I've been doing some research, which may end up being off the main topic of this thread but is, I hope, useful all the same.
Martin Y wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:18 pm
An illustrative event raised on another forum: teenage girls swimming team changing in a shared locker room were not at all comfortable to share that space with an obviously male-bodied adult. The girls did not know this person felt the need to use the women's changing rooms to validate her gender identity. Two of the girls complained about the man in the girls changing room and accusations of trans phobia flew.
No, I don't have a link. The details and even the veracity aren't really the point. The orthogonal battle lines are the problem.
Starting here as it gives me an opportunity to share a fantastic paper by
Dunne (2017) published in
Social & Legal Studies (open access). It provides the UK legal context for trans access to gendered spaces. It's quite long and I'll probably be quoting extensively (eta: yep!).
It begins by describing the current legal status of gender-segregated spaces:
A person who chooses to enter gender-segregated communal spaces – even ones where that person may expose their body parts – implicitly accepts that he or she will be observed (but, perhaps not ogled) by the other occupants. Trans individuals in single-gender spaces do not ‘invade...privacy any more than anyone else who shares the public’ facility (Etta Keller, 1999: 370)...Instead of protecting a general right to privacy, gender-segregation ensures, more narrowly, that women and men can access services without being observed by the opposite gender (Daley, 2016)... Contrary to what certain commentators have argued, however, trans individuals in single-gender spaces do not violate ‘gendered’ privacy. Reducing trans persons to their birth-assigned gender – as is necessary if trans women are to be considered as male interlopers – is inconsistent with both the trans lived experience and the conceptualization of trans identities in human rights law (Chambers, 2007: 326)... As Wolf observes, forcing ‘the transgender person to use facilities based upon the gender...assigned at birth...[places] transgender men in women’s bathrooms and transgender women in men’s, in visible defiance of the gender-segregation norm’ (2012: 214). If courts and law makers desire to offer women and men privacy, that goal is not furthered by misgendering the trans community. [p542-543]
It goes on to explain that having an "atypical" body is not sufficient reason to exclude someone from a communal space. While the piece doesn't go to such crude examples, I will by asking, should we accommodate people who are uncomfortable sharing space with obviously disfigured people? We can see that as the bigotry it clearly is so why are we so willing to accept transphobia? The piece does, however, note that,
Debates over trans bodily diversity are often more hypothetical than real. Trans bodies are rarely, if ever, visible. Mottet observes a general reluctance among trans populations to expose their sex characteristics, even in designated space (2012: 418). Trans individuals are coerced into concealing their physical characteristics through an ‘inherent shame in having a body that is somehow different from the cisgender norm’(Levassuer, 2014: 946). It is doubtful that, even if trans persons did have free access to single-gender services and communal accommodations, cisgender persons would frequently (if ever) encounter unfamiliar bodies. [p543]
On the subject of spaces for vulnerable women,
A primary concern – expressed both during the drafting of the 2010 Act and during the Inquiry – is how including trans individuals in segregated services and communal accommodations might reduce the capacity to serve at-risk populations (WEC*, 2016:27–28). There is a fear that, if survivor facilities are open to persons who – while living and identifying as women – are perceived by a majority of service users as men, this would obstruct meaningful engagement with abuse victims (WEC, 2016: 27–28). It is not that service users are inherently prejudiced against trans persons, or even that they necessarily deny trans identities in a more general sense. Rather, the experience of male-perpetrated violence may create a heightened sense of discomfort in the presence of persons who are perceived – particularly because of physical characteristics – as sharing the male gender. In their evidence to the Inquiry, service providers warned that ‘(s)some...women may feel unable to access services provided by or offered jointly to all women including transwomen’ (WEC, 2016: 27–28). [p545]
* UK House of Commons Select Committee on Women and Equalities
This is possibly what greyspoke was getting at when he said,
greyspoke wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 5:26 pm
You say "ignored" Fishy, but it what if you considered everybodies interests in that situation? It may turn out that if you look at it from all angles and consider all interests, excluding peeps with willies from womens' refuges might still end up a reasonable solution to come to.
I want to quote so much of the paper but I'm going to try and refrain, opting for summarising instead. But I highly recommend reading it as it's excellent. It says that while "it is perhaps understandable that abuse victims will nevertheless be sensitive to those who – whether voluntarily or involuntarily –have been masculinized by society"[p546] trans people experience higher rates of violence and sexual assault than cis people and that " Removing trans women from the relative shelter of women-only counselling or women-only shelters denies much-needed resources to a recognized high-risk group."[p546]. It is possible, even normal, to perform risk assessments before admitting people to refuges.
Stonewall (2018) commissioned a qualitative study into the experiences of organisations that run shelters and refuges for women in England and Scotland and found that trans women are being admitted without incident already, and have been for years. They note that BAME and lesbian/bisexual women were discriminated against in years gone by and they are trying to learn from those times to protect against making the same mistakes again. The Stonewall report explains that domestic violence does not discriminate by class, race or religion and refuges end up with women from all backgrounds which can lead to complicated dynamics that need careful management to protect all the women in their care. It also notes that where there are problems due to the presence of trans women it is usually that the trans woman is facing discrimination and abuse from cis women, not the other way round. The report is really interesting as it provides the voice of the people on the ground and makes a stark contrast to the un-evidenced comments that fly around social media and in the press.
Concerns about the potential threat posed to cis women by trans women are discussed in Dunne (2017) in pages 547-549. He notes that the threat from trans women is no greater than that posed by cis women and that trans people are at greater risk of abuse, harassment and assault when forced to use gendered spaces that conform to their gender identity as assigned at birth. With regards to the suggestion that "excluding peeps with willies from womens' refuges might still end up a reasonable solution to come to", Dunne writes,
Excluding trans women promotes the ‘sexist and heterosexist assumption that a [person] with a penis will inevitably attack and rape a female’ (Wenstrom, 2008:151). Irrespective of whether trans women are actually deviant or really men, it is argued that segregated spaces should bar trans females on the sole basis that individuals with male genitalia are dangerous (Wenstrom, 2008: 148). Cavanagh observes an ‘antiquated and heterosexist construction of masculinity...[whereby] “if a man sees a woman, just a glimpse, he cannot be controlled”’ (2010: 78). Like concerns relating to sexual deviancy, ‘penis as predator’ reasoning is both offensive and troublingly overbroad. It implicates each trans woman, who retains her penis, and all cisgender men. It not only encourages a damaging vision of male identities but also reduces women to passive, unwilling prey: Women are constructed, inherently, as ‘potential victims’ (Cavanagh, 2010: 78). The notion of the ‘unequivocally violent penis’ is unsubstantiated in wider criminology research, and has little impact on how gendered spaces actually operate in the United Kingdom. If the presence of any male genitalia automatically compromises the sexual safety of cisgender women, why are male staff permitted to work in prisons or women-only education institutions? Claims that all persons with a penis are dangerous does not support a legal rule which allows trans persons to be removed from single-gender spaces. [p548-549, my emphasis]
GeenDienst commented that,
GeenDienst wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:40 pm
It's about whether I should be allowed to get away with claiming a false justfication to do that, and how to stop me doing so.
Dunne also takes on this argument, saying,
It is both intellectually and practically unsatisfactory to exclude trans persons from single-gender facilities because other, non-trans individuals (over whom trans communities have no control) may engage in illegal conduct. General public sexism cannot undermine the capacity of women to work, and should not legitimize anti-woman practices as applied in the workplace. Similarly, general public homophobia is not evidence that gay and lesbian couples are unsuitable parents and should not restrict their right to adopt or access assisted reproduction. In the same way, public concern about cisgender predators – whether organic or encouraged by advocates – does not demonstrate a pressing need for laws which remove trans individuals from women-only or men-only facilities. On the contrary, it simply proves that, while trans persons pose no heightened threat, there is a subcategory of cisgender men who are willing to carry out improper acts. These individuals should be targeted for appropriate, properly directed sanction...Laws which exclude trans individuals do not significantly impede cisgender predators, and they should not be used as a means of absolving law makers from their obligation to create safe, secure services and accommodations. [p549-550]
He goes on to explain that the fear of cis men claiming to be trans to get access is not a fear that has been realised yet and are unlikely to.
There have been well-publicized incidents where cisgender persons – typically male identified – have, without claiming a trans identity, entered women’s facilities either to highlight the purportedly ‘ridiculous’ character of trans protections or to incorrectly assert that transinclusion effectively de-genders all public space (Ellis Nutt, 2015; Morrow, 2016). However, in terms of the specific threats envisaged by trans opponents – the man who actually asserts a female gender to stealthily commit a crime – there have been no reported cases (Maza and Brinkler, 2014). [p550-551]
Dunne ends by asking how we can include trans people in gendered services and determines that using genitalia as a guide is a very bad idea:
Using bodily characteristics as the metric for trans inclusion in segregated services and accommodations would, however, be both retrograde and highly inappropriate…. If entry into a restroom or locker room requires evidence of a penis, it is unclear how service providers should comply. Would all prospective users have to reveal their genitals? [p552-553]
Even using the Gender Recognition Act to legally change your gender isn't a solution as it requires a long - 2 years - and humiliating process to get the documentation.
There is also the question of what facility, during the mandatory 2-year period where a trans individual lives in their preferred gender but does not have formal recognition, a person should be entitled to use... [And that] While providing a ‘third option’, exclusive to trans persons, might release transwomen from the threat of abuse in men-only spaces, it would also serve to reinforce, and perhaps even strengthen, cultural perceptions of the trans community as ‘others’. [p553-554]
The Stonewall report ends by saying that the best thing that can be done for women who are recovering from domestic violence, cis or trans, is to increase funding for services. All are being starved and it makes it incredibly hard to provide the support required for all the women who need it. Violence against women is a massive and global problem. The majority of that violence is perpetrated by men on women but part of that is because heterosexual relationships dominate. There is evidence that homosexual relationships have as high, if not higher, rates of domestic abuse (
Langenderfer-Magruder et al., 2016,
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, open access). Part of the problem with determining rates, particularly for transgender people, is that trans people are rarely identified as such,
...victimisation statistics, such as those collected through the biennial Crime Survey for England and Wales (formerly the British Crime Survey), employ binary conceptions of gender resulting in the specific lack of visibility of some trans or non-binary people. (
Rogers, 2019, Sexualities, p806, open access)
When transgender people's experience of domestic violence is investigated, rates are shockingly high.
LGBT Youth Scotland & The Equality Network (2010) commissioned a survey of Scottish trans and gender-non-conforming people's experiences. Participation was voluntary and therefore probably biased but they found that 80% of respondents had experienced domestic violence. While the figure is probably high, it demonstrates the prevalence of domestic violence experienced by trans people, particularly trans women (almost 50% of the respondents were trans women), and raises the question of where are these women supposed to go for help if not women's refuges and shelters?