Row over female-only compartments being used by transgender people on Caledonian sleeper service

randyrippley · 3 Apr 2018

EM2 said:
Er...https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...advances-inmates-sexual-assualt-a7932866.html

And funnily enough, if you search for 'Jessica Winfield', the Independent story is the first hit.

Are you suggesting I'm being selective in what I quote? Because "funnily enough" when I searched on his birth name, that report from the Independent didn't even show up. But I could find other reports backing what the other newspapers said. Yep, funny things happen when you google...........

RailUK Forums

6Gman · 3 Apr 2018

NorthernSpirit said:
The solution I came up with was to get rid of the segregated women only coaches and change it to mixed to benefit all.

There are no "segregated women only coaches".

alxndr · 3 Apr 2018

randyrippley said:
He's not having the risk of sharing with a man imposed on him, he's choosing to take and accept that risk.
However the women being discussed in this thread are in the position of being forced to accept what they see as a man being imposed on them

And if a ruling for trans people having to share with people of their birth sex was brought in women would still have someone who may be entirely indistinguishable from a cis (i.e. non-transgender) man sharing with them. The woman would be uncomfortable, the trans man would be uncomfortable (and possibly "outted") and no one any the better off for it.

Or shall we have someone allocating berths on the day based on how they perceive each travellers gender? (this is not a serious suggestion or appropriate solution by the way!)

Coolzac · 3 Apr 2018

I post this as a gay man.

People should be able to self-identify their gender as I don't see any realistic alternative- what if you get someone who looks androgynous- is it up the sleeper host to correctly 'guess' their gender? Also, how do you prove someone isn't the gender they say they are- are they going to look down below? It's just not practicable and will cause offence/upset all round.

Women can and do sexually assault other women - as with men we have laws in this country against this occurring. I see no evidence that a woman would be more under threat with a trans man then another woman. However, I can understand if the passenger looks male and is self identifying as female this may cause issues, especially with females who may have suffered from abuse/assault from men in the past.

I also regard the idea of being 'genderfluid' or being any other gender than male or female ridiculous. 99.9% of people regard themselves as such, and I don't believe it is offensive to ask the 0.1% of the population to pick a gender to identify with to help them and everyone else with everyday life. Therefore it is reasonable to ask trans people for their gender and assign them a cabin based on their preferred gender (which they shouldn't change regularly).

Reasonable people can disagree over this issue. I think the only practical option is to let people self-identify, but by all means disagree with me if you feel otherwise. You could potentially let distressed women sharing a cabin with a trans man change cabins if there is space, but of course there will be occasions where all cabins are fully booked. In the 0.0001% of cases where an issue arises, I believe the rights of the trans persons trumps those of someone feeling uncomfortable. However, of course if any of these trans people have a record of bad behaviour then they immediately lose their rights to self identify.

That is my position. Feel free to argue differently!

EM2 · 3 Apr 2018

randyrippley said:
He's not having the risk of sharing with a man imposed on him, he's choosing to take and accept that risk.

But the person that he's sharing with isn't.

However the women being discussed in this thread are in the position of being forced to accept what they see as a man being imposed on them

And in this scenario, so are other men.

Try an image search for 'trans man', and then consider how many cis women would be comfortable sharing a compartment with these men that were born female.

EM2 · 3 Apr 2018

randyrippley said:
Are you suggesting I'm being selective in what I quote? Because "funnily enough" when I searched on his birth name, that report from the Independent didn't even show up. But I could find other reports backing what the other newspapers said. Yep, funny things happen when you google...........

No, simply that maybe you shouldn't believe everything that you read.

LowLevel · 3 Apr 2018

Bletchleyite said:
That is an interesting point. I think there is an image of women as being more vulnerable; there is some truth in this because of male vs. female attitudes. Despite the latent background homophobia you get in gyms and the likes, no bloke seems all that bothered as to whether the bloke undressing next to him in an open male changing room at a gym is gay or not. And statistically given that it is said that a bit more than 1 in 10 people is gay that means most gym changing rooms will have at least one gay person in them at any given time.

The world changes to some degree. I am a gay male of a particular age. I attend a gym. I have a personal trainer who as it happens is the same age as me but is a straight male. On a regular basis we are in personal contact because, well, that's what's often required between a personal trainer and their client regardless of gender, sexuality or whatever else.

A few years ago that might've proved a difficulty. Being of a certain age now on breaks we chat about his girlfriend, my boyfriend and neither of us think anything more about it than that.

I would say more than 1 in 10 gym attendees are gay as well - I can't prove it but I certainly have a strong hunch :lol:

I've never noticed any particular friction in my gym - people just seem to get on with what they're there for.

Grimsby town · 3 Apr 2018

I really feel this a bit of a non issue. Whenever you share a room with any stranger, you do so accepting that you don't know what this persons intentions are. It's incredibly unlikely that any person you share with has bad intentions. If you don't like that small amount of risk, you opt for a private room. I'm male and I have shared rooms with complete strangers of both sex in both hostels and trains which a lot of younger people seem to have no problem with.

As for being trans. When i was at university there were constant upheavals about this with people taking about noth transexuals and people who would change their gender. My personal opinion is that gender is not a thing and that people act however they choose and don't have to conform with traditional male and female roles but I don't think they should label themself something different e.g. gender fluid.

As far as sex is concerned, people feel the need to change sex and some people are born as neither sex. I think a better understanding is needed of these people and we should carefully try to make it easier for them to exist but also listen to the concerns of the male and female sex to avoid resentment. It's a fine and difficult balancing act.

randyrippley · 3 Apr 2018

EM2 said:
But the person that he's sharing with isn't.

And in this scenario, so are other men.

Try an image search for 'trans man', and then consider how many cis women would be comfortable sharing a compartment with these men that were born female.

If and when that situation arises, then it will have to be dealt with. However given the lower number of female to male transitionees and the relative risks involved to the men, I think the likelihood of objection low if a genetic female were to wish to share a male cabin.

Now something that hasn't even been considered in this thread so far, what if the lone female was muslim? Even the hint of sharing with a genetic male would cause cultural rejection - or worse

Bletchleyite · 3 Apr 2018

randyrippley said:
Now something that hasn't even been considered in this thread so far, what if the lone female was muslim? Even the hint of sharing with a genetic male would cause cultural rejection - or worse

Only if her friends and family are as bad at misinterpreting Islam as those who seek to use it to justify terrorism.

In Islam generally, provided you do the best you can to avoid something that is "haram", you have done what you need to do. That even applies to food; the Koran says to eat pork or other non-halal meat in the event that doing otherwise will result in starvation.

I expect someone who is that sensitive will simply choose to book a single room, though. I have no such religious sensitivities but I will still choose a seat over a share if those are the two choices available.

EM2 · 3 Apr 2018

randyrippley said:
If and when that situation arises, then it will have to be dealt with.

Dealt with how?

However given the lower number of female to male transitionees and the relative risks involved to the men, I think the likelihood of objection low if a genetic female were to wish to share a male cabin.

How do you (or I) know that the person that we're sharing with is a 'genetic female'? My friend could, if he were the kind of person inclined to do so, beat me to a pulp, and if if he had malevolent intent there'd be very little that I could do.

AlterEgo · 3 Apr 2018

Coolzac said:
I see no evidence that a woman would be more under threat with a trans man then another woman.

Would the average cis man be a greater threat to a woman than the average trans man? If so, why?

Are cis men and trans men different?

randyrippley · 3 Apr 2018

EM2 said:
Dealt with how?

Well that will decide on the circumstances if and when it happens. And the practicalities are such that its unlikely to become an issue.

How do you (or I) know that the person that we're sharing with is a 'genetic female'? My friend could, if he were the kind of person inclined to do so, beat me to a pulp, and if if he had malevolent intent there'd be very little that I could do.

What does that matter to the discussion in hand? The problem is genetic men wishing to be regarded as female, which is perceived by the women as undesirable or dangerous. The reverse is unlikely to be seen as a risk, unless the single male happens to be a minister of the Presbyterian kirk

Emmsie · 3 Apr 2018

AlterEgo said:
Would the average cis man be a greater threat to a woman than the average trans man? If so, why?

Are cis men and trans men different?

This issue is not about transpeople though,it would not bother me in the slightest to share a cabin with a transgender female, in fact I probably wouldn't notice unless it was their sole topic of conversation, it is about the possibility of a sexual predator using the change in legislation allowing people to self identify as a way to gain access to what should be a female only environment. To believe that its not going to happen is naive, there will be plenty of opportunists out there just waiting to take advantage of the legislation. As to the whole camera thing, this actually happened in a coffee shop in Oxted, Surrey although granted the toilet was unisex, however the perpatrator was actually the owner of the coffee shop. He moved his security camera into the toilet to film people and ended up filming a 17 year old female member of staff and getting a criminal record. I'm not actually sure how long he got away with it but apart from being a disgusting thing to do, it was also incredibly stupid as he had the cameras installed, then moved one and the security company noticed it wasn't filming the area it had should have been.

Coolzac · 4 Apr 2018

AlterEgo said:
Would the average cis man be a greater threat to a woman than the average trans man? If so, why?

Are cis men and trans men different?

Not at all, but in this situation with the berths cis men and women wouldn't come into contact. That's why I put this.

cuccir · 4 Apr 2018

In this debate, I'm reminded of the shift to gay marriage.

Back when civil partnerships were introduced, it was somewhat of a compromise between those who wanted full equality and people concerned about the effects of gay marriage. Within the debate, prejudiced views were mixed in with genuine concerns about religious rights, tradition, and legal loopholes.

Civil partnerships worked in showing that the vast majority (all?)of the imagined problems and loopholes created by gay marriage did not actually occur once such a system was in place. This allowed people to argue for full marriage equality with real evidence that gay marriage wasn't a problem for those with genuine concerns, weeding out those whose objections were just based on prejudice.

My somewhat round-about argument is that with regards to fluid gender recognition and access to women's only spaces for transwomen who are not or are not yet physically transitioning, maybe we need that first step of civil partnership equivalent legislation, that would offer some sort of compromise. If fears about sexual predators abusing the law to gain access to women's spaces are true, then this would emerge and hopefully we'd find ways to combat it. If in practice (as I'd think likely) such problems don't emerge, then the issues can be revisited down the line with real world evidence rather than the hypotheticals we're dealing with now.

alxndr · 4 Apr 2018

Emmsie said:
it is about the possibility of a sexual predator using the change in legislation allowing people to self identify as a way to gain access to what should be a female only environment. To believe that its not going to happen is naive, there will be plenty of opportunists out there just waiting to take advantage of the legislation. As to the whole camera thing, this actually happened in a coffee shop in Oxted, Surrey although granted the toilet was unisex, however the perpatrator was actually the owner of the coffee shop. He moved his security camera into the toilet to film people and ended up filming a 17 year old female member of staff and getting a criminal record. I'm not actually sure how long he got away with it but apart from being a disgusting thing to do, it was also incredibly stupid as he had the cameras installed, then moved one and the security company noticed it wasn't filming the area it had should have been.

I'm not sure what legislation you think might be changed? This situation is perfectly permissable under current legislation.

I'm also confused about the relavence of your anecdote about the camera. There was no relation to gender being a unisex toilet, and the individual would have had access to either toilet had they wished as they were the owner. Being the owner they also no doubt had a lot longer to install this camera than any member of the public would without raising suspicions.

Emmsie · 4 Apr 2018

alxndr said:
I'm not sure what legislation you think might be changed? This situation is perfectly permissable under current legislation.

I'm also confused about the relavence of your anecdote about the camera. There was no relation to gender being a unisex toilet, and the individual would have had access to either toilet had they wished as they were the owner. Being the owner they also no doubt had a lot longer to install this camera than any member of the public would without raising suspicions.

I included the circumstances for the exact reason you mention, however it does highlight the fact that it is something that happens and he did not install the security system, he moved it once installed. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do given that he owned the business but it also highlights the lengths people will go to to give themselves a cheap thrill.

infobleep · 4 Apr 2018

AlterEgo said:
It will be priced like a hotel. If you book accommodation as a single person you will get a single room. Unless you buy a double, in which case if there’s just you in it there will be a spare “space”, but then you’ve paid for that.

Just like a hotel.

I understand. I thought perhaps they might be going down the route of every room will be double and you pay for that. That is what some hotels now do as you can fit more people in, should only couples wish to stay.

Personally I prefer hostels to hotel rooms. I don't mind the company. I've even stated in them when travelling away for work and it's not as if they wouldn't pay for a hotel.

infobleep · 4 Apr 2018

cuccir said:
In this debate, I'm reminded of the shift to gay marriage.

Back when civil partnerships were introduced, it was somewhat of a compromise between those who wanted full equality and people concerned about the effects of gay marriage. Within the debate, prejudiced views were mixed in with genuine concerns about religious rights, tradition, and legal loopholes.

Civil partnerships worked in showing that the vast majority (all?)of the imagined problems and loopholes created by gay marriage did not actually occur once such a system was in place. This allowed people to argue for full marriage equality with real evidence that gay marriage wasn't a problem for those with genuine concerns, weeding out those whose objections were just based on prejudice.

My somewhat round-about argument is that with regards to fluid gender recognition and access to women's only spaces for transwomen who are not or are not yet physically transitioning, maybe we need that first step of civil partnership equivalent legislation, that would offer some sort of compromise. If fears about sexual predators abusing the law to gain access to women's spaces are true, then this would emerge and hopefully we'd find ways to combat it. If in practice (as I'd think likely) such problems don't emerge, then the issues can be revisited down the line with real world evidence rather than the hypotheticals we're dealing with now.

Clearly they haven't been able to prove the case for civil partnerships for straight people. Surely there can't be legal hurdles making it impossible.

If they can't bring in civil partnerships for straight people then perhaps they could get rid of civil partnerships, except for those who have them already and just leave marriage as the only option for all.

EM2 · 4 Apr 2018

randyrippley said:
What does that matter to the discussion in hand? The problem is genetic men wishing to be regarded as female, which is perceived by the women as undesirable or dangerous. The reverse is unlikely to be seen as a risk, unless the single male happens to be a minister of the Presbyterian kirk

So 'genetic women' wishing to be regarded as male can't be undesirable or dangerous?
As mentioned earlier, any time that you share a space of any kind with someone you don't know, you are taking a risk.

Bletchleyite · 4 Apr 2018

infobleep said:
Clearly they haven't been able to prove the case for civil partnerships for straight people. Surely there can't be legal hurdles making it impossible.

If they can't bring in civil partnerships for straight people then perhaps they could get rid of civil partnerships, except for those who have them already and just leave marriage as the only option for all.

Given that the purpose of civil partnerships was to offer something to gay people, and they now have the full package available, then abolishing them for new applicants does seem sensible, as that then puts us where we should have been in the first place - marriage for all, with both religious and secular options available.

Mikey C · 4 Apr 2018

cle said:
Shouldn't we assume, and the default be, that most people are not rapists? And even if they were different sexes/genders, they are capable of not raping or assaulting the other person?

Equally, if you wanted to do so, dressing up in women's clothes, buying a ticket on the Caledonian Sleeper, going overnight etc seems quite an elaborate process just to attack somebody. What about after, as they're trapped trundling through Scotland in the early hours? Getting into 39 Steps territory here... Stupid and the utmost paranoia from a stupid website.

This isn't wildly different from a man and woman being next to one another on an overnight flight.

Completely different, an overnight flight is just like being in a normal open (non compartment) seated train carriage, where is anyone did anything untoward, you could quickly attract attention. And you sleep with your clothes on

In a sleeper compartment, you're in an enclosed and cramped private environment. You have a proper bed, and are allowed to undress from your day clothes.

rebmcr · 4 Apr 2018

Are there actually any women here who would care to express their own opinion?

Reading through the whole thread, it appears to be a bunch of blokes making up very specific imaginary monsters to prey on imaginary damsels in distress.

(Plus, if such a monster did exist, they would commit their attack regardless of CS's shared berth policy.)

Wirewiper · 4 Apr 2018

rebmcr said:
Are there actually any women here who would care to express their own opinion?

Reading through the whole thread, it appears to be a bunch of blokes making up very specific imaginary monsters to prey on imaginary damsels in distress.

(Plus, if such a monster did exist, they would commit their attack regardless of CS's shared berth policy.)

I'm guessing Emmsie (posts #164 and #168 above) is a woman.

NorthernSpirit · 4 Apr 2018

6Gman said:
There are no "segregated women only coaches".

Compartments / coaches its all the same to me.

Personally I think this thread has run its course as its seeimgly getting out of hand, I've put my 2p in for the discussion and being careful in the process.

alxndr · 4 Apr 2018

NorthernSpirit said:
Compartments / coaches its all the same to me.

The distinction between the two seems to be that in a coach it's likely that there will be more than two occupants or others walking through, and people are not generally in a state of undress.

thenorthern · 4 Apr 2018

I think that #ManFriday crew on MumsNet are going to go on the sleeper claiming to be men to share a male compartment, they have mentioned it. Previously they have attended a male only swimming session wearing only trunks, entered the male changing rooms at clothes shops and other things.

Holly · 4 Apr 2018

Bletchleyite said:
Still a massive shame the pods didn't come off (or something similar like lengthwise couchettes). I'd far rather be in a plane like open coach with a load of other people than the awkward 1:1 with one person I don't know.

Yes indeed.
There is a market and a need at a price point for bays of four bunks with no door and the passengers expected to sleep fully clothed. Then the issue of people whose gendered appearance is in any way problematic simply goes away.
And private cabins should be two bunks convertible into one (or two into four), but accommodating two people only if they choose to book together.

EM2 · 4 Apr 2018

thenorthern said:
I think that #ManFriday crew on MumsNet are going to go on the sleeper claiming to be men to share a male compartment, they have mentioned it. Previously they have attended a male only swimming session wearing only trunks, entered the male changing rooms at clothes shops and other things.

Just out of curiosity, have they reported how these stunts have been received? Were the men outraged, or (as I suspect) did they just shrug and get on with things?

Row over female-only compartments being used by transgender people on Caledonian sleeper service

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member