Most people agree with us.

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/supreme-court-trans-public-opinion-b2753173.html

'[A] YouGov poll of 2,106 adults in Great Britain found that 63 per cent believe the Supreme Court made the correct decision in its April ruling.
The survey also revealed that 52 per cent of respondents now feel the law regarding women’s rights and their application to transgender people is clearer following the decision.
While 13 per cent said the ruling would have a positive impact on them and 6 per cent said it would be negative, more than three quarters of people (77 per cent) said the ruling would make no real difference to them.
The poll also addressed the issue of transgender women's participation in sports. Nearly three-quarters (74 per cent) of those surveyed agreed with the decisions made by some sporting bodies to ban transgender women from women’s competitions following the ruling.'

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/national/25172574.survey-suggests-people-think-supreme-court-gender-ruling-right/

As soon as the option of third spaces is floated we see the problem. It's not acceptable to.many activists, because they require women in womens spaces. Nothing less will do.

The 'safety' of males is a red herring. It's control and capitulation and subjugation that they demand.

Exactly. And it's only women who have to compromise, isn't it? Transwomen cannot possibly ever compromise.

This is such a good point, JamieCannister, and such a basic question to ask - why third spaces? Just because a very small percentage of the population say they will feel more comfortable using them?

Who is going to foot the bill for the financial cost and the disruption of putting fourth spaces [the disabled toilets - which disabled people had to campaign for for decades] - are the 'third spaces' - into existing buildings.

It shouldn't be a problem in new builds, but unisex toilets should be in addition to sex-segregated toilets, not instead of them [building regs].

Fourth spaces everywhere is a disproportionately costly and disruptive demand for such a small part of the population.

Thank you so very much :) !

It's not that bad, honestly. Most importantly, it's not dependent on external validation, it's between me and me, which makes it relatively easy to handle. Still, not having literal penis envy would be nice, and being able to present as my sex without feeling like a fraud would be quite the relief.

'Socially one sex but legally and biologically the other'

What does that mean?

That in toilets and sports and law TWAM, but when it comes to women-only book clubs and lesbian bars some men are allowed in and it is women's job to be kind?

I think this reply of yours bears quoting, because a) I agree that @theilltemperedqueenofspacetime has suggested something unbelievably sensible, and b) it seems that it has struck a chord with you, and I genuinely always want to applaud and appreciate people who take other people’s ideas on board and admit that their minds have been opened, if not changed.

Once upon a time I held a certain amount of admiration for Eddie Izzard (bear with me here). He used to come out on stage and say he was a transvestite - and he was clear, he was a man who wore women’s clothes (in fact, he said “they’re my clothes” which I also thought was cool - after all, women have been wearing “men’s clothes” for such a long time now they have ceased to be “men’s clothes” - to the extent that I rarely see transmen who shave, because generally speaking if they shave, they just look like women wearing…trousers. Why we still code non-trouser clothing as “only for women” is quite interesting). Anyway, when Izzard eventually caved and became a transwoman, I was disappointed. Same with a man I knew who wore supremely cool women’s boots. I had loads of admiration for that, until the point where it became clear that he was just soft-launching his trans identity.

And here’s the thing: the admiration I had, I think, was the thought that here were two men who were so comfortable in themselves that they could dress unconventionally and not care what other people thought. I grew up in the 70s and 80s and I always thought that was where we were going to end up - having got rid of all the stupid boxes that people want to put each other in, not shoving people
into new ones.

I’m not sure where I’m going with this, but the thought of you being able to be an out and proud trans-identifying man, rather than having to carry the weight of trying to be something that you never can be, and hide what you are, well that seems like a worthwhile goal.

I'm mulling it over @TwoLoonsAndASprout. I think @JamieCannister is correct to be sceptical. What does 'socially a woman' mean?

It was worse! The Lancet said “bodies with vaginas”. We weren’t even accorded respect as people, let alone women. Bodies can be dead or alive too. That really angered me.

I don’t know, to be completely fair.

But I feel that some degree of being honest that you are a man who likes to wear dresses and makeup is a step in the right direction.

I personally am angered that a young boy who likes pink and having long hair and floaty clothes is somehow less of a man. I would like to get to a place where that is seen as an acceptable variation on manhood. Beyond that, I haven’t really thought.

Well, as the Irishman said, if you want to go to Dublin, I wouldn't start from here. After at least fifty years of activism, we're stuck with widespread trans-inclusion, and I don't think we can just go cold turkey without at least having a conversation about it. Also, anti-gender reassignment discrimination law exposes providers if they leave trans people without provision.

I wouldn't go for mixed-sex provision of any sort. Trans people are quite rare, so suppose, as a thought experiment, we doubled the single-occupancy ambulant accessible offering? This could be great for disabled people, trans people, people with MH problems, and people who need to assist a vulnerable opposite-sex companion.

If a man has an urgent psychological conviction that he mustn't go into the gents, I'm inclined to view that as a MH problem anyway.

Trans people are quite rare, so suppose, as a thought experiment, we doubled the single-occupancy ambulant accessible offering? This could be great for disabled people, trans people, people with MH problems, and people who need to assist a vulnerable opposite-sex companion.

That is an attractive proposition. Would work for parents with a buggy too

So inane as well. I can’t imagine transmen are thrilled at being categorised as a body with a vagina.

The law currently says that only someone who is legally (ie actually!) female can do any of those things.

This opens up the question whether voluntary 'single-gender' clubs could or should be re-legalised, for the benefit of trans and trans allies. Its a big topic, and worth keeping our eyes peeled for movement in that direction.

Yes, if there's money floating around for this, how come there's no money in either the public or private sectors to improve toilet provision for women, who have all sorts of biological constraints that transwomen don't? Periods, pregnancy, the bulk of childcare responsibilities, UTIs, plus the whole having to sit down to pee thing.

No. Women are shaped by our biology, we are 'socially' different because of how we live in the world.

Wearing frocks and make up doesn't make a man 'socially' a woman. It's not possible. You can't be 'socially' a.woman unless you've lived a whole life from birth with all the expectations, messaging, knowledge that a girl and a woman has.

There's the knowledge of our own embodied experiences, the awareness of males as a threat, the paucity of women role models in history, the awareness of pregnancy risk, sexism, etc. Years and years of relentless messaging from the world around us on how we are and should be and will be.

I'm sorry but it's offensive to suggest that a man wearing stereotypically women's clothes means he has any idea of how being a woman is, except in the most shallow and inconsequential terms.

Thank you TwoLoonsAndASprout, for another generous comment, one which again contributes both to my sense of an epiphany of sorts, but also an unease, with what I'm meant to do now.

I'm conscious that Eddie Izzard's transition caused a lot of disappointment among gender-critical people for the reasons you've mentioned, the switch from something quite radical in terms of broadening male identity and remaining both male but also a very different imagining of maleness. Evidently it wasn't enough for them, but if there is a spectrum in these things, then for some trans women, perhaps there is a different journey in which one recognises that 'woman' isn't the word they were looking for. Some return to a more neutral place and call themselves 'non-binary' or 'genderqueer.' Some may simply become weary of needing to use a box at all. Yes, male, and so what? I wonder if this where my journey is going. Thankfully, perhaps the conditions for exploring this possibility are becoming more open now following the SC ruling.

I began to look at the consultation documents for the EHRC's guidance this morning, there were so many references to the word 'male' when referring to trans women, a development that's also true in press coverage especially since the ruling, and now of course in law. Perhaps in the long term this will help a lot of trans women overcome the sense of fear or anxiety that they are also still male, to see that word in relation to our legal status to the degree that we become either indifferent to it or even start to accept it as a part of ourselves that never left us. Trans as a protected characteristic, yes, but also your birth-sex in ways that society and the majority consider vital and necessary for knowing one another.

You said:

"I grew up in the 70s and 80s and I always thought that was where we were going to end up - having got rid of all the stupid boxes that people want to put each other in, not shoving people into new ones."

Again, I think I agree. Perhaps one has to go on a journey to realise the boxes are less important than how one presents and goes about their business. The boxes helped with the experimenting and finding a language and a sense of legitimacy during periods of huge insecurity, but perhaps eventually one gets to a place of peace and being at ease with oneself and the labels don't matter as much anymore.

You finished:

"I’m not sure where I’m going with this, but the thought of you being able to be an out and proud trans-identifying man, rather than having to carry the weight of trying to be something that you never can be, and hide what you are, well that seems like a worthwhile goal."

Thank you for taking me along these thoughts, I think there's a lot of truth to them, perhaps they won't be for everyone but certainly to me, and if you've helped one trans person to feel more at ease in their own skin as they struggle with the implications of the SC ruling, then that's valuable. Yes, like you say, it's a worthwhile goal for those ready to embrace such possibilities about themselves.

Oh no! Don’t get me wrong! I completely agree with everything you’ve said.

Men cannot be women. Wearing a dress doesn’t make them women. And the women’s rights that they have been demanding are not theirs to have.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that I want there to be a way for so-called effeminate men to be allowed to be effeminate and men at the same time, and not feel that there is anything wrong with that. I want that for women too - butch women shouldn’t be pressured to not be butch - but the way our society is (male=good, female=bad) it is more acceptable for women to appropriate male styles of dress and presentation than for men to appropriate women’s dress styles.

I come at this whole debacle from the point of view of an angry, feminist TERF. I have spent every day since the end of the Peggie tribunal auditing the binfire that is the NHS single-sex policy. But I also come from the point of view of an angry mother.

I am beyond angry that the trans movement told my beautiful effeminate DS that there was something wrong with him, and that the solution was to change his body. He didn’t, but I tell you I still want that ideology gone. No one should have to break their beautiful bodies because the world can’t accept some people wearing different fucking clothes from others of their sex.

So I guess if someone says hey, I feel like I’ve gone down this road and I don’t entirely know how I feel about it, and I know I’m a man, and I’d like to talk, then I will give them the time of day.

I think that discussion around 'socially' a women has really gained momentum since the Supreme Court judgement on MN. And I think it we have to be immensely careful about using this term. Because it is meaningless.

A male who has a transgender identity is not a woman or a girl. No matter how much they believe they are. What does 'social' woman / girl mean? Because we have already seen exactly what happens when any word for us is redefined in any way. Tacking on 'social' is not going to help anyone. Because those male people will still be male people and will be excluded where single sex provisions exist.

It is potentially going to land us back to this point again in time as well. Because that is fucking how we got to this point now. Remember Ivy/MacKinnon? He couldn't be much more explicit. Because people call me a woman and 'she', I must be considered a biological female and be treated as such (paraphrasing). And that helped to convince sports organisations to keep allowing male people into female sport.

Plus continuing this concept of 'social' women, also continues the social and organisational pressure for people to use demanded language. And not one of us should be expected to use language that doesn't follow the established conventions of the English language around pronouns if we do not support a philosophical belief that is not based on material reality.

If people wish to use that language, great, go for it. But there should be no expectation that others should. And the emotional manipulation to do so needs to stop. It is not respectful or kind to expect others to use this language when they wish to use well established / correct sex language.

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime Well, as the Irishman said, if you want to go to Dublin, I wouldn't start from here.

Umm... how can I put this as politely as possible: would you like to withdraw that nasty worn-out old stereotype of the Irish?

@Helleofabore, you’re right, of course. It’s a dangerous, slippery slope to talk about being “socially” a woman.

I want a way for effeminate men to not feel belittled for being effeminate - without anyone saying they need to be women in order for that to be the case. I genuinely thought that was the world I was going to be an adult in. I don’t know how things got so fucked up.

'women and trans women may need to continue sharing certain spaces (e.g. public toilets) because there's little logistical alternative'

No. Women should not be expected to continue to allow male people access to female only spaces such as public toilets.

Female people use our toilet spaces for much more than just weeing. And the safety issue is not simply based on whether female people are attacked or not. Female people have always needed our spaces to be single sex because as well as toileting, there are common experiences female people share that occur outside of locked doors.

Here is my list.

I have had to use the toilet while having a pram / pushchair jammed into the door with groceries.

I have had to have my mum use the public toilet because the disable toilet was not available and had her wheelchair jammed in the door because I couldn't leave her sit to move it and shut the door.

I have had breastmilk leaks / children's vomit / food spilled on my clothes and needed to have an unbuttoned top to dry the top under the hand drier.

I have come across other women quite regularly washing out their tops or their skirts etc and drying them enough to put back on .

I have friends who have miscarried in toilets and needed assistance and for that to be female people to make it more comfortable.

Others have other items to add.

Female toilet usage has never been the same as male toilet usage. These things are uncomfortable and can be quite humiliating. But at least in a female only toilet it is a little better. That means no males.

It was never appropriate for male people to be removing the privacy that female people need in public toilets. That I see so many male people declare that they 'just want to pee', shines a fucking beacon on the fact that they fail to understand the needs that female people have, and have NEVER actually listened to us about this.

Evidently it wasn't enough for them, but if there is a spectrum in these things, then for some trans women, perhaps there is a different journey in which one recognises that 'woman' isn't the word they were looking for.

This should be the journey for all trans-identified males. Woman is NOT the word they are looking for. They can never be women. They are on a fruitless quest which can never be fulfilled. Set yourselves goals you can achieve. Find another word

@GwenEdinburgh

I think we all have to learn to get along. Perhaps the SC ruling makes things simpler now, women and trans women may need to continue sharing certain spaces (e.g. public toilets) because there's little logistical alternative, but in other ways, perhaps trans rights and women's sex-based rights will learn to rub along now.

I appreciate your contributions to the thread. I agree with your wish for women and trans women to work things out amicably so both groups can co-exist peacefully.

But the above can't happen. It's impossible. For example, I can't share a toilet or changing room with someone who I perceive to be a man. It's worse when I clock the person as a disguised man. (Part of my abuse as a child). It sets off my cptsd so I experience flashbacks, intrusive thoughts, terror, and other ptsd symptoms. I can't share toilets or changing rooms with men. Neither can many other women, whether bc of trauma or religious belief. It's not bc I hate trans women, It's bc of how my body reacts to clocking a man in a loo or changing room.

If trans women use women's single sex spaces, many women can no longer use those spaces. Simple as.

Yes, we have long discussed on this board that what was always needed was that the concept of 'boy / man' needed to be broadened. Unlike Alex Drummond's 'broadening the bandwidth of woman'.

Which was fucking offensive when Alex Drummond declared that involved moving from fixing a car to frocking up or whatever was said! I was fixing my car at 16 years old and then getting dressed up that evening to go out. Women, female people, had been fucking doing it for decades before Alex Drummond insisted that was broadening the bandwidth of being a woman! I doubt it honestly even crossed Alex Drummond's mind how fucking offensive that was.