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.

Why would transpeople be unsafe / uncomfortable in spaces provided for their sex?

You'd be wrong. My "agenda" is simply that society not condone the sexist idea that only some feelings, thoughts or ways of dressing are allowed for each sex, nor overwrite the existence and history of the female half of humanity with some sort of mixed sex identity label.

You, however, are very transparently trying to deflect attention away from your attempt to misrepresent the SC ruling.

Are trans people not people now?

I don’t think it’s too hard to understand. Someone who had transitioned, on hormones, had surgery, etc because of severe gender dysphoria and discomfort with their sex is not going to feel comfortable using a space for sex that has brought them such distress. I’m not saying they should use space for the opposite sex. I’m saying some provision needs to be made available for people who can’t share with their sex.

Where is OP?

How does providing alternative spaces do any of those things?

There is no reason why they can’t share with their sex, just because they present in different clothes.

I’m sure lots of people don’t relish public toilets for lots of reasons, but they don’t go round demanding special treatment.

Did I say it didn't?

I objected to your misrepresentation of the SC. For some reason you seem to be very keen to start an argument about something else. I wonder why?

This thread is making me feel a bit uneasy actually. I do know trans people IRL and have done for a very, very long time (albeit not the same people).

I didn't/ don't get this vibe from the trans people I know/ have known, but some of the pro gender ideology posts on this thread and MN in general make it seem as if trans people actually despise women. For our neediness, our inherent vulnerability and - crucially - for speaking about that and asserting boundaries.

I'd really like those posters to pause a moment and think about how this might feel, for women. To have a person assert that they are the same as us, at the same time as demonstrating contempt for us? Can you imagine how threatening that could feel?

For any women who has ever been in an abusive heterosexual relationship, or who has experienced sexual assault, there are echoes of that hate/ entitlement combination here.

Provision yes - they need to stand up for themselves and demand their own spaces not other people’s

I never come across any specifics - like “there is no where for a transgender person to change at this gym chain” or “Wigan town centre has no toilets for transgender people “

it’s all much vaguer. Women have been able to name specific places where they have been discriminated against through lack of single sex facilities. I’d have more respect if specific
as well as general statements about difficulties could be made

Why are you so insistent on trans people sharing with their sex? It’s obvious why it would be a real issue for some trans people

I’m not self hating and won’t be sharing any spaces with men.

Alternate third spaces would be so great, not just for transwomen but for all the other men who don't feel safe sharing with men. So many men feel threatened or out of place in men's spaces.

I’m not self hating and won’t be sharing any spaces with men

Neither will I, and that includes transwomen.

Because what’s the justification?

Lots of men could be vulnerable in men’s bathrooms in different ways. Young boys, older men, sick men, gay men. I don’t hear cries for special treatment from them - and tbh I would have a lot more sympathy.

If trans identifying men want to campaign for their own specific faculties, fine, go ahead. But this needs to be balanced with available space and resources.

There is very good reason for providing separate disabled provision, as they simply cannot physically access general provision. That is not the same for anyone else.

What you’re forgetting here is that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. It’s not comparable to just being a bit sad about using the space.

I know lots of you would like it not to be a PC, but until then we have rights associated with that PC.

It’s very clear what is protected about gender reassignment and that does not include bathrooms

You seem to be missing the really obvious here.

That you haven't given the slightest consideration to the feeling or needs of the WOMEN whose space you have decided you are entitled to insert yourself into.

Did you bother considering us at all, or that we're not just here for your convenience? That those spaces might be for US, in ways and for needs that are nothing to do with you and don't include or involve you?

What you seem to be accidently on purpose forgetting is that the law doesn't actually give you entitlement to use female spaces. And never did.

Your entitlement or demands for validation (for that is what it is - we know it's not safety as you're no more in danger than any gay man or any other men are) are not comparable to the material needs that actual women have for those spaces. It's why there's a very very long history of them, and why they are intrinsically tied to women's human and equality rights.

I’d say trans people should have therapy focused on acceptance of reality. Focus on the things they can change (clothes makeup name etc) and the things they cannot change (sex).

So you fully support trans men - who have had extensive surgery and look like natal men - in using the female toilets, yes? Or is there a hypocrisy here?

The problem (IMO) of gender reassignment being treated as a thing in law, is what exactly do we mean by gender reassignment?

Does it mean anyone who has a GRC? In which case how do we know? Should they show it when entering public single sex spaces?

Do they have to have to have had surgery to qualify? Because that's unfair on anyone who can't afford it/get out on the NHS, or who doesn't want to take the risks involved. And again, how do we know who has or hasn't had surgery?

Is is anyone who says they are trans? Which means we have to allow all and any men into the women's toilets/changing rooms/sports teams/prison/etc. That includes the men who will lie in order to abuse/rape/ gain an advantage.

Single sex is clear. You are, and always will be the sex you were born. Regardless of how much you wish/ think you aren't.

I'm also unclear why you imagine that third spaces aren't the answer to everyone's needs here. Why do you insistent on women's spaces being for you, when they're categorically not? It couldn't be because it's less about safety and more about validating yourself as "really" female, could it?

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment means that those who fall into this characteristic cannot be denied the following because they have that protected characteristic -
*
*

• service in a shop, restaurant or other establishment open to the public and not sex-segregated;
• where there is sex-segregation they should use the services available to their sex as recorded at birth, or a third accessible space.
• a job, an employer cannot refuse to hire someone because they fall under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment
• nor can that person be fired for having the protected characteristic
• nor can that person be denied other employment rights, this includes women who have the characteristic of gender reassignment cannot be denied maternity rights/pay or time off for antenatal classes etc if they are pregnant
• that person cannot be paid less than someone without the protected characteristic
• housing, an estate agent, landlord, social housing provider cannot refuse to show, sell, let or otherwise discriminate someone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment because they have that characteristic, so you can't refuse to let someone buy a house, or charge them more rent, or evict them for having the characteristic.
• healthcare, someone protected by the characteristic of gender reassignment cannot be refused treatment on the NHS, or at a private healthcare/dentist for example because of their characteristic - it would be advisable to treat them as their natal sex where that affects their treatment, to treat them as the opposite sex may be actively damaging to the person.

There are probably more examples, but essentially, you can't treat someone who is trans less favourably than someone who is not trans just because they are trans. This does not include permitting people to access services reserved for the opposite sex to their natal sex.

Yes, we do. So no, no hypocrisy at all. This has been covered again and again on here. Perhaps you should try reading.

Also, generally speaking, unless one is a massive sexist, I'm afraid that in real life most 'trans men' are still recognisable to most of us as natal women. They pass better than most 'trans women' of course, but it's not difficult.

That’s Rawlsian ethics, when you design a society without knowing your own characteristics (race, disability, sex etc). I was quite proud of the writers in the Day of the Doctor when they did that.

On a Rawlsian test I think we have that now. Women’s spaces are preserved as single sex. Those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment have legal protections from discrimination.

Realistically anti discrimination legislation always has people who object and say they will not follow it, particularly in the first few years after its introduction (or clarification as here). I’m old enough to remember employers and trade unionists saying no one would ever employ a woman again after Equal Pay was introduced and I gather that people also objected to race equality and sex equality. TRAs may not like the law as it is, but it is a decent balance of rights.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.