Single sex spaces

Our policies will not be changed by who shouts the loudest.

They just have been.

I think you can solve the toilet problem by not letting anyone in the cubical with you. I hope that helps

This is an incredibly rude comment. Passive aggressive.
I sometimes change my clothes in the public area of a toilet. I don't want men in there.
Also I have a big problem with hygiene. Men leave pee splatter on the floor and seat and the seat up and you have to lower it yourself.
Nobody asked us if we want gender neutral toilets.
I love the bit in one of Posie Parker's video where she says she took the gender neutral sign off of the women's loo and put it on the men's loo. Problem solved!

The needs of men for validation - by being with women - is more important than the best interests and needs and the negative impact on the care of those women.

Same as with prisons.

Message loud and clear: penis people have intrinsically more value, are more important, their needs come first.

Mordaunt, you're a pitiful excuse for an equalities minister.

I really don’t want men showering in the cubicle next to me at the gym showers. I don’t want naked men standing next to me as I dress in the gym changing room. I don’t want men in the gym changing room as I wander from the showers to the hook to retrieve my towel.

I’m short sighted so don’t have my glasses on for most of the activities above so I have to have faith that there are not men in my gym changing rooms.

I would not choose to change, shower or dress next to men. Choice, my choice. This is to do with my dignity, comfort and feeling of safety. Men don’t belong in there so why are some so damn keen? If a male bodied person feels uncomfortable in the men’s changing room then wear your sports clothes to the gym or change in the loos - that’s what women are being forced to do.

You'd hope their policies would be shaped by the needs of women who have been raped actually.

But no, they're being sidelined for a politically more important crusade. It's like Save The Pandas branching out and including distressed and vulnerable tigers in their rescue centres, these are two separate sets of needs since it is not possible to meet the needs of TWs without failing and losing raped women who up until now would have had a service to turn to.

And again the 'disproportionately affected' line. I know we've discussed it before; has that been proven yet? Where are the statistics that refuges are flooding with TW needing support to survive rape and DV, because if so why isn't this being properly set up and funded for and shouted about by the multiple government depts and charities with millions for TW causes, instead of women, children and TW all scrambling for the very few beds there are and many being turned away?

This sort of shit is what I find absolutely infuriating

Survivors' Network
@SurvivorsnetBtn
We have recently received a huge increase in attention and interest in our inclusion of trans women in our women-only services. We are happy to make it explicitly clear: Survivors’ Network recognises trans women as women, and we welcome them to use all of our services.

We know, though groundbreaking research, that trans people are disproportionately impacted by sexual violence, and we consider a trans inclusive feminism to be key to our values and central to our service as the Rape Crisis Centre for Sussex.

Our policies will not be changed by who shouts the loudest. We are committed to equality, we are committed to supporting our trans siblings in their survival journey, and we are committed to speaking up as a feminist organisation.

mobile.twitter.com/SurvivorsnetBtn/status/1108723016517779457

Outside toilets at in tu shopping centre overheard a young man saying he could say he's non binary and use the women's toilets

He'd soon get fed up of the queues!

Cool, I will support any action to stop private members clubs.

I don't think any one here supports single sex spaces just "because".

But legally it is difficult I think because they are private clubs.
It's not difficult. They are still institutions given status under the law and enjoying the protection of the law. We could as easily apply equality law to them (as, I believe, we do in regards to race) as we do to privately owned companies.

The barber's thing wasn't a matter of skill, she was asking for what would normally be considered a man's haircut. But as I say, I'm not sure if that refusal was supported in law. It may be that it wasn't.

School - yes complicated. But the reality is you don't have to justify a single sex school by showing how it will make things more equal - you can just do it. And that's problematic, I think.

And that's more my point - I don't support single sex spaces just "because". I think they ought to have a justification (and organizing against the patriarchy is very much a justification, but "I like to play with kittens and I don't want women/men there", probably isn't!).

What I fail to understand at all is how single gender spaces in places that do have to uphold equality law can be supported under the current law. They aren't sex segregated, which can be allowed when justified, but they impact against sexes in an uneven way (an all male gender space will exclude a few men but almost all women). So they are discriminatory. Any lawyers explain how that fits?

The equality act talks about the proportionate reasons for single sex spaces. They exist; of course there are illegitimate reasons for single sex spaces and those should be and are contested. However, the right of women to assemble as women, without men present, has also been part of feminism's work from its earliest inception.

It is generally axiomatic that oppressed groups have the right to meet, socialise and organise separate from their oppressors. For reasons that should be obvious.

I'm quite sure that those who insist women have no such right would never deny it to other marginalised group. So why are women the only marginalised group for whom the need to exercise that right is suspect? Could it be that EVERY OTHER marginalised group includes males in its population?

Under His Eye = Under His Thumb

Private members clubs are part of the old boys network, and definitely not something that I would want to continue. But legally it is difficult I think because they are private clubs.

Single sex schools, in an ideal world wouldn't be necessary for girls but we're nowhere near that yet.

Barbers, well, I'm not an expert but I think there is an issue over what they are trained to do. And possibly insurance? Either way, it's not a massive issue that needs addressing.

The question that always needs to be asked is this:

Why are these men demanding access to girls and women?

What kind of government backed/civil life single sex spaces do you think are unjustified?

A few examples - I think members clubs are generally unjustified, though some may have a purpose that does justify them. I have big concerns about single-sex schools (which I know can be used to provide opportunity and support that is lacking in mixed schools, but that isn't how many of them work in practice and more recent research brings in to question the idea that girls schools, on average, do better over mixed sex schools in terms of exam results). I was also perturbed by the refusal of the barber to cut a woman's hair that I read about on here a day or two back, that seems unjustified; I don't know if it was supported in law, though.

I think you can solve the toilet problem by not letting anyone in the cubical with you. I hope that helps.

As I get older and less able, how do I stop a man forcing their way into the cubicle? How do the young girls I know stop men forcing their way into cubicles?

Whoever made that remark, OP, has no experience of vulnerability. Or very little empathy.

I would always expect a single sex space where biology is relevant, as per the examples that I gave. Even in any future paradise where there is no discrimination or crime against women, I would still expect privacy and dignity to be reasons for single sex spaces.

What kind of government backed/civil life single sex spaces do you think are unjustified?

*Assassinated. not Assinated. Sorry. That's an unfortunate typo that I really did not mean.

Assiniated that's not single sex without reason and I have no problem with those sorts of groups either. Perhaps I'm just talking at cross purposes here.

Knicknackpaddyflak I assume that's aimed at me, though I didn't say and I don't think, single sex spaces are revolutionary. If anything, I think they're reactionary.

I don't particularly want to exclude men, in general, no. The idea that the government should allow sex discrimination in civil life (private life is a very different matter) without justification seems totally at odds with what I've always wanted feminism to achieve.

I definitely acknowledge the need for single sex spaces for some things in order to make opportunity and support available to all. But there are reasons for them that pertain to the availability or suitability of opportunity and support. Hopefully, over time, the need for some of them will disappear (not all because - biology).

Maybe ask them then why UNESCO are campaigning for the importance of single-sex toilet facilities for girls around the world

(just not needed in the 'woke' countries eh? Just 'some' men need excluding from women's toilets, in just 'some' countries? Hmm)

twitter.com/MrHenryWimbush/status/976595336465731584 (I miss Mr Wimbush!)

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/single-sex-toilets-unesco-un-international-womens-day-period-a8244776.html

As per the Wimbush thread, spycams are increasingly being found in mixed-sex toilets (whilst it's still possible for a man to place a spycam in a female-only space, it's sooo much easier to do so if you've already been given open access to be in that space, on your own).

The equality act talks about the proportionate reasons for single sex spaces. They exist; of course there are illegitimate reasons for single sex spaces and those should be and are contested. However, the right of women to assemble as women, without men present, has also been part of feminism's work from its earliest inception.

I don't think it's problematic for men to have men only spaces for privacy, dignity and so on. So hospitals, changing, toilets etc. I have no issue with men meeting to discuss male cancers, or male fertility issues, or similar.

Assinated I know. And it's often really problematic.

No right to single sex spaces?

No right to meet apart from / without the supervision of men?

The fact that you find it a revolutionary idea says that you don't really believe women should want to/be allowed to exclude men.

Men still have single sex spaces. Plenty of them.