Am I alone in NOT wanting a great flourishing of third spaces but to prefer that the definition of what being a man is widens...

[loveyouradvice]

Just that really

I remember when this whole madness started and various bearded men in skirts in women's refuges were so clear that women needed to expand their definition of women to include them....

I've always thought men need to become more involved, even just thinking about it and that the solution is for men to expand their concept of what being a man is....

But then I'm an old-fashioned feminist who has always seen performing gender-roles as an issue!!

I’m not convinced that this problem has been created mainly by men excluding transwomen from male spaces.

There’s certainly a lot of male aggression in the story, but mainly from TRAs/AGPs seeking dominance or validation. Enforced and enabled by lots of female conformity-enforcing, shunning and institutional cover.

The average man, in my experience, is pretty relaxed about transwomen in male spaces. Not much thought is given to it, and they are men after all.

That’s not to downplay that there may be real risks to transwomen in male spaces. But I don’t think that is what has driven this issue.

This is the most problematic bit of the ruling to me too. But it’s still subject to a proportionate-means-to-legitimate-end test if I understand it correctly, which is the standard logic for discriminating on a protected characteristic.

And overall, I’d rather have an SC ruling that creates difficulties in unusual edge cases than one that maintains difficulties all over the place.

I personally can't see any reason for that paragraph of the ruling. It would be just as effective, if not more so, without it. Because all it does is lend credence to the idea that appearance is what matters and not biological sex. Yes it may feel unusual and uncomfortable at first to see people who look like men using women's facilities, but we need to accept women no matter their appearance or identity. Female single sex space is for females and male single sex space is for male, no exceptions in my opinion.

Well I think it's wrong. Biological sex means biological sex. You can't exclude a female bodied person from a female loo on grounds of masculine appearance. If this is what the court said, they are wrong.

PS I can't see the tweet as I don't use Twitter anymore so I don't know what Maya said.

Also - isn't it just typical that it only affects female bodied people. Nothing to say that feminine men (not trans-identifying men) can't use the men's. Why does that not surprise me.

My worry isn't the flourishing of third spaces as much as the worry that having finally been rebuffed from trampling on women's rights, trans women are instead going to use disabled loos and trample all over the rights of disabled people instead.

Those disabled toilets exist because we need them and often cannot wait and cannot access an alternative

In theory it could affect trans-identifying men too, but there has been no talk of this only of it affecting women. As you said that is typical. I also agree that part of the ruling is wrong and IMO it undermines the clear stance on sex meaning biological sex.

Maya Forstater said the following on twitter:
I have seen quite a lot of this question going around.
Its called the "transman gotcha" and it is addressed in the Supreme Court judgment.

It goes like this: If you exclude "trans women" from women's spaces then you must include burly, bearded "trans men"

The answer in the judgment is that the Equality Act exceptions mean that both sex discrimination and gender reassignment discrimination prohibitions are disapplied so a service provider can lawfully exclude both ways.

They don't have to, but they can.
The situation in a women's prison is different from a toilets in the shopping centre.
A woman who identifies as a man should be in a women's prison and risk assessed as female.
In a public place she probably doesn't want to go into the ladies and it would be lawful to say no.

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 agree. I do understand that long-term transexuals who for example, have not used men's facilties for years even decades would find now being expected to use them humiliating and distressing. But, as we're all now clear, that does not mean that they can use the women's.

The only viable solution is third unisex spaces, to prevent accessible toilets being used by people who don't need them. Obviously, this won't happen overnight but there does need to be thought put into making public life accessible for everyone.

That is a worry, but I think the number of transgender people will be greatly reduced now that they are not being hijacked by mens rights activists and fetishists. The transgender population is estimated to be less than 0.01% of the population. It was inflated by men in babydoll nighties flouncing around in the ladies. they aren't going to be bothered about going to the disabled loos, as they cant perform their exhibitionism or get off on being in the ladies or on intimidating women into challenging them. If a transwoman with long hair who just wants to dress as a normal woman and not in fetish gear walks into the mens and walks back out again, they will not be bothered by men in there. Transmen who pass as men will probably again just be able to go to the men's without being bothered.