[Vicky.]

I wouldn't mind joining a campaign for proper contained unisex facilities. However I can fight against opening our current (pitiful) areas up to being unisex at the same time

I think you may find though, that transactivists are very very much against this idea as a compromise. They do not think that there should be any compromise as 'transwomen are women!!!111' and that women who object to male people in their spaces are just transphobic bigots who are no better than nazis and deserve to be punched And its transactivists/trans pressure groups who are influencing political parties on this.

There's a couple of things I want to address though re. the bold so I can understand your argument more.

1) How would this be policed? Short of having genital inspections (and that is only one marker of sex after all, it's just the most visible and tangible) before being allowed entry, how do you go about enforcing this?

Well this is why I do not think that anyones birth certificate should be changed (unless they are actually intersex, which is bugger all to do with trans)

A refuge could not ask for ID in every case, granted...but again its usually extremely easy to tell what sex someone is. And honestly, if someone is trans and actually passes, theres really not that much that can be done about it if they insist on deceiving people when the service is designated for single SEX

I assume prisons get actual full records before you are put in one. I am very much hoping that even the ridiculous 'revised' birth certificates (which are pointless, as a birth certificate is a historical document, so quite why people as adults can change them to say the opposite sex, I don't know) there is some kind of record somewhere. if not that would be rather dangerous really. But single sex is a hell of a lot easier to actually stick to in prisons. I would guess that the strip searching and such would end any questions...if for some reason prisons are not in full possession of all data about you.

I think a trans wing, or two up and down the country would suffice, for those who are in transition. Or you know, better security in prisons anyway, which would keep all safer, even gender non conforming males.

2) Isn't the logical conclusion of this though, that any transexual (I'll use this term because I know it's the one you prefer) who wishes to live their life as the gender they feel comfortable as MUST have irreversible and intrusive corrective surgery in order to do so? There are many transexuals who have no desire to modify their body and start messing around with their biological and physiological makeup, and I'm sure you've (quite righty, IMO) said before that as a society we shouldn't be almost coercing and forcing people down this path. It is my opinion that if a trans person wishes to have sex reassignment surgery to alleviate their discomfort then all power to them and they should of course be entitled to. But equally, if they don't wish to spend years transforming their own body in what can be a very psychologically damaging process, that's fine too. Unfortunately, our framing of gender in terms of genitalia inevitably makes surgery a prerequisite for any transexual person to be taken seriously, and that is really problematic for me.

The logical conclusion of having services that are actually based on sex would mean that all trans people had to have surgery?

You seem to be using transsexual but talking about transgender. Its not the term I object to, its this whole...oh I am trans but do not actually have sex dysphoria and will not modify any part of myself but will insist I am actually a woman rubbish...along with crossdressers and such being under the 'umbrella'

So to bring that back to my initial question slightly, if that is the requirement to have access to sex-segregated areas, then aren't trans people who have for years been living and identifying as women - but have no desire to have surgery - in a pretty awkward position? Again, I'll qualify this by saying I completely understand the concerns of many females here...I'm just trying to highlight the flip side of this. These trans people would then be in the position of having to enter the toilet/changing room that does not correlate with their gender presentation (which is how people perceive one another), and face abuse, confusion and even assault there too?

Maybe there can be a campaign aimed at stopping men from committing violence or abusing other male people who do not fit 'gendered expectations' or follow the correct stereotypes?


And people do not percieve one another on 'gender presentation'...they can generally tell regardless of 'gender presentation' (ie. stereotypes followed) what sex someone is.

If it's the case that anyone who passes can carry on as normal because no one would know, then this comes full circle and the question really would be - what is the opposition to the proposed changes in the law?

Any male person being able to access (current) female areas. Thats my objection.

If transwomen are currently entering female-only spaces without having had surgery, and would still be allowed to so long as they pass after the fact, what changes?

The fact that any man, not just transsexual women would be able to access female spaces.

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

One of the main arguments though I thought for having separate areas was to create safe areas though. Against things like sexual assault and invasion of privacy that would otherwise be encouraged if both sexes mingled. I mean they could create individualized rooms in a hallway, sure, but then we'd have to have a sink in each one, a blow dryer, a changing station for babies, etc... so costly.

The other thing too, if we're in a store, it encourages shrink to have a bathroom where one person can simply go in and can't be checked on by staff. They could be taking product in there for example and removing it from cases, etc... that's why in large shops we don't tend to see a unisex bathroom and if there is it often controlled with a key. (but in a doctor's office or other small offices they would have unisex or employee unisex bathrooms)

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I wouldn't mind joining a campaign for proper contained unisex facilities. However I can fight against opening our current (pitiful) areas up to being unisex at the same time

I think you may find though, that transactivists are very very much against this idea as a compromise. They do not think that there should be any compromise as 'transwomen are women!!!111' and that women who object to male people in their spaces are just transphobic bigots who are no better than nazis and deserve to be punched And its transactivists/trans pressure groups who are influencing political parties on this.

Where do you see all this stuff, Vicky? I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I can't say it's generally something I ever see or have experienced. Maybe we just frequent different sites and that's what it is, but from my perspective at least it seems a little blown out of proportion?

I disagree with screaming transphobic at people, that's not helpful...but equally I do see transwomen as women. The thing is though, perhaps this forum mirrors the wider debate, in that there has to be a little give and take on both sides? To put it another way, if some transactivists feel as though their very existence is being minimised (in the same way some females feel the same) - is it not easy to to see why they'd retaliate in the same way? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like it could just be a retaliation, and then it becomes a vicious circle where everyone hates each other and there's no productive and respectful discussions amongst either side to reach some kind of conclusion.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well this is why I do not think that anyones birth certificate should be changed (unless they are actually intersex, which is bugger all to do with trans)

A refuge could not ask for ID in every case, granted...but again its usually extremely easy to tell what sex someone is. And honestly, if someone is trans and actually passes, theres really not that much that can be done about it if they insist on deceiving people when the service is designated for single SEX

I assume prisons get actual full records before you are put in one. I am very much hoping that even the ridiculous 'revised' birth certificates (which are pointless, as a birth certificate is a historical document, so quite why people as adults can change them to say the opposite sex, I don't know) there is some kind of record somewhere. if not that would be rather dangerous really. But single sex is a hell of a lot easier to actually stick to in prisons. I would guess that the strip searching and such would end any questions...if for some reason prisons are not in full possession of all data about you.

I think a trans wing, or two up and down the country would suffice, for those who are in transition. Or you know, better security in prisons anyway, which would keep all safer, even gender non conforming males.

I meant more policing it in terms of entry into toilets/changing rooms, but I see what you mean.

The prisons/refuges one is a difficult issue as I mentioned earlier, and I would probably lean towards the trans wing suggestion you made. I think the overarching concern that needs to be addressed though is how prisons are actually sites of enormous violence (be it directly or indirectly, from other inmates or corrupt staff) against marginalised people, and yes that includes women. The prison industrial complex is so problematic on so many levels that it needs a full and frank reassessment, and really it's beyond the scope of this discussion.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

The logical conclusion of having services that are actually based on sex would mean that all trans people had to have surgery?

Yes! If correctly corresponding genitalia is the prerequisite of entering a sex-segregated area, then is the logical conclusion not that any and ALL trans people MUST have sex reassignment surgery in order to enter them?

I'll expand on this more below for clarification:

Originally Posted by Vicky.

You seem to be using transsexual but talking about transgender. Its not the term I object to, its this whole...oh I am trans but do not actually have sex dysphoria and will not modify any part of myself but will insist I am actually a woman rubbish...along with crossdressers and such being under the 'umbrella'
Maybe there can be a campaign aimed at stopping men from committing violence or abusing other male people who do not fit 'gendered expectations' or follow the correct stereotypes?

I genuinely mean transexuals. I realise there's a bit of conflation in that the term assumes people who are or will have be having SRS, but there are genuinely trans people who have no desire to modify their body in any way. Not people who are just making it up to be ~cool~ or whatever (as I think you're referring to), but people who've lived for years or decades as the gender of their choice without having surgery. I chose not to use 'trans' or 'transgender' because I thought you'd make the point that you don't believe in them anyway.

Maybe I've got this wrong, but I could've sworn you've made the point or at least agreed before that encouraging people to have surgery is actually quite problematic? And that really, people should be allowed to live however they like without feeling like they HAVE to modify their body (unless they really want to)? Which is what my point is - if the rule is that segregated areas are separated anatomically, that basically means trans people who have for years never had any desire to have surgery, and have been using female areas, must now do so in order to continue?

Here's another interesting question for you - if you don't believe that anyone can truly change sex, and don't wish to have penises in female-only spaces, why would someone having sex reassignment surgery be almost a cast iron guarantee that they wouldn't attack someone? If they're biologically still the same person, and are predisposed to do that - what difference does not having a penis make (other than the obvious legal implications)?

I completely agree with the latter part however! We need to completely break down gender and toxic masculinity.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

And people do not percieve one another on 'gender presentation'...they can generally tell regardless of 'gender presentation' (ie. stereotypes followed) what sex someone is.

I'm not sure I agree with that, with the exception of cleavage (which varies a hell of a lot) how can you perceive one's sex without seeing what's underneath their trousers?

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Any male person being able to access (current) female areas. Thats my objection.

The fact that any man, not just transsexual women would be able to access female spaces.

But they can do that now though? Why would the law put off a predator entering a female-only space? Criminals aren't interested in the law or signs above toilet doors, they'll do whatever they like. And any trans person that passes but hasn't had surgery is already doing so?

To be fair, I don't completely understand the proposed changes to the law so maybe I've misunderstood the implications - but that's just what it seems like to me.

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I'm not sure I agree with that, with the exception of cleavage (which varies a hell of a lot) how can you perceive one's sex without seeing what's underneath their trousers?

Look up skeletal/anatomy studies for portraiture/figure drawing. There are courses dedicated to (edit) dealing with proportional differences between a man and woman. Here's one such summary...

Drawing the Human Body: 5 Tips for Drawing the Torso
https://www.craftsy.com/art/article/...an-body-torso/

1. Know the differences between male and female torsos

Even though every individual has a uniquely shaped torso, there are some differences between male and female that apply in general:

• Males usually have longer torsos than females.
• Females have a bit more subcutaneous body fat. Accordingly, their shape is a rounder, and the muscles are a less defined.
• Female hips are wider, and their waist is usually a touch higher than in males.
• Shoulders are typically wider in males.
• Usually, the length of the spine is a bit shorter in a female than in a male.
• Male nipples are further apart than female nipples, which are more centered.

Human Anatomy Fundamentals: Advanced Body Proportions
https://design.tutsplus.com/articles...--vector-19869

Male vs. Female Proportions

Male and female proportions are so different that even a skeleton (or certain parts of it) betrays its sex. Bear in mind, however, that on a vertical axis there is no real difference: the joints don't move up or down. The variations are almost entirely on the horizontal axis, i.e. in the width of certain parts of the body. So how do we feminize or masculinize our basic figure? On the structural level we're still working on, there's actually just one big difference to master, and the rest are small helpful details.

The Shoulders/Hips Ratio

The primary difference is the relationship of shoulder width to hips. Women have a much broader pelvic bone than men, since they need to be able to bear and give birth to a child. This one, central fact has consequences throughout the body. It means that in women the hip line is the broadest part of the body, and a narrower waist appears by contrast, while in men the broadest part is the shoulder line, and the waist is hardly different from the hips. The overall female silhouette, then, is an hourglass as opposed to the male trapeze shown below.

Waist Line and Elbows

A woman's waist line is level with the belly button but a man's appears much lower. This makes the torso on a male look longer. This is worth remembering, as in my early years I drew equal-length torsos and same-level trouser lines for both sexes and wondered for a long time why the men didn't look right. Also, be careful not to align the elbows with this apparently lower waist! The reference for the elbow joint remains the belly button, so that unlike the female figure, if the impression we have of a man's waist is where his trousers start, the elbows will look much higher.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Where do you see all this stuff, Vicky? I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I can't say it's generally something I ever see or have experienced. Maybe we just frequent different sites and that's what it is, but from my perspective at least it seems a little blown out of proportion?

Twitter, facebook, mumsnet..and fairly recently on various labour forums. Along with direct threats recieved in real life. And friends of mine being abused by transactivists in real life for daring to attend meetings that discuss quite what the upcoming changes will mean for women..such meetings have to be held in private now, because of the viciousness of transactivists. There has been actual physical violence, and everty venue can only be disclosed literally an hour before the meeting starts, because otherwise transactivists will spam the **** out of the business in phone and email to get them to cancel. Recently though, there was a spectacular own goal, they had harassed Milwall (****ing millwall!) into cancelling, so the organiser had to find somewhere else to host, and the meeting was held in the houses of parliament Oddly enough, there was no gaggle of shouty angry people ready to commit assault when it was hosted there...maybe the threat of armed guards is too much for them.

I disagree with screaming transphobic at people, that's not helpful...but equally I do see transwomen as women. The thing is though, perhaps this forum mirrors the wider debate, in that there has to be a little give and take on both sides? To put it another way, if some transactivists feel as though their very existence is being minimised (in the same way some females feel the same) - is it not easy to to see why they'd retaliate in the same way? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like it could just be a retaliation, and then it becomes a vicious circle where everyone hates each other and there's no productive and respectful discussions amongst either side to reach some kind of conclusion.

Transactivists brought this fight to us. To be quite blunt. before they started their ****, women politely looked the other way whilst obvious male people were using womens areas for years and years. Because, well transsexual people have a hard enough life to start with. Then, Stonewall lumped in transvestites and just any gender non conforming person under the mass label of transgender and transactivists started campaigning for all under the umbrella, and literally anyone who just said 'I am a woman' to have access..and it all went to ****. Women just are not going to accept transvestites or ordinary male people just who like to have long hair or whatever in their areas the same way they accepted transsexuals. Its a hugely different thing and a distinction must be made.

It is actually the behaviour of transactivists thats opening up this whole topic for debate now. There was a steady trickle of people waking up to the implications of all of this, and then transactivists decided to jump on a 60 year old woman and attack her, for having an opposing opinion (and in speakers corner none the less...) and thats when the floodgates opened tbh. Its been lesbians bearing the brunt of this for a very long time now..and finally the public appear to be waking up to it all a little more and realising that this is NOT about transsexual people at all.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_...bian-community

Here is a heartbreaking thread about quite what this transactivists narrative is doing to the lesbian community (I had to hunt that down as its something I read a while back, but its worth hunting down as I know you will actually read it )

I meant more policing it in terms of entry into toilets/changing rooms, but I see what you mean.

Ah. My reply was actually about refuges and prisons, given thats the part you said was harder

The prisons/refuges one is a difficult issue as I mentioned earlier, and I would probably lean towards the trans wing suggestion you made. I think the overarching concern that needs to be addressed though is how prisons are actually sites of enormous violence (be it directly or indirectly, from other inmates or corrupt staff) against marginalised people, and yes that includes women. The prison industrial complex is so problematic on so many levels that it needs a full and frank reassessment, and really it's beyond the scope of this discussion.

And sex segregation absolutely MUST remain in the general population. Not just because of the risk of violence, but also the risk of pregnancy.

Which is actually part of my issue with the likes of girl guides going stealth gender neutral after training with 'gendered intelligence'. Nothing against them opening up to both sexes, but they have done this without actually telling parents that currently, people with penises could be sharing rooms with their teen daughters. Can't see where that could go wrong...we seem to be throwing everything we know about safeguarding out of the window when it comes to trans matters. Quite why, is anyones guess.

Yes! If correctly corresponding genitalia is the prerequisite of entering a sex-segregated area, then is the logical conclusion not that any and ALL trans people MUST have sex reassignment surgery in order to enter them?

Well, they could also use the male areas. Maybe we could relabel these areas as 'people with penises' and 'people without penises' for clarification here? There could be more cash and effort put into preventing male violence, towards those who are gender non conforming and everyone else too tbh. Honestly, what I do not understand about this 'trans people are scared of violence from male people' argument is that...womens concerns are about this very same violence, but women are expected to ignore this risk.

I genuinely mean transexuals. I realise there's a bit of conflation in that the term assumes people who are or will have be having SRS, but there are genuinely trans people who have no desire to modify their body in any way. Not people who are just making it up to be ~cool~ or whatever (as I think you're referring to), but people who've lived for years or decades as the gender of their choice without having surgery. I chose not to use 'trans' or 'transgender' because I thought you'd make the point that you don't believe in them anyway.

A trans person who did not modify themselves in any way, would surely just be a person who does not conform to stereotypes?(or even a crossdresser) I don't see how a person who just does not follow stereotypes needs to be in the areas associated with the opposite sex.

Maybe I've got this wrong, but I could've sworn you've made the point or at least agreed before that encouraging people to have surgery is actually quite problematic?

Yes.

And that really, people should be allowed to live however they like without feeling like they HAVE to modify their body (unless they really want to)?

Also yes, People should be able to dress and such however they wish to without feeling that they have to be the opposite sex in order to do those things.

Which is what my point is - if the rule is that segregated areas are separated anatomically, that basically means trans people who have for years never had any desire to have surgery, and have been using female areas, must now do so in order to continue?

A trans person who has never had any desire to physically transition and thus is male in every way bar clothing and such..should use the male areas tbh. I don't think saying that male people with no desire to ever transition, but who chose to follow a different set of stereotypes ('gender expression', if you will) should use areas designated for males is especially controversial? May be wrong there though.

Here's another interesting question for you - if you don't believe that anyone can truly change sex, and don't wish to have penises in female-only spaces, why would someone having sex reassignment surgery be almost a cast iron guarantee that they wouldn't attack someone? If they're biologically still the same person, and are predisposed to do that - what difference does not having a penis make (other than the obvious legal implications)?

Its not a cast iron guarantee at all. However I reckon if you hate yourself to the degree that you will go through such surgeries to feel at ease with yourself, then you should be given a break every now and again tbh There are a lot of women who think even post operative transwomen should not be allowed to use female areas. I am not one of them.

I completely agree with the latter part however! We need to completely break down gender and toxic masculinity.

A world without 'gender' would be bloody amazing tbh. We seemed to be getting there in the 80s, with men being more feminine and such and it being fine and even applauded. This then seemed to disappear. Then we seemed to be getting somewhere in regards to children, with more and more people willing to let their boys play with dolls and their girls play in the mud. Then from nowhere, this seems to have turned into 'if your boy is feminine he must be trans!'. Its quite infuriating tbh.

I'm not sure I agree with that, with the exception of cleavage (which varies a hell of a lot) how can you perceive one's sex without seeing what's underneath their trousers?

Are you being serious? You cannot tell what sex someone is unless you see cleavage?

But they can do that now though? Why would the law put off a predator entering a female-only space? Criminals aren't interested in the law or signs above toilet doors, they'll do whatever they like. And any trans person that passes but hasn't had surgery is already doing so?

A lock would not put off a burglar, why have locks?

Honestly, each time this gets said, I read it as 'women are going to be attacked no matter what, why bother trying to reduce that chance somewhat?' I know that sounds really depressing, but thats how it comes over.

This may interest you, or not

http://womanmeanssomething.com/targetstudy/

Seems from the limited data thats there, some sexual predators ARE put off by a sign on the door...

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I wouldn't mind joining a campaign for proper contained unisex facilities. However I can fight against opening our current (pitiful) areas up to being unisex at the same time

I think you may find though, that transactivists are very very much against this idea as a compromise. They do not think that there should be any compromise as 'transwomen are women!!!111' and that women who object to male people in their spaces are just transphobic bigots who are no better than nazis and deserve to be punched And its transactivists/trans pressure groups who are influencing political parties on this.



Well this is why I do not think that anyones birth certificate should be changed (unless they are actually intersex, which is bugger all to do with trans)

A refuge could not ask for ID in every case, granted...but again its usually extremely easy to tell what sex someone is. And honestly, if someone is trans and actually passes, theres really not that much that can be done about it if they insist on deceiving people when the service is designated for single SEX

I assume prisons get actual full records before you are put in one. I am very much hoping that even the ridiculous 'revised' birth certificates (which are pointless, as a birth certificate is a historical document, so quite why people as adults can change them to say the opposite sex, I don't know) there is some kind of record somewhere. if not that would be rather dangerous really. But single sex is a hell of a lot easier to actually stick to in prisons. I would guess that the strip searching and such would end any questions...if for some reason prisons are not in full possession of all data about you.

I think a trans wing, or two up and down the country would suffice, for those who are in transition. Or you know, better security in prisons anyway, which would keep all safer, even gender non conforming males.



The logical conclusion of having services that are actually based on sex would mean that all trans people had to have surgery?

You seem to be using transsexual but talking about transgender. Its not the term I object to, its this whole...oh I am trans but do not actually have sex dysphoria and will not modify any part of myself but will insist I am actually a woman rubbish...along with crossdressers and such being under the 'umbrella'
Maybe there can be a campaign aimed at stopping men from committing violence or abusing other male people who do not fit 'gendered expectations' or follow the correct stereotypes?


And people do not percieve one another on 'gender presentation'...they can generally tell regardless of 'gender presentation' (ie. stereotypes followed) what sex someone is.

Any male person being able to access (current) female areas. Thats my objection.




The fact that any man, not just transsexual women would be able to access female spaces.

..it’s funny because (..some ..)..trans activists..the ones who would oppose and not be open to a compromise, as you say Vicky....They’re dismissing the vulnerabilities of ‘woman’...that ‘woman’ exists as an entirety of their vulnerabilities also through their gender...which seems to be the ‘sticky point’ as it were atm...I’m not sure we’ve ever had proposed legislation concerning two vulnerables in society before...maybe there has been, I can’t think...


...anyways I don’t think there has been any double standards in this topic...I think standards have been flexible because that’s been necessary to be so with ‘one size never fits all’....and labelling of terminology would be so restrictive in gaining understanding of something which is so recent in its recognition in society...