Should everyone who identifies as female have access to women-only spaces?

The problem is that actually testing people causes more bother for women because it is much more complicated than some pretend-on sex testing in sport.
Initially, sex verification took the form of physical examinations. It subsequently evolved into chromosome testing, and later testosterone testing. It is not always a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes, or sex hormone levels, to determine whether an athlete is unambiguously a woman or a man. Fetuses start out as undifferentiated, and the SRY gene, which is most often - but not always - located on the Y chromosome, turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally or phenotypically as a male, and people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally or phenotypically as a female.

Sex testing is controversial, with reports that women athletes have been humiliated, excluded, and suffered human rights violations as a result of testing In some cases, the policies have led to athletes being forced or coerced into undergoing unnecessary surgery, such as female genital mutilation and sterilization. Not only have reports shown that the tests have physically affected women athletes, but they have also shown that such tests can cause psychological harm to women. Sex verification tests can create sex and identity crises, demeaning reactions, social isolation, depression, and suicide.
As for the "Women only spaces", as the law will essentially be unenforceable women will be led into a false sense of security that such places are clear of any predatory transgender men when they will not be. Surely it is better to make women aware that such things may happen and that they should always be cautious.

Why on earth should women always be cautious? I am utterly shocked that you suggest women should live their lives forever looking over their shoulder.

Because SueDonim even if you get a law passed making spaces 'women only' men with harmful intentions are not going to think "Ooh if I go in there I'll be breaking the law". if they are already planning assault which is against the law anyway But by pretending that somehow this place is safer because it has been decreed women only you do not remove the danger only set unachievable standards which don't help. As I have asked perhaps you could tell me how the rule will be monitored and enforced?

It is the numbers game, balancing how many transwomen who still seem to be men may be challenged against how many women who have very good reasons for avoiding men may be in their company even in situaions where they thought they would not be.

If the winners are to be those who in the larger group, which would appear at be the transgender individuals, then it should be kept in mind that those who were born women are in a larger group than those who become women (or self-identify as having become them) in later life.

Should the smaller group always give way to the larger, or the other way round? and should the protection of minorities still apply?

I have had another email from Futurelearn, telling me of free online courses about to start. Understanding Gender Identity: Trans People in the Workplace is one. Two weeks, requiring one hour a week. No exams. I pass on the link for anyone who would like to become better-informed.
I have found Futurelearn courses to be well-thought-out and thought-provoking.

"What topics will you cover?

The core contexts of gender identity and trans awareness.
An exploration of key terms and use of language.
A basic understanding of legislation around rights and responsibilities surrounding trans identities.
An introduction into how organisations can become trans-inclusive."

At the moment, Trisher, a man in a woman's space can be challenged. If the law changes, it will be illegal to challenge them.

As it happens, my friend's 14yo daughter has just been in this very situation. She plays in a girls football team. Last week the opposing team turned up with two 'girls', both of whom had boys names, were taller than any of the other girls and had incipient beards. No one challenged them for fear of being called TERFS. Once again, women are being silenced.

I'd be interested to hear your take on SueDonim's post, trisher.

It looks as though it's finally dawning on people that there are more implications to this than simple self-ID.

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/17/transgender-law-reform-has-overlooked-womens-rights-say-mps?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I also have another interesting link although I don't want bombard GN with them as I know links annoy some people.

It's appalling that a committee of MPs gave no thought at all to possible effects on people other than transpeople, when making recommendations for the consultation and future legislation.

This is where we could be heading (it refers to USA) :
activists in multiple states have succeeded in making it illegal for therapists to try to reconcile children with gender dysphoria to their bodies, so that “a doctor who helps a young boy socially and hormonally transition into a ‘girl’ does not violate the law, but a doctor who helps a young boy identify with and accept his body might be acting unlawfully.”
thefederalist.com/2018/04/12/responding-with-reason-and-compassion-to-transgender-bullies/#.WtKLUtp6g4w.twitter

I think we've all fallen down a rabbit hole, Farnorth.

FarNorth - the example of a doctor helping a child to transition behaving legally but the doctor who encourages the boy child to identify with and accept his body may be acting unlawfully reminded me of attempts in the 50's to 'help' gay men deny their sexuality. The use of electric shock treatment if a gay man showed a physical response to naked images of men (for example) was commonplace. Psychologists involved in those experiments all now express regret.
I don't know enough about trans issues in children to reach a definite conclusion. I have real misgivings about the use of life changing drugs and/or surgery in adolescents . It's so complicated.

No-one, I hope, would want to see cruel treatment of that kind, Iam64.
In the case of children, I think a lot is to do with the attitudes and expectations of the adults around them.
Looking at the drama, Butterfly, based on the experiences of Susie Green and her (now) daughter, as well as youtube videos of trans kids, gives me the impression that adults are the ones who need counselling to accept kids as they are instead of trying to push them into gender stereotypes.

I watched a Louis Feroux programme abut 3 years ago when he was filming in the US. The series was one in which he interviewed and spent time with parents whose children aged 4 to about 7 were said to self ID in the opposite gender. Sorry that's poorly expressed. I was convinced the parents were acting out their own emotional and psychological issues through the child.

Anyone in any space can be "challenged" SueDonim I suppose but how will that be applied in practice? Who will do the challenging? The women in their own space? Challenging a man self identifying as a woman and looking to assault someone? Is that even likely, never mind desirable? I notice no one has answered my question. How will the law be applied and how will the person challenged be identified as one gender or another? Will we all have to carry ID giving our gender? Will the police be called to challenge suspects?
As you said no-one challenged what they perceived to be boys, and yet you imagine that this will change simply because someone has decreed there shall be 'women only' spaces. Well how will it? Who will judge?
It isn't a question of what is legal or illegal simply of what is practical and what will work.
I have wondered if the number of boys wanted to identify as girls is something to do with the amount of oestrogen now found in the environment

If there was legal backing people would challenge these incidents. People challenge others all the time in other situations. Someone breaking into a house/car, people harassing others in the street. If people knew they had the law behind them then if someone failed to abide by the rules then other agencies could be involved.

It would be easy to enforce. If you have a GRA certificate, as currently issued, then you'd be abiding by the rules. We have to prove who we are all the time. For instance, no one can just say they're disabled and claim benefits - they'd have to prove a disability. Same would apply here.

Your way seems to be calling for women to roll over and allow misogyny to get the upper hand.

Women have battled for years, over equality, the vote, the right to continue working once married.

Here we are again battling to keep our right as women to be women to go into a changing room, public lavatory, these spaces should be for people with XX chromosomes.

trisher I think you made a point about there being more oestrogen in the environment/water supply.

There have always been "tomboys" and little boys who are more in touch with their feminine side. I am worried that starting the transition Pre-puberty and before they are of age legally and maturity is going to store up so many problems in years to come.

There is a documented case in Australia whereby a boy at 12 started taking oestrogen hormones to assist his transition to female, only to change his mind two years later.

It appears from all accounts that the legal boot would be on the other foot - that anyone challenging someone they didn't think belonged somewhere would be committing a hate crime. Is that equally unenforceable? If challenging them proved to be dangerous to the challenger, would the law support their right to free (but polite) speech or would they support the right of a transgender person to not be challenged? If the latter, then no-one would dare to challenge anyone at all, in case they were wrong.

It seems to me that if someone who seems to an unbiased observer to be male is in a female-only space, they should expect a challenge, and be ready to prove that they have a right to be there, even if it means carrying some kind of identity card. Without identification, they should be evicted.

Otherwise, there is no point at all in having safe places for women. Disgruntled spouses could just turn up at refuges to check whether their partners were there, claiming to be self-identifying transgender if asked.

We have to prove that we have a right to free or reduced fares on buses by showing a bus pass. We don't get it just by self-identifying ourselves verbally when we feel we are old enough.

Do you really think all trans gender men look like men SueDonim? Or that all women look entirely female? I know a number of people you would probably want to challenge. Why should they be ruled as different? Did you read what happened when women had to be tested in sports? The degree of persecution and even mutilation some women had to endure. This idea that we can identify women has been discussed before I seem to remember posting pictures of women with beards. You still seem to assume that it is simple to tell gender by appearance. It isn't.
I am saying you cannot judge gender purely by appearance and that legislating will not work because of that.
You still haven't explained who will challenge the men intent on causing harm to women and how a woman only space will protect them if they are prepared to break one law why not another?
I am opposed to this not because of misogyny but because I believe it would genuinely lull women into a sense of security which it cannot ensure. Women are better taught to take care, be cautious if they suspect something, take assertiveness and possibly self defence training and be aware of situations where there is risk.
I really resent all these so called feminists who have never before been active in the feminist movement but have suddenly latched onto this women only spaces issue without really thinking it out.

Elegran that might be fine in places where there is an entry fee or a charge but not for generally public places like loos, but I would suspect that those places are not necessarily the target of the people we are supposed to be afraid of. It would also mean some women might pass muster because they look femae but others might not. If everyone carries ID I suppose the problem might be solved, but do people really want that?

With a GRA cert, anyone could challenge anyone else, Trisher, such as the adults in charge of that girls football team I mentioned earlier. Do you really think it's okay for two players who present as male and have male names to claim they are girls? What would your solution to that unfairness be?

Two girlguide leaders have already been dismissed for questioning the trans issue within Guiding.

Identifying such people would be an issue but women have managed their protected spaces thus far in life so I don't see why that can't continue with legal backing. When it comes to ID, I used to be against ID but I've done a 180deg turn on that and think life would be easier if we had cards instead of needing to provide passports, utility bills, driving licences, birth certs etc.

As for the sports aspect, that's confusing intersex with trans. Two totally different things.

trisher, separate-sex toilets and changing rooms have worked quite well, so far. They could continue to work well if a law is not passed to allow anyone, on their own say-so, to be legally recognised as the gender they choose.
Why are you talking as if women want to change things to achieve female-bodied spaces etc?
Why are you not arguing for better facilities and arrangements for trans people, intersex people, anyone else you are concerned about?

I heard an interesting argument today. It says that humans don't have a gender, that gender is a linguistic tool only (le, la in Spanish for instance; das, die, der in German; English has given them up). What humans have a is a sex which is either male or female though there can be complications with extra chromosomes (e.g. yyx).

It does seem to support the argument that a man's simply 'feeling' like a woman is not an argument to allow him, necessarily, into women only spaces. The other way round would hold as well, obviously, even though historically speaking women have been less of a threat to men on the whole than men have been to women.

Which is not to say, in the man-feeling-like-a-woman situation, that he should not have the same universal human rights as any other man.

Those making the argument above about gender gave this example: if a man comes along and tells you he is Napoleon Bonaparte, even if he really really feels it is true, you don't treat him as if he actually were Napoleon Bonaparte when evidence suggests to everyone but him that it is not true.