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.

I doubt it would ever happen anyway. The trans man I know has always used the disabled loo when I've been at the pub or whatever with him, because he doesn't want to create a stir in the women's but he also doesn't want to use the men's...who would?

because he doesn't want to create a stir in the women's but he also doesn't want to use the men's...who would?

Women on a Saturday night!😂

I have to disagree, I'm afraid. You said it yourself, they are in the presence of a woman, no matter what they look like.

It can be explained who they are and why they are there.

Yes, but "could" is the operative word.

Along with "proportionate". How much time is this transman intending to spend in there? If she was planning to camp out all day, that's one thing, but if she was just passing through, then anyone who does have a problem can wait until she's gone.

If you're talking two regular patrons where you've got one transman and one other woman who can't cope with her there who will be frequently encountering each other, then you've got a continued conflict so the establishment's going to have to come up with a solution to separate them - an additional unisex or private space.

It can be explained who they are and why they are there.

Who knew therapy was so easy? You just explain things. Job done.

Also wondering how far this goes - if someone has a clown phobia, do you let people turn up to the same session in clown suit and makeup, and just explain "they're not a real clown" and why they've turned up like that. (Why?)

Not turning up to a group therapy session in fancy dress that might upset people isn't a huge ask. A transman is making a conscious choice and significant effort to try to look male and project as many male cues as they can. If they want to join in with other women, then they can give it a fucking rest.

But in practice, yes, most women aren't going to have a problem with a transman, so usually there won't be an issue. But a phobia against someone with too many male cues is not unreasonable, so again, some form of separation will be required.

And the SC judgment made clear that asking the transman to join another session would be permitted gender assignment discrimination. Up until the judgment the assumption/convention has been that the trans-identified person always gets what they want in the presence of a conflict, and the non-trans-identified person would have to find another space (which may not exist).

Some here think the exception (which may sometimes bar trans-identified women from women's spaces if they look convincingly male) only applies in some particular circumstances (such as victim support groups and refuges) - but SexMatters' summary of toilet rules implies that it applies to toilets in general.
The EHRC's interim guidance leaves things somewhat vague...
I think this exception is probably unavoidable but can understand the desire for greater clarity.

"but SexMatters' summary of toilet rules implies that it applies to toilets in general."

Mostly because it is hard to think of it as "proportionate" to blanket ban people from all toilet facilities on the basis someone could get upset...

I guess if she has carried out so many modifications that she would genuinely cause upset in a women’s spaces then she’s precluded herself from that.

She may or may not cause upset in a men’s space. DS would be mortified to find a woman in a men’s space but men seem generally less observant. There are also generally unisex available.

Her husband on the other hand WILL cause upset in the ladies, is unlikely to cause any upset in the men’s and can avail himself of third spaces if he fancies.

Interesting how trans activists are now suddenly worried about male looking people upsetting women.

The vast majority of trans people don’t ‘pass’ though so it won’t be an issue for them.

Mostly because it is hard to think of it as "proportionate" to blanket ban people from all toilet facilities on the basis someone could get upset...

As was also made clear - any establishment telling a transman she couldn't use a general female toilet would have to be providing a toilet she could use.

(Because, amazingly, the judgment is about coming up with a solution that works for everyone, not just fucking one group over for the hell of it.)

As was also made clear - any establishment telling a transman she couldn't use a general female toilet would have to be providing a toilet she could use

But it is "proportionate" for EVERY establishment with men and women facilities to ban them from the women's toilet?

is it "proportionate" for EVERY establishment with men and women facilities to ban them from the women's toilet?

I don't know.
But what if the trans-identified woman "passes" as male (most don't), such that neither other toilet users nor the service provider can tell whether the individual is telling the truth when she says she is a woman? The service provider shouldn't be held liable for asking her to leave if it thinks she is male, should it?

Could the exclusion of women who have self-masculinised to this extreme extent then be a proportionate and legitimate means of enforcing the female-only rule about who can be in the toilets?

It's something of a rare situation but I do think the EHRC need to give clearer advice about what they think the rules are.

Can you not think of a situation - say a rape crisis centre - where it might be proportionate and necessary for women who have chosen to so significantly altered their bodies to not use women's spaces and cause distress and alarm?

It is a door that needs to be open for women. In part to deal with the gleeful 'but if you say no to men, you'll have women who LOOK LIKE MEN and they'll scare you too and you'll be sorry!' stuff from the GI lobby.

Other people have rights too.

"legitimate means of enforcing the female-only rule"

Well they are women ...

You might go so far as to say it is a minefield

Who decides if they "pass" or not?
Who does ask them to leave?
Are we saying one woman gets to tell another to leave the woman's in a metro type supermarket because they feel upset?
Historically I guess if a man went into the women's a manager or similar might end up having to deal with it when reported to them...

Given that men try to avoid looking at other men in the gents and that men can’t recognise sex as well as women do, are many men really going to be challenging transmen in the toilets? I’m not saying it’s right that they do, it just seems unless they really don’t pass and given they usually pass more than TW I’m not sure how often it’s going to happen.

"...they will have to live with this practical difficulty and [that] other people have rights".
I think this is important. We (women) have the right to refuse entry to a women-only space to a person not born a woman.
Obviously other facilities have to be provided but this should NOT be at the expense of us.
At the risk of sounding like an angry elderly woman in an old sit-com "WE HAVE RIGHTS!".

Why do you believe every establishment will ban transmen from womens toilets.

It's permissible to do so but not mandated

"Why do you believe every establishment will ban transmen from womens toilets"

I don't. Another poster says guidance implies the judgement says this should be the case.

I don't think it is permissible as it would not be "proportionate" to do so in all cases but as a pp said this needs clarification

So are transmen currently using women's toilets? I assumed that if they passed they used the men's, or as someone else said the disabled, or other uni sex toilets.
What is happening to transmen who currently use the men's. I haven't heard of any being assaulted.

I personally think transmen who pass should continue to be allowed to use male spaces. How you could police the notion of 'passing' is another story so I can see it's difficult. But also some transmen do have a neo penis.

As far as I'm aware men don't find transmen in their spaces threatening in the same way women may do about transwomen.

That may sound unfair but it feels more right to me, than saying those who look like and identify as male, and could potentially rape me can share my space.

I'd rather not share with either men or those who claim to want to be/actually believe they are one despite biology.

Transmen should just use the men's. Make it men's problem to solve not women's.

I doubt many men would care, because females pose no threat to them.

Ditto sports, no man would care because they'd beat a transman every time.

Men only shortlists don't exist.

Etc etc

I've just read the Sex Matters guidance and it doesn't say that all providers should exclude transmen from toilets.

I'll repeat

"Another poster says guidance implies"

"I doubt many men would care, because females pose no threat to them"

Surely they are women and this would put them at risk....

I understand that another poster who is not you implied that.

Presumably they'll have thought about this before they transitioned.... thought long and hard about it. Right?