Amnesty International say - 'no such thing as a ‘biologically female/male body’'

That's the issue I find when discussing this.

Are people against trans women in general using women's facilities or are they against bad men disguised as women using women's facilities?

Which one is it?

Do you lock your front door at night?
Of course you do, not because all men are burglars but just in case a bad person happens to be passing by looking for an opportunity to break in.
If you left your door (or your car) unlocked you would have to keep awake and stay alert.
If self ID becomes law, this is what you are asking women and girls to expect.
This is an immense strain on women and girls who already are on the receiving end of abuse.
You might not mind trans women using the changing rooms but many people do mind.

this will never end as people don't want to be answered even if they pose a question!
11 pages so far.....it will continue on and on and on repeating itself.......

trisher, how does your disagreement with Gail Chester sit with your support for anyone who feels excluded or marginalised?

The fact remains trisher that cis women are expected to accept that they can have no safe space; all other groups are and were catered for. And it was deemed that, in asking for that space, that she was "transphobic". All other groups can expect a safe space but not women. Not so inclusive afterall.

Chewbacca

In 2014, there was an "international anarcha-feminist conference", with the aim of focussing on people of colour, queer and trans people, sex workers, and disabled people, survivors/victims of sexual violence, and others.

During that meeting, an audience member (Gail Chester) asked why there wasn’t a woman-only space in the conference, given that there were other spaces set aside for trans people, sex workers, people of colour, and disabled people. Gail Chester, is also involved in the Feminist Library and Black Flag. During her introductory talk, she called for there to be a ‘woman-only space’, by which she meant a space for cis women only. After this, an organiser and safer spaces volunteer was asked if they could organise a more public ‘women-only space’. When asked what they meant by this, it became clear they wanted to organise a space only for cis women. They were told there was no chance that this would happen at our event, because the very idea is transphobic. That woman, Gail Chester, has been removed from the group for being a TERFs (trans exclusionary radical feminists).

I have copied and pasted this from the AFEM 2014 website. To me, this demonstrates that trànswomen regard TERF or cis women as people who must make the changes to their expectations of a safe space; there is no middle ground. Any dissent is seen as transphobic and they will be silenced. Understanding and acceptance of others is a 2 way street but so far, it is women and children who are expected to make, and accept, the most radical changes in areas where their personal safety is the most compromised.

Actually AFem have answered the reason they did not provide a space for cis women during the meeting. When the question was raised from the audience
The question was answered in good faith, explaining that we’d set aside spaces for people that were marginalised within anarchafeminism specifically – and though women are marginalised within anarchism, they aren’t within anarchafeminism, which was what the conference was about.
Gail Chester apears to have attended the meeting with the specific intention of disrupting it. She had had the protocol of the meeting explained to her beforehand and said she agreed with it.
afem2014.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/on-the-terfs-in-our-midst/

Galaxy

Actually trisher I clearly answered your question when I discussed layers of safeguarding. No single layer is foolproof but they all provide an element of safeguarding. We do not suggest that we get rid of dbs checks because some people
will find a way round them. In what way does saying to women actually your consent and boundaries are less of a priority than mens feelings contribute to improving rates of violence against women.

Sorry the logic of this has lost me. It seem to me to be a bit of the sort of jargon used when somebody doesn't really have an answer but wants everyone to think they have.

In 2014, there was an "international anarcha-feminist conference", with the aim of focussing on people of colour, queer and trans people, sex workers, and disabled people, survivors/victims of sexual violence, and others.

During that meeting, an audience member (Gail Chester) asked why there wasn’t a woman-only space in the conference, given that there were other spaces set aside for trans people, sex workers, people of colour, and disabled people. Gail Chester, is also involved in the Feminist Library and Black Flag. During her introductory talk, she called for there to be a ‘woman-only space’, by which she meant a space for cis women only. After this, an organiser and safer spaces volunteer was asked if they could organise a more public ‘women-only space’. When asked what they meant by this, it became clear they wanted to organise a space only for cis women. They were told there was no chance that this would happen at our event, because the very idea is transphobic. That woman, Gail Chester, has been removed from the group for being a TERFs (trans exclusionary radical feminists).

I have copied and pasted this from the AFEM 2014 website. To me, this demonstrates that trànswomen regard TERF or cis women as people who must make the changes to their expectations of a safe space; there is no middle ground. Any dissent is seen as transphobic and they will be silenced. Understanding and acceptance of others is a 2 way street but so far, it is women and children who are expected to make, and accept, the most radical changes in areas where their personal safety is the most compromised.

Actually trisher I clearly answered your question when I discussed layers of safeguarding. No single layer is foolproof but they all provide an element of safeguarding. We do not suggest that we get rid of dbs checks because some people
will find a way round them. In what way does saying to women actually your consent and boundaries are less of a priority than mens feelings contribute to improving rates of violence against women.

It doesn't really matter about self ID. That really is a concept raised by those who are trying to strike fear into people to make them distrust and dislike transpeople. Self ID will not dramatically change anything. The situation as it is now means that anyone who wants to can access any facilities even if they are designated female only spaces as long as they present as female. Strangely enough such facilities are rarely used by violent males to attack women. All self ID does is remove the requirement that someone must live as a women (and therefore must access women's spaces) for 2 years and be medically examined to change their gender. It doesn't mean there are no trans women with penises in ladies facilties now, there are. There is also a misconception, widely spread by anti-trans organisations that self ID would simly mean waking up and declaring your self trans. Most trans people would like to see a legal but easily useable and reasonably priced system such as a declaration in front of a lawyer.
Try reading this. There's an interesting bit about Karen White as well- that it was a prison system failure not a trans issue.
talkradio.co.uk/features/gender-self-id-what-does-it-mean-will-it-really-allow-any-man-enter-womans-space-and-how-do
The first step towards alleviating violence to anyone (and that includes women) is to accept that they have a fully valid and recognised place in society, that they are not something strange or different and that they have the same right to exist as everyone else. People may not think they are opening the door to violence by insisting someone can't be the same as everyone else but they are. The history of women's rights shows this. Without equality there is no chance of equal treatment or protection.

trisher
You do not make one section of society safer by exposing another to violence. You tackle the violence for all those who are suffering.

Exactly.
What suggestions do you have to protect trans people while not increasing the risk of violence for women and girls?

How can self-id work so that it is not easy for it to be misused by predatory males?

I raised over £1000 for Amnesty in October. I’m really disappointed that they’ve taken this line. I sympathise with those people who feel that they were born into the wrong body, but I don’t feel their rights outweigh those of women. If we’re being asked to respect trans rights, I really feel that women’s rights should be at least worth equal respect!

It's not policable trisher, I agree, it's impossible.

So given that trans women are already using ladies facilities, what we need to do is continue to work on issues that exist across society that manifest as violence.

Also we need to work on acceptance so that all women can feel comfortable with each other and feel safe because the majority of trans women are safe. If there is possibly between 200,000 and 500,000 trans people in the UK then incidences of crime are extremely low. We cannot possibly count percentages in prisons because of the reason they are there and in my personal opinion, those convicted of sex crimes should not be in general population.

Also also making sure the process to change identity not only makes it safer for trans people to make the right decision but does prevent dangerous people who want to disguise themselves from being allowed past safeguarding.

We do need to work within the realms of possibility becau I oubt everyone wants a microchip implanted anywhere. Although that would probably stop crime completely.

Is maleness-----femaleness a bell curve distribution ?

Loislovestewie, I've had similar work experiences. I don't believe I'm cynical but I do believe I am cautious about rejecting concerns about some disturbed, dangerous men posting a real and present danger.

trisher, I'm feeling that your comments about self ID and public toilets along with the anger you seem to feel towards posters who don't share your views is likely to closedown or polarise this discussion. I don't suppose anyone contributing here believes that trans women aren't using women's public toilets.

"What about women who appear not quite as the accepted norm for women will they have to strip to get in?" Honesty trisherif you're not willing to have a sensible discussion, and are unable to see the genuine concerns that some have as not being discriminatory, there's little point in carrying on is there.

When are you going to appreciate that there is no way to stop a transwoman accessing public toilets (or for that matter a man if he really wants to). Arguing that you can do such a thing is more dangerous than anythng else. I have asked constantly "How will you do that?" And no one has yet answered. You just perpetually post how single sex toilets will keep women safer. Well how? Are you going to put a police woman (you couldn't have a policeman could you?) on the door to check everyone. What about women who appear not quite as the accepted norm for women will they have to strip to get in?
Trans women are already using these facilities anyway.
Changing rooms are another instance will you expect shop assistants to follow a customer into a changing room to check their genitalia?
Self ID will not change things. It is a requrement that transwomen use facilities you think are only used by women already before they can be legally called women, regardless of if they are pre or post surgery. They will still do so.
So let's stop pretending that what you are proposing is anything but discrimination which is not only harmful but actually impossible to implement.
Loislovesstewie I have already posted that we do not punish all because some are violent or commit crimes. The trans community should be treated just as the rest of the population is. Use proper safeguarding procedures and risk assessments so that everyone is safe.

You do not make one section of society safer by exposing another to violence.

Exactly. We should not be making life safer for transwomen at the cost of exposing natal women to more violence than we already endure.

We dont condemn all those who work with children because some people who work with children are dangerous. What we do do is put safeguards in place to minimise risk. So thousands of people who are no risk whatsoever have dbs checks. Its called safeguarding. Single sex provisions is one layer of safeguarding. If my son walked into a womans changing room I would say to him this is for women. In no way am I condemning him or calling him dangerous, he understands that because he respects womens boundaries.

trisher ; I spent a lifetime working in the public sector. I interviewed many thousands of customers as that was my job. I knew a huge amount about those people and part of my job was to carry out risk assessments. My experiences are clearly only mine, others may have different experiences, but I can say that I have interviewed some ex-cons who were some of the most devious people I have ever met. They were quite capable of lying and lying and lying to get what they wanted, some were in complete denial about their offences. I have sat in meetings and heard awful details that I would rather not have heard. Two of the most disturbed people I ever met were male to female trans, they clearly had huge issues which had led them to commit violence. Of course, I realize that not all trans people are violent, just as not all men commit rape, but we don't allow men into female only spaces to minimize the risk to females. Ladies public conveniences were built to allow women freedom, let's not see that freedom eroded. Self identifying allows unscrupulous men the opportunity to commit certain crimes and, in my experience, there are those who will. I am sorry to say that I am very cynical, I have heard too much, in my working life, about the awful acts that some carry out to believe that these things are rare.
The answer isn't to make spaces that were intended as female open to all, but to use a bit of ingenuity to provide safe spaces for all.

Saying that trans women can be a danger to other women is fact trisher, not discriminatory and you have said so yourself; "There is absolutely no evidence of this apart from a few much quoted single instances". Single instances are evidence.

"You do not make one section of society safer by exposing another to violence" exactly trisher so what exactly is it that we appear to be arguing about?

Refusing transwomen admission to a toilet is segregation Smileless2012
Insisting they undergo extensive and intrusive physical examination is discrimination. That is the reality of what stopping self ID condemns trans people to.
Saying that trans women are somehow a danger to other women is discriminatory. There is absolutely no evidence of this apart from a few much quoted single instances.
Using incidences of violence by some trans women to condemn all trans people is unsupportable. Some men are rapists but we don't condemn all men because of those few.
Stirring up agression against transpeople and buying in to a right wing agenda makes things unsafe for everyone. Most feminists realise that, but some who profess to be feminists are actually only playing lip service to the idea because they think it makes their ideas more acceptable. You do not make one section of society safer by exposing another to violence. You tackle the violence for all those who are suffering.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread seeking division and segregation trisher. What I have seen are numerous valid posts about the welfare and safety of all women, together with the importance of ensuring that anyone who is considering becoming trans gender is given all the information and support available.

You feminism is no different to mine or to those who have contributed to this discussion. We all want "a society that is safe for everyone". No one groups rights and/or safety should be gained at the expense of another's.

That is feminism.

Chewbacca

That's true trisher and statistically, that violence is against women and perpetrated by men.

The incidence of violence against transpeople and in particular transwomen is difficult to document properly because they are sometimes mis-gendered by the police. US figures www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-transgender-community-in-2019
They are twice as likely to suffer from violence or hate crimes as people who keep their birth gender www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/17/trans-people-twice-as-likely-to-be-victims-of-in-england-and-wales
The violence is particularly aimed at trans people who are black.

But hey sisters let's make life worse for all of them. Let's buy into the myths of patriachy and allow ourselves to be divided and segregated because that way we become easier to control and dominate.

My feminism fights and combats the patriachy at all times and stands with the oppressed and the violated to build a society that is safe for everyone, whatever their gender, their race, or their sexual orientation. It condemns violence and any actions which expose or allow violence or discrimination in society.

When I read the depressing and discriminatory posts on this thread I sing this to myself
As we go marching, marching
We bring the greater days
The rising of the women
Means the rising of the race
No more the drudge and idler
Ten that toil where one reposes
But the sharing of life's glories
Bread and roses, bread and roses

Thanks for the link FarNorth. The conclusion of the report by Debbie Hayton is helpful to this discussion.