Row breaks out over event’s single sex policy: bbc

[WarriorN]

Row breaks out over event's single-sex policy https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jxek8w8m0o

It can cause problems when people have set out to deliberately 'pass' or deceive as the opposite sex, but then need to use services based on sex.

Unless I’ve completely misunderstood, basically everyone, and the SC are all in agreement here.

(?)

I think it was presenting it as not allowing male-looking people means only allowing "femme presenting" women that people took issue with.
But largely we agree I think?

Logically speaking, if it is a single sex space then all women should be able to use it regardless of how they present. Saying you must be femme presenting in order to use it means the space is then only for femme presenting females, not all females.

When it is about sexual assaults in toilets, it does matter that these are by men, regardless of how they present. These are by men who look like men, men who look like women, and men who look like men but pretending to be men who say they are women for the duration of being in the women’s toilets.

Stating you must be female in order to use the women’s toilets means, if obeyed, there are no rapists in the toilets. Stark, but true. Good men stay out so bad men stand out.

Also true is that small girls to women in their seventies have been raped in toilets that are open to the public. However mixed sex designs are overrepresented as a design in these cases, whatever they are called: universal/ unisex/ accessible/ disabled/ gender-neutral/ genderless/ inclusive.

Logically speaking, the safest toilet provision is single sex cubicles within a single sex environment.

Edit: I understand the poster is trying to discuss appearance now. But I am responding to this paragraph in terms of how people present rather than their sex. I worry about all women using unisex toilets, however they present.

Yes, some interesting bits on 'stealthing' in the EHRC judgment recently. In essence: people know what sex they are and should not be attempting to enter a space that is reserved for the opposite sex. It's a selfish move, when done by men it ignores the access and inclusion of women as less important than them, and by the Kemp SP judgment - which was an absolute pigs ear - even he had to admit that as soon as a woman has clocked that a man is present and complains about it, (pointing and he's a bloke would do) he is harassing her by continuing to be there. And let's face it, the faces and voices of transactivism are all, without exception, men who would be recognised on sight as men despite being in some cases very pretty men, and men who choose feminine dress and style.

These judgments all keep pointing towards the middle ground and way around this is gender neutral spaces, the 'outing' argument was dismissed, if the man in question is convincingly passing then he'll look like all the other women who are happy to use a mixed sex space (we keep being told this is practically all of them) and if the man in question doesn't, then the women and men present in the mixed space with him are also consenting to be in a mixed sex space.

It has implications for school guidance; not least that children need to know from the time they first enter that any form of gender identity will never lead to being allowed to use spaces for the opposite sex, but that individual provision can be arranged as an alternative if distressed at using their own sex's space. This expectation should not be raised. This would be most useful if accompanied with some work to get all children to grow up with some understanding and respect for the equality of women and their needs, boundaries, feelings and purposes of single sex spaces for women.

I don't know why women who have rejected the fact that they're women would want to enter a women only space in the first place.
We can't help everyone, I would say the priority are the women who have been traumatised by a rape and other types of sexual assaults, if women who have decided they're not women can't access the service because the present in such a way they'll further traumatise rape victims, then they need to make other arrangements.
They made their own choices, they can find their own solutions.

I suppose we may find increasing numbers of detransitioned women for whom there are no nhs services as yet to support them with curtailing the impact of the excessive amounts of testosterone they took when under the trans spell.

Many have also described how they were abused and coerced by trans identifying males.

I image they’d be very open about their situation. At the same time, males will identify/ stealth in any possible way they can to access the spaces for vulnerable women.

I’m glad the concept of stealthing was raised as a point in kcsie. It’s a term that needs to be more commonly known.

‘These judgments all keep pointing towards the middle ground and way around this is gender neutral spaces’

Unfortunately it is not a middle ground when it comes to toilets. It can be very detrimental to an area.

I haven’t got all the answers but I know from my research what happens when you add a private, mixed sex toilet design into a public space. It creates an opportunity for more misuse. This isn’t just a U.K. phenomenon, it’s worldwide. I have examples from Japan, Australia, America, India, Africa….

I disagree. If it says it is a female space, it should be for all females regardless of how they look/identify. You can't say that you support sex-based rights then reject some women who belong to the female sex, that is hypocritical imo.

Obviously if it is a passing transman, they would need to show evidence that they are in fact female before they use the service (and the other women would need to be told in advance that the individual was in fact female so it didn't cause distress).

I disagree. There has to be a way back for these poor women who have been brainwashed by the trans cult.

Women’s services shouldn’t be centred around accommodating trans men. However If trans man does want to attend (which let’s face it, will be quite rare as trans men have been socialised as female and don’t have male entitlement) then I applaud services who will include them. I know Beira’s Place does.

The SCJ was clear on this: the exception is mentioned in the context of a rape crisis service where a woman with significant trauma may find it distressing and overwhelming to the point of struggling to access IF in the company of people who present convincingly as men.

If that's the case, the woman with trans identity can be excluded from the women's single sex provision in that highly sensitive situation but cannot be left without a facility and should be provided with an alternative.

It's misquoted and misunderstood all the time, there is NO suggestion anywhere that this is the norm.

I know you have much evidence on this and don't agree, but this is in fact what the judgments are pointing towards.

Yes and for toilets, a few years down the line, everyone will realise how many people have been harmed by this. By then, these toilets will have been closed down or converted back into single sex.

What a shame we can’t prevent and protect people between now and then. There’s been no equality impact assessments on introducing more mixed sex toilet designs. There’s been no risk assessments on introducing more mixed sex toilet designs.

I'm not talking about the SCJ, I'm only sharing my own opinion on the topic. Saying you believe in sex based spaces but rejecting some women from it because of how they look is hypocritical and logically inconsistent imo.

Its not just 'how they look', so much as the active and deliberate steps they've taken to pretend they are men.

Taking testosterone and having a mastectomy are extreme actions taken with the aim of deceiving others as to you sex. Several 'sex by deception' cases involve women who went to extraordinary lengths to conceal their sex.

Its not the same as having short hair and wearing check shirts, by any means.

I guess what will be necessary is talking openly about these issues

Trans people will need to accept that other people also have rights and needs, and these sometimes are in conflict.

There are probably ways around it - talking to everyone to ensure that they are all supported and offered options will probably resolve most issues.

The key thing that won't work is pretending, or lying, or trying to obfuscate or win points.

All this talk about 'passing' and 'stealthing' is really talk about fraud, lying, and deception.

I didn't say I rejected them, they are females, I said we can't help everyone and the priority are the women who haven't rejected being women. If they're presenting as male and if that would add to the trauma of the women who are already traumatised, they can't be given access the service. It's a cold hard choice, they made their choices so can others.

Yes, being a transman can be deceptive. But if a transman goes to a woman's service, says she is a biological female and shows her birth certificate showing that her sex at birth is female then she is not being deceptive at the moment.
For consistency purposes, the rule has to be either biology (in which case transmen can access the service) or perceived maleness (in which case transmen can't)

So in that one sensitive situation, with traumatised women, what do you suggest the service do with the ones who find themselves so triggered that they can't access the service?

Exactly this.

Well yes we are talking about the SCJ because that's where the balance between the requirements and rights of people with trans identities and the the requirements and rights of women in law were clarified. That's where the example was explained.

Opinions are academic; the SCJ is clear that there are circumstances in which making a decision like this to meet everyone's needs for access would permit a legal exclusion. Which is what this is about.

The options are:

• Provide women's services on the basis of biology (in which transmen can use it but transwomen can't)
• Provide women's services on the basis of biology + perceived maleness (in which neither transwomen or transmen can use it).

I tend to prefer the former as I am a sex realist. But I can see both sides of the argument.

It's not about dogma. You can't exclude trans-identifying woman because they're trans. You can exclude someone - anyone at all - if their presence means the service can't be provided.

Well, are you going to admit the transman and exclude women who are triggered or alarmed by the presence of someone with a beard, flat chest, and a voice that doesn't sound quite female?

It is a tricky situation. Tbh most transmen are unlikely to alarm anyone, and are generally aware and considerate of how they may impact on other women.

And most women, I expect, will be reassured if they know a person is female.

So I'd imagine the problem may be tricky but not insurmountable - so long as people are free to talk honestly and openly about what they want and need.