[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much hoping that even the ridiculous 'revised' birth certificates (which are pointless, as a birth certificate is a historical document, so quite why people as adults can change them to say the opposite sex, I don't know) there is some kind of record somewhere.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.