A point about the "exclusion" of masculine-looking women from female toilets

[MyAmpleSheep]

It is sometimes cited in the press that FWS will or must lead to the lawful exclusion of women of masculine appearance from women's facilities, and that therefore FWS was an own-goal for women.

This is based on 221 of FWS:

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.

I believe what is reported profoundly misunderstands what the Justices wrote in that paragraph.

What they are saying is that there may be places where merely having a masculine appearance or attributes will reasonably be objectionable. That might (for instance) be a rape crisis centre or counselling service. It would not necessarily be (and in my opinion would not be) a generally provided women's toilet. Women can cope with women of masculine appearance in a women's toilet. It is not people (women) of masculine appearance in women's toilet that are an issue. It is men, of all appearances, in women's toilet, that is at issue.

The law does not, therefore give "permission" for women of masculine appearance to be excluded from women's toilets. It does give permission for women of masculine appearance to be excluded from (eg) rape crisis centres or counselling services.

That seems to me to be appropriate.

I always thought the wording ‘attributes’ was deliberate (although vague) and referred to female people with surgically created phalluses.

I also thought it referred to female people who had taken testosterone and had those visible effects and the voice. The misusing of that paragraph always seemed rather weak to me like those doing so were grasping at straws.

Exactly. But if you add the context then it's not waaaaah bait for pity and sympathy.

As mentioned at the time of the judgment: there are some situations in which if you have chosen to radically change your appearance - which is absolutely your choice - in ways that may confuse or affect other people you have to take some responsibility for this . It won't affect any men, it will only affect women with trans identities who often in articles and interviews show sensitivity to other women anyway, and is clear that they must have alternative accessible provision.

In other words, all that is being asked is that the constantly demanded 'kindness' and sensitivity and education and understanding, and generosity, and adapting to accept the needs of others goes both ways .

gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes

Isn't the key phrase here gender reassignment process.

TRA can't say that GR is meaningful if women can accidentally go through it.

It has always been bonkers to extrapolate this to women who dress in unisex attire and have a haircut that some people might call ‘masculine’.

There is a difference when exogenous testosterone is involved. It is just bonkers to make points in ways that conflate the two or denies that difference.

Edit: the quote disappeared. I was quoting @OpheliaWitchoftheWoods

💯

Our choice, our responsibility.

And I wish TRAs wouldn't remember our existence only when they need to use us as bludgeoning tools 😡

It's very clear to me that this paragraph in the Judgement specifically refers to women who actively choose to take testosterone with the intent to appear male.

It's not referring to the clichéd lesbian with short hair, no makeup and baggy trousers. These women are typically very, very obviously of the female sex. Any extremely rare confusion will be quickly resolved with a short conversation. The female voice and the female response to being challenged will clear everything up quickly.

The Judgement is referring to women with a heavy beard/moustache, possible male-pattern baldness, and a deep masculine voice due to taking testosterone. These women may also have 'packed' their underwear to give the illusion of male genitals. (Or in rare case even have had monstrous 'bottom' surgery to create a flesh tube for urination using arm skin).

Women are very good at spotting trans women; much, much better than men are on average. But some trans men are difficult for other women to clock. The beard and deep voice mean these women's presence in women-only spaces can cause fear and unease.

Yet, men are also entitled to their men-only spaces.Trans men aren't a physical/sexual threat to actual men, but their presence can still cause discomfort and shock. And the trans man is putting herself in danger of assault by using the men's room.

This is an obvious example where single room unisex toilets (such as the typical wheelchair-friendly toilet) are very helpful.

I think you're right. This is where the proportionality tests come in, not in excluding men from women's toilets which is built into the definition, but in excluding (some not all) women with the pc of GR. I guess whether it extends to toilets might be examined individually too. If in a particular facility there's ample mixed sex provision and known to be a significant cohort of vulnerable female users who need single sex, it might be proportionate to ask female users taking testosterone to use the mixed sex. It's a small ask, they're all likely to be doing so anyway both for their own dysphoria and out of consideration for others.

I agree too!

IMHO the TLDR is "the purpose of single sex spaces is for the privacy dignity and safety of women, and that is about how women feel as well as the cold hard reality. Some women (probably not that high a percentage, but some) who pretend to be men do a very good job, and there is no automatic right for a woman who is perceived to be male, and therefore who is doing the psychological harm that a male would do, to be in every single women's space, every single time. There may be some rare occasions where some rare women pretending to be men are not welcome in women's spaces, because to allow them in is to do women harm."

Paragraph 28 provides an exemption from liability for discrimination as to gender reassignment, when exclusion is a PMoAaLA. Excluding Buck Angel from a support group for rape survivors would be a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of providing a psychologically comfortable environment for group members. It's always been possible and it's not controversial.

I believe there may be a wider point arising from the preceding two paragraphs, which establish an exemption from liability for sex discrimination under Sections 13 and 29 for service providers who wish to provide service users with a single-sex space as a PMoAaLA (safety, fairness, modesty etc).

The Section 13 definition of discrimination includes perceptive discrimination (case law). Therefore the exemption from liability under paragraphs 26 and 27 applies. A woman who looks like a man can legally be excluded (without additional justification) from a space provided for the exclusive use of women. And this has always been true.

This might sound shocking, but makes sense to me. These spaces have always operated by means of self-policing, superficial appearance, and mutual consent. Women are good at accurately sexing other humans. And in the days when male interlopers were rare and socially disapproved of, they might give odd-looking women the benefit of the doubt (no doubt thereby sometimes letting in those 'you can't tell' male transsexuals we keep hearing about). But they would be entitled to turn those odd-looking women away.

Who might they have been? An example would be a woman with a DSD who has a female birth registration but has at least partly gone through male puberty. (Yes, she's karyotypically and gonadally male, but under British law she's biologically female, at least since W v W.)

(Such a woman was a claimant in the GLP JR application, and had been understood by colleagues for years as 'intersex'. Do not get me started, on the unethical way that GLP used her in their grift, instead of helping her to sue her idiot employer, which had banned her from the ladies' after FWS.)

So, those odd-looking women (I can remember a couple from my childhood and I'm pretty sure they weren't trans)? A bit undignified and annoying for them, but they could always carry a driving licence or passport, just in case.

But not any more, because the sex marker on a driving licence or passport can now be changed.

OK what about photo ID plus a birth certificate?

That now only works with a certificate issued before the age of eighteen, so too bad if you've lost it!

(A certificate issued after the age of eighteen could be from the GRR and therefore is not proof of sex.)

So the gender ideologues have made it genuinely difficult, for a tiny group of people who actually might need to prove their sex, to do so. Way to go! They made things worse, not FWS.

And why didn't it occur to anyone that being able to prove your birth sex is still necessary, even on the most 'trans-friendly' reading of the law?

It's mind boggling how TRAs, facilitated by the media, have managed to make the entire judgement about toilets and appearance. With the implication being that it is impossible to "police" toilets so the whole judgement has to be disregarded as unworkable.

The other day, my brother made a comment about JKR being awful, and that she wanted to stop women with masculine features from using public toilets 🙄 I refuted this and said she has been misrepresented, but he said there is no smoke without fire, so she must have controversial views. And I can see why he thinks that because that is what everyone in his bubble says.

And framing the narrative in this way has been a really sucessful tactic for undermining the judgement, especially when presenters unquestioningly parrot these ridiculous TRA arguments. Whenever Susan Smith is interviewed, she does an amazing job of cutting through this nonsense, but she doesn't get airtime on the main media outlets. Victoria McCloud does. And everyone is talking about toilets, rather than refuges, prisons and rape crisis centres. We have to get the narrative back on track, but I don't know how we do this when the mainstream media is so useless..

The whole of the West and operating of modern societies is based on the principle of "high trust". It's why we don't have police at the end of every one-way road looking for drivers going the wrong way...and we don't have "toilet police".
Sure, many are dishonest, but society in advanced law abiding nations critically depends on the vast majority signing up the the unwritten tenets, that commonly accepted laws will be adhered to.
Unfortunately, together with other deteriorating facets of life in the last few years, there is a group who refuse to accede to common consent, to broadly high trust accepted norms, but are prepared to tear it all down.
A couple of decades ago, this would not have been countenanced, social pressure would have counted against this, and re-righted the balance.
Today? There is no social pressure, no ostracisation of those happy to selfishly break the covenant of high trust.
Topped off by a current govt very happy to look the other way.
Can this covenant be found again? The jury is out.

Buck Angel gets used as a gotcha quite a lot by TRAs but I've seen Buck in real life at an event and I wasn't prepared for how tiny they would be as all I had seen were photos online. My close friend is a f2m and they pass pretty well in photos etc. and at first glance but look again and it's obvious even with their thick beard it's not a man. Even more blatantly obvious when they talk. Their body language etc.
They are one of the more passing individuals but the majority know something's "off".

It will be a case of repeatedly explaining to society and teaching our children that the media talks invented bollocks, and so do politicians, and in this post-truth era of dysfunctional batshit where someone in authority stares you in the eye and tells you nonsense in open contradiction to the visible evidence (or writes judgments with imaginary bits and misquotes), believe nothing, question everything and be deeply cynical.

It took years of us saying the basics here; it leaked gradually out. Terf island was born from women saying the unsayable, which is safeguarding 101.

Yes, and the other confusing thing (to me) is that, if she does pass, Buck Angel was always at risk of being chucked out. FWS hasn't changed that.

The SC has told women they're allowed to exclude transwomen now, and TRAs are screaming about how that will cause women to exclude butch lesbians and Buck Angel. Er - no. No-one is ever going to take either of them for a transwoman are they? Maybe for a 'cis' man - but TRAs surely are quite keen on keeping them out of the ladies'.

Make it make sense.

the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken

If the woman hasn't gone through a gender reassignment process, she can't have been given a masculine appearance or attributes by it, so this doesn't apply to her.

• If she's got a moustache because of PCOS, she retains her right to be there.
• If she's very butch-looking, she retains her right to be there.
• If danazol for endometriosis has given her extra facial hair, she retains her right to be there.
• If her racial background makes her less-obviously female to eyes that are used to seeing white women, she retains her right to be there.
• If she's had a double mastectomy for breast cancer, she retains her right to be there.
• If chemotherapy or alopecia has left her bald, she retains her right to be there.

People want to believe the trans 'barbie to action man' scale, where a feminine man looks like a woman, and a masculine women looks like a man. But in reality, sex is nearly always obvious, regardless of 'gender'.

When TRA assumed they had the right to use opposite sex spaces, they often acknowledged this and said its their gender expression and surgery that highlighted them as trans. The whole man/woman being different to male/female. They admitted 'passing' was rare, but didnt feel the need to pass as the opposite sex in spaces, just as trans. Hence the signs telling us not to challenge anyone. That was about men, not women with PCOS.

Now its clear that passing as trans isn't enough. And now we are supposed to pretend that anyone who doesnt look like barbie or action man is going to have a hard time in single sex spaces.

If the standards of man and women was so tight, single sex toilets and changing rooms would never have got off the ground in the first place.

Its odd to suggesting that a women could easily look like a man, when transition is supposed to be so arduous? The waiting list, the diagnosis, surgery, having to learn how to be a boy/girl - it's all so hard, yet i could cut my hair and pass instantly?

If the standards of man and women was so tight, single sex toilets and changing rooms would never have got off the ground in the first place.

Exactly!

What do people think has been happening till now?

Preach 🙌 🙌 🙏

Its also going to require some tedious and sometimes uncomfortable repetition of what are, to us on here, very very basic facts.

There's a lot of discussion on social media about this stuff - lots of loud be-kinders and activists mocking women and merrily spreading reams of disinformation.

We just have to push back. Yes, we'll get shouted at and it's boring, but, wherever one can: ask the blunt questions, share the simple statements of undeniable fact, point out the fallacies. And if you really can do nothing else, at least support the women who are speaking up.

Quite.

And it doesn't take an astrophysicist to notice that all this disingenous bollocks is because a man who looks unmistakeably like a man wishes to walk into the women's space and use the women there.

Isla Bryson et al. Well known barristers. No one is going to have the faintest doubt for a bloody second as to their sex.

No men in women's spaces. The end. If a con artist who passes so well that no one notices is going to sneak in and abuse women that way then we'll deal with it when he's caught out. If women want to ask me in a panic what sex I am, I'm happy to reassure them, I'm sure most women are; we're used to picking up after the mess men leave behind for women to deal with after all. And the men, who look like men, are unmistakeably men, and know it? Can have the basic decency to leave women alone. It's not 'complicated' in any way.

Another good reason why transmen need safeguarding too - because they're women. Looking at the face of the victim, I would have clocked her as female however butch she presented.

x.com/i/trending/2011397317677523342

When this trope of butch lesbians being chased out of women's toilets first bubbled to the surface, e.g. Dawn Butler MP claiming that butch lesbians of her acquaintance - or maybe it was just one? - have to be accompanied to the ladies by a protective posse of straight women, my first reaction was:
where did all these butch lesbians come from??

There are not many lesbians in the UK - one less since I left 😄- and only a small proportion of them are noticeably butch; an even smaller proportion would be so butch that they could be mistaken for men.

And yet, everybody seemed to have one of them as a friend, who was chased out of the ladies. I don't buy it - there just aren't enough butch lesbians to go around to make all these incidents believable!

There is a person called Fynn on the current "Great Pottery Throw Down" (channel 4, which I manage to see via a VPN) who presents as male and is married to a woman, but to my eyes is clearly a transman despite being heavily tattooed and with facial hair. The voice and the interaction style give it away.

This could be a gap in the market. Butch lesbians (or simply butch women) could hire themselves out to women who need to performatively escort them into the women's loos that they have always used without any issue.

Do you need a butch lesbian to escort into the Ladies? Contact us at Performative virtual signalling.com

In the past posters have complained about commenting on transmen like this, but I think it's important for young women who believe they can 'transition' to know that they'll probably, like Fynn, be totally unconvincing as men, and everybody is going to know that they are actually women.

I realise that's tough on individuals who think they have transitioned and believe are now seen as members of their chosen sex, but it's important for those considering transitioning that it's highly unlikely they'll 'pass'.

And that's just the parts of them we can see - the faux-genitals that gender reassignment surgery offers also need to be called out as unconvincing and non-functional.

Young people need to know the truth - not only can you not change your sex, you probably won't even look like you've changed your sex.