Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components" - Thread 2

1000 replies

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/07/2025 18:33

The last thread ended with Tandora attempting to sidestep the question about what she would say if her daughter had been raped by a trans woman in a female only space and no longer believed that trans women should be in female only spaces as a consequence.

Her last reply was along the lines of, "The same thing I would say if she had been bullied by a green person at school and said she no longer wanted to go to school with green people."

@Tandora can we have a serious answer?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
DialSquare · 25/07/2025 09:01

VoulezVouz · 25/07/2025 09:00

I didn’t say the posters themselves were “vicious”, but the discussion inevitably turns vicious. There’s a distinction. However, I would say that most posters here have an edge to them.

BTW: ‘Viscous’ means ‘thick’.

Fair enough.

Fat fingers but again, if the cap fits!

Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:02

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 25/07/2025 09:01

But that's only one justification. There are others, including where members of one sex "might reasonably object to the presence of" a member of the opposite sex.

Yes. Again that's not about men 'not being nice' though is it? It's about social norms around privacy and dignity.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 25/07/2025 09:02

Tandora · 25/07/2025 08:53

Here you go:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

"A provider can deliver separate services for men and women where providing a combined service would not be as effective. A provider can deliver separate services for men and women in different ways or to a different extent where providing a combined service would not be as effective and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide the service otherwise than as a separate service provided differently for each sex. In each case such provision has to be justified."

How about this example, Tandora?

  • A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.
Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:03

Ereshkigalangcleg · 25/07/2025 09:02

How about this example, Tandora?

  • A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

I don't disagree with that provision.

However, it's not about whether 'men' or trans people, are or are not 'nice', it's about what people feel comfortable with.

ItsCoolForCats · 25/07/2025 09:04

Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:00

Anyone can access any single sex space they want, regardless of equalities law about the provision of single sex services. these things are not rationally connected.

If a man wants to rape a woman in a toilet he will do so - he does not need to pretend to be trans. If a trans woman wants to rape a woman in a toilet she can do so, regardless of what the Equalities Act says about the definition of sex as a protected characteristic in law.

Well that is why we have safeguarding so they can't just access any single sex spaces they want. It is much easier to enforce this when we keep all men out and don't make exceptions for those who claim a special identity.

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 25/07/2025 09:04

This person is clearly not participating in good faith and is an obvious troll. I’m out.

DialSquare · 25/07/2025 09:04

DialSquare · 25/07/2025 09:01

Fair enough.

Fat fingers but again, if the cap fits!

I’m talking about myself there not other posters BTW.

BackToLurk · 25/07/2025 09:04

Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:03

I don't disagree with that provision.

However, it's not about whether 'men' or trans people, are or are not 'nice', it's about what people feel comfortable with.

Edited

Like if female nurses felt uncomfortable with males in a female only changing room?

WarrenTofficier · 25/07/2025 09:08

Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:03

I don't disagree with that provision.

However, it's not about whether 'men' or trans people, are or are not 'nice', it's about what people feel comfortable with.

Edited

So why do you want to ride roughshod over the confort of women. Why is the preference of a small minority of men more important than the needs of women?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 25/07/2025 09:08

Tandora · 25/07/2025 08:51

I think prisons is an exceptional case. We don't build general rules about society around prison security systems.

I do not think a person who has been jailed for sexual assault should be jailed in a place where they have access to people who they can further assault.

By the way, men and boys can also be victims of sexual assault and rape.

My understanding about the way prisons work - although I don't know a huge amount about prison security - is that an individual risk assessment is conducted on an individual basis as to where they should be placed for the sake of everybody's security. I think this is exactly appropriate.

A couple of things here.

Firstly, the trans activist lobby were specifically advised to use prisons as their Trojan horse.

Get those in positions of power to accept trans identifying men, even rapists, being housed in women's prisons. Female prisoners genuinely ARE among the most vulnerable people in our society (unlike trans identifying men), have no real voice and no one to advocate for them, so it is fairly easy to get this one through by stealth because most people won't even be aware of it.

The risk assessments done when deciding whether to place male offenders in women's prisons related SOLELY to the risk to those male offenders of being housed in a men's prison rather than a women's prison. Unsurprisingly, the risk assessments found that they would be safer in a women's prison. The risk assessments did not consider the risk to the actual, real women AT ALL.

Then, once you have got the establishment to accept that violent men who have been convicted of sex crimes against women should be housed in women's prisons with women who cannot escape, just as long as claim to identify as women, it's much easier to get them to accept that men who aren't serving custodial sentences for violent crimes should be allowed to use women's toilets and changing rooms with women who can simply stay at home if it bothers them that much.

OP posts:
Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:09

ItsCoolForCats · 25/07/2025 09:04

Well that is why we have safeguarding so they can't just access any single sex spaces they want. It is much easier to enforce this when we keep all men out and don't make exceptions for those who claim a special identity.

I disagree this is rationally connected to 'safeguarding', it's about social norms around privacy/ dignity.

BackToLurk · 25/07/2025 09:10

I’m a little unclear why, if men are fine and not more inherently likely to commit sexual assaults because they are male so many transwomen claim to feel unsafe with them. Someone should inform them that sex separation is just about service provision. I wonder what different service Dr Upton feels he receives in the female nurses changing room.

And, small niggle. It’s the Equality Act

goodmington · 25/07/2025 09:11

Are we back to " reframe you trauma" again.

Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:11

BackToLurk · 25/07/2025 09:04

Like if female nurses felt uncomfortable with males in a female only changing room?

SP's actions were (in my view obviously - as I was accused of libel for expressing opinions about this on another thread) driven by transphobia.

Her behaviour was unacceptable and constituted harassment. If she had genuine concerns she would have handled the situation in an entirely different way.

DU also has the right to be comfortable at work.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 25/07/2025 09:11

Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:03

I don't disagree with that provision.

However, it's not about whether 'men' or trans people, are or are not 'nice', it's about what people feel comfortable with.

Edited

And many women here are telling you that they don't feel comfortable sharing such spaces with trans identifying men.

OP posts:
Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:13

WarrenTofficier · 25/07/2025 09:08

So why do you want to ride roughshod over the confort of women. Why is the preference of a small minority of men more important than the needs of women?

I don't accept that accepting and including trans people is "riding roughshod over the comfort of women". Maybe some racist women would be more comfortable with segregation of 'green' people. I wouldn't support that either.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 25/07/2025 09:14

Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:11

SP's actions were (in my view obviously - as I was accused of libel for expressing opinions about this on another thread) driven by transphobia.

Her behaviour was unacceptable and constituted harassment. If she had genuine concerns she would have handled the situation in an entirely different way.

DU also has the right to be comfortable at work.

Edited

She doesn't need to have a reason you consider valid to not want to take her clothes off in front of a male colleague.

"I don't want to" is a good enough reason.

"You, as my employer, have a legal obligation to provide a female only changing room for your female staff to use, and a changing room with Beth Upton in it is not a female only changing room" is an even better one.

The only person guilty of harassment is Beth Upton, who kept a list of names and dates of women who avoided using the changing rooms when he was in there because they didn't want to take their clothes off in front of them.

If Beth Upton can only feel comfortable at work as long as his unconsenting female colleagues are forced to strip off next to him, he's not suitable for any form of employment in which people are required to get changed at work.

OP posts:
Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:15

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 25/07/2025 09:14

She doesn't need to have a reason you consider valid to not want to take her clothes off in front of a male colleague.

"I don't want to" is a good enough reason.

"You, as my employer, have a legal obligation to provide a female only changing room for your female staff to use, and a changing room with Beth Upton in it is not a female only changing room" is an even better one.

The only person guilty of harassment is Beth Upton, who kept a list of names and dates of women who avoided using the changing rooms when he was in there because they didn't want to take their clothes off in front of them.

If Beth Upton can only feel comfortable at work as long as his unconsenting female colleagues are forced to strip off next to him, he's not suitable for any form of employment in which people are required to get changed at work.

Edited

She wasn't required to take her clothes off in front of DU. That's not what happened.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 25/07/2025 09:15

Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:15

She wasn't required to take her clothes off in front of DU. That's not what happened.

Beth Upton specifically complained about her refusing to get changed in front of him.

OP posts:
NecessaryScene · 25/07/2025 09:16

If a man wants to rape a woman in a toilet he will do so - he does not need to pretend to be trans.

A crime requires motive, means and opportunity.

Safeguarding tends to be about about reducing the opportunity, particularly if there are means.

A private space like a toilet is a means. So it's necessary to reduce the opportunity.

If a man is able to loiter in a toilet waiting for an opportunity to isolate a woman, he can commit a crime far more easily than if he will get thrown out the moment anyone sees him in there, or entering there.

The argumentative trick Tandora is employing here is the same as for the 'existence' above. Tandora quantifies NOTHING.

Reducing opportunities or risks, crimes or accidents one-hundred-fold counts for nothing if any still occur.

You reduce road deaths by a huge amount by mandating seat-belts? So what, some people still die.

So if nothing is quantified, there is no measure of success or failure, therefore nothing Tandora suggests can be worse than an alternative in practical terms and outcomes. The only argument is about feelings, or appeals to abstract ideals.

BackToLurk · 25/07/2025 09:17

Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:11

SP's actions were (in my view obviously - as I was accused of libel for expressing opinions about this on another thread) driven by transphobia.

Her behaviour was unacceptable and constituted harassment. If she had genuine concerns she would have handled the situation in an entirely different way.

DU also has the right to be comfortable at work.

Edited

Given the support the NHS Trust has provided Dr Upton I think it’s clear that if SP’s behaviour was as you described she would have been disciplined. Rather than cleared of misconduct. We don’t need to depend on ‘your view’.

Anything on why ‘transness’ which I believe you claim has a biological component, reduces the potential threat of a male?

Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:17

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 25/07/2025 09:15

Beth Upton specifically complained about her refusing to get changed in front of him.

No that's not a fair characterisation of the situation. There was a pattern of behaviour where SP was making it obvious that she held DU in contempt. DU felt intimidated and harassed, so she took notes on those behaviours.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 25/07/2025 09:17

Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:13

I don't accept that accepting and including trans people is "riding roughshod over the comfort of women". Maybe some racist women would be more comfortable with segregation of 'green' people. I wouldn't support that either.

We don't have single race spaces, and this is expressly prohibited in the Equality Act as an exception to the principle that you can have spaces for people sharing a protected characteristic.

If you believe this is remotely equivalent, why are you not complaining for the whole section to be repealed so that all spaces have to be inclusive of everyone? Why are you not campaigning for the total abolition of all single sex spaces, as well as all LGBT spaces for that matter?

OP posts:
Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:19

BackToLurk · 25/07/2025 09:17

Given the support the NHS Trust has provided Dr Upton I think it’s clear that if SP’s behaviour was as you described she would have been disciplined. Rather than cleared of misconduct. We don’t need to depend on ‘your view’.

Anything on why ‘transness’ which I believe you claim has a biological component, reduces the potential threat of a male?

No that's not clear at all.

They suspended DU and look what has happened to them.

The political, legal and policy context in the UK at the moment is exceptionally hostile to trans people.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 25/07/2025 09:19

Tandora · 25/07/2025 09:17

No that's not a fair characterisation of the situation. There was a pattern of behaviour where SP was making it obvious that she held DU in contempt. DU felt intimidated and harassed, so she took notes on those behaviours.

Sandy Peggie felt intimidated and harassed by Beth Upton's behaviour.

The Darlington nurses certainly felt intimidated and harassed by "Nurse Rose" prancing around in the women's changing rooms with his genitalia visible, asking why they weren't getting changed yet and talking about how he'd stopped his cross sex hormones because he was trying to get his female partner pregnant.

OP posts:
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread