one. So on that possibly dodgy reasoning, would it be legal for a service provider to provide one female toilet and one mixed sex toilet?

I think it would be challengeable to provide a female toilet and a mixed sex toilet with no provision for men. Men have different needs to women (urinals) and also have a right to dignity and privacy. I think going forwards they will just need to provide a third space for the minority of trans people who don't want to (or can't) share with their own sex.

They could campaign for their own spaces and, if they had done so originally, would probably have them by now.

As Maya Forstater said a couple of days ago: 'There are often unisex options. Not being allowed into the mens by rule does not mean you have the right to go into the ladies (and vice versa). That may seem unfair, but these are life choices people make. If you make extreme efforts to look like a man don't be surprised if you are denied entrance to ladies.'

I'm happy stand with her on that. I

It's definitely not common for men to use a toilet cubicle without shutting the door in my experience, though it does happen sometimes if he's just peeing. My personal view is that I don't want transmen in the gents with me; it's uncomfortable (if I think there's a woman in there with me), but I will cope. The people I really really don't want in the gents with me are the aggressive men in inappropriate sexualised clothing, but it's fairly easy to avoid the sort of places where they are likely to hang out. Obviously it's even more inappropriate if they go into the ladies' toilets. They are dressing, in my opinion, to offend and intimidate.

I know a number of tradesmen - who I didn't even realise weren't 'cis men' - God what a vile phrase. I think them using male toilets is fine. Them using women's toilets would have women clutching their pearls, but then there is as far as I know no campaign for 'men' only space.

I suppose nobody predicted that trans men would potentially be shut out of both male and female spaces. Personally I couldn't care less if a bearded woman turned up in the ladies but I suppose where a TM is undistinguishable from a male it is likely to cause consternation. Third spaces already exist in most places and many places only have a single unisex toilet or there will be a accessible option if all else fails.

But wait, I thought you lot wanted people to use the toilet of their birth sex? Bit hypocritical to want to have it both ways now you're realising some of the consequences to your actions.

I've been pondering this. If they can be denied access to women's single sex spaces does you think the reverse is likely to apply? I.e if TW can be denied access to male single sex spaces on the same basis? (Providing they passed to at least somewhere of the same extent). I don't think I read anything about it in the ruling, but I could be wrong.
I don't think trans people using single sex spaces that correspondence with our birth sex pushes us out of society and public life providing we have protection from discrimination, abuse, harrassment in the law, as some TRAs are suggesting, but the possibility of being denied access to both without an alternative available could potentially result in that.

Transmen can quite easily use the male toilets, they tend to pass as men or at least teenage boys quite quickly. On top of that most transmen are sensitive to how their presence affects women in female spaces and will avoid these situations

So, can I just clarify.
It was not about using the space of the gender you were born with.
It was whether or not you can 'pass'?

The ruling was very clear that transmen who ‘pass’ can be excluded from women’s facilities legally and would have to use unisex spaces if not comfortable using the men’s facilities.

Choices have consequences. I don’t have a problem with masculine presenting women in women’s spaces but I can’t consent on others’ behalf. If the transman is perceived as male when using women’s spaces that can go against the rights of other women to feel safe and private way from men.

Are you talking about the specific posters in this thread?

There have been quite a lot of discussions on this with differing views from different people (as there are with any MN discussion).

I don’t mind if obvious trans men use the ladies (obviously female but attempting to look masculine). But where a woman has gone to such lengths to masculinise themselves that nobody can distinguish between them and a man this will obviously cause issues. Luckily the SC has foreseen this issue and made it clear that these women can be excluded. So the only real consequences will be for very masculine looking trans men.

Who judges if someone passes?

If you’d bothered to come and join in women’s discussions on this at an earlier stage, or had had the self-respect to go back and read some threads before jumping in with incorrect assumptions about what many of us think, you would know that there are many women here who say they are perfectly happy for FtM transitioners to use women’s spaces.

Further, there are some of us, as well as some FtM transitioners, who acknowledge that testosterone has masculinised some women to the point where their presence would cause some women distress. It had generally been said that, in those circumstances, in order to alleviate women’s distress, those transitioners might choose either to use male spaces or find alternative spaces. Funnily enough, MtF transitioners understand what women feel in a way that men who claim they are women never can and never will.

It did come as something of a surprise to me that the judges considering this case understood and had taken on board this matter, to the point where they agreed with the latter group, to an extent, but that only goes to show how thoroughly they have read around and understand what they were rulling on.

So as with everything, there are a mixture of considered opinions on this point, as with most. The consequences of our actions come as no surprise to us and we are not in the least hypocritical in discussing this matter, now the legal position has been clarified.

It's as if the people who kept shouting about genital inspections think they really will exist.

In reality trans people who pass well will in practice probably go on using public toilets without much difficulty.

Trans men do not affect others in the way trans women can. Accepting and allowing them to use male toilets is very different from someone born male using women's toilets.

And I guess the same will apply to TW who genuinely pass (no Eddie Izzard this does not apply to you)

A person who genuinely passes is unlikely to be challenged because nobody will know.

That has always been a complicated question.

I suspect some men have believed they passed as women on the grounds that they had never been challenged in single sex spaces. Those men may now be in for a shock, as women start to feel emboldened to speak out, now it has been clarified that single sex means single sex and those men don’t have the right to be there, as they had claimed.

More FtM transitioners pass and that is because testosterone stimulates very specific and distinctive changes to the body, which cannot be undone by taking oestrogen. For that reason, few men who have gone through male puberty will ever pass, even on first glance and certainly not with longer contact.

Medical transition has opened up societal complications with regard to single sex spaces. We (society, not women) need to work out how to accommodate those people who have taken this path, as well as those who started then changed their minds. This needs to consider both those who have transitioned and those who have not, to ensure rights are balanced fairly.

This is something that has never been done. Medics told their male patients to use women’s spaces and never once considered whether this would affect women. There is now a whole conversation that needs to start and “no debate” needs to be put in the bin, alongside all the hyperbole about existence, before that can happen.

It's also interesting that after being told no one can tell the difference between a trans woman and a female it's now assumed that no trans woman will be able to pass.

as has been discussed on here and elsewhere about a zillion times, pretty much none of the arguments about men in women's spaces apply the other way round, e.g.

(a) 'trans men' are generally welcome to chance their arm in men's sports, though they'll generally get pulverised;

(b) no trans man of sound mind would, surely, ever want to be anywhere near a men's prison, unless they have a death wish or are particularly fond of being raped; and

(c) women, whether they choose to cross dress or not, are generally not unwelcome in men's toilets, eg if there's a huge queue for the ladies.

PriOn1:
Funnily enough, MtF transitioners understand what women feel in a way that men who claim they are women never can and never will.

I don't understand this sentence.