Trans men using female spaces

[GoldenGate]

Not seen a thread about this. Just saw a clip of the wonderful Hannah and Jake Graf on Lorraine. Usual oh we're so scared where to pee and its not fair what the SC ruling and EHRC have done. However what stood out was Jake stating she's not allowed to use mens loos (right) and also not allowed to use the female because she is a trans man. Is the second of those actually right? It would be terribly contradictory to biological sex. I get they could be excluded from eg. womens counselling sessions if their male appearance would be an issue, but surely not loos/changing rooms except the angle men could just pretend to be trans men.

It is right. It's in the judgement.

Trans men would be expected, under the ruling, to use the female toilets. Which makes sense, as they are female.

You obviously haven't read the whole judgement or the multiple threads there have been here about it!

"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. "

That would not as a rule apply to toilets, but it could apply to rape crisis centres and domestic violence shelters.

You might find the Sex Matters release on this helpful too:

Is the Supreme Court forcing a person who has taken extreme steps to look like a man to use the ladies’ toilets or saying that they have a right to?

The answer is no. Women who look convincingly like men and who go into the women’s toilets are likely to be just as alarming to women as actual men. They would have to explain themselves, providing personal information that they might not want to share (and that other people might not want to know).
Therefore it may not be practically possible for some trans-identifying women to use the ladies’ toilets.

The Supreme Court says that it is lawful to exclude them (at paragraph 221):
“Women living in the male gender could also be excluded [from a women’s service] 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.”

But this does not mean they have a right to use the men’s toilets, from which they are excluded by rule. Men also have a right to privacy and dignity.
This does create a difficulty for a person who has taken extreme steps to modify their body. It will become difficult for them to navigate sex-separated spaces. This is their dilemma. It should be explained to a person seeking to modify their body in this way that they will have to live with this practical difficulty, and that other people have rights.

In most large public buildings where strangers mix, a unisex option is usually available and the practical dilemma does not arise.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/the-truth-about-toilets/

I saw the part saying they "can" be excluded from spaces of their biological sex based on male appearance but hadn't thought this would apply to toilets etc. and how its policed is another discussion. I just see this being framed in a "you've given us no options now".

A vanishingly small number of transmen and virtually no transwomen truly pass.

I don't believe a service provider can exclude a trans identified female from female spaces unless an alternative is provided.

A service provider could also choose not to exclude trans identified females from females spaces

"This does create a difficulty for a person who has taken extreme steps to modify their body. It will become difficult for them to navigate sex-separated spaces. This is their dilemma. It should be explained to a person seeking to modify their body in this way that they will have to live with this practical difficulty, and that other people have rights. In most large public buildings where strangers mix, a unisex option is usually available and the practical dilemma does not arise."

This GI movement has been perfectly happy for women to have no options if they couldn't use a mixed sex space at all, or if they went to use it and found a man there who rendered the space unusable.

Third spaces will be created. Women weren't promised any kind of help on the way or a future in which they'd have their options catered for. They were just expected to go without and shut up or else. So my withers stay wholly unwrung.

The women's loos are the right place for trans-identifying women (transmen).

But anyone who has undergone significant body modification with the intent of deceiving people into believing she is a man can't reasonably complain when she is mistaken for a man.

At that point, she'll have to explain herself. Which isn't a big deal, it occasionally happens to many of us.

This is mostly a problem in trans people's heads - they want to believe that they pass, so obviously they want to believe that no-one could possibly cope with them being in a correct-sex space.

Whereas they're most likely to get people doing a double-take before realising "oh, trans", and moving on.

People will be paying them far less attention in a correct-sex space than when they're in the wrong-sex space, because what's happening is far less disturbing for everyone else.

Opens the possibility of bio men with an agenda to gain access to the womens could pretend to be transmen. Off with yer knickers so!

It is a dilemma for them. Unfortunately many took irrevocable decisions, often while extremely young, encouraged by activist organisations who lied to them. The same organisations who couldn't be arsed to speak up for them at the SC.

Up until the judgement, all that bio man had to do was say he was a woman to access womens spaces

"This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example"

I also interpreted this as an exclusion ( against transmen) in specific "proportionate " circumstances such as women's shelters etc rather than a defacto banned from all women toilets in Tesco because another woman might get upset.

After all the whole point is that transmen are women and therefore not a risk to other women...

This is language again. First confuse everyone by talking about transwomen when you mean men. Then confuse them again by changing your terminology to trans idenfied men. Leaving polite, well meaning people unsure who is being discussed. Tell me this isn’t deliberate.

Well this is what HJ meant by "a huge problem in a sane world" - but I think we are going to have to see more unisex options and an expectation that non trans identified people may want to use these too with single sex spaces available for all those who need them.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with anyone being excluded from a single sex space based upon their appearance.

If they are female they should be allowed in a female single sex space regardless of how they look.

It’s interesting that since the ruling the TRAs have been trotting out about transmen using the ladies. The fact is that most transmen pass exceptionally well unlike most transwomen who just look like a man in a dress. Additionally transmen pose no threat to men however transwomen do pose a threat to women, the statistics prove this. Additionally many women do not want to share facilities with a man, men are a risk to women.

To pretend that transmen and transwomen are the same is ridiculous in the context of toilets. I understand that transmen are already treated in separate rooms in hospitals but surprise surprise transwonen don’t want this. As usual it’s the transwomen stamping their size 11 stilettos and saying but I’m a laydeeee.

Trans-identifying people of both sexes broke the social contract here. It is entirely understandable that there will be hightened vigilance until it becomes socially unacceptable to use opposite-sex facilities again.

And you haven't read the whole of the section you posted. They "could" be excluded. 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.

They should not use the men's. They may use the women's. If they have chosen to become very masculinised in appearance, they run the risk that they may be excluded from certain spaces/services. The obvious examples are RCCs and prehaps refuges. This does not = not allowed to use the women's loos.

Exactly. Very very few tw who may pass as blokes (extremely unusual) might not be able to / might not feel comfortable using women’s loos.

So what. I and many other women have felt like this about women’s spaces since men were allowed in them. No one gave a shit, and in fact called us bigots and worse for raising our concerns.

Tw who pass might feel bad. So. What.

Edited to add - this is such a teeny tiny non issue. Pity tv didn’t and doesn’t give more air time to women. Women who’ve been treated like shit for years. Millions of women.

I don't see where loos are excluded? It doesn't mean they can't use the women's loos, full stop, but surely it suggests they could be excluded from women's loos at people's discretion if women think they're men and are upset?

No, they should not in every circumstance. The women in a therapy group or sharing a refuge while recovering from male violence should not have to be in the presence of a woman who looks and sounds male. The other women have rights and the masculinised woman chose to become so. Separate provision should be made where possible - separate therapy group, unisex toilet etc.

Yes, but "could" is the operative word.

"could be excluded from women's loos at people's discretion if women think they're men and are upset?"

This makes it sound like some random person using the toilet could decide whether transmen are excluded. Surely this will be decided by the organisation / management of the establishment in question