Trans Women are not Women

Status
Not open for further replies.
IsThisTheLife said:
It's difficult not to see "trans-women" as rather like 'method actors' staying 'in character' at all times, hoping that the [stereo]typical women's attire and adornment they put effort into will cause people to, er, assume their gender. The "conundrum" about which toilets/changing rooms they should be allowed to use is entirely a consequence of their refusal to ever be 'out of character', as if the revelation (lol) to onlookers that they're biologically male would either be such an affront, or so terrifying as to be unthinkable. That said, were I a 'trans woman' I think I'd feel pretty ridiculous standing at a urinal in the men's while 'in character', and maybe that's what this really boils down to for many of them. But what was it someone called this kind of thing? Oh yeh - "First World Problems".
Click to expand...

Gender dysphoria is a real thing, though.
 
EHocking said:
I may be wrong, “Unisex toilets put women in danger of sexual assault”.
Click to expand...

Gosh. Who could have seen that coming?

(I will note, though, that the article dealt with changing rooms, not toilets. There are two different sets of issues involved in the two different sorts of areas. I think it's utterly daft to have either sort unisex, with the possible exception of the sort of totally private stalls with common washing up areas that have been under discussion. In those cases, letting the market decide seems reasonable. There's nothing breathtakingly stupid about the idea.)
 
Sorry if this has already been asked and answered, but if you don't want trans women to use the women's lavatory, would you be ok with trans men using it? Because that seems to be the logical consequence. If we go by birth certificates or chromosomes, then trans men should use the women's lavatory, right?
 
Puppycow said:
Sorry if this has already been asked and answered, but if you don't want trans women to use the women's lavatory, would you be ok with trans men using it? Because that seems to be the logical consequence. If we go by birth certificates or chromosomes, then trans men should use the women's lavatory, right?
Click to expand...

To some extent, this has been addressed. I think this is a more relevant question to the ladies, so I'll not give my answer, but I will actually embellish the question a bit. A standard feature of these discussions is to post pictures of transmen who have really gone out of their way to appear masculine. I'm thinking especially of weightlifting to develop muscles and, above all, facial hair. (All achieved with the aid of testosterone, of course.)

What do women think of such a person in the women's room, or the women's locker room? My guess is that once they realize that the person is, despite outward appearances, female, most of them figure that it's kind of weird, but don't have a problem with it.

So, my embellishment of the question is to make sure to include the deliberately masculinized transmen, the ones who go out of their way to present a masculine appearance. Assuming they do not behave "inappropriately" in the rest room or locker room, do you wish those people would head to the men's room?
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Sorry if this has already been asked and answered, but if you don't want trans women to use the women's lavatory, would you be ok with trans men using it? Because that seems to be the logical consequence. If we go by birth certificates or chromosomes, then trans men should use the women's lavatory, right?
Click to expand...

If we go by birth certificates, that's exactly part of the social construct that transsexuals are resiling from.
 
theprestige said:
If we go by birth certificates, that's exactly part of the social construct that transsexuals are resiling from.
Click to expand...

The one part of "anti-trans" legislation that really bugs me is that so much of it talks about "birth certificates". If someone is willing to chop off and/or rearrange their private parts to more closely resemble the sex they wish they were, I can't imagine telling them they should have to use the locker room that was appropriate back when they had the appropriate anatomy.

It's one of those cases where legislators are not seeking compromise, but more often seeking demagoguery and playing to their base.
 
Puppycow said:
Sorry if this has already been asked and answered, but if you don't want trans women to use the women's lavatory, would you be ok with trans men using it? Because that seems to be the logical consequence. If we go by birth certificates or chromosomes, then trans men should use the women's lavatory, right?
Click to expand...


Of course. They're women. Though I guess it's up to the men whether they use the men's room. Again it probably comes down to individuals. But in principle, it's a yes.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Here in the States, typical multiuser restrooms have metal partitions which don't go floor to ceiling, providing significantly less privacy and somewhat less security.
Click to expand...
There's security issues with a locking stall that goes from floor to ceiling as well, though. Someone could be dragged into those rooms against their will and would-be rescuers would not be able to peep under doorways or climb over the top to see what's happening and potentially gain access. Or, an attacker could hide inside, behind the door so that the stall looks empty until the would-be victim goes to close the door. Also the person using the stall might have less situational awareness that someone else is entering or leaving. That last bit is kind of a reach, I know, but the floor-to-ceiling stalls could have drawbacks.

Yesterday I realized that one of the bathrooms at school has 3 toilets just lined up - no stalls or partitions of any kind. There were also 2 doors on opposite sides that led to other spaces, and no way to lock them from inside without a key. I could not picture what was supposed to happen. Three kids go at a time? Is it unisex? There were no urinals, just toilets.
 
Minoosh said:
Someone could be dragged into those rooms against their will and would-be rescuers would not be able to peep under doorways or climb over the top to see what's happening and potentially gain access.
Click to expand...

How would this scenario play out in a typical American women's lavatory? Would you expect women to scale their way over the top to mount a rescue? Call the cops? Run outside and find an heroic looking bystander?
 
d4m10n said:
How would this scenario play out in a typical American women's lavatory? Would you expect women to scale their way over the top to mount a rescue? Call the cops? Run outside and find an heroic looking bystander?
Click to expand...
One of those, sure. Or just scare the attacker off. Or witness something happening that might have bearing on a court case.

I'm not sure making the stall lockable with floor-to-ceiling walls is any safer.
 
Minoosh said:
I'm not sure making the stall lockable with floor-to-ceiling walls is any safer.
Click to expand...

I cannot be sure, either, without at least one high quality statistical comparison. The baseline rate of bathroom assaults isn't all that high, so it's going to be tricky to prove out one way or another.
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
...What is required is an evidenced process of living as your preferred gender for 2 years and a medical report which states you have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

What is proposed to change is a move to international best practice by making this a self-declaration process rather than a medical one.

This doesn't affect access to toilet or changing rooms or whatever because this is covered by a different law - the Equality Act - which already states that transpeople should have access to facilities of their chosen gender UNLESS there is a specific reason why they can't be (and these are quite strictly limited by law)...
Click to expand...

I don't follow. You seem to be saying the method of legally defining trans people is proposed to be changed, and trans people have a right to access facilities for their chosen gender, but the proposed change would not affect who has access to which facilities? I don't understand.
 
Rolfe said:
Of course. They're women. Though I guess it's up to the men whether they use the men's room. Again it probably comes down to individuals. But in principle, it's a yes.
Click to expand...
How would you know that they weren't biological men pretending to be transmen to sneak into ladies toilets? I would have thought that would be a more worrying thought if you are concerned about biological males entering female toilets etc. A pervert could simply say "I'm a transman so I'm allowed in here" and have free rein to be in what you want to be a safe place with no men in it. Seriously this seems a much more risky and dangerous approach (if your arguments are correct.

To extend it further what about in a changing room with public showers? You could have people who look like "men", beards, male pattern baldness with apparent penises and testicles showering right next to a very young girl?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I don't follow. You seem to be saying the method of legally defining trans people is proposed to be changed, and trans people have a right to access facilities for their chosen gender, but the proposed change would not affect who has access to which facilities? I don't understand.
Click to expand...

As I said, there is a lot of confusion. And in all honesty the law seems vague enough that it isn't always crystal clear what the intent is.

The confounding factor is that we have two separate pieces of legislation which are not explicitly linked.

The Gender Recognition Act of 2004 spells out the process by which a transperson can legally be recognised as the transitioned gender. This allows things like changing a birth certificate and means that as far as the law is concerned you are that gender. There are proposals to change the process for this.

The Equality Act 2010 spells out protected characteristics that you cannot discriminate against people based on. And a gender transition is one of these characteristics. But that definition does not require a gender recognition certificate necessarily. The broadest definitions include basically anyone who considers themselves trans regardless of any physical changes.

And then there are various other little things like changing your gender on your driving license or allocating prison spaces which appear to have different rules again.

The change which seems to have sparked the outrage is the proposal to switch to self ID rather than requiring a diagnosis.

There is nothing in any law, nor any proposed law, that would make it legal for a non-trans man to use a woman-only facility for any purpose - sexual gratification or not - even if they utter the magic words 'I am a woman'.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
The change which seems to have sparked the outrage is the proposal to switch to self ID rather than requiring a diagnosis.

There is nothing in any law, nor any proposed law, that would make it legal for a non-trans man to use a woman-only facility for any purpose - sexual gratification or not - even if they utter the magic words 'I am a woman'.
Click to expand...

In theory, you are probably right. But a switch to self ID would make the rules/laws that you say don’t change kind of unenforceable, does it not?
 
You could have people who look like "men", beards, male pattern baldness with apparent penises and testicles showering right next to a very young girl?
Click to expand...


As far a I'm concerned, if they have functional penises they're all yours. Otherwise, we women take care of our own, however they choose to express themselves.
 
TomB said:
In theory, you are probably right. But a switch to self ID would make the rules/laws that you say don’t change kind of unenforceable, does it not?
Click to expand...

Which rules/laws specifically?

Most of the law is untested in court AFAIK.

Technically the answer to your question, I believe, is no, changes to the GRA shouldn't make a difference to matters relating to the Equality Act.

The grey area seems to be around interpretations of the Equality Act as it stands and exactly what rights that extends and to whom. But since those rights don't explicitly require a gender recognition certificate to obtain its hard to argue that changes to the process for getting one of those certificates would change the rights offered under that Act.

Enforcement is a different kettle of fish of course, but again, legally it already is. I think you also have to distinguish between matters of policy and individual actions.

It's not illegal to challenge someone who 'appears male' in the ladies' room. It probably would be to have a policy that everyone who 'appears male' in the ladies room should be challenged as a matter of course.

Of course, as it stands, it is pretty much impossible to tell without more indepth knowledge of an individual whether they are transitioning or not but that doesn't mean that saying 'I am a woman' makes it so. In theory, it's also no different for a 'manly' looking cis-woman or, as others have noted, a transman using the ladies' room.

This being the case, my personal conclusion is that the best way to deal with it is simply to accept people using whatever facility they prefer on the understanding that there are standards of behaviour expected of anyone regardless of gender and that people acting in an 'iffy' manner are free to be challenged/ejected.
 
d4m10n said:
Do ladies do regular spot checks for genitals? Asking for a porn director.
Click to expand...

Not at this time. But if a person with an apparent penis and testicles is seen in the shower, that would be what most of call "a clue".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom