Services and spaces should be separated according to gender, not sex

[BackToLurk]

Because that’s the argument isn’t it? If trans rights activists and their allies accept that no one changes sex, then what they are really arguing for is that any separation should actually be made on the basis of gender.

As I’m a helpful sort, I’ve started a whole thread for people to make that argument. Off you go fellas. Bring your brightest. Make your case. I really do want to hear it. (And I’m not, for once, being sarcastic).

Gender can’t work as a category in sanitation. I think it’s a rare point where almost everyone agrees - the exceptions are some men who want to be in the women’s spaces.

In a nutshell how it works with toilets is that everyone is separated (sight, sound) but from everyone else, so at an individual level. This obviously has implications for safeguarding.

Short post!

If you ride a man’s bike you’re a man. Fact.

So now we need to define a man's bike. Oh dear.

Are electric bikes men's bikes?

I think policy makers who quietly rewrote policies on a gender not sex basis believed that nearly everyone is cisgender & therefore gender will equal sex apart from a tiny number of people to whom we ought to be kind. They did not anticipate hundreds of genders, that in some youth cultures adopting a different gender identity would become trendy, or that some of the trans people we were being told to be kind to would be disruptive, or even dangerous.

Does a chicken have a gender identity?

Perhaps not even that most people who identify as 'trans' claim to be 'non binary'.

In fact, NB the most logical possible standpoint within a fairly batshit construction.

Yet governments stubbornly refuse to recognise nonbinaries.

Even though they are VALID.

Of course, that's obvious! (can't believe I have to spell it out)

Hen gender and...
Cock gender.

Naturally. 😁

Some should be separated by sex, others by gender. This is not the extremist position in reality that some on here would have you believe.

Which? How?

ETA Why?

We never get answers to these quite reasonable questions. Who knows, we might agree on a few if we did but we'll never know.

Which things? Well I think things like healthcare - biology absolutely matters and if someone wishes for single sex care - then that should happen. Toilets - I don't care but others do so I support a single sex provision and a gender neutral one. I don't think it should be either/or. For things like support groups - where appropriate they should be single sex - certainly things like rape survivors or menopause/endo groups etc. But for general 'women's' groups like the WI or book clubs - they should be allowed to be single sex but equally they should be allowed - and backed by law - to be able to be by gender. That is a sensible solution to the problem as far I'm concerned. Whether you like it or not there are quite a lot of women who have no issue with sharing a book club or a women's group with trans women - but don't want non-trans men in them. They should be allowed to do that. No-one is forced to join after all. Andy's Man Club has traditionally welcomed trans men but now can't. That is something that doesn't sit well with me - it's not about protecting women and protecting single sex spaces - it's about forcing trans exclusion onto people who wish to be inclusive. And yes, I'll no doubt be inundated with people insisting that they can be trans inclusive to the people who share their biological sex but that's not the issue at hand. Some women's groups want to welcome trans women and some men's groups want to welcome trans men - there is no legitimate argument to forcibly stop that happening that isn't solely motivated by transphobia. And as the realisation of that grows - the more at risk the future of all single sex provision becomes.

I believe eunuch gender is also valid according to the NHS / RCN etc?

How is it workable to say that some 'women's' groups can allow some male members? We have no definition for, in this example, transwomen. So when you say a book club should be allowed to accept 'transwomen' who do you mean? In what circumstances would a book club need to be able to accept 'transwomen' but not other male people - be they 'cis' or non-binary? How would a woman who requires a 'women-only space' know which of the 'women-only' groups she looks at are 'women-only' on the basis of sex?

As ever 'trans inclusion' is privileged above female inclusion as 'trans inclusion' will force some/many women to self-exclude. You advocate for making women's world's smaller to placate a small number of male people. Not one person is saying that groups cannot be mixed-sex, only that mixed-sex groups should be clearly identifiable, so that those who need single-sex spaces and services can find them.

You do no-one any favours by repeatedly characterising women refusing to put male people first as 'transphobia'.

So as per EHRC guidelines?

And as the realisation of that grows - the more at risk the future of all single sex provision becomes.

Single sex provision has always had to meet the criteria laid out in the Equality Act, and it is only mandatory in some circumstances e.g. per the H&S at work regs.

I don't want a service to be randomly single sex. I want there to be clear rules for when a service can exclude women, otherwise we are heading towards women being excluded from being served at the bar territory.

I think women are more likely to lose single sex services, and to risk being subject to discrimination if rules are unclear.

How is it workable to say that some 'women's' groups can allow some male members?

By defining them by gender and not sex. If someone is looking for a single sex group and finds a single gender group then they continue to look, and vice versa.

We have no definition for, in this example, transwomen.

This is disingenuous. Trans people are protected by law. There is a legal definition that works perfectly well.

So when you say a book club should be allowed to accept 'transwomen' who do you mean?

That if a women's book club wishes to accept trans women as members then should be able to - by gender.

In what circumstances would a book club need to be able to accept 'transwomen' but not other male people - be they 'cis' or non-binary?

They don't 'need' to do anything - they can be single sex if they wish to be. If they want to welcome trans women as they accept them as women - then they should be able to. Who are you to say they should be denied that choice?

How would a woman who requires a 'women-only space' know which of the 'women-only' groups she looks at are 'women-only' on the basis of sex?

Presumably she'd be able to ask a question or read the groups description? See the recent hiking thread on here - that's openly welcoming of trans women and non-binary people. And hugely popular.

As ever 'trans inclusion' is privileged above female inclusion as 'trans inclusion' will force some/many women to self-exclude.

Allowing options isn't prioritising. If they wish to join a single sex group then they absolutely can do that. They shouldn't be allowed to demand that everyone else bows down to their opinions. The same is true of trans women trying to join a single sex group for biological women - they shouldn't be allowed to force others to bow down. I want both sides to have equal opportunity - you want GC views to take precedence. That is hypocritical. I don't seek to force my views on anyone else - but you do.

You advocate for making women's world's smaller to placate a small number of male people.

Not at all. Having women's groups that welcome trans women does not make the world smaller. But having a view - and forcing that view on others - that others dislike? That will make your world smaller by virtue of people not wanting to be around you. You can't force people to like you if they consider you to be bigoted.

Not one person is saying that groups cannot be mixed-sex, only that mixed-sex groups should be clearly identifiable, so that those who need single-sex spaces and services can find them.

On that we're agreed. The only difference is that I think groups should be allowed to be single gender as well if they choose to be. You don't.

You do no-one any favours by repeatedly characterising women refusing to put male people first as 'transphobia'.

That's a mischaracterisation of what I've written and you know it. When your sole aim is to exclude trans people regardless of situation and context - that is transphobia. There is no other reason to want to ban biological women welcoming trans women into their group - unless you think your transphobia is more important their agency to do what they believe is right.

And you'll trot out all the neat platitudes here, while when women advocate for women's sports on another thread, you will mock and attempt to shame.

My sole aim is to help women. I want women's safety, privacy, and dignity. And sometimes that means excluding men. That's all. Nothing to do with 'trans'. Most 'trans' people are nonbinary.

Apparently so.

Although again, the courts seem to be pretty Eunuch phobic, for some reason.

Agreed. Some services need to be split by sex on safety grounds. Changing rooms, toilets, sports.

If women want a book club, it should be up to them whether they accept transwomen or not. It shouldn't have anything to do with the courts or governments. Equally if men want to have a men's only club, fine.

By defining them by gender and not sex. If someone is looking for a single sex group and finds a single gender group then they continue to look, and vice versa.
We have no agreed definition of gender. Under your system, how does anyone know in the name "Little Wallop Women's Book Group" what 'women' refers to? Biologically female? In possession of a GRC? Feels like a woman? You acknowledge later (your reference to the hiking group) that the word 'women' is no longer enough under your system. You are happy to dilute the meaning and let it include some male people.

This is disingenuous. Trans people are protected by law. There is a legal definition that works perfectly well.
No there is a protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'. Is your definition of a transwoman therefore a male who "is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning [their] sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."? How does the book club assess this?

That if a women's book club wishes to accept trans women as members then should be able to - by gender.
This is circular answer to who do you mean. Who do you actually mean? How could they be identified?

They don't 'need' to do anything - they can be single sex if they wish to be. If they want to welcome trans women as they accept them as women - then they should be able to. Who are you to say they should be denied that choice?
No one is saying they can't. Just that when they do they are by definition mixed-sex. That is a fact. Your system says people should be allowed to say "This group is for female people and also some male people". Specifically you say "This group is for female people and for male people who are 'trans'". That is what you want to allow, but you ignore the implications of this. If some women can say "This group is for females and some males" why can't all women? Presumably, to be fair, you would not object to some women saying "This group is for female people and for male people who are also white (or Christian or straight or any other characteristic)". Why would you privilege trans status?

Not at all. Having women's groups that welcome trans women does not make the world smaller. But having a view - and forcing that view on others - that others dislike? That will make your world smaller by virtue of people not wanting to be around you. You can't force people to like you if they consider you to be bigoted.
I have no idea whether you are deliberately misunderstanding. Muddying the distinctions between single-sex and mixed-sex groups excludes those women who require single-sex groups.

That's a mischaracterisation of what I've written and you know it. When your sole aim is to exclude trans people regardless of situation and context - that is transphobia. There is no other reason to want to ban biological women welcoming trans women into their group - unless you think your transphobia is more important their agency to do what they believe is right.

Repeating a lie won't make it true. No one is saying that biological women can't be in groups with transwomen, just that they are no longer 'women-only' groups. No one is saying that transpeople must be excluded regardless of situation and context, just when sex is the criterion for separation.

Which brings us back to what the rationale is for some services and spaces being separated according to gender (whatever that means).

Personally I don't care if a bunch of women get together with some men who identify as women to have a book group. Have at it! Nobody has to attend if they don't want to. Depending on the individuals involved, it might well be a good group.

But I do object to such a group being misleadingly called a "women's group", which it isn't. It's a mixed sex group with some rather odd admission policies which might - I am not a lawyer - lay them open to discrimination claims from men who don't identify as women; and from women who identify as men, if they are excluded..

And I would object to an actual women's book group being forced to accept men on the grounds that they identify as women and are therefore entitled to attend.

No-one is stopping anyone including people by gender in their book club. You just need to make it clear your club is focused on books relevant to women but members who are not women for the purposes of the Equality Act are welcome. Put it in the small print.

So, I am going to try and explain it in the form of a couple of images (hopefully they will upload!)

so - two images attached...
in the first is a simplistic view of what the stereotypical sexes are
in the second - a more complex view

on the left is the sex - the arrows show the activities they do - women wear skirts / women wear lipstick / men wear trousers and drink beer etc.

society's stereotype therefore of a woman = gender = the things that they are observed to do so a female gender is someone wearing a skirt and high heels and lipstick and being a stay at home parent - the male gender is seen as playing rugby, drinking beer, doing the diy and wearing trousers

gender is defined by an observation of what biological men and women do...

now diagram 2
let's mix it up - let's 'push gender boundaries' so in this one we have men wearing lipstick and being stay at home parents, playing rugby and wearing trousers... at the same time we have women who wear skirts or trousers, still wear lipstick, still wear high heels, but are happy to drink beer or do the diy...

society observes a change in pattern, so the make up of that gender stereotype changes, but it still reflects what the biological sex is doing...

a man 'doing' what is stereotypically done by women doesn't make that man a woman - because the gender stereotype comes from observation - the observation notes who is doing it - still sees a man doing it so the male gender stereotype changes...

so the stereotype changes but the correlation remains the same - in both diagrams we could get rid of all the boxes in the middle and in formulaic terms just say that

female gender is what mainly is done by biological women
male gender is what mainly is done by biological men

of course there is some nuance so a man can do all the things that are normally done by a woman and no other man joins him - that doesn't make him a woman or female gender - it starts to tweak the observation of what men do - i.e. male gender - but just doesn't change the stereotype very much - so he becomes an atypical man - not a woman...

the key in all of this is that the sex does xyz - gender observes and gender therefore reflects what is observed - so

• female gender can only ever be that which is done by biological women and
• male gender can only ever be that which is done by biological men.