the law as it stands on sex

As I said upthread trisher you love to quote this And the law is clear transwomen can be refused entry even with a GRC. and then also post Can I just ask who is going to implement this law and how? Will women be required to prove they haven't a penis? especially if they are a bit butch? Will the inspection require a full frontal flash, or just a quick grope? (but then it might just be a rolled up sock!!!)

You're not interested in solving any problems, you only ever throw up diversions. Transwomen out of women's sports won't solve all the problems with women's sports but it would solve one problem. And it's so easy to do!

" Lets make a safer world for everyone, rather than restrict women to safe spaces. That's not equality. That's ghettoizing women." but we can't abandon the safe places for vulnerable women until we have succeeded in making everywhere else safe for them. That hasn't happened in the many years since it became an aim, and it doesn't look like being completed soon. We can teach our daughters how to defend themselves, and our sons how not to attack, but having secure places for those who have been attacked isn't ghettoisation, any more than having hospitals for those who are ill is encouraging illness or (more apt) malingering.

Women who are still being bullied and traumatised by men (some men do it as an extension of their "manliness", still) need those spaces psychologically, as well as physically.

When men don't need to flaunt their "manliness", and no longer glory in their power, when popular songs don't declare -
^If you see me coming, better step aside.
A lot of men didn't a lot of men died.
One fist of iron, the other of steel.
If the right one don't a-get yer
Then the left one will."^
or boast about putting a woman back in her place, perhaps there will be a start to decommissioning refuges for women only.

Transwomen are tasting what women have always known, what happens in some relationships, along with what the less muscular, more timid boys and men have always experienced where competitive and more aggressive men are exercising their power. But women who turn to refuges need the psychological security of knowing that no men will be admitted, as well as physical safety. Refuges for abused transwomen are what is needed.

Mollygo

Trisher, when you can make all places safe for everyone-a laudable ambition, that will be great. Please explain how you would do that instead of what everyone including politicians is doing and passing the buck of responsibility? Until then, why don’t you support female’s need for space safe from males?

Because that very phrase Mollygo "need for safe space from males" is something that underlies some of the most restrictive and mysoginistic laws in the world. The very concept that somehow women are so vulnerable they have to always be protected from men is the antipathy of what I fought for as a second wave feminist (and yes I still have that at my heart). I remember when we campaigned to have access to men-only spaces and marched to reclaim streets. So yes there may be men bullying and intimidating women but that is absolutely nothing to do with transpeople. And the law is clear transwomen can be refused entry even with a GRC. The law about exposing genitalia is clear as well. So let's start by implementing those laws. Then let's prosecute men who assault women. Let's educate boys and teach them masculinity has nothing to do with violence. Let's teach equality and cooperation instead of winning at all costs. Lets make a safer world for everyone, rather than restrict women to safe spaces. That's not equality. That's ghettoizing women.

Trisher, when you can make all places safe for everyone-a laudable ambition, that will be great. Please explain how you would do that instead of what everyone including politicians is doing and passing the buck of responsibility? Until then, why don’t you support female’s need for space safe from males?

"All spaces should be safe spaces for everyone." and all people, men, women, male, female, old, young, and all genders and ages in between, should at all times treat all others of whatever race, creed, sex, gender, age, religion, political opinion, appearance, intelligence, ability, behaviour, attitude and choice of clothing in exactly the same way.

That is, in any place or situation, at any time they should treat everyone else with courtesy, respect, consideration and honesty, and without using any superior strength of body or misrepresentation to gain advantage over them.

When we have reached this Nirvana where everywhere is safe for everyone, where no men ever bully women, for sexual advantage or just to demonstrate who is boss, women will no longer need women-only refuges, because some will no longer be traumatised into needing total protection against the reality of male violence, but also the fear of it.

Roll on that day! Meanwhile, there is no such thing as a world where "All spaces are safe spaces for everyone."

Rosie51

annodomini you're not wrong, it is indeed all one way. It is very telling that even a GRC won't affect the primogeniture laws on inheritance of wealth, title etc no way are the men giving up their rights or positions. The Masons will allow a man who trans to a woman to remain a member but a woman who trans to a man......know your place, and it isn't in our club! Nothing changes, women should budge up, shut up and know your place. And the saddest, most dispiriting aspect? Actual females are a party to this and attack verbally, and sometimes worse, those females resisting

Sorry this is wrong all transpeople are accepted by the freemasons including transmen
www.advocate.com/transgender/2018/8/01/englands-freemasons-open-door-trans-members
Trans men are encouraged to join the society that remains very much a mystery to those on the outside

grumppa

That's a pity, trisher. To conduct this debate on the basis of geniality might be a considerable improvement.

Joking apart, it is clear to me as a male that the central issue is that while males do not feel threatened by trans men, many females in certain circumstances feel threatened, and in the case of sport seriously disadvantaged, by some trans women. This feeling is completely understandable, given that males are in general bigger and stronger than females.

Can't the intersectional feminists recognise this?

Of course we recognise that some men are bigger than some women grumpa. We also recognise that some women are more privileged that others and that transwomen have been discriminated against just as natal women have. That's why it's intersectional, because the boundaries are not as clear set as some people like to imagine.

For example sport. As an intersectional feminist I see women's sport as a complete mess and refuse to regard the issue of transwomen taking part as something which can sort out the whole problem. Is it part of the problem?-undoubtedly. Will banning transwomen produce a level playing field for women? Well no,not while regulations remain in place which necessitate women, who have identified as women from birth, to medicate themselves before they are permitted to compete. The fact that all the women banned under this regulation are black reveals another level of inequality.

But my main fear about this insistence that women need safe spaces is the fact that it seems a very short step to me from providing safe spaces for women, to insisting women must stay in those spaces in order to stay safe. All spaces should be safe spaces for everyone.

Of course you would annodomini. Especially if it was made public.

annodomini

It's all one-way, isn't it? If I, at the age of 81 declared that I had always considered myself a man, and belatedly self-identified as such, it would (rightly, in my opinion) be laughed out of court.

Of course you wouldn't annodomini anyone can apply for a GRC age is no barrier and for all I know you could have been living as a man already. It really isn't discriminatory on any grounds including age.

Grannygranby your posts hit right at the heart of the matter. Doodledog and Rosie51, your comments too are accurate.

Can I just ask who is going to implement this law and how? Will women be required to prove they haven't a penis? especially if they are a bit butch? Will the inspection require a full frontal flash, or just a quick grope? (but then it might just be a rolled up sock!

I could have predicted trisher’s response as she seems obsessed with butch looking women-tall, strong, muscular, deep voiced being her favourite. Likewise her desire to mention flashers and quick gropes (a bit like the security at the airport yesterday). Rolled up socks? That’s a new one, but I don’t doubt we’ll hear it again.

Doodledog
As people have said over and over (and over), on the whole it doesn't matter, and we don't much care if someone trying to 'pass' as female is in the changing room or loo next door. Nobody has ever, in all the threads where you have asked this question, suggested that people need to prove their sex at the door of a changing room or lavatory.

One of the reasons that the oft quoted “trans have been around for ages and you aren’t noticed” is true, is because in the past, their desire has been to be unnoticed in their new persona.
Perhaps you know differently and could supply data for the damaging activities of TW against females in the past, to prove me wrong trisher?

The appearance of a visibly fully intact male on a female hospital ward declaring he is a woman, obviates the need for the sort of policing trisher mentions.
The fact that he can’t be removed, no matter how damaging his presence is to females, because that would bring forth accusations of transphobia is the issue, yet that doesn’t seem to bother trisher at all.

The sporting prowess of failed male cheats like Liar Thomas, flashing in female changing rooms again makes trisher’s “quick grope” unnecessary.
The fact that he can do that and race after taking drugs because refusing to allow it would be called ‘transphobic’ is the problem.
The fact that, TW may have passed unnoticed in female safe spaces is not an issue.
Because “laws are in place to make safe spaces for ‘women’” doesn’t mean men can’t access them because of some twisting of vocabulary designed to facilitate that, meaning females cannot guarantee they won’t find visibly male males in changing rooms or toilets and will be called transphobic if they find it distressing is a problem.

Intersectional feminists care for everyone’s needs. Does that include females and if so, how are you going to address those issues trisher?

annodomini you're not wrong, it is indeed all one way. It is very telling that even a GRC won't affect the primogeniture laws on inheritance of wealth, title etc no way are the men giving up their rights or positions. The Masons will allow a man who trans to a woman to remain a member but a woman who trans to a man......know your place, and it isn't in our club! Nothing changes, women should budge up, shut up and know your place. And the saddest, most dispiriting aspect? Actual females are a party to this and attack verbally, and sometimes worse, those females resisting

It's all one-way, isn't it? If I, at the age of 81 declared that I had always considered myself a man, and belatedly self-identified as such, it would (rightly, in my opinion) be laughed out of court.

sorry that's garbled. Should read "they can ask to be addressed"

trisher

I think when the injustices afforded to transmen who choose to give birth were highlighted Rosie51 you didn't support transmen then.

Really? Care to quote me where I didn't support transmen who choose to give birth. I think they can be asked to be addressed in a way they're comfortable with, I don't think they should be dictating 'inclusive' multi word substitutes that don't sit comfortably with the vast majority of women who are pregnant and giving birth. I don't think they should be registered as their child's father on the birth certificate because that certificate records the child's birth, and all children are born from females no matter how they identify. Also the birth certificate is the property of the child not a vanity validation of an adult. What other support would you suggest I give? You however, give no answer or support to the much wider injustices to transmen because actually you only bring them into any posting as a gotcha.

That's a pity, trisher. To conduct this debate on the basis of geniality might be a considerable improvement.

Joking apart, it is clear to me as a male that the central issue is that while males do not feel threatened by trans men, many females in certain circumstances feel threatened, and in the case of sport seriously disadvantaged, by some trans women. This feeling is completely understandable, given that males are in general bigger and stronger than females.

Can't the intersectional feminists recognise this?

It would be interesting to see what happened if a transwoman (or even a man who says he is a woman) were prosecuted for exposing her penis.

that should be genitals of course.

Actually Doodledog there is no sex discrimination in the law on indecent exposure, anyone exposing their genials deliberately can be prosecuted.

trisher

I think when the injustices afforded to transmen who choose to give birth were highlighted Rosie51 you didn't support transmen then.

We're back to this again, aren't we?

What injustices were afforded to transmen who choose to give birth? Not getting the vocabulary changed for the other 99% of 'birth givers'? Being invited for smear tests along with the rest of the 'cervix havers'?

I think you need to reconsider your definition of 'injustice'.

* . . . .exposing a penis could be prosecuted as indecent exposure if it is deliberate. I wonder why no one has tried to bring a prosecution on that?*

Well, what is the law on a woman exposing her penis?

We haven't needed one before, just as we haven't needed protection from being raped by women in hospital wards or women in prison cells. Or just women.

But now, of course, there is talk of widening the scope of the law against rape so that it is no longer so idiotic to keep it as penetration with a penis, and the idea of female rapists doesn't seem so strange.

And this in the name of feminism?

So not really that people without penises have access to spaces where there are no people with penises
Here we go again. When all else fails, pick holes in the wording of someone's post. No, as people have been saying all along, nobody is trying to stop mixing of the sexes. I live amongst people with penises, and that works for me. What feminists are objecting to is having people with penises going to places designed for people without them.

They are welcome anywhere else. Just not in those places. Not where women are vulnerable, ill, distressed or where their dignity is compromised. And not when women don't even know they are there.

I think when the injustices afforded to transmen who choose to give birth were highlighted Rosie51 you didn't support transmen then.

So not really that people without penises have access to spaces where there are no people with penises
But actually admitting anyone providing they don't display their penis. Much the same as now then because exposing a penis could be prosecuted as indecent exposure if it is deliberate. I wonder why no one has tried to bring a prosecution on that?

Can't think of anything you haven't covered on the way it would be enforced Doodledog.

You do have to wonder though that those so comfortable with the ingression of transwomen into women's sports, taking women's positions on boards and other influential areas, or taking accolades supposedly reserved for women never rail against the injustices afforded to transmen. Transmen are not permitted to take the drugs that would enable them to attempt to compete in men's sports. Where's the transman swimmer defeating the men, or the transman cyclist whipping the men in races? Can anybody name one transman who heads up a corporate board? Can anyone name one transman that has taken any category of 'Man of the xxxxx" award? But hey, that doesn't matter, probably because these are female persons and female persons must always know their place no matter how they present.

I can't speak for all of 'those who think they support women', but as I think that was a dig at me, and probably Rosie (aka 'some people'), I will run with it for now and Rosie can add her thoughts if she hasn't done so whilst I type.

There would be no need for women who present differently to be concerned, as in the scenarios I suggested:

* A differently-presenting woman would not be mistaken for a man flaunting his penis in a changing room.

* Women would have nothing to fear from a law criminalising impersonating a woman with the intention of depriving her of the right to informed consent. If her birth certificate says 'female', if she has a GRC, or if it is made clear to the client/patient that she is speaking to a transwoman then no crime would be committed and there would be no need to prove anything.

* Sports teams could rely on birth certificates to determine who qualifies as female, and in the event of any uncertainty, medical opinion could be sought.

In none of those situations would a butch woman be asked to prove that she doesn't have a penis (constantly or intermittently), and I have no idea why you think they would have to modify their dress.

This obsession with having to look under people's clothes to see what is between their legs is entirely unfounded. Life would continue exactly as usual, unless or until a male-bodied person tried to play the system. Actual women would not be impacted unless they tried to gain access to men in similar ways.

Has there ever been a case of a woman flaunting her female body in a men's changing room? Or of saying she is male in order to examine male patients who were under the impression that this was, indeed the case? Or of a woman saying she is a man so that she can compete against other men in sport? I don't think so, but if it happened in future, the women concerned would have to worry, and everyone else would be just fine.

Well as far as the law goes at present it is absolutely clear and enforceable because it deals only with places and meetings that are organised and capable of being supervised. That is not public places or every space but only those where women choose to attend and can refuse to attend if they wish.

As for my comments about how a new law will be applied those who think they support women have obviously not realised that what I have pointed out is the effect this would have on women who present slightly differently -who are more butch. Who presumably if the object is to discover if someone has a penis will either have to modify the way they dress or constantly have to prove they haven't a penis. In other words a law supposedly designed to protect women will restrict some of them. How can that be right?