What right to a single sex space do I have and how?

We are not part of the facilities on offer, we are as fully human as the men who want access to us.

It seems many people arguing that it is morally right to let some men be treated as so special they can come in, are struggling to fully comprehend women’s humanity.

YY.

It's the open prejudice displayed on these boards that makes trans people's lives super tough.

There are women who are in coercive and violent relationships who would face repercussions if their partners found out they had used a mixed sex service.
Women only services exist for the safety of those women, and the privacy of the rest of us.

If other groups also need services, you have to campaign to get them, not take them away from us.

Safety mostly. A transwoman passing as a cis woman entering the male bathrooms is not going to go well, perhaps less so if they don't quite "pass". Equally, a transman entering the women's toilets. It's the open prejudice displayed on these boards that makes trans people's lives super tough. Who would want to be trans by choice?

Stop it. Woman are not resources. Their spaces are only necessary because of their oppression at the hands of men. You don't get to introduce men (and it is any man) into them because they may bother you too.

Third spaces.

That seems to be what we are constantly told by the males who define themselves as feminists via intersectional feminism.... feminists are to mother the world and take responsibility for all the oppressed groups.

In fact, didn't UNWOMEN tell us that too?

It's the open prejudice displayed on these boards that makes trans people's lives super tough.

Oh yes.... I see....

No thought then for the women's lives that are made 'super tough' then by the elevation of the needs of another group above our needs.

No thought then for the women's lives that are made 'super tough' from the perpertual silencing of us trying to talk about our needs. Particularly from those who continually shame women for discussing it by labelling our discussions as prejudiced.

I think maybe some poster should perhaps get a better understanding on the history of women's rights and the oppression of women.

But then, maybe even then it will not be any use because after all, didn't you state that one of the founder's of Stonewall should get educated on the history of gay and lesbian people?

So, I guess decades of living experience of knowing what women need would be similarly discounted.

Safety mostly.

And women are not human shields, and should not have our needs pushed aside for the protection of people who are transitioned males. Just like we should not then accept the elderly men, the other vulnerable males into female toilets.

You have been told this before.

The needs of females, the safeguarding needs, the needs of traumatised females, are simply not to be ignored to alleviate the security issues for males.

Females use toilets for many different reasons to males, including those males who identify as women. I have yet to ever see any male who has sought access to the female toilets even acknowledge that.

There is the focus on 'just want to pee'. But this ignores great deal of how female toilets are used and reinforces the fact those saying that have no indepth knowledge about the female experience.

So, no. Females are not human shields to provide safety for others, they never were but as usual, were never asked.

So basically women are expected to step and up take responsibility because a small number of men cannot be trusted to control themselves.

Mishy you talk of prejudice but ignore the prejudice towards women and their right to safety, privacy and dignity.

Let’s imagine for a moment that third spaces were created. Let us also imagine that all women and girls started using those instead of the women’s facilities.

Which facilities would transwomen/men identifying as transexual now want to use? The now abandoned women’s or the third space used by all women and no men?

I suspect many would want the third spaces, using the women and girls as props or part of the facilities themselves; like furniture.

We are not part of the facilities on offer, we are as fully human as the men who want access to us.

It seems many people arguing that it is morally right to let some men be treated as so special they can come in, are struggling to fully comprehend women’s humanity.

With most of the posts from the marvellous women here, in fact.

You rock, wims.

So many brilliant posts.

Loving this, TheRebelle

hard disagree from me on this one, the morally right thing is for men to never, ever claim to be or try to pass themselves off as women, the group they’ve been oppressing for centuries. If you want to wear female style clothing, have a feminine name or hairstyle then more power to you, but try to use the law to enforce the lie that you’re a woman? No. Just no.

No decent male would want/demand to use female spaces regardless of identity/mental illness.

If I remember from my days as a cleaner, male toilets have the exact same cubicle configuration as the female toilets to accommodate any persons need to sit down to urinate.

I don’t understand what needs for those who are not female are not met by a male toilet cubicle.

It is quite possible that any females who saw the attitudes of those wanting access as their ‘right’ to female only spaces, would quickly change their minds from previously positive to a firm ‘no’. Particularly if they actually listened to the females that were being excluded from the facilities that were set up for their needs.

I know I have after seeing the way this has played out in the past. I also changed my mind after having a child. Because, like others have said, I simply ignored more vulnerable women to follow the liberal line.

I also see a great deal of not understanding female socialisation on this thread. It is quite remarkable really.

And let’s not forget that a person who is not female also has little understanding that the women’s toilets are not only used the same way a male toilet is used. That is why females need dignity and privacy.

Benjamin Cohen used the exact same phrase in his unfortunate radio 4 interview last week.

I seem to remember Ruth Hunt say to little Owen that it was really all 'just admin' anyway? If I'm remember it correctly, I think we can all agree with that.

Whatever the initial intention was (and I disagree that it should have been possible), there is no way you can limit this to the 6500 people with a GRC.

You're not allowed to ask to see it and anyway it exposes women to an unacceptable level of risk if they need to ask.

Also, a GRC and surgery is absolutely no guarantee of anything. There are plenty of transwomen with both, who are violent/sex offenders.

Furthermore, if it was somehow possible to limit access to GRC holders, you can bet your bloody life that suddenly anyone and everyone would be applying for one. And although self ID has been shelved, the Internet is full of tips and tricks on how to convince a doctor you've got gender dysphoria.

The loophole was created, and now anyone who wants to, can exploit it. There is no way of stopping it.

It should never have been created in the first place. It was a huge mistake and quite, quite wrong to imply that women are just collateral damage in a man's mental health treatment.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the decision making process, a person with a GRC does have a legal right to access female spaces that don't specifically exclude them and it is quite hard to get a GRC and not going to be made easier. Lots of people are turned down.

The GRC was intended for transexuals, please let's not let them take the brunt of this and lump them in with the gender idealogues.

These are existing rights.

We know, because women tell us, that some women find the presence of a male upsetting, frightening or embarrassing in certain spaces. That should be enough, really.
Absolutely.

Could we really not get into discussing people's intimate details?

As far as I'm concerned, it's none of my business, and has no bearing on access to single sex spaces.

The fact that using the male toilets makes someone unhappy, afraid or embarrassed doesn't mean they have the right to make women equally unhappy, afraid or embarrassed. Because that would mean that their feelings were being placed above those of women. And that would be illogical, let alone callous and sexist.

(I am not directing this at any one person. I am talking in generalisations.)

We know, because women tell us, that some women find the presence of a male upsetting, frightening or embarrassing in certain spaces. That should be enough, really.

It is quite amazing how the criteria changes depending on who you're talking to.

Surgery, GRC certificates, longevity, passing, vulnerability.

All of these have been used to ride roughshod over women's access to their own spaces.

Quite. It is obviously impossible to allow only a portion of men under the trans umbrella to access women's spaces. The only sensible option is the existing one, to exclude all males irrespective of their personal identity. If their dysphoria is so severe that they cannot use the toilets of their sex then toilets for the disabled would be an appropriate option. For the less dysphoric they can use the men's, or campaign for greater provision of single-person gender neutral toilets and spaces.

People who require others to pretend that they are the opposite sex for therapeutic purposes need far greater access to counselling and other services, which are fairly woeful for all at the moment.