Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[LondonJohn]

The proposed law that was rejected was only about changing one's M or F on one's identity papers. It is something that is already possible, the law would only make it a bit easier.

This law has absolutely nothing to do with transgender access to sex/gender segregated spaces. That is regulated by anti-discrimination law which explicitly states that it is illegal to deny trans people access to the space the identify with unless it can be proven there are good reasons for doing so. What letter is next to sex on their ID card is irrelevant.

In the often mentioned example of a locker room in which people have to get completely naked and teenage girls might have to share the room with a masculine looking trans woman whipping out their penis, I think it can be reasonable argued that there is a good reason it is not discriminatory under this law to disallow the latter person into the room. F or M on their birth certificate makes no difference.

But I repeat again: a little privacy for everyone, is that too much to ask?

I couldn't agree more with all of this.

And in many of my own previous posts in these threads, I've similarly proposed that there should be a "social contract"-style onus on (eg) trans women in women's changing rooms to take all reasonable steps to avoid causing offence or discomfort to other women. And, for that matter, there should be a similar onus on cis women to avoid (eg) staring at trans women while they (trans women) are changing.

Incidentally, wrt the above, it's likely that existing public order legislation would cover any of the more extreme breaches of the sort of social contract I'm proposing. After all even if (for example) a cis man in a men's changing room walks around stark naked in front of all the other cis men and gets closer to them than is reasonable in the circumstance, it's possible that this might fail the test for a breach of public order law.

 

[LondonJohn]

Bit TERFy, IMO. Prepare to be called out and shamed as a transmedicalist.

LOL

I know this is one area of intense debate within the pan-medical community. I hope that none of those arguing for self-identification have been using the bureaucracy aspect as a significant factor in their position - in the absence of truly onerous and unreasonable amounts of red tape, surely it should be much more important to get the right level of process.

Part of my belief (in identification via clinical assessment and diagnosis only) is based upon the fact that those who'd be required to validate a self-identification - a judge and a witness IIRC - are neither qualified to assess the individual in this respect, nor qualified to assess the condition. To me, it would actually be in the individual's interest* to have a consultation and assessment from a suitably-qualified medical professional, in order to receive appropriate help and counselling, and in order for a clinical judgement to be made.


* as well as, IMO, lending a weight of credibility and authority to transgender identity in a way which I don't think could/would ever be achieved under the self-identification pathway.


ETA: I suspect that one pro-self-identification argument might go along the lines of "homosexuals don't need to have a clinical diagnosis of their homosexuality in order to be recognised as such". Well no, but 1) neither have homosexuals ever been required to declare their homosexuality in front of a judge; 2) it's objectively clear that gender dysphoria and transgenderism have the potential to impact upon the lives of cisgendered people in many more ways than gay people do with straight people; and 3) identification is the gateway to medical/surgical intervention (something which obviously isn't a factor when identifying as homosexual).

 

[caveman1917]

No, even if she was living in England or Wales, and even if her identity papers still said M instead of F, it is still illegal discrimination to deny her access to most women's facilities.

The scrapping of the legislation means that male people who choose to only self-id as women, but not to go to a doctor to get a GRC, would not be able to change the M on their passport to an F and thereby would be legitimately excluded from at least some single-sex services for female people. The larger point, of course, was Boudicca's notion that she didn't have to present any actually sound arguments for her claims because they (she constantly refers to an "us" she presumes to represent) were winning the legal battle anyway and there was nothing others could do about it, which was demonstrated to be wrong by the scrapping of the self-id legislation.

 

[caveman1917]

Indeed.

It would have saved that embarrassing "gotcha" fail if more care had been taken with obtaining the correct information

But that was not caveman1917's claim: rather, he was making the (incorrect) claim that today's leaks meant that no trans women would have the right to access women's facilities

No, the claim was that not every transwoman would have the right to access all single-sex facilities for female people. A claim which is true, as the set of transwomen who choose to only self-id and not go to a doctor to get a GRC would not have access to all single-sex services for female people.

 

[Earthborn]

The scrapping of the legislation means that male people who choose to only self-id as women, but not to go to a doctor to get a GRC, would not be able to change the M on their passport to an F

Correct.

and thereby would be legitimately excluded from at least some single-sex services for female people.

Which single sex services use only legal gender to regulate access?

(snip) were winning the legal battle anyway and there was nothing others could do about it, which was demonstrated to be wrong by the scrapping of the self-id legislation.

Legal battles are sometimes lost, it's true. The Boudicca's of the world will still have access, because nobody really notices.

 

[JihadJane]

The proposed law that was rejected was only about changing one's M or F on one's identity papers. It is something that is already possible, the law would only make it a bit easier.

This law has absolutely nothing to do with transgender access to sex/gender segregated spaces. That is regulated by anti-discrimination law which explicitly states that it is illegal to deny trans people access to the space the identify with unless it can be proven there are good reasons for doing so. What letter is next to sex on their ID card is irrelevant.

In the often mentioned example of a locker room in which people have to get completely naked and teenage girls might have to share the room with a masculine looking trans woman whipping out their penis, I think it can be reasonable argued that there is a good reason it is not discriminatory under this law to disallow the latter person into the room. F or M on their birth certificate makes no difference.

But I repeat again: a little privacy for everyone, is that too much to ask?

The rejected (in England and Wales) reforms to the GRA had everything to do with transgender access to sex/gender segregated spaces because Self-ID expands the claimants from a few thousand transsexuals with gatekeeping to hundreds of thousands of "transgenders" with minimal gatekeeping.

The 2010 Equality Act allows women to discriminate against men because sex is a protected category.

P.S. Can you give an example of a "gender segregated space"? Do any actually exist and, if they do, how are they policed?

 

[JihadJane]

I couldn't agree more with all of this.

And in many of my own previous posts in these threads, I've similarly proposed that there should be a "social contract"-style onus on (eg) trans women in women's changing rooms to take all reasonable steps to avoid causing offence or discomfort to other women. And, for that matter, there should be a similar onus on cis women to avoid (eg) staring at trans women while they (trans women) are changing.

Incidentally, wrt the above, it's likely that existing public order legislation would cover any of the more extreme breaches of the sort of social contract I'm proposing. After all even if (for example) a cis man in a men's changing room walks around stark naked in front of all the other cis men and gets closer to them than is reasonable in the circumstance, it's possible that this might fail the test for a breach of public order law.

This doesn't address the problem of men ("transwomen"), for example, having a secret wank while listening to a women having a pee in the next cubicle or transwomen (men) secretly looking at women in a changing room as a way of indulging their sexual fantasies. Excluding men altogether is the only way to exclude such wankers. Women fought hard for spaces free of the male gaze. Why should they have this taken away from them for the benefit of a tiny minority of often mentally disturbed males?


There was already a "social contract" in place for transexuals using, for example, female toilets. Allowing every Tom, DICK and 'punch/rape a TERF/choke on my girldick' Harry who says he's woman in is a different matter

BTW, there is no such thing as "cis". In reality everyone is non binary:

https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison

 

[Earthborn]

The rejected (in England and Wales) reforms to the GRA had everything to do with transgender access to sex/gender segregated spaces because Self-ID expands the claimants from a few thousand transsexuals with gatekeeping to hundreds of thousands of "transgenders" with minimal gatekeeping.

You have probably been sharing spaces with some of those hundreds of thousands of transgenders, without ever noticing. Since there are no ID checks, it isn't just the few thousand transsexuals who got their birth certificates changed who make use of those spaces.

The 2010 Equality Act allows women to discriminate against men because sex is a protected category.

Not individual women, but the people who run the facility, and only if they can show there is a valid reason. If that valid reason does not change by changing an F into an M on a card, that reason remains valid.

P.S. Can you give an example of a "gender segregated space"? Do any actually exist and, if they do, how are they policed?

A space that is segregated on the basis of the F or M on one's ID card is a gender segregated space.

 

[cullennz]

You have probably been sharing spaces with some of those hundreds of thousands of transgenders, without ever noticing. Since there are no ID checks, it isn't just the few thousand transsexuals who got their birth certificates changed who make use of those spaces.



Not individual women, but the people who run the facility, and only if they can show there is a valid reason. If that valid reason does not change by changing an F into an M on a card, that reason remains valid.



A space that is segregated on the basis of the F or M on one's ID card is a gender segregated space.

I doubt very much there are 100s of 1000s of Transgender people in the UK

 

[d4m10n]

Which single sex services use only legal gender to regulate access?

Bookmarking this question since it seems fairly important.

Adding it to my list.

ETA: Rolfe listed a few possible answers here. I'm not familiar enough w/ UK law to know how these situations actually work in practice.

ETA2: I linked to the specific statute at post 960 of the same thread.

I'm going to assume you refer here to the communal accommodation exceptions found in schedule 23.

I don't think this entirely answers your question, but it's a start.

 

[cullennz]

I doubt very much there are 100s of 1000s of Transgender people in the UK

The post said England and Wales btw.

Do you actually think there are 100s of 1000s of Transgender people in a population of 58 odd million?

As personally find this a bit silly.

 

[Earthborn]

This doesn't address the problem of men ("transwomen"), for example, having a secret wank while listening to a women having a pee in the next cubicle or transwomen (men) secretly looking at women in a changing room as a way of indulging their sexual fantasies.

Nothing can perfectly adress mostly imaginary problems, but not having gaps between doors and walls, thicker walls and those Japanese bathroom noise makers can definitely help.

BTW, there is no such thing as "cis". In reality everyone is non binary:

https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison

Interesting article. It seems to confuse the feminist concept of gender with the concept of "gender identity" though.

 

[Myriad]

This doesn't address the problem of men ("transwomen"), for example, having a secret wank while listening to a women having a pee in the next cubicle or transwomen (men) secretly looking at women in a changing room as a way of indulging their sexual fantasies. Excluding men altogether is the only way to exclude such wankers. Women fought hard for spaces free of the male gaze. Why should they have this taken away from them for the benefit of a tiny minority of often mentally disturbed males?

Let's not forget, some of them are probably witches.

 

[Earthborn]

I doubt very much there are 100s of 1000s of Transgender people in the UK

I hope you have noticed that it wasn't my claim. It depends very much on who you count as "transgender". If you count all people with some gender identity issues, I think it is not implausible. "Transgender" is a big tent; it does not just include people who we might call "transsexual". If you count only the people whose gender identity is persistent and consistent enough that they feel the need to have their birth certificate and ID cards changed, 100 000 seems a tad high, but 10 000 quite plausible.

 

[LondonJohn]

This doesn't address the problem of men ("transwomen"), for example, having a secret wank while listening to a women having a pee in the next cubicle or transwomen (men) secretly looking at women in a changing room as a way of indulging their sexual fantasies. Excluding men altogether is the only way to exclude such wankers. Women fought hard for spaces free of the male gaze. Why should they have this taken away from them for the benefit of a tiny minority of often mentally disturbed males?

Yes - I can well imagine that there will be an explosion of heterosexual men masquerading as trans women in order to masturbate over the "thrill" of being in (non-visual) proximity of women changing or using the toilet.

This is now getting deep into "Reefer Madness" scaremongering territory.

 

[Earthborn]

ETA: Rolfe listed a few possible answers here. I'm not familiar enough w/ UK law to know how these situations actually work in practice.

Her example of sleeper train berths is an interesting one. Apperently is run basically on self-identification; people just have to fill in their sex on a form but if a woman might be paired with a clearly male appearing passenger she still has a legitimate reason to complain. I think she would still have a legitimate reason to complain if the other passenger is a transman, and for the exact same reason. The same issue arises when a female appearing transwoman is paired with a male appearing passenger, she would also have reason to complain.

Things get a lot more complicated when we're talking about clearly feminine presenting but not entirely convincing transwomen, or natal women who naturally look somewhat blokish... maybe then ID cards might have a role in settling the dispute.

 

[caveman1917]

Which single sex services use only legal gender to regulate access?

None of them do, as you might have guessed from the term "single sex services" they are regulated on the basis of sex and not gender.

Legal battles are sometimes lost, it's true. The Boudicca's of the world will still have access, because nobody really notices.

The Boudicca's would still have access to female-only spaces but not, say, the 'choke on my girldick' Harry's whose comorbidity with voyeuristic disorder[*] or exhibitionistic disorder[*] would cause the doctor to reject their application.

* ETA: both of which have prevalence rates over 10x that of gender dysphoria, for that matter.

 

[Earthborn]

None of them do, as you might have guessed from the term "single sex services" they are regulated on the basis of sex and not gender.

Which single sex services require chromosome tests to regulate access? Also none?

Perhaps it is based on appearance or presentation? If so, that would make them single gender services.

 

[d4m10n]

Perhaps it is based on appearance or presentation? If so, that would make them single gender services.

Remember Seani, though. Gender presentation isn't the same thing as gender identity, they just happen to correlate much of the time.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[caveman1917]

Which single sex services require chromosome tests to regulate access? Also none?

Perhaps it is based on appearance or presentation? If so, that would make them single gender services.

As best as I can determine some single-sex services exist (sex is a protected category) which are, in principle, regulated by the sex recorded on the individual's passport.