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.

Not at all - I'm supporting each child to be their best self. I definitely don't teach or use any regressive gender stereotyping! We take diversity and inclusion very seriously and have a diverse teaching body to support this. I'm sure that the kids feel safe to be their authentic selves, which is important!

It just annoys me when people deliberately misgender other people, and are intolerant. That's what for me started here in the first place 😆 Now to get off the Internet!!

Sex is a protected chararacteristic so both men and women are covered by sex discrimination

Now to get off the Internet!!
= too many awkward questions I can't answer

Sex is a protected characteristic. Not being male or female. You are mistaken.

There are times when it is deemed appropriate by the equality act to discriminate against men in a way to have a positive effect to protect women and safeguard them.

However this doesn't mean that males don't have rights based on sex. They retain the right to privacy and dignity based on their sex.

This is one of the problems with all the rhetoric ATM. Activists are focusing on the safety thing and trying to say that that's not true, forgetting that privacy and dignity still remains a factor that should also be considered.

This men have the right to privacy and dignity away from women on the basis of their sex still.

Men can, and have, used the equality act to claim sex discrimination.

I think it probably annoys many women when people try to compel and control their speech in ways that enforces their vulnerability and submission to men and to the abuse that can follow. And annoys them when people are intolerant but think it's ok because being intolerant to women is all right.

The trans kids use single cubicle toilets and changing rooms, for everyone's peace of mind. (As I said above, I'd love it if all loos were like this, so bio sex wasn't an issue when using the loo!) Yes the girls told us that they didn't want the trans girl to use their toilets, they express boundaries.

Of course we support the lesbians as well! Why wouldn't we?

And I respect the need for some bio-woman only spaces, as do the trans people i know.

@Seethlaw
This is a topic that I find problematic and I wish we will find a good solution which is safe for everyone. I don't want trans men excluded from female toilets, and on that I disagree with Sex Matters, I think for this particular aspect we will need guidance. There are places where excluding a trans men might be proportional (e.g. rape crisis centres, with alternative services/times/groups provided), others where it's a hard no (e.g. prisons). Toilets are difficult... A toilet at work where somebody is "out" is different from a toilet in a train station or pub...

But you've already said that you believe that a trans person is the sex that they identify as and that it is wrong to not support that. So how can you support a lesbian girl - who will be dealing with an avalanche of hate and bullying if she dares to say she does not want to consider a biologically male self identified lesbian?

Your single use changing rooms is a nice opt out for not making girls undress in front of boys in school but would do nothing to protect them from harassment and assault in hospital wards, prisons, denial of services unless they accept men present and those won't be your sweet teenagers but adult men with a very wide range of agendas, check the court cases. You might also want to look at posts by the amazing @Keeptoiletssafe who is a MNetter who works hard on this subject and knows a very great deal - she's shared a number of posts particularly about how girls with illness and medical needs are made less safe in single use spaces rather than cubicles, and how they are being sacrificed in their needs to the need to find a way not to have to say to a boy 'you cannot change with the girls because they have needs too, and we need to arrange a provision separately for you'. Which is indeed difficult, but the SC has now forced this conversation. And rightly so; the girls constantly disappear behind the needs of more valued groups.

Who is helping the girls celebrate and be proud of their boundaries and protections being affirmed in law right now as opposed to being given the message that it's shameful that women ever fought through court for them? How very unimportant they are next to boys and men.

This. Pure common sense.

I suspect this is why the judgment has said 'can' and not 'must'.

I agree that it's a complicated matter, and that it leads to problematic situations. I mean, I'm not in the UK, and we don't typically have unisex toilets here. So if I don't want to risk scaring a woman who wouldn't clock me as a trans man, nor infringe on the dignity of a man who doesn't want a woman in his male space for whatever reason, nor use the disabled toilet because I'm not disabled... I'm stuck. But I'm aware that I'm stuck because of my choices, not because other people are transphobic.

Are these cubicles fully enclosed? How would you like them to look? I am interested in everyone’s point of view, but I haven’t found a better solution for public or school toilets than single sex toilet cubicles with door gaps.

I agree on sex (rather than womanhood) being the relevant protected characteristic but I wonder whether there is any mileage - at least in relation to toilets and possibly hospital wards - to think of a need for (a) female toilets (for reasons of safety, dignity, privacy and (b) “open category” toilets for those who, by dint of their sex (male people) or hormonal treatment (transmen) don't have the same need for separate toilets.

I’ve not thought this fully through but just trying to think about the parallel with sport (open category and women’s category, with the latter only being for female people who aren’t taking performance enhancing drugs).

How will you tell if they are a trans man or an opportunist born as a man invading women’s safe space? Will you ask to look? 🤷🏻‍♀️

Of course the men's toilets are safe for men. Little boys go in there, it's not some zoo full of snarling beasts.

The problem is with men who would transgress the social contract and attempt to use women's sex-segregated facilities.

Toilets still probably fall under men wanting dignity and privacy - keep in mind religious minorities who are not allowed to mix in this way with the opposite sex being particularly relevant here.

Open sport doesn't have this same consideration to make.

Yes the girls told us that they didn't want the trans girl to use their toilets, they express boundaries.

Good. My child's school made it clear that they would consider any girl who objected to be transphobic; and then, having made this clear, confidently asserted that no girls objected.

I'm still angry, even after years.

Why would you be incredulous enough to believe that people can change sex just because they say so?

Being a teacher gives you no insight into the truth of these kids' statements.

Actually, I have been faced by a bearded figure in the women's toilet. I panicked for about the nanosecond it took to twig that they were obviously biologically female.

Exemptions to the EA 2010 can be made on the basis of there being a proportionate response to achieve a legitimate outcome.

These exemptions might all need to be argued in court at some point (if someone complains of discrimination) but any argument can be made as to what constitutes either of those two conditions (proportionality and legitimacy).

It is likely that there are more legitimate reasons to protect women than men, for example safety doesn't really apply to men, but there isn't good case law on what the floor for proportionality is.

For example, chess is segregated by sex not for safety but to encourage increased participation from women. This seems like quite a low bar, so presumably there are lots of other similar arguments to be made for either sex.

Yes - they are female , you can’t change from male to female or female to male. I feel sorry for the young and vulnerable who have been manipulated by this ideology but my views are very clear cut

If they're six foot tall and bearded they're a transman, didn't you get the memo?

Thanks. Yes, that’s the extension of my “not having thought through fully” I guess.

Before the ruling, how did you know whether they were a trans woman or an opportunistic non-trans man invading women's safe space? Did you ask to look?

Stop using us trans men as a gotcha.

They can't change sex, but sometimes people are not cisgendered. So their gender (their sense of male-ness or female-ness) does not align with their biological sex. No one is asserting that biological sex can change; it can't! But gender is psychological, and some people aren't cisgendered. I don't know why that is, but it is so.

Nope, I had to go back to work! That's right, a teacher working evenings :)