This is a conversation between me (Ivo, the editor) and F.M. (a researcher from the UK) about trans ppl (especially trans women) and gender segregated spaces. We come at this topic from 2 different sides: me, I’m skeptical of including trans women in what I think of as sex-segregated spaces (bathrooms/locker rooms/changing rooms) F.M. is proudly supportive of trans ppl’s inclusion in both society at large and these spaces as well. This is our conversation:
Ivo: I’d like to frame the convo around a question: Trans activism, a net positive or negative? I’m going with negative.
FM: Well, to quibble, that depends a bit on what you think it’s trying to achieve, and whether you agree with that aim or not. Someone could agree with the aims but have different views on whether the activism is a good way to achieve them. But anyway, I’ll say net positive in that I do agree with its aims and broadly speaking think it’s more helpful than not towards achieving them in the long term.
Ivo: Sure, let’s take aims and means, both of them. It’s my view that female only spaces have been negatively affected by trans activism. Made more unsafe.
FM: That is certainly one of, if not the, central issues in the argument over Trans rights. I disagree on a few counts. First, I would question the premise in that ‘female only spaces’ suggests spaces segregated exclusively by sex and not by gender. I’m sceptical that such a segregation has ever really existed. Second, I don’t think trans activism does make women’s spaces (if we take that as a broad parallel with ‘female-only’ spaces) more unsafe. Third – and perhaps most controversially – even if it did make them more unsafe, I wouldn’t accept that in itself as a sufficient argument to refute the validity of the rights of trans people to use spaces on the basis of their gender identity.
Ivo: Right. To close door 1 (for me at least) I am convinced that pre-trans activism it de facto existed. 2. I think we could come to an understanding whether that’s true or not but it’s certaintly not made them more safe. The real question of this debate is 3. A trans person’s gender id trumps cis gendered female spaces safety?
FM: On point 1 I would say that historically, most of the time people have assumed that sex and gender match. We do also know, though, with a strong degree of certainty, that individuals for whom it did not match did exist and that they used spaces associated with their acquired gender. It’s true that there were tiny numbers of these people – probably far less than 1% of the population – but then there are still very small numbers of Trans people now; slightly bigger, yes, certainly more visible but still basically a tiny, tiny minority of the overall population. So I’m not persuaded that accessing spaces on the basis of gender is really as much of a change as is normally suggested; as is the case with most changes of law and attitudes on gender and sexuality, it’s a change more in visibility than anything else.
Ivo: Yes. Intersex ppl you’re talking about mainly? (pre 2014 let’s say) I agree, they deserve a space there and as such completely sex segregated spaces haven’t existed. My concern is 99% with self ID’d mtf trans folks. I think it’s there that cis gendered women are paying a big price in return for very little. Do you have a worry there too?
FM: I’ll skip over point 2 for now – but without accepting it. On point 3 (and noting again that I don’t necessarily accept point 2), yes, I think it does. This is because I believe individuals have a strong right, probably an absolute right, not to suffer direct discrimination by the state (other than for crimes against the state). The state’s right to discriminate against you for committing crime only extends to actual crimes that you, an individual, have committed, not to any alleged preponderance towards committing crime you may have because of belonging to a particular social group or category. However, the state’s duty to protect you (anyone, but for these purpose let’s say a cis woman) from harm is a weaker duty. It is real, and part of the state’s legitimate purpose, but it does not override the state’s greater responsibility not to discriminate. (In other words, the principle is, first do no harm, as the saying goes.)
It’s a somewhat parallel situation to, for example, the state discriminating against particular ethnic groups if someone was able to show a statistically greater likelihood that a member of a certain group would commit crime. The statistical likelihood might exist, but no individual should have their rights to go about their ordinary business interfered with because of it. In the same way, a transwoman’s right to use women’s spaces should not be interfered with because males are more likely to pose a sexual threat to women.
I’m afraid I will have to leave it there for now, but I’ll be happy to follow up further later buddy if helpful! I’m afraid those responses were not quite as polished as I could do with time to edit them, but I hope that they give an argument that can be followed, at least.
Ivo: I see you point about the relationship individual – group and state. But taken to its most ideal form, it would absolve the logic for segregated spaces altogether, which hopefully is something you wouldn’t back. Do you have a worry here that safety might be an issue for these spaces?
FM: I think it’s healthy for segregated spaces to be minimized (and we can see some of that now happening with toilets, for example, where there is a gradual shift towards individual cubicles and shared (all-gender) washing facilities, which I think is positive). I am sensitive to the need for women to retain access to safe and dignified spaces for less everyday matters like gynaecological care or rape crisis. So I’m for segregated spaces to be minimized, but not eliminated.
I don’t believe that my arguments about Trans rights automatically imply that spatial gender segregation should end entirely. Segregation is not preferable, in my view, but it is acceptable when it maintains equality – I accept using the men’s toilets, because I know that the women’s facilities are, more or less, of equal (not dramatically better) quality. But a Transwoman forced to use men’s toilets is not getting an equal service to me when I use the same men’s toilets, because it’s fundamentally a different thing to use a space that is marked for an identity you do not share – just as it would be for me if an extremist regime decided that gay men had to start using the women’s toilets.
English law currently expects that Trans people will be able to enter any space that aligns with their gender identity, with exceptions only where there is an exceptional reason for a different policy to be followed – so the default is access, and exclusion is a rare exception where the onus is on the service provider to prove that an exception is needed. I think that legal position is probably the right one.
I think safety is indeed an issue in spaces where women (and men too) need privacy and security, but I don’t think allowing Trans people to use spaces that align with their gender identity adds to the risk to that safety. If a man wants to rape, for example, there are far easier existing ways for him to enter everyday “women’s” spaces like toilets than to choose to fraudulently pose as a Transwoman.
Ivo: Interesting point about how the expectation of equality (of quality) is underpinning support for segregated spaces. I agree. And I also am sympathetic to the general attitude of mixed ‘socialization’ (everywhere, schooling, leisure, etc) Progress here has been amazingly beneficial these last 100 yrs.
But at the key point of: there’s a trade-off between trans womens preferal (and therefore wellbeing) to access previously only cis gender women’s spaces vs the safety of said cis women…. I’m not convinced by your last point. Posing as a woman is indeed not a major threat. But access to spaces of privacy where women reside, aren’t being made more safe when ppl with penises (in the end it’s as biologic as that) are introduced.
Unless you have a rebuttal I think we can wrap this up with a little: what do we exactly agree/disagree on in a synthesis which I will write up in short form to see if you’d sign off on it!
FM: I think the only rebuttals I would add are: I don’t think penises in and of themselves are dangerous; what’s dangerous are men who have such disregard for women’s autonomy, and/or have such other psychological problems, that they will rape and assault. And for *those* men, I do not think making the relevant spaces Trans-inclusive meaningfully changes the access they have to them, since any man already has other means of accessing many of those spaces – at least the everyday ones. Any man can, after all, simply walk into a woman’s toilet at any time by claiming to be a janitor, to have a wife or daughter inside who needs his assistance, none of which is particularly difficult to do. (UK toilets tend to have signs up explicitly warning users not to be surprised if someone of the other gender comes in, because cleaners may be of either gender – I don’t know if you have similar signs in your area, but they’re pretty ubiquitous here.)
Also, not all Transwomen are people with penises, of course – some have physically transitioned!
Happy to wrap this up soon though and to take a look at a synthesis 🙂
Ivo: To your point: it’s true that it doesn’t take a genius to gain access to locker rooms/ bathrooms if you are so motivated. But ultimately that doesn’t nullify the need for segregation, or they wouldn’t exist in the first place, as their segregation wouldn’t be adhered to and no one would champion the need for them. Just the expectation to be redirected (sternly even) when entering the wrong space is enough to create a barrier that is pleasant for most (I’d argue) and relevant to crimes of opportunity (like sexual ones are often)
It’s been a relatively small area of debate we ended up on 🙂 but a relevant one nonetheless. I’m gonna try a statement we can both sign off on.
Agree on: Access to female-only spaces is a good for trans women, and aligns with our concept of equal treatment re spaces and the state. It’s generally made irrelevant by cubicles and society’s shift towards mixed gender spaces.
Disagree on: I argue there’s a price to be paid for this access: the reduced safety from (reductive language, I know) male bodies. A previous barrier is being removed. You are not convinced of the truth of this, and even if so, would argue that this doesn’t change the right of trans ppl’s access to these spaces.
More or less correct?
FM: Yes I think that’s a very fair summary! Well done on coming up with one from all my (and your) many different points.