Rewrite — Are single-sex spaces and services transphobic?
The purpose of this post is to question whether trans women have a ‘human right’ to demand unfettered access to female single-sex spaces and female-specific services.
This question has been brought into the limelight by an immensely important test case which is currently underway at the Human Rights tribunal in Canada, where trans woman Jessica Yaniv has filed 16 complaints suing for damages and alleging discrimination against female estheticians.
Yaniv argues that the estheticians, by refusing to allow males who ‘identify as women’ to have access to their homes and services, are discriminating against trans women on grounds of ‘gender identity’.
The estheticians argue that they offer single-sex services to females only, and that their sex-based rights as female people entitle them to offer female single-sex spaces, services and provision.
Attention on this case is focussing on the individual character of Yaniv and on allegations that Yaniv is a “predator” and a “troll”.
Morgane Oger — trans activist, trans woman, and vice president of the ruling BC New Democratic Party — wrote about Yaniv prior to the lifting of the publication ban, stating that “Preying on children makes you a predator regardless of who you are.”
In this piece, Oger describes “reports and evidence of outrageously inappropriate acts, some towards children who are tweens and teens” which seemed to reveal “a pattern of predatory behaviour.”
The Guardian, after ignoring the case (and the discussion which had been raging for months beforehand on social media) finally reported on it with an article that supports Oger’s claims and argues that:
Yaniv seems to be a troll, not an activist. She has also made a number of racist comments about immigrants, saying they aren’t the “cleanest of people” and allegedly said very disturbing things about underage girls in the past. Yaniv also seems to have tried to book the waxing services with fake Facebook profiles — the Spectator reports that in at least one case, she used the profile of a pregnant woman.
The Toronto Sun, like the Guardian, emphasises Yaniv’s alleged “history of anti-immigrant comments”.
This centreing of Yaniv’s alleged “racism” and “predatory” behaviour with underage girls, by both the media and the trans activist lobby, is entirely deliberate. They want to focus attention on Yaniv as a named individual, casting Yaniv as a lone “predator” who is bringing the good name of transgender people into disrepute.
By focussing on naming and shaming Yaniv as an individual, and on criticising Yaniv’s past comments and behaviour, they are seeking to deflect attention away from the real issue: whether trans rights should trump female sex-based rights.
Without in any way minimising the very serious issues of racism and child sexual abuse, grooming and exploitation which are raised by the case, the critical issue — because it could set global precedent — is not the personal history or character of Yaniv.
It is that a male person who ‘identifies as a woman’ has launched human rights proceedings against a number of female people who offer female single-sex services from their own homes, because they refused to cater for males.
This is an important test case of the conflict between women’s sex-based rights and protections and the doctrine of trans activist ideology, which says ‘trans women are women’ and so should have unfettered access to female single-sex spaces, services and provision.
If Yaniv wins this case, it could open the floodgates worldwide for self identifying trans women to demand access to any and all female provision — no holds barred.
Already, even in countries like the UK, where self ID is not yet law, and where the Equality Act includes exemptions from female single-sex provision which override not just gender self ID but also full, legally recognised gender reassignment, males who ‘identify as women’ are being placed in female prisons, rape refuges and domestic violence shelters.
Males are taking female places in women’s sports, on the London Women’s march and at Amnesty’s Women’s History event.
Males are being awarded grants intended to redress the sex imbalance in STEM, and are taking places on political shortlists intended to redress the lack of female representation in politics.
The central question of this case, therefore, is not whether Yaniv is racist, nor whether Yaniv is a “predator” who “preys on children” (though these are of course important questions for another time/place), but whether trans women have a ‘human right’ to demand access to female single-sex spaces and female-specific services.
The implications of this case for the sex-based rights and protections of women and girls are far reaching.
As Yaniv says, a ruling against the complainant could lead to a precedent by which female people have the right to refuse access to males who ‘identify as women’ to female-only spaces, services and provision.
If, on the other hand, the tribunal finds in favour of Yaniv’s complaint, this could legally enshrine the “right” for males to access all and any single-sex spaces and all and any single-sex provision – providing those males ‘identify as women’.
There is zero evidence that ‘identifying as a woman’ automatically neutralises the male risk factor in trans women.
Trans woman Morgane Oger says: the transgender community “features a number who are cheaters, predators, liars, rapists, pedophiles, pimps, and others who do harmful things.”
Trans women are male, and as the perpetrators of 99% of rapes, 96% of sexual assaults and 99% of homicides are male, whilst 84% of victims of sexual assault are female, some trans women will of course constitute a risk to female adults and children.
In fact, evidence indicates that trans women are possibly more likely to perpetrate sexual abuse, assault and/or violence against females than are non-trans males. BBC Factcheck figures confirm that approximately 41% of male prisoners who ‘identify as women’ (trans women) are convicted sex offenders, compared to only 19% of non-trans male prisoners and 3% of female prisoners.
Single sex spaces – toilets/changing rooms, rape shelters, domestic abuse refuges, women’s prisons, single-sex clubs for girls, female-only accommodation etc have been created, largely through long hard work by feminist/women’s organisations, in recognition of the risks posed to females by the presence of males in spaces where females are vulnerable, naked, undressed, asleep, and/or powerless to leave.
There is no evidence that these risks have evaporated.
On the contrary, violence and sexual abuse of women and girls by male people continues unabated. Over 35% of female people across the world face violence during their life, in what the World Health Organization (WHO) calls a “global health problem of epidemic proportions.”
Trans women are just as likely as any other males to pose a danger to vulnerable females. Why then should they be given access to vulnerable female spaces purely on account of their subjective belief, or even a simple declaration, that they ‘are’ women?
Why should the human rights of female people to safe, protected, single-sex spaces be ceded in order to accommodate males?
If the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rules that males are entitled to demand access to women-only genital waxing services, on account of ‘identifying as women’, this opens up access to any trans identifying male to awards, shortlists, grants, scholarships and reserved places intended to counter the underrepresentation of female people in positions of power and influence in politics, business, the media and male-dominated fields such as sports, and science & engineering.
These provisions have been created, again, as a result of long hard work and campaigning by feminist/women’s organisations, in recognition of the discrimination faced by female people on account of their SEX.
SEX discrimination:
Females account for only 24.3% of all national parliamentarians globally – 75.7% of parliamentarians are male. Allowing males who “identify as” women to take women’s places on political shortlists does nothing to address female political underrepresentation.
Females are still largely underrepresented in STEM fields: holding just 29% of STEM jobs and making up just 25% of computer scientists and 15% of engineers. Allowing males who “identify as” women to take women’s STEM grants and/or reserved places does nothing to address female underrepresentation in STEM.
Transgender discrimination:
Yes, trans people face discrimination too, and deserve human rights, civil rights, equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination.
A lot of money has been poured into trans rights – Stonewall now allocates a major proportion of its substantial budget specifically for trans causes, and many other trans organisations receive substantial funding from governments charities and private individuals across the world.
Meanwhile refuges and shelters for female people close for lack of funding. Female sports continue to be derided and marginalised. Female people worldwide continue to earn less than half that of their male counterparts.
Separate rights, spaces and provision for separate categories:
Surely the way to fight trans discrimination is for the trans movement to use some of its funding to campaign for and set up separate, non-female, spaces and provision for transgender people of either sex – trans refuges and shelters, trans wings in prisons, trans toilet/changing facilities, trans awards, trans shortlists, trans grants, trans scholarships and trans reserved places.
Female people must not be forced to cede their hard won, sorely needed, and often precarious and poorly funded, single-sex spaces and provision to males – however those males ‘gender identify’, and especially not in the name of ‘human rights’.
Trans rights are human rights.
So are female sex-based rights.
So are the rights of people of colour.
So are the rights of religious and ethnic minorities.
So is the right to freedom of belief.
Different rights, different spaces, different provision are needed for different protected groups and characteristics.
