What should trans people actually do?

[BTT]

I'm making the assumption that gender identity exists and that there can be a mismatch between it and sex which will likely cause distress and a desire for trans people to find a safer and more comfortable place in society somehow.

I'm talking about practical measures to minimize problems for trans and non-trans people. Please respond only if you have some reasonable ideas.

How many trans people competed the year before?

Not relevant. The point is that people couldn't be guaranteed a fair race until this category was put in.

I think I’ll trust the High Court’s opinion on this over yours. I don’t think it’s hard to recognise that not making alternative provision for trans people could be discrimination.

Basically continue what they previously did which was dressing and presenting themselves as per the opposite sex whilst accepting that a dress does not make a biological man a woman or entitle them to use women's toilets.

In addition the public should be accepting of their chosen lifestyle.

Which high court?

And what provision do trans people not have?

They all have provision that matches their sex so no problem.

It was the Supreme Court and it's your understanding of their opinion that's at fault.

I am well aware that there was a Supreme Court judgement. I was talking about the GLP vs EHRC high court case where it was reiterated that just providing single sex spaces without provision for trans people could constitute gender reassignment discrimination.

Only if you read one paragraph out of a multi paragraph discussion would you think that.

The EHRC seems to think that as well, no? The guidance even says trans people must not be left with nowhere to go, so that would suggest just providing sex-based facilities on its own isn’t enough. I think the EHRC chair also said it wouldn’t be reasonable to put a trans woman on a men’s ward at the Women and Equality select committee.

It doesn't therefore follow that anyone has permission to use an opposite sex facility.

I didn’t even say that. I just said that forcing a trans person to use a space for their birth sex and not providing an alternative could be gender reassignment discrimination.

Or it might not.

Based on what? The SC ruling was very clear that segregation is should be based on sex only.

It said spaces must be segregated on biological sex, not that every person has to use that space. In fact, the Supreme Court also said trans men can be excluded from female single sex spaces, and then went on to say trans people must not be left with nowhere to go. That would seem to support the argument that alternative spaces must be made available

I've got a friend who's a TW, I'll call them Sarah. What Sarah does is
Introduces themself as Sarah. Explains that they are a TW and would prefer she/her pronouns but accepts not everyone agrees so use the pronouns you want. I don't know what their male name was so can't "dead name" them.
Sarah only uses fully enclosed single occupancy toilets. Doesn't try clothes on in shops so doesn't use women's spaces.

Sarah joined the mixed sex social group i know them from. There is also a women only and a men only group.
Sarah wears women's clothes (although is often in jeans and a top, occasionally a skirt. Has a "women's" haircut and wears jewellery and nail varnish. They said they used to wear makeup, but looked like a "man in drag"

I've also met another TW, who was thoroughly unpleasant. Glared at anyone who didn't centre them, would loudly announce they were going to the "ladies", asked us not to refer to ourselves as Mums as "she" couldn't have children and found it upsetting. Told us we were womening wrong, and generally behaved like a man.

TW "should" behave like Sarah. And TM can do the opposite. Other than that they can go to school/ work like everyone else. Fall in love. Buy/ rent a home. Learn to drive. Go to the library. And all the other things TPA mentioned.

To me it's very straight forward. Everyone is entitled to respect. I will happily use your preferred name/pronouns and I am very happy to have trans friends and colleagues.

Some spaces though, changing rooms, prisons, rape crisis provisions etc are however for biological women. As a trans person you should respect these. If you feel uncomfortable using the provision aligned with your biological sex then use a neutral space or service.

This has to be where we are headed.

Gender critical people have a habit of ignoring or patronising trans men, or weeping about their top surgery in a borderline creepy way. There existence is inconvenient for gender critical people, but they get less direct hassle than trans women, partly because they are men, and transmisogyny is poisonous.

I some ways, however, they are most affected by the new guidance - in some circumstances there is nowhere left for them to pee.

What transgender people should do is advocate for the acceptance they have in other civilised countries such as Spain or Malta - raise awareness of the complete lack of any evidence for increases in any kind of sexual assault, or even the very modest changes that Theresa May proposed.

The problem isn't transgender people, it's bigots.

In fact, the Supreme Court also said trans men can be excluded from female single sex spaces, and then went on to say trans people must not be left with nowhere to go

You've switched from a sex specific comment by the SC about trans identified women and then desexed that to say it applies generally to trans people.

The judgment said that trans identified women could be barred from female single sex spaces but only if they are provided with a suitable alternative.

There is very specific provision for ‘transmen’ in certain circumstances, yes. Not ‘transwomen’ however.

And yes of course people can use unisex spaces. But not spaces that belong to the opposite sex.

The EHRC guidance also says trans women can be excluded from male spaces

"Must" doing some heavy lifting there.

I think it's most accurate to say the SC recognised there might be times when the nature of a specific legitimate aim for which a single sex provision is a proportionate solution is such that including even some transmen might be enough to prevent that legitimate aim being met, and should that theoretical scenario actually arise, it might be necessary to exclude transmen from that specific female only resource, in which case said transmen would of course need alternative provision.

What it absolutely did not suggest is any blanket requirement that transmen "must" have alternative provision in all cases of SS resources. In fact, it suggested only in very specific cases directly tied to the purpose of the resource might this be appropriate.

Only someone with a very definite agenda would read it differently.

If ignoring = don't consider other women a threat
and patronising = wish they weren't so oppressed by gendered expectations.

There existence is inconvenient for gender critical people

Not really.

I some ways, however, they are most affected by the new guidance - in some circumstances there is nowhere left for them to pee.

But on the plus side they still keep the framework of sex based rights that didn't exist a few decades ago, so potato potahto really.

What transgender people should do is advocate for the acceptance they have in other civilised countries such as Spain or Malta

If you want an abortion in Malta, no mount of identifying as a man will help you.

raise awareness of the complete lack of any evidence for increases in any kind of sexual assault

You could end male violence against women tomorrow and women would still need sex based rights regardless of how they identify.

What’s the relevance of your last paragraph? What’s the connection between sexuality and gender identity?

I would also say that coming at this from the position that trans people should be forced to use spaces that make them unsafe and uncomfortable is motivated by your specific agenda.