How is the trans issue ever going to be resolved?

[PassportPanicFuuuck]

It seems as insoluble as the Israel/Palestine question when the two "sides" want directly opposing things. I've heard the arguments that trans people "just want to pee" and that "no-one would go through medical/surgical gender reassignment purely to abuse women", plus the mantras that "trans people exist", "trans rights are human rights" and "trans women are women" and it's quite clear that the people who believe these things fervently aren't going to change their minds any time soon.

But to a certain extent, life isn't fair. Not everyone does have equal opportunities. If you're in a gay relationship (and there's nothing wrong with that) you can't have a biological child with your partner; if you're infertile (as I am) you can't have a child at all; if you're trans (and there's nothing wrong with that either) you can't enter the spaces of the opposite sex; if you're British you don't have an automatic right to go and live in the US; if you're short and unsporty you don't have a right to be on the Olympic basketball team - and so on. All sorts of opportunities are denied people at various different points, some as a result of decisions you make (like not studying for a medical degree means I can never be a doctor) and some not (see above re. infertility), and beyond universal human rights you don't have a right - one might say "entitlement" - to an awful lot of things, much as you might keenly want them.

Like it or not, once we end up in these categories we have to accept it. Absolutely no-one is eligible to do everything or to go everywhere. However if you have made a choice - even if you consider it to be more a recognition of something innate rather than a conscious decision - it doesn't mean that you have made this choice on behalf of everyone else. If you have chosen to transition (again, you may not consider it to be a "choice") you can't dictate that everyone else ignore biology and logic and linguistic authenticity and you can't dictate that everyone else will want to celebrate your decision. No, we don't have to accept the "lady bulge", we don't have to accept child abuse under the guise of gender-affirming care and we don't have to accept men in female sports / changing rooms / organisations.

Not sure how coherently worded all the above is, but perhaps it will provoke some interesting debate.

So do you think the whole trans issue simply comes down to the existence of female only spaces? If everyone agreed on that and we had laws saying you can only access spaces that match your biological sex, would that be the end of the issue for you? Genuine question, as I say I don't spend much time on this forum

Pretty much, yes. I am supportive of anyone's desire to express themselves as they wish and extremely supportive of challenging gender stereotypes. However humans can't change sex and none of us should be pretending that they can, in my view.

The law already says that single sex spaces are based on biological sex as confirmed by the Supreme Court Judgment. The problem is getting people to follow the actual law and not the Stonewall misrepresentation of it

What about sport?

what about rape crisis centres? Counselling and all associated things?

what about pronouns?

what about women’s rights to discuss these issues as they affect them?

Well I just say generally because of things like tiny little cafes that only have space for one toilet so it has to be mixed 😅

I don't understand your questions? I'm asking someone else their opinion, what exactly are you asking me?

Say we had a law that said you must only use spaces the match your biological sex.

In the UK we actually do have such a law - that is what the Equality Act 2010 says, as explained at great length and in detail by the Supreme Court.

And we could at last start from there, surely? Are you saying that single-sex spaces are something that we can all agree on without being extremist?

Then you welcome them into your spaces. You do not get to welcome them into Taztoy's spaces.

Your comment of third spaces is disingenuous. If in your opinion some TWAW, how will you define which use your spaces (not Taztoy's) and which use third spaces? There’s a sick parallel here: your judgement on which men have had enough body-modifciations for you to believe they pass as women, and therefore have earned their wants, and your judgement on which women have been sufficiently traumatised by men for you to believe they have earned safeguarding and dignity.

Your arguments are incoherent. Rather like the bits of trans ideology you accept.

A not-my-Nigel and a no-true-trans, all in one post.

For me the issue is about

• having clear language in law and policy to protect women's rights.

• ensuring that there is clear communication about medical needs and protocols.

• Rejecting the strictures of gendered stereotypes

I don't think it's a fundamental right for women to have single sex spaces, but if women's fundamental rights are to be protected, some single sex spaces are necessary.

I don't know what these mean, but it's a shame for you to be dismissive on a post where I say how hard it is to have an open discussion

So can you explain what is the difference between a cis man and a non cis man that makes one perfectly safe to be in female spaces and one not? How do women tell the difference between a cis man “ pretending to be trans” and a non cis man claiming to be trans?

That is unisex - can be used by either sex, not mixed - used by both sexes.

To be suitable unisex spaces have to be fully enclosed, and there is therefore a trade off between privacy and safety. A unisex toilet is essentially a locked public room, which means that anyone can use it, but it is very difficult to monitor.

I'm not sure what your emoji is for.
This topic (cafe toilets) has been done to death on here, but I accept your point that you're not on this board much so you probably won't have seen the discussions.

I think this is interesting thank you. I agree about gendered stereotypes, I was having a conversation with a childhood friend recently who is a lesbian and has always been a tomboy, she was saying she wonders if she was at school now she would think she was a trans man, because of being a tomboy.

But then, if we have single sex spaces, that only works if we police ourselves or police each other. Policing each other enforces gender stereotypes - do you challenge someone based on how much they look like a man or a woman? So then we'd need to trust that everyone is policing themselves, ie obeying the rules, and with such different opinions on which spaces people should access, that isn't happening.

So like OP says, it's a reslly difficult issue and I don't see how it will be resolved

Unisex spaces are absolutely fine, so long as they are labelled as such. The problem is when spaces are billed single sex for women but allow men to access on the grounds of gender identity.

So then we'd need to trust that everyone is policing themselves, ie obeying the rules, and with such different opinions on which spaces people should access, that isn't happening.

I agree with this @glitterpaperchain
Is there any reason why this isn't happening?

The difficult bit is getting people to police themselves. Most of us (female and male) manage to do it. What is the reason why some people are unable to?

I think you are mixing legitimate and illegitimate discrimination situations here.

It actually is not tricky at all.

Legitimate discrimination excludes all male people from female single sex provisions regardless of their transition status.

It will be illegitimate discrimination to exclude a male person with a transgender identity from a teaching position unless that position was designated as being only for female people. This would be challengeable under discrimination law and rightly so.

We are all subject to legitimate discrimination in our lives for access to different provisions. Sex is just one of them. So, I disagree that it is a tricky subject.

I never said one is perfectly safe and the other isn't

Ah thanks for the explanation, that's really helpful

But then, if we have single sex spaces, that only works if we police ourselves or police each other. Policing each other enforces gender stereotypes - do you challenge someone based on how much they look like a man or a woman? So then we'd need to trust that everyone is policing themselves, ie obeying the rules, and with such different opinions on which spaces people should access, that isn't happening.

Ultimately though, everyone knows what sex they are. We need to foster a culture of respect where men understand that it is not acceptable for them to enter women's spaces. Very unfortunately, this culture of respect has been undermined.

Well this is the thing. We can't trust men. If we can't trust men not to abuse women then we can't trust them not to enter female spaces. So can this ever happen?

Well that's a bit like saying we won't be able to stop all burglars, so why bother locking our doors?

Surely the answer to protecting women is to try harder, not to give up.

We have to have a law that prohibits them from entering female spaces. If they transgress that, it's a crime.

Happy to explain. These are important themes.

Not my Nigel: “My Nigel would never never do such a thing, he’s far too sensitive”. I know a lovely trans person, so society should organize itself around what my lovely trans friend needs.

Appropriate counter argument: you are not the arbiter of who is lovely and who gets to be accepted as a woman, on behalf of the rest of society. It’s irrelevant how lovely your friend is, and how unlovely your not-friend is. They’re both men.

No true trans. After “no true Scotsman”
-“No Scotsman has sugar on his porridge.”
-“My uncle Angus has sugar on his porridge, and he’s from Aberdeen”.
-“No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”.
Ergo, since true trans people only desire access to women’s areas for “proper”reasons, anyone who desires access to women’s areas for improper reasons must be “cis”.

Appropriate counter argument: there is no way (or need) to separate men claiming to be women into “true” trans people and “cis men with nefarious purposes”. The distinction is firstly circularly defined and secondly irrelevant. They’re all men.