@Mockolate
I would like to know what the basis would be for an exemption for transwomen to use single-sex spaces but that would still exclude all other categories of males?
Let's take another couple of categories of people that you can only be part of if you are male: Catholic priests and royal princes.
One could argue that it is more logical to allow Catholic priests as a group to use single-sex spaces reserved for females because we know that as a group priests have made vows against sinning (which would include hurting other people) and are celibate. Transwomen reflect the whole spectrum of society and belief and behaviour so each transwoman is an unknown entity and we cannot guess what their individual moral code is. If I saw a Catholic priest enter the female changing room at my gym (recognisable by his collar), I would immediately be reassured that he was no threat to me or any children that may find themselves alone with him because, as I have said above, we know what moral codes Catholic priests are governed by. There would have to be a rule though that they wear their collar so that we know they are a priest.
Royal princes have a paternalistic duty towards their subjects and have our best interests at heart. Again, I have something to measure the likelihood of threat against. In this country, Princes William, Harry, Edward and Andrew should be allowed enter any space reserved for females because we know that based on their duty to their subjects, they would not do them any harm. We could stipulate they wear a crown when entering those spaces to signal they are princes and therefore no threat.
Unless you believe that all Catholic priests and princes are predators (which would be prejudiced), what is the argument for excluding them from single-sex spaces but allowing another category of males to enter them?
But we don't allow them, not because we believe that all Catholic priests are predators, or that all princes have an (allegedly) unhealthy interested in young women, but because it is well-evidenced (in the case of priests) that some members of their special category ARE a threat to women and children and we have reason to believe that not all princes have the best interests of young women at heart. And we know that SOME members of the transwomen category are a threat to women and children because the court cases and convictions are there to prove it.
We cannot police males based on how they present. We would only have the word of the person wearing a collar or crown that they are a priest or prince. If the exemption for Catholic priests was in place, any male could buy a black shirt and a white collar and say they were a priest. Likewise, the fact that a transwoman presents in feminine way is as meaningless a way to measure potential threat as whether or not a person is wearing a priest's collar or a crown. So, as I have demonstrated, it is impossible to police males on an individual or category basis based on assumptions about how they present and therefore we must exclude males as a class.
You will probably argue that there IS a reason that transwomen need to be allowed to use spaces reserved for females - they are more vulnerable than other males and are also at risk of male violence. I don't disagree that in some cases this is true. That does not nullify the fact that some transwomen are a threat to females. So, in the absence of any efforts by males to tackle male violence or to expand what it means to be a 'man' by presenting in a feminine way but not claiming to be a woman and thereby normalising non-conforming males in male spaces, the only answer to make transwomen feel safe and for females to feel safe, is to have third spaces for transwomen.
So if safety is the only justification (and it is a valid concern) that a gender identity theorist can put forward for allowing transwomen access to female spaces, then third spaces addresses that concern. If they argue against third spaces which offer a safe solution for both transwomen and female people, then they must provide another argument to justify why transwomen should have the right to access single-sex spaces. I have not seen any other argument that holds up. When safe alternatives are possible, demanding that transwomen access single-sex spaces and services that serve female people, comes across as that to gain that access is only about validating transwomen.
Validating transwomen who constitute a very small percentage of males, at the expense of the safety, privacy and dignity that females (51% of the world's population) require from single-sex spaces is not an acceptable reason or even a logical argument for allowing them access when we can provide an alternative.
I have no issue sharing single-sex spaces with transmen because they are female, so my position is not anti-trans. I hope I have demonstrated that despite your previous comment, it is clear I am not saying all males are a threat to females. I think I've made clear that I am not saying all transwomen are a threat.
There are many things that boggle my mind in the debates around all of this and one of them is how we are expected to immediately conclude that the solution to protecting transwomen from other males is to insist females accommodate them. I never see the male allies who call women like me transphobic and a bigot demonstrates what efforts they are making to tackle male violence and to make male spaces inclusive of transwomen. Where are the campaigns where males condemn male violence against transwomen? Where are the allies who pledge to call out abusive behaviour targeting transwomen in male spaces?
I am pretty sure that without looking up any figures, that in cases where transwomen have been violently assaulted or murdered, the perpatrator is highly likely to be a man. Yet, the poster child for trans hate is the middle-aged woman. Women, their only weapon words, are condemned for causing 'literal violence'. Men actually cause the 'literal violence' against transwomen, yet escape the kind of abuse and name-calling that women receive online and in real life. Not only is it men that cause the physical harm that transwomen are victims of, men are there fuelling the hate online, delighted that they can pour forth all their misogyny and hatred for women under the guise of being an 'ally'.
Surely on a women-centred forum, we should not be debating if we are the baddies. It is demonstrably true that for transwomen, other MALES are the baddies, the actual physical threat, and trans rights activists should be demanding that males as a class do something about their violence rather than demanding that females give up their sex-based rights.