NHS U turn on trans terminology

But I've no objection to them walking around in dresses, or whatever 'female' apparel makes them feel good!
Me neither, just as long as wearing a dress, lipstick or whatever doesn't makes them think they've now changed sex. I don't own a single dress, have 3 or 4 skirts that could be moth-eaten since the last time I saw them, and live my life in jeans, linen, cotton, velvet or cord trousers. I don't claim manhood because I wear trousers with a fly.

M0nica

A long time ago, if I was on the tube, my mind in neutral and idly looking at fellow passengers, I would suddenly realise that the woman sitting opposite me was, what I then assumed was, transvestite. The give-away was always the wrists. Generally men's wrists are larger and bonier than women's. This was, of course at a time when the majority of men of all ages were not obese.

I rarely travel by tube these days, but just walking round almost any town, it is not uncommon to see men walking around dressed as women, without any attempt to hide their sex. Their beards or stubble make their sex clear. I am not clear what gender these men claim, but should they be accepted in female sport, female changing rooms, female prisons if they claim they are women?

I rarely travel by tube these days, but just walking round almost any town, it is not uncommon to see men walking around dressed as women, without any attempt to hide their sex. Their beards or stubble make their sex clear. I am not clear what gender these men claim, but should they be accepted in female sport, female changing rooms, female prisons if they claim they are women?

No!

But I've no objection to them walking around in dresses, or whatever 'female' apparel makes them feel good!

I know it's not quite the same comparison, but no-one victimises me for swanning around in jeans with a fly - an item of clothing designed specifically for men, which is totally unnecessary for women - so by the same token...

I’ve read your post Daddima.
Which lies do you think it’s OK to accept and promote, and which should be refuted, whether about trans or not?

Mollygo

I’m looking forward to the response to that.

Well, it's a very personal POV so I expect to be challenged on it.

However, it is a genuine question. A transwoman by the very nature of being one, will not have had the same life experiences or challenges as a woman. There may be points at which their paths cross (intersectional?) but largely speaking, someone whose identity matches their sex is not going to experience the angst and issues associated with those where it doesn't.

Of course though, I'm not expecting agreement!

Sorry a 'don't' crept in there, or was it the 'not' at the beginning?
Should read Not something we do in virtually any other comparable situation.

I have read your post. Despite your assumption I for one do listen to others’ points of view. It’s just that I’ve heard some viewpoints a hundred times before, and have got used to my words being twisted, so am less patient than I used to be.

No, I don’t believe that ‘biological men now includes trans men’. I don’t believe that ‘feelings’ can override biology.

Well I've read your post Daddima and agree with your first paragraph. The whole person needs help, but too many are sold on the 'change the body to fit the mind' path. Not something we don't do in virtually any other comparable situation.

I shan't comment on the rest of your post except to say that inaccuracies should be corrected, and yes I'm guilty of correcting misleading "facts" such as what sex is and its immutability.

A long time ago, if I was on the tube, my mind in neutral and idly looking at fellow passengers, I would suddenly realise that the woman sitting opposite me was, what I then assumed was, transvestite. The give-away was always the wrists. Generally men's wrists are larger and bonier than women's. This was, of course at a time when the majority of men of all ages were not obese.

I rarely travel by tube these days, but just walking round almost any town, it is not uncommon to see men walking around dressed as women, without any attempt to hide their sex. Their beards or stubble make their sex clear. I am not clear what gender these men claim, but should they be accepted in female sport, female changing rooms, female prisons if they claim they are women?

Well, if my heid was nippin’ earlier, it’s much worse now!

'Biological men 'is a category that now includes trans men. It was not always so but with advances in clinical treatments individuals who previously were women can and do become men.
Surely nobody believes this?
And, as far as ‘clinical treatments’ go, does it seem to be accepted that gender dysphoria should be treated by medication and surgery? Shouldn’t the mind ( the other part of the issue) also be treated, as a number of people with gender dysphoria may have issues related to previous trauma or abuse which could be helped by counselling and/ or therapy?
I’m not convinced that any of the contributors to this thread will read my post, as it seems to me to have become a kind of personal ‘ debate’ between some posters who are determined to prove their point, rather than to really listen to others’ points of view.
Still, I suppose it is ever thus on the internet, so many want to have their say, but have no interest in what others have to say, unless to correct them.

Galaxy

Speaking the truth is not scaremongering. There are men in womens sports and up until very recently there were men in womens prisons. Women were not able to have single sex spaces because there were some men in them. Dangerous men in the case of prisons and pathetic men in the case of sports.

Yes Galaxy
Telling the truth-males are not and never can be females is not scaremongering nearly so much as telling people they must believe and accept lies and that lying is the new truth.

Once you go down that road where do you stop?
My question for Glorianny, which I know is unlikely to get a straightforward answer.
Who do you think should be in charge of deciding which lies must be accepted and which lies can be safely refuted?

Glorianny needs to reread your post and the two posts following. It might help her learn what is involved . . . But probably not.

Dickens
I've posed questions - here's another. Many of the problems that transwomen experience are specifically related to the fact of their being transwomen, which are physiologically, psychologically and emotionally quite different to those experienced by women. Why don't transwomen set up their own institutions and organisations to deal with their issues and problems? Is it that their real intention is not about inclusiveness but is to eradicate women as a biological entity because they cannot, as men, be a part of that demographic, and that biological women are too powerful a force to overcome, so must be obliterated?
I’m looking forward to the response to that.

Smileless2012

What about the other spaces which are single sex Glorianny? This is about so much more than public toilets.

This is about so much more than public toilets.

It is, indeed. In fact, it is about more than those other single-sex spaces.

What it is about is the insistence of TRAs that one sex can become another - on the basis of feelings, identity, or even a whim; and mangling the language to accommodate those emotions - to the point that the very word "women" (not "men") ceases to have any legitimacy as it has done for centuries. Even to the ridiculous point that those female biological functions peculiar to our sex are disapproved and invalidated in order to accommodate this absurd notion that a man can change himself into a woman.

It is also about the depressing fact that organisations and companies have bought into this conviction to the extent that the leader of the Opposition once stated that "trans women are women, and that is not just my view - that is actually the law" later back pedaling to 99.9% of women don't have a penis. To the extent that anyone recorded as publicly challenging the notion that a man can become a woman risked losing their position (and did in a couple of instances). To the extent that high profile individuals like JKR received death and rape threats for refusing to accept the TRA creed.

Men as transwomen are challenging the legal provision because they want to completely commandeer those spaces, institutions, organisations, etc, that have been set up to support women.

Just how many transwomen have hormone-induced lactation and are breastfeeding babies? Are their problems in anyway related to the human biology of breastfeeding or the problems that women experience emotionally and physically? Why is the charity demanding that they are now included - on what realistic basis? And why are the charity commissioners now talking about putting a "roadblock" on the word mother?

I've posed questions - here's another. Many of the problems that transwomen experience are specifically related to the fact of their being transwomen, which are physiologically, psychologically and emotionally quite different to those experienced by women. Why don't transwomen set up their own institutions and organisations to deal with their issues and problems? Is it that their real intention is not about inclusiveness but is to eradicate women as a biological entity because they cannot, as men, be a part of that demographic, and that biological women are too powerful a force to overcome, so must be obliterated?

You can express any concerns you wish.
But you can't assume everyone feels or judges the same. It doesn't bother me who is changing in the next cubicle or using the next toilet.
Ok, but you can't assume that everyone is unbothered either. And of course you have deliberately chosen cubicles and the next toilet as examples, rather than communal changing rooms or DV hostels.

So it can't be "reasonably assumed" that transwomen should be banned from all those places.
Hang on - is it only if you, or it 100% of women object that we should have our own spaces? Or should there be a referendum every time?

The law makes that distinction in that it has to be shown there is a legitimate aim and a proportional response. Which might be women objecting or voting.
It might. Or it might be that the organiser of a lesbian speed dating event, or the manager of a women's clothes shop decides that it is in the best interests of attendees/customers to keep them single-sex.

But there are people who object to the existence of transpeople and a few people campaigning to have them banned would be neither of those things.
So if these people (Some People?) are women, do they not get a vote alongside the Other Women? Who decides which are Some and which are Other? I'm not sure how this is going to work, really. The 'reasonable assumption' principle works in other areas of law, and I see no reason why it wouldn't in this case, too.

Speaking the truth is not scaremongering. There are men in womens sports and up until very recently there were men in womens prisons. Women were not able to have single sex spaces because there were some men in them. Dangerous men in the case of prisons and pathetic men in the case of sports.

I have always supported the law on the provision of single sex places and have constantly posted links to it when the scaremongers insisted women were not able to have them

Doodledog

Galaxy

But how on earth do you know it was a man.

A 'good' reason might be women objecting to the presence of trans women or requesting a service without them. It wouldn't be a few biased individuals wanting to ban transwomen.

I assume these are your words, and not those of the guide? If so, perhaps you can clarify the difference between 'women objecting' and 'a few biased individuals' and let us know who makes that distinction, please? Language is so important, isn't it?

Unless I have missed it, there is nothing in that guide that specifies that women have to object and state that they would not attend something if a transwoman might, as you have always claimed. What it does say is that a service can be single-sex if it can be reasonably assumed that the privacy, dignity and safety of women would be compromised if male-bodied people were allowed. Examples include rape counselling, DV hostels, religious objection, contact sports, changing rooms and many of the areas about which people on these threads have been expressing concern for years.

Are you saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing?

You can express any concerns you wish.
But you can't assume everyone feels or judges the same. It doesn't bother me who is changing in the next cubicle or using the next toilet.
So it can't be "reasonably assumed" that transwomen should be banned from all those places.
The law makes that distinction in that it has to be shown there is a legitimate aim and a proportional response. Which might be women objecting or voting.
But there are people who object to the existence of transpeople and a few people campaigning to have them banned would be neither of those things.

And if we have an innate ability why would you question my judgement?

Only because you have constantly said it's not possible to tell a transwoman from a woman, so I assume you have lost that innate instinct. As a sex class I don't believe women have lost it, but obviously there are some individuals who have. In fact when you 'people watch' I'm surprised you even attempt to guess whether they are men or women.

That's an interesting link you posted. How did they decide who was a woman though? It's actually 67 years difference in the studies, but still a relatively short time.
Size, dress, appearance are concepts inflicted enough on women. I don't want anyone challenging them or questioning them or restricting the way they look. or restricting their ability to have a penis, beard and prominent Adam's apple eh?

Galaxy

But how on earth do you know it was a man.

A 'good' reason might be women objecting to the presence of trans women or requesting a service without them. It wouldn't be a few biased individuals wanting to ban transwomen.

I assume these are your words, and not those of the guide? If so, perhaps you can clarify the difference between 'women objecting' and 'a few biased individuals' and let us know who makes that distinction, please? Language is so important, isn't it?

Unless I have missed it, there is nothing in that guide that specifies that women have to object and state that they would not attend something if a transwoman might, as you have always claimed. What it does say is that a service can be single-sex if it can be reasonably assumed that the privacy, dignity and safety of women would be compromised if male-bodied people were allowed. Examples include rape counselling, DV hostels, religious objection, contact sports, changing rooms and many of the areas about which people on these threads have been expressing concern for years.

Are you saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing?

Rosie51

Glorianny Otherwise the man at the airport I saw wander in

The man coming out of the ladies, only realised as he came out, what he had done. It was quite funny to see his expression.

These two comments aren't necessarily mutually exclusive but you actually watched 'him' go into the wrong toilet and remained watching until 'he' came out? I'm still confused how you can know that person was a man, unless you made an assumption based on the clothes, presentation etc.

I don't know how will you judge who should get in?
Me? I'll go on the innate instinct that women have had throughout history to tell the difference except in a minute number of cases. It was a necessary biological protection, one I don't believe we've lost. I'll cope with the flack if I ever get it wrong and apologise profusely. You didn't answer, but then again you have no interest in keeping 'special males' out of women's spaces, so I suppose there would be no measurement you'd use.

I had a 3 hour wait at Schipol. My seat for a bit was across from the toilets.

Maybe he wasn't a man , but he looked very embarrassed.

And if we have an innate ability why would you question my judgement?

I'm not bothered about you or if you get anything wrong, I'm worried about the concept that you can tell a woman by some aspect of her physicality. You can't. Women's bodies are changing and evolving. We are taller and heavier than just 50 years ago. www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/womens-body-changes-since-1957-self-image-fashion-weight-health-sizes-positive-a7633036.html
Size, dress, appearance are concepts inflicted enough on women. I don't want anyone challenging them or questioning them or restricting the way they look.

A 'good' reason might be women objecting to the presence of trans women or requesting a service without them and when that was the case with a lesbian speed dating event, the organiser had to cancel the event (temporarily) because of the objection from those trans women who wanted to attend, and accused her of transphobia.

So you see Glorianny that when the Equality Act isn't respected by a few, it makes a nonsense of it and it is women who suffer.

I don't know how you will judge who should get in women shouldn't have to judge, our right to safety and privacy should be respected and it seems to me that for most of the time it is, and the only men who don't have any respect for women are the minority of those who claim 'to be'/'feel like' women, which beggars the question why?

Why do they have no care for/respect for women?

Glorianny Otherwise the man at the airport I saw wander in

The man coming out of the ladies, only realised as he came out, what he had done. It was quite funny to see his expression.

These two comments aren't necessarily mutually exclusive but you actually watched 'him' go into the wrong toilet and remained watching until 'he' came out? I'm still confused how you can know that person was a man, unless you made an assumption based on the clothes, presentation etc.

I don't know how will you judge who should get in?
Me? I'll go on the innate instinct that women have had throughout history to tell the difference except in a minute number of cases. It was a necessary biological protection, one I don't believe we've lost. I'll cope with the flack if I ever get it wrong and apologise profusely. You didn't answer, but then again you have no interest in keeping 'special males' out of women's spaces, so I suppose there would be no measurement you'd use.

But how on earth do you know it was a man.

Rosie51

Glorianny can you please show me where I used the words 'public toilets' in my post you quoted? If you care to read it again before jumping in you'll see I said And how do you tell the difference in the places where you support the law? If it can't be done on appearance what measure are you going to use?
Does it never cross your mind to wonder why a man would want to use the female toilets given that you've said you've used the male toilets because of long queues in the female ones? I don't think I've ever seen a longer queue at the men's one than at the women's one. Are you sure your man at the airport was deliberately choosing to use the women's toilet and hadn't wandered in by mistake? Additionally how did you know he was a man, did he announce it or did you make an assumption based on appearance?

The toilets had a common entrance with small figures to show which were which. The man coming out of the ladies, only realised as he came out, what he had done. It was quite funny to see his expression.

I don't know how will you judge who should get in?

Here's the law Doodledog
Mangle or interpret it as you will

The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex.
To establish a separate or single-sex service, you must show that you meet at least one of a number of statutory conditions (set out in this section of the guide) and that limiting the service on the basis of sex is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, a legitimate aim could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. You must then be able to show that your action is a proportionate way of achieving that aim.
There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not
When considering how your service is provided to trans people, you must balance the impact on all service users and show that there is a sufficiently good reason for excluding trans people or limiting or modifying their access to the service. Some service providers may find it helpful to have a policy for how services are provided to trans people. Where this is the case we recommend you develop a policy but this is not a legal requirement. If you do have a policy you should be prepared to consider whether particular circumstances justify departing from the policy
www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and
A 'good' reason might be women objecting to the presence of trans women or requesting a service without them. It wouldn't be a few biased individuals wanting to ban transwomen.

I'm not "mangling language" simply explaining that there are women who recognise transwomen as women and do not object to sharing spaces with them. I assume you would grant those women the right to do so.
Now you are being disingenuous. 'Transwomen and other women' is more than ambiguous. When did we become 'other women'? Or are you, as a woman, pushing the idea to 'other women' that both transwomen and women are women? Mangled?

You may object to transwomen some women don't. The right to refuse them admission has always been there.
No, as I keep saying, pretty clearly to those who are not too blind to see, that I don't object to transwomen. You simply refuse to acknowledge that fact. Your refusal doesn't make it untrue though. I am pleased that the right to refuse admission without the caveats you have always said are there (eg women having to object in advance, which relies on their having notice of who intends to attend an event, along with their trans status). your caveats are so far-fetched that I just don't believe them. I have never seen anything that says that a single-sex space has to be something that women have requested. That is equally impossible, unless (a) it is a fixed space, and (b) a request has to be granted. Isn't it far more likely that the conditions are along the lines of 'there can only be single-sex spaces if there is provision for both sexes where applicable' so a venue can't have only women's loos and none that visiting men may use?

Glorianny can you please show me where I used the words 'public toilets' in my post you quoted? If you care to read it again before jumping in you'll see I said And how do you tell the difference in the places where you support the law? If it can't be done on appearance what measure are you going to use?
Does it never cross your mind to wonder why a man would want to use the female toilets given that you've said you've used the male toilets because of long queues in the female ones? I don't think I've ever seen a longer queue at the men's one than at the women's one. Are you sure your man at the airport was deliberately choosing to use the women's toilet and hadn't wandered in by mistake? Additionally how did you know he was a man, did he announce it or did you make an assumption based on appearance?