| So a woman is a biological female then…. 14:46 - Apr 16 with 22713 views | itfcjoe |
…I don’t dare look on social media for how this news has been taken by both sides of the debate.
|  |
| |  |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 13:40 - Apr 18 with 2007 views | Herbivore |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 12:57 - Apr 18 by Trequartista |
It's a fair question and personally I'd have been happy to have had those who have had full gender reassignment use female loos even though they are biologically men.
What is not acceptable to me though is men putting a dress on saying they are transgender and entering the ladies.
I wonder if the historic definitions of trans-sexual and transvestite would have been more suited to solving the issues rather than the modern transgender pushed forward by trans activists. |
Your second paragraph is something that's often trotted out but there's very little evidence that this is, was, or ever would be a significant issue. There are a handful of examples of people exploiting loopholes (the "trans" sex offender in Scotland, for example, wanting to be in a female prison). But if a man wants to prey on women in toilets, he doesn't need to dress up as a woman, he can just go in and I'd imagine that most sexual assaults in toilets don't involve "men putting on dresses". The biggest threat to women in the majority of environments is men, and not men wearing dresses but men dressing and behaving as men, it's certainly not genuine trans women. |  |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 13:48 - Apr 18 with 1962 views | Ryorry |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 13:40 - Apr 18 by Herbivore |
Your second paragraph is something that's often trotted out but there's very little evidence that this is, was, or ever would be a significant issue. There are a handful of examples of people exploiting loopholes (the "trans" sex offender in Scotland, for example, wanting to be in a female prison). But if a man wants to prey on women in toilets, he doesn't need to dress up as a woman, he can just go in and I'd imagine that most sexual assaults in toilets don't involve "men putting on dresses". The biggest threat to women in the majority of environments is men, and not men wearing dresses but men dressing and behaving as men, it's certainly not genuine trans women. |
You can't ignore the fear (of men) factor that the vast majority of biological women grow up with though - with justification given the stats on violent crime perpetrated on women. Their fear of trans women who haven't had surgery is simply another small part of that. |  |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 13:50 - Apr 18 with 1944 views | lowhouseblue |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 13:30 - Apr 18 by Herbivore |
Without having given it loads of thought, one solution would be for people with a gender recognition certificate to be allowed in those kinds of spaces, but only with a fairly rigorous process in place to enable people to get that certificate.
The idea that there's predatory men everywhere putting on a dress to get into female only spaces, those extreme examples are very few and far between, but it's important to recognise this as a concern in allowing trans women into female spaces. While there are a very, very small number of instances where someone has used self-ID to access female spaces for nefarious purposes, I'm not sure those individuals would get a gender recognition certificate if the process was rigorous and time consuming.
That would seem to be one potential way of respecting the rights of both trans and cis women. What I've found interesting since the ruling is that people who previously said there needs to be nuanced debate about this are now saying that basically trans women are men, which isn't a very nuanced position at all. The ruling applies to sex based rights under the Equality Act, it is not an all encompassing definition of how we talk about masculinity, femininity, and gender and yet we've seen some treat it as though it is. Now would be a good time for some nuance but I don't think we'll see it, sadly. |
nuance, respect and care are very important. but the supreme court ruling does represent a significant clarification. in terms of biology and legally in the context of the equality act (which is by far the most significant piece of legislation affecting these matters) trans women are not women. that doesn't mean that people can't change gender, or that gender choice should in anyway be restricted, or that their gender choice shouldn't be respected within the law, or that the law doesn't protect them from discrimination or harassment. recognising facts doesn't preclude nuance. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 13:55 - Apr 18 with 1906 views | Herbivore |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 13:48 - Apr 18 by Ryorry |
You can't ignore the fear (of men) factor that the vast majority of biological women grow up with though - with justification given the stats on violent crime perpetrated on women. Their fear of trans women who haven't had surgery is simply another small part of that. |
But if men are the threat, why the need to exclude trans women who have medically/surgically transitioned or are in the process of doing so? This ruling applies to all trans women, not just to the very, very, very small number of men who have tried to use trans rights for their own ends. I don't think it helps when the people who brought the case are outside court crowing that men won't be allowed into women only spaces, when they know full well that in that statement they are also referring to trans women who have fully transitioned as men. It seems all of the talk of reasoned and nuanced debate about the issue has gone in the bin now (not aiming that at you, more a general comment on the tone of debate since the ruling). | |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:04 - Apr 18 with 1782 views | Ryorry |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 13:55 - Apr 18 by Herbivore |
But if men are the threat, why the need to exclude trans women who have medically/surgically transitioned or are in the process of doing so? This ruling applies to all trans women, not just to the very, very, very small number of men who have tried to use trans rights for their own ends. I don't think it helps when the people who brought the case are outside court crowing that men won't be allowed into women only spaces, when they know full well that in that statement they are also referring to trans women who have fully transitioned as men. It seems all of the talk of reasoned and nuanced debate about the issue has gone in the bin now (not aiming that at you, more a general comment on the tone of debate since the ruling). |
"But if men are the threat, why the need to exclude trans women who have medically/surgically transitioned or are in the process of doing so? "
If they've had the medication/surgery, transitioned & can show the certificate, I personally wouldn't object or exclude them.
Not sure you can take the 'in the heat of the moment' celebrations of a group who are likely to have become close through years of fighting their cause & then finally winning, as that being their one & only view on the issue! I did think they went a bit ott, but look at how we all reacted at the moment of finally achieving promotion after 22 years last season! That didn't stop us following up with a more sensible appraisal over the following few weeks & months about our chances of staying up, and what we'd need to do to try & achieve that. | |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:50 - Apr 18 with 1709 views | DJR |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:04 - Apr 18 by Ryorry |
"But if men are the threat, why the need to exclude trans women who have medically/surgically transitioned or are in the process of doing so? "
If they've had the medication/surgery, transitioned & can show the certificate, I personally wouldn't object or exclude them.
Not sure you can take the 'in the heat of the moment' celebrations of a group who are likely to have become close through years of fighting their cause & then finally winning, as that being their one & only view on the issue! I did think they went a bit ott, but look at how we all reacted at the moment of finally achieving promotion after 22 years last season! That didn't stop us following up with a more sensible appraisal over the following few weeks & months about our chances of staying up, and what we'd need to do to try & achieve that. |
Yes, it is those with gender recognition certificates I feel particularly sorry for.
.
There are only about 8,000 of them and some are trans men and some are trans women.
They will have assumed because of the Gender Recognition Act that they legally acquired their new sex for all purposes, but presumably could in future be treated as effective pariahs in the the work place by being asked to use special toilets which will only highlight their difference.
As I mentioned earlier, It is not clear to me that it will have much difference when it comes to public toilets unless vigilantism becomes the norm.
EDIT: interesting development concerning the civil servant responsible for the Equality Act.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-definition-at-odds
A former civil servant who played a key role in drafting the Equality Act has said the supreme court’s ruling about the legal definition of a woman contradicted the act’s original intentions.
Melanie Field, who oversaw its drafting and passage through Westminster in 2010, said the legislation was meant to give transgender people with gender recognition certificates the same legal status as biological men or women.
She said that giving trans women the same sex discrimination rights as biological women was “the clear premise” of the policy and legal instructions to the officials who drafted the bill.
The supreme court’s ruling on Wednesday that the legal definition of “woman” only referred to biological women was “a very significant” reinterpretation of parliament’s intentions when it passed the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, she said.
“There are likely to be unintended consequences of this very significant change of interpretation from the basis on which the legislation was drafted and considered by parliament,” Field said in a post on the social media site LinkedIn.
“We all need to understand what this change means for how the law provides for the appropriate treatment of natal and trans women and men in a whole range of contexts.”
Field was deputy director (discrimination law) at the Government Equalities Office – a unit inside the Cabinet Office – and the lead official for the 2010 act. After leading on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, she became executive director of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), staying in post until October 2023.
[Post edited 18 Apr 16:07]
|  | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:57 - Apr 18 with 1688 views | Herbivore |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:04 - Apr 18 by Ryorry |
"But if men are the threat, why the need to exclude trans women who have medically/surgically transitioned or are in the process of doing so? "
If they've had the medication/surgery, transitioned & can show the certificate, I personally wouldn't object or exclude them.
Not sure you can take the 'in the heat of the moment' celebrations of a group who are likely to have become close through years of fighting their cause & then finally winning, as that being their one & only view on the issue! I did think they went a bit ott, but look at how we all reacted at the moment of finally achieving promotion after 22 years last season! That didn't stop us following up with a more sensible appraisal over the following few weeks & months about our chances of staying up, and what we'd need to do to try & achieve that. |
I don't think I celebrated promotion by making remarks that were hurtful to a marginalised group, but each to their own. | |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:14 - Apr 18 with 1661 views | J2BLUE |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:57 - Apr 18 by Herbivore |
I don't think I celebrated promotion by making remarks that were hurtful to a marginalised group, but each to their own. |
Suspect they have had more than their fair share of abuse as this has played out. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:26 - Apr 18 with 1624 views | Herbivore |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:14 - Apr 18 by J2BLUE |
Suspect they have had more than their fair share of abuse as this has played out. |
Oh cool, that makes it alright then. | |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:27 - Apr 18 with 1619 views | Herbivore |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:50 - Apr 18 by DJR |
Yes, it is those with gender recognition certificates I feel particularly sorry for.
.
There are only about 8,000 of them and some are trans men and some are trans women.
They will have assumed because of the Gender Recognition Act that they legally acquired their new sex for all purposes, but presumably could in future be treated as effective pariahs in the the work place by being asked to use special toilets which will only highlight their difference.
As I mentioned earlier, It is not clear to me that it will have much difference when it comes to public toilets unless vigilantism becomes the norm.
EDIT: interesting development concerning the civil servant responsible for the Equality Act.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-definition-at-odds
A former civil servant who played a key role in drafting the Equality Act has said the supreme court’s ruling about the legal definition of a woman contradicted the act’s original intentions.
Melanie Field, who oversaw its drafting and passage through Westminster in 2010, said the legislation was meant to give transgender people with gender recognition certificates the same legal status as biological men or women.
She said that giving trans women the same sex discrimination rights as biological women was “the clear premise” of the policy and legal instructions to the officials who drafted the bill.
The supreme court’s ruling on Wednesday that the legal definition of “woman” only referred to biological women was “a very significant” reinterpretation of parliament’s intentions when it passed the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, she said.
“There are likely to be unintended consequences of this very significant change of interpretation from the basis on which the legislation was drafted and considered by parliament,” Field said in a post on the social media site LinkedIn.
“We all need to understand what this change means for how the law provides for the appropriate treatment of natal and trans women and men in a whole range of contexts.”
Field was deputy director (discrimination law) at the Government Equalities Office – a unit inside the Cabinet Office – and the lead official for the 2010 act. After leading on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, she became executive director of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), staying in post until October 2023.
[Post edited 18 Apr 16:07]
|
Ironically, trans men who have fully transitioned and now have penises may be entitled under the Equality Act to sex based protections for biological women. In other words, someone with breasts and a vagina may now not be able to access women only spaces but in principle someone with a penis can. Whether that will actually happen who knows? Funny old world though. | |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:31 - Apr 18 with 1611 views | J2BLUE |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:26 - Apr 18 by Herbivore |
Oh cool, that makes it alright then. |
It doesn't but you only considered things from one side. If they have taken a lot of abuse it might explain the slightly OTT reaction and getting the result they wanted made it all worth it. | |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:36 - Apr 18 with 1592 views | Herbivore |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:31 - Apr 18 by J2BLUE |
It doesn't but you only considered things from one side. If they have taken a lot of abuse it might explain the slightly OTT reaction and getting the result they wanted made it all worth it. |
There's plenty of other folks on here similarly defending their behaviour, I'm just providing some balance by calling it out as rather crass.
Edit - And it wasn't the celebrating that I took issue with, it was the way they'd worded the statement which would have been pre-drafted. [Post edited 18 Apr 16:39]
| |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 17:00 - Apr 18 with 1547 views | Ryorry |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:57 - Apr 18 by Herbivore |
I don't think I celebrated promotion by making remarks that were hurtful to a marginalised group, but each to their own. |
" ... remarks that were hurtful to a marginalised group .."
What remarks? All I saw & heard was one TV news clip with a large bunch of women, a couple of whom said "we've won" and cheered, then opened a bottle of champagne.
No need for you to be sarcastic. | |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 22:33 - Apr 18 with 1400 views | Nutkins_Return |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 11:48 - Apr 18 by Kievthegreat |
Here's my issue, you talk about common decency as something that is needed, but I don't see how just being respectful of someone's pronouns isn't a simple tenet of that. It's been touched on that we need to treat people with mutual respect and this is a simple case of doing so. I'd clarify my middle paragraph though because I use the word aversion too loosely, because of course you could have an aversion but still do the thing you are averse to. This is like you in this example, being respectful even if it feel awkward to you. Wanted to be clear I wasn't meaning to attack you in the scenario presented.
My final paragraph is a clearer representation of my thoughts. It's not in the liking or not liking the pronouns. It's in the deliberateness of the choice. If you deliberately use the wrong pronouns, you are being rude in my opinion. There's no difference than deliberately calling a he a she or vice versa. The cost for using they/them pronouns is small to non-existent if we're honest. People may not like them and they may feel clunky, but to ignore them on purpose is mean spirited and demeaning to that person. They've placed their ideas of how they/them can be used over tangible effects on another human being.
PS. It's sort of a side issue to the main topic of respect, but the reason Shakespeare and Chaucer are relevant is that this is not a new thing. This has been part of the language for hundreds of years and not only pre-dates modern language, but also modern discussions of gender identity. As pointed out elsewhere, it used by plenty of modern and early modern authors too. |
We're probably mainly on the same page. But the Shakespeare/Chaucer stuff is irrelevant to my point in the main. I'm simply saying I don't agree it with earlier points made/an opinion (not aiming at you) that it's transphobic to not use pronouns. It can simply be a normal human trait of people not wanting change or told to do something different or using a clunky change in English language etc. (that you can find examples back in time doesn't change that).
Let's just say in the future (and I accept this may be a clunky left field example) there was a decision to standardise spellings and since the US has a larger population etc the decision was to go with American spellings in law etc etc. the fact there would be a large contingent unwilling to start spelling things that way wouldn't automatically make them anti American or rude for not wanting to do it.
Anyway as I said before, personally I choose in the majority of life to respect people's decision's and wishes and would accommodate calling someone by a personal pronoun. Im not a fan of it linguistically but would favour making someone feel accepted/comfortable etc. |  |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 08:54 - Apr 19 with 1244 views | DJR |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 22:33 - Apr 18 by Nutkins_Return |
We're probably mainly on the same page. But the Shakespeare/Chaucer stuff is irrelevant to my point in the main. I'm simply saying I don't agree it with earlier points made/an opinion (not aiming at you) that it's transphobic to not use pronouns. It can simply be a normal human trait of people not wanting change or told to do something different or using a clunky change in English language etc. (that you can find examples back in time doesn't change that).
Let's just say in the future (and I accept this may be a clunky left field example) there was a decision to standardise spellings and since the US has a larger population etc the decision was to go with American spellings in law etc etc. the fact there would be a large contingent unwilling to start spelling things that way wouldn't automatically make them anti American or rude for not wanting to do it.
Anyway as I said before, personally I choose in the majority of life to respect people's decision's and wishes and would accommodate calling someone by a personal pronoun. Im not a fan of it linguistically but would favour making someone feel accepted/comfortable etc. |
Here's a couple of observations.
1. If you look at comments on the Mail website, there is pretty unanimous hostility to preferred pronouns but I don't get the sense that the objections are grammatical or even that those commenting operate in work or other situations where preferred pronouns are actually used.
2. It is for considerations as to when preferred pronouns would actually be used. Unless I am missing something, I don't think they can be used when one is dealing directly with another person because one would use you/yours. I suppose a report on another is one case, as would be a case where two people were talking about another, but in the latter case the person talked about would have no idea whether the preferred pronoun was being used.
Maybe someone with greater knowledge could enlighten me on the second observation. [Post edited 19 Apr 8:58]
| | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 09:06 - Apr 19 with 1234 views | Swansea_Blue |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:50 - Apr 18 by DJR |
Yes, it is those with gender recognition certificates I feel particularly sorry for.
.
There are only about 8,000 of them and some are trans men and some are trans women.
They will have assumed because of the Gender Recognition Act that they legally acquired their new sex for all purposes, but presumably could in future be treated as effective pariahs in the the work place by being asked to use special toilets which will only highlight their difference.
As I mentioned earlier, It is not clear to me that it will have much difference when it comes to public toilets unless vigilantism becomes the norm.
EDIT: interesting development concerning the civil servant responsible for the Equality Act.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-definition-at-odds
A former civil servant who played a key role in drafting the Equality Act has said the supreme court’s ruling about the legal definition of a woman contradicted the act’s original intentions.
Melanie Field, who oversaw its drafting and passage through Westminster in 2010, said the legislation was meant to give transgender people with gender recognition certificates the same legal status as biological men or women.
She said that giving trans women the same sex discrimination rights as biological women was “the clear premise” of the policy and legal instructions to the officials who drafted the bill.
The supreme court’s ruling on Wednesday that the legal definition of “woman” only referred to biological women was “a very significant” reinterpretation of parliament’s intentions when it passed the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, she said.
“There are likely to be unintended consequences of this very significant change of interpretation from the basis on which the legislation was drafted and considered by parliament,” Field said in a post on the social media site LinkedIn.
“We all need to understand what this change means for how the law provides for the appropriate treatment of natal and trans women and men in a whole range of contexts.”
Field was deputy director (discrimination law) at the Government Equalities Office – a unit inside the Cabinet Office – and the lead official for the 2010 act. After leading on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, she became executive director of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), staying in post until October 2023.
[Post edited 18 Apr 16:07]
|
As I either posted previously or intended to post previously (one of the two - I often compose replies in my head and then don’t post them lol), this ruling is going to kick up a hornets nest. There are already rumours of multiple challenges. If nothing else, the involved lawyers won’t need to worry about the cost of living for a while.
I do feel sorry for those who thought they were protected by law but have now had that rug pulled from beneath their feet. |  |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 10:14 - Apr 19 with 1146 views | lowhouseblue |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 09:06 - Apr 19 by Swansea_Blue |
As I either posted previously or intended to post previously (one of the two - I often compose replies in my head and then don’t post them lol), this ruling is going to kick up a hornets nest. There are already rumours of multiple challenges. If nothing else, the involved lawyers won’t need to worry about the cost of living for a while.
I do feel sorry for those who thought they were protected by law but have now had that rug pulled from beneath their feet. |
these rumours of challenges to a supreme court ruling - how will that work exactly??
i don't think there is any widespread appetite, amongst politicians or the public, to reopen this stuff again. and various things currently in the courts - eg the nhs defence of the sandie peggie claim - are just going to fall away. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 10:21 - Apr 19 with 1125 views | DJR |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 09:06 - Apr 19 by Swansea_Blue |
As I either posted previously or intended to post previously (one of the two - I often compose replies in my head and then don’t post them lol), this ruling is going to kick up a hornets nest. There are already rumours of multiple challenges. If nothing else, the involved lawyers won’t need to worry about the cost of living for a while.
I do feel sorry for those who thought they were protected by law but have now had that rug pulled from beneath their feet. |
Yes, and whilst they have come in for criticism in the right wing press, various large organisations have expressed support for their trans staff, not only because they are members of their own staff but also knowing that this is an area where they will have to tread carefully. | | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 10:22 - Apr 19 with 1115 views | DJR |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 10:14 - Apr 19 by lowhouseblue |
these rumours of challenges to a supreme court ruling - how will that work exactly??
i don't think there is any widespread appetite, amongst politicians or the public, to reopen this stuff again. and various things currently in the courts - eg the nhs defence of the sandie peggie claim - are just going to fall away. |
I am no expert but being trans is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, so this itself might offer a route for claims if employers don't act with care and caution.
I might add that the chair of the ECHR pronouncing on the effect of the judgment only a day after the judgment and in advance of any revised guidance was perhaps ill-judged.
[Post edited 19 Apr 10:28]
| | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 10:46 - Apr 19 with 1068 views | lowhouseblue |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 10:22 - Apr 19 by DJR |
I am no expert but being trans is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, so this itself might offer a route for claims if employers don't act with care and caution.
I might add that the chair of the ECHR pronouncing on the effect of the judgment only a day after the judgment and in advance of any revised guidance was perhaps ill-judged.
[Post edited 19 Apr 10:28]
|
but the reading of the 2010 act is now clear, in bringing a discrimination claim the comparator for (eg) a trans woman is a man who hasn't undergone transition. so absolutely employers need to avoid discrimination (in the terms above) against trans people and to protect them from harassment. care and caution is always wise.
in terms of your 2nd para - i also have concerns about the tone of some of her comments. the ehrc guidance when it comes need to be very fair and balanced. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 11:07 - Apr 19 with 1035 views | DJR |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 10:46 - Apr 19 by lowhouseblue |
but the reading of the 2010 act is now clear, in bringing a discrimination claim the comparator for (eg) a trans woman is a man who hasn't undergone transition. so absolutely employers need to avoid discrimination (in the terms above) against trans people and to protect them from harassment. care and caution is always wise.
in terms of your 2nd para - i also have concerns about the tone of some of her comments. the ehrc guidance when it comes need to be very fair and balanced. |
My point about gender being a protected characteristic is that a trans person might be able to bring a claim which had nothing to do with sex.
And thinking about this further, if, as has been suggested, employers designate disabled toilets as those to be used by trans people, I suppose it is theoretically possible that a disabled person might be able to bring a claim.
All in all, it seems to have opened up a whole new can of worms which employers will have to navigate carefully, and I do wonder if we end up with much more in the way of claims than was ever the case before.
Certainly, a lot of thought will have to go into the guidance.
And it's interesting to note that the Good Law Project is crowd-funding to see if there is the possibility of appeal to the ECHR: don't forget it was an ECHR decision which itself gave rise to the Gender Recognition Act. [Post edited 19 Apr 11:29]
| | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 11:56 - Apr 19 with 977 views | ArmaghBlue |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 11:19 - Apr 18 by Herbivore |
So where will trans women, even those who have had full gender reassignment surgery, go to the toilet? Is it protecting and enhancing their rights to make them use men's toilets? [Post edited 18 Apr 11:20]
|
Will the Trans Men now have to use the Women’s toilets? |  | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 12:04 - Apr 19 with 948 views | Herbivore |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 11:56 - Apr 19 by ArmaghBlue |
Will the Trans Men now have to use the Women’s toilets? |
Well, it does open up that possibility. | |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 12:35 - Apr 19 with 908 views | Nutkins_Return |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 12:57 - Apr 18 by Trequartista |
It's a fair question and personally I'd have been happy to have had those who have had full gender reassignment use female loos even though they are biologically men.
What is not acceptable to me though is men putting a dress on saying they are transgender and entering the ladies.
I wonder if the historic definitions of trans-sexual and transvestite would have been more suited to solving the issues rather than the modern transgender pushed forward by trans activists. |
On a practical level I think we will simply need a re-badging of a 'universal' toilet that is currently a disabled toilet. I.e. for anyone not comfortable/not able to use male/female toilets. I can't see a major problem with this on a practical level as they are vacant 99% of the time. I'm sure there will be a backlash to this idea but in reality it will probably be the best way forward and will be really easy and straightforward for every one. It is just a toilet which has disabled features so if everyone can be grown up about it and accept it becomes a more multi-use toilet then it will be fine. Of course the only but that needs sorting is that we don't get everyone using it.
where possible more unisex toilets/changing rooms as well.
If you take all the emotion out of it and if we want an accepting society then there are practical solutions. [Post edited 19 Apr 12:41]
| |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 17:58 - Apr 19 with 764 views | Herbivore |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 12:35 - Apr 19 by Nutkins_Return |
On a practical level I think we will simply need a re-badging of a 'universal' toilet that is currently a disabled toilet. I.e. for anyone not comfortable/not able to use male/female toilets. I can't see a major problem with this on a practical level as they are vacant 99% of the time. I'm sure there will be a backlash to this idea but in reality it will probably be the best way forward and will be really easy and straightforward for every one. It is just a toilet which has disabled features so if everyone can be grown up about it and accept it becomes a more multi-use toilet then it will be fine. Of course the only but that needs sorting is that we don't get everyone using it.
where possible more unisex toilets/changing rooms as well.
If you take all the emotion out of it and if we want an accepting society then there are practical solutions. [Post edited 19 Apr 12:41]
|
You say it's a practical solution but it's not one that really respects either of the groups of people affected. It's basically lumping anyone who isn't "normal" into a single category and giving them a toilet to share. Disabled toilets are designed for disabled people, they are accessible and usually there's not a wait for disabled people to use them, rightly so given some disabilities may not make it easy or comfortable to have to wait to use the facilities.
Trans people are not disabled. They don't need accessible facilities. It's just reinforcing to them that they are not welcome in spaces for "normal" folks, and it also sends a similar message to people with disabilities too, that they fit into the category of "other". However well intentioned and seemingly pragmatic it may be, it's not a good solution. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
