Are you using trans men and trans women differently than the norm? A transman (say, buck angel) is assigned female at birth but identifies as a man. A transwoman (say, Laverne Cox) was assigned male but identities as a woman. Do you think she hates being associated with women? Or am I missing something?
I meant trans men hate being associated with women.
Unless you are in prison, or in some homeless shelters. That is why I said to @iiandyiiii in an earlier post that it’s especially important to listen to the feelings of women in jail.
And as for changing rooms, why exactly is it unreasonable to have a different tolerance for displays of penis and displays of vulva in a women’s locker room? Surely that is the one place we should be able to treat those differently? If we’re down with seeing opposite sex nudity, why even bother having segregated changing?
Removing hyperbole, will you agree that the initial choice of wording had everything to do with including and avoiding offending transmen and NB people? If they were trying to convey that only people with a cervix should attend, they probably should have mentioned that. (It actually doesn’t say so.)
Of course it would be better if the NHS updated their systems to include transmen in cervical screening invitations and remove transwomen and anyone who’s had a complete hysterectomy, but they still haven’t completed the migration from Windows XP, so I’m not holding my breath.
I don’t think the initial wording was disrespectful or derogatory toward cisgender women, and I didn’t say so. I do think there is a risk with politically correct language that we end up making unclear and inaccurate statements while trying to avoid the obvious (see iiandyiii’s attempts earlier in the thread). More recent versions say ‘women and people with a cervix’ need cervical screening, and also have more detailed sections explaining exactly which groups do and do not need to attend.
IMO the best wording really depends on what information you are trying to convey, and the intended audience. If we’re sending out screening leaflets it’s important to make clear exactly who is covered and in a way everyone can understand. If we’re giving general health advice we probably prefer a simple message that fits the majority. If we’re talking about healthcare inequalities we may want to emphasise that it’s female diseases that are neglected or women who suffer more side effects because drugs are only tested on men.
Interesting survey. Seems my views are pretty mainstream after all.
I suppose @RickJay would tell me not to read too much into the decreasing acceptance of trans people in sport, but I can’t help thinking that the more people see images like this, the more they’re going to think it’s not a fair competition.
I reckon our politicians have learned their lesson and won’t be trying that again for a while. 
Males being allowed to compete against women is an extremely recent thing, so really what you are seeing is the FIRST reaction. For most people they’re just finding out this is being permitted.
You’re missing the crucial point. If transgender men aren’t allowed to be in the men’s room—which is part of the deal if we’re saying that transgender women aren’t allowed to be in the women’s room—then transgender men will have to be in the women’s room when they need the facilities, whether they’re “itching” to be there or not. (Unless and until these hypothetical abundant “3rd spaces” for transgender people materialize, which I think it would be unwise to hold our breath for.)
So no, if transgender men are required to stay out of the men’s facilities, then I’m not seeing why you’d expect there to be “very few instances” of male-presenting people in women’s facilities, by comparison with the alternative of allowing transgender men to use the men’s facilities and allowing transgender women to use the women’s.
AFAICT, most transgender men choose to present as male while most transgender women choose to present as female. Our hypothetical burly bearded “Bob” who identifies as female but presents as entirely male is AFAICT a pretty rare instance, at least compared to her brother Bill (born Betty) who identifies as male and presents as male.
Of course, if the chief concern here is about where visible penises are being shown in clothing-optional spaces, then naturally there are likely to be more of those among transgender women than transgender men. But if what you’re chiefly worried about is socially normalizing the phenomenon of male-looking people freely entering female-designated spaces because you’re concerned it will make it easier for male predators to intrude on those spaces—which is the message that AFAICT I’ve been hearing from “your side” all through this thread—then it seems completely illogical to require transgender men to use female-designated spaces.
So I think you need to decide which is your chief priority here:
1) Is the chief priority excluding physically male genitalia from female-designated spaces? Then you can (at least in theory—IANAL and don’t know if it would stand up in court) declare such spaces penis-free zones and exclude Bob (as well as all the other transgender women, call them Bella (born Brad), who choose to present as female but have male genitalia).
But in that case the male-designated spaces are likewise vagina-free zones, so all the male-presenting transgender men have to use the female-designated spaces. If you ban Bob and Bella, then AFAICT you’re stuck with Bill, no matter how much Bill would rather be in the men’s room.
2) Is the chief priority resisting the social normalization of seeing male-looking people entering female-designated spaces, because of the claim that it would make it harder to guard against intrusion by predatory men? In that case, it seems completely counterproductive to ban Bob and Bella while putting up with Bill.
Every time a balding bearded transgender man walks through the door marked “Ladies”—because he’s not allowed to use the men’s room, no matter how much he’d rather be there—the general population is getting more accustomed to the sight of male-looking people going into those spaces. If you are genuinely concerned about the normalization of such behavior, then it seems very foolish to me to set things up so that Bob and Bella have to use the men’s room and Bill has to use the women’s room.
I’m not sure where you’re getting that. I definitely do respect people’s desire to not be exposed to other people’s genitalia, whether in gender-segregated spaces or anywhere else, that they don’t want to be seeing.
But I don’t respect the disrespect shown to transgender people’s own feelings and identity. I don’t respect sweeping claims that “in any discourse, those who are upset and offended should always be listened to more attentively than those who don’t care” irrespective of what’s actually upsetting and offending them. I don’t respect referring to a transgender woman as “a male who self-identifies as a woman” rather than as “a transgender woman”, or referring to her with the pronoun “they” if you know her preferred pronoun is “she”. I don’t respect the attitude that only women on your side of the debate are entitled to consider themselves entitled to “speak for women”, while women on my side of the debate are merely some kind of gender traitors along the lines of black Americans who like Confederate monuments. I don’t respect the dismissive reductionism that arrogantly asserts that a transgender person’s sincere perception of their own gender identity “means nothing”. I don’t respect the contemptuous attitude that transgender men’s desire to live as men and use men’s facilities rather than women’s is nothing but “dysphoria” and “hate” that they should just “overcome” because that would make it easier to exclude penises from the women’s facilities. So I don’t think your side of the debate has a lot of room in this thread to be lecturing me about lack of respect.
So turn the men’s room into the mixed sex space. That’s what I’m saying should be plan B if 3rd spaces are infeasible.
I just skimmed the rest of your post because it’s just more of the same hand wringing over the same canards. We get it, @Kimstu. You think us gals should get over ourselves and stand aside as males unnecessarily file into our most intimate spaces. You believe there is absolutely nothing we can do about it because it’s an insummountable problem a society as complex as ours has never been able to solve before. It’s unreasonable for us to expect that a room called the “women’s room” would not be inclusive to any and every male who claims they have a female brain. And because trans men have to be accommodated by men (because reasons), it is only fair that women must accommodate any male that calls himself a woman because everyone knows that’s all a woman is.
For my sanity’s sake, let’s agree to disagree.
You don’t “get it” at all. You’re arguing with a strawman because it’s easier than addressing what I’m actually saying.
I do most certainly believe that—absent or until we as a society restructure the whole concept of gender-segregated spaces so they’re either all individualized or allow for a lot more options than a simple binary—female-designated spaces are necessarily going to contain either some transgender men or some transgender women, as well as cisgender women. Yup, there is AFAICT absolutely nothing we can do about that.
Do you believe otherwise, YWTF? Do you honestly think that there is any way to make a consistent and fair rule about female-designated spaces (in a world where, practically speaking, most situations offer only two options, “female” and “male”) so that all female-identifying people with penises and all male-presenting people with vaginas are excluded from them?
If so, then tell us: Exactly what would that rule be?
Because AFAICT, if your rule is that anybody with a vagina must use the female-designated spaces and anybody with a penis must stay out of them, then you have to put up with the presence of male-presenting but vagina-possessing Bill, whose presence will potentially help normalize the use of female-designated spaces by male-looking people.
If your rule is that people can use the gender-designated spaces of the gender they personally identify as, irrespective of their anatomy, then the female-designated space won’t include male-presenting transgender men like Bill, but it will include some transgender women like Bella, and possibly also some heavily male-presenting transgender women like Bob. Whose presence may also potentially help normalize the use of female-designated spaces by male-looking people.
If your rule is that people have to have both a vagina and a sufficiently “female-looking” appearance in order to use the female-designated spaces, that sounds like a huge and potentially very discriminatory can of worms. How are you proposing that would work, specifically?
Got any other alternatives? I can’t think of any. I’ve been pushing back on this not because I want to upset you or anybody else, but because I honestly do not see any fair and practicable way of making such a rule that won’t in some way contribute to the “normalizing” that you’re concerned about.
That smacks of the standard response from somebody trying to uphold an inherently self-contradictory position and not wanting to hear it criticized as self-contradictory: “You’re just being defeatist and negative! If our society can put a man on the moon, surely we can find a way to make this work! We’ve solved all kinds of more difficult problems before!”
Well, great: If you’ve got a solution to this situation that really will work, then by all means, tell us what it is. But don’t just sit there demanding that we as a society have to come up with a way to implement an inherently self-contradictory position or else we’re being misogynists.
And if you come up with a proposed solution that does have inherent contradictions in it, don’t shoot the messenger for pointing those contradictions out.
! As in, transgender men are allowed to use facilities designated for the gender they identify as, but transgender women are not? Only one sex is entitled to enforce sex-segregation in its officially sex-segregated spaces?
IANAL, but that proposal doesn’t sound to me like it has a good chance of surviving a court challenge.
Why should men’s locker rooms become the mixed space? They have even less privacy than women’s spaces!
Really? Absolutely none? You sure about that? So these are some hateful people, then?
I can’t tell if you’re being facetious or not.
@Kimstu, I just going to repost this again so you see how your arguments are landing on my ears:
In bold are the ideas that you’ve espoused in this thread which—as much as it pains me to say—rank among the most asinine things I’ve ever read on this board. It’s important that everyone sees these tenets laid bare, though. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Is it totally impossible to make men’s spaces more private? What a weird justification.
The longer this conversation goes on, the more I’m convinced that the reason trans activists and their allies aren’t pushing for third spaces is because they don’t want anything short of full recognition of a person’s gender identity. No matter how discordant that gender identity it is from their outward presentation. If we don’t agree that a bearded, burly, fully intact male is a woman based on their word alone and we don’t want this person to use the women’s locker room the same as any other woman–including little girls–then we’re hate-mongers who must also hate interracial couples, same-sex couples, butch lesbians, and rape victims in foreign countries. A third space makes complete sense for this person, as well as all the ciswomen who don’t have problems showering next to male junk like their old-school robotic sisters do. If trans activists and their allies are a significant political force, they should be leveraging their power to push for third spaces. These spaces would be theirs. Spaces totally devoid of hateful Karens and Kevins. Spaces where they can let their genitals be out in the open without anyone reacting hostily or fearfully. Spaces with their own codes of conduct and expectations. But they are not pushing for third spaces. All they want is preexisting spaces that already have their codes of conduct and expectations. Like women’s spaces, where transwomen have always existed but not people who resemble men. And they want women to go quietly along this plan since bossing women around is an easier path than bossing around the privileged class–men–to get them to build additional spaces.
If folks like Kimstu could just say, “Yeah, I wouldn’t be in favor of male-presenting males, whether they identify as women or not, using women’s spaces since I agree their presence really would make life harder on women trying to maintain their sense of security”, then I would feel assured that trans allies (I have no hope for trans activists) get where folks such as myself are coming from. But I’m not getting the validation I’m looking for. I think Miller and iiandyiiii have come the closest. Instead of validation, I’m being told that I must have a problem with masculine ciswomen using women’s locker rooms. Well, I don’t. Why don’t I have a problem with masculine ciswomen? Because I can almost always see the femaleness of a masculine ciswoman. And most importantly, a masculine ciswoman does not possess male parts. Once she undresses herself in the communal changing area, I can rest assured that there’s a woman in my presence. A masculine-presenting male can’t do anything to assure me I’m in the presence of another woman. Them telling me they are a woman isn’t enough for me to believe they are a woman. If we were in standing at the line at Wal-Mart, it wouldn’t matter to me. But if I’m in a vulnerable position in a space reserved for women in a vulnerable position, I shouldn’t have to wonder if I’m in the presence of a possible threat. It’s great that a lot of ciswomen don’t associate threat with maleness. But I do, at least when I’m butt-ass naked and I’m not expecting to be confronted with maleness.
I get that third spaces aren’t as validating as binary spaces. It’s important for transfolks to be treated as their perceived gender, I get this. But we don’t always get what we want, folks! If you can use a binary space without raising eye-brows, then your gender identity obviously matches most people’s perceptions. But if you don’t meet this bar, it is not an inconvenience for you to use a different facility. It isn’t undignifying either. If there are more Kimstus than women like me out there out there as I’m supposed to believe there are, then the third space should have heavy enough ciswomen presence to create a reasonable approximation of the “women’s locker room” experience for any woman-identifying male who wants that experience. And no ciswomen (or female-passing transwomen) would have to give up their sense of security to make that happen. That is a win-win. Win-wins are always better than win-lose.
Thirds spaces are not impossible. They should definitely be on the table if the point of trans rights is to actually get something passed and implemented.
For the past couple of days, we’ve only been talking about locker rooms. It’s obvious that’s the context I was addressing. Not film festivals. Please do try to keep up.
Really? Because I’ve seen specific mention of prisons, and shelters, as well.
Been following along just fine.
No one living in a prisons or shelters should be forced to pretend that genitals don’t matter. A woman should not have to swallow her discomfort about being naked in front of a naked male, especially when she does not have any choice in the matter (such as the case with prisons and shelters).
Explain to me how this is relevant to festivals?
I am still waiting for the “oft-repeated consensus” that @Kimstu said exists to kick in.
This is probably the best solution. If you can fit in well enough that most people hardly notice, then no problem. But otherwise, use the 3rd space.
We already have 3rd spaces, such as family restrooms and handicapped changing areas. I don’t think the people who use those areas are complaining about having to use them. Rather, they appreciate that they are there for the conveniences they bring for their situations.
This goes to what is expected in general in shared spaces: Try to fit in. Aside from any gender issues, there are people who are non-conforming with social guidelines in these places which cause people to be unnecessarily uncomfortable. For example, someone who takes the urinal or shower next to you when there is plenty of open space can make you feel uncomfortable. Or someone doesn’t respect feelings around nudity, such as striking up conversations with strangers while naked. These kinds of personalities are the ones which I think cause problems in these spaces. Someone who realizes their presence may cause understandable discomfort and takes steps to minimize that is fine. But the person who doesn’t care that they don’t fit in and they do it anyway is going to be a problem regardless of the reason why they stand out.
I think this is key. If I bump into a male-presenting male in the women’s locker room and I don’t have a sanguine facial expression, I want this person to respect that and not lose their shit over it. Because in women’s spaces, the feelings of the folks that conform to the gender norms of the female/woman class have priority over the folks who conform to gender norms of the male/men class. And having a non-sanguine face to males in women’s spaces is a gender norm of the female/woman class. Don’t like it? Go change in another locker room.
I want the male-presenting male in the women’s locker room to not go walking around butt-ass naked even if that’s what all the other women are doing, because I want them to recognize that their butt-ass nakedness is not gender conforming and thus it isn’t acceptable in that space. If the male-presenting male is OK with these rules, then I’ll tolerate their presence in the locker room. But the moment they start demanding their penis be treated equivalent to a vulva in the women’s locker room, they need to be out. They need to go change in the men’s locker room or the unisex locker room without calling their trans ally homies to protest on their behalf. Because in the women’s locker room, the rule would be “your penis is allowed in here but we don’t want to see it”. Males who don’t want to conform to this are exhibiting non-womanly behavior, so their claim to the women’s locker room should be snatched away from them.
If trans activists and their allies are cool with these kinds of rules, then everything’s great and wonderful in the brand new world of “anyone gets to be a woman”. But if they are going to liken me to a racist or a homophobe for proposing this rule, I’m not going to listen to anything they say.
When you say “third space,” shouldn’t you really be saying fourth space? One for men, one for women, one for transmen and one for trans women? I’m not sure how feasible it would be to construct such spaces but it seems to me at least four spaces would be needed to cover all the bases.